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.
Whatever -- it means for most that just sock money into a 401K and leave it -- not much has changed for them.
For those that day trade -- maybe if they were paying attention.
And most of all of it -- Trump has little to do with any of it.
This is absolutely false. Most people that put money in a 401K don't strictly invest in the DOW. The majority of fund options in plans are specific to things like the NASDAQ, Russel, and other large indexes that contain more than just the 30 DJIA stocks. For example, SPY which is the biggest ETF out there is up almost 10% for the year when you include the dividends. Almost none of the huge funds that make up 401k options are limited to the DOW only, here are the top 25 funds by size: https://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mu...d/top25largest
Completely agree that Trump has little to do with any of it, same can be said for Obama, Bush, Clinton, and any other president.
The reason Presidents get credit for the economy is mostly political.
We were told by everyone in the Obama admin. we could never grow GDP above 2 %.
The reason : The economy was only growing at 2%
Now that growth is above 2% the same people say its because of Obama.
Larry Kudlow says on TV today that the most important economic story is take home pay. He says, there is a lot of noise and issues, but ignoring all that, the real story is take home pay. It was at 1% when Trump took office and now is over 3%. That is Trumponomics. I didn't fact check Kudlow so IDK if he is correct or not. What I do know is that my take home pay hasn't seen at 3 % increase. I'm retired and I control my take home pay so I'm not a good example but people in the work force would be. Every individual has their own story and take home pay is an individual story.
The biggest effect politically IMO, is the President seen as anti business or pro business. Its a political argument. Those out of power say everything is Armageddon and that is a no sale message for me.
On the other side we are doing better than ever before. I'm not sure we are there either. I'm optimistic we can get there but it will take more time.
Tech.. analysis, Trying to fill in the gap today but most likely tomorrow IMO.
The reason Presidents get credit for the economy is mostly political.
We were told by everyone in the Obama admin. we could never grow GDP above 2 %.
The reason : The economy was only growing at 2%
Now that growth is above 2% the same people say its because of Obama.
If you are referring to quarterly GDP growth, above 2% happened many times under Obama.
If you are referring to yearly GDP growth, above 2% also happened several times under Obama - 4 times, to be precise.
If you were thinking of 3% yearly GDP growth, no, that did not happen under Obama (although 2015 came close), and neither has it happened under Trump.
Could you please look up the stats you are referring to before you cite them? Doing so would make you look much more credible. Some sources to refer to:
In addition to the "OK" or "bad" (depending on the scope of your investments) numbers, we also have other facts...real ones..
1. Most Americans own little or nothing in the stock market - and those of us who own a LOT are really a small minority
"richest 10# own 84% of the stock market"...
So that means, effectively, most debating here are in the richest 10%. Not exactly the forgotten men and women who Trump said would "win so much they might tire of winning"/
2. Real wages are not us (down, actually, a small amount) for the past year. Now THIS IS the forgotten man and woman. Even in this case, the wages are up for only that top 10 or 20%, and further down than mentioned for the rest (considering inflation and COL)....
As far as other indexes, I'd suggest y'll start new threads bragging on how great Trump is because the SPY is up much less than it was every year under Bill Clinton.
This thread says DOW and was written about DOW and is bragging about DOW. Period.
One of the very first bills new President George Washington signed, for instance, was the Tariff Act of 1789. He inked the bill on July 4 of that year.
Completely agree that Trump has little to do with any of it, same can be said for Obama, Bush, Clinton, and any other president.
I can't see how someone who has experienced many decades of watching the markets can say this.....
The Clinton years boomed due to that bad, bad, bad NAFTA and then the Dot-Com. Clinton and Gore and their administrations saw RIGHT AWAY the benefits of the internet and stood behind vast amounts of legislations concerning it. This included wiring up the entire country for a lot of YOU....
Sales and other taxes were waived on many internet services. I won't name it all, but there was a LOT of stuff going on and championed by the admin.
Using the inverse argument, is it just coincidence that GW and his GOP friends largely created the Great Recession...and that Republican policies created the S&L Crisis and Great Depression....
I'll answer that. No, not coincidence....
You'd be a fool to see the chaos being sown and say it doesn't rattle the markets.
This is some kind of new religion where people don't see cause and effect.
I guess money doesn't mean critical thinking....
I hereby sentence all of you to watch Wolf of Wall Street and Boiler Room over and over again.
One of the very first bills new President George Washington signed, for instance, was the Tariff Act of 1789. He inked the bill on July 4 of that year.
And, back in 1789 the US was an agrarian economy, with something like 90% of the population employed as farmers. Not particularly relevant to nowadays.
If you are referring to quarterly GDP growth, above 2% happened many times under Obama.
If you are referring to yearly GDP growth, above 2% also happened several times under Obama - 4 times, to be precise.
If you were thinking of 3% yearly GDP growth, no, that did not happen under Obama (although 2015 came close), and neither has it happened under Trump.
Could you please look up the stats you are referring to before you cite them? Doing so would make you look much more credible. Some sources to refer to:
I don't recall the media ever saying that 2% was never achieved under Obama, nor that Obama ever said that more than that was not possible.
Alternate facts
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.
