Comments on: Navigating OBAMArkets http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/ Prieur du Plessis’s international investment blog Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:06:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Frank Wordickhttp://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/comment-page-1/#comment-6784 Frank Wordick Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:22:10 +0000 http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/#comment-6784 Your figures on market gains under Democratic administrations vs. those under Republican administrations are interesting, but bringing them to everyone's attention is fairly useless. Wall Street "knows" that a Democratic administration means death for the market. They are not interested in facts. What they are interested in is self-serving propaganda, common knowledge and vulgar commonplaces. Wall Street like the Republican party knows that the Democrats will squanter big wads of money on Socialist programs like allowing poor people access to health care, which is obviously no good. Let'm croak! The money they firmly believe would be better spent on more handouts to Wall Street financial firm executives and directors who pissed billions of dollars of their stockholders money down the drainhole. This health care money is desperately needed for more golden handshakes, golden parachutes, stock option bailouts, several hundred million dollar salary packages, million dollar week-end company holidays in luxury resorts a la AIG, etc. As for squandering money, has any Republican bothered to take a gander at the current budget deficit? This current Republican administration is worse that even the Nixon one. At least Nixon didn't contribute billions of taxpayers dollars to Wall Street fat asses and other Republicans and members of the New York Yacht Club. Also, despite bearing a stilted stance, Nixon did not walk into broomclosets and best of all he could talk. I can't remember clearly, but I don't believe Nixon had a policy of starting wars with every other country in the world either. We are very lucky to have gotten rid of Bush, before he could fully implement this latest attempt to start a war with Russia. We would have been in deep doo-doo, if he would have succeeded. Iraq is bad enough. Here we are paying egregious amounts of money in exchange for Dubya getting revenge on Saddam Hussein for putting a contact on his old man, George Snr. If I had to choose between a Socialist administration and a Republican one, gimme the Socialist. At least he'll be sociable. But you'll never get a Socialist in office, because the pollies will make sure that they are not allowed on the ballot. The last time a Socialist ran for president no state listed him on its ballot. Your figures on market gains under Democratic administrations vs. those under Republican administrations are interesting, but bringing them to everyone’s attention is fairly useless. Wall Street “knows” that a Democratic administration means death for the market. They are not interested in facts. What they are interested in is self-serving propaganda, common knowledge and vulgar commonplaces. Wall Street like the Republican party knows that the Democrats will squanter big wads of money on Socialist programs like allowing poor people access to health care, which is obviously no good. Let’m croak! The money they firmly believe would be better spent on more handouts to Wall Street financial firm executives and directors who pissed billions of dollars of their stockholders money down the drainhole. This health care money is desperately needed for more golden handshakes, golden parachutes, stock option bailouts, several hundred million dollar salary packages, million dollar week-end company holidays in luxury resorts a la AIG, etc. As for squandering money, has any Republican bothered to take a gander at the current budget deficit? This current Republican administration is worse that even the Nixon one. At least Nixon didn’t contribute billions of taxpayers dollars to Wall Street fat asses and other Republicans and members of the New York Yacht Club. Also, despite bearing a stilted stance, Nixon did not walk into broomclosets and best of all he could talk. I can’t remember clearly, but I don’t believe Nixon had a policy of starting wars with every other country in the world either. We are very lucky to have gotten rid of Bush, before he could fully implement this latest attempt to start a war with Russia. We would have been in deep doo-doo, if he would have succeeded. Iraq is bad enough. Here we are paying egregious amounts of money in exchange for Dubya getting revenge on Saddam Hussein for putting a contact on his old man, George Snr. If I had to choose between a Socialist administration and a Republican one, gimme the Socialist. At least he’ll be sociable. But you’ll never get a Socialist in office, because the pollies will make sure that they are not allowed on the ballot. The last time a Socialist ran for president no state listed him on its ballot.

]]> By: Contrarian Profitshttp://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/comment-page-1/#comment-6775 Contrarian Profits Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:14:50 +0000 http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/#comment-6775 Martin Hutchinson analyses what a Democrat landslide means for <a href="http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/6-investment-ideas-for-the-obamanomics-era/7951" rel="nofollow"> stock market investing</a>. He says nuclear and clean energy stocks, auto manufacturers, generic drug producers and muni bonds are a “buy”. But fossil fuel companies and financial institutions should be avoided.http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/6-investment-ideas-for-the-obamanomics-era/7951 Martin Hutchinson analyses what a Democrat landslide means for stock market investing. He says nuclear and clean energy stocks, auto manufacturers, generic drug producers and muni bonds are a “buy”. But fossil fuel companies and financial institutions should be avoided.

http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/6-investment-ideas-for-the-obamanomics-era/7951

]]> By: M.F. Almenarahttp://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/comment-page-1/#comment-6773 M.F. Almenara Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:14:09 +0000 http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2008/11/06/navigating-obamarkets/#comment-6773 You write the following: "But it will be incorrect to necessarily ascribe the stock market’s decline to the election of Mr Obama, especially not knowing the detail of his agenda."Surely, you must know Obama's agenda and don't need "details" to understand that it is destructive to investors. You, therefore, are contributing to blurring reality by not crediting Obama for the markets' decline. You write the following: “But it will be incorrect to necessarily ascribe the stock market’s decline to the election of Mr Obama, especially not knowing the detail of his agenda.”

Surely, you must know Obama’s agenda and don’t need “details” to understand that it is destructive to investors. You, therefore, are contributing to blurring reality by not crediting Obama for the markets’ decline.

]]>