Ranking Trump's Stock Market
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
Well, we're really only 2 years into the Trump Presidency, and his first year was really still to be credited to Obama through the end of the Fiscal Year.
How did Keynesianism fail in the 1970's? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you ascribing the Federal Reserve raising interest rates at the direction of Richard Nixon and the Republicans to Keynesianism? Wasn't the oil embargo really more impactful to our economy? Who is responsible for that one? Not Keynes.
You do know that that term "war on drugs" was a media term coined regarding President Nixons speech to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse "public enemy number one".
So you don't think drug addiction is a problem? The supposed "war on poverty" cost this nation $21 trillion. We have more poor now than we did then; is this what you would call a victory?
cawacko
Well-known member
You talking to me now? Go F yourself.
floridafan
Verified User
The war on drugs has cost us about 2-3 trillion and we have lost. 90% of all drugs are still entering this country.
Keynesian theories have long been discredited. How wonderful, if it were true, that Governments can borrow and spend, even print money to buy their way out of recessions. But as we have seen during Obama's reign of error and third world shit holes, that is not possible and only leads to prolonged misery.
I do wish you had a brain.
That wasn't my question snowflake. $2-3 trillion pales in comparison to the $21 trillion spent to achieve greater poverty; that defines failure doesn't it? So you don't think drug addiction is a problem?
I was just recounting an experience that I had many years ago. I'd known this guy for quite awhile, off and on. I saw him qualify for this house in a 'government sub-division', that was 3 bedroom, bath and a half. It was small but had a yard, paved sidewalks, and underground Utilities. He would be classified as the 'Working Poor'. They calculated his Mortgage on how much he made, which was a little over Minimum Wage. He was driving around in a used 10 year old car, but after a few years, both he and his wife were able to buy 2 new cars. He was unskilled and didn't have a HS Diploma. He would be out of work every few years, but would always find something else, he didn't mind going to work every day. They had two kids and depending on what job he had, he would qualify for Food Stamps and Medicaid. They and their kids lived the 'American Dream' of Home Ownership.
One day we were talking and he mentioned his conservative/Republican bent, it happened over a few years, he would mention his dislike of 'Democrats' and 'Liberals'. Probably 5 or 10 years down the line, after we were pretty good acquaintances, I asked him if he was aware of all the 'government' perks and subsidies that he was using? I'm not sure if it really registered with him or he felt entitled or owed or what, but he just flat out told me he just felt all the Government hand outs were wrong.
hahahahaha ... sooooo. Here's a guy taking advantage of all the Government services he can, ... but saying he thinks it is wrong.
He's a low-skilled, low-wage earner, granted a Middle-Class life-style for him and his Family, through Progressive Policies for the Working Poor. But he's a die-hard conservative that votes consistently against these very Programs.
My conclusion: 'Genetics'.
That's an interesting story. My conclusion: Bullshit.
When it comes to genetics, my conclusion is that those who think the taxpayers owe them something and should be more responsible for them and their kids well-being than they are are genetically predisposed to being freeloaders. Agree?
You're phrasing that wrong. It's not being "pointed out." Rather, it's being asserted. "Pointed out" suggests there's something there that we can all see once attention is drawn to it. For example, I can point out that the real returns on stocks are much better, on average, during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones. That's a fact that can be confirmed through hard data, so all I'm doing is drawing your attention to the fact. By comparison, I couldn't "point out" that the reason the stock market badly underperforms during Republican administrations is because Republicans are idiots. That's not a fact we can all see once attention is drawn to it. Rather, it is an assertion. And it would be my job to build a case for that assertion, rather than merely presenting it and expecting others to accept it.
The idea that the president has little control over the stock market is one that gets asserted a lot -- generally by conservatives when it's pointed out how much worse the stock market does during Republican administrations. But conservatives generally just assert it and expect it to be accepted, rather than building an argument to support the idea.
No, we didn't have the worst recovery since the Great Recession. We had one of the best. If you list every wealthy country in terms of its average GDP growth rate following the Great Recession, the US ranks near the top. As has been widely pointed out, the US recovery from the Great Recession was the envy of the advanced world:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...of-the-advanced-world/?utm_term=.7e2965767555
Now, if I could go back to the nightmarish times of 2008, would I urge people to vote for someone who would lead to a recovery that would end up being the envy of the advanced world? Sure I would. That's especially true when the alternative, McCain, was campaigning on an economic platform that was indiscernible from that of Bush, who led us to the worst economy since the Great Depression. How about you -- if you could go back to 2008, would you urge people to vote for a continuation of Bush's failed policies, or for a switch to policies that proved to be among the most effective of any advanced nation?
I'm sure there are heartless people in SF, like there are anywhere. But relative to many cities, San Fran is in good shape -- and not just for the rich. The poverty rate there is just 12%. Compare that to, say, 27% in New Orleans, or even a hole like Houston, at 14.6%.
You misunderstood. Try rereading. I have annualized all rates, to allow comparisons regardless of time length. Of course, it's true that this is a bit problematic when it comes to Trump, who inherited such a strong stock market and enjoyed a year of great growth before it flat-lined. One could certainly argue that if we check back at the end of a term or (God forbid) two, his average is going to be much worse, because the benefit of that initial momentum he inherited will be washed out by the mediocrity that followed. We'll see. But, in the meantime, my comparison is as fair and comprehensive as can be done.
Certainly one can argue in favor of various "assumed delays" when evaluating performance relative to presidential leadership. And if you want to re-run the numbers with various assumed delays, I'd be interested in the results. But the problem with assuming delays is that once you start down the road, you allow gaming the numbers. For example, maybe a Clinton fan would want to assume an eight-month delay, but not nine, so as not to put the 9/11 crash in his column. A Trump hater might want to assume an eleven-month delay. Etc.
cawacko
Well-known member
When saying this was the worst recovery since the Great Depression it's based on America historical data, it's not about comparing ourselves to other countries. Obama didn't get one year of 3% GDP growth. Research when the last time that happened was for a two term President (or even a full one term President). Yes, the stock market boomed as the Fed pumped monetary steroids in in the form of three rounds of QE but the stock market isn't the economy.
If you think it's only conservatives who say the President has limited control over the economy and stock market read what Paul Krugman has to say on the topic.
San Francisco is a city of rich and poor with not a lot in between. In fact the entire Bay Area is full of NIMBY's who in the name of "neighborhood character" fight almost any and all development that could alter their neighborhoods and property values. That is the ultimate "fvck you I've got mine" attitude and it comes from the most liberal area of the country. So the argument that liberals are so compassionate and caring is belied by actions.
cawacko
Well-known member
I give you credit for sticking to exact dates because you are right, it's too easy to cherry pick dates that we like that can make the person we support look better. The challenge though is even though Presidents have a starting and end date we know business cycles don't care about that and we don't often see the full results of a President's policies while they are in office, hence history judging Presidents years and decades after they leave office.
Then why did the stock market tank right after the POTUS tweets that he is the "tariff man"?
I misunderstood nothing; you're trying to make a moronic case that Democratic Presidents affect the stock market more positively than Republicans. It's moronic; much like most of the other laughably stupid hyper partisan screeds you love to erupt with snowflake.
...then came right back the next day. You really should STFU when you don't know what the fuck you are erupting about douchebag.
Yes it did, but there is no question that the POTUS had an impact on it. If the dumbfuck had kept his finger off the send button we would not have lost 800 points that needed to be made back the next day.
It is a simple thing, even if it does present a negative about your savior in the White House.