« Pelosi's Ethical Congress | Main | Add insult to injury, rinse, and repeat »


Michelle Malkin wrote today-

On Nov. 4, after Barack Obama clinched the White House, the market closed at 9,625.28.

In mid-morning trading today, the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to 7,606.53.

Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period -- during the first few months of his presidency.

Great start, O.

Kim here at Wizbang added-

How many trillions of dollars have been lost since Barack Obama won the election? Why isn't the mainstream media discussing this? Would they be if it had been a Republican who was presiding over such a staggering loss? I think we all know that answer to that.
Maybe it is because Obama didn't take office till January 20th? On January 20th the DJ stood 7949.09. Michelle quotes 7,606.53. a 342 pt. loss since inaugeration day. Who was the President from Nov. 5th till January 20th at 12 noon? Repulican George W Bush.

Here are the charts. First before inauguration day.


And now after after January 20th


Let me add a 3rd graph. The stock market for the 8 years Bush was President.


That's a drop of about 2710 points or over 25%.

Let me thank Doug at Below the Beltway for all the charts. He deserves credit.

Dr. Taylor at Poliblog writes-

Without getting into anything else, I would note that Bush was still President from November 4, 2008 until noon on January 20, 2009. That comes out to 106 days between election day and today. Of that time, Bush was president roughly 78 days, 73.6% of the time in question while Obama has been president 28 days, or 26.4% of the time in question. So even accepting the notion that whomever is in the White House is directly responsible for the Dow (a dubious proposition, shall we say), Malkin can't tag Obama with a 2,000 point slide.

I have serious doubts and questions about the stimulus bill, but this kind of stuff is just plain silly.


I will also note that political and economic "analysis" along the lines of whatever happens on a given day is the fault of whomever is in the White House on that day is radically simplistic, if not patently ludicrous. Someone needs to tell Malkin that if that is way we are scoring things, then 9/11 is solely George W. Bush's fault and Clinton gets all the credit for those budget surpluses back in the 1990s.

Michelle has lost a credibility over the last three years, from telling William F Buckley to shut up, to her outrage Texas Ranger uniforms to Rachael Ray and her scarf.

Maybe Michelle should remember what she wrote here-

Okay, it's one thing to take your campaign website, transfer it to a dot-gov domain, and invent an "Office of the President-Elect" out of whole cloth. But now we've got Sen. Obama standing in front of a podium, in front of the world, for his first transitional press conference with an official-looking sign that reads "Office of the President-Elect." Is that the official seal of the U.S. on the sign? Do they have authority to use it? What other make-believe offices are they going to invent between now and Inauguration Day? I can't ever recall in my lifetime any mention of such an office. Can you?

John Cole at Balloon Juice writes-

Now, apparently, Malkin suddenly believes that the Office of President Elect holds real power, much more so than the actual Presidency, because she wants to credit the market decline from November 4th until now to... Barack Obama.
He hasn't authority, he has authority. Isn't she being a tad contradictory?

It is getting harder and harder to take Michelle seriously or anyone who buys into the stock market's woes of the last three months being all the fault of Barack Obama. Are we forgetting all the overspending of the Bush years? How many trillion of dollars were lost from the time the market hit 14,000 when Bush was President. He held office for eight years, where's the outrage. Seems like selective memory to me.

Try again, there's better ways of voicing opposition to Obama.

Kim adds: Bill, I qualified in my post why I believe it was Obama's stock market between Nov. 4th and Jan. 20th. It was Obama who was perceived as being in charge of domestic policy i.e. the economy after Nov. 4th because he was the only one out front discussing it every day while Bush was totally absent. America hardly ever heard or saw anything from him regarding the economy. And since the market is an indication of what it thinks about the future, how could the market be a reflection of GWB and his policies when he was not only leaving office but he was also no where to be found while Obama was just coming in and he was everywhere discussing the economy? The stock market at that time was reacting to what Obama was saying he was going to do. It was a purely psychological response, but what in the stock market isn't? Feel free to disagree with me all you want, Bill, but on this one, I'm right.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (39)

As for Kim, way to miss the... (Below threshold)

As for Kim, way to miss the point, Bill:

"Would they be if it had been a Republican who was presiding over such a staggering loss? I think we all know that answer to that."

As for bashing Malkin...carry on.

Funny. No, really. ... (Below threshold)

Funny. No, really.

Look Bill, you want to trash Malkin? Great. Me? Go for it.
Misrepresent what's been published? Post yourself for TKoTD.

Look - even Krauthammer pointed out that Bush abdicated domestic affairs somwhere around Nov. 5, and that Obama has been releasing a very steady stream of position papers, etc. since then (now, one might think less of Bush bc of this, but I already think little of his presidency...).

The point being made by all is that were continued downward movements made under a Republican admin, the general tone of the daily media would not be quite so forgiving as they seem today. If that's over your head, well...


PS - another shining example of why I dropped WB from my rss. WB is not exactly "top shelf" anymore.

Wow. You belong on Blue. ... (Below threshold)

Wow. You belong on Blue. Total waste of space here.

Good job injecting a little... (Below threshold)

Good job injecting a little rational thought into the issue. Be prepared to get slammed by those who reject such writing techniques.

The stock market decline si... (Below threshold)

The stock market decline since November 5 is partly because of Obama's election.

The week Obama was elected, the market waited for a signal from Team Obama as to what they were going to do about capital gains taxes etc. Obama gave no signals, so the market declined.

Team Obama disappointed the markets last week when Tax Evader Geitner gave his vague plans for TARP. Again the markets declined.

The markets have also priced in the idiotic stimulus plan as well.

Malkin is partly correct...Bill Empty Jempty is completely wrong.

Bill:If you believ... (Below threshold)


If you believe this nonsense then you must actually think that Wall Street waits to make decisions based on what policies have actually been implemented. Did it never occur to you that Wall Street actually looks at the ideas being considered, looks at what will likely be implemented, and planning ahead based on those predictions? Have you never read a financial magazine or financial news show prior to a new President taking office where they discussed the impact of his likely policies on stocks? Have you never heard such things discussed on financial news shows?

They are called S&P Futures... (Below threshold)

They are called S&P Futures for a reason. They anticipate the future. In November of 2008, the market believed that Mr. Obama represented a bad future ahead. In Feb 2009 it appears the market believes that Obama still has more bad things to show us.

That being said, when the cover of TIME magazine says, " Dow 5000 ?!?" on the cover that will be the day to buy.

No, of course Obama is not ... (Below threshold)

No, of course Obama is not 100% responsible for the stock market's trajectory since his election, or inauguration. But he is significantly responsible. As soon as won, and McCain lost (seems like years ago), a certain future was made more likely, and another less likely. It didn't require January 20, 2009 for this phenomenon to be set in motion.

Alas, I thought we had a socialist moron as President; someone "smart" but a socialist, but it looks like we may just have a moron; someone who actually isn't very smart; a Chauncy Gardner(sp?)

This is very sad. A lot of dumb people probably voted for Obama, but so did a lot of "smart" people. Fake-smart liberals and lefties who know nothing about history, economics, and what works. This is a tragedy in the making.

Obama: moron.

It's unimaginable that the ... (Below threshold)

It's unimaginable that the markets might react badly to the election of an avowed socialist to the office of President of the United States.

Is it possible that the tru... (Below threshold)

Is it possible that the truth may lay in the middle? It is if course dishonest to say that Obama is responsible for all of the stock drop since his election, it is highly likely that a lot of that same stock drop would have taken place under McCain as well. However it is also likely that at least some of the stock market losses are a direct result of Obama's proposed policies. Should we only chalk it up to coincidence that the stock market dropped:
The day after Obama's election.
The day he was sworn in.
The day his new Treasery Sec revealed his plan to save the banks.
The day the Legislature finally passed the Stimulus.
And the day Obama signs the Stimulus.
All of that hardly indicates massive confidence in Obama's economic policy.
Still, let's wait a few months before conclusively stating the damage of the Obama presidency.

"Is it possible that the tr... (Below threshold)

"Is it possible that the truth may lay in the middle?"


Anyways, good luck criticizing a golden wingnut - sacrilege. Ever since the cheerleader episode...well actually since she wrote her first book on pro-internment - it's been a rough go.

My own sense of the Dow is ... (Below threshold)
James H:

My own sense of the Dow is that its decrease is not precisely Obama's fault or Bush's fault. I have to lay a lot of blame at Greenspan's feet.

Rising home prices, and even more so, the securitizatin of mortgages, drove this decade's bubble. Those at the top of the financial system had to know those securities were overvalued. This overvaluation, in turn, led to overstatements on company balance sheets, which in turn led to overvaluation of company stocks.

We were due for a market correction. Because securities were overvalued so wildly, and because of the way the exotic CDOs interacted with each other, the market correction became more like a contagion.

Why do I blame Greenspan? Because those more exotic securities and the markets for them clearly required regulation, and Greenspan refused to provide it. Late last year, Greenspan admitted that he had been mistaken in his assumption that the market would provide its own regulation.

Boom and bust is the natural business cycle. But this bust didn't have to be nearly as bad as it is.

Look, I'm no fan of Malkin,... (Below threshold)

Look, I'm no fan of Malkin, but this post, Bill, simply sounds like a Malkin/Bush bash. Do the terms "lame duck", "confidence in the market" and many others come to mind? How about Fannie/Freddie and the doom and gloom preaching of the man most likely to become President from day one of their collapse?

If Malkin got her facts wrong, that's one thing - she seems to do it often enough - but the rest of your argument sounds much like the narrowly focused leftist relying on the tired old "Bush was responsible for 9/11 because it happened on his watch" meme without regard to all the other contributing circumstances over the course of years.

And no, "we" haven't forgotten all the overspending of the Bush years. But when that spending increases by magnitudes almost overnight the past 8 years seems paltry.

They are better ways of voicing opposition to Bush.

B.J.,You totally mis... (Below threshold)

You totally missed the timing of this disaster.

In February of 2007, when Obama announced his candidacy, the Dow was at 12,500. It's been tanking ever since.

Maybe I am simplistic, but ... (Below threshold)

Maybe I am simplistic, but I thought the point MM was trying to make was that since Obama was elected, the market has slipped 2000 points in spite of announcements of bailouts, stimulus bills and economic recovery plans.

It would be normal to think that during the discussion in Congress over the Stimulus Package the market might be jittery. However, if it thought that this was really going to help, it should have spiked UPWARDS during the signing.

I put Michelle Malkin up th... (Below threshold)

I put Michelle Malkin up there with Ann Coulter. Malkin takes the truth and distorts it with hatred.

Stocks go up and down, this would have happened if not more so had McCain won the election. The stocks dropped massively at the start of Dubya's Presidency, seems some here have very selective memories.

"Maybe it is because Obama ... (Below threshold)

"Maybe it is because Obama didn't take office till January 20th? On January 20th the DJ stood 7949.09."

Right, just ignore any movement by private sector ie., small business, since Nov 4th who saw the writing on the wall and proceeded to close up shop.

Unlike the public sector, the private sector is forward thinking; if they see that the risk is not worth the time, labor and capital then they do not invest.

"The stocks dropped massive... (Below threshold)

"The stocks dropped massively at the start of Dubya's Presidency, seems some here have very selective memories"

Memory (and Google) also point out that Bush, not Clinton, took the brunt of the criticism. Why not that way now?


Thank you for adding a dose... (Below threshold)

Thank you for adding a dose of reality to this issue.

The MARKET doesn't care who... (Below threshold)

The MARKET doesn't care who holds the office NOW, they are looking at how much money they can make over the next day, month, quarter, year, 5 year, 10 year period. I would argue that starting this comparison as of Nov 4 isn't even accurate - the market was already reacting to the possibility of the anointed one taking the reins.

I predicted this crash in early June 2008, but even I wasn't cynical enough to believe it would get this bad.

The market goes down when s... (Below threshold)

The market goes down when shareholders sell at a lower price out of fear that they'd get even less if they hold on to their shares... as pointed out above, the market doesn't reflect what has happened in the economy as much as it reflects what investors believe is going to happen to the economy... and with the stock market going down 2,000 points since Obama won election, it's hard to conclude anything other than investors aren't anticipating a lot of good news (good news being one of the factors that lead people to buy stocks) in the coming months.

Obama has to take a good part of the blame for the sense of pessimism. Rather than talk up the economy, he has been the poster child of negativity. Who in their right mind would buy stocks after listening to him talk, especially with him trying to downplay expectations that the stimulus bill is going to do any good right away?

And the GOP has to take a lot of blame as well. Given that almost half the country is Republican, with almost all the Republicans in Congress badmouthing the stimulus bill, why would a politically conservative investor think recovery is just around the corner?

The market is based on what... (Below threshold)

The market is based on what they think is going to happen. Once O was elected, all of Bush's policies became moot. The market was reacting to what they believed was going to happen under the new administration. Even if on Nov 5th Bush had signed an executive order cutting all taxes by 50% nothing would have happened because it would be a sure bet that Obama would rescind that order on January 21st.

So yes, this IS the Obama recession.

One other point...just afte... (Below threshold)

One other point...just after the election, gun and ammo sales went through the roof. Was this because gun advocates and enthusiasts (and just plain folk that want to protect themselves) were afraid that GW as going to deny them their second amendment rights?

Obviously you are not inves... (Below threshold)

Obviously you are not invested in the stock market, Bill.

I am. After Obama was elected, I waited for a minor bump in the stock market and then I took everything out. It's sitting in money market accounts right now.

Huge amounts of capital continues to flee the stock market right now. I'm just one individual but there are millions of "me's" and we all got out or are getting out and have no intention of getting back in until Obama gets out of office or is muzzled by a new Republican Congress and Senate.

Guess what the "stock market" is? A free market. And the free market has spoken about the Obama presidency.

Reality is, we ain't seen n... (Below threshold)

Reality is, we ain't seen nothing yet.

Obama's fascist policies and criminal looting will ensure a 5,000 -- or less -- Dow.

That's a given.

And when ACORN and the other Brown-Shirt brigades get done scamming the census, legislating "statehood for the District of Columbia and possibly also Puerto Rico and through enrolling more of the thirty-five million or so criminal aliens in our midst who long ago became even more important to the "Democrats'" electoral outcomes than even the moronic, the geriatric, the felonious and the long dead and buried our chances of an effective revolution against our republic's spiral into tyranny will quickly slip from the realm of possibility.

Brian Richard Allen

As others have said above -... (Below threshold)

As others have said above - the market trades based on what people think will happen in the future, not on what is happening today. To not give Obama credit for the 2000 point drop is silly. People buy something today because they think they will make money in the future and they sell something today because they think they will not.

Yes, there are fundamental factors leading the decline, but those have already become known. The market is now reacting to what Obama is attempting to do about it. Clearly, people don't like what is happening.

<a href="http://mediamatter... (Below threshold)
The market(s) react to cert... (Below threshold)

The market(s) react to certain decisions, Bill. For example, see what the market did when our tax-evading Treasury Sec't Tim Geithner announced his "no plan" bank bailout plan the market plummeted.


Media Matters, the George S... (Below threshold)

Media Matters, the George Soros-funded, right-wing bashing machine. Nice sourcing there, hyperbolist.

Bill,I LOVE YOU, M... (Below threshold)



And Kim feeling the need to horn in on your authorial space with an addendum: PRICELESS.

Regarding Malkin: sometimes she's right, sometimes she dead wrong, but what stands out is that she's one mean woman either way.

Your citation of Balloon Juice shows an openess of outlook. One has to admire a blog which motto is "consistently wrong since 2002". Doesn't one? I do. I peruse it for it's unique middlin' point of view. No delusions of grandeur THERE. Meanwhile back in Werewolf Land...

Anyway, post more political topics. If you must post on Asia, please don't ignore the sex industry so as to produce comments from wide experience. The Asia political scene has been kabuki since the students were "put down" in ROK in the 80s. The Taiwan issue is most kabuki of all. Chaing has lost currency. War is seen as unprofitable in that neck of the woods from bitter experience, i.e. Taiwan is happy to be an autonomous province of China.

P.I. is civilized but what about Art Bell being run off the islands in a shower of spears?

Anyway, please piss off the regs more often. It can only improve the WB traffic slump.

I'm sorry, what does MediaM... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry, what does MediaMatters' funding have to do with Michelle Malkin's documented comfort in the company of someone holding a sign bearing a swastika and Obama's name?

Shoot the messenger, Peter! Shoot it! Shoot it with your argumentative fallacy--in this case, mistaking the person who makes the argument for the argument itself (which is that Michelle Malkin is comfortable in the company of people like those in the photo, and thus is not a person to be taken seriously by moral, rational individuals).

Gee, hyperbolist, are you B... (Below threshold)

Gee, hyperbolist, are you Bill in communicado? I just got an e-mail from Bill making the same "shoot the messenger" reference as you. So, to save time, I'll just copy and paste what I wrote to Bill.

I will definitely shoot the messenger when the messenger uses an utterly biased, right-wing hating source like Media Matters while completely oblvious to MM's own gross double standard. The fact that MM even remotely attempts to link Malkin to Nazism without ever acknowledging or complaining or reporting that Soros on more than several occassions likened GWB and his administration with Nazism and Nazi like tactics, and, in the link you've provided, the MM author feigns indignation and rigetheously "tsk-tsks" over Malkin's association with some guy holding a sign where a Swaztika is inside an 'O', is about as duplictious and two-faced as it gets.

So, hyperbolist, if you want to act as a private leading the charge in MM's army, you're definitely a viable target.

Consider your source (and your argument) KIA.

I will definitely shoot ... (Below threshold)

I will definitely shoot the messenger when I can't dispute the message.

There, fixed it for you Peter. Shorter, too.

I will definitely shoot ... (Below threshold)

I will definitely shoot the messenger when I can't dispute the message.

There, fixed it for you Peter. Shorter, too.

Oh, you're so cute and cryptic, Mantis! You almost complete me!

But alas, it's the bald-faced hypocrisy and ignorance of the obvious double standard by hyperbolist's source and its author that truly makes me whole*.

*With laughter.

So are you disputing the re... (Below threshold)

So are you disputing the reality of that photograph, Peter? Or are you saying that your distaste for George Soros' politics makes it okay for Malkin to pal around with people like those in the photo?

Which is it? If it's the first option, please substantiate your assertion; if it's the second, then there is no point talking to you.

When I look at the 8 year g... (Below threshold)
L. Greg:

When I look at the 8 year graph, I notice that the first two years are volatile but kind of down, then the next four years are slow but steady upward, the seventh year is very volatile, while the last year is plummeting. Lets see, did Bush change over those periods? Or maybe it was Congress that changed: Democratic controlled Senate for the first two years, Republicans had both houses for the next four, and then the Democrats had complete control for the last two. Do you think the laws they passed (or were expected to pass) could have anything to do with the stock market performance? Why, it wouldn't surprise me if there were other factors involved as well.

So are you disputing the... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So are you disputing the reality of that photograph, Peter? Or are you saying that your distaste for George Soros' politics makes it okay for Malkin to pal around with people like those in the photo?

Which is it? If it's the first option, please substantiate your assertion; if it's the second, then there is no point talking to you.

WTF? Seriously? Really? Are you paying attention?

There's hyperbole, and then there's the flat out stupidity of not even addressing what I've said.

I addressed it, Peter. I ac... (Below threshold)

I addressed it, Peter. I acknowledge that Soros stands for the opposite of what you do, and yet I assert that that does not detract from the point of the MediaMatters post.

If it did, we could simply ignore everything ever reported on Fox because Rupert Murdoch has a political agenda.

You are guilty of the fallacy of mistaking the person for the argument. Actually, it's even more fallacious in this case, because it wasn't Soros making the argument, but a blogger with tangential financial ties to him.

Your indignant bluster is a poor smokescreen for your refusal to acknowledge that Michelle Malkin is a hypocrite who pals around with people comfortable brandishing swastikas on political signage.

Pssst, Peter:Look up... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Pssst, Peter:
Look up "in communicado."






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy