Trump was prophetic when he said this...

1. 81

   jackclee lmposted 5 years ago

   He said on Oct. 30, 2018 -
   If you want your stocks to go down, I suggest you vote Democrat...

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Here is the actual quote...
      https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/trump-i … ocrat.html

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Here is today’s close of the DOW...it has dropped 3000 points since election day...
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 88

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            How do you like Trump now? How's your retirement doing?
            
            Do you think the stock market is Voodoo?
            
            Why did it go up consistently under Obama?
            
            What specific things did Democrats do to make the stock market go down? They aren't even in power yet, but you're blaming them. That's pretty amazing.
            
            The market likes predictability and Trump is leading one of the most unpredictable, unstable U.S. governments in our entire history. Nobody has any idea who will be in his cabinet two months from now and as the criminal charges pile up, things look increasingly difficult for him. It doesn't help that the Fed keeps raising interest rates, making it more expensive for regular people to borrow money.
            
            But do tell us all how the Democrats are at fault.
            
            You also realize that market instability during Dec/Jan is normal and that the stock market does not go up forever. Never has.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               We get the government we deserve...
               The first year of Trump presidency, all was well and the country is full of optimism and the market as a leading indicator was up 20%...
               Now, since the election, all is doom and gloom and the Mueller investigation is not ending...so... the market is reacting to a pending Democrat controlled House headed by Speaker Pelosi. What is there to look forward to? Obstruction, and more deficit spending and no wall.

               replyreport
         2. 88

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            A good article explaining Trump's effect on the economy:
            
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos … 4ad6070b24

            replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Democratic Party is the party of losers, those who want lifetime handouts, those who are content with little or nothing, & those who are anti-success & anti-achievement.   The Democratic Party has devolved into the American Socialist-Communist Party.   It isn't the party of my parents or myself.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Right...and where is President Obama now? He was claiming credit for the Trump economy...that he started...

         replyreport
         1. 88

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Just like George W. Bush, Trump appears to be taking a thriving economy and driving the car into the ditch.
            
            If you know anything about how the budget works, the first year of the economy of an incoming President is all the work of the previous President. But I do like how you're trying to reverse that generally accepted fact and give Trump credit for the first year of his presidency and blame Obama for the second.
            
            Also, go look at the history of the stock market. Usually goes up more under Democrats than Republicans.
            
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlazar … c6970a239d
            
            And notice the conclusion of the article - there's no conclusive evidence that political party has any effect on the stock market.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I never buy that argument. Policiies matters. Directly or indirectly, government policies affect the economy and the jobs and the taxes and interest rates... they are all interrelated.
               The reason we had such a weak recovery under Obama is due to the fact of over regulation and low or near zero interest rate and government spending..like a drunken sailor.
               Under Trump, things started to turn around with reduced regulation and tax reform and increasing interest rate and better energy policy like building the XL pipeline...
               All that is now in jeopardy with a Democratic controlled House.
               We will continue to have undocumented crossing our border and destroying our soverignty. Pat Buchanan wrote a boom many hears ago called “Death of the West” we are seeing it happen right in front of our eyes in Europe and now coming to America.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Then why has the stock market gone up more under Democrats than Republicans?
                  
                  I get you don't buy the argument, but it's called science, you should check it out.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Then why do people vote Republican when Democrats are just so much smarter and better steward of our environment and the market? Don’t you see, they are two part of the same coin?

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        I have given you a fact - the markets go up more under Democrats. My question is why.
                        
                        You answered my question with another question.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           I don’t know why and I don’t think anyone else know either. The market is a gambling casino where people place their bets on companies...some do well others fail. However, I do know the system is rigged. The large investors and institutions and hedge funds do extremely well while the small investor generally does poorly. They have an advantage the small investor do not have. The government, which writes laws and oversea these operations like the SEC have not always looked out for the average guy. Case in point, when the housing and banking crisis occurred at the of end of the Bush Administration, not a single person went to jail. Meanwhile, we the American tax payer were asked to pay for billions of subsidies to bailout the big banks.. These people have gambled and lost and with the help of the government thru fannie mae created the housing bubble. These are the same people that goes in and out of government serving in both Democrat and Republican administrations and also on the board of Goldman Sachs...so why do you think?

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Well, you were giving Trump all the credit for the increase in the stock market last year and now that it's going down, you seem to want to blame somebody else. That seems consistent with how Trump does things. He takes credit for everything that's good and blames everything that's bad on somebody else.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 You mean just like Obama who blames Bush for the poor economy after 5 years in office...and then take credit for the first 1.5 year of Trump administration...?
                                 I don’t claim I know exactly why stocks go up and down but in macro economics, policies and government does have a secondary effect.
                                 The fact the market went up 20% the first year of Trump, I do give him and his policies credit.
                                 The fact it rose 10% this year and dropped 12 perscent since the mid term election also reflects the political climate.
                                 So yes, I do blame partly the fact that Democrats are taking control of the House and causing some companies to pause...that is only one part of it. The global economy has also slowed and the trade wars and talk of tarriffs are also part of that equation. Don’t tell me all democrats are good and all Republican are bad. That is what I totally disagree with.
                                 The trade wars can be placed on Trump’s shoulder. He was the one pushing for better trade deals with China. To the extent he is causing this current turmoil, I also place some of the blame on him. The other part is the Federal Reserve, who is suppose to br an independent agency. Yet, we know that is not the case. During the Obama years, every time there was a talk of raising interest rate, the market would slide and the Fed would back off, do you remember, it was not that long ago.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    Again, you're not answering the question, but referring back to Obama, who I didn't bring up.
                                    
                                    However, using YOUR OWN METRIC OF PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESS, how was the stock market doing 5 years into Obama's presidency?
                                    
                                    That said, Bush was responsible for the economy. It was in the toilet. We were in a recession. Do you think magic brings us out of a recession? Do you think you get out of a recession overnight? It takes a long time to reverse bad policies.
                                    
                                    In the case of Bush, it was a lot of deregulation, leading to bad financial decisions and management. The opposite of deregulation is regulation (of some kind, at least), yet your criticism of Obama is too much regulation.
                                    
                                    Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
                                    
                                    Show me anywhere I said all Democrats were good and all Republicans are bad. Anywhere.
                                    
                                    Personally, I prefer the slow, steady growth under Obama. But he got criticized for it. Trump came in with a mandate, more or less, the accelerate the economy, which he did with a tax cut, deficit spending, and deregulation. While that sort of thing can be beneficial in the short term, the markets are getting spooked by the prospect of the tax cut's effects wearing off, deficit spending impacting the markets, and deregulation causing serious problems. Add it all together and the Fed sees inflation and they're adjusting accordingly.
                                    
                                    I've said this a bunch of times - I don't like the Fed's rate hikes and I'm right there with Trump and support his criticism. It makes it more expensive to borrow money. It will slow things down. We haven't seen any inflation. The banks want higher interest rates so they can make more money.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       "The banks want higher interest rates so they can make more money."
                                       
                                       Are you sure about that Crankilicious?
                                       
                                       I don't really know for sure, but I have an understanding that bank's profits are tied to a differential between the Fed Prime and the loan rate charged to the borrower.
                                       
                                       Banks borrow money to lend it, so if the prime goes up, the bank's borrowing costs go up, so the consumer rate goes up to maintain the bank's profit margin.
                                       
                                       I don't think they profit any more from high rates than they do for low rates. Do I have that wrong?
                                       
                                       Think of it like the price of gas. You local service station isn't making more money when prices go up because they have to pay for what they buy to sell to you.
                                       
                                       GA

                                       report
                                       1. 78

                                          hard sunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          They called it yield curve when I worked for AIG. I think you explained it about right GA. Although, my understanding is the longer term investments, mortgages, etc are affected more by inflation and the number of global borrowers. I'm not exactly sure how that is, but our general manager did always tell us the fed rate changes meant little to us either way when it came to mortgages. It affected us more with shorter term loans. But, then again, as a finance company we were often already charging the maximum amount allowable by law for those, so...yeah.

                                          report
                                          1. 89

                                             GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                             Hi there hard sun, thanks for the affirmation.
                                             
                                             I was describing it in a very general way - relative to banks. I am sure, as you mentioned, that there may be other profit variables among different lending institutions.
                                             
                                             GA

                                             report
                                    2. 81

                                       jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       That is where you and disgree.
                                       I think the rates needs to be higher.
                                       I am consistent. Under Obama, I thought the rates needed to up and it didn’t.
                                       Now under Trump, I still believe we are too low. The rate needs to be up around 4% irregardless of what happen with the stock market.
                                       Here is a chart you need to keep in mind...
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       Do you see the anomaly from 2008-2016?
                                       What was the average rate before that?
                                       What should be the rate now?

                                       report
                                    3. 88

                                       crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       You're about as consistent as the weather.
                                       
                                       Why do you think the rate should be 4%? I can't see how you can come up with that in a way that is anything other than arbitrary.

                                       report
                                       1. 81

                                          jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          It is not arbitrary... traditionally, that was the average interest rate for many decades. Do you remember the old financial advice? You save for retirement and as you get closer to retirement age, you move your investment to saver vehicles such as CD and bonds that give a reasonable return?
                                          Well, in the past decade or more, you couldn’t. The banks were paying 0.1% interest and the CD were not much higher.
                                          This is an anomaly...
                                          It was artificially created by the Fed.
                                          Do you know why?
                                          They wanted cheap money so they can borrow and print and called it quantitative easing as if that was going to fix things. What they were doing is printing money that we don’t have...
                                          
                                          If you want to think of this in macro terms, what the Federal reserve did is to transfer some wealth from the savers to the borrowers- being uncle Sam.
                                          The people who worked all their lives saving and retiring cannot get a decent return while uncle Sam spent it like it was free money.
                                          
                                          That will be $50 for a lesson on economics you will never learn in a class.

                                          report
                                       2. 81

                                          jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          It is not arbitrary... traditionally, that was the average interest rate for many decades. Do you remember the old financial advice? You save for retirement and as you get closer to retirement age, you move your investment to saver vehicles such as CD and bonds that give a reasonable return?
                                          Well, in the past decade or more, you couldn’t. The banks were paying 0.1% interest and the CD were not much higher.
                                          This is an anomaly...
                                          It was artificially created by the Fed.
                                          Do you know why?
                                          They wanted cheap money so they can borrow and print and called it quantitative easing as if that was going to fix things. Wha they were doing is printing money that we don’t have...
                                          
                                          If you want to think of this in macro terms, what the Federal reserve did is to teansfer some wealth from the savers to the borrowers- being uncle Sam.
                                          The people who worked all their lives saving and retiring cannot get a decent return while uncle Sam spent it like it was free money.
                                          That will be $50 for a lesson on economics you will never learn in a class.

                                          report
            2. 60

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I'd have to disagree, where the stock market is concerned, since it has such an emotional element. Jack Lee may actually have a point here, or not. Which is why I don't believe the average citizen can tie their wealth to it. It becomes a lack thereof without you having any control over it.
               
               Obama was a great man, in line with Jimmy Carter. Likeable, admirable in many ways, but his constant pandering and denigration of our country drug us down emotionally. As does today's Democratic party. It can easily takes its toll on the market.

               replyreport
2. 94

   Readmikenowposted 5 years ago

   Jack, you need to put things in perspective.  You are forgetting a key element.  The Federal Reserve has hiked the interest rate 3 times in 2018 alone.  There is NO reason to hike the interest rate with such strong employment numbers.  Higher interest rates mean people sell more stocks, invest less in stocks and it has a negative effect on the stock market.  The history of those making the decisions at the federal reserve are individuals who really don't like Trump.  The Federal Reserve did almost NOTHING during the Obama administration.  This enabled stocks to soar.
   
   "Political Bias or Something Else?
   
   Is there any way to make a judgment on the political bias of the Federal Reserve?  The answer is – of course not.  But, the fact that the Federal Reserve failed to take any real, substantive action for almost seven years during the Obama administration might raise some eyebrows.  The economy was doing fine and on solid footing back in 2012 or 2014, both years the Federal Reserve could have been more prudent about managing interest rates.
   
   But, they failed to act back then.  And now they’re moving.  Hmm, is this funny or discouraging?"
   
   https://www.valuewalk.com/2018/05/feder … rget-rate/
   
   President Donald Trump has no control over the actions of the Federal Reserve.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Agree on your observation. I was one that have been crticizing the federal reserve for a long time. They have used their power to control the money supply and politicized it. You are absolutely correct. The interest rate should have been raised years ago under Obama. He got a free ride all these years with 0% rate. He used the credit card with the Bank of China and spent it to oblivion. Now, when we are faced with a huge debt service, the fed now raised the rate...
      Don’t get me wrong, I still suport the rate increase and we are not even close to norm. It should be around 4% when we are at an economic boom.

      replyreport
3. 0

   Onusonusposted 5 years ago

   Dems get control of the senate, stocks plummet. Yay socialism...
   

   replyreport