home

The S&P Effect: Market Fears S&P Push To Double Down On Bad Economic Policy

While the markets don't give a fig about S&P's analysis of the creditworthiness of US debt, it does appear to fear that governments will be pushed to follow S&P's bad economic advice:

The downgrade of the United States’s debt to AA+ from AAA has global implications, said Alessandro Giansanti, a credit market strategist at ING in Amsterdam. “We can see that this may force the U.S. to move more aggressively to cut spending,” he said, something that could drive the already weak economy into recession and weigh on the economies of all of its trading partners. “That’s the main driver” of the stock market declines, he said.

Krugman makes a similar point:

[M]aybe there is an S&P story — but not the one you think. Arguably, that downgrade will bully policy makers into even more deflationary, contractionary policies than they would have undertaken otherwise, which has the perverse effect of making US debt more attractive, since the alternatives are worse.
< US Treasuries Show Lower Yields Than Before S&P Downgrade | What "Lessons" Will Be Learned From Today? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Don't Kill the Messenger! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    S&P did a yeoman job.

    They finally called the King (US) on his clothes.

    Yes you can say they didn't do their job (none of the big 3 of rating agencies did) on Housing, Banking, Differentials, Hedge and on the other debacles we have had, but now S&P is "BREAKING THE LINE"  and starting to be more truthful.

    It is the others and our Congress and President that have their heads in the sand that are remiss.  S&P's action will put pressure on the others now to face the facts.

    If Greenspan and company, the banks, the housing people, etc. had been called charlatans a long time ago we would all be in a much better place, say like Canada (AAA) who did not trash their regulation.  Mind you I am not saying Canada does everything right, but in this financial area they are heads above the US and the EU.

    You said that before (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    You were wrong then too.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:56:04 AM EST
    this one is a corrected version.

    Parent
    you're still wrong. (none / 0) (#84)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 05:48:51 PM EST
    if you post this tomorrow, you'll be wrong then.

    Parent
    You're calling this in one day (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    based on how many hours of "business"? I don't know if the markets reject it or not.  I don't know how important that is right this minute.  I'm just glad the S&P is making an attempt at bookkeeping and credibility again.

    Parent
    I called it before the day (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    I'm calling it through the day.

    And I am confident I will get to call it through out the week, month and year.

    Parent

    Yields may go up soon... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    Well, to be clear the US Treasurys will rise at some point -- if only because they're only 30 basis points from the all-time historical low. That's very low. So they'll modulate day-to-day, may rise tomorrow if the markets are calmer, and whenever the economy gets stronger they'll go up more substantially. That could be delayed by this or that Fed action. But none of this (even this week) will have anything to do with the S&P downgrade -- the markets have indicated with a MASSIVE money-based vote of confidence that there isn't a better financial vehicle in a large-scale crisis than the supposed "AA+" US debt. Ben Bernanke's choice of necktie color has more effect on Treasury bond yields than S&P's rating.

    Parent
    Ain't it amazing (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:56:21 AM EST
    .

    The Canadians have far less government debt, higher home ownership, and no mortgage interest deduction.  

    It must be that without all that stimulus they have higher unemployment.  Oops! Unemployment is lower and the Canadians have better growth as well.

    .

    Parent

    And this (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    Since 1990, U.S. federal debt has more than quadrupled while Canada's debt rose by about 55%. In the 10 years ended in 2010, Canada's debt showed a moderate decline and U.S. debt doubled. Why the differences? Statistics show that Canada has made an effort to reduce debt and paid off over $90 billion from 1997 through 2008. The recent increase was entirely due to the global recession. U.S. debt has consistently risen, especially in the last 10 years. Major drivers of the increase over that last decade according to the PEW Center were: recession related revenue declines (28%), defence spending (13%; cost of the wars on terror alone were over $2.4 trillion to the end of 2009 according to Homeland Security Research), Bush tax cuts (13%), increases in net interest (11%), and other non-defence spending (10%).

    Canadian Business

    Parent

    and this (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    Between 2001 and 2011 federal spending doubled.  An unsustainable spending binge is going to run up some debt, no doubt about that,

    Parent
    See: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Parent
    As a Canadian, I should point out (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Lacey on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    We didn't get hammered nearly as hard during the meltdown because we did not have a giant housing bubble (we have stricter government controls on lending, which means the crazy mortgages some Americans were getting would never be approved up here). We have a health care system that is almost completely publicly-funded, lowering our health care costs. We have a national sales tax and higher income tax rates, which means we bring in more revenue. As well, we had fairly significant stimulus packages at the national and provincial levels.
    And, we went through "austerity" measures in the 1990s after the last recession and saw government slashed. We have been fighting like crazy to build services back up ever since.

    Parent
    Whereas (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    .

    (we have stricter government controls on lending, which means the crazy mortgages some Americans were getting would never be approved up here)

    Whereas we had the government sponsored enterprise of Fannie Mae create the market for those crazy mortgages,that prior to this "innovation" in affordable housing banks were loathe to make.  Then we had bank regulators tell the banks that those mortgage backed securities could be held with a SUPER preferred 60 to 1 capital ratio.

    Besides your government not prompting crazy loans, you did not have crazy regulators.

    BTW the crooks that cooked the books at Eron wound up in the slammer, but the crooks that cooked the books and Fannie are still enjoying their lavish pay outs.

    .

    Parent

    And $5/gallon gas (none / 0) (#34)
    by Natal on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:21:04 PM EST
    hasn't crippled the economy either.


    Parent
    This is not in any way meant to be a defense of (none / 0) (#35)
    by BBQinDenver on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    our Reaganesque President, but would you be so kind as to divide the trillions between those run up 2000-2008 and those 2009-2011?

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:23:44 PM EST

    Federal spending by fiscal year:

    Year     Spending   % Increase
    2001      $1.863T     4.1%
    2002      $2.011T     7.9%
    2003      $2.016T     0.2%
    2004      $2.293T    13.7%
    2005      $2.472T     7.8$
    2006      $2.655T     7.4%
    2007      $2.729T     2.8%
    2008      $2.982T     9.3%
    2009      $3.518T    18.0%
    2010      $3.456T    -0.2%
    2011      $3.819T    10.5%

    Parent

    By your logic (none / 0) (#54)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    there should have been a big crash around 2004. Funny how that never happened.

    You ignore reality at your own peril. The problem with the US economy is a major collapse in aggregate consumer demand after the housing bubble burst and wiped out trillions of dollars of household wealth and spending. Government spending had NOTHING to do with it. Not. One. Thing. Your chart proves this.

    What the economy needs now is stimulus, i.e. MORE government spending.

    Parent

    Canada runs (none / 0) (#46)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:10:51 PM EST
    a trade surplus, the USA runs the world's biggest trade deficit and creates the world's reserve currency. This requires the creation of a lot of money, far more per capita than Canada needs to create.

    Parent
    It also gets to mindset (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Lacey on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    We Canadians have never wanted to create the greatest country to ever grace the earth. We just want a safe, healthy place to raise our kids and enjoy life. We have never had visions of being a world power.

    Parent
    I can't tell you how (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    much of a relief that would be to live in.  I'm so heartily sick of this "American exceptionalism!!" garbage I could scream.  (And sometimes do...)

    Parent
    Not always a relief (none / 0) (#97)
    by Lacey on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 08:40:50 AM EST
    For example, your country is currently in the midst of "national insanity." Canadians have seen it before -- the communist witch hunts, the civil disturbances in the 60s, different periods in the 1800s when American politicians waxed poetically about invading Canada. It seems to be a peculiar aspect of our country. Generally you have a president in power who, while not always great, is at least responsible when it comes to the use of American military power. But now it's different. I fear a Republican becoming president because I don't think that party can be trusted with control over the American military. The Republicans have gone off the deep end and I am worried at what they would do if they controlled the bombs. And as a Canadian, it's frightening to have no control over something that will have such an impact on me.

    Parent
    Thing is, as an American (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:13:18 AM EST
    I have no control over it, either.

    But I'm not talking about point-by-point comparison of politics and policy, just being relieved of the burden of being responsible, one way or another, for everything.

    Parent

    I can get that (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Lacey on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:17:01 AM EST
    It's a nice feeling to see the world seeming to explode and know that no one is looking to your politicians to make everything better with your money and your lives. On the other hand, I think if countries like Canada or Sweden or Australia actually had more of a say in the world's affairs, than things may be better. I have always wished the middle power countries would get together and start dictating policy to America, China, England, et cetera.

    Parent
    Another possibility (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:33:02 PM EST
    It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that in 2009 the percent of their GDP for military was 1.5 while our's was 4.7.

    That 4.7 is only the tip of the iceberg. Throw in Homeland Security, CIA, State Department and all the other hidden war budgets and the percent would be a considerably higher.

    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    it must be that they aren't wasting a ton of money in the private insurance market like we are in the US.

    Parent
    CNN: Donald Trump for Treasury? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:02:45 PM EST
    CNN is such a terrible "fluff" network sometimes. Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Donald Trump about the financial crisis. As if he has anything insightful to say about anything. And if that's not bad enough, the on-screen text during the interview is "Donald Trump for Treasury?" Did they sign some sort of contract with him or something?

    He knows about defaulting (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:04:09 PM EST
    Bankrupted a friggin' CASINO (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    You gotta be a world class dipstick to lose money on an ATM.

    Parent
    It was suggested yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    by Mike Huckabee, leading to what you saw today.

    Parent
    Huckabee and Trump (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    is one of the weirdest alliances in politics.

    Parent
    God + Mammon = (none / 0) (#92)
    by seabos84 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    the typical norm, no?

    rmm

    Parent

    Latest headlines at the NYT: (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    Investors Flee Risky Assets in 1st Trading Since S.&P. Move

    and

    Downgrade Is Likely to Add Urgency to Debt-Cutting Panel

    And Obama's contribution?

    In his first public remarks since Standard & Poor's downgraded the country's debt on Friday, Mr. Obama sought to instill calm and a sense of debt-cutting purpose, even as the stock market was plunging. "Our problems are eminently solvable and we know what we need to do to solve them," Mr. Obama said, in remarks to reporters at the White House.

    "What we need to do now is to combine those spending cuts with two additional steps: tax reform that will ask those who can afford it to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare.

    "Making these reforms doesn't require any radical steps," he said. "What it does require is common sense and compromise."

    Mr. Obama acknowledged that his defense of the country's credit worthiness "doesn't mean we don't have a problem."

    "We didn't need a ratings agency to tell us we need a long-term approach to deficit reduction," the president said. "And we didn't need a ratings agency to tell us that gridlock in Washington has not been constructive to say the least.

    "We knew from the outset that a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling, a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip could do enormous damage to our economy and the world's," he said.

    He has confirmed his belief that S&P had the right message, and also confirmed that he still thinks austerity, contracting the economy, is the right way to go.  

    From David Dayen:

    But the main news in this speech was that Obama intends "to put forward my own recommendations in the coming weeks on how we should proceed." And he pretty much tipped his hand as to what those recommendations would be. He said that the deal already trimmed much in the domestic and defense discretionary budgets, and that there's "not much further we can cut in those categories" (a debatable point on defense, to say the least). So Obama implied that the Super Congress should concern itself with "tax reform and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare." He name-checked the Bowles-Simpson recommendations and the Gang of Six as examples of good proposals, as well as his aborted grand bargain with House Speaker John Boehner. And he said that the sense of urgency for the Super Congress to act has been raised with the S&P decision.

    I don't know how much clearer this can be made. Obama wants to implement his grand bargain, or at least key elements of it, through the Catfood Commission II, and he's going to give specific proposals on paper to that end. These will include cuts to health care programs.

    The second half of the speech attempted to pull off a pivot to jobs. He cited the need to extend two key stimulus measures, the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment insurance, by the end of the year. He used statistics floating around in left-leaning think tanks as well as conventional economic analyst shops, in saying that a failure to extend these two measures would result in 1 million fewer jobs and 0.5% less growth in GDP. And this is true, though it's important to note that simply extending current law is not on-net stimulus, it just makes fiscal policy anti-contractionary rather than expansionary.

    I am so angry I could spit.

    But he did instill confidence (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    Confidence that he's driving the country into a black hole, that is.

    The Dow dumped another 100 points during his uplifting speech.

    Parent

    But he did instill confidence! (none / 0) (#69)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    Without his speech the market would have gone down 1,000 points!  He saved it!  That's what he will say.  His speech calmed millions of people around the world, or something stupid like that.  

    Parent
    Stock market down an additional 150 or so (none / 0) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    since the latest Obama greatest speech evah.

    Parent
    I want Obama to put his recommendations (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    on cuts to the safety net programs in writing for everyone to see. I don't for a minute think that it will stop the majority of Dem voters from repeating the mantra "but, but the Tea Party" over and over until they mesmerize themselves into absolving Obama of any responsibility for cutting these programs but it might just open a few more eyes to reality.

    It is my opinion that until the average voter quits viewing the policies in D.C. through the "Other Guy Did It" filters we will be screwed regardless of which party is in power.  

    Parent

    He could have allowed the (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    Bush tax cuts to expire and drastically drastically changed our debt ratios.  That wasn't his plan though.  His plan was to gut the New Deal and make certain there was a reason.  He got his reason today. I hope he's happy with himself.  I hope people understand there are still ways to change our debt ratios that mean that those who have bled this country this whole Presidency and the last will finally have to give back to others just a little and pay just a bit for the opportunities that were given to them.

    Parent
    And that's (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 07:01:09 PM EST
     what's so maddening about this whole business. We have stretched the bungee cord so far to the Right in getting us into this mess, that the slightest effort by an intelligent (I don't know what to call it any more since "Liberal" and "Progressive" are out) President would snap us back into fiscal balance in a heart beat. The problems are huge, but easily identifiable, and even easier to fix.

    Like I said, that's what's so maddening.


    Parent

    We have to fight (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 08:05:28 AM EST
    for what is right though.  Why is that everytime we talk about dealing with our debt ratios the only thing that is talked about is having to cut "entitlements"?

    Cutting entitlements only makes incremental changes to our ratios too.  It takes much longer for those cuts to affect our ratios because why?  Because those programs ARE NOT directly tied to our debt.

    If the Bush tax cuts are gone tomorrow guess what?  I can only think of one way to describe that....KA-BOOM!

    Looking bad this morning though.  We could have done the next right thing years ago and we didn't, and we may have arrived at a place now where we are simply screwed.

    Parent

    Yes he could have let the (none / 0) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    Bush tax cuts expire rather than passing the Obama tax cuts which are even more generous to uber-rich than the ones he replaced. He could have chosen to be a champion for the safety net programs rather than put them on the chopping block. He could have chosen to put all his political capital and the bully pulpit behind a concerted effort to create jobs rather than continue the trickle down policies that have proven to be a failure.

    He did not chose to do any of those things. He came to D.C. with an agenda as outlined in his remarks quoted below:

    WaPo, Jan 15, 2009: Obama To Hold Fiscal Responsibility Summit

    President-elect Barack Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.
    "We need to send a signal that we are serious," said Obama of the summit.  

    He is tenaciously pursuing that agenda. If you want people to understand there are still ways to change our debt ratios that mean that those who have bled this country this whole Presidency and the last will finally have to give back to others just a little then you have to concentrate on spreading that message and hold all the politicians including the president accountable in your discussions with others. Voters of both parties need to hold their own politicians accountable for the welfare all of the countries citizens and not just the top 2%.

    Parent

    Obama also said... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    "No matter what some agency may say, we always have been and will continue to be a triple A country."

    You see, we're still pretty... in our heads.

    Parent

    I still believe we are capable of (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    anything and everything as people, but not until we address the economic disparity and corruption.

    Parent
    it does make US debt (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    more attractive, risk wise. on the other hand, it has the effect of dropping the rate of return on that debt, as more investor money pours into it. not exactly what i want, when looking for a port to park my cash in.

    so, S & P may well have succeeded in a twofer: screwing up the stock markets, and crushing the rate of return in the bond market.

    it's not often a "credit rating agency" can put that down on their resume'.

    The markets don't care about S&P's analysis? (2.67 / 3) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    You better check the world markets then and see what's happening right now in response to the downgrade.

    Maybe it won't matter in the long run, but righ now, markets are in a tailspin.

    Stocks on Wall Street plummeted on Monday, following global markets lower, as skittish investors reacted to last week's unprecedented downgrade of the United States government's credit rating.

    The declines, coming in the first opportunity for investors to sell since Standard & Poor's cut its rating on the nation's long-term debt late Friday, set the equity market on track to extend losses that were beginning to recall the days of the 2008 financial crisis. They also reflected anxiety over the United States economy and Europe's debt woes.

    Following a dismal showing in European and Asian markets, the broader United States equity market as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index was down 43.88 points, or 3.66 percent, in afternoon trading. The Dow Jones industrial average was down 314.85 points, or 2.75 percent, and the Nasdaq was down 94.94 points, or 3.75 percent.

    The S.& P. 500 was down about 14 percent over the last 11 sessions, one analyst noted, bringing back echoes of the last financial crisis. Last week was the worst five-day trading period since November 2008.



    Unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:08:45 PM EST
    One of the most obtuse comments ever posted.

    US Debt has gone UP in value, and is a record lows for yields.

    Parent

    There is nothing contradictory (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:57:16 PM EST
     in yields coming down on Treasuries. S & P didn't downgrade U.S. to junk status. Its still the second highest rating there is. The U.S. Treasury market is, by far, the biggest and most liquid, its totally predictable that in a panic people would flock to U.S. Treasuries.


    Parent
    It is utterly contradictory (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    WTF are you people talking about?

    Parent
    with all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    You're embarrassing yourself


    Parent
    Look in the mirror please (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    Your comments are ridiculous.

    One thing you can not credibly say TODAY is that the BOND market supported S&P today.

    And yet you embarrassingly repeat that.

    You do realize that the US 10 year bond is at it lowest yield in 2 1/2 years?

    Your analysis along with others has broken the blog record for ignorance today.


    Parent

    I wouldn't dream (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:42:28 PM EST
     of debating you on matters relating to Constitutional Law. The reason would be, obviously, that I wouldn't know what I was talking about.

    The fact that you believe there's some kind of causal connection between yields coming down today and a repudiation of S & P''s findings would get a trainee at Chas. Schwab fired.

    Stop digging, its painful to watch.


    Parent

    Idiotic (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:45:50 PM EST
    If you really believe what you are writing, what can I say?

    You have no idea what you are talking about.

    Don't take my word for it. I suggest you read what "the pros" are saying about it.

    They think your argument is one of idiots.

    Parent

    You win, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    now that you've explained it in such a clear headed, coherent way you've won me over.

    Congratulations

    Parent

    Up is down (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    according to you.

    You decided to come in and say that Treasuries hitting a 2 year low in yields proved S&P right.

    You made an appeal to your authority. (Which was countered by frankly, actual people with names saying your arguments were ridiculous. You know they are out there.) It was a terrible appeal because "authority" utterly repudiates you.

    I don;t know who you are or what you do. I take it you are claiming to work in finance. If you made trades today based on the S&P downgrade, you lost your clients a bundle of money.

    Maybe tomorrow you'll make it back.

    But today was a disaster for S&P.

    No reasonable person can deny that.

    Making you an unreasonable person in my eyes.  

    Parent

    This comment of yours (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    requires a detailed answer, and I'll give you one a little later. Have some business to attend to now, but I'll be back.

    But, as to my "authority," I think you're a little confused. I simply said that mainy years ago, as a credit manager, we were taught the two criteria in extending credit: The ability and the willingness to repay. I said S & P didn't question the first, but due to the vituperative wrangling over the debt ceiling, the second was an issue.

    And, no, I don't work in "finance," unless you feel working in responsible positions in large corporations is "finance."

    later


    Parent

    Don't (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    We're talking past each other.

    Parent
    Uh no (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    You are totally embarrassing  yourself when you can't even see that rates on bonds have DROPPED today, which is the exact opposite of the bond market tanking. S&P's rating has been totally ignored by the bond markets.

    The stock market is dropping for other reasons, such as the fact that the economy still totally stinks (perhaps you haven't heard?) and Obama has done nothing to help it since his weak stimulus of 2009.

    Parent

    Semi-related to S&P (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:58:44 PM EST
    from what I'm hearing, in that they're afraid the downgrade will provoke the pols, very much including Obama, to double down on contractionary policies and budget-cutting.

    I also heard a trader tell Richard Quest on CNN this afternoon after it was all over that there's fear running around the floor of another credit freeze (ie commercial, not consumer) of the type that happened back in 2008, which would bring everything to a screeching halt as it almost did back then.

    He admitted there are no signs that that's happening, but he said that's what people were terrified of.

    No idea whether what he said makes any sense or not.  I report, you decide.

    Parent

    What's unbelievable (none / 0) (#63)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    Is that you gave MilitaryTracy a 1 point rating.

    Are you having a bad day BTD?  Hope you feel better!

    Parent

    Who gives a sh*t (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    about ratings?

    Give me a series of 1s if you want.

    If you care, I gave her a 1 because she purposefully misstated the critiques of S&P.

    Parent

    If you don't care, why did you bother? (none / 0) (#70)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    You are clearly distraught today and that's ok.

    Again, I hope that you feel better soon.

    Parent

    Stop the (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    psychoanalyzing BS.

    Let me make it clear to all of you.

    You don't like my posts? You don't have to read them or comment in the threads.

    I call out BS from whomever it comes from.

    Today it came from Tracey.

    If you think my views are BS, feel free to say so.

    But don't whine when you get it back from me.

    Parent

    It's too bad I can't cuss on this site (none / 0) (#83)
    by me only on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 05:29:26 PM EST
    I can't tell you how wonderful it is to have Armando back for a day.

    I just hope it doesn't take today's foolishness to bring Armando back.  I can't believe that nobody has bothered to mention that the real problem today had nothing to do with S&P silly fling.  The problem was the ECB realizing over the weekend that Italy cannot be bailed out.  Why did bonds due well today?  'Cause the European Union is on the verge of a monetary dissolution.  The safe harbor is the US.

    Parent

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 06:34:34 PM EST
    Thank you, thank you

    Parent
    Krugman being slightly (2.67 / 3) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:00:34 PM EST
    Intellectually dishonest by ignoring the fact that we have a global shadow banking and finance crisis yet again because nobody really fixed anything, and the U.S. is the default currency.  What I see happening in bonds is sort of like having to vote for Obama even though he sucks.  Where else ya gonna go?

    Also, this could bully policy makers into dumping the Bush Tax Cuts since that is listed as the #1 culprit in all this.  Why not bring that up?

    It is S&P's job to rate us, not help us earn our way out of our disasters and messes because we are special and the current global default currency.

    Amazing (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    It's one thing to expressly support an austerity agenda, as you seem to do now.

    It's another to pretend that the critiques of S&P have anything to do with misunderstanding it's claaimed role.

    It is precisely S&P's ridiculous abandonment of actual credit ratings and embrace of political punditry that we are criticizing.

    That you approve of S&P's proposed austerity agenda is surprising, but fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    But you are not entitled to your own facts.

    AFTER S&P downgraded US debt. US debt hit 2 year yield lows.

    Do you not understand what that means?

    Parent

    I understand it fully (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    Time will tell.  The status quo was killing everyone BTD. And not addressing that we aren't "earning our way" out of anything would not be acknowledged.  Regular people may have chance if their days labor is worth something meaningful to the rich and our leaders.  All this shadow banking investor profit is only allowing it to remain palatable for many to just starve and kill others.  If investors and rich suffer some too, we may actually get them to acknowledge that they broke the economic engine and we might actually get them to care about fixing it now.

    Parent
    To be fair, the cost of a US credit default swap (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 07:21:24 PM EST
    DID go up today by 40bp or .72%.

    To be even fairer, the cost of German CDS went up 5.69% and that good old AAA France CDS went up by 12.22%

    S&P's action might be the dumbest/most criminal thing I've seen in 30 years on Wall St.

    Parent

    S&P is now (none / 0) (#1)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:31:46 AM EST
    in the business of rating the president. This has absolutely nothing to do with the creditworthiness of US government debt.

    And in a remarkable coincidence (none / 0) (#2)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    is outlining policy proposals that mirror the president's (cutting entitlements).  Shocking!  Or is it shock doctrining!

    See also this post by Ian Welsh on the S&P downgrade and how it's reflective of what our "leaders" want.

    Parent

    Silly stuff (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    This is bad for Obama.

    Parent
    Depends on what you mean by bad (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    Does it hurt him in the short-term with the spin about his overseeing the downgrading of US debt?  Yes.  But does it effect your support of him?  Will it actually affect most Democrats' support of him?  I'm guessing no.  If anything, it will make you want to defend him right after he just sold out most of what Democrats claim to believe in.  That's actually not entirely bad for him.  In some ways, it's better to have you talking about how dastardly S&P is than the fact that the head of the Democratic Party just offered to raise Medicare to 67.  

    And what he's actually depending on to pull him through in the next election, IMO, is: 1) the GOP is crazy and 2) Wall Street money.  That's his election strategy along with the misguided belief that taking on "entitlements" will win him centrists (or at least strengthen 2).  This does nothing to affect the first two (he's well ahead on 2, for example) and makes it more likely that he'll get the entitlement cuts he wants.  

    Obama could've stopped/prevented this if he really wanted to (see Welsh's post & his comments to it).  He may have sort of wanted to, but he apparently didn't really want to (he is not a weak president, he's actually a very strong one).  So he's betting that it won't hurt him in the long run.  And I suspect he's right.  I mean, whattaya gonna do, vote Republican?  

    But then I no longer believe that what most voters think matters to any of our political leaders.  The policies seem to stay the same on the big issues (war, Wall Street, etc.) no matter who is elected, even as the voters keep voting against incumbents pursuing these policies.  The key to an election is getting the big money behind you.  Obama has it behind him right now (just as he did in 2008) and, IMO, his main goal is to keep it there.   He'll take his chance with the rest.  

    Now, in a variety of ways, the oligarchs may be overplaying their hand and so all of this is playing with fire, but that seems to me to be the course they've set and Obama (as with whoever the GOP nominee will be) is going to follow it.  He can't afford not to.  He needs his billion dollars.

    Parent

    Geez. (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:49:31 PM EST
    What Democrats think clearly matters not in the slightest.  You really think this makes independents more friendly to his reelection??

    Parent
    The majority of Democrats voters will (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    blame all of this on the Tea Party and will defend him until everything of the New Deal has been eliminated. A sternly written letter protesting some of Obama's more draconian policies while promising to vote for him in 2012 will be the deemed "holding his feet to the fire" and will only briefly pause efforts to advocate for and work for his reelection.

    Parent
    MO Blue is right again! (none / 0) (#72)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    That's exactly why I think Obama will be re-elected.  Democrats will never abandon their man Obama.

    Parent
    Some of us will (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:39:47 PM EST
    not vote for Obama but not enough to matter.

    BTW, there are about a billion reasons ($1 billion) why Obama will be reelected. The money will come from the same people who provided the seed money for him to run for president. The "grand bargain" is just what the donors ordered.

    Parent

    Yup, his fundraisers tonight were sold out, at (none / 0) (#95)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 01:32:24 AM EST
    $75,000 per family.  Obama's making money hand over fist for his re-election.  They party on, ignoring the rest of us peons.

    Parent
    Bipartisahship but not the way (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    Obama preaches.

    Neither political party is representing 98% of the population. They both gear their policies to enrich themselves and their savvy friends.

    Republican voters stand behind their politicians no matter how wrong headed their policies or how much they harm the average person as do the Democratic voters. As long as this insanity continues unabated, we will continue to see our standard of living decrease until there will be no middle class left.

    Parent

    Of course it's bad for Obama! (none / 0) (#64)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    His little speech, blaming other people in Washington (as if he isn't one of them) did nothing to reassure anyone.

    Parent
    This is only silly (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:55:24 AM EST
    if one thinks Obama cares more about re-election than he does about becoming a billionare.

    Me thinks Obama is prioritizing becoming a billionaire.

    Parent

    Obama's already rich (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    And will only get richer, whether he wins re-election or not.  He's all set for life and his kids' life, grandkids, on and on.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:49:09 PM EST
    of all the tinfoil hat theories about what Obama is up to, this one makes the least sense.

    Parent
    Obama to speak on downgrade at 1 pm. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    His choices are, what, exactly?  Deliver a body blow to S&P for their lack of credibility, and pretend that doesn't also skewer his and the rest of the deficit hysterics' plan for austerity - or - agree with their message and take issue with their method, leaving them with credibility they don't deserve?

    Or say a whole bunch of nothing, but look reasonable and adult while saying it?

    This should be interesting.

    Just read the speech from two weeks ago (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    It'll be a few words about S&P (this was the wrong decision, we have issues with their math, the creditworthiness of America is second to none, etc.) and then a complete retread of his debt ceiling speeches. Hints of austerity, vague advocacy for revenue gains, "there are serious fiscal problems ahead but we can solve them through compromise and put America on the path to a better tomorrow", "now is not the time for partisan bickering, it's the time to get things done for America", etc.

     

    Parent

    Hey, look, I was 100% right! Hooray for me? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:56:41 PM EST
    You were indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:52:19 PM EST
    Too bad it's not all that hard to predict. :-)

    Parent
    I'll take door #2 (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:01:47 PM EST
    agree with their message and take issue with their method, leaving them with credibility they don't deserve

    Add to that his call to enact his "Grand Bargain" sooner rather than later and you will have the complete message. The sudden "urgency of now" to gut safety net programs and lower taxes.

    Parent

    He will not seriously slam the S&P (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    that's my prediction.  They're Wall Street and he's already shown he isn't going to take on Wall Street, they're his most important backer. He'll quibble with their math, but he isn't going to use the F word (fraud) because part of his job is to sweep the massive Wall Street fraud under the rug.  That's why Wall Street backed him in 2008.  They didn't make all those donations so he could actually investigate any of them, including S&P.

    I would love to be wrong.  

    Parent

    Since when did S&P become (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    synonymous with Wall Street?

    Every single actual Wall Street type I've heard, even Steve Forbes, is apoplectic about S&P's little trick here.

    And when you see what happened in the markets today, you can understand why.

    Parent

    His (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    choice will be to restate the statement his press office delivered -- that his grand bargain would have prevented this...

    Parent
    Do you mean the one he blew up (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:58:36 AM EST

    after the Speaker agreed to $800 billion in additional revenue?

    Parent
    Obama blew it up? Heh (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    Why is that?  Because the republican press release said so?

    The White House asked for an additional $400 billion in tax revenue, saying it was needed to get enough Democratic votes. White House officials say they got no signals the request would be a deal-breaker. But by week's end, the deal was dead.

    On a Friday night, July 22, the president and Mr. Boehner held dueling news conferences, each blaming the other for the breakdown. The next day, the president called Mr. Boehner and offered to return to the $800 billion target, trying to save the deal. Mr. Boehner declined.

    Administration officials say they asked for an additional $400 billion, but explicitly stated that it was not a demand, and offered deeper entitlement cuts as an inducement
    - this was confirmed by a Republican aide.

    The "Grand Deal" didn't "blow up" because Obama made an offer with higher revenue (and higher cuts).  It 'blew up" because Boehner couldn't sell any increase in revenue to the Republicans.

    Parent

    This was so predictable. (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:43:03 PM EST
    Obama full steam ahead in getting the cuts he wants to the safety net programs.

    But the main news in this speech was that Obama intends "to put forward my own recommendations in the coming weeks on how we should proceed." And he pretty much tipped his hand as to what those recommendations would be. He said that the deal already trimmed much in the domestic and defense discretionary budgets, and that there's "not much further we can cut in those categories" (a debatable point on defense, to say the least). So Obama implied that the Super Congress should concern itself with "tax reform and modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare." He name-checked the Bowles-Simpson recommendations and the Gang of Six as examples of good proposals, as well as his aborted grand bargain with House Speaker John Boehner. And he said that the sense of urgency for the Super Congress to act has been raised with the S&P decision. link

    Even included the sudden "urgency of now" to gut safety net programs and lower taxes.

    Everyone get up and say but, but ....the Tea Party as we watch Obama promote and pass the changes necessary to make the safety net programs worth much less, less popular and much easier to dismantle in the future .

    Parent

    You nailed it (none / 0) (#68)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    He tried to sound like Reagan, after he blamed everyone else in Washington.  Apparently he isn't one of those politicians in Washington.  heh

    Parent
    Will wait for ABG (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 01:00:05 PM EST


    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    There's enough stupidity in this thread today already.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:54:19 PM EST
    I needed that.

    Parent
    Site Violator, yet again. (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 11:19:09 PM EST