As Ebola spreads, drug stocks surge

CNNMoney ^ | 10.01.2014 | Matt Egan

[dware]

The first confirmed Ebola case in the U.S. is fanning fears around the country, but it's also driving greed in some corners of the stock market.

Just look at the soaring stock price of drug companies scrambling to come up with a cure for the disease, which has killed more than 3,000 people in West Africa.

[2harddrive]

Another Ebola infectee was just quarantined after flying in from West Africa to Boston’s Logan airport!

[DoughtyOne]

The first confirmed Ebola case in the U.S. is fanning fears around the country, but it's also driving greed in some corners of the stock market.

Greed. Now corporation stock values rising is a sign of greed.

And what would falling stock prices be? Generosity?

LMAO

[Williams]

“Greed” my ass.

Maybe CNN would prefer that no money be raised by the companies working on stopping Ebola. Maybe they can volunteer for the job.

Leftist jerks.

[Crazieman]

Buying stock is greed?

[dware]

And what would falling stock prices be?

I believe that would be called, going according to democrat plans...

[DoughtyOne]

Evidently so.

I’m sure that incessant ‘Corporate Welfare’ critters will be thrilled.

[DoughtyOne]

Can’t do that yet. Obama is still pumping this market up, hoping it will deflate on a Republican watch.

[dware]

Can’t do that yet. Obama is still pumping this market up, hoping it will deflate on a Republican watch.

That's exactly how it'll work. That's what we said with W: the way economics work, the negative impacts of worthless leftist policy are not felt for a number of years. When W was elected, he had to deal with 9-11, sure, but he also had to deal later on with the effects of crappy policy from BillyJeff and the dems through the 90's.

[DoughtyOne]

To be honest with you, I think the Republican Congress reigned in Billy Jeff pretty good. Budget deficits, employment, the economy as a whole remained rather solid.

I agree that 09/11 caused a lot of blow back on Bush. I don't fault him for that. The policies in place when he was elected, would be to blame. None the less, did he change policies after 09/11? Did he stop the 20,000 Saudi students from coming here on education visas? We know those students took down the twin towers. No, what he did was increase it to 30,000 Saudi Students. As far as I am concerned, that's just brain dead.

Under Bush employment went up a meager 1.2%, or very close to it. The average for the prior 40 years had been 18% for each eight years. This was not Clinton's fault, and you have no idea how much it pains me to say it.

In addition the elevated budget deficits related to 09/11 and the war, were dwarfed by overall spending. Bush and Congress were a massive spenders.

It's one thing to blame the Left for things early in the Bush administration. What's the excuse for what took place in 2008? The man had eight years to avoid that massive real-estate debt crisis. He failed us massively. Up until 2006 he had a Republican Congress.

If the market goes south in 2017, with a Republican president in there, I'll blame it on Obama. If it happens in 2024, the Republican president will own it.

[jean michael]

You’ve posted about that on some other threads. Where are you hearing this? I can’t find anything about a quarantine of a new patient in Boston. I’m not doubting you. I’m interested because I just spent time at Logan.

[expat_panama]

look at the soaring stock price of drug companies

OK, looking --

--but it's not there either today or this past week.  Of course before ebola drug stocks were doing just fine:

So much for CNN's "greed" theory. 

[dware]

The economists I have talked with talk about the fact that most policies take 6-8 years to show their major effects. I agree that the GOP congress did good keeping him reigned in, but there were still a number of crappy bills, economically speaking, that were signed during BillyJeff's admin that we didn't see the effects of until later. One was that whole expansion of the community reinvestment act, that opened the door to even more bad mortgages, and certainly had a hand in what we experienced in 2008.

Dubya has his blame to bear as well. We will certainly be seeing the negative effects of the oblala administration for many years to come...

[DoughtyOne]

Please, don’t introduce sanity to the debate. /s

Good post.

[DoughtyOne]

We always have to be aware of the damage carry-over. I agree. And I don’t want Bush to carry more weight than he should. We need to be fair to him, even if we aren’t big fans. I’m willing to do that.

None the less, he actually telegraphed that he knew the mortgage crisis was pending, and he didn’t make a big stink about it. His failing in this, was to damage the Republican Party, Conservatism in general, and this nation’s economic stability.

Bush couldn’t have single-handedly turned things around, but he could have made such a stink about it that he would have put the nation on notice, so it could be blamed squarely where it should have been, the Democrats.

By the time it did fail, you couldn’t just blame Democrats. That makes my blood boil.

If we take the 6-8 years guideline you just laid down, it gives Obama the complete free ride he has been demanding. We can’t do that.

Look at how Reagan turned things around in one term. By the end of two years, there’s no excuse for any problem not having been addressed and corrections having been made. The results may not be in yet, but a plan should be in place and some improvements should be either present, or an indication they are imminent.