Pabst, on the plus side, what you lack in judgment, you make up for in certainty. (Not unlike Bush, if I might add.)
"Shit for brains," eh? Sorry to disappoint, bro, but that pungent fragrance wafting around you is emanating from your ears.
Here come the sour grapes
- Thread starter saxon
- Start date
"Shit for brains," eh? Sorry to disappoint, bro, but that pungent fragrance wafting around you is emanating from your ears.
Oooh. Was that a slight? I hope your impotent and feeble flailing makes you feel better.
Only US citizens' opinions count for something, eh? Get out of your closet and into the daylight, boyo. Being insular hasn't helped Bush all that much, so I can't imagine why you would fare any better.
How do you figure? Labour is upticking in the polls-Brown's popularity is on multi-month highs-and Japan is implementing socialist responses to surging unemployment. I'd say the U.S., U.K. and Japan are the big three in seeking Big Brother solutions.
Brown popularity lies mainly in his socialistic response to the financial crisis that saved the stock market from further meltdown. Not the other way around
Markets love socialism when it saves their asses
So here is the chronology of the thing :
1-- Brown popularity in the shitter. David Cameron has at least 20 point + in the polls
2-- Stock market crashes on financial crisis
4-- initial TARP response gets no response, markets tank further
3-- Brown comes up with socialistic "injection of capital" scheme
4--Brown becomes popular
So here is your logic.
Brown saves the markets, --->> Brown becomes popular because of popular press coverage -->> markets tanks because brown became popular.
BTW, how did the markets do under Blair, also of new labour ?
My argument stands, Obama is not the cause of further deterioration in Capital Markets.
Read your earlier post. You wrote that the bailout only "added fuel to the fire," implying that Obama was the "fire." That should mean that those other countries' markets should be faring far better than those of the US, since they don't have an Obama. Are they faring all that much better?
Like I said the first 60% or so of this break was economic. The last 40% has been the political response to the first 60%.
As far as your point to markets loving socialism: Cite an example. Have financial stocks responded positively? Has Japan reacted positively? To a shareholder solvency is bittersweet if it means dilution. IOW's I have zero doubt that GM will build cars the remainder of my lifetime. Does that mean those holding GM common will be there for the ride? Absolutely not....
As far as your point to markets loving socialism: Cite an example. Have financial stocks responded positively? Has Japan reacted positively? To a shareholder solvency is bittersweet if it means dilution. IOW's I have zero doubt that GM will build cars the remainder of my lifetime. Does that mean those holding GM common will be there for the ride? Absolutely not....
No, you didn't. You essentially wrote that the principal cause of the downturn was due to Obama:
Last month, you were even celebrating a rally and a McCain lead on Intrade:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2062486&highlight=pabst+intrade#post2062486
This is not the first time you have encountered difficulty with consistency:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...&highlight=pabst+prime+mccain+win#post2058269