Posts Made By: Paul Kammueller

Same deal, with the Nasdaq: This one's a little easier to define on the 35-year trend -- the Naz composite is right now as oversold as it was in 1974 and 2002. There are no 80-year trend assumptions to fall back on since the index hasn't existed that long of course. If the line doesn't hold here, there's no telling where the next line would be drawn.

Chris Myers said:
For my 2 cents, I think he may have been wiser to pick a celeb status politician who appears more balanced. "Appears" perhaps being the key word...

In his defense, as the R party has become increasingly driven by its more extreme factions, the R candidates these days have a stark choice: court the center at the risk of alienating the more extreme base, or mobilize their base at the risk of alienating the center. Each successive election cycle, as they get more out of touch with the mainstream and as more policies fail, this tightrope becomes harder and harder to walk.

I frankly don't envy McCain in the choices that were before him. He's the sort of person who probably could be a good president if he were in a different party, or even in his party but at a different time. I don't consider him a right-wing nut, but his running mate is, and that tells me that the more sinister forces in the party are pulling all the strings in this campaign and will also be doing so in the White House if he wins.

Today we got a good pullback that closed the uncomfortably conspicuous gap on the Nasdaq that developed Friday. The gap-ups must be closed and today accomplished that much.

While that went on, action on the oil front was nuts -- the commodity markets are betting the bailout will be inflationary.

Ordinarily the President going on nationwide TV to proclaim that the markets are on the verge of panic and the economy has one foot in the grave would be considered the most irresponsible thing a President can do. I hope the markets can hold up after THAT speech.

When your argument for everything is "The world will blow up if you don't give me this RIGHT NOW" then finally when a real crisis comes along you can't really expect fast action anymore. The boy has cried wolf too many times. It is unfortunate, because I think we really do need reasonably quick action THIS time.

This is unbelievable. Bringing presidential candidates into the middle of the crisis in mid-campaign is NOT productive. Way to make a crisis into a circus.

An absolutely transparent attempt at grandstanding and trying to regain credibility on the economy when his chief economics advisor was instrumental in preventing any regulation of the credit-default swaps markets. It's whitewashing time.

Her debate will NOT be allowed to happen. Mark it. They will find a way. Some family emergency, another crisis, something. They will NOT allow her outside a strictly controlled venue.

It's certainly possible -- I wouldn't venture to make a prediction on this count though. The range of possible ultimate outcomes is enormous. How far off the recovery in the real estate & mortgage markets is, whether there's a recession (or depression), etc. all affect the ultimate viability of many of these assets.

A profit is as realistic a probability as a loss in this case -- if it's even just close to breakeven, then the whole affair will just be money in, money out. By using cash raised by selling treasuries on the open market, the bailout would in effect be taking money out of the market to bail it out -- to the extent that the discounted assets are able to be steadily sold back into the market as things stabilize, it will redeem the treasuries and the funds will simply fall back into the capital markets.

If it works like it should, the government's role in all of this will have been merely to serve as a temporary conduit. That of course is the ideal case. But to be realistic some loss should be taken to be a likely outcome -- it is a rotten solution but it's better than just watching it all fall apart.

It sounds like it's mainly the HOUSE republicans trying to sink the deal.

My observation, about both parties, republicans and democrats, is that their House representatives tend to be a much more fiery and idealistic lot than their more sober Senate counterparts. To some extent they can afford to be because as individuals their voice is more diluted in a body of 435 than in one of 100 -- but also being more 'localized' represenatives they get a much more focused earful closer to home from their constituents when they're angry about something.

It is most unfortunate that this crisis is occurring in an election year.

Jim E. Gleason said:
House Republicans have the leverage now. The Democratic leadership was maneuvered into backing a deeply unpopular plan. The Republican alternative seems much more attractive by comparison. The loyalty of House Democrats will be seriously tested, especially the Blue Dogs. Do I stick with Pelosi and risk getting kicked out of office, or do I join this bipartisan effort that isn't as toxic?

Not as toxic?! The Dem leadership has been in a bipartisan effort from the start, reaching across the aisle to negotiate with the White House and other republicans, while the house republicans, holding the U.S. Economy hostage, look prepared to pull the trigger and shoot the hostage in the head. They've set the process back to square zero at the 11th hour with a totally new plan described as 'unworkable'. Election-year brinksmanship at its worst. They appear determined to crash the markets and bring on a repeat of the 1930's so the democrats inherit a smoking crater of an economy after the election. And with world markets selling off overnight in response to the gridlock, things seem poised for the House Republicans to succeed in this, possibly by the weekend.

The Dem leadership has acknowledged that this really isn't much of a time for politicking and managed to hammer out a compromise with the White House and Senate Republicans pretty fast. The House republicans have decided that garnering political gain out of this is far more important than serving their country. Their behavior is politics first, country last. It IS possible that they're play acting, doing it just as a political ploy to set up a situation where McCain can "convince them" to support the package and thus save the day and pull off a classic October Surprise and an upset republican landslide. But it's the most high-risk strategy ever in terms of the stakes.

And what was his oh-so-critical 'input'? Has he even taken a position on the various proposals now being bandied about? Did he even say anything at the White House photo op, whoops, I mean meeting?