How about that market?
-
@89th Horace and I had a good discussion on this on the old forum board. My thought is that the President does not have as big a effect on the stock market as Presidents like to believe (especially when it goes up LOL).
I was reading a recent article about what the effect on the stock market would be if Mr. Biden was elected. Not a very good article as the guy said -"maybe it will go down or maybe it will go up, or maybe no effect!!"
@taiwan_girl said in How about that market?:
@89th Horace and I had a good discussion on this on the old forum board. My thought is that the President does not have as big a effect on the stock market as Presidents like to believe (especially when it goes up LOL).
I was reading a recent article about what the effect on the stock market would be if Mr. Biden was elected. Not a very good article as the guy said -"maybe it will go down or maybe it will go up, or maybe no effect!!"
I agree the President, in general, doesn't have too much of an effect on the stock market. But regarding a Biden election, if the 2016 reaction was any guide (Trump wins, stock market soars), then I'd think if Biden wins, the market will have a big dip and likely stay down for a bit until it's clear what policies he might advocate for.
-
I think a Biden presidency would be one of simply trying to be presidential and not to embarrass himself. They chose him for just that reason - to tamp down the progressive wing. There would be a signature achievement but it wouldn't actually amount to much, just something easy to pass and claim victory, most likely relating to Obamacare reforms.
-
I for one have stopped evaluating politicians in terms of how much I like their policies. I evaluate them in terms of who does the least amount of damage relative to the "null" option of doing nothing. A politician who doesn't do much and has no big goals is usually a good politician.
-
I for one have stopped evaluating politicians in terms of how much I like their policies. I evaluate them in terms of who does the least amount of damage relative to the "null" option of doing nothing. A politician who doesn't do much and has no big goals is usually a good politician.
@Klaus said in How about that market?:
I for one have stopped evaluating politicians in terms of how much I like their policies. I evaluate them in terms of who does the least amount of damage relative to the "null" option of doing nothing. A politician who doesn't do much and has no big goals is usually a good politician.
That would be a decent ball park definition of the difference between the left and the right. And your preference would be for the right.
-
What am I missing here?
The percentage they reported was an error. I get that.
But the absolutions number of jobs did increase, right?
-
What am I missing here?
The percentage they reported was an error. I get that.
But the absolutions number of jobs did increase, right?
@George-K said in How about that market?:
What am I missing here?
The percentage they reported was an error. I get that.
But the absolute number of jobs did increase, right?
Yes. The real numbers were about half as much of an improvement as the wrong numbers were.
Edit: I mean the difference between predictions and the real numbers was about half as good. I'm not sure about absolute job numbers, but unemployment did go up.
-
“You can 100% discount the possibility that Trump got to the BLS. Not 98% discount, not 99.9% discount, but 100% discount,” tweeted Jason Furman, the former top economist for former president Barack Obama. “BLS has 2,400 career staff of enormous integrity and one political appointee with no scope to change this number.”
I think it's a legitimate concern that Trump falsified these job numbers.
