Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 89

Thread: Ranking Trump's Stock Market

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    As further context for how stocks are doing under Trump, here's the annualized real rate of increase for the S&P 500 for each president.

    Note, the data starts 1/3/1950, so we're only working with part of Truman's presidency. Also note, there's no inflation data for November of this year available yet, so I just projected forward the average inflation increase for Trump's time one additional month to account for November.

    Clinton 12.24%
    Obama 11.85%
    Truman 11.27%
    Eisenhower 9.37%
    Bush41 6.43%
    Trump 6.10%
    Reagan 5.77%
    Johnson 4.57%
    Kennedy 4.26%
    Ford 3.29%
    Carter -3.68%
    Bush43 -8.37%
    Nixon -9.66%

    So, as ugly as this market looks, it's actually just mediocre. And considering that the last six Republican-led eras have spanned from mediocre to harrowing, we should probably be happy with mediocre.
    Link to this moronic nonsense please.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    To be clear, I didn't use the DOW. I used the S&P 500.

    I agree, of course, that stock markets are only one of a large number of stats we should be looking at. For example, we could look at the way the growth of federal debt has accelerated recently. In the last twelve months alone, we've added about $1,305 billion in debt. There are also poverty rates, household incomes, job creation rates, private debt levels, educational test scores, life expectancies, the percentage of Americans covered by health insurance, infant mortality rates, violence crime rates, incarceration rates, and so on. The problem is a lot of those are either well-known to be trailing indicators (e.g., poverty), or there are long delays in official stats being published, or both, so it's hard to get a forward-looking measure. Most people regard the stock market as a leading indicator, so it has value in that sense.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  3. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bourbon View Post
    Donald Trump's Tweets and his Big Fucking Mouth DO have an Impact on The Market ...
    Since his inauguration it has been HUUUuuge. Are you pretending it hasn't been? Moron.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  4. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    Here's one thing that troubles me about the state of the political debate: people are content to simply state hypotheses, without making any attempt to test them. The idea that there isn't a correlation between presidents and the stock market is a hypothesis. Why not test it?

    One test of that hypothesis would be to average out the rates of stock growth by which party controls the presidency. If the president doesn't matter much, we'd expect a fairly random distribution of stock market performance without regard to the overriding political philosophy of the man at the top. Even if one group of presidents were following one set of political ideas (slash taxes for the rich, reduce regulations for business, spend extravagantly on the military), and one was following a contrary set of political ideas (enhance social programs for the masses and regulations meant to protect them), we would expect to find no real difference between the two blocks of presidencies, once enough time had passed (e.g., 50 or 75 years). By comparison, if the president does matter, we'd expect a significant gap between years with a Democratic president and years with a Republican one.

    So, how does that hypothesis look in light of the history? Well, if you do a weighted average of the figures above (weighted based on time -- e.g., Bush43 counts twice as much as Bush41, since he was in office twice as long), here's what you get:

    The average growth with a Democrat in the presidency is 7.99% per year. The average with a Republican in the presidency is 1.50% per year. Does that look like a lack of correlation? It doesn't to me.

    I suppose if I wanted to spend more time to figure out how to pro-rate inflation by day (it's reported by month), I could recalculate by testing the increase every single trading day since 1950, and calculate the exact correlation. However, given the large data set and the very large gap between 7.99% and 1.50%, I'm almost certain it would prove a statistically significant correlation between the party of the presidency and the real performance of stocks.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  5. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    My argument doesn't depend at all on the president being like a king or dictator. In fact, if the president were like a king or dictator, it would be bizarre for me to even offer up my argument, since there wouldn't be any controversy about the fact the president played a controlling role in such things. The whole point of my argument is to tease out the impact of someone who ISN'T a king or dictator.



    When is that NOT the case when testing hypotheses? Other than in very simple physics experiments, we're always going to be wrestling with situations with multiple factors. For example, consider this hypothesis: regular exercise tends to result in longer lives. There are a million factors involved. What kind of exercises? What kind of people are doing the exercising? What about diet? What about access to medicine? Etc. But if you're dealing with a big enough data set, and it shows a pretty substantial difference in lifespan between those who exercise regularly and those who don't, that's going to be seen as supporting the hypothesis. People are, of course, welcome to offer other hypothesis to explain the data in some other manner (e.g., maybe rich people exercise more and it's the wealth that lets them live longer, and once you control for wealth, there's no difference). But step one is to start looking at the data, rather than being content simply to assert something as an opinion.



    That's one of the benefits of the large data set. We've had Republican presidents with Republican congresses, and Democratic ones, and split ones, and the same with Democratic presidents. So, those factors should tend to even out. However, if you'd like to recrunch the numbers to break them down by political control of Congress and not just the presidency, we could take a look at what that's telling us.



    Some of the ownership class are just dumb. I mean, remember, a large portion of wealth in America is inherited wealth, or wealth that was grown slowly from inherited wealth. Think of Trump as an example. He's basically running his grandfather's business.... and doing it poorly. There's no reason to expect a dim bulb like that would vote rationally. So, when we're talking about muddle-headed trust fund kids, it's not surprising to find they could vote against their own rational best interests. They could just hear the Democrats talking more about issues that help the "worker drones" and assume what's good for the workers must be bad for them.

    I think another explanation is "relative wealth." Think of it this way: would you rather be someone in the top 1% of the population in 2018 Munich or, say, 200 CE Rome, or 1720 CE Paris, or 1850 CE Atlanta? In terms of absolute wealth, you'd be VASTLY better off choosing modern Munich, where you'll have access to health treatment, technologies, and other benefits that couldn't be had at ANY price in those other times and places. You'd live like a olden days king could only dream of living, in absolute terms.

    Yet think of it in relative terms. A top 1% person in Munich today would be nothing special. He probably drives himself to work, microwaves a disappointing dinner for himself many nights, cleans his own home, etc. Even if he's fairly senior at work, even the most junior of people don't feel the need to call him "Mister," or to treat him with any particular deference. By comparison, in those other times and places, the top 1%-er really would "live like a king" within his own little kingdom. He'd have a small staff of domestic servants, if not a large staff of slaves, catering to his every need. He'd be able to lord it over the vast majority of those around him, dispensing or denying alms as he felt fit, basking in the adoration (or fear) of his underlings, etc. And he'd be important. He'd have great power, at least locally, without the need to care much what the "rabble" thought about governance, etc.

    I think a lot of people will give up plenty of absolute wealth in favor of relative wealth. And Republican leadership tends to favor that. Even though they suck at creating absolute wealth for those at the top, they have a strong record for holding back those at the bottom or the middle, enhancing the relative wealth and power of the elite. If you're, say, looking to staff your Mar-a-lago resort with a bunch of underlings who spend their days kissing your ass because they're scared to death of crushing poverty if they lose their position, then a Republican economy, where most people operate with no safety net and the little people are kept in line by debt and fear, has a lot to offer. A Democratic economy, where it's hard to find good help and people know they have a decent safety net if they lose their job, really undermines the entitlement of the Lordlings.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  6. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I don't think there is a direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market.
    There is a direct correlation between Trump taking personal credit and anything good happening.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Jack (12-10-2018)

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post


    Actually, it's quite a good one. It reduces the analysis to mathematical simplicity.

    President GHWB is the only U.S. president I know of in modern public opinion polling history that scored over 90% in popularity.
    And after GHWB did, Governor Clinton (D-AR) announced that he would run against him, GHWB.
    And when he did, Governor Clinton's campaign slogan was: "It's the economy stupid."
    I'm not calling anyone stupid.
    I quoted Clinton's campaign slogan.

    - The business of America is business -
    President ("silent Cal") Coolidge, campaign slogan “Keep Cool With Coolidge”
    Then right after he was elected he and the Democratic controlled congress RAISED tax rates and the following midterm, Democrats were sent packing. Much like they were under Obamunism.

    Yet you morons think your winning.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    Maybe you accept the New York Times as a source or maybe it's a crappy tabloid publication but here's an article from them on the Presidents and the economy (which includes monetary policy and the stock market).

    You do an excellent job of spinning a story to make those you support look as good as possible (the partisanship you previously derided). It's understandable we over credit or blame Presidents because they are the highest elected official. But many variables are in play.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/u...ght-think.html
    Irwin has basically offered a hypothesis. What I'm saying is that we should TEST the hypothesis.

    Let's take a less controversial assertion. For example: whether the month is even (Feb, April, etc.) or odd (Jan., March, etc.) has little impact on the stock market. We could test that hypothesis pretty easily, right? Just count up the delta for even months, and odd months, and compare.

    I'm betting you wouldn't find a big difference between the two. But, if we found a gigantic difference, like even months growing at a pace of 7.99% annually and odd months at just 1.50%, over the course of a long period of time, that would tell us something interesting is happening there.... that for some reason, it really does matter whether it's an even or an odd month. We could then explore the reason why, but it wouldn't be very scientific to just assert that it doesn't matter, notwithstanding the data, for no better reason than it makes us uncomfortable that it matters.

    Yet that's effectively what a lot of professionally centrist economic writers do when it comes to analyzing the impact of presidential leadership on the stock market. The fact is, real S&P 500 growth under Democratic presidents in the last 69 years has been 7.99% annually, versus 1.50% for Republicans. It matters. A lot. The question of why that's happening is open to debate, but it's unscientific to simply ignore the data because it's saying something that's uncomfortable for conservatives and centrists.

  10. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Link to this moronic nonsense please.
    I provided the links. Read more carefully.

  11. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Who's President Doesn't Matter That Much to the Stock Market
    Risk is far more important than the occupant of the White House.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...e-stock-market

    Presidents And The Stock Market

    However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

    https://www.forbes.com/2004/07/21/cx...l#725fbfc96045

    The Standard & Poor's 500 index, the broadest measure of the stock market, has notched 61 record highs and climbed about 21.3 percent in the year since Trump was elected.

    That exceeds the S&P 500's gain in the first-term election anniversaries of all but two presidents since World War II: George H.W. Bush (22.9 percent) and John F. Kennedy (27 percent), according to CFRA Research.

    It also outpaces the market's performance in the same postelection period of several other modern-era White House occupants, including Ronald Reagan (-3.3 percent), Bill Clinton (10.3 percent), George W. Bush (-22.1 percent) and Barack Obama (4.1 percent). But it trails the S&P 500's gain in the first year after the second-term elections of Clinton (31.7 percent) and Obama (23.4 percent).

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...her-presidents
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  12. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Oneuli: "To add to people's understanding of a top story in the news. I think context is important The meltdown of the stock market last week was bad, but it was in the context of a longer period of decent stock performance. So, understanding where we stand, considering both the good and the bad, is helpful. It turns out, where we stand, so far, taking Trump's time in office as a whole, is that it's been a middling run for markets -- a good first year and a poor second year, with the net result that portfolios are climbing modestly in real terms, but not with the kind of dramatic run up that makes people wealthy, as in the Clinton or Obama years."
    Jack: The Market has gone up for 10 years, everyone knows the Market has to pull back at some point. It's not predicated on who's in Office.

    Oneuli: "Now, back to my question. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?"
    Jack; That is my belief, that the Stock Market isn't dictated by who is in Office. Your implied strategy of timing the Market by which Party is holding the Presidency, in my opinion, is flawed.

    Onruli: "That depends on what the ownership class wants. If they want more rapid real stock growth, then Democratic presidents have historically been much better for that. If, however, what's important to them is being able to see fear in the eyes of their underlings, then Republicans have a whole lot to offer. As they destroy the social safety net, keep poverty rates high, and stagnate incomes at the median level, Republicans set up the wealthy to act more like their aristocratic ancestors did, back when the little people knew their pace. So, it all comes down to what the goal is: is the goal to succeed, or to watch the other guy fail?"
    Jack: The goal, the only goal ... is to make money.

    Oneuli: "There's nothing particularly insightful about my findings. It's LONG been understood that the markets do better with Democratic leadership. A crappy Rupert Murdoch tabloid like the Wall Street Journal may shy away from publishing such things, but they've been widely published elsewhere in the financial press: ..."
    Jack; It's astonishing that more Wall Streeters don't vote for the Democrat. (OR ... maybe they don't subscribe to your Conclusion?)

    Sooooo ... now that we settled that, how long do you think the downturn is going to last? First quarter 2019? Second quarter? End of 2019? How low will the Dow go? 20% drop from the high? 30%? More than that? Any thoughts on the algos and the machine trading?








    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    To add to people's understanding of a top story in the news. I think context is important The meltdown of the stock market last week was bad, but it was in the context of a longer period of decent stock performance. So, understanding where we stand, considering both the good and the bad, is helpful. It turns out, where we stand, so far, taking Trump's time in office as a whole, is that it's been a middling run for markets -- a good first year and a poor second year, with the net result that portfolios are climbing modestly in real terms, but not with the kind of dramatic run up that makes people wealthy, as in the Clinton or Obama years.

    Now, back to my question. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?



    For those with money in the market, it matters a great deal. When the stock market is barreling up at high speed, as during the Obama or Clinton markets, it's child's play to put away a portfolio to retire on. When it's falling apart dramatically, as under Nixon or Bush, it's almost impossible to build a decent nest egg. When it's puttering along somewhere in the unremarkable middle, as with Trump or Reagan, you can build a good nest egg if you're smart about your investing, but it's not a can't-fail situation.



    That's not an insinuation, it's an historical fact.



    That depends on what the ownership class wants. If they want more rapid real stock growth, then Democratic presidents have historically been much better for that. If, however, what's important to them is being able to see fear in the eyes of their underlings, then Republicans have a whole lot to offer. As they destroy the social safety net, keep poverty rates high, and stagnate incomes at the median level, Republicans set up the wealthy to act more like their aristocratic ancestors did, back when the little people knew their pace. So, it all comes down to what the goal is: is the goal to succeed, or to watch the other guy fail?



    There's nothing particularly insightful about my findings. It's LONG been understood that the markets do better with Democratic leadership. A crappy Rupert Murdoch tabloid like the Wall Street Journal may shy away from publishing such things, but they've been widely published elsewhere in the financial press:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterla.../#62027f33239d



    That's about right.

  13. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    You know, I'm starting to think this doesn't really have anything to do with the Stock Market, and more to do with:

    a. Oneuli has a 'Democratic Party Agenda' and is using a select group of statistics to further her goals.
    b. Oneuli has a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme of 'Market Timing' and is using the JPP Politics Forum to lure in the Rubes here.

    Either way, the Shine is starting to rub off this Object. (It's always the ones you least suspect)

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jack For This Post:

    cawacko (12-10-2018), Truth Detector (12-11-2018)

  15. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,857
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    You know, I'm starting to think this doesn't really have anything to do with the Stock Market, and more to do with:

    a. Oneuli has a 'Democratic Party Agenda' and is using a select group of statistics to further her goals.
    b. Oneuli has a 'Get Rich Quick' scheme of 'Market Timing' and is using the JPP Politics Forum to lure in the Rubes here.

    Either way, the Shine is starting to rub off this Object. (It's always the ones you least suspect)
    Haha, your "b" made me laugh. Well played.

    It's pretty clear she has a pro-Democrat agenda. I'm a partisan myself so I can't knock others for being like me but you hit on the key point earlier, statistics can be spun many ways to tell a story the author wants to be told.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to cawacko For This Post:

    Jack (12-10-2018)

  17. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,543
    Thanks
    441
    Thanked 1,874 Times in 1,170 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 202 Times in 195 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Jack: The Market has gone up for 10 years, everyone knows the Market has to pull back at some point. It's not predicated on who's in Office.
    With any given up or down of the market, we'll be able to point to various hypotheses for why it moved the way it did, having nothing to do with the president. But, if you look to a long timeline, if presidents didn't matter much, you wouldn't expect to see much difference between market performance during Democratic presidencies and Republican ones, since all those little quirks and coincidences would be washed out in the flood of data.... e.g., one time a Democrat would inherit a long-running stock boom (e.g., Clinton in 1993) and the next time it would be a Republican who did so (e.g., Bush in 2001). Yet, the simple fact is there's a HUGE difference in the average rate of real market increase with a Democratic president versus a Republican one. Maybe that's just an elaborate and weirdly consistent coincidence. Or maybe there's some underlying dynamics at work we haven't understood. But it's irrational to dismiss that correlation merely because it's politically uncomfortable to acknowledge.

    Jack; That is my belief, that the Stock Market isn't dictated by who is in Office.
    Why?

    Your implied strategy of timing the Market by which Party is holding the Presidency, in my opinion, is flawed.
    I didn't imply that strategy. What made you imagine I did?

    Jack: The goal, the only goal ... is to make money.
    Clearly that's wrong. If the only goal was to make money, nobody would ever buy anything, other than the bare minimums needed for subsistence, and investments. In reality, the wealthy buy all sorts of stuff that they don't need to survive or to make more money. So, clearly they have other priorities other than just making money. I posited some things that could factor into their decision-making to explain why they would support political policies that don't maximize their absolute wealth, but may otherwise stroke their egos, or enhance their social power or prestige.

    Jack; It's astonishing that more Wall Streeters don't vote for the Democrat. (OR ... maybe they don't subscribe to your Conclusion?)
    Another factor to consider is that the return on investment for an individual Wall Streeter isn't just dependent on the rise of stock values. There's also the question of taxes. If I can get a dividend of $100 with 25% taxes, or a dividend of $90 with 10% taxes, I'm better off with the latter. Similarly, a smaller capital runup with lower taxes could be more valuable than a larger one with higher taxes.

    There's also the question of timing. If a stock is bouncing up and down dramatically, with no net movement, I could still be getting rich, if I tend to buy low and sell high on those swings. So, I may favor electing the party that is less likely to regulate fraudulent investment schemes and less likely to enforce securities laws. If I'm a big-time Wall-Streeter and I know the Republicans don't really mind how badly I screw over the little guy (e.g., letting me get away with selling bullshit securitized debt obligations into public pensions), then what do I care what happens to the underlying stock values, as long as I'm able to get out before the drops?

    Sooooo ... now that we settled that, how long do you think the downturn is going to last? First quarter 2019? Second quarter? End of 2019?
    No clue. I guessed the Trump-era market would under-perform the market of Obama and Clinton, just based on a fairly reliable tendency for Republican stock markets to be poor-to-middling. However, I don't have an idea of where in the poor-to-middling range it'll be, much less what the timing will be.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Oneuli For This Post:

    Jack (12-11-2018)

  19. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    15,885
    Thanks
    6,793
    Thanked 9,174 Times in 5,911 Posts
    Groans
    20
    Groaned 593 Times in 557 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    As further context for how stocks are doing under Trump, here's the annualized real rate of increase for the S&P 500 for each president.

    Note, the data starts 1/3/1950, so we're only working with part of Truman's presidency. Also note, there's no inflation data for November of this year available yet, so I just projected forward the average inflation increase for Trump's time one additional month to account for November.

    Clinton 12.24%
    Obama 11.85%
    Truman 11.27%
    Eisenhower 9.37%
    Bush41 6.43%
    Trump 6.10%
    Reagan 5.77%
    Johnson 4.57%
    Kennedy 4.26%
    Ford 3.29%
    Carter -3.68%
    Bush43 -8.37%
    Nixon -9.66%

    So, as ugly as this market looks, it's actually just mediocre. And considering that the last six Republican-led eras have spanned from mediocre to harrowing, we should probably be happy with mediocre.
    You just pissed on all the Trump dick suckers.

    Here's another good one:

    Screen Shot 2018-12-07 at 1.01.22 PM.jpg

    Republican Congressman Ken Buck:
    “We’re at a time in American politics, that I am not going to lie on behalf of my presidential candidate, on behalf of my party. And I’m very sad that others in my party have taken the position that, as long as we get the White House, it doesn’t really matter what we say,”



  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Joe Capitalist For This Post:

    Oneuli (12-11-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. TRUMP RALLY's STOCK MARKET ....AGAIN
    By Getin the ring in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 11-29-2018, 12:50 AM
  2. TRUMP RALLYS STOCK MARKET SECOND DAY IN A ROW
    By Getin the ring in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-31-2018, 11:22 AM
  3. Trump’s stock-market mistake
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-06-2018, 02:41 PM
  4. The stock market keeps loving them some Trump
    By canceled.2021.1 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-01-2017, 12:10 PM
  5. Trump has been good for the stock market
    By Cancel 2018.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 12-07-2016, 05:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •