War on US workers drives stock market rise

[Hannah Bell]

Wall Street stock indexes soared in April with the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising 490.81 points, nearly 4 percent, to 12810.54. The Dow has reached its highest level since May 2008, before the financial crash, and is just 10 percent below its peak of October 2007.

The Nasdaq Index has surpassed 2007 levels and is now approaching heights not seen since the dot.com bubble in 2000. The Russell 2000 small capitalization index is up 150 percent since its low in March 2009.

The bull market is being driven by investors’ access to virtually free credit and a spike in profits for America’s biggest corporations. About three quarters of the top companies reporting earnings so far have beat Wall Street expectations, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

The market is also rising in anticipation of the multitrillion-dollar cut in entitlement programs and other social spending being debated by the Obama administration and congressional Republicans. While there was a one-day sell-off April 18 after the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s issued a warning on US government debt, the markets quickly rebounded as Wall Street investors realized the warning would be used to ram through historic budget cuts.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/may2011/wall-m03.shtml

[villager]

1. Unrecc'd of course. The word "underground" in this site's name becomes more laughable

...by the nanosecond.

[Hannah Bell]

2. everything i post is unrecced, (sob)

[Zanzoobar]

3. This one kinda deserves it

The market doesn't rise necessarily by corporate profits. As an example, if you double the money supply tomorrow, the market will double. The price of an apple will double. Everything will double except wages, which will lag. But it's not due to corporations per se. They didn't double the money supply.

It's government policy which affects the supply and flow of money.

Then you might say that the government is bought by corporations, but that's not the jist of the article. The evil corporations are to blame by the article.

And then you might say that if the government is bought by corporations, government is complicit, thus evil. But, our government is elected by the people. So, you might just as well blame the people.

Thus, it's the people. We must do something with them.

[villager]

5. Kind of the "all are guilty, let's do nothing" approach....

Which in turn benefits those who actually run the show...

[Zanzoobar]

6. In a way, we are all guilty

You certainly won't stop wars and evil corporations without some proper pressure from The People.

At this time, the uptick in markets and increasing corporate profits are a direct result of government and federal reserve monitary policy.

Corporations are on a lower rung of responsibilty (at this time).

[socialist_n_TN]

7. What if "The People" don't have a choice electorally?

That's what gets me about blaming "The People" for who's elected. Half of "The People" who are eligible, don't even vote. Yes a lot of that is apathy and ignorance, but I'm convinced that a lot of it is a lack of choice. We've got candidates put up by the Corporate Party and other candidates put up by the Corporate/Nutjob Party, and that's it. But there's nobody out there for the majority who want moderate leftish positions like 60+% of the population does.

Oh you have an occasional the Congressman or Senator who supports "The People"'s positions, but as a general rule, NOBODY comes out for taxing the wealthy, cutting corporate welfare, ending the wars, cutting the DoD, not touching Medicare (and definitely most members of Congress don't support EXPANDING Medicare), Medicaid, and Social Security, etc. There's a whole HOST of issues that most people support, but DON'T HAVE ANYBODY TO VOTE FOR THAT ALSO SUPPORTS THESE POSITIONS. Why is that?

My opinion about why this is is that since money has become the ONLY criteria for canidature for national offices, that means the capitalists are the ONLY ones who choose the candidates BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE MONEY. And they choose candidates in BOTH Parties that support THEIR positions and not "The People"'s positions.

This will not continue. It hasn't in history and it won't in the future. When 60+% of people support certain positions and the government doesn't respond, the shit hits the fan eventually.

[girl gone mad]

10. There is a difference between money supply and monetary base.

The monetary base may have risen, but money supply has not increased dramatically, as debt deleveraging remains a strong force in the economy.

[Zanzoobar]

15. The money supply includes funds used in debt deleveraging.

[Hardrada]

4. I gave it a positive endorsement nonetheless for its progressive sentiments.

[scarletwoman]

9. Not by me. I always rec your posts.

Nearly all of the time because I agree with them, and on the rare occasions that I disagree I rec anyway, just to counter the haters.

I'm very glad you're here and I'm very glad you post what you post.

Thank you for fighting the good fight. :applause:

sw

[socialist_n_TN]

12. I second scarletwoman's sentiment...........

Hannah Bell is one of my favorite poster on here. As are you sw.

There's a group of posters that I almost always agree with. They GET IT.

[scarletwoman]

13. Thank you. I'm always glad to see your posts, too.

If I'm reading a long thread I always make sure to read your comments, because I know you'll be standing up for the same things I believe in.

I'm glad you're here. :D

sw

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Thanks. We all have to hang together..........

or we will most assuredly hang separately. :toast:

[girl gone mad]

8. k & r

[spanone]

11. naw