Take that you Kapitalist bastards!

[Utah Bob]

Source isHere (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1567925&_blg=1,1567925)

President Obama proposes new curbs on bank size and risk. Goldman beats by a mile. Jobless claims spike higher.
Posted by Elizabeth Strott and Charley Blaine on Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:03 AM. Elizabeth Strott Updated at 1:30 p.m. ET

Stocks were plunging today after President Barack Obama announced new limits on the size of and risks taken by the biggest U.S. banks.

The president proposed prohibiting commercial banks from trading for their own accounts, and he proposed prohibiting banks from owning or investing in hedge funds.

At 1:30 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) had plummeted 205 points, or 1.9%, to 10,398. The Nasdaq Composite Index ($COMPX) was down 26 points, or 1.1%, to 2,265, and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) had lost 21 points, or 1.8%, to 1,117.

"We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers," Obama said in a White House address, calling the proposal the "Volcker rule," after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, with whom Obama met before the announcement.

"If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have," Obama said, referring to the banking lobby. The lobby has reportedly been considering challenging another of Obama's proposals to tax banks.

Some traders are calling today's drop a continuation of Wednesday's pullback -- a correction after the gains seen ahead of Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, as well as the rally that brought the Dow above 10,000 in recent months.

Crude oil was down $1.48 to $76.26 a barrel. Gold was down $13 to $1,099 an ounce.

Perhaps he'll declare himself head of the Fed next.
Oh, and we still need a TSA Chief, seing as how his nominee dropped out. He could handle that too.

I have a vague feeling I've seen this all before. I think it was another country though.

[greenberetTFS]

Source isHere (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1567925&_blg=1,1567925)



Perhaps he'll declare himself head of the Fed next.
Oh, and we still need a TSA Chief, seing as how his nominee dropped out. He could handle that too.

I have a vague feeling I've seen this all before. I think it was another country though.

UB,

It's so true how history repeats itself............:(

Big Teddy :munchin

[Kyobanim]

Someone needs to give o a big cup of STFU

[Richard]

You guys talking about FDR? Sounds like the same criticism he was getting circa 1933-1939.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[dadof18x'er]

Source isHere (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1567925&_blg=1,1567925)



Perhaps he'll declare himself head of the Fed next.
Oh, and we still need a TSA Chief, seing as how his nominee dropped out. He could handle that too.

I have a vague feeling I've seen this all before. I think it was another country though.

Did you see the talk he had with George Stephanopolis? He is absolutely going mental!! he really needs help:munchin

[craigepo]

Or, we could have just let the free-market play out like it should. Well-run companies would have bought the crap companies' stuff for pennies on the dollar. Crap business leaders would be "darwined" out of the industry via bankruptcy, as has happened since the beginning of our country(or near the beginning). Good business leaders would take their newly-acquired cheap assets and make more money with it. Tax money would not have been spent to subsidize failed businessmen and their failed companies, keeping the deficit at least reasonable. Ten years from now, those strong companies would have made the nation's economy stronger.

Instead, we will have the same idiots making similar mistakes, asking for more tax money because they are still "too big to fail". Moreover, the competitors of said idiots face unfair competition, as the idiots' companies' failures are now subsidized by tax dollars (that have been forced from the taxpayers, and spent against their wishes).

See generally Atlas Shrugged, or the downfall of Argentina.

[Surf n Turf]

You guys talking about FDR? Sounds like the same criticism he was getting circa 1933-1939.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard,
You mean like this :D
SnT


We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”
Sound like, oh, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio or some other exasperated Republican stalwart lamenting proposals to spend our way out of the recession?
Listen again: “I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises.”
Sound more like a liberal Democrat pushing job creation — say, Harlem’s Rep. Charlie Rangel?
What about this: “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”Surely this must be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or another leading Democrat denouncing President Bush’s economic policies.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong again.

The words are those of none other than Henry Morgenthau Jr. — close friend, lunch companion, loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt — and key architect of FDR’s New Deal. The date: May 9, 1939. The setting: Morgenthau’s appearance in Washington before less influential Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Morgenthau made this “startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.
“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/14/were-spending-more-than-ever-and-it-doesnt-work/

Franklin Delanor Roosevelt is popularly regarded as the man who saved democratic capitalism with vigorous governmental intervention.
Contemporary Democrats view FDR’s New Deal as the Big Bang for all that is good and true and seek to build on it by extending the reach of government into the economy through increased regulation, new programs and higher taxes.
But a distinction must be drawn between FDR the brilliant politician who prepared the nation for World War II and kept Britain afloat after the defeat of France, and FDR the economic illiterate.
Roosevelt’s opponents, and even his friends, referred to him as “featherduster” – a lightweight and a clever dig as his blueblood heritage. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. derided FDR as a “second-rate intellect but first-rate temperament.”
In the 1930s, the conventional wisdom was that capitalism had failed. FDR apparently never challenged that assumption. But the failure of government – not the free market – created the Great Depression. The economic collapse could have been avoided.
On Oct. 19, 1987 – “Black Monday” – the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508.32 points, or about 22.6%, and closed at 1,738.40. The decline almost doubled the 12.8% loss in the 1929 crash. By mid-1988, the market had recovered and, in general, the U.S. economy had shrugged off the sharp downturn. In contrast, the U.S. economy nose-dived after the 1929 crash and didn’t revive until the nation rearmed to fight World War II.

The difference: Quick action by the Federal Reserve.
The money supply dropped about 33% from 1929 to 1933, in large part due to the Federal Reserve’s incompetence. Some economists argue that much of the pain inflicted by the Great Depression could have been avoided if Benjamin Strong, governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the de facto equivalent of today’s Fed chairman, hadn’t died prematurely in 1928.
http://www.minyanville.com/articles/MER-GS-MCO-ms/index/a/15389

And now you know the "rest of the story" ;)

[Sigaba]

But a distinction must be drawn between FDR the brilliant politician who prepared the nation for World War II and kept Britain afloat after the defeat of France, and FDR the economic illiterate.I've been thinking about the irony of FDR's legacy in some political circles. In one quadrant, he's derided for his economic and social policies domestically but lauded for his record as commander in chief and celebrated for his diplomacy.

If, as Eric Larrabee argues in his celebratory Commander in Chief: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, His Lieutenants, and Their War (1987), FDR fought a New Deal kind of war, might not the views of his leadership in domestic politics be closer to those of his role in leading America through the Second World War?