• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama's major policies followed by Dow Jones increase

Thunder

Banned
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
34,918
After Health-care reform was passed by the House and signed by the President, the Dow Jones went up...not down.

Yesterday, Obama gives a speech at Cooper Union, blasting Wall Street and proposing major market and banking reforms and regulations. Following this, the Dow Jones goes up.

what's...goin...on?????

aren't Obama's socialist and dictatorial policies supposed to cause the stock market to crash, and armageddon to ensue???

I dont understand!! Ich nicht verstehen!!
 
After Health-care reform was passed by the House and signed by the President, the Dow Jones went up...not down.

Yesterday, Obama gives a speech at Cooper Union, blasting Wall Street and proposing major market and banking reforms and regulations. Following this, the Dow Jones goes up.

what's...goin...on?????

aren't Obama's socialist and dictatorial policies supposed to cause the stock market to crash, and armageddon to ensue???

I dont understand!! Ich nicht verstehen!!

The stock market responds to information, not events. Did available information change with either the signing or the speech? I would so no, it did not. Changes in the stock market on those two occassions are likely unrelated to either.
 
There was a pretty big event on September 11, 2001 that the stock market responded to quite poorly.

Events can often carry information, but it's still the information that the stock market responds to. Had the information about 9/11 preceded the event (ie, had we known that planes would hit the towers and cause them to collapse before it actually happened), however, the stock market drop would have preceded the event as well. But that didn't happen in the case of 9/11 (it usually doesn't for catastrophes). In the case of a president signing a piece of legislation, though, that almost never happens by surprise. Traders will factor in the effects of legislation as soon as they know (or suspect) it will be enacted, not when it actually gets enacted. Signing the bill conveys no information that wasn't already known.
 
Thats gotta be worth a laughing dog or two.

And yet, you can't come up with a coherent argument against what I said.

Perhaps another example will clarify things for you. What would happen to the stock market if Al Qaeda stole a Pakistani nuclear weapon?

Well, nothing, until the information becomes public. The stock market responds to information, not events. If information becomes available after an event, the stock market will respond after an event. If information becomes available before the event (as is the case when a president signs a piece of legislation he's been campaigning for), the stock market will respond before the event. This is really basic stuff, and it's not even controversial. Why is it hard to understand? And if you don't agree with me, why can't you form an actual counter-argument?
 
Events can often carry information, but it's still the information that the stock market responds to.

No. In the case of 9/11 the stock market closed because of the event, not the information, which was still not fully known at the point at which the stock market closed that day.

Why not just admit you are wrong? We have all been there.
 
Last edited:
No. In the case of 9/11 the stock market closed because of the event

Are you seriously claiming that if it was known ahead of time that 9/11 would happen, stock prices wouldn't drop until it actually happened? Because unless you are, this is irrelevant.

Why not just admit you are wrong? We have all been there.

Because I'm not. Why is it hard to understand that people make decisions (like whether or not to buy stock) based on information? Why is it even under dispute?

Seriously, consider pretty much any case where information about an event doesn't coincide with the event itself. Then consider what people would do in response. They will respond when the information becomes available, NOT when the event occurs. Weather forecasts predict unseasonable frost will ruin orange crops in Florida? The price of orange juice concentrate will jump before the frost hits, because information became available before the event. Pharmaceutical company's next big drug has dangerous side effects? Stock price won't drop until FDA testing becomes public. Etc, etc.

There's a way to prove me wrong, but you don't even seem aware of the logical requirements for doing so. Show me a case where the information and the event don't coincide, but prices respond to the event and not the information. And don't try to use an example where initial information was wrong, because in that case the correct information can still coincide with the event.
 
Where exactly does one draw the line between "information" and "events". Is not the passing of a bill some of each?

If the outcome of the vote is uncertain, then yes, its passage also contains information. If the outcome of the vote is a foregone conclusion, then its passage contains almost no information. In the case of Obama signing a bill he pushed hard for, everyone knew he would sign it, it was public that he would sign it, the signing itself tells nobody anything they didn't already know. If the value of a stock were going to be affected (in either direction) by this legislation, that change in value would have been factored into the price traders would be willing to pay for (or sell) the stock before the actual signing of the bill. Any trader who didn't do so would have been foolish indeed.
 
Are you seriously claiming that if it was known ahead of time that 9/11 would happen, stock prices wouldn't drop until it actually happened? Because unless you are, this is irrelevant.

I wasn't claming anything of the sort.

Seriously, consider pretty much any case where information about an event doesn't coincide with the event itself.

So why are you attempting to differentiate them?

They will respond when the information becomes available, NOT when the event occurs.

Again, you are wrong. On 9/11 the stock market responded to the event (by closing), BEFORE the information of what was actually going on was fully known.[/quote]
 
I wasn't claming anything of the sort.

Then you have no point.

So why are you attempting to differentiate them?

If it's not obvious to you yet why I am differentiating between an event and information about the event by now, I'm not sure what else I can say.

Again, you are wrong. On 9/11 the stock market responded to the event (by closing), BEFORE the information of what was actually going on was fully known.

It doesn't matter that full information was not available. Information was still available. That information is what people acted on. And yes, people continued to respond to new information about the attacks as that information became available.

Read my previous post in response to Tricky. Then tell me if you seriously think that traders won't factor information about a future event into their current actions.
 
If the outcome of the vote is uncertain, then yes, its passage also contains information. If the outcome of the vote is a foregone conclusion, then its passage contains almost no information. In the case of Obama signing a bill he pushed hard for, everyone knew he would sign it, it was public that he would sign it, the signing itself tells nobody anything they didn't already know. If the value of a stock were going to be affected (in either direction) by this legislation, that change in value would have been factored into the price traders would be willing to pay for (or sell) the stock before the actual signing of the bill. Any trader who didn't do so would have been foolish indeed.
While it is true that the actual touching of the pen to the paper was a given once the bill was passed, there was uncertainty up until the last minute in Congress as to whether or not a compromise would be hammered out. There was uncertainty up to as much as a few weeks before if the Dems would try reconciliation to pass the bill.

Though I'm not a close watcher of the stock market, I seem to recall that the general trend of the market for the last couple of months has been upward. This would indicate that even over the time period that the outcome was unknown, the market didn't get particularly jittery, and still hasn't.

So even conceding the point that the actual signing may not have provided any sort of effect on the stock market, the general sense is that the passage of the bill has not made any Wall Street people "scared of the future", as some would have us expect.

Frankly, if anything were to shake up Dow Jones, I'd expect it to be the announcement that the Gov is working on Wall Street reforms. That doesn't seem to have slowed the recovery either. It would almost appear that a lot of the investor class think that we are on the right path, as far as their interests are concerned. Admittedly, this is no predictor of things to come, but it does indicate the complete absence of panic.

I think a lot of Republicans (those of the "I want him to fail" rhetoric of Limbaugh and his clones) are almost disappointed that the recovery is going steadily upward, if perhaps not as fast as some would wish. For my own part, I'm hoping the job market picks up soon so I can stop supporting two of my siblings.
 
It doesn't matter that full information was not available. Information was still available. That information is what people acted on. And yes, people continued to respond to new information about the attacks as that information became available.

So, wait. It's information that drives the markets, not events. In this case, it was the information that there was an event, not the event itself that drove the market.

Is that what you're saying?
 
Sigh... correlation is not causation :rolleyes:

True, but if A & B exhibit an extremely high degree of correlation, then one of these three things is probably true:
  1. A causes B
  2. B causes A
  3. Something else, let's say C causes both A & B
C could be one thing or a hard to understand combination of things, so lets say C++ causes A & B. I know I've had plenty of trouble understanding C++
 
Back in November 2007, the FASB reinstated strict mark-to-market accounting rules for the first time since 1938. The year 1938 was when those rules were suspended by FDR (which, notably, corresponded to when the country finally began to recover from the Great Depression). The economic instability and recession began in December 2007, a month later. The stock market continued to fall until April of 2009. That is when the mark to market accounting rules were finally relaxed. The stock market was headed back upwards within a week of that rules change.

Only a fool wouldn't see the obvious.
 
After Health-care reform was passed by the House and signed by the President, the Dow Jones went up...not down.

Yesterday, Obama gives a speech at Cooper Union, blasting Wall Street and proposing major market and banking reforms and regulations. Following this, the Dow Jones goes up.

what's...goin...on?????

aren't Obama's socialist and dictatorial policies supposed to cause the stock market to crash, and armageddon to ensue???

I dont understand!! Ich nicht verstehen!!

The Healthcare Reform hasn't been implemented yet though, so I think it is still too early to tell what the full effects of it will be, good or ill. Furthermore, I wouldn't just look at the DOW (which is made up of a list of companies, many of which aren't located in the Medical sector), but rather look at the companies that are in the Medical sector.
 
True, but if A & B exhibit an extremely high degree of correlation, then one of these three things is probably true:
  1. A causes B
  2. B causes A
  3. Something else, let's say C causes both A & B
C could be one thing or a hard to understand combination of things, so lets say C++ causes A & B. I know I've had plenty of trouble understanding C++

(Warning: Digression) This brought me into a bit of a quandary of how we ever determine causation. If I blow on a piece of paper and the paper moves, I cannot say for certain that the paper moved because I blew on it, but I can test it over and over again and eventually come to a strong opinion that the correlation of me blowing on the paper and the paper moving is a causation where one caused the other. This brings me to another point though that we cannot test for a large number of time the passing of the exact same healthcare reform bill to see if the DOW goes up. Ultimately, I believe economics is largely based on history and I don't think that there is enough history here to come to a conclusion on causation. Which in this case, as I surmise, correlation doesn't mean causation. Though perhaps there is something we can do here to get around the lack of history, which would be taking a poll of investors who invested in a given time frame.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom