U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 12-11-2018, 11:15 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,800,537 times
Reputation: 7186

Advertisements

Meanwhile Caterpillar is making record profits as it continues to lay people off and move their jobs to Mexico:

"Caterpillar Inc. said it will begin laying off 285 workers at its Joliet plant in January.

The heavy equipment manufacturer (NYSE: CAT) said in a required notice with the state that the job cuts will begin Jan. 2 and continue through June 30.

"Caterpillar intends to transition manufacturing currently performed in Joliet to other Caterpillar factories,” a Caterpillar spokesperson said...

...In October of this year, Caterpillar reported its "best third-quarter profit per share in (the) company's history," but the company had some cautionary remarks as well.

"Manufacturing costs were higher due to increased material and freight costs. Material costs were higher primarily due to increases in steel prices and tariffs," the company said..."


https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/...hoo&yptr=yahoo

Make
Mexico
Great
Again.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2018, 01:31 PM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
9,560 posts, read 4,362,555 times
Reputation: 5317
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Meanwhile Caterpillar is making record profits as it continues to lay people off and move their jobs to Mexico:

"Caterpillar Inc. said it will begin laying off 285 workers at its Joliet plant in January.

The heavy equipment manufacturer (NYSE: CAT) said in a required notice with the state that the job cuts will begin Jan. 2 and continue through June 30.

"Caterpillar intends to transition manufacturing currently performed in Joliet to other Caterpillar factories,” a Caterpillar spokesperson said...

...In October of this year, Caterpillar reported its "best third-quarter profit per share in (the) company's history," but the company had some cautionary remarks as well.

"Manufacturing costs were higher due to increased material and freight costs. Material costs were higher primarily due to increases in steel prices and tariffs," the company said..."

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/...hoo&yptr=yahoo

Make
Mexico
Great
Again.

Ken
Trade wars are easy to win.--Donald Trump
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 03:40 PM
 
16,823 posts, read 9,130,160 times
Reputation: 6815
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0 View Post
He made up go up even more and bragged about it through Jan 2018 on Twitter. Wondered what happened since?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Um, didn't Trump BRAG about how he raised the stock market?

Yes and as I've said multiple times on here he was a hypocrite and an egomaniac for doing so - especially as he pointed out factually that the p/e ratio was way above historic norms during the campaign.

Trump is full of it.

His constant tariff/trade war talk very well might pop the bubble. However, there is a difference between what caused the bubble and what popped the bubble. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Can you actually argue against any of the facts that I laid out in my post that QE made investors go into stocks?




Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
BTW: Obama inherited a far higher P/E situation. As low as stock prices were at the time (and they were REALLY LOW), the P/E ratio was nevertheless at record highs (around 120) in early 2009 for the simple reason that earnings were horrendously low. The stock market stabilized after Obama came into office and prices began to rise, meanwhile the P/E ratio stabilized as well as company earnings improved.

The P/E ratio for Trump was around 23/24 when he took office - and not a whole lot different today. P/E ratio in 1929 at the time of the crash as just under 20. The market has spent a lot of time above that 1929 ratio over the years. The P/E today is on the high side (still) but not anywhere near historically so.

Historical P/E ratio: https://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-...earnings-chart

Ken

No offense, but you simply aren't comprehending your own link.

You are using a chart that shows a trailing P/E. So on Obama's first day in office most of that trailing P/E would be calculated before the drop that happened before Obama took office. Obama took the office AFTER a huge drop in the price in stocks...so the P/E ratio was already low....unless you use a trailing P/E ratio. It is illogical for you to use a trailing P/E ratio - which the majority of that data would be BEFORE the stock market collapse when the P/E ratio was high.... to talk about what the P/E ratio was as of the moment when Obama took office -- because the actual P/E ratio the moment he took office was low.

QE then helped inflate the stock market as people didn't want to invest in bonds and CDs so they went for stocks. Read this ->
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-f...194426366.html

Just to make sure you are comprehending:

#1 No Obama didn't cause the drop in 2008.

#2 The trailing P/E on January 2009 includes mostly data from BEFORE the September 29, 2008 stock collapse so it is distorted high. This is what you are using.

#3 If you use the actual P/E on January 20th of 2009 it is much lower and at historical norms - as the price has already dropped dramatically thus lowering the current P/E.

These are facts and are indisputable. This isn't rocket science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
11,865 posts, read 15,523,913 times
Reputation: 12167
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
Not so.

The GOP status quo elites had their way with the bill. Pulled the tax cuts out and are trying to sell it in a slight of hand move, thinking no one will look deeper than the name of the bill. Not to worry it won't pass anyway.
What bill sponsored Trumps ‘promised 10% individual tax cut’ ?

I sure as hell don’t recall.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 04:03 PM
 
15,386 posts, read 4,064,639 times
Reputation: 11086
Quote:
Originally Posted by r small View Post
Trade wars are easy to win.--Donald Trump
Everything is easy for those who don't have to do it --- ME.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 04:07 PM
 
15,386 posts, read 4,064,639 times
Reputation: 11086
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206 View Post
I'm glad you reposted this, because you are 100% incorrect with the basis of your argument, and the below quote explains exactly why.

Your basis of a 10% average return is nowhere near the actual real return for the DJIA. On average the ENTIRE MARKET has close to a 7% return, and historically the DJIA has much lower than 10% return.

So yeah, I've shown you that you are pretty much 100% wrong about your entire hypothesis here. You're welcome.
So wait - you and some others say a 4.75% average rise for 18 years is excessive and we need to correct.

THEN, you say it should be 7% to be AVERAGE and therefore you 100% owned me.

You are going to have to explain that one to me. All my numbers were DOW, which was the premise of the OP and the Thread. Using the DOW was fine for Obama...but not for Trump or for Trump and GWB (18 years)???

Confusing for sure. Please tell us about this overvalued Bull Market....since 2000, and how and why it is so high that we should expect a downturn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 05:42 PM
Status: "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" (set 22 days ago)
 
11,393 posts, read 5,972,002 times
Reputation: 3601
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
So wait - you and some others say a 4.75% average rise for 18 years is excessive and we need to correct.

THEN, you say it should be 7% to be AVERAGE and therefore you 100% owned me.

You are going to have to explain that one to me. All my numbers were DOW, which was the premise of the OP and the Thread. Using the DOW was fine for Obama...but not for Trump or for Trump and GWB (18 years)???

Confusing for sure. Please tell us about this overvalued Bull Market....since 2000, and how and why it is so high that we should expect a downturn.
Everything in red above are your words, they do not reflect my thoughts or statements that I've actually made here.

And yes, its clear that you are confused.

My statement was: "You are 100% incorrect with the basis of your argument" and "Your basis of a 10% average return is nowhere near the actual real return for the DJIA"

Then you say "we had a RUN to make an average of less than 1/2 the average historical number" So you are saying 4.75% is less than half of average, which again I'm assuming you are using 10% as average again?

So to make some claim that we should be at DOW 60,000 (calculated on an average return of 10% over 18 consecutive years) has no basis in reality since its based on an average return that is significantly higher than reality, and a time period significantly longer than the best runs we have ever seen.

So to summarize, you are taking two extreme scenarios that have never happened and trying to rationalize what "should have happened" using those figures. Its beyond illogical. All I am saying is that no, 10% is not a fair historical average to use, especially consecutively for 18 straight years, and yes 7% is more accurate to use.

You can call things runs, bull markets, good, bad, whatever you want, my point is specifically about your assumptions you are using to get there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 05:55 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,872 posts, read 22,800,537 times
Reputation: 7186
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Yes and as I've said multiple times on here he was a hypocrite and an egomaniac for doing so - especially as he pointed out factually that the p/e ratio was way above historic norms during the campaign.

Trump is full of it.

His constant tariff/trade war talk very well might pop the bubble. However, there is a difference between what caused the bubble and what popped the bubble. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Can you actually argue against any of the facts that I laid out in my post that QE made investors go into stocks?







No offense, but you simply aren't comprehending your own link.

You are using a chart that shows a trailing P/E. So on Obama's first day in office most of that trailing P/E would be calculated before the drop that happened before Obama took office. Obama took the office AFTER a huge drop in the price in stocks...so the P/E ratio was already low....unless you use a trailing P/E ratio. It is illogical for you to use a trailing P/E ratio - which the majority of that data would be BEFORE the stock market collapse when the P/E ratio was high.... to talk about what the P/E ratio was as of the moment when Obama took office -- because the actual P/E ratio the moment he took office was low.

QE then helped inflate the stock market as people didn't want to invest in bonds and CDs so they went for stocks. Read this ->
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-f...194426366.html

Just to make sure you are comprehending:

#1 No Obama didn't cause the drop in 2008.

#2 The trailing P/E on January 2009 includes mostly data from BEFORE the September 29, 2008 stock collapse so it is distorted high. This is what you are using.

#3 If you use the actual P/E on January 20th of 2009 it is much lower and at historical norms - as the price has already dropped dramatically thus lowering the current P/E.

These are facts and are indisputable. This isn't rocket science.
Fair enough.
+1

Thanks for the info.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 08:24 AM
 
26,873 posts, read 9,120,314 times
Reputation: 9362
Lower inflation boosts ‘real’ wages for American workers

Inflation flat in November due to cheaper gas, CPI shows
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/che...dist=bigcharts

Inflation-adjusted pay for nonsupervisory workers — everyone except bosses — rose 0.3% in the month and 1% over the past year. That’s the largest increase over a 12-month span since 2016.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Middle of the ocean
31,736 posts, read 20,017,197 times
Reputation: 45820
Quote:
Originally Posted by phma View Post
Lower inflation boosts ‘real’ wages for American workers

Inflation flat in November due to cheaper gas, CPI shows
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/che...dist=bigcharts

Inflation-adjusted pay for nonsupervisory workers — everyone except bosses — rose 0.3% in the month and 1% over the past year. That’s the largest increase over a 12-month span since 2016.

That article had good and bad.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs
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

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:18 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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