Jump to content

Talk:United States bear market of 2007–2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Obama Bear Market)

Excellent job on the merge

[edit]

This article looks great! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you now see the evidence speak for itself? Thanks. Kgrr (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff that I added is still in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine... The article is much more in balance now. It's not so one-sided as you had originally put it together.Kgrr (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who added the criticisms of Bush from Robert Reich and Ron Paul. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20% drop since inauguration?

[edit]

How did Bloomerg arrive at determining the bear market for Obama? Eric Martin:Obama Bear Market’ Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps Bloomberg March 6, 2009.

DJIA on inauguration day (Jan 20) open 8,279.63 March 5, 2009 close 6,594.44 (8279.63-6594.44)/8279.63 = 20.35%

The table shows only 17% because it is close to close.Kgrr (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose?

[edit]

What is this article's purpose in relation to Late_2000s_recession, Global_financial_crisis_of_2008 and Financial crisis of 2007–2010? It seems that each of these pages speak to the recent U.S. market, but each of these pages are being independently maintained and have differing (contradictory) information. --guyzero | talk 23:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is specifically about the behavior of US equities during the crisis. That may or may not be regarded as a topic sufficiently notable to have its own page, though the 50% drop is certainly worthy of discussion somewhere. (It might be better to have a page on the bear market in world equities in that period, for example.) The page resulted from the merger of two competing articles on the subject. Mporter (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarbanes Oxley as a cause?

[edit]

That bullet point seems to me to be a poor selection as that act was largely to address the accounting abuses that led to the Enron scandal. One of the common criticisms of the Bush Administration with regard to this bear market was a LACK of regulation and enforcement, not too much. Adding the SOx Act seems to be out of place and a point of contention for the deregulation proponents. If the given reason, that capital fled U.S. markets is true, where did it go? Which competing economy benefited from any move of that capital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.85.177 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! We dearly need editors with who can accurately represent WP:Reliable sources while using common sense and actual facts to mitigate, balance, or establish appropriate weight. This article began as a Conservative Libertarian screed blaming the bear market on Obama (it was literally entitled "Obama Bear Market"), as the troublesome and biased editor who created it didn't seem to know or care that Obama took office over a year after it began; balance was applied swiftly and clumsily. By all means you're welcome to modify that section to reflect reality, but I'd repeat that Wikipedia requires potentially contentious data points—and especially perspective on data—to be referenced. You and I both know there are plenty out there, so have at it! Abrazame (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Market?

[edit]

US STOCKS OUTLOOK:Bull Market Hinges On Public/Private Trust 65.161.188.11 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Dispute

[edit]

Scjessey, ordinarily if you tag the article with an NPOV tag, you get to explain yourself here. But since the discussion is missing, I thought we would try to resolve it.

Under the subsection Blaming the Barack Obama administration - tagged it NPOV and commented "this section not neutral. Lots of opinion pieces by political opponsents and News Corp organs being used as sources" in the change log.

The bigger picture is that the section is actually entitled Opinions regarding the cause. It's divided into three sub-sections, each representing more-or-less the major viewpoints on the situation.

  1. Blaming the economy
  2. Blaming the George W. Bush administration
  3. Blaming the Barack Obama administration

You were looking at point of view #3.

And, yes, the majority of the blame on the Barack Obama administration even though he's barely been in office for one month comes from News Corporation news sources. It's pretty obvious that News Corp is pretty hard-right leaning in their news coverage. All of this controversy by the way has been scrubbed from their Wiki page. But that's POV#3 in this list.

Please help me understand, is there a viewpoint #4 we are missing in the article? Or are you saying that News Corp should not be the only hard-right opinion grouped with viewpoint #3?  kgrr talk 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of editing that section, with references, for context. I'm a firm believer that when someone who publicly weighs in on an issue has a conflict of interest or other partisan ideology so deeply rooted as some of these politicians-cum-editorialists, you have to point out who they are and illumine how they fit into the context of what they're opining on. Often this is done on the papers' editorial pages themselves, with a little bio of the guy, for precisely this sort of full disclosure. It's one thing to say Wall Street Journal or New York Times and let people presume inherent bias on the part of staff writers if that's their wont, but it's another thing entirely to say "John Smith," even if you wikilink him, and not point out that he plays for the other team and was explicitly involved in this issue. It's a little like the whole lobbyist-to-government official thing. I also added a section about the technical bull market we've just experienced, also with references. Perhaps Scjessey would review my edits and remove this tag? Abrazame (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the section has significantly improved since I tagged it. I still have a couple of issues, however. It seems to have a disproportionate amount of coverage, with comments from all manner of individuals - many of whom have themselves received blame for the problem. Opinions from the likes of Jim Cramer do not seem particularly relevant, either. Another problem is that the section reads like a list of quotes, and lacks the better narrative flow of the previous section. Some of the stuff in this section (about Phil Gramm, for example), seems more appropriate for the previous section. Finally, I think that all three subheadings employ inappropriate characterizations, and I think that all three sections should be merged into a coherent narrative. That being said, this is a substantial improvement on what was here before, and I would advocate removing this tag and instead going for a "cleanup"-related tag on the parent of the 3 sections. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the section blaming President Barrack Obama is not proportionate with the the main stream view. Second, I agree that that section (#3) was mostly thrown out there by a different author than myself. I had written mostly the other two points (#1 and #2) of view to balance out a whole article entitled "Obama Bear Market". So I agree with you that the section (two equal signs), not the subsection (three equal signs) needs some cleanup now that this particular bear market is pretty much over. Please understand that if the market bounces and goes down from here, it's a new bear market. Either way, the new bull market (although it may be short) and perhaps the bear market that will follow is probably out of the context of this article.
As far as the cleanup goes from here, I have to agree with Abrazame that these are editorials from individuals and not necessarily the whole newspaper. I do however subscribe to the theory that News Corp is often not as "fair and balanced" as their one TV outlet's catchphrase claims. The section lacks a heading to set the tone of what appeared to be heavy partisanship bickering and a third bunch pointing to the facts rather than the politics. I feel the section still would be much too large if it was not broken up into points of view and would not let the reader see the three camps of views. Essentially, I'm saying that if we turn it into a volley of small juxt-apposed viewpoints, the reader will miss the heavy division between the two parties and the lack of bi-partisanship during this time.  kgrr talk 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←In an unrelated note, it seems like a bad idea to have information about the current level of the market in the introduction. A more generalized description that talks about when the bear market ended makes more sense, particularly because the current level of the DJIA is only about 500 points off from the level it was during Obama's inauguration. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think since the context of this article (just this bear market) is now closed, I agree this needs to be reigned-in in order to clean up the article.
Resolved

 kgrr talk 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Context

[edit]

A central flaw in this article lies in its "of the moment" editorial nature. The sections on assigning blame - Bush v. Obama - are "of the moment" editorial commentaries. It is now over six years from the events of the article and we have seen the greatest market rebound in history. It would seem that the "of the moment" editorials and screeds blaming a recently inaugurated president, or the superficial commentaries on the departing 8-year presidency of his predecessor, should be relegated to a minor paragraph to the effect of "political controversy and blame assignation" or some much better written title. All of the News Corp/Fox editorials and Paul Krugman-style finger pointing are today historical footnotes and of no actual relevance to anything - they were sounds bites of the moment with no substance or evidence supporting them. The editors have done a passable job of presenting a "balance" of what are/were completely partisan political attacks, but it doesn't get to any real explanation of the great recession and market crash - it merely mitigates the hackery and bias of earlier, politically motivated authors. The article should be re-written to incorporate post-facto analysis and better research placing the great recession in historical context and providing a more analytical, fact-based analysis of its causes. With a full market recovery in evidence and both administrations' policies of 2007-2008 now history, it is timely for there to be a comprehensive re-write of this article.

To do

[edit]
  1. add to the table the date and data for when the market hit bottom and when the 20% uptick was seen to end the bear market
  2. update the graph to clearly show the peak, where the bear market was declared (20% down from the peak), where the market hit bottom, where the bull market was declared.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States bear market of 2007–09. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States bear market of 2007–09. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions regarding the cause

[edit]

As a Wikipedia user, not an editor - I feel this entire section should either be deleted or at least moved to the bottom of the article. There are verifiable causes of the bear market and the opinions given are questionable and irrelevant. Some of the links are to opinion articles from biased sources. This section, as presented, lowers the quality of the entire entry. A simple statement and explanation that there are competing theories placing blame on policies should suffice. I created an account just to post this, so forgive any lapse in proper wikipedia procedure. Dugalug (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_bear_market_of_2007–2009&oldid=1210799243"