U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-14-2018, 06:25 PM
 
4,807 posts, read 1,355,105 times
Reputation: 4779

Advertisements

Could you tell me if I'm reading this correctly?

This article included a graph accompanying an article on current economic trends - but the graph happens to go all the way back to the 1940s. What interested me was, if I'm interpreting it correctly, it implies that ever since the mid-1940s, America has been in an overall upward trajectory, and even after the brief dip around 2008 from Bush's recession, Obama quickly pulled us out. In other words, with current policies, it's only continuing in the same path as the last 70 years, pretty much regardless of who's president. No?

Bull Market Hits 3,453 Days. Gusher Flows Past Most Americans
By Matthew Phillips
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/b...et-stocks.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2018, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,432 posts, read 1,326,154 times
Reputation: 2727
I am weary of attaching a President's name to a recession or a recovery as a President is just a President...not a king. Markets and the national economy are much bigger than any President. But yes, Bush was in office when the recession took hold and Obama was President when the recovery began.

As for the graph: keep in mind that is the long-run history of the S&P 500. The stock market only tells a part of the overall economic picture. It says nothing about income inequality, household income growth and/or wealth, or productivity, etc.

As the article you linked notes: stock market ownership is heavily skewed to the wealthy. Also, the S&P 500 is tweaked over time: new companies are added as old failing ones are taken out.

This graph of the S&P 500 is inflation adjusted and in a log scale (showing percentage changes):

https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-...cal-chart-data

So yes, in the long-run, the S&P 500 stock index has increased......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 12:33 AM
 
4,319 posts, read 5,268,236 times
Reputation: 4229
HAHA, yeah, Obama's high taxes and idiotic ObamaCare "pulled us out." No, that's definitely not what happened by any means. It's almost always a mistake to credit or blame the president for a recession or bull market. Trump isn't "mostly" responsible for our current great economy, either, it was already headed in that direction but he should get some credit at least because whenever you reduce taxes, you help the economy. Taxes crush the economy and Obama if anything extended the recession longer than it should have gone because of his poor policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 01:44 AM
 
64,577 posts, read 66,129,695 times
Reputation: 43003
his tax cut effects remain to be seen . many are going to do worse not better
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,425,981 times
Reputation: 14933
The primary owners of corporations are public sector union pension plans such as CalPERS and CalSTRS. Their ownership of corporations, and the profits they generate, pay for the pensions and health care available to public sector retirees. Most of the balance are individual investors who own stock through their 401Ks, IRAs and investment accounts.

If you're looking for a response to the political portion of your post, perhaps you might head over to the politics sub forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2018, 08:50 AM
 
1,931 posts, read 1,326,189 times
Reputation: 3026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel View Post
Could you tell me if I'm reading this correctly?

This article included a graph accompanying an article on current economic trends - but the graph happens to go all the way back to the 1940s. What interested me was, if I'm interpreting it correctly, it implies that ever since the mid-1940s, America has been in an overall upward trajectory, and even after the brief dip around 2008 from Bush's recession, Obama quickly pulled us out. In other words, with current policies, it's only continuing in the same path as the last 70 years, pretty much regardless of who's president. No?

Bull Market Hits 3,453 Days. Gusher Flows Past Most Americans
By Matthew Phillips
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/b...et-stocks.html
BTW... did you pay much attention to the vertical white bands appearing sporadically all across your NYT chart every few years or so? Those little lines do make an important point.

Yep. Pretty much the same regardless. But.... that doesn't stop SOME FOLKS from trying to attach politics to it, as if the president ran the economy personally (depending on what party they belong to). Yes... I'm sure you want to credit Obama while others want to blame him. But the fact is, BOTH of them took their marching orders from the same exact economic advisors in the Fed.

Unemployment does the same thing. It never really wavers over history regardless of all the magical arguments from the politicos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2018, 01:33 AM
 
24,723 posts, read 26,794,844 times
Reputation: 22714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel View Post
Could you tell me if I'm reading this correctly?

This article included a graph accompanying an article on current economic trends - but the graph happens to go all the way back to the 1940s. What interested me was, if I'm interpreting it correctly, it implies that ever since the mid-1940s, America has been in an overall upward trajectory, and even after the brief dip around 2008 from Bush's recession, Obama quickly pulled us out. In other words, with current policies, it's only continuing in the same path as the last 70 years, pretty much regardless of who's president. No?

Bull Market Hits 3,453 Days. Gusher Flows Past Most Americans
By Matthew Phillips
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/b...et-stocks.html
Yes, that's mostly correct.

However, I concur with what Astral_weeks said regarding the state of the economy and who is president. In fact, I despise it when the media and pollsters ask the question "Do you approve of the President's handling of the economy?". The President shouldn't be so involved in the day to day running of the economy. If he/she is, then we're living in a dictatorship/oligarchy--and that's not a good thing. The fact that the media is always asking that question almost seems like we're being conditioned to accept a centrally planned economy. Bad. Very bad.

The economy tends to grow over time. It may not feel that way to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. The biggest being:

--People much more heavily emphasize relative standard of living, not absolute level. If everyone now has a thing (say, an iPhone) that didn't exist 15 years ago, then they don't feel like their standard of living has gone up. Yesterday's luxuries are today's necessities.

--People have a tendency to "compare up", not "compare down". Not too many people are grateful because they're not starving like the people in Africa or living on the street like an urban homeless person. Most people are looking at people with a standard of living just a notch or two above what they have. Or even worse, they're looking at what celebrities and billionaires have on TV and feeling envious/jealous/wishing they could have what they have, too. Comparing up tends to rob you of your sense of satisfaction.

--Hedonic adaptation, also known as the hedonic treadmill: People quickly get used to any improvement in standard of living. But if their standard of living is reduced, they experience a lot more pain than they do pleasure from an equivalent gain in standard of living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2018, 05:39 PM
 
4,807 posts, read 1,355,105 times
Reputation: 4779
Many thanks to all of you for your attentive replies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
I am weary of attaching a President's name to a recession or a recovery as a President is just a President...not a king. Markets and the national economy are much bigger than any President. But yes, Bush was in office when the recession took hold and Obama was President when the recovery began.

As the article you linked notes: stock market ownership is heavily skewed to the wealthy. Also, the S&P 500 is tweaked over time: new companies are added as old failing ones are taken out.
So would it be fair to say that, regardless of who's President, the rich generally tend to do well?

(As they say, the rich get richer, and the poor get - children.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Yes, that's mostly correct.

However, I concur with what Astral_weeks said regarding the state of the economy and who is president. In fact, I despise it when the media and pollsters ask the question "Do you approve of the President's handling of the economy?". The President shouldn't be so involved in the day to day running of the economy. If he/she is, then we're living in a dictatorship/oligarchy--and that's not a good thing. The fact that the media is always asking that question almost seems like we're being conditioned to accept a centrally planned economy. Bad. Very bad.

The economy tends to grow over time. It may not feel that way to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. The biggest being:
--People much more heavily emphasize relative standard of living, not absolute level. If everyone now has a thing (say, an iPhone) that didn't exist 15 years ago, then they don't feel like their standard of living has gone up. Yesterday's luxuries are today's necessities.
--People have a tendency to "compare up", not "compare down". Not too many people are grateful because they're not starving like the people in Africa or living on the street like an urban homeless person. Most people are looking at people with a standard of living just a notch or two above what they have. Or even worse, they're looking at what celebrities and billionaires have on TV and feeling envious/jealous/wishing they could have what they have, too. Comparing up tends to rob you of your sense of satisfaction.
--Hedonic adaptation, also known as the hedonic treadmill: People quickly get used to any improvement in standard of living. But if their standard of living is reduced, they experience a lot more pain than they do pleasure from an equivalent gain in standard of living.
I disapprove of all those kinds of polls questions, too, though perhaps not for the same reason: I think they're too vague.

I suspect that if you ask some guys on the street if they approve of a president's handling of the economy, they're mostly thinking about their own personal pay check or tax bill.

Again, thanks to you all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2018, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,432 posts, read 1,326,154 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel View Post

So would it be fair to say that, regardless of who's President, the rich generally tend to do well?

.
The rich don't always have to get richer....

But the rich have definitely increased their share of the economic pie over the past 40 years. The so called "Great Compression" from the 1940's to the 1970's was a period of shared prosperity and decreasing inequality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Compression

Hate to bring up the "d" word...how the pie is distributed is a political question. Higher union density and other factors from 1940 to the 1970's resulted in an economy that was more egalitarian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top