as a realist, i have to point out that . . .

- business bankruptcies were up ANOTHER 7% in the last month (no end in sight)

- losses on consumer loans (credit cards, autos, mortgages) are expected to peak in MID 2010, not this year

- unemployment is still rising (the regime in the white house doesn't want you to think too hard about what this means)

- federal deficits are exploding to record levels, which means the government will be "competing" for investment dollars that might otherwise go into the stock market or be loaned to businesses (which would use the loans to expand, and pay taxes on profits)

- the dollar is crashing

- gold, a haven in times of uncertainty, is at all time highs

- the chinese are making not so subtle noises about buying our treasury bills while the dollar keeps falling and deficits explode

is there any good news in the above?

you find it - its not apparent to me.

"the regime in the white house doesn't want you to think too hard about what this means"

I think the above is an unfair characterization. Obama, in many of his addresses, makes the point that the nation's biggest economic problem is an unemployment level which is stubbornly resisting efforts at reduction. I think he is concerned that people keep this fact in mind.

Additionally, I have an objection to the use of the term "regime" to describe a government which was elected with broad public support. That's the kind of subtle trick that lawyers employ to influence juries - not quite negative to not be allowed, but somewhat, umm, slimey.

i deliberately avoided characterizing this as obama's viewpoints - its his unelected and conniving minions that mislead him on the economy.

obama has never had to think about the economy as a community activist, or as a junior senator. he's an orator and lawyer. he has people to develop economic policy for him. i'm giving him a pass . . .

please find a white house press release which actually mentions the number of jobs lost in ANY month since the new regime was installed.

i will retract my statement if you can find even one. . .

BA, let me say a few things about your 401K as relates to the article:

1) a) The point Gross is trying to make is that those stats you cite--the bankruptcies, the unemoloyment etc.--are not nearly as relevant as they used to be insofar as they are domestic numbers because the stocks you are invested in probably source a significant share of their revenues from overseas. Also, overseas revenues come in currency of that overseas country and then those revenues are converted into increasingly weakening dollars to pay your dividends. Thus a weaking dollar and overseas exposure can be a good thing for equities, at least from your perspective as a dollar spender.

1) b) Gross makes this out to be a bad thing, but if you're an equity investor, it's certainly not a bad thing unless you have a preference for volatility or you are betting on a stronger dollar.

Baltimore Aureole, I think you're giving Obama a pass he doesn't deserve. If he wasn't thinking about economic policy as a junior senator, then he wasn't doing his job. If he's being misled by his economic advisers, it's his own fault.