Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 89

Thread: Ranking Trump's Stock Market

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "the Dow isn't a scorecard for a President's policies." c #3


    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”
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    PS
    Clarification:

    The Coolidge reference in #16 above is deliberately not in quotation marks. I'd intended to post that the words were INSPIRED BY Cal, not necessarily written by him.

    Ref:
    http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2010/...-business.html
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    24,892
    Thanks
    4,196
    Thanked 15,334 Times in 9,321 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,825 Times in 2,563 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
    100% of Trump's base are GOP-voting conservatives

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to reagansghost For This Post:

    sear (12-10-2018)

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    It is an economic indicator, actual value or how it relates to the Presidency is debateable, but it is one people pay attention to, and as "oneuli" stated, "most people regard the stock market as a leading indicator, so it has value in that sense."

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    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 you're just as confused as the President about the Dow then and what drives it.

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

    Truth Detector (12-10-2018)

  8. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "Then you're just as confused as the President about the Dow then and what drives it." c #20
    Oh to be sure!

    BUT !!

    You are so wise, so perspicacious that you could easily explain how an excellent president in time of peace, could be recognized for his superlative leadership among the smoldering ruin of a stock market crash & burn.

    Just as a formality of course, please remind us.

    Thanks.
    "how it relates to the Presidency is debateable" a #19

    "Then you're just as confused as the President about the Dow then and what drives it." c #20
    Though in macro-$economics it's not always a simple certitude to attribute cause & affect, much of the recent stock market downturns including today's * have been attributed to Trump's imbuing instability into the markets.
    "I like conflict." Trump early March 2018

    "... trade wars are good, and easy to win." Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 18/03/02 02:50
    To make a good omelette, an egg shell must be broken.
    I won't debate Trump's objective here, but will grant him benefit of doubt for the moment.

    But it appears Trump's methods have spooked investors en masse. And if that isn't the explanation:

    a) Why are all the economists that say it is, why are they all wrong?

    b) What is the correct explanation?

    * S&P 500 reportedly $negative for 2018
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  9. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    Oh to be sure!

    BUT !!

    You are so wise, so perspicacious that you could easily explain how an excellent president in time of peace, could be recognized for his superlative leadership among the smoldering ruin of a stock market crash & burn.

    Just as a formality of course, please remind us.

    Thanks.

    Though in macro-$economics it's not always a simple certitude to attribute cause & affect, much of the recent stock market downturns including today's * have been attributed to Trump's imbuing instability into the markets.

    To make a good omelette, an egg shell must be broken.
    I won't debate Trump's objective here, but will grant him benefit of doubt for the moment.

    But it appears Trump's methods have spooked investors en masse. And if that isn't the explanation:

    a) Why are all the economists that say it is, why are they all wrong?

    b) What is the correct explanation?

    * S&P 500 reportedly $negative for 2018
    Nope, a wise one I am not. I'm simply stating what the "experts" say. And reading what "they" say I agree. If you want to take Trump's position that it really is a score card then be my guest

  10. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    The reference is somewhat metaphorical. I hadn't intended to suggest the S&P 500 is a piece of cardboard.

    But when phrases like Fed. Chair. Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" are taken into account, we gain insight into the fact that, at least in the opinion of the Fed. chairman, SOMEtimes, SOME stocks can be over-valued. That means they trade at prices that exceed the value that normal market valuations would price them at.

    Anyone that thinks a stock can't trade at a share price inappropriate for its true $value never bought a share of Enron.

    The sanity check on all that of course is the current volatility. Whether the actual correct value of stocks was what the prices were before the downturn, then why the downturn?
    And if it's the bottom of the downturn that reflects the correct price, then why were prices so high before? But as we all know Trump has nothing to do with it. Right?
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  11. #24 | 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

    I guess we have a difference of opinion.

    1. You aren't going to be able to rate 'Trump's Stock Market' until he leaves Office.
    2. How many cups of Coffee have you had this morning?
    3. 'Numbers-People' (like yourself) are able to manipulate statistics to their desired outcome.
    4. Is there a Theory/Agenda behind your insistence that the President has a central role over the Stock Market?
    5. The Stock Market follows 'trends'. When it 'trends' upward, it keeps going Up ... until it reverses and starts going downward, then it goes Down. It's beginning to trend Downward now and will probably keep trending downward ... until it reverses and starts going upward again. What did Trump do to make it go 'Downward', and ... what will Trump do to make it go 'Upward' again?


    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.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Jack For This Post:

    cawacko (12-10-2018)

  13. #25 | 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
    I guess we have a difference of opinion.

    1. You aren't going to be able to rate 'Trump's Stock Market' until he leaves Office.
    In a similar sense, it's impossible to rank where Steven Spielberg stacks up against the greatest directors of all time until he's dead, since he can always come out with more movies that would change the ranking. Yet living directors are often included in lists like that.

    2. How many cups of Coffee have you had this morning?
    None. You?

    3. 'Numbers-People' (like yourself) are able to manipulate statistics to their desired outcome.
    If you think there's something illegitimate I did with the numbers, just point it out. I linked to the data sources so you can run the numbers yourself.

    4. Is there a Theory/Agenda behind your insistence that the President has a central role over the Stock Market?
    Is there a reason you believe I said the president has a "central role" over the stock market? I haven't said that. What I did is to test the hypothesis that there is no correlation. Turns out, that hypothesis was incorrect. So, let's turn that around. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?

    What did Trump do to make it go 'Downward'
    Trump does things like saber-rattling about a trade war, which spook the market. But it's not those short-term panics that interest me. I'm looking at the long-term patterns -- the tendency, over 70 years (probably much longer, if I had cared to calculate) for the market to do MUCH better with Democrats in office than with Republicans.

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

    Jack (12-10-2018)

  15. #26 | 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: "Is there a reason you believe I said the president has a "central role" over the stock market? I haven't said that. What I did is to test the hypothesis that there is no correlation. Turns out, that hypothesis was incorrect. So, let's turn that around. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?"
    Jack: I was curious why you were starting a thread on this, I thought maybe you had a follow-up Theory/Agenda you were trying to advance. What does it matter if the Stock Market does better under one President or another? One Party or the other? Are you insinuating that the Stock Market does better under Democrats than Republicans and that the Ownership Class would be much smarter voting in Democrat Presidents? (I'm not subscribing to your hypothesis here, so whatever 'evidence' you provide isn't going to persuade me otherwise).

    Oneuli: "Trump does things like saber-rattling about a trade war, which spook the market. But it's not those short-term panics that interest me. I'm looking at the long-term patterns -- the tendency, over 70 years (probably much longer, if I had cared to calculate) for the market to do MUCH better with Democrats in office than with Republicans."
    Jack: "Oh. I guess I should have kept reading before I made my first comment. OK. Let's see. Hmmmm ... have you considered publishing your findings in the Wall Street Journal rather than here at JPP?

    Anyway, I always like your smart and interesting threads you post here. (No cup of coffee, I always had you pictured as sitting there at Starbucks with a Cappuccino and Laptop)




    Quote Originally Posted by Oneuli View Post
    In a similar sense, it's impossible to rank where Steven Spielberg stacks up against the greatest directors of all time until he's dead, since he can always come out with more movies that would change the ranking. Yet living directors are often included in lists like that.



    None. You?



    If you think there's something illegitimate I did with the numbers, just point it out. I linked to the data sources so you can run the numbers yourself.



    Is there a reason you believe I said the president has a "central role" over the stock market? I haven't said that. What I did is to test the hypothesis that there is no correlation. Turns out, that hypothesis was incorrect. So, let's turn that around. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?



    Trump does things like saber-rattling about a trade war, which spook the market. But it's not those short-term panics that interest me. I'm looking at the long-term patterns -- the tendency, over 70 years (probably much longer, if I had cared to calculate) for the market to do MUCH better with Democrats in office than with Republicans.

  16. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Mid-West
    Posts
    24,406
    Thanks
    2,522
    Thanked 14,824 Times in 8,868 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 896 Times in 801 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Dow Jones on October 4th: 26,784. Now: 23,920 (and falling).

    Thanks, Tariffman.




    3000 points in two months.

    Donny ... Call Barack, because you suck at this.

    A year ago at this time: 24,300.

    There are 10 trading remaining in 2018, and this was a lost year.

    Thanks, a lot you POS
    ONE-N-DONE, YOU GOT PLAYED; Time To Play-On
    Remember ... ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES ... So STFU Bitch

  17. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 209 Times in 162 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 14 Times in 13 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.
    Statistically you're correct of course. But statistics don't factor in Trump's sanctions against trade with China. The downward adjustment in the % rate for Trump is not a shortterm change to watch for. it will take effect over a longer period of time which you may be able to calculate using your stats. My opinion is that Trump's effect is going to be much more destructive.

    But admitting that's also wishful thinking combined with a little knowledge of the effects of a renegade leader of a country.
    Bringing reform and decency from Canada, one forum at a time.

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

    Oneuli (12-10-2018)

  19. #29 | 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
    Oneuli: "Is there a reason you believe I said the president has a "central role" over the stock market? I haven't said that. What I did is to test the hypothesis that there is no correlation. Turns out, that hypothesis was incorrect. So, let's turn that around. Is there a theory/agenda behind your insistence that there is no direct correlation between Presidents and the Stock Market?"
    Jack: I was curious why you were starting a thread on this
    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?

    What does it matter if the Stock Market does better under one President or another?
    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.

    Are you insinuating that the Stock Market does better under Democrats than Republicans
    That's not an insinuation, it's an historical fact.

    and that the Ownership Class would be much smarter voting in Democrat Presidents?
    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?

    have you considered publishing your findings in the Wall Street Journal rather than here at JPP?
    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

    Anyway, I always like your smart and interesting threads you post here. (No cup of coffee, I always had you pictured as sitting there at Starbucks with a Cappuccino and Laptop)
    That's about right.

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

    Jack (12-10-2018)

  21. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    62,855
    Thanks
    3,734
    Thanked 20,360 Times in 14,088 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 649 Times in 616 Posts

    Default

    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.
    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

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
  •