Dow goes up 1% since inauguration and Trump is responsible

[HomerJS]

Donnie boy takes total credit for the Dow going up 1% in 5 days. Congrats Trump in 5 days you manage a major accomplishment that has never been done before.

Take that Obama!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-t...se-claims-credit-for-dow-20000-152043940.html

For the record the Dow was at 19,800 back on Jan 20.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's what happens when you have a guy in the white house that always and constantly has to feed his ego first and foremost.

 

[Maxima1]

The stock market is doing better because investors assume that Republicans will get rid of the deficit and debt canard now that a Republican administration is in power.

 

[Thebobo]

The stock market is doing better because investors assume that Republicans will get rid of the deficit and debt canard now that a Republican administration is in power.

President Barack Obama: Total = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1 percent decrease.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142 percent increase

Source

 

[Maxima1]

President Barack Obama: Total = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1 percent decrease.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142 percent increase

Source

Obama came in under the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The automatic stabilizers, which have nothing to do with Obama, kept it from getting nearly as bad. Under those severe conditions, revenue drops like a rock, so it's completely disingenuous to complain about Obama's increase. And FYI, Obama decreased the deficit at the fastest rate in US history.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

President Barack Obama: Total = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1 percent decrease.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142 percent increase

Source

Does everyone know why Clinton came in with that surplus? If anyone doesn't know...now would be a good time to educate yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

Does everyone know why Clinton came in with that surplus? If anyone doesn't know...now would be a good time to educate yourself.

It's mostly due to the effects of the tax increases of Bush I and Clinton, along with a booming economy and stock bubble. Constraints on discretionary spending also helped create it, but not as much as the first two.

 

[NesuD]

It's mostly due to the effects of the tax increases of Bush I and Clinton, along with a booming economy and stock bubble. Constraints on discretionary spending also helped create it, but not as much as the first two.

Nope that's not it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Does everyone know why Clinton came in with that surplus? If anyone doesn't know...now would be a good time to educate yourself.

I'm going to assume you're not referring to the Social Security Surplus...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Dow closed at 18,363 on election day when Clinton was the presumed winner. Today, it's nearly 10% higher...now that's bigly!

And I especially enjoyed Paul Krugman's prediction that the stock market would “never” recover from Trump’s upset victory. Priceless!

 

[fskimospy]

The Dow closed at 18,363 on election day when Clinton was the presumed winner. Today, it's nearly 10% higher...now that's bigly!

And I especially enjoyed Paul Krugman's prediction that the stock market would “never” recover from Trump’s upset victory. Priceless!

It was a prediction he rescinded like two days later and said was the product of giving into the same impulses that people were wrong about when it came to Brexit. Pretty convenient to leave that out, haha.

It's amazing how angry conservatives are at a guy who has done little else but be right most of the time for eight years.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It was a prediction he rescinded like two days later and said was the product of giving into the same impulses that people were wrong about when it came to Brexit. Pretty convenient to leave that out, haha.

It's amazing how angry conservatives are at a guy who has done little else but be right most of the time for eight years.

Did you suggest to bshole that it might be prudent to reduce his stock market holdings after the election based on Krugman's prediction of impending doom...or was that all you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm thinking this is hardly relevant to anything at the moment. Trump cannot have done anything for good or ill that required his participation. Too soon for that.

 

[HomerJS]

The Dow closed at 18,363 on election day when Clinton was the presumed winner. Today, it's nearly 10% higher...now that's bigly!

And I especially enjoyed Paul Krugman's prediction that the stock market would “never” recover from Trump’s upset victory. Priceless!

You do know Trump only gets 1% of that right?

When Obama came in the Dow was under 7000 when he leaves almost triple. Think the creamsicle can pull that off?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm thinking this is hardly relevant to anything at the moment. Trump cannot have done anything for good or ill that required his participation. Too soon for that.

The markets always look forward.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you suggest to bshole that it might be prudent to reduce his stock market holdings after the election based on Krugman's prediction of impending doom...or was that all you?

I actually told bshole the opposite, that trying to time the market like that was a fool's errand. It's not the first time I've told him that either.

If anything this just makes Krugman even more credible than he was before as when he makes a mistake he admits it. If you look around there are still legions of conservatives that are arguing hyperinflation should have happened, did happen but was hidden by a mysterious government cabal, etc. I guess some people just have more integrity than others.

 

[zinfamous]

You do know Trump only gets 1% of that right?

When Obama came in the Dow was under 7000 when he leaves almost triple. Think the creamsicle can pull that off?

no no, don't you get it? Obama is not responsible for a 180% increase in the DOW because the economy and the market act independent the POTUS' actions!

Obama is only responsible for the economy collapsing prior to his first election.

Obviously, Trump is responsible for a 1% increase in the Dow, where it would have little time to respond to whatever legitimate impact he might have. Because, stuff.

duh!

 

[chowderhead]

unemployment claims ticked up for the week. This is a proxy for layoffs. Companies are preparing to layoff workers in anticipation of Trump/Republican policies. See I can do this too.
ETA: Trump should just get rid of unemployment benefits .... those lazy bastards and the uptick in claims goes away. Problem solved.

 

[fskimospy]

no no, don't you get it? Obama is not responsible for a 180% increase in the DOW because the economy and the market act independent the POTUS' actions!

Obama is only responsible for the economy collapsing prior to his first election.

Obviously, Trump is responsible for a 1% increase in the Dow, where it would have little time to respond to whatever legitimate impact he might have. Because, stuff.

duh!

No, that was a bubble inflated by the fed to make Obama look good! This is the real deal though. The easiest way to know is that there's a Republican in charge. When republicans are in charge stocks go up because business likes republicans. When democrats are in charge stocks go up because of evil liberal trickery or inspite of them.

Really in both cases the effects of a president on the stock market can't really be effectively measured. If I had to guess I would say that the largest policy reason for stocks to go up would be that they expect Republicans to suddenly and mysteriously stop caring about deficits again.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I actually told bshole the opposite, that trying to time the market like that was a fool's errand. It's not the first time I've told him that either.

All I know is that he said he decided to substantially reduce his holdings after talking to you at the time.

If anything this just makes Krugman even more credible than he was before as when he makes a mistake he admits it. If you look around there are still legions of conservatives that are arguing hyperinflation should have happened, did happen but was hidden by a mysterious government cabal, etc. I guess some people just have more integrity than others.

Paul "Deficits Don't Matter" Krugman is a clown and partisan hack masquerading as a highly credible economist. Now that Trump won the WH he's suddenly saying deficits do matter. Imagine that! You can't make this shit up!

 

[zinfamous]

No, that was a bubble inflated by the fed to make Obama look good! This is the real deal though. The easiest way to know is that there's a Republican in charge. When republicans are in charge stocks go up because business likes republicans. When democrats are in charge stocks go up because of evil liberal trickery or inspite of them.

Really in both cases the effects of a president on the stock market can't really be effectively measured. If I had to guess I would say that the largest policy reason for stocks to go up would be that they expect Republicans to suddenly and mysteriously stop caring about deficits again.

Actually, I'm not sure if that's true anymore:

Pretty solid evidence now that Trump's toilet twitter decrees about specific companies are moving those share prices for the day.

None of this is normal (nor should it be legal). LoL--how is that not price manipulation?

"Hey buddies, I'm going to shit out some comment about General Mills making their Bran Flakes in Mexico tomorrow, better put in some short options!"

 

[fskimospy]

All I know is that he said he decided to substantially reduce his holdings after talking to you at the time.

So you decided I said one thing when I said the literal exact opposite. How about admitting you were wrong and apologizing?

Paul "Deficits Don't Matter" Krugman is a clown and partisan hack masquerading as a highly credible economist. Now that Trump won the WH he's suddenly saying deficits do matter. Imagine that! You can't make this shit up!

That makes it even worse that conservatives keep getting owned by a 'clown' then. I mean he has spent the last eight years being right over and over again about inflation and deficits. It's very telling that you've learned nothing and have become enraged that he was right instead of examining why you were wrong. Speaking of hacks, haha.

What he is saying now is entirely in keeping with the model he has been using for years. When we were far from full employment deficit spending wouldn't crowd out private investment. Now that we are somewhere near full employment that case is much, much weaker. He still believes deficit spending is in order, by the way, just not on the wide range he did in the past and not in useless tax cuts for the rich.

If you read his blog, which I recommend, you would know this. Instead it sounds like you get your news about him from right wing news. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even realize he rescinded that prediction.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So you decided I said one thing when I said the literal exact opposite. How about admitting you were wrong and apologizing?

I'll apologize when I hear the same story from bshole.

That makes it even worse that conservatives keep getting owned by a 'clown' then. I mean he has spent the last eight years being right over and over again about inflation and deficits. It's very telling that you've learned nothing and have become enraged that he was right instead of examining why you were wrong. Speaking of hacks, haha.

What he is saying now is entirely in keeping with the model he has been using for years. When we were far from full employment deficit spending wouldn't crowd out private investment. Now that we are somewhere near full employment that case is much, much weaker. He still believes deficit spending is in order, by the way, just not on the wide range he did in the past and not in useless tax cuts for the rich.

If you read his blog, which I recommend, you would know this. Instead it sounds like you get your news about him from right wing news. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even realize he rescinded that prediction.

Krugman suddenly changed his stock market prediction of imminent doom after the Dow exploded and started hitting all-time highs a couple days after his prediction...quickly proving his professional opinion to be undeniably and utterly wrong. Imagine that! And I'm sure that it was just a matter of coincidence that his position on deficits also suddenly and very recently changed...even though the unemployed rate has been relatively flat for more than a year. He's a partisan hack and it's clearly affecting his professional judgment.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll apologize when I hear the same story from bshole.

Keep it classy!

Krugman suddenly changed his stock market prediction of imminent doom after the Dow exploded and started hitting all-time highs a couple days after his prediction...quickly proving his professional opinion to be undeniably and utterly wrong. Imagine that!

Even at the time he made the prediction he mentioned it was an off the cuff one. All economists are wrong sometimes, he's just wrong a lot less than most. What's funny is that you think him being wrong once is some sort of professional indictment as opposed to a natural consequence. Hell, you have repeatedly and uncritically cited work from economists who have been shown to be repeatedly wrong, especially when trying to argue against Krugman. Funny how that didn't bother you, haha.

And I'm sure that it was just a matter of coincidence that his position on deficits also suddenly and very recently changed...even though the unemployed rate has been relatively flat for more than a year. He's a partisan hack and it's clearly affecting his professional judgment.

It's no a coincidence at all, it's easily seen from his model. Wage growth was the strongest in seven years last year and inflation and interest rates are rising as well . I have no idea how many times he laid out what his standard was, he's been doing it for eight years at least. In fact, he long ago predicted that conservatives would shriek in exactly the way you're doing now. It's because they are hacks.

If you think his partisanship is affecting his judgment then it sounds like he needs more partisanship as there has been no economist who has been more consistently right than he has in recent years. You should be learning from him but you can't because your partisanship requires you to hate him.

 

[ElFenix]

I'll apologize when I hear the same story from bshole.


Krugman suddenly changed his stock market prediction of imminent doom after the Dow exploded and started hitting all-time highs a couple days after his prediction...quickly proving his professional opinion to be undeniably and utterly wrong. Imagine that! And I'm sure that it was just a matter of coincidence that his position on deficits also suddenly and very recently changed...even though the unemployed rate has been relatively flat for more than a year. He's a partisan hack and it's clearly affecting his professional judgment.

other than the fact that krugman's position on deficits is economic orthodoxy that's been around for oh, 80 years now, clearly he's doing it just because republicans. because, you know, republicans.