How about that market?
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 15:56 last edited by Mik 6 May 2020, 15:57
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.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 16:02 last edited by
I agree with Mik that Biden would be a non-issue for the market.
I do not agree with anybody who believes that presidents by definition have no meaningful effect on the stock market.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:10 last edited by
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.
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 17:17 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 19:08 last edited by
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 21:10 last edited by
Haha predictable.
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 21:38 last edited by
-
wrote on 5 Jun 2020, 23:29 last edited by
The exception would prove the rule, if there would ever happen to be one.
I won’t hold my breath.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 09:59 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:
Yeah, saw that one. It’s an unusual, fast changing situation. At this point, I quite believe that there is no malice, and the BLS is doing the best it can.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 10:35 last edited by
Yeah, for sure.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 11:46 last edited by
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 11:50 last edited by
Now we just need an article blaming common core math.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 13:01 last edited by
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?
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 13:48 last edited by Horace 6 Jun 2020, 13:53@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.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 13:52 last edited by
“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.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 15:04 last edited by
I don’t.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 15:17 last edited by
I can understand how a rigorous risk analysis of all the factors and potentials involved would indicate a higher chance of Trump usurping the presidency after a legitimate election loss, than Trump fudging the jobs report.
-
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 15:34 last edited by
The market had baked in the correction Friday. The story is bogus.
-
I can understand how a rigorous risk analysis of all the factors and potentials involved would indicate a higher chance of Trump usurping the presidency after a legitimate election loss, than Trump fudging the jobs report.
wrote on 6 Jun 2020, 15:50 last edited by@Horace said in How about that market?:
I can understand how a rigorous risk analysis of all the factors and potentials involved would indicate a higher chance of Trump usurping the presidency after a legitimate election loss, than Trump fudging the jobs report.
Yep. Both on the incentives and the mechanisms available.