No, you appear to have just entered the conversation midway and decided to get mad at some liberals because that's what you always do. The person ITT who started suggesting a president was responsible for the outcome of the stock market was...

I was saying presidents are a driving force in the performance of the economy & market, but I have said a couple times that saying the market is up x% more/less than the average annual return is not intelligent because there are many other factors. That was a liberal making that argument (not sure which one - they all sound alike to me).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=3361

your response to his criticism of obamas anti business policy was a graph. a graph that you have zero ability to articulate the meaning of. when asked if you have any clue, you dance around the question. this is the same thing over and over. a complete failure to articulate complete thoughts or ideas

in just blindly arguing to be right you highlight my exact point and dont even realize it. yes the market has had a remarkable rally since trumps election. surely he hasn't impacted the economy this much since election night. even you understand this. the answer to my question is that it clearly shows that the stock market performance isnt directly tied to the presidents policies. this is true for 4 months or 8 years

if you can't articulate how or why other than "sample size" i highly recommend you adjust your confidence levels accordingly

Because I knew mickey would disagree with the implied conclusion that Obama was responsible for it, thus undermining his own argument.

Again, you walked in to this in the middle without any idea what was going on, don't sweat it, we're used to it from you.

Everybody - giving an opinion on the markets is fine but if challenged (and preferablly even when not) you have to produce evidence. And please keep it focused on trump not on economic theory.

Having said that: My 2c - when you have a government that is generally anti-regulation, doesn't care about costly affairs like addressing climate change and seems keen on infrastructure investment then that's a short term bonanza for a powerful economy. Anything less than a boom would be staggering. Anti-immigration hurts but maybe that's slightly less short term.

Turns out this was an omen of something to come: Afghans who worked for US told they will no longer receive special immigrant visas

"Thanks for helping us fight the Taliban, too bad your culture is incompatible with ours" says the Trump administration. I'm sure this will help us make more local allies for the fight against ISIS and other future threats!

Donald Trump in words, when addressing Congress:

His actions say otherwise, in the new Ryancare plan he's advocating for: GOP health bill would remove requirement for mental health & addiction services coverage currently used by 1.3 million people

But it was a great speech, just the most presidential speech, amirite? Who cares if it consisted of him lying to everyone for an hour?

Remember this is the same president that said you can get drugs at the same price as candy bars.....also he loves the poorly educated.

Trump got a lot of heat for the drugs like candy bars sentence but if you take it as simply meaning drugs are cheap and plentiful then it's not a bad thing to say.

Of course you don't gut addiction services in response to that so it doesn't really matter what Trump says

So you're critical of him using results over an 8 year presidency as evidence of the quality of his decisions saying the results take a while to kick in, and then crediting trump with the performance of the market a couple months following the election. Sounds legit.

If trump clamps down on free trade that's one of the most anti business policies imaginable. Does that not count? Or are those inefficiencies acceptable because they help low skill workers? Seems like the exact same argument for min wage.




I'll even agree that trump would be better for the markets in some ways.... whether it's a good thing is a lot more complicated. Permitting the sale of cigarettes to children would boost gdp... not so sure it would be a great idea to allow cig vending machines in elementary schools.

Bahbah,

Do you even do the most basic of google searches?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/loans-to...ancial-crisis/

Hilarious to see you trot out racist right wing talking points though!

Edit:marginal tax rates!!!

I traded futures for 3+ years. I'd say get-political risk go significantly way up with trump. Add in fed starting to hike rates and I'd be surprised if the market wasn't significantly lower over the next 4 years. I just can't see how trump doesn't have major foreign policy disaster.

Attributing 1 month of gains is obviously lol and in general id be wary of attributing any gains/losses based on policy.

Market psychology is just a big a part as fundamentals and everyone was itching to get short after trump got elected. The initial move once polls showed trump took the lead was massive: SP futures went limit down. Then you had the FU reversal news trade(one of the best setups) and market hasn't looked back. It takes a while for markets to rollover and people over-shorting adds fuel to keep markets going irrationally higher.

DHS can't seem to stop detaining Muhammad Ali Jr. at airports

I challenge this assertion. Fiscal policy is in the realm of the three branches of the federal government. Monetary policy is in the realm of the Fed. Monetary policy has a great deal of impact on stock market valuations.

Discounted Cash Flow is a fundamental component of valuing companies. There is an inversely proportional relationship between the discount rate and the valuation of a company.

Since I have challenged your opinion, we now need to apply the chez rule.

Quote:

Everybody - giving an opinion on the markets is fine but if challenged (and preferablly even when not) you have to produce evidence. And please keep it focused on trump not on economic theory.

Where is your evidence?

I challenge your opinions:

1 - That TRUMP doesn't care about costly affairs.
2 - That the anticipation of a spike in infrastructure spending will cause/has been a significant contributing factor in the rise of the stock market.

Where is your evidence?

So you would be selling into this rally?

It seems the boycotts and protests have helped Ivanka Trumps business. Her line is up only 346%. It seems futile to try to sabatoge the Trump family. With everything being thrown at them, they continue to win

Grab your wallets..lol

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know...s-record-sales

Addressing 2 is quite simple. The expectation of a big infrastructure bill has bumped up inflation expectations. This has caused the odds of a fed rate increase next week to increase to 100%. Who has led the rally in the Dow? Goldman. Who benefits from rising rates? Banks. However if this infrastructure bill ends up being mainly ppp deals, it will not be as stimulative as if it were financed with new money. I think the market is extended on valuations and has more downside risk than upside potential at the current moment. Things that could change that would be transformative tax policy change or repatriation of earnings which would give a short term boost.

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...53945503567872

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/stat...52258986500097

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedBen/stat...52853650632704

https://twitter.com/thegarance/statu...08708169129986

https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/stat...09474434904064

To be fair, trump didn't know that Medicaid and Medicare care for different populations.

Those numbers aren't true. Actually her line is down.

There is the saying that the market can remain irrational far longer than you can remain solvent. retail traders and subscription snake oil salesman have even trying to call a top in the market ever since we had a significant rally off the 08 bottom. There definitely has been some panic in the last few years where market looked like some major tankage was coming yet buyers always came in when it it would hit limit down.

Id rather be aggressive and take shots when something unexpected happens(brexit/trump election/trump pressing the red button). From a long term investment perspective, I'd be cautious at these levels and would want protection in case of downturn. Market is pricing in rate hike at next weeks fed meeting(93%) so will be interesting to see how market reacts.

He is no longer employed there.

https://twitter.com/pewresearch/stat...97454106066945