Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (114834)	4/4/2008 2:29:53 PM
From: Giordano Bruno	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

MBIA dropped an A

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (114834)	4/4/2008 3:39:42 PM
From: Perspective	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I generally ignore political effects, but this Hoover article in WSJ caught my eye. Perhaps one of the biggest negative impacts on the stock market may have to wait for a changing of the guard. The Dems are reading the populist rage against the machine, and evidently talking up tax hikes on the wealthy (which I fully advocate - if we're gonna screw the little guy for the benefit of the billionaires, the least they can do is pay to educate our children, defend the country, and give people a decent public transit alternative against rising gas prices.) I expect a trend for tax rates to rise for the wealthy in coming years, and that alone may cause a revaluation of equities. online.wsj.com Hoover's Heirs April 3, 2008; Page A14 Democrats may not be able to agree on a Presidential nominee, but at least they're united on one thing: The ghost of Herbert Hoover now stalks the land. Senator Chuck Schumer – you had already guessed that – kicked off the revival last month on the Senate floor, claiming that the Bush Administration's policy was "Let the economy sink" and "We heard that from Herbert Hoover." [Charles Schumer] A week later, Mr. Schumer returned to his history lesson in a press release claiming that "this President is beginning to resemble Herbert Hoover in his hands-off approach." Hillary Clinton joined the seance next, tentatively at first. On March 18, she said that "nobody likes to make comparisons" to the Great Depression, while noting that her colleague Mr. Schumer was doing it anyway. Five days later, Mr. Schumer was back at it on the Sunday talk circuit, echoing Representative Marcy Kaptur's (D., Ohio) claim that "we have the most anemic job growth since Herbert Hoover." By last week, Mrs. Clinton was in full Ghostbusters mode, claiming that John McCain's speech on the housing problem "sounds remarkably like Herbert Hoover, and I don't think that's good economic policy." No, Senator, it surely isn't. Around our offices, we're still recovering from the fact that Hoover was the last Presidential candidate we've endorsed. We've been trashing Hoovernomics ever since. The issue this year, however, is who is really pursuing the Hoover model. To hear Mr. Schumer and his fellow-traveling columnists tell it, Hoover's great policy blunder was to do nothing, all the while insisting that everything was fine. But the problem with Hoover's economic policy isn't that it was passive but that it was actively destructive. In 1930, he signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, setting off a wave of protectionist retaliation that undid the globalization of the preceding decades and did far more harm to the world economy than the stock-market crash ever did. Two years later, amid a bad recession, he undid the Calvin Coolidge-Andrew Mellon tax cuts, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 63% from 25%. The recession became a Depression. Now, since we're talking Hoover, which Presidential candidate has a similar agenda of protectionism and tax increases? Hmmm. Oh, that's right. Just the other day, one of the candidates for President was saying she'd withdraw from Nafta if the Mexicans didn't do what she demanded, and she wants "a pause" in free trade. She also wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, more than doubling the rate on dividends back to 39.6% from 15%. Her Democratic opponent agrees with her, except that he'd raise taxes even more, including by eliminating the $102,000 cap on income subject to the 6.2% payroll tax (12.4% when you include employers), and raising the capital gains tax to at least 25%, and maybe even 28%, from 15%. Add up all of Barack Obama's tax increases and his proposals would get entirely too close to Hoover's top marginal rate of 63%. Maybe we should be afraid of Hoover's ghost. `BC

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (114834)	4/8/2008 1:03:42 AM
From: John Vosilla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

'That's one of the reasons we seriously NEEDED a recession' Yes. That is the story going forward. Just imagine a misery index like 1980. It will make today's 'crisis' seem like a walk in the park especially as the debt unwinding still hasn't come close to running it's full course yet. Notice your board had 800 posts in just three days, I just can't keep up anymore<g>. More popular than ever signal now signal anything to you other than you are a superb host?