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.
That Obama inherited two wars and a recession...and spent 8 years Fixingwhat Bush screwed up?
And then after 6 years in a row of economic growth and job creations, Obama handed over a healthy and steady economy to Donald Trump, who has passed no major legislation since taking office that has any impact on the economy. So most if not all credit goes to Obama.
I'm no fan of Bush II but he doesn't deserve all of the blame for the great recession. It was mostly triggered by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown for which there is plenty of blame to go around: unscrupulous lenders and Wall Street speculators, government policy encouraging home ownership for people who simply couldn't afford it (Fannie, Freddie, etc.), and just average Americans jumping on the bandwagon wanting to cash in. Obama deserves credit for helping to stabilize the economy when it was in freefall, but he doesn't deserve all of the credit for the long bull market. And Trump doesn't deserve the credit for the continued bull market, and he won't deserve the blame when the bubble bursts.
I'm no fan of Bush II but he doesn't deserve all of the blame for the great recession. It was mostly triggered by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown for which there is plenty of blame to go around: unscrupulous lenders and Wall Street speculators, government policy encouraging home ownership for people who simply couldn't afford it (Fannie, Freddie, etc.), and just average Americans jumping on the bandwagon wanting to cash in. Obama deserves credit for helping to stabilize the economy when it was in freefall, but he doesn't deserve all of the credit for the long bull market. And Trump doesn't deserve the credit for the continued bull market, and he won't deserve the blame when the bubble bursts.
Nice
But fairness and moderate attitudes seem to have no place around here. Blame and credit will both be claimed and refuted in equal portions.
As I previously wrote until recently I didn't think stocks were overpriced. I think the "Trump Bump" has definitely moved them into overpriced territory. Earnings will either increase or there will be a pull back. Those historically high levels is only since Nov 2016. It seems pretty clear to me that the market is betting future earnings will be significantly higher, presumably because of Trump's policies.
No, even before the "Trump bump," those numbers were well above their historical means as shown in my links, I don't know why you are ignoring reality, except for partisan gain.
You have moved into the territory of partisan lies to promote a Democratic myth.
Shiller P/E ratio on November 1, 2016 - 26.85 (16.77 historical average)
P/E ratio on November 1, 2016 - 23.35 (15.66 historical average)
S&P 500 Earnings Yield on November 1, 2016 - 4.28% (historical average 7.39%)
No, even before the "Trump bump," those numbers were well above their historical means as shown in my links, I don't know why you are ignoring reality, except for partisan gain.
You have moved into the territory of partisan lies to promote a Democratic myth.
Shiller P/E ratio on November 1, 2016 - 26.85 (16.77 historical average)
P/E ratio on November 1, 2016 - 23.35 (15.66 historical average)
S&P 500 Earnings Yield on November 1, 2016 - 4.28% (historical average 7.39%)
No, even before the "Trump bump," those numbers were well above their historical means as shown in my links, I don't know why you are ignoring reality, except for partisan gain.
You have moved into the territory of partisan lies to promote a Democratic myth.
Shiller P/E ratio on November 1, 2016 - 26.85 (16.77 historical average)
P/E ratio on November 1, 2016 - 23.35 (15.66 historical average)
S&P 500 Earnings Yield on November 1, 2016 - 4.28% (historical average 7.39%)
What is the Democratic myth that I'm promoting? If I'm doing it I sure want to know.
Just because a value is above a historical average doesn't mean that it is at an unsustainable level. Like I've written several times now, the values were high but not at unsustainable levels. At the time I figured the market would either move sideways or slightly down. The fact that the markets have moved up without matching earnings just means its now in a dangerous territory.
I'm no fan of Bush II but he doesn't deserve all of the blame for the great recession. It was mostly triggered by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown for which there is plenty of blame to go around: unscrupulous lenders and Wall Street speculators, government policy encouraging home ownership for people who simply couldn't afford it (Fannie, Freddie, etc.), and just average Americans jumping on the bandwagon wanting to cash in. Obama deserves credit for helping to stabilize the economy when it was in freefall, but he doesn't deserve all of the credit for the long bull market. And Trump doesn't deserve the credit for the continued bull market, and he won't deserve the blame when the bubble bursts.
One thing Bush 2 that bit him in the a** was rebrand his anemic economic growth as an ownership society. People were not better off but they had increased home equity to hide the lack of income growth. I think using that tactic left his advisers/intended watch dogs no room to try tamping down on some of the economic shenanigans propping those home prices up. I remember seeing people bringing the RE bubble up for several years before it burst.
But I do agree with you post. I think another problem for Trump will be that there are whole swaths of voters who do not have significant amounts of their wealth in the stock market- so its rise will not be something that visibly impacts them. This is the same reason an R won after 8 years of Obama who was at the helm for that prolonged rally.
One thing we know for sure, the 'polls' are fake and biased against Trump so who knows how much approval Trump actually has.
With each day I have to wonder how these polls are recording as much support for Trump as they do!
And how are the polls "biased" when most the reputable ones have been using the exact same questions/surveys with each POTUS going back as long as they've been polling? Or do you mean "biased" because they don't show Trump doing as well as prior presidents? Facts are not biased! Obviously, you're the one suffering from some serious bias against numbers that you don't like to see in the toilet, because...
Well you know.
Last edited by LearnMe; 08-10-2017 at 10:03 AM..
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.
