From Politics To "Economic Realities:" Wall Street Tanks, Moody's Issues "Negative" Outlook

With the stroke of a pen we've given ourselves the nominal right to borrow more money, but that doesn't fix anything.

The broad-based index fell for a seventh day and crashed through the key 200-day moving average in an ominous sign for markets. The seven days of losses mark the longest losing streak since October 2008.

"It is going to be a long week," said Jim Maguire Jr., a NYSE floor trader at E.H. Smith Jacobs. "The bid is not here in the market."

The selloff accelerated into the close as volume jumped well above average. The fall was broad-based, with four stocks falling for every one rising on the New York Stock Exchange.

The index also broke through its 2-1/2 year uptrend line from its bear market low in March 2009. Thursday was the index's worst day in a year.

...

Investors seemed to find little to cheer after the U.S. Senate agreed to a deal to raise the debt ceiling because of the possibility it will not stave off a downgrade of the U.S. government's triple-A rating.

"Investors have made the shift from Washington to what I'm calling economic realities," said Fred Dickson, chief market strategist at The Davidson Cos. in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

Credit rating agency Fitch said the deal makes the possibility of default very low, but the US must reduce its debt or face a downgrade.

Moody's said likewise.

Moody’s Investors Service said the U.S. credit rating may be downgraded for the first time on concern that fiscal discipline may ease, further debt reduction measures won’t be adopted and the economy may weaken.

The U.S., rated Aaa since 1917, was placed on negative outlook, New York-based Moody’s said in a statement today as it confirmed the rating. Moody’s warned on July 29 a negative outlook was “more likely” as lawmakers reduced the size of spending cuts being negotiated to win approval on a plan to lift the nation’s borrowing limit.

...

“A downgrade is a sign that Congress is failing to address a real fiscal issue,” Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia, said in an interview before the announcement.

Consumers were already forecasting a downturn in June, by cutting their own spending.

Unexpectedly, of course.

Consumer spending unexpectedly fell in June to post the first decline in nearly two years as incomes barely rose, a government report showed, suggesting economic growth could remain subdued in the third quarter.

Um, "remain subdued" is a rosy scenario. It was already weak and with the adjustment of the first quarter's figure to a near-recessionary 0.4% GDP growth, "subdued" growth is the upside.

This is sort of an unrelated point, but I've seen liberals strain to make the case that Bush was really responsible for the increase in debt the past 2 years.

I don't know how they get to that claim, exactly. But even conceding they're right, then what they are saying is this:

Bush spent irresponsibly and even recklessly. (You don't have to argue long with conservatives to get that much conceded.)

Now, Bush having accumulated several more trillions in debt than he ever should have, Obama's response is to... pile on another $5 trillion?

What is there some kind of free $5 trillion rule, that every President gets $5 trillion in debt?

If, as Obama said when he voted against a Bush debt ceiling increase in 2007, Bush was burdening the country with unconscionable levels of debt, what the hell exactly is Obama doing adding another $5 trillion (in just two and a half years!) on top of the burden already accumulated?

That's like a general brought in to replace one who'd gotten 10,000 men killed who then turns around and employs a similar strategy to kill 30,000 men, and then says, "Hey, the other guy did it, didn't he?"

posted by Ace at 07:02 PM

| Access Comments