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.
Sure, right after you prove that a president drives the market. Like I said, they probably contribute a small %, but to blindly lop ownership of the entire market, good or bad on any president is beyond ignorant.
So, interest rates (set by the fed, who's head the President chooses) don't affect the market eh?
So, military actions - like the Iraq wars don't affect the market eh? Seems to me there was a 10% drop in the market from those.
So trade deals (made or "unmade") don't affect the market eh?
So tax rates don't affect the market eh?
THAT is "beyond ignorant".
Even just having an election (and it's results) can drive the market. It's not the sole driver, but it DOES affect it - as MANY things do. Psychology (faith in the nations' leadership - or not) - for example - has a HUGE impact on the market. Psychology is in fact probably the largest single driver.
So, interest rates (set by the fed, who's head the President chooses) don't affect the market eh?
So, military actions - like the Iraq wars don't affect the market eh? Seems to me there was a 10% drop in the market from those.
So trade deals (made or "unmade") don't affect the market eh?
So tax rates don't affect the market eh?
THAT is "beyond ignorant".
Even just having an election (and it's results) can drive the market. It's not the sole driver, but it DOES affect it - as MANY things do.
Ken
Wrong, the Fed doesn't need POTUS approval, and if you remember correctly, the idiot in charge was recently all kinds of PO'd because the Fed wasn't doing what he wanted them to do.
The possibility of wars, infrastructure builds, and all of that do have a small impact on the market, but again, a historically long bull market was bound to crash, even if the genius LordBalfor was at the helm, it was bound to happen, just like if the genius LordBalfor would have been POTUS in 2008, the market was destined for a run since it had just seen a historically horrible crash.
Oh, and also congress sets tax rates...so care to chat again about whats ignorant?
Wrong, the Fed doesn't need POTUS approval, and if you remember correctly, the idiot in charge was recently all kinds of PO'd because the Fed wasn't doing what he wanted them to do.
The possibility of wars, infrastructure builds, and all of that do have a small impact on the market, but again, a historically long bull market was bound to crash, even if the genius LordBalfor was at the helm, it was bound to happen, just like if the genius LordBalfor would have been POTUS in 2008, the market was destined for a run since it had just seen a historically horrible crash.
The Fed doesn't need POTUS approval, but the appointment of the head is UP TO THE PRESIDENT. The President can choose an interest rate hawk or a dove.
Aside from that - as I said - psychology (either confidence in the administration or not) is a HUGE driver of the market - maybe the biggest.
And yeah, Congress assigns tax rates - but not without the Presidents' APPROVAL.
The Fed doesn't need POTUS approval, but the appointment of the head is UP TO THE PRESIDENT. The President can choose an interest rate hawk or a dove.
Aside from that - as I said - psychology (either confidence in the administration or not) is a HUGE driver of the market - maybe the biggest.
Ken
Right, and the Fed is an independent body that the current POTUS is angry with for not going his way, so you are clearly arguing against yourself here on this fact.
Sure, psychology plays part of it, but again, a small percent. You have companies like FB and SnapChat imploding because their management is inept, and they are lying about their actual financial metrics, and those are hard facts that impact the $ earned or lost by these companies.
Right, and the Fed is an independent body that the current POTUS is angry with for not going his way, so you are clearly arguing against yourself here on this fact.
Sure, psychology plays part of it, but again, a small percent. You have companies like FB and SnapChat imploding because their management is inept, and they are lying about their actual financial metrics, and those are hard facts that impact the $ earned or lost by these companies.
Sometimes a Fed appointment - like ANY of the Presidents' appointments - don't meet his expectations. It doesn't mean the President doesn't INFLUENCE those rates. All it means is that the President should choose the Fed head CAREFULLY.
Yeah the President is not ALL POWERFUL regarding the markets, but he's not exactly without influence either. He CAN and DOES have a HUGE impact on the market in many, many ways large and small.
You can choose to deny that, but I don't really care what you choose to believe.
Aside from that, the American People will ALWAYS believe the President affects the markets - so apparently they don't care what you believe either.
As I said, psychology has a HUGE impact on the market.
Sometimes a Fed appointment - like ANY of the Presidents' appointments - don't meet his expectations. It doesn't mean the President doesn't INFLUENCE those rates. All it means is that the President should choose the Fed head CAREFULLY.
Yeah the President is not ALL POWERFUL regarding the markets, but he's not exactly without influence either. He CAN and DOES have a HUGE impact on the market in many, many ways large and small.
You can choose to deny that, but I don't really care what you choose to believe.
Aside from that, the s - so apparently they don't care what you believe either.
As I said, psychology has a HUGE impact on the market.
Ken
There are endless studies showing that the American public is woefully ignorant in terms of finance,so that is a horrible measure of anything.
Your comments about the Fed are still wrong, they are an independent body, and they make decisions based on what they feel are the right things to do. Do you think that Bill Clinton owns the impact of Alan "irrational exuberance" Greenspan making that statement? Did Clinton appoint him so that he could make such an ill informed statement that he should have seen being a negative to the markets? Clinton didn't own that one bit.
There are endless studies showing that the American public is woefully ignorant in terms of finance,so that is a horrible measure of anything.
Your comments about the Fed are still wrong, they are an independent body, and they make decisions based on what they feel are the right things to do. Do you think that Bill Clinton owns the impact of Alan "irrational exuberance" Greenspan making that statement? Did Clinton appoint him so that he could make such an ill informed statement that he should have seen being a negative to the markets? Clinton didn't own that one bit.
It doesn't matter whether it's a horrible measure or not, the public (and their sentiment) makes its' OWN reality.
And yeah, the President DOES own the actions of the Fed, just as he owns the actions of any appointment. if YOU appoint him/her and you continue to allow him/her to serve in that position, it is on YOU what they do.
in the final analysis, the buck stops at the PRESIDENTS' desk.
Congress may be the ones to cut the head off of any economic progress if they decide to punish S.A. and it drives oil to 200 dollars a barrel.
There are any number of players that influence the economy and markets to greater and lessor degrees short and long term. It could be 2 % today and 90 % tomorrow.
It doesn't matter whether it's a horrible measure or not, the public (and their sentiment) makes its' OWN reality.
And yeah, the President DOES own the actions of the Fed, just as he owns the actions of any appointment. if YOU appoint him/her and you continue to allow him/her to serve in that position, it is on YOU what they do.
in the final analysis, the buck stops at the PRESIDENTS' desk.
Ken
Sure, and the companies themselves with their innovation, savings, dividends, sales, management, and everything else they do are insignificant since according to you the POTUS has a HUGE impact. To me, HUGE means way more than 50% so that just seems absurd.
And since its been proven that only about 50% of Americans even own stock, its hard to argue that those 50% own enough to have their misguided decisions and their only 20% overall ownership actually drive stock direction by their purchases or sales.
Sure, and the companies themselves with their innovation, savings, dividends, sales, management, and everything else they do are insignificant since according to you the POTUS has a HUGE impact. To me, HUGE means way more than 50% so that just seems absurd.
And since its been proven that only about 50% of Americans even own stock, its hard to argue that those 50% own enough to have their misguided decisions and their only 20% overall ownership actually drive stock direction by their purchases or sales.
You can CHOOSE to define "HUGE" as whatever you want. I have no control over that. Personally, I never put a number on it, and won't - because I have no idea what that correct number is - and neither do you or anyone else.
Ken
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.
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.
