How about that market?

[Horace]

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.

[Klaus]

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.

[Horace]

@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.

[Axtremus]

[89th]

Haha predictable.

[George K]

@89th said in How about that market?:

Haha predictable.

Yeah, of course it was.

[Mik]

The exception would prove the rule, if there would ever happen to be one.

I won’t hold my breath.

[jon-nyc]

Oops

[Axtremus]

@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:

Oops

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.

[jon-nyc]

Yeah, for sure.

[Loki]

@jon-nyc said in How about that market?:

Oops

God that article sucks in so many ways. What a disgrace.

[89th]

Now we just need an article blaming common core math.

[George K]

What am I missing here?

The percentage they reported was an error. I get that.

But the absolutions number of jobs did increase, right?

[Horace]

@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.

[Horace]

“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.

[jon-nyc]

I don’t.

[Horace]

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.

[Loki]

The market had baked in the correction Friday. The story is bogus.

[jon-nyc]

@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.

[Horace]

The tail risk analysis science has spoken. Maybe Taleb is finding a way to bet on 20 years of president Trump as we speak. Or maybe he's betting that Trump fudged the jobs report, only at way higher odds.