Can A republican in the group explain why Kim Jong Un is such a great guy

[EatTheRich]

No, YOU have it backwards.

1. The economy began tanking first.
2. It is normal for political fortunes of the incumbents and challengers to track the stock market.
3. The crash reflected a fundamentally weak economy.
4. The recovery began early in Obama’s administration although his initial approach was more leftist than anything he did later.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

1. The economy began tanking first.
2. It is normal for political fortunes of the incumbents and challengers to track the stock market.
3. The crash reflected a fundamentally weak economy.
4. The recovery began early in Obama’s administration although his initial approach was more leftist than anything he did later.

Yes but it began tanking faster as Obama's fortunes improved. And frankly, your "thesis" here defies logic. If political fortunes "track" the stock market, and by your implication, a declining stock market reduces support for an "incumbent" (which, of course, McCain was not), then the electoral fortunes for a "challenger" improving would SLOW, rather than speed up, a decline. The crash reflected a failure of the fed to understand the problems in the repo markets. The "recovery" that "began early in Obama's administration," is not really a "recovery" at all - at least not if you consider "recovery" to be the economy regaining its long term growth rate and doing so without tens of trillions of fed legerdemain:

 

[EatTheRich]

Yes but it began tanking faster as Obama's fortunes improved. And frankly, your "thesis" here defies logic. If political fortunes "track" the stock market, and by your implication, a declining stock market reduces support for an "incumbent" (which, of course, McCain was not), then the electoral fortunes for a "challenger" improving would SLOW, rather than speed up, a decline. The crash reflected a failure of the fed to understand the problems in the repo markets. The "recovery" that "began early in Obama's administration," is not really a "recovery" at all - at least not if you consider "recovery" to be the economy regaining its long term growth rate and doing so without tens of trillions of fed legerdemain:

View attachment 49578

Obama’s success probably did slow the decline ... but ultimately the fundamental deflation caused by the huge gluts on the market (relative to what consumers could afford to buy) were more important to investors than the choice between Tweedledee on the left and Tweedledum on the right. And so, as usual, the market had a MUCH bigger influence on the political fortunes of the candidates than their political fortunes had on the market.

I have already pointed out that the curve for long-term growth rate does not appear to fit the pre-crash data, from the chart shown. And, no, the market could not regain its footing without massive government intervention, as has been the case for American capitalism in general for 100 years.