American Politics

[Stuttgart88]

Just on Mark’s point about record highs in the stock market.

The stock market is at record levels because (a) bond yields (interest rates) are low. This automatically improves equity prices, other things being equal, because a share’s value is simply the present value of expected future dividends and lower interest rates imply a higher value today of money received in the future, and (b) the biggest buyer of stocks over the past few years has been the companies themselves, not the savings market. Buy-backs feed demand and simultaneously (permanently) reduce supply. The tax cuts to corporations fuelled this, as did/do the easy credit conditions that makes it easy for corporations to borrow money to buy back their shares. They are also doing so because senior management get paid their bonuses based on share performance, so this really is evidence of incentives having counter-intuitive consequences. More debt / less equity makes companies less resilient in downturns and the increased quantity of poor quality debt with weak covenants is something that could be of systemic consequences. Many are warning about conditions in high yield markets, but with rates low, people are seeking returns anywhere they can. Indexation ie the prevalence of tracker funds forced into buying stocks that go up, has only compounded this.

For what it’s worth, stock markets everywhere are very high – some not at records because of tech bubble peaks in late 90s – but high stock prices aren’t unique to the US. Nor are they evidence of optimism for future earnings. Earnings growth has been virtually zero recently, and economic conditions across the developed world are pretty lethargic. My understanding is that earnings are expected to weaken especially in broader indices that include a more diverse range of stocks like the Russell 2000. Also, and relating to the first paragraph above, companies just aren’t seeing the investment opportunities that their retained earnings could be used for – notwithstanding the compensation issue – which is hardly a ringing endorsement of economic prospects.

There are lots of jobs in the US, but like in the UK many are low paid and insecure and fall short of the type of pay needed, say, for housing needs. The middle parts of the income distribution aren’t gaining. The labour participation rate is falling. There’s something amiss if a tight labour market isn’t fuelling inflation, which it isn’t. Many argue that the falling participation rate is a sign that labour market isn’t as hot as people think. Some economists have actually long been arguing for rate cuts because of this – a contrarian stance that tallies with Trump’s wishes, albeit for different reasons!

Job creation/unemployment and GDP growth are following the same trajectory as since 2010 when the economy recovered after the crisis. This isn’t to defend Obama, it’s simply to debunk the notion that Trump has generated something miraculous. Cutting taxes in a growing economy isn’t an act of genius economic planning. And it is all well and good to add growth in the short term but a far better option would have been to spend money on productive investment that boosts the supply side potential of the economy over the medium to long term, and which puts money into the pockets of lower & middle earners in the shorter term. This was an opportunity missed imho. A fiscal boost was welcome, but it was the wrong fiscal boost.

As a general point I think it’s beyond hypocritical that Republicans moan about deficits, national debt and spending but only until such time as running deficits suits them. Personally I think running deficits actually makes good sense a lot of the time, and across the Angloshpere and Germany the focus on balanced budgets is bad economics - but always a conservative vote winner.

Look, I know it’s easy to Trump-bash but I really am doing my best to be objective. And don’t confuse criticism of Trump with support for any of the Dems. I just think that in citing record stock markets Mark is falling for lazy propaganda aimed at people who don’t really understand these things. But it’s great PR.

[mark12345]

Can't believe I'm commenting on a foot.ie post about American politics but..........Mark - Is not starting wars your bar for being the "Greatest President in US History" as you called him? That's like congratulating a child for not pulling his sister's hair. The missile attack was caused by Trump for gods sake.

Your list of accomplishments above is also strange. What does "draining the swamp" mean to you? I know what he promised...but where is the evidence that he has achieved anything? He basically reduced the numbers of employees at government agencies who regulate business and increased those (by massive amounts) at Homeland Security and the VA (the latter of which is maybe the only thing I agree with). He has filled agencies with lobbyists, which runs exactly counter to the idea of "draining the swamp". He hasn't drained a thing - he just filled it with more alligators and leeches.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamand.../#79ac48f57060
https://www.propublica.org/article/w...on-dc-insiders


I live in the States. My 401k is doing ok. As it was under Obama at various points and probably will be again after Trump. That's fine but many don't have stock or a 401k and the vast majority don't have enough to make swings in the stock market a useful measure of progress. It's great for Trump and his donor-class of course.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/tr...r-2019-update/
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/obamas-numbers/

Pick any economic metric you want and claim it shows that Trump is doing a good job but the truth is way more complicated and it's notoriously hard to credit things solely to a President. He's only been in power for 3 years. Some good stuff happened (enough to satisfy his base) but the vast majority of his Presidency has been a **** show with very little meaningful progress. Some manufacturing jobs came back but long term they are at risk of automation so that's a stop gap measure.

Trump:
> promotes sexual assault and misogyny - he's a creep and always has been. Too much evidence to even list.
> defends neo-nazis as "good people" (even after they've murder innocent civilians)
> uses language and content that incites violence against his opponents - https://www.macleans.ca/politics/was...ites-violence/
> loves a bit of Nepotism
> hasn't delivered on any but the most pointless or misguided of his campaign promises. The vast majority of what he has accomplished is at best controversial and against the will of at least half the country - https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...browse/?page=5. VA improvements are the one plus.
> mocks the disabled
> makes horrendous, incompetent, corrupt and utterly partisan appointments to the Supreme Court and federal agencies, often appointing people with massive conflicts of interest who are completely opposed to regulating the areas they are supposed to protect/promote - see Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos among the roll-call of desperately unfit leeches involved.
> has no grasp of international law, see "we will bomb their (Iran's) cultural sites" or "we will take their (Syria's) oil"
> has no grasp of important concepts but loves to talk about them, see his analysis of wind power
> is generally a spiteful, childish, narcissistic individual who is no role model
> is using the Presidency for his OWN PROFIT - https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties
> is incoherent at best and consistently forgets what he has said, invents poll numbers (or uses the ones he gets from his own outbound emails) or outright lies to the public on a ridiculously regular basis - https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

If you're happy enough with all of that then more power to you.

P.S. Nobody in the US is claiming Suleimani was a hero and most didn't even know who he was until recently either. Again, I live here and he was news to me. He was a sometimes ally, sometimes enemy who was certainly anti-American and probably encouraging attacks on American forces via militias around the Middle East. Should he have been killed? Maybe. But to carry out the arguably extra judicial assassination of Iran's second most powerful official is a ridiculously dangerous move and likely resulted in the deaths of 67 innocent Canadians while giving Iran a new martyr to rally around. Will we end up in WW3? - not a chance. Was it a bad move? - well time will tell but you'd expect retaliation. Was it timed to distract from impeachment and help Trump's bid for re-election - Well....I'm no cynic but....Yeah. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...uleimani-trump

You have written an awful lot here - can't hope to respond to it all in detail.

Common ground - the 401k you spoke about - you are doing well, good....so am I. Will the stock market fall some time soon? Of course it will like it always does. I know I will probably suffer losses but hopefully not so much over the long run and hopefully you fare out alright also.

On other points we are worlds apart. Reason being, obviously, that you are accepting of completely different sources of information than I. Just an aside to what you have spoken about above - if DT was an existential threat to the United States and the world, as we have heard from Nancy Pelosi, and it was a matter of urgency to have him impeached, why has she waited so long to bring those articles of impeachment to the Senate? Nancy had the saving of the country, and the world, in her hands and she goes off on vacation? Hard to figure out, isn't it? Do you really, with all logic available to you, think that the delay was, as she stated, because she was waiting to see what things looked like in the Senate with Mitch McConnell? I mean, my God, you have to know there is an ulterior motive there, and that she is one of a long line of liars to the American public?

And while we are on the subject of lying to the American public, the Democrats and Republicans are in bed together. I have no time for the vast majority of both parties.

Other points you make:

Promotes sexual assault etc - you have evidence?

Remember Bill Clinton faced impeachment for such behavior. Do you honestly think if there was an ounce of evidence out there in the public domain, the Dems would not have impeached DT by now on such grounds? My honest feeling is that DT was something of a playboy before he ever became involved in politics (remember way back when when he was the biggest Democratic donor in New York - he was a Dem before running for president and they certainly loved his money), but if there is evidence of him doing anything illegal in this area you and I both know he would have been impeached by now.

Defends Neo-nazis as good people? Please tell me you have something other than Charlottesville? And if you don't, go back over the speech he gave, and the clarification he was asked to make, and made, the following day.

Mocks the disabled? Your credibility is dying at this stage.

Makes horrendous and corrupt appointments? Would they be the large amount of conservative judges he is appointing, or the two Supreme Court judges? If I remember correctly, they were part of his campaign promises. And hopefully one of those judges, will one day soon overturn the legalization of infanticide which was passed last year in New York state and narrowly missed passing in Virginia. You do agree with me, hopefully, that that practice is nothing short of barbaric.

The killing of Suleimani resulted in the deaths of 67 Canadians: And Donald Trump is responsible? You are saying that the carrying out the extra judicial assassination resulted in those deaths? I wouldn't even blame the Iranians for that. It was a disastrous accident which was not indended to happen as far as I can see. But Trump is responsible? How can you expect to be taken seriously?

[ontheotherhand]

You have written an awful lot here - can't hope to respond to it all in detail.

Common ground - the 401k you spoke about - you are doing well, good....so am I. Will the stock market fall some time soon? Of course it will like it always does. I know I will probably suffer losses but hopefully not so much over the long run and hopefully you fare out alright also.

On other points we are worlds apart. Reason being, obviously, that you are accepting of completely different sources of information than I. Just an aside to what you have spoken about above - if DT was an existential threat to the United States and the world, as we have heard from Nancy Pelosi, and it was a matter of urgency to have him impeached, why has she waited so long to bring those articles of impeachment to the Senate? Nancy had the saving of the country, and the world, in her hands and she goes off on vacation? Hard to figure out, isn't it? Do you really, with all logic available to you, think that the delay was, as she stated, because she was waiting to see what things looked like in the Senate with Mitch McConnell? I mean, my God, you have to know there is an ulterior motive there, and that she is one of a long line of liars to the American public?

And while we are on the subject of lying to the American public, the Democrats and Republicans are in bed together. I have no time for the vast majority of both parties.

Other points you make:

Promotes sexual assault etc - you have evidence?

Remember Bill Clinton faced impeachment for such behavior. Do you honestly think if there was an ounce of evidence out there in the public domain, the Dems would not have impeached DT by now on such grounds? My honest feeling is that DT was something of a playboy before he ever became involved in politics (remember way back when when he was the biggest Democratic donor in New York - he was a Dem before running for president and they certainly loved his money), but if there is evidence of him doing anything illegal in this area you and I both know he would have been impeached by now.

Defends Neo-nazis as good people? Please tell me you have something other than Charlottesville? And if you don't, go back over the speech he gave, and the clarification he was asked to make, and made, the following day.

Mocks the disabled? Your credibility is dying at this stage.

Makes horrendous and corrupt appointments? Would they be the large amount of conservative judges he is appointing, or the two Supreme Court judges? If I remember correctly, they were part of his campaign promises. And hopefully one of those judges, will one day soon overturn the legalization of infanticide which was passed last year in New York state and narrowly missed passing in Virginia. You do agree with me, hopefully, that that practice is nothing short of barbaric.

The killing of Suleimani resulted in the deaths of 67 Canadians: And Donald Trump is responsible? You are saying that the carrying out the extra judicial assassination resulted in those deaths? I wouldn't even blame the Iranians for that. It was a disastrous accident which was not indended to happen as far as I can see. But Trump is responsible? How can you expect to be taken seriously?

The only thing we are going to agree on is that there is corruption on both sides of the aisle. I'm no fan of the established Democrats. Wondering why Pelosi isn't allowing McConnell to hold his kangaroo court is silly. It's obvious - we all know the Senate won't convict him - they won't even review the evidence. So why send the articles when you can leave it hanging over him while he continues to act like a brat and give you more evidence that he is dangerously unfit for office? Sure he posted the whistleblower's identity on Twitter a few weeks back before taking it down, presumable because his lawyers told him to. He is unhinged and arguably getting worse.

He did 100% mock the disabled. It was beneath a grade schooler and should have been the end of him but then he should never have been running in the first place. The list of atrocious actions and words is just too long, from the Central Park 5 statements years ago and after they were exonerated to those on Mexican immigrants to the calls for violent action from his supporters at rallies. The video of him mocking the disabled reporter is here and any attempt to deflect or laugh it off is, to be frank, repugnant - https://www.youtube.com/embed/MZcuWba_HgU. If a mate of yours did this, you'd know exactly what he was doing and I'd hope you'd be old enough at this point to call them out for it.

I won't continue debating the rest Mark as we won't see eye to eye but there are references in my post from sources that are non-partisan or at least attempt to be unbiased whereas your references are opinion sites from propaganda merchants or Youtube videos without sources. I'm sorry but in this day and age of disinformation that isn't good enough.

Good luck to you. I'd love if you were right and it was all just a "hoax"....but he has given enough video evidence to convince me that he's a cretin, even without needing the backup of the mountains of reporting, first/second hand witnesses and convictions handed out to his cavalcade of goons and criminals.

[Real ale Madrid]

Wow, I mean wow.........what a statement!
To think there are still people out there that still believe this garbage,
Amazing.

If he's brain dead we should all be brain dead. You just cannot be serious with a comment like that.

The crimes and offences are all subjective and laughable, to be honest

I will be as charitable as I can to you and say that you are likely much more well versed in Irish politics than you are in those of the American variety, by virtue of the fact that you live in Ireland (correct me if I'm wrong).

Mocks the disabled? Your credibility is dying at this stage.

But Trump is responsible? How can you expect to be taken seriously?

Mark - your style of debate leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. You should counter things you disagree with your opinion backed up with appropriate sources. Something you also consistently refuse to do. Questioning other posters credibility when they have made considered posts backed up with numerous sources, just because you disagree with them is out of order. Please try an do a bit better. I respect your opinion but you make it hard to read without getting angry about some of the stuff you are peddling without the appropriate considered back-up to it.

[Stuttgart88]

Mark’s comments about his savings doing well are all well & good, but Mark do you still attribute the S&P / DJIA highs to Trump’s presidency? That’s my question here. You avoided answering that.

Trump totally mocked the disabled during his campaign, mimicking/mocking a reporter with cerebral palsy by moving his hands and arms as if he had CP himself, in order to deflect an awkward question. In most respectable countries he'd have had to withdraw his candidacy immediately and it's pretty symbolic of how standards have fallen in America that this was tolerated.

ontheotherhand is bang on above: his coterie of crooks who actually have been convicted is really alarming and should be a cause for concern for everyone.

I’d add that his public misrepresentation of the Muller report was bare faced lying and his new Attorney General (or whatever he is) Barr is assisting in the misrepresentation. Muller was clear in his synopsis that Trump was not exonerated and that there were 10 grounds for investigating him for obstruction of Justice. Trump's disregard for institutions (FBI, Fed...) and the overall checks and balances in place in the constitution are a big cause for concern. I don’t even think the Trump and Clinton impeachments are that comparable. Trump is being impeached after a whistle blower, a former ambassador and others have said he sought personal political favours from Ukraine with a kind of bribe. In fairness the same ambassador (Sandstrom?) gave some mitigating evidence too. I honestly don’t see how any right-minded person can’t see the alleged impropriety here and while it obviously is politically motivated, well that’s politics. Being politically motivated doesn’t make the allegations non-trivial.

As far as I recall, Clinton’s impeachment came about after Starr launched a long witch hunt against him – which was nothing but politically motivated by the way -, which included now Supreme Court Judge Cavanaugh (working for Starr at the time) falsely publishing claims of murder(!) against him. Cavanaugh admitted the claims were made up but he persisted because “mud sticks”. Classy guy – good guy to have interpreting the constitution if you’re ever in trouble. Only when their long campaign to find impeachable dirt on Clinton failed did they dig up Lewinsky and he was impeached for lying about an extra-marital affair – which WAS totally sordid and an abuse of his position. That’s my recollection anyway.

The thing is, I can see why America is tired of slick professional politicians like Obama and Hillary and some of the more normal Republicans in favour of a man-of-the-people intent on shaking things up and making life better for the rank & file Joe. I really do. I just don’t see how large parts of America have fallen for a multi-billionaire, serial bankrupt, adultery, boorish, white-nationalist, racist, serial liar (“I saw crowds of muslims celebrating the Twin Towers falling in NJ”) with obvious narcissism problems and questionable links to Russia. How the F has it come to this?

Has anything good happened under his watch? Sure, I’d bet it has. Has he any respect for basic decency or America’s fabled institutions which used to be the envy of the world? None whatsoever. Then again, I just don’t get large parts of America: It’s fetish for guns, Christian fundamentalism, Fox News and some of its pundits…

[SkStu]

Just on Mark’s point about record highs in the stock market.

The stock market is at record levels because (a) bond yields (interest rates) are low. This automatically improves equity prices, other things being equal, because a share’s value is simply the present value of expected future dividends and lower interest rates imply a higher value today of money received in the future, and (b) the biggest buyer of stocks over the past few years has been the companies themselves, not the savings market. Buy-backs feed demand and simultaneously (permanently) reduce supply. The tax cuts to corporations fuelled this, as did/do the easy credit conditions that makes it easy for corporations to borrow money to buy back their shares. They are also doing so because senior management get paid their bonuses based on share performance, so this really is evidence of incentives having counter-intuitive consequences. More debt / less equity makes companies less resilient in downturns and the increased quantity of poor quality debt with weak covenants is something that could be of systemic consequences. Many are warning about conditions in high yield markets, but with rates low, people are seeking returns anywhere they can. Indexation ie the prevalence of tracker funds forced into buying stocks that go up, has only compounded this.

For what it’s worth, stock markets everywhere are very high – some not at records because of tech bubble peaks in late 90s – but high stock prices aren’t unique to the US. Nor are they evidence of optimism for future earnings. Earnings growth has been virtually zero recently, and economic conditions across the developed world are pretty lethargic. My understanding is that earnings are expected to weaken especially in broader indices that include a more diverse range of stocks like the Russell 2000. Also, and relating to the first paragraph above, companies just aren’t seeing the investment opportunities that their retained earnings could be used for – notwithstanding the compensation issue – which is hardly a ringing endorsement of economic prospects.

There are lots of jobs in the US, but like in the UK many are low paid and insecure and fall short of the type of pay needed, say, for housing needs. The middle parts of the income distribution aren’t gaining. The labour participation rate is falling. There’s something amiss if a tight labour market isn’t fuelling inflation, which it isn’t. Many argue that the falling participation rate is a sign that labour market isn’t as hot as people think. Some economists have actually long been arguing for rate cuts because of this – a contrarian stance that tallies with Trump’s wishes, albeit for different reasons!

Job creation/unemployment and GDP growth are following the same trajectory as since 2010 when the economy recovered after the crisis. This isn’t to defend Obama, it’s simply to debunk the notion that Trump has generated something miraculous. Cutting taxes in a growing economy isn’t an act of genius economic planning. And it is all well and good to add growth in the short term but a far better option would have been to spend money on productive investment that boosts the supply side potential of the economy over the medium to long term, and which puts money into the pockets of lower & middle earners in the shorter term. This was an opportunity missed imho. A fiscal boost was welcome, but it was the wrong fiscal boost.

As a general point I think it’s beyond hypocritical that Republicans moan about deficits, national debt and spending but only until such time as running deficits suits them. Personally I think running deficits actually makes good sense a lot of the time, and across the Angloshpere and Germany the focus on balanced budgets is bad economics - but always a conservative vote winner.

Look, I know it’s easy to Trump-bash but I really am doing my best to be objective. And don’t confuse criticism of Trump with support for any of the Dems. I just think that in citing record stock markets Mark is falling for lazy propaganda aimed at people who don’t really understand these things. But it’s great PR.

Hey Stutts,

Good post and you know way more about this type of stuff than i do. Given that you have said above that - all other things being equal - the only cause and effect relationship for stock market is bond yields (interest rates), i have a question or two

1) Before the election (and then, again, before he took office) we were being told, left, right and centre, that a Trump presidency would see stock markets get into an unstoppable tailspin and crash which would send the world into a global recession. I am not exaggerating. This was standard fare on multiple news networks such as CNN (Blitzer, Cooper, Lemon) and MSNBC (Maddow) when i used to still watch some of those shows. What we saw was the polar opposite and the market growth can be directly set in line with the milestones of election and assumption of office. How do you reconcile?

2) Do you believe that, in the event of a crash, the media and his political opponents wouldn't try to paint a market crash as a) an election issue and b) attribute it to Trumps administration? If you believe it fair to attribute the current stock market performance to everything other than Trump, i assume the same would apply in the event of a crash?

[Stuttgart88]

I knew you’d react 

Well first up, other things aren’t equal and never are!

But on your two points:

(1) I wouldn’t have agreed with this, never would have. It was the same in the Brexit referendum. It’s clear that to a large degree markets aren’t priced off what we call fundamentals (outlook for profit growth etc.), but instead more by technical factors like low interest rates but also factors such as the sheer weight of money available to chase returns, and with low risk assets paying NEGATIVE returns in large parts of the developed world, money has to go somewhere. Anyone who ignored this was spouting election-motivated drivel. So my point is that even grave concerns over politics and the actions of a cavalier president would likely have had limited equity market downside because both the BOE and the Fed had scope to react with stimulus. In fact the BOE did react post-Brexit by cutting rates which helped borrowers out which is important in a consumption driven economy. Curiously, in the FTSE100’s case, most of the constituents have substantial dollar earnings so the fall in GBP post Brexit actually was reason for the FTSE to go up (lower GBP/USD boosted the GBP value of USD earnings).

(2) would depend on the cause of the crash. I think it’s fair to say most market economists think GDP growth will slow globally and it’s also fair to say that trade tensions have been a factor, and these trade tensions have been caused by Trump. If the market falls because of self-inflicted global GDP concerns, than I'd poiint the finger at Trump. But only something extreme politically would catalyse a full-on crash I reckon. Remember though that I think the 2018(?) tax cuts have caused stocks to rise a lot and companies have borrowed money to buy back shares too, so if a crash is caused by problems in the high yield bond markert I'd lay some of the blame on Trump bnecause his actions have weakened corporate balance sheets. Crashes occur when too many people have bought at too high a level and they all look to sell when they realise they've been wrong. I can see possible factors that cause a reversal that may be attributed to Trump, others down to the simple fact that markets do go down too.

[SkStu]

I only react to posts that are worth reacting to. Its a compliment.

So...correct me if i am wrong... but bottom line is that stock market increases could not be attributed to the actions of Trump but decreases could be?

[Stuttgart88]

What we saw was the polar opposite and the market growth can be directly set in line with the milestones of election and assumption of office. How do you reconcile?

What index are you referring to?

The S&P 500 was the same level just before the election and just after (2131 7th Nov, 2163 on 9th Nov 2016) and had been fairly flat all summer, and as a trend growing annually since 2010. There's no evidence of a post-inaugurant bump either. S&P rose through much of January.

The DJIA rose on 3rd Nov 2016 (a few days before election) and rose again in February 2017, but was quite flat during January 2017. Inauguration was 20th. After the crash (Sept 07 or thereabouts) the DJIA started its continuous growth from March 2009 to date. Some blips in between - 2014 and 2018.

[Stuttgart88]

I only react to posts that are worth reacting to. Its a compliment.

So...correct me if i am wrong... but bottom line is that stock market increases could not be attributed to the actions of Trump but decreases could be?

You’re trying to be smart with words!

I’m saying that markets have been rising since way before Trump took office and continued to do so afterwards. I think he boosted markets in 2018 but not so much because he improved economic conditions (which amounted to a sugar rush rather than a longer term supply side gain, or lasting fiscal stimulus) but primarily because his cuts led to share buybacks.

I’m saying that a decrease could be caused by a range of things. If markets do fall I’ll reserve my judgment on the cause until it happens. If it’s because of an accounting scandal at giant bank like JP Morgan or an asteroid landing on Facebook HQ I’ll give him a pass (but not without checking if he had anything to do with the asteroid!). But I am definitely saying that I think global GDP growth has been affected by trade tensions and I think corporate balance sheets in America have been adversely affected by Trump’s action in 2018. I don’t think either of these is a controversial view tbh. Lower growth and high corporate leverage are factors that make markets vulnerable.

[SkStu]

What index are you referring to?

The S&P 500 was the same level just before the election and just after (2131 7th Nov, 2163 on 9th Nov 2016) and had been fairly flat all summer, and as a trend growing annually since 2010. There's no evidence of a post-inaugurant bump either. S&P rose through much of January.

The DJIA rose on 3rd Nov 2016 (a few days before election) and rose again in February 2017, but was quite flat during January 2017. Inauguration was 20th. After the crash (Sept 07 or thereabouts) the DJIA started its continuous growth from March 2009 to date. Some blips in between - 2014 and 2018.

The Dow Jones is the one i pay most attention to for whatever reason [edit: probably cos the big numbers are sexier haha]... here are some markers of interest that i pulled from google - appears to report weekly markers.

January 16, 2015 - 17,511
January 1, 2016 - 17,425
November 4, 2016 - 17,888 (+463 2016 year to date)
November 11, 2016 - 18,847 (+959 in that week)
January 20, 2017 - 19,827 (approx. +980 since election)
Today - 29,069 (approx. +11,181 since election)

The Dow was at its lowest in 2009 (~7200), as you point out, since 1997 (~7100). From 1997 to a record high point in 2007 where it grew to ~14000 before the crash in 2009. Under Obama it also "smashed records" far surpassing its 2007 high, reaching the mid 17,000's. Under Obama it grew, lets say, 10,000 points in 8 years. From the above it has grown approximately 11,000 in the 3 years that Trump has been in office.

I am not necessarily disputing your analysis of the reasons for growth/recession but, since you felt compelled to question the alignment to key milestones that i suggested, i thought that this might give a fairer representation.

The S&P500 tells a similar story

January 16, 2015 - 2,019
January 1, 2016 - 2,043
November 4, 2016 - 2,085 (+42 2016 year to date)
November 11, 2016 - 2,164 (+79 in that week)
January 20, 2017 - 2,271 (approx. +107 since election)
Today - 3,283 (approx. +1,119 since election)

Looking at both indices over a longer horizon, the growth curve appears to be steeper under the Trump administration than it was during the Obama years.

Again, to look at the media (which ultimately drives the broad narrative on this stuff), you have to admit that, for a position that you explain has only a slight impact on market growth/recession, there are a trove of articles online that would appear to advocate for or support the notion that "Obama was better for your 401k" through market growth. There are other articles stating that both Obama's policies and Trumps policies have either helped or hindered your 401k through market performance. I am not disputing your explanation in saying this.

If the media (and their analysts) are therefore fuelling this cause/effect relationship, in fairness, why shouldn't Obama or Trump or the 2024 POTUS try to claim the credit for the effect? It is, as you say, politics after all.

To answer my own question 2 from above, i think it is without question that any crash (asteroid or not) would be attributed directly to Trump by the media. I looked up one article on why the DJIA dipped in December 2018. It took about 3 sentences to get to Trump as being the cause and the remainder of the article talking about the imminent recession which they had scheduled for 2019.

[mark12345]

Mark’s comments about his savings doing well are all well & good, but Mark do you still attribute the S&P / DJIA highs to Trump’s presidency? That’s my question here. You avoided answering that.

Trump totally mocked the disabled during his campaign, mimicking/mocking a reporter with cerebral palsy by moving his hands and arms as if he had CP himself, in order to deflect an awkward question. In most respectable countries he'd have had to withdraw his candidacy immediately and it's pretty symbolic of how standards have fallen in America that this was tolerated.

ontheotherhand is bang on above: his coterie of crooks who actually have been convicted is really alarming and should be a cause for concern for everyone.

I’d add that his public misrepresentation of the Muller report was bare faced lying and his new Attorney General (or whatever he is) Barr is assisting in the misrepresentation. Muller was clear in his synopsis that Trump was not exonerated and that there were 10 grounds for investigating him for obstruction of Justice. Trump's disregard for institutions (FBI, Fed...) and the overall checks and balances in place in the constitution are a big cause for concern. I don’t even think the Trump and Clinton impeachments are that comparable. Trump is being impeached after a whistle blower, a former ambassador and others have said he sought personal political favours from Ukraine with a kind of bribe. In fairness the same ambassador (Sandstrom?) gave some mitigating evidence too. I honestly don’t see how any right-minded person can’t see the alleged impropriety here and while it obviously is politically motivated, well that’s politics. Being politically motivated doesn’t make the allegations non-trivial.

As far as I recall, Clinton’s impeachment came about after Starr launched a long witch hunt against him – which was nothing but politically motivated by the way -, which included now Supreme Court Judge Cavanaugh (working for Starr at the time) falsely publishing claims of murder(!) against him. Cavanaugh admitted the claims were made up but he persisted because “mud sticks”. Classy guy – good guy to have interpreting the constitution if you’re ever in trouble. Only when their long campaign to find impeachable dirt on Clinton failed did they dig up Lewinsky and he was impeached for lying about an extra-marital affair – which WAS totally sordid and an abuse of his position. That’s my recollection anyway.

The thing is, I can see why America is tired of slick professional politicians like Obama and Hillary and some of the more normal Republicans in favour of a man-of-the-people intent on shaking things up and making life better for the rank & file Joe. I really do. I just don’t see how large parts of America have fallen for a multi-billionaire, serial bankrupt, adultery, boorish, white-nationalist, racist, serial liar (“I saw crowds of muslims celebrating the Twin Towers falling in NJ”) with obvious narcissism problems and questionable links to Russia. How the F has it come to this?

Has anything good happened under his watch? Sure, I’d bet it has. Has he any respect for basic decency or America’s fabled institutions which used to be the envy of the world? None whatsoever. Then again, I just don’t get large parts of America: It’s fetish for guns, Christian fundamentalism, Fox News and some of its pundits…

Some very interesting points you make. And given that you are an obviously quite intelligent lad, and a level headed one also with your take on some of the topics at hand, I find it disturbing that you can also be quite misled by the news / propaganda sources out there.

Firstly, your question about the stock market and do I think it is all attributable to Trump? Yes I do. He changed attitudes with his speeches about bringing jobs back to America. Also, according to many small business owners, his removal of the many regulations which the Obama administration put in place, has taken the shackles off them and allowed hiring of new employees and also providing health plans for existing ones.

When you talk about the Mueller Report and the FBI you are on shaky ground. Simply put, the Special Counsel investigation was the biggest political fraud ever visited on the American people. Mueller knew in the first week that there was no evidence of DT colluding with the Russians but he persisted for two years and held the country to ransom. Now there is a school of thought which says that Mueller received his instructions from above and was told to keep the thing going for as long as possible in order to produce an outcome like we have at present - namely impeachment. And speaking of collusion - there was ready made evidence of that with Obama when he was caught on a hot mike in Moscow telling one of Putin's officials to 'tell Vladimir I will have more flexibility after I am elected'. And Biden also, who, in his own words, told us he threatened to withhold over a billion dollars unless a Ukrainian official was fired (he was fired within hours). So we have one man who was investigated for two years and no evidence was found and two others who were caught red handed. Was equal justice under the law applied to all three men? Not a hope.

And the FBI. Once the premier law enforcement in the world, they have taken a real beating in the eyes of the public. The rank and file people in the organization seem to have kept their reputations, but the brass at the top have never in their history looked as compromised as they do today. And there will be a price to pay for them soon, I would predict. If not, then the justice system in America isn't worth a damn.

And lastly, you said you do not see how large parts of America have fallen for a multi-billionaire, serial bankrupt, adultery, boorish, white-nationalist, racist, serial liar (“I saw crowds of muslims celebrating the Twin Towers falling in NJ”).

Very simple. There is one man responsible for electing Donald Trump - his name is Barack Obama. For eight years decent folk in America were cast as racist, homophobes, mysoginists and every other phobe or ist you can name. Why? Because that is the currency of the Democrats - divide and conquer by labelling people and placing them into victim groups.

Think about it - America is such an awfully racist country that it elected a black president not once, but twice. Doesn't make sense does it?

Never was race relations so bad than under Obama (think Trayvon Martin, Ferguson Missouri, Cambridge police incident and BLM being invited to the White House shortly after their organization killed 5 cops in Dallas). You can take my opinion or leave it - but if Obama was such a success why was his successor Hillary not elected in a landslide? Answer, because America was sick and tired of identity politics.

Serial liar (“I saw crowds of muslims celebrating the Twin Towers falling in NJ”). I don't live in NY or NJ but I do remember reports of street celebrations in Detroit among our muslim friends after 911.

And you use the terms white nationalist and racist in relation to Donald Trump. Racist - you are having a laugh. He has done more for minorities than a wilderness of Democrat (and indeed Republican) presidents before him. I belive you will see the results in the upcoming election.

And 'white nationaist' - words which were unheard of up to a few months ago (and now we all seem to be falling into the trap).
Question - do you love Ireland? And are you white? If you answered yes to both of them you are a white nationalist.

At least we have something in common.

ONE LAST THING BEFORE I GO - nothing to do with any of the above but there is an issue on the horizon in the state of Virginia. It could be massive in the big scheme of things. Basically speaking the Democrats in the state are seeking to close down all gun ranges and are making noises about confiscating certain types of guns. Gun owners have reacted by declaring their counties (I believe 29 of the 31 counties, don't quote me) second ammendment sanctuaries. And from what I understand there will be no gun confiscation done without all gun owners resisting. It has the makings of a real testy situation - who knows what it could lead to.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm being misled by propaganda sources?

The Dow Jones is the one i pay most attention to for whatever reason [edit: probably cos the big numbers are sexier haha]... here are some markers of interest that i pulled from google - appears to report weekly markers.

January 16, 2015 - 17,511
January 1, 2016 - 17,425
November 4, 2016 - 17,888 (+463 2016 year to date)
November 11, 2016 - 18,847 (+959 in that week)
January 20, 2017 - 19,827 (approx. +980 since election)
Today - 29,069 (approx. +11,181 since election)

The Dow was at its lowest in 2009 (~7200), as you point out, since 1997 (~7100). From 1997 to a record high point in 2007 where it grew to ~14000 before the crash in 2009. Under Obama it also "smashed records" far surpassing its 2007 high, reaching the mid 17,000's. Under Obama it grew, lets say, 10,000 points in 8 years. From the above it has grown approximately 11,000 in the 3 years that Trump has been in office.

I am not necessarily disputing your analysis of the reasons for growth/recession but, since you felt compelled to question the alignment to key milestones that i suggested, i thought that this might give a fairer representation.

The S&P500 tells a similar story

January 16, 2015 - 2,019
January 1, 2016 - 2,043
November 4, 2016 - 2,085 (+42 2016 year to date)
November 11, 2016 - 2,164 (+79 in that week)
January 20, 2017 - 2,271 (approx. +107 since election)
Today - 3,283 (approx. +1,119 since election)

Looking at both indices over a longer horizon, the growth curve appears to be steeper under the Trump administration than it was during the Obama years.

Again, to look at the media (which ultimately drives the broad narrative on this stuff), you have to admit that, for a position that you explain has only a slight impact on market growth/recession, there are a trove of articles online that would appear to advocate for or support the notion that "Obama was better for your 401k" through market growth. There are other articles stating that both Obama's policies and Trumps policies have either helped or hindered your 401k through market performance. I am not disputing your explanation in saying this.

If the media (and their analysts) are therefore fuelling this cause/effect relationship, in fairness, why shouldn't Obama or Trump or the 2024 POTUS try to claim the credit for the effect? It is, as you say, politics after all.

To answer my own question 2 from above, i think it is without question that any crash (asteroid or not) would be attributed directly to Trump by the media. I looked up one article on why the DJIA dipped in December 2018. It took about 3 sentences to get to Trump as being the cause and the remainder of the article talking about the imminent recession which they had scheduled for 2019.

Probably easier to talk in % terms because those increases you talk about under Trump are bigger in absolute terms than Obama, but in % terms it’s more meaningful to analyse.

In terms of milestones:

I set the Dow’s value on election day (ED) = 100. The day after it was 101.4, ED+2 was 102.6 and good climb continued until year end. In my earlier post I just looked at the numbers a day before and after and thought “meh” 1% moves happen all the time but the start of a month long rally more or less at election result time can’t be argued. That said, the week or so after the election only returned the index to where it had been for large parts of the previous summer.

However, I did the same for inauguration day (ID). ID = 100, no move of any note until ID+5 (though there was a weekend) where it hit 101 for 3 days, and at end of month it was 100.2, almost exactly where it had been all January. So no evidence at all of an inauguration day bounce.

I did the same for the S&P 500. Election Day = 100. There was also a long climb into year-end but the moves were a bit more modest post-election. ED+1 was 101 and it wasn’t until ED+9 that even a 2% increase was seen.

Similar to above, setting ID = 100. ID+5,6 & 7 was 101. Month-end was 100.3, start of January was 99.4. So no evidence of an inauguration rally. Again, the week or so after the election saw similar levels to that summer’s levels.

So, I think it can’t be contested (nor was it) that there was a prolonged rally following the election which has continued – with some bumps - , but the evidence of an immediate boost is clearer for the Dow than the S&P, and there’s no evidence of an inauguration day rally at all.

Bear in mind the DJIA is an index of 30 large-cap stocks, the S&P is far broader and in most people’s opinion more representative.

Whose stock market performance was better? Obama’s or Trumps? Both have been very good. Obama deserves credit for my opinion for catalysing growth with spending increases after the crash and his actions with the car makers, but it has to be said that generating a bounce after a big fall is easier than generating a bounce during a period of growth. That said, as I argued above – and it’s not a controversial position really – Trump’s tax cuts led to share buy-backs (companies not investors were the biggest buyers of shares) which boosted returns. Also with fewer shares now outstanding (“de-equitisation”), any extra dollar of earnings has a bigger effect on share prices. So I’d argue that some recent share price growth is “lesser quality” growth because it’s not reflective at all of expected economic or earnings growth. As earnings have been flat lately I think it’s fair to say lower interest rate outlook has been a driving factor keeping stocks as high as they are.

[osarusan]

And 'white nationaist' - words which were unheard of up to a few months ago (and now we all seem to be falling into the trap).
Question - do you love Ireland? And are you white? If you answered yes to both of them you are a white nationalist.

One of the most stupid arguments I have ever seen in my life.

[The Fly]

Just a quick shout out to Trump and Fox News for sparking some life into the Current Affairs section.

America baby!

[mark12345]

One of the most stupid arguments I have ever seen in my life.

Feel free to elaborate.

[ontheotherhand]

Feel free to elaborate.

He shouldn't have to.

'White nationalist' is a term with meaning beyond the two words stuck together so your logic and comparison fails.

It's the same as telling a man with fake tan on that he is a Unionist. He might be an orange man but he is not an Orangeman.

'White nationalism' in the sense used to describe Stephen Miller and the other racists in Trump's menagerie of ******* is, as you well know, a term that describes a white supremacist idealogy.

Instead of deflecting, why dont you go back over the posts so far and supply any evidence at all to support your arguments? Bonus points if the evidence has sources and comes from reputable places. 0 points if your evidence comes from a source that promoted "pizzagate" or any other right wing nutjob nonsense.

[mark12345]

One of the most stupid arguments I have ever seen in my life.

My original questions to Stutts were - Do you love Ireland and Are you white?

Simple enough really. And who would have guessed that in 2020 it is bad to be white and love your country?
It may not be part of the discourse in Ireland (I really hope it's not) but unfortunately, that's not the case in America.
You have politicians standing in front of the country, putting the words 'white' and 'nationalist' together and using them as a catchphrase to marginalize people and cast them as guilty of some sort of evil disposition.
The flag is now desecrated while others kneel for the national anthem. Why? Because they are symbols of one nation (united) under a common goal. And unity and harmony is something they just cannot abide (if you doubt that listen out for those words on CNN or MSNBC. You'll be listening for a very long time - in truth Fox News hardly ever mentions them either).

Could you imagine the reaction of the crowd at the Aviva if kneeling for the national anthem and/or disrespecting the flag ever happened at an international game?

Unfortunately, too many of us are all falling into their trap (ie using the term 'white nationalist' ourselves long enough so it becomes reality. It was never a reality - it's made up as a means to an end. As I said no one even uttered those words until a few months ago).

How damaging can these catchphrases be?

Well in 2012 a black teenager was killed in Florida. The man who killed him (in self-defence) was the son of an American father and Peruvian mother. He had a Hispanic complexion.
At any other time and under any other circumstance he would have been called a Hispanic male and this would have been a non-story. But the media outdid themselves in this instance, categorising him as "White Hispanic." No one in America had ever heard that label before that day in 2012, and regular people were looking at one another in a comical "you learn something new every day" tone. But that didn't matter to our friends in the media who had an agenda to follow and did their best to try and convict this man (George Zimmerman) in the court of public opinion. They succeeded. Their narrative caught on like wildfire. Obama was moved to speak about the case, protest groups came and did their thing and shortly afterwards BLM was formed.

That term "White Hispanic" as I say was never heard before that day in 2012, and it has never been heard since.

So just like the term "White Hispanic" was designed to forward an agenda and to hell with the life of an innocent man, the media and their friends in politics are using a dangerous manufactured term ("White Nationalist") to once again divide the country. Because a divided people with perceived victimhood are much easier to influence at the ballot box.

He shouldn't have to.

'White nationalist' is a term with meaning beyond the two words stuck together so your logic and comparison fails.

It's the same as telling a man with fake tan on that he is a Unionist. He might be an orange man but he is not an Orangeman.

'White nationalism' in the sense used to describe Stephen Miller and the other racists in Trump's menagerie of ******* is, as you well know, a term that describes a white supremacist idealogy.

Instead of deflecting, why dont you go back over the posts so far and supply any evidence at all to support your arguments? Bonus points if the evidence has sources and comes from reputable places. 0 points if your evidence comes from a source that promoted "pizzagate" or any other right wing nutjob nonsense.

Pizzagate? Orangeman? Fake Tan? Unionist?
Ok......I'll leave you alone to your thoughts.

[peadar1987]

Could you imagine the reaction of the crowd at the Aviva if kneeling for the national anthem and/or disrespecting the flag ever happened at an international game?

If players had said they were kneeling as a protest against, say, the homelessness crisis, y'know, I think most people would absolutely respect that.

Irish people aren't as precious about our flag and anthem as many Americans seem to be. Heck, loads of Unionists literally burn tricolours on the 12th of July and the reaction of most Irish people is mild amusement and pity at the ignorant, hateful dinosaurs.

[ontheotherhand]

Pizzagate? Orangeman? Fake Tan? Unionist?
Ok......I'll leave you alone to your thoughts.

Do you really need all that explained? I tried my best to bring it to the right level.

Here it is in simpler terms - your argument fails. It's illogical to equate the words in the way you did.

'white nationalist' does not mean 'patriot who is caucasian'. It means 'white supremacist'. You know this. You must know this...right?

And it's bad to be white now is it? Could've fooled me. I have it fairly good over here and I'm as pale as the moon. Is Christmas under attack as well? Better hide the ornaments before the government comes to take them away.

And please stop with the comparisons between Ireland and America. You know what the protests are about and we don't have an equivalent issue in Ireland nor do we have propaganda outlets like Fox who would fan the flames to the point anybody gave a ****e. If and when we enslave and torture a race of people over multiple generations and they go on to exercise their eventual freedom by peacefully protesting what they perceive to be injustices then we can do a proper comparison.