Tag Archives: stock-market

Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Isn’t it odd after the passage of TARP, the stimulus and ObamaCare that left-wing politicians and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media are suddenly worried about budget deficits? As opposed to reining in deficit spending, the new public policy stance for the Democratic Party going into the 2010 midterm election is to call for a tax hike on the top-income earners by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those folks. In an interview on MSNBC’s Sept. 17 “The Daily Rundown” with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, co-host Savannah Guthrie pressed the Texas senator on the need to raise taxes in order to lower budget deficits. Guthrie asked: “Sir, as you know, a lot of the energy in the Republican Party, some of the animating issues have to do with deficit and spending, and I ask you given the concern among Republican voters about deficit spending, how is it that Republicans can get behind allowing the Bush tax cuts to go forward for the wealthiest Americans, something that will cost $700 billion borrowed money deficit spending. How do you square that up?” This is becoming a pattern for Guthrie. The previous week, Guthrie pressed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the same line of questioning . But according to Cornyn, Guthrie was offering false choices, which was the exact same way McConnell responded when she pushed the same premise. “Well Savannah, it doesn’t make any sense to raise taxes in order to keep current tax policy in place,” Cornyn said. “I think frankly that’s a false choice. My preference would have been to make these tax rates permanent, but we didn’t have the votes to do it so they’re temporary. They’re going to expire.” Cornyn’s response didn’t satisfy “The Daily Rundown” co-host. Apparently in Guthrie’s mind, if you earn money – what the government allows you to keep is a federal expenditure, suggesting all earned income is the government’s and they’re just allowing you to keep some of it. “But, that will be deficit spending, right? I mean, it is deficit spending?” an unrelenting Guthrie interrupted and fired back at Cornyn. Cornyn called Guthrie’s “deficit spending” description a false construction and said raising taxes on anyone would be an “anti-stimulus.” “I think that’s a false construct, with all due respect, because these are current tax rates,” Cornyn replied. “We’re talking about the largest tax increase in American history. And particularly Democrats, I think, and Republicans are looking now to say, ‘You know what, even if we’re for raising the marginal tax rates to what they were in the ’90s, the worst time to be doing this is during a time of fragile, economic recovery so I hope we can come together and to stave that off, because I can’t think of a worse anti-stimulus at this time than this huge tax increase.” During the 2008 election, political opponents of the Republican Party and the party’s presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would often describe the GOP’s economic policies as “Hoover-esque.” Liberal economist Jared Bernstein was one of the people who used it to describe Republican policies in 2008 . Bernstein now holds a prominent position in the Obama White House as the chief economist for the vice president. But you don’t have to appear more “Hoover-esque” than raising taxes in the middle of an economic downturn – as former President Herbert Hoover did immediately following the stock market crash of 1929 with The Revenue Act of 1932.

View original post here:
Savannah Guthrie’s Soak-the-Rich Obsession: Higher Taxes Only Means of Lowering Deficits

Cramer: ‘Mass Panic’ in Markets Tomorrow After ‘Shocker’ GDP Released

It is a curious phenomenon – the way the media have handled the economy since President Barack Obama has taken office. Generally the coverage has been on the optimistic side over the last 18 months. But could this blind optimism come back to haunt people that trade on economic metrics? According to CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer, it will and in a big way on Aug. 27, when the new gross domestic product numbers are released. On CNBC’s Aug. 26 broadcast of “Street Signs,” Cramer predicted dismal numbers during his “Stop Trading” segment, which has been contrary to the way the market reacted. “Look, I’m going to give you my forecast right now – I think we’re going to get 0.5 percent GDP, OK?” Cramer said. “But, let’s say we get 0.5 percent GDP. Everyone’s going to say it’s horrible. We’re going to go track down economists, Nobel winners who think it’s a double dip. And it’ll be like shocker – 0.5 percent. And I’m telling you it’s going to be 0.5 percent. It’s like the housing number. On my show I said it’s going to be declined 50 percent. We get 30 percent. It was like shocker. Whoever is making these estimates is just so wrong because you know, you piece these pieces together on a daily basis like I do and come up with something between zero and 1 percent growth.” “So when it comes out as 0.5 percent – other people are – I don’t know who those people are,” he continued. “I don’t know who they’re listening to or talking to. But it’s very clear that we’re going to have no growth. Why is that shocking?” “Street Signs” fill-in host Amanda Drury asked Cramer if this was already baked into the market, to which Cramer said it wasn’t and predicted a panicked reaction in the market. “No, it’s not. Tomorrow I’m predicting mass panic tomorrow morning,” Cramer said. “[M]ass panic, market looking down 15 ticks. It will be that way because it will be like, ‘Oh, my.’ And how can it be ‘Oh, my?’ We’re on a national TV show right now, OK? We’re watched by everybody. I’m telling you it’s going to be 0.5. How when it comes out and 0.5 [percent] is that shocking to people? Are you not watching? What are you watching? ESPN? Are they talking about 0.8 percent on ESPN? Maybe that’s it. Maybe on the YES Channel they’re using 2 percent. I don’t know what they’re watching.” On Aug. 26, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed below the 10,000-point mark. And while there have calls by prominent economists that say a double-dip recession is more likely, Cramer still showed his astonishment over the rosy attitudes of some. “I don’t know what network they’re – you know, if you listen to everybody here, everyone’s looking for 0.5 percent. So when it comes out at 0.5, I want to know who is still surprised. What planet are they on?” Later in the segment, the “Mad Money” host revised call even lower – to 0.3 percent, then to 0.2 percent. But stuck with the call it would come in between zero growth and 0.5 percent growth.

See original here:
Cramer: ‘Mass Panic’ in Markets Tomorrow After ‘Shocker’ GDP Released

George Will Schools Robert Reich On Deficit Spending, FDR and Herbert Hoover

George Will on Sunday gave Robert Reich a much-needed history lesson about deficit spending and liberal myths concerning Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. As the Roundtable segment on ABC’s “This Week” moved to the current state of the economy, Reich predictably called for another stimulus package.  “You can’t even talk about stimulus because people say, ‘Oh, that would create a deficit and that would generate inflation,'” declared one of the Left’s favorite economists. Fortunately for those actually interested in facts, Will was there to offer viewers the truth (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):   ROBERT REICH: It’s not the summer of recovery. It’s the summer of our discontent. We are, by many measures, heading into a double-dip. But the fact is many Americans have not even gotten out of the first dip. And the interesting paradox here is that in this town, in Washington, you can’t talk about a second stimulus. You can’t even talk about stimulus because people say, “Oh, that would create a deficit and that would generate inflation.” But, in fact, the bond markets are not predicting inflation. The bond markets are worried more about deflation. The Treasury bill is now, the yield is what, something like 2.6 percent on a ten-year Treasury bill. Before we get to Will’s response, it must be noted that this so-called economic genius doesn’t know that T-bills only come in maturities of 3 months, six months, and one year. The Treasury auctions “notes” with maturities of two, five, and ten years, as well as “bonds” with a duration of 30. That Reich doesn’t know this is somewhat staggering, but I digress:  GEORGE WILL: Let’s talk about how bad it is, first of all. If, in the last five months, about 1.1 million people had not become so discouraged that is to have essentially dropped out of the job market, the real unemployment rate today, if they were still counted, would be 10.4 percent. So, too much use of the word Nazi, too much use of the world Herbert Hoover, my friend. You’re the one who’s consistently saying that the town today is full of people like Herbert Hoover who don’t want to spend money. REICH: Herbert Hoover is being exhumed, George. WILL: Let me tell you, Bob, per capita federal expenditures between 1929 when the stock market crashed and ’32 when Hoover had his last full year in office doubled. He was, he responded to the coming recession with a gusher of federal spending. It didn’t do a lick of good. In fairness, Will was exaggerating just a tad. Here are the real numbers according to a marvelous report on this subject from the Cato Institute: From 1929 to 1933, under President Hoover’s administration, real per capita federal expenditures (graphed in Figure 1), increased by 88 percent.   So, Will was a little aggressive. However, his point was still spectacular:   REICH: He didn’t, by the way, by the way, we can debate history, but by 1932, 1933, the major issue and major proposal on the table coming from Andrew Millen, his Secretary of the Treasury, was balancing the budget. And all we heard… WILL: In Forbes Field in Pittsburgh in a famous speech, FDR pledged to balance the budget. REICH: Yes, FDR was, was, he was also a deficit hawk. Well, he was a deficit hawk during his first presidential campaign, Bob. Democrats love to promise fiscal discipline while on the stump only to go back on such promises after they’re elected.  As Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter noted in his book “The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope” (page 131): At Pittsburgh’s Forbes Field in October [1932], FDR bid to neutralize the old guard fiscal conservatives. He blasted Hoover for “reckless and extravagant spending” in increasing government outlays by 50 percent, and for waiting too long before raising taxes to help balance the budget.  As such, quite contrary to the modern liberal myth that Hoover was a deficit hawk that was too tight on spending after the Depression began, he was actually blasted by candidate Roosevelt for being too loose with federal coffers. This is supported by the previously mentioned Cato report: Under President Roosevelt’s administration from 1933 to 1940, just before World War II, [real per capita federal spending] increased by only 74 percent [compared to Hoover’s 88 percent]. Although Hoover started from a lower base, in percentage terms expenditures under Hoover increased more in four years than during the next seven New Deal years.  As such, contrary to what liberals like Reich suggest, Hoover was actually a more profligate spender than Roosevelt. Of course, more importantly as Will noted, none of this spending did a lick to solve the Great Depression, for the economy only fully recovered as our nation geared up for World War II. With this in mind, Reich really ought to be more careful when he makes historical statements with George Will sitting next to him. On the other hand, it’s far more entertaining to see him get schooled this way on national television. 

Here is the original post:
George Will Schools Robert Reich On Deficit Spending, FDR and Herbert Hoover

The Real Redistribution of Wealth

Wealthy Are Cashing in Huge, While Workers' Salaries Keep Shrinking Times are tough for workers in the U.S. where a recession has a stranglehold on much of the economy, but life is perfectly rosy for those at the top. The riches of the wealthiest North Americans grew by double digits in 2009, primarily from interest their money earned when it was invested in the stock market and elsewhere, according to a report by the Boston Consulting Group. Millionaires in the U.S. and Canada saw their wealth increase 15 percent in 2009, to a total of 4.6 trillion dollars, the report found. Worldwide, 11 million – or less than 1 percent of all households – were millionaires in 2009. They owned about 38 percent of the world's wealth or 111 trillion dollars, up from about 36 percent in 2008, according to Boston Consulting Group. About 4.7 million millionaires live in the U.S., four percent of the population and more than anywhere else in the world. Japan, China, Britain and Germany followed the U.S. in the number of millionaires. Their fortune is a stark contrast to the lives of more than 15 million people in the U.S. who are unemployed and searching for work, and the eight million more who are just getting by with a part-time job, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than two million more people were working prior to the recession but have now dropped out of the labour force. Apart from the newly unemployed, about 39 million people in the U.S. are chronically poor and do not have enough food to eat, according to the U.S. Census and U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The nation's jobs crisis is so catastrophic that, unless Congress acts on the scale of the New Deal, millions of Americans will experience extremely long periods of unemployment for many years ahead,” Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, told a panel of the Committee on Ways and Means recently. Not so for millionaires and the uber-rich. The uber-rich, those with more than 30 million dollars, are on the rebound. They spent more money in 2009 on fancy cars, yachts and jets compared to 2008, according to a study by Merrill Lynch-Capgemini. They bought fine art, expensive jewelry, gems and antiques, items that are likely to increase in value over time, so they can sell them later and make more money. The recession isn't hitting those at the top as it has workers. In fact, many wealthy people benefited from the stock market's ups and downs, said Mike Lapham, director of the Responsible Wealth Project at United for a Fair Economy, an NGO in Boston. story continues http://www.alternet.org/economy/147492/wealthy_are_cashing_in_huge%2C_while_work… added by: Stoneyroad

CNBC’s Insana Rips Ron Paul: He ‘Doesn’t Even Have a Basic Understanding of Fundamental Economics’

This one was one that you just couldn’t let go – that libertarian champion and former Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, Texas, doesn’t have a basic understanding of economics. That was the claim made by CNBC senior analyst and commentator Ron Insana on the June 14 broadcast of “Closing Bell.” At issue was a June 14 Washington Post article by Robert O’Hara and Dan Keating that suggested there was a conflict of interest in Paul’s investments and his policy stances, as in he is a proponent of the gold standard and other uses for the precious medal. ” Rep. Ron Paul is captivated by gold,” O’Hara and Keating wrote. “Over the past two decades, he has written books about the virtues of gold-backed currency. He has made uncounted speeches about the precious metal. He even took a leadership post on the House subcommittee that oversees the nation’s monetary policy, mints and gold medals.” O’Hara and Keating detailed just how extensive Paul’s investments are – valued at $1.7 million. “But his focus on gold goes beyond the theoretical,” they wrote. “In recent years, Paul (R-Tex.) has poured hundreds of thousands of his own dollars into stocks of some of the world’s largest gold-mining operations, according to a review of his financial disclosure forms by The Washington Post. In 2008, while advocating for the United States to reinstate a gold standard, he reported owning up to $1.5 million in shares of at least nine gold-production companies. In addition, he disclosed up to $200,000 in silver stocks. In all, those holdings represented close to half of his assets.” But according to Insana, who has had an on-again-off-again career at CNBC after a failed attempt to try his hand at running a hedge fund , took a shot at Paul’s investment strategy, claiming the Texas congressman was some sort of investing simpleton. “Listen, the Ron Paul stuff, you know, if it weren’t part of a conflict story would be funny because Ron Paul is one of the many elected representatives who we have that doesn’t even have a basic understanding of fundamental economics, let alone more complex issues and better ways to hedge against inflation than buying gold,” Insana said. “Gold is a complex instrument. You know, it speaks to a bigger point. He doesn’t even know what he’s doing.” As unsophisticated as Insana’s claim that Paul’s investment in gold is, assuming Paul had held this commodity going back to late 2008, he would be up over 50 percent with his investment, while the S&P 500 is down nearly 13 percent in the same time period.

Read the rest here:
CNBC’s Insana Rips Ron Paul: He ‘Doesn’t Even Have a Basic Understanding of Fundamental Economics’

Turning The Crisis Corner

In a metaphorical walk around debt crisis block, Greece’s prime minister has said that he believes his country is “turning the corner” as recovery efforts by the ransacked country may have started to pay off. Greece avoided defaulting on their debt last month after they were awarded a $131 billion rescue package from eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund. —JCL Al-Jazeera English: Greece is “turning the corner” as steps taken to fight its debt crisis start paying dividends, the country’s prime minister has said. “Today is the first time when I can look to the future with more optimism,” George Papandreou told members of the Institute for International Finance (IIF) in Austria’s capital, Vienna, on Friday. “We have taken difficult decisions, tough but necessary decisions, and we are now witnessing the first signs that we are turning the corner.” After accumulating massive public debt and overspending, Greece avoided a default last month through the first instalment of a 110 billion euro ($131bn) rescue package from its 15 euro currency partners and the International Monetary Fund. Read more Related Entries June 11, 2010 Stock Market Slumps on Consumer Spending Concerns June 11, 2010 The Five-Morning-After Pill?

Original post:
Turning The Crisis Corner

CNBC’s Cramer and Burnett: Could BP and Obama Have Handled Spill Better?

Reports are surfacing that BP is finally considering a suspension of its shareholder’s dividend, but what could have been done differently to avert the public relations nightmare BP is facing? Two CNBC hosts had some ideas about that, and about what could have happened if BP chose not to play ball. Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett shared their thoughts on the “Stop Trading” segment of “Street Signs” June 11 . According to the “Mad Money” host, Obama could have set a foul precedent for multi-national businesses if BP (NYSE: BP ) didn’t agree to make some concessions on how it is handling its day-to-day operations in the wake of this ecological crisis.  “I think that this is a, a stock that represents great value but you’re dealing with the government,” Cramer said. “I saw that Nancy Pelosi, she’s the second most powerful person in our country, saying that they shouldn’t be paying a dividend. I mean, this is one of those situations where I know, the president’s approval ratings are down and what you got to do is you got to go after BP if you’re the president. I’m not saying I would do it but I’m saying if I were the president of the United States, BP is public enemy number one and you’re not even going to listen to what the British say. You just gotta say, ‘Guys, here’s the deal, we’re not, we’re not going to have any dividends here. And just you know, take it or leave it, partner, because this is a company that needs U.S. ball play.” And as for other cards the Obama administration could play? There were several since it’s politically ripe for the legislative and executive branches to act in an extraordinary manner. “Hey listen, the president could take away Prudhoe Bay,” Cramer continued. “There’s a Fifth Amendment against the taking of property in this country, as opposed to like say the old Soviet Union. But you know what, I got to tell you, when you got an angry president and angry Congress, nobody’s safe. And Mark Twain said that a few years ago.” And Burnett wondered if both parties involved, the federal government and BP, might have come out way ahead had this matter been handled behind the scenes. “You know, yeah, I just wonder Jim, you know if you think about it whether the administration in hindsight could have done it differently,” Burnett said. “You know, instead of having the first thing you do – go out and say they should cut the dividend publicly, making them sort of look evil, maybe privately you have that conversation. And maybe they did and BP was just so resistant, that’s why they went public. So maybe I’m jumping to a conclusion, but if they didn’t, it would seem maybe having a little bit more – let’s just say [better] relationship between the government and BP. At least while we get through this. It might have been a better thing.” But one thing Cramer pointed out that not a lot of other outlets have seemed to pick up on – the amount of oil gushing from this spill in such a short amount of time indicates this was an incredibly huge find from a purely oil exploration perspective. “What you have on right now, you see the flow, and I thought it was 1,500,” Cramer said. “I remember when I was on the ‘Today’ show and they were talking about it being 1,500 barrels, 2,000 barrels. Now look, here’s what my oil friends say. My oil friends are very tied in. This is the greatest well in the world right now. It is literally pumping out more oil than anyone has ever seen. It has not let up one bit. My friends who are oil men are saying the same thing over and over – “This is the greatest discovery in this planet and what’s really going on is that they can’t get the pressure down. They’re just stalling hoping the pressure will come down and it doesn’t stop. It’s the greatest find of all time.”

Read more:
CNBC’s Cramer and Burnett: Could BP and Obama Have Handled Spill Better?

Stock Market Slumps on Consumer Spending Concerns

The news from Wall Street wasn’t great as the week wrapped up and trading shut down on Friday, although it wasn’t bad across the board, either. The stock market took a tumble, registering ongoing worries about consumer spending trends, but hey, at least the technology sector was hanging in there.

Analyst: BP Oil Spill Clean-Up Will Have $60-Billion Price Tag; Dividend Elimination Hurts Retirees

We all know the BP oil spill is a huge mess. It’s going to be costly to clean up – but just how much? And while some outspoken critics are calling for BP to eliminate its dividend, they probably aren’t realizing the residual effects. On the June 10 broadcast of Fox Business Network’s “Bulls & Bears,” Fadel Gheit, a senior analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., offered a huge estimate. But, he explained what is done is done and that going after BP with harsh penalties, as in elimination of the BP stock dividend, now will hurt a lot of American retirees. “Couple of things – I mean, it is water under the bridge, it is over and you will have to live with it,” Gheit said. “BP will have to live with it. We have to remember one thing — BP bought 10 years ago, Amoco, Arco, a very large American corporation with a lot of people working for BP today. And the retirees are pensioners from the Amoco and Arco days. So by cutting the dividend we’re penalizing completely innocent people that worked very hard for many years. And now, the dividend is the way they support themselves. So, I don’t understand.” And he suggested a compromise – not the total elimination of the BP’s stock’s dividend but that something should come down in the middle.  “Yes, I understand clearly that we have to set the money aside to clean up and all those things but we have to reach a compromise and not throw [out] the baby with the bath water,” Gheit continued. “So there has to be some balance between my view here, BP should cut dividend by at least 50 percent. And I think they will have the financial feasibility to clean up the mess they created.” But over time, the spill would be cleaned up he explained. “Eventually it will be cleaned up,” Gheit said. “It will cost more” How much more? A lot more, he said. “I estimate it will cost about $60 billion,” Gheit said. This figure was a bit of a shock to “Bulls & Bears” co-host David Asman: “Wow! $60 billion.” And although BP (NYSE: BP ) has a market cap of roughly $100 billion, Gheit explained it won’t come in one lump sum but over 10 years. “But it’s not going to be in a day or a week or a year,” Gheit said. “Might take about 10 years. So, that the present value of the $60 billion is pretty manageable.”

See the rest here:
Analyst: BP Oil Spill Clean-Up Will Have $60-Billion Price Tag; Dividend Elimination Hurts Retirees

Apple Earnings (aapl) Report After Leaked iPhone 4G

Apple reports quarterly earnings of $3.33 per share on revenues of $13.5 billion, beating estimates. The Apple (aapl) earnings soared because of the strong iPhone sales. Critics though are saying that Apple merely releases inferior products to take advantage of hardcore Apple Fans. This can be seen as seemingly practical and common devices such as cameras are not available on iPads and flashes are not available on the iPhones. This is supposedly a tactic that Apple aapl uses to get customers buying the same product over and over again. With the latest iPhone 4G leaked out to the public, we can once again see the new features that Apple could have added early on but decided not to. The Apple Earnings are very good and has many shareholders very content and happy with the results of the aapl earnings. Apple has released statements on their thoughts as well as full figures on their earnings which can be seen here Apple Earnings (aapl) Report After Leaked iPhone 4G is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading