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.
1. There is nothing indicating that the market is doing well due to Trump's pro business stance other than suppositions. The market was already doing well, and has been.....FOR YEARS.
2. If the market was doing so well due to Trump's pro business stance, then wouldn't it stand to reason that we'd have MORE jobs? If anything, we saw less job growth under Trump.
3. For almost all of 2017, we saw NO policy from Trump that would indicate that the market or job market was affected by said policy.
4. Would the market have done this well under Bernie or Hillary? You're projecting. Again, the market was already doing well, and what you're seeing is the natural trend that's been going on. You know what trending is, right? In most likely hood, the market, would have.....wait for it....continued that same trend.
Actually in the case of item one and three, you are incorrect. The stock market anticipates future events and as such, it has and continues to price in the changes in the tax structure and removal of regulations. Tax cuts and a decrease in regulations were the centerpoint of Trump's campaign. Had the tax cuts collapsed, the market would have responded in a negative manner.
In the case of item 2, we do have more jobs. The labor participation rate has increased and there are more people in the workforce. How does the U6 under Trump compare with Obama? That said, perhaps you can enlighten me on how Obama was focused on job growth.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most anybody, except those on the far left, that the market would do as well under Hillary or Bernie. Different policies.....different outcomes. From a market perspective I believe Hillary would have been better than the socialist....she loves Wall Street.
As I've said before, I'm no Trump supporter, in fact I have a significant dislike of the man, but some of the things he has done and will do are moving us in the right direction. I feel as though you are looking at this from a purely political perspective....you want your side to look good. Believe what you want to believe...hope it makes you feel good.
50% gain in 13 months from a natural level (not the rock bottom March 2009 level) is unprecedented. Obama largely saw a reset to the early 2008 DJ level, with a small increase in addition, but if you mapped say January 2008 DJ to January 2017, it was pretty modest in terms of % gain.
Most here thought 20k would not happen, and within 12 months of inauguration, we hit 25k.
This is unseen territory and benefits tens of millions with their 401ks.
To be 50% since the election the DJIA would have to be in the 28,000 range. I haven't gone back and checked but I highly doubt 50% in 13 months is unprecedented.
Again how valid is choosing a starting point when the market was in a bubble as it was in 2008. The 2008 valuations weren't backed by real assets. Which may also turn out to be true with this market now that the PE levels are at levels rarely seen.
With all the emphasis on 401k performance, were no Republicans looking at their 401ks over the last decade. If they were anything like mine it did very well.
Actually in the case of item one and three, you are incorrect. The stock market anticipates future events and as such, it has and continues to price in the changes in the tax structure and removal of regulations. Tax cuts and a decrease in regulations were the centerpoint of Trump's campaign. Had the tax cuts collapsed, the market would have responded in a negative manner.
In the case of item 2, we do have more jobs. The labor participation rate has increased and there are more people in the workforce. How does the U6 under Trump compare with Obama? That said, perhaps you can enlighten me on how Obama was focused on job growth.
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most anybody, except those on the far left, that the market would do as well under Hillary or Bernie. Different policies.....different outcomes. From a market perspective I believe Hillary would have been better than the socialist....she loves Wall Street.
As I've said before, I'm no Trump supporter, in fact I have a significant dislike of the man, but some of the things he has done and will do are moving us in the right direction. I feel as though you are looking at this from a purely political perspective....you want your side to look good. Believe what you want to believe...hope it makes you feel good.
Job growth has slowed in Trump's first year. LFPR is essentially unchanged since Oct 2013.
With the tax cuts for the rich, they have already admitted that the big business leaders will do more stock buybacks. They are rewarded financially when the stock price increases and stock buybacks increase the stock price. The top 1% own almost 40% of the stock market in America. They are flying!
I'm glad they admitted it. But how do we know they are not lying to us? I think they also admitted that it will help to increase wages.
Actually in the case of item one and three, you are incorrect. The stock market anticipates future events and as such, it has and continues to price in the changes in the tax structure and removal of regulations. Tax cuts and a decrease in regulations were the centerpoint of Trump's campaign. Had the tax cuts collapsed, the market would have responded in a negative manner.
You're projecting. Under Obama, we had tax increases....and the market tripled. You're correct to a certain extent. Yes, the market reacts based on anticipations, but we in this case, we also need to take into consideration, trending. If the market was stagnant, and then shot up with Trump, then you'd have a point....but it's been going up for years now.
Quote:
In the case of item 2, we do have more jobs. The labor participation rate has increased and there are more people in the workforce. How does the U6 under Trump compare with Obama? That said, perhaps you can enlighten me on how Obama was focused on job growth.
The labor participation rate in Oct of 2017 was 62.7%. In 2015, it was 62.6. It hasn't really budged.
Quote:
I think you'd have a hard time convincing most anybody, except those on the far left, that the market would do as well under Hillary or Bernie. Different policies.....different outcomes. From a market perspective I believe Hillary would have been better than the socialist....she loves Wall Street.
I agree, I think Hillary would have been better....key word though..."think". Remember, everyone called Obama a socialist and claimed the economy would be worse under him, that the job market would suffer more, etc (just like the projection for Bernie), and in fact, the opposite happened.
Yes, crumbs for the middle class, deep cuts to Medicare and other services and massive debt. "very liberal CBS". What a cruel joke. Who do you think own CBS? Ironworkers of America? LOL. They're a huge corporation, not some pro-worker progressive outlet.
Why do some whine and cry about "massive" debt ONLY when repubs are in charge?
Where were you during Obana's terms?
Tax cuts INCREASE fed revenues and in turn the debt will go DOWN as history has shown us.
The same claim was made about the W. Bush tax cuts from the left and the fed took in RECORD HIGH REVENUES.
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.
