Chinese stock market wants Obama, US Market wants Romney

I sure don't want Romney to win. How good do you think it will be for business when the US goes to war with Iran, huh?

DJIA Jan 2009 - 8000, Oct 2012 - 13600

Jeffwhosoever said:

Wall Street wants Romney to win. It's free enterprise vs. socialism.

Click to expand...

Jeffwhosoever said:

Wall Street wants Romney to win. It's free enterprise vs. socialism.

Click to expand...

Obama is about as much of a socialist as your average Republican. His policies have virtually NOTHING to do with socialism - sadly so, I might add.
But thanks for trying to reinforce some sort of cold war paranoia, anyway. I'm sure that most sane people out there will see right through it.

Obama is more, not less, likely to result in the US going to war with Iran. Remember Ronald Reagan? Peace through Strength.

Click to expand...

"Peace through strength" is the kind of rationale that led to the insane arms race of the Cold War.
It is also the rationale behind Iran's desire to get their hands on nuclear bombs in the first place: once they have it, nobody will consider attacking them any longer.
Remember North Korea? You know, that insane megalomaniacal dictatorship in Northeast Asia? The one that nobody has ever bothered to even consider a military target for more than a decade, mostly because they possess a nuclear arsenal?


Oh, and one more thing: Reagan was a bona fide Keynesian.

I've long given up expecting right-wingers in the American Politics subforum to understand what socialism actually is. It's a pleasant but rare surprise when one actually demonstrates a little knowledge on the subject.

Cromulent said:

I've long given up expecting right-wingers in the American Politics subforum to understand what socialism actually is. It's a pleasant but rare surprise when one actually demonstrates a little knowledge on the subject.

Click to expand...

There is some possibility of explaining the concept to some of them. Jeff, however, is not one of those people.

Jeffwhosoever said:

Obama is more, not less, likely to result in the US going to war with Iran. Remember Ronald Reagan? Peace through Strength.

Click to expand...

Remember George Bush? Fifteen out of the twenty two of Romney's foreign policy team were policy advisers for Bush. How did that work out? Do Americans really want Bush neo-cons back in the White house deciding how to deal with Iran?

EdwinWillers said:

DJIA Oct 2007 - 14093, Jan 2009 - 8000

Click to expand...

Greg Mankiw, Romney economic advisor, in action! Results we can believe in.

Read the article Jeff. Interestingly, in the first paragraph CNBC says Romney is Wall Street's candidate but they never say why. Even more interestingly, the obvious answer is one the article refutes.

The article says that Mr. Romney is much less likely than Mr. Obama to resolve the 'fiscal cliff' well, and that markets are worried about Romney botching it.

Strangely, this should be a concern for US markets as well. A bigger concern in fact. CNBC basically is saying that Romney is more likely to hurt the economy here next year, and Asian investors are worried that weakness in the US economy resulting from Romney policies will hurt their markets.

Given that CNBC is saying that a Romney Administration would be bad for the US economy and consequently the global economy, I don't see how this could be good news for traders, except that Romney supports massive tax cuts for Wall Street insiders compared to Obama.

That's the article's first and most important point. It then gets into trader's concerns that Romney will start a full-blown trade war with China.

And it adds that Romney is expected to end the Bernanke Fed and appoint a Fed Chair who will pursue contractionary monetary policy. This is once again a 'what is bad for the US economy is bad for the global economy' line of argument.

It's an interesting article Jeff. Thanks for posting it. But the opening and closing arguments, 2/3s of the article, are explicitly saying that a Romney Presidency would hurt the US recovery and that a sluggish US economy hurts the global economy.

I'm surprised to see a piece like this at CNBC so close to the election. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this reads to me as a major Obama endorsement by the writer.

I'm curious why you of all people actually posted this.

Jeffwhosoever said:

It's an endorsement from an Asian perspective, lol.

Click to expand...

2/3s of the article is saying that Romney will damage the American economy. That's bad for Asia but it's bad for you and me too.

Jeffwhosoever said:

From an Asian perspective, all the way through the article. They don't like having to play fair in trade with the US. so of course they are going to attack Romney from every possible angle.

Click to expand...

It's the free market, they can play however they want. What kind of a right-winger are you anyway?

Jeffwhosoever said:

From an Asian perspective, all the way through the article. They don't like having to play fair in trade with the US. so of course they are going to attack Romney from every possible angle.

Click to expand...

2/3 of the article has nothing to do with free/fair trade between the US and China. It is strictly that traders expect Romney to sink the US economy and that any sort of trade with a damaged US economy will hurt China.

If they're correct, the US is in for 4 years of misery if Romney wins. Read your own article. They're saying that Romney will be bad for the US economy.

It's a global market, so of course foreign countries are concerned when a presidential candidate is about to sink the US - China more than anybody else, as their economy depends on US consumers being able to buy their products. An economic crisis in the USA does not help China - it hurts them.