DOW is up 900 points. Anyone know why?

[KIN]

This is the largest jump in a day ever, according to my CNN email. But, it didn't say why, and I don't have time to research. Can anyone enlighten me?

[jesiwins]

I think it is a correction from the steep dive it took last week....

 

Then again I don't know if there ever is a true rhyme or reason to the market!

[Pammy]

are buying up again, thanks to the bailout plan. It will continue to fluctuate for a while. Nothing like capitalism!

[jonesloonybin]

By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer 19 minutes ago

 

 

 

NEW YORK - Wall Street has stormed back from last week's devastating losses, sending the Dow Jones industrials soaring a nearly inconceivable 938 points after major governments' plans to support the global banking system reassured distraught investors.

[Zelda]

" ...are buying up again, thanks to the bailout plan. It will continue to fluctuate for a while. Nothing like capitalism!"

 

------------------------

 

And the bail-out plan was nothing like capitalism.

 

Bah-dum-bum.

 

*rimshot*

[clwcain]

The short answer is that no one knows.

 

Plenty of people will speculate, and there's certainly lots of good news:

 

 

• gov't guarantee of overnight interbank lending in the UK among the High Street banks;
  
• good rumors leaking out of the G7 and G20 meetings;
  
• the Federal Reserve has opened up the spigot, allowing new money to be created -- this is a big part of it;
  
• hope that McCain might win based on some polls conducted over the weekend -- which matters more than most would think, and not because Wall Street folks are necessarily GOP fans;
  
• and probably some combination of all the above along with lots of other stuff.
  

 

 

Could just be that there were enough good stocks beaten up last week that some speculators saw buying opportunities.

 

Some of the plunge last week was borne of the return of short sellers to the market. Short selling had been banned for nearly a month until last week.

 

Also, credit markets are closed in the US today because of a holiday. That's letting everyone have a breather.

 

HTH

[AuntieM]

That's the time-honored trader's creed, isn't it? Well, you can't get much lower than it's been this last week!

[Amy loves Bud]

are buying up again, thanks to the bailout plan. It will continue to fluctuate for a while. Nothing like capitalism!

 

What is different about the bailout today than last week?

 

I'd say it's just a natural correction. Emotions are running high right now, that's all.

 

Agreeing with Zelda here. :D

[Spy Car]

The European moves to re-capitalize banks (led by Britian) made over the weekend, in addition to last weeks US moves, and further move anticipated by the US government to re-capitalize our banks, cut fears of a credit freeze.

 

That's the short answer.

 

Bill

[Amy loves Bud]

By TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writer 19 minutes ago

 

 

 

NEW YORK - Wall Street has stormed back from last week's devastating losses, sending the Dow Jones industrials soaring a nearly inconceivable 938 points after major governments' plans to support the global banking system reassured distraught investors.

 

See this previous thread.

[Amy loves Bud]

The short answer is that no one knows.

 

....

 

Could just be that there were enough good stocks beaten up last week that some speculators saw buying opportunities.

 

 

 

HTH

 

I think you're on to something here.

[Spy Car]

This was not a "natural correction" there was massive intervention of European Central Banks yesterday. Without this intervention the market would have tanked.

[Saille]

 

• hope that McCain might win based on some polls conducted over the weekend -- which matters more than most would think, and not because Wall Street folks are necessarily GOP fans;

 

This is the only thing on your list that I don't understand. Having surfed three other threads while contemplating it, my curiosity got the better of me. Can you elaborate?

[Kathleen in VA]

This was not a "natural correction" there was massive intervention of European Central Banks yesterday. Without this intervention the market would have tanked.

 

:iagree:This is what I am reading at all the major news outlets.

[Soph the vet]

 

 

And the bail-out plan was nothing like capitalism.

 

 

:iagree:. And the "bailout" hasn't even gone into effect yet, remember the thing we "had to get done right away" will take "months to implement". Ridiculous. We are a bunch of chumps. 88% of the American people were against the bailout, rightfully so. It is "shared poverty" or socialism.

The DOW going up is just buyers getting in while things are low. And yes, I also think things in Europe over the weekend may have something to do with it too.

[Stacy in NJ]

It's the suckers rally.

[clwcain]

This is the only thing on your list that I don't understand. Having surfed three other threads while contemplating it, my curiosity got the better of me. Can you elaborate?

 

Re: McCain

 

Most folks on Wall Street are politically opportunistic. Like most voters, they'll support whomever they perceive will throw them the most goodies. In a close race, they'll back whomever they think will win.

 

There is some speculation that as McCain's fortunes ebb and flow, so goes the DJIA and the other major indices, as the investor class (which is just about anyone with market exposure) looks at the impact of the different tax and investment proposals both camps are throwing out.

 

The likelihood of an Obama victory scares even those folks who support his social and political agenda because, being rational actors, they recognize that if he's elected he'll have a pliant Congress with which to raise taxes. Up will go capital gains. Up will go income taxes. Up will go payroll taxes. We'll probably see the Death Tax and the AMT given new life, as well.

 

And Obama is on record as saying that he'll raise taxes until he feels they are fair. For him it's not about policy, it's about ideology and redistribution.

 

What that means is that the investing activities that create revenue for Wall Street firms will become very unpopular and that capital will go elsewhere, in to activities, or countries, that are not as burdensome.

 

That's terrifying if you work on The Street.

 

As prospects for a McCain victory, as the alternative, swing the other way (an IBD poll from this weekend puts the two candidates at a statistical dead heat) there is hope that tax policy will remain fundamentally unchanged right now, if only because Congress will not assist a President McCain in cutting taxes and boosting the economy.

 

HTH

[Sara R]

Federal Reserve and other banks announce unlimited liquidity

 

"will be increased to accommodate whatever quantity of U.S. dollar funding is demanded"

 

I think liquidity translates out to money printing. But in the short run it makes investors less worried about counterparty risk (the risk that the bank they are dealing with are going to fail).

 

And part of it is in reaction to the huge drop last week, like others above have said.

[Spy Car]

The fear of the market was that credit would dry up. This was happening both here and abroad. Banks were not even lending to each other. This put the stock market into a tail spin.

 

The moves of our Federal Reserve and European Central Banks have renewed confidence, and have taken concrete measures to get capital and credit moving again. In "anticipation" that the economy will re-bound (or at least suffer less than if governments had not acted to intervene) the market is reacting positively. But his doesn't mean the financial crisis is "over".

 

You can call these big-government moves "socialism" if you want, but even the most "free-market capitalists" in positions of responsibility in governments around the world knew these moves were necessary.

 

Thank goodness for "pragmatism" triumphing over narrow "ideology". Without intervention this crisis would have been a catastrophe.

 

Bill

[Zelda]

 

You can call these big-government moves "socialism" if you want,

 

Bill

 

Oh, good. Because I already was.

[Spy Car]

Oh, good. Because I already was.

 

That's fine, but just be prepared to accept the fact that these "socialist" moves just saved the world-wide capitalist economy.

 

I'm about as "free-market" as anyone (read: I'm not a "socialist"), but there are rare times when markets fail, and when they do intervention is necessary.

 

Bill

[clwcain]

The fear of the market was that credit would dry up. This was happening both here and abroad. Banks were not even lending to each other. This put the stock market into a tail spin.

 

The moves of our Federal Reserve and European Central Banks have renewed confidence, and have taken concrete measures to get capital and credit moving again. In "anticipation" that the economy will re-bound (or at least suffer less than if governments had not acted to intervene) the market is reacting positively. But his doesn't mean the financial crisis is "over".

 

You can call these big-government moves "socialism" if you want, but even the most "free-market capitalists" in positions of responsibility in governments around the world knew these moves were necessary.

 

Thank goodness for "pragmatism" triumphing over narrow "ideology". Without intervention this crisis would have been a catastrophe.

 

Bill

Two thoughts:

 

1) It's fascist (socialization of losses, while profits remain private), not socialist (socialization of both profits and losses). But I acknowledge that's pedantry.

 

2) I don't think there are any Austrian economists in positions of authority. I find their arguments for letting the wheels come off most persuasive. But I'm an Austrian economist at heart. I don't know that propping up a system that failed due to government distortions of the market through more government intervention is a "solution", if that term is to have any meaning.

 

Free markets are like Christianity. They have not been disproven. They have been deemed too difficult and not tried at all.

Edited October 13, 2008 by clwcain
spelling...

[Zelda]

That's fine, but just be prepared to accept the fact that these "socialist" moves just saved the world-wide capitalist economy.

 

I'm about as "free-market" as anyone (read: I'm not a "socialist"), but there are rare times when markets fail, and when they do intervention is necessary.

 

Bill

 

You know there are scholarly, expert types that disagree with you, not just idiots (my word, not yours) like me. You assert your opinion as fact. It is actually still just an opinion.

 

Whatever arises out of the ashes of this bail-out won't be capitalism. No one saved my version of it.

 

IMO, the markets would have failed (if they been left to fail) because of interventions preventing mini-crashes and corrections all along the way.

[Spy Car]

Two thoughts:

 

1) It's fascist (socialization of losses, while profits remain private), not socialist (socialization of both profits and losses). But I acknowledge that's pedantry.

 

2) I don't think there are any Austrian economists in positions of authority. I find their arguments for letting the wheels come off most persuasive. But I'm an Austrian economist at heart. I don't know that propping up a system that failed due to government distortions of the market through more government intervention is a "solution", if that term is to have any meaning.

 

Free markets are like Christianity. They have not been disproven. They have been deemed too difficult and not tried at all.

 

Making sure there is capital in the markets is neither "socialism" nor "fascism", it is "pragmatism".

 

And thank goodness there are no "Austrian economists" at the helm, because if they had their way we'd be heading into a global economic depression.

 

Are there plenty of good reasons to me angry about the "socialization of losses"? You bet.

 

Are there corrupt practices that should have been cleaned up long ago. Yes!

 

But a crash of the world economy would help no one.

[Sara R]

You think that this prevented a crash, and didn't just postpone it for a while? Bailing out Bear Stearns in March was supposed to have done that. Paulson's bazooka was supposed to have prevented a crash too. Instead he had to use it within, what, a couple of weeks? What's left after all the central banks in the world get together and pledge "unlimited liquidity"? There aren't any bullets bigger than that, right? What happens during the next crisis?

[Spy Car]

You think that this prevented a crash, and didn't just postpone it for a while? Bailing out Bear Stearns in March was supposed to have done that. Paulson's bazooka was supposed to have prevented a crash too. Instead he had to use it within, what, a couple of weeks? What's left after all the central banks in the world get together and pledge "unlimited liquidity"? There aren't any bullets bigger than that, right? What happens during the next crisis?

 

No one ever (including members of the Bush Administration or Democratic members of Congress) said any one of these single moves would solve all the economic problems. But responsible moves have been made. And a worse crisis averted. This is a good thing.

[clwcain]

Making sure there is capital in the markets is neither "socialism" nor "fascism", it is "pragmatism".

Nonsense. Even if it is pragmatic, it still is a policy prescription anathema to the freedom of markets. As such it is statist intervention. I was simply noting, for the sake of precision of language, that it is fascist to socialize losses while keeping profits private, which is what is being done. I'm not using it as a rhetorical pejorative but as a technical term.

 

And thank goodness there are no "Austrian economists" at the helm, because if they had their way we'd be heading into a global economic depression.

I'm not sure that would have been a bad thing for liberty in the long run. I'm also not positive that the predicted global collapse would have materialized. We only have the prophecies of those already in the game (i.e., the people that brought us to this point) that without these interventions Civilization As We Know It would cease to exist. Pardon me if I find their assurances incredible.

 

Are there plenty of good reasons to me angry about the "socialization of losses"? You bet.

 

Are there corrupt practices that should have been cleaned up long ago. Yes!

 

But a crash of the world economy would help no one.

I'm still not positive we would have actually had a crash, or that such a readjustment would have been a bad thing. Unpleasant to go through, yes. But better in the long run than supporting further government-sponsored misallocation of capital.

 

And this doesn't even get into the moral hazard argument against all this government activity, which these interventions will only exacerbate.

[rockermom]

" ...are buying up again, thanks to the bailout plan. It will continue to fluctuate for a while. Nothing like capitalism!"

 

------------------------

 

And the bail-out plan was nothing like capitalism.

 

Bah-dum-bum.

 

*rimshot*

:lol::lol::lol: True, but funny.

[Spy Car]

Nonsense. Even if it is pragmatic, it still is a policy prescription anathema to the freedom of markets. As such it is statist intervention. I was simply noting, for the sake of precision of language, that it is fascist to socialize losses while keeping profits private, which is what is being done. I'm not using it as a rhetorical pejorative but as a technical term.

 

It is pragmatic. And it is a rescue of the market that will help to preserve political freedom here and around the world.

 

When markets fail, political extremism raises. It was no surprise NAZIism came directly out of the economic misery of the Great Depression, along with the greatly expanded appeal of Communism as an ideology.

 

I'm not sure that would have been a bad thing for liberty in the long run. I'm also not positive that the predicted global collapse would have materialized. We only have the prophecies of those already in the game (i.e., the people that brought us to this point) that without these interventions Civilization As We Know It would cease to exist. Pardon me if I find their assurances incredible.

 

We have very different judgements of the risks. And I think our Civilization, our "liberty", and our markets will be far better off for not having an economic collapse occur.

 

I'm still not positive we would have actually had a crash, or that such a readjustment would have been a bad thing. Unpleasant to go through, yes.

 

Unpleasant? I think you grossly underestimate the human-misery an economic collapse would have. And I'm shocked by your indifference.

 

But better in the long run than supporting further government-sponsored misallocation of capital.

 

Better to have a melt-down than have governments prop-up credit markets (which is not "mis-allocation of capital", but the exact opposite)?

 

And this doesn't even get into the moral hazard argument against all this government activity, which these interventions will only exacerbate.

 

What would be immoral is to have a preventable Depression (with all the attendant human misery) in the name of "ideological free-market purity".

[Gretchen in NJ]

That's fine, but just be prepared to accept the fact that these "socialist" moves just saved the world-wide capitalist economy.

 

I'm about as "free-market" as anyone (read: I'm not a "socialist"), but there are rare times when markets fail, and when they do intervention is necessary.

 

Bill

 

True, but if the government didn't interfere in the first place, they wouldn't have to do an intervention now.:glare:

[Gretchen in NJ]

You know there are scholarly, expert types that disagree with you, not just idiots (my word, not yours) like me. You assert your opinion as fact. It is actually still just an opinion.

 

Whatever arises out of the ashes of this bail-out won't be capitalism. No one saved my version of it.

 

IMO, the markets would have failed (if they been left to fail) because of interventions preventing mini-crashes and corrections all along the way.

Let's not forget the government requiring banks to lend money to people who could not afford the house they were buying.:tongue_smilie: The intervention goes way back.

[Pammy]

Let's not forget the government requiring banks to lend money to people who could not afford the house they were buying.:tongue_smilie: The intervention goes way back.

 

Democrats who are financial advisors to "that one" were the ones who pushed for equal housing legislation. Seems kind of ironic now doesn't it?

[Zelda]

True, but if the government didn't interfere in the first place, they wouldn't have to do an intervention now.:glare:

 

"So this is actually more of an imposition than an intervention?" -Michael Bluth

[Spy Car]

True, but if the government didn't interfere in the first place, they wouldn't have to do an intervention now.:glare:

 

Actually had the government acted responsibly in property regulating mortgage securities and the excesses at Fanny and Freddie much of this crisis could have been averted.

 

Look, I like as little government intervention in the markets as possible. The main aim of the government should be to preserve "transparency" so investors and other economic agents can make (what they perceive to be) rational decisions.

 

Many (many) bad decisions were made. And we should hold (among others) government officials accountable.

 

But having a Depression would not be my idea of a good time.

[Zelda]

Actually had the government acted responsibly in property regulating mortgage securities and the excesses at Fanny and Freddie much of this crisis could have been averted.

 

Look, I like as little government intervention in the markets as possible. The main aim of the government should be to preserve "transparency" so investors and other economic agents can make (what they perceive to be) rational decisions.

 

Many (many) bad decisions were made. And we should hold (among others) government officials accountable.

 

But having a Depression would not be my idea of a good time.

 

When you play you pay. In the opinion of some, the bail-out is a stop gap measure that only buys some time and has the unfortunate side-effect of subverting capitalism. I'm still hearing about people getting 3% loans with almost nothing down on new homes. The bail-out did not significantly change the way lenders do business. A depression would.

[Spy Car]

When you play you pay. In the opinion of some, the bail-out is a stop gap measure that only buys some time and has the unfortunate side-effect of subverting capitalism. I'm still hearing about people getting 3% loans with almost nothing down on new homes. The bail-out did not significantly change the way lenders do business. A depression would.

 

Sounds to me you think it would be cathartic to have a depression, I have a very different opinion.

[Zelda]

Sounds to me you think it would be cathartic to have a depression, I have a very different opinion.

 

And that is why they make chocolate AND vanilla...although if you pick vanilla I can't be blamed for your bad choices. :001_smile:

[Zelda]

Sounds to me you think it would be cathartic to have a depression, I have a very different opinion.

 

In all seriousness now, I don't know if I'd call it cathartic. I hear it would be quite awful based on the last depression and everyone I know would be vulnerable. I'm not hobnobbing with the wealthy and powerful.

 

But I'm unwilling to avoid hardship when I can see no good that will come of that avoidance, except very short term. And I do think a depression could have some good effect, as most bad situations do.

 

I think the risk far outweighs the potential for gain in the bail-out.

[Spy Car]

And that is why they make chocolate AND vanilla...although if you pick vanilla I can't be blamed for your bad choices. :001_smile:

 

OK. Well, everyone who wants a Depression is free to line up with you, and those who would prefer to avoid a Depression can line up with me.

 

I'm comfortable with thinking NOT having a Depression is NOT a "bad choice", but....

[Zelda]

OK. Well, everyone who wants a Depression is free to line up with you, and those who would prefer to avoid a Depression can line up with me.

 

I'm comfortable with thinking NOT having a Depression is NOT a "bad choice", but....

 

You're funny.

 

Yes, I WANT to have a Depression. Its been part of my master plan all along. The homeschooling thing is a front. I've been feverishly working behind the scenes to mastermind a depression because I'm actually a soup salesman and I'm hoping for a big boost in my profit margin when soup lines get popular again. Mwahahahaha!

 

:chillpill:

[Jan P.]

Well stated!

Jan

[Amy loves Bud]

 

 

What would be immoral is to have a preventable Depression (with all the attendant human misery) in the name of "ideological free-market purity".

 

Bill,

 

Those of us who did not want the bailout don't "want" a depression, nor do we minimize how truly awful a depression would be (my parents were born in 1917 and 1923, so I've heard first hand some of the horror stories). But what many of us believe to be immoral is making our children and their children and, probably, their children pay for our poor decision-making. We would rather endure a depression now than put these burdens, both financial and ideological , on future generations.

 

Not that I think there would have been a depression without the bailout, but we will never know if I was right or if you were right at this point.

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

Those of us who did not want the bailout don't "want" a depression, nor do we minimize how truly awful a depression would be (my parents were born in 1917 and 1923, so I've heard first hand some of the horror stories). But what many of us believe to be immoral is making our children and their children and, probably, their children pay for our poor decision-making.

 

Amy, poor decisions have already been made. What we don't want to do is to compound the bad situation by making more poor decisions.

 

To me it is quite clear that keeping credit markets open will lessen the economic pain we and our children will bear. If I thought we could have better long term prospects by having a major economic contraction now, my calculus would be different. But I don't believe for a second that a major meltdown of the financial order now would somehow make for long term prosperity.

 

On the contrary, a well managed rescue plan might pay the taxpayers dividends in years to come as housing values stabilize and banks regain their footing.

 

Do I like that government funds are getting intermingled in the private sphere? No, not really. I'd prefer it was otherwise. But I think without it we would have a very serious (and far worse) problem we and our children would bear. I'd hate to have a future generation ask, "why didn't you do something, when you could?"

 

We would rather endure a depression now than put these burdens, both financial and ideological , on future generations.

 

At this point "ideological" arguments don't carry much weight with me. We have a crisis, and I want "pragmatic" solutions. And as I mentioned, these moves should pay dividends, and that's good capitalism the way I see it.

 

Not that I think there would have been a depression without the bailout, but we will never know if I was right or if you were right at this point.

 

We have a long way to go before this crisis is over. I'm quite cheered the US and European governments have made positive moves to keep credit flowing. I have no doubt failure to act would have been catastrophic.

 

Bill (a capitalist)

[Amy loves Bud]

Amy, poor decisions have already been made. What we don't want to do is to compound the bad situation by making more poor decisions.

 

Absolutely agree. Unfortunately, I believe that the bailout was one of those additional poor decisions.

 

To me it is quite clear that keeping credit markets open will lessen the economic pain we and our children will bear.

 

I wish it were so clear to me, but it isn't.

 

On the contrary, a well managed rescue plan might pay the taxpayers dividends in years to come as housing values stabilize and banks regain their footing. (emphasis mine)

 

And it might not.

 

 

We clearly disagree on many of the fundamentals, which of course is a wonderful thing to be able to do. I, for one, don't doubt your capitalist credentials. :)

[fractalgal]

The European moves to re-capitalize banks (led by Britian) made over the weekend, in addition to last weeks US moves, and further move anticipated by the US government to re-capitalize our banks, cut fears of a credit freeze.

 

That's the short answer.

 

Bill

 

I disagree. Do you not remember how far the stock market dropped immediately after the bailout plan passed? The market knew then of the US Government's plan to re-capitalize.

 

I agree with the poster who said it is a correction to the overselling from the previous week.

 

The bailout still angers and bothers me. Lately the media has been going on about how the bailout is going to help us.

 

I'm not buying it.

[Demal]

Sounds to me you think it would be cathartic to have a depression, I have a very different opinion.

 

Bill,

 

I find your views shrilly yet wonderfully reminiscent of a certain Nobel Prize winner for economics.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/9593

 

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Krugman R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaaiiiiii!!!!

[Spy Car]

Bill,

 

I find your views shrilly yet wonderfully reminiscent of a certain Nobel Prize winner for economics.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/9593

 

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Krugman R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaaiiiiii!!!!

 

I don't know what "shrilly" means, but I've decided to take this post as a compliment :D

[Demal]

I don't know what "shrilly" means, but I've decided to take this post as a compliment :D

 

Yes, it is a compliment, albeit a highly obscure one:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrillblog

 

and

 

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/the_history_of_.html

[Spy Car]

Yes, it is a compliment, albeit a highly obscure one:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrillblog

 

and

 

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/the_history_of_.html

 

Cool :D

[Anne in S'pore]

wonderfully reminiscent of a certain Nobel Prize winner for economics.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/9593

 

 

 

:iagree: I remember reading this article during the Asian financial crisis.

 

Anne