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
"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
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
sear (12-10-2018)
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."
Truth Detector (12-10-2018)
Oh to be sure!"Then you're just as confused as the President about the Dow then and what drives it." c #20
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."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
To make a good omelette, an egg shell must be broken."I like conflict." Trump early March 2018
"... trade wars are good, and easy to win." Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 18/03/02 02:50
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
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
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?
cawacko (12-10-2018)
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?2. How many cups of Coffee have you had this morning?
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.3. 'Numbers-People' (like yourself) are able to manipulate statistics to their desired outcome.
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?4. Is there a Theory/Agenda behind your insistence that the President has a central role over 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.What did Trump do to make it go 'Downward'
Jack (12-10-2018)
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)
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
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.
Oneuli (12-10-2018)
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.What does it matter if the Stock Market does better under one President or another?
That's not an insinuation, it's an historical fact.Are you insinuating that the Stock Market does better under Democrats than Republicans
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?and that the Ownership Class would be much smarter voting in Democrat Presidents?
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:have you considered publishing your findings in the Wall Street Journal rather than here at JPP?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterla.../#62027f33239d
That's about right.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)
Jack (12-10-2018)
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
Bookmarks