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.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (35713)	6/2/2009 5:08:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The markets went down at the time that many of these planes where announced or passed. Their movements are too complex and based on too many things for them to be a good or bad argument for policies in most cases, except for the most extreme and specifically timed moves (like announce a policy and when the market opens stocks drop 80% and/or the bond markets double interest rates, or the reverse) Also you ignore the later point that if there is such a huge expectation that additional federal spending will have such a huge impact (a rather questionable idea in the first place), that it just sets us up for a likely big later drop when* it doesn't. Perhaps you see a very near term very rapid acceleration of the spending? -------- *I say "when" rather than "if", because I'm considering not only skepticism about the whole idea, but also the fact that spending such a tiny amount in relation to the whole economy is fairly insignificant. I'm not calling the whole multi-year budgeted amount "tiny", not even in the context of the economy (its astronomical in normal terms, and substantial in terms of our economy), I'm calling the amount spent so far tiny in the context of the economy.