For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President
-
-
See https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
In percentage terms, the US stock market rose the most under these US Presidents:
- Calvin Coolidge
- Bill Clinton
- Franklin Roosevelt
- Barack Obama
- Ronald Reagan
If we judge them only by US stock market performance in their first 45 months in office (roughly where Trump is today), then Trump outperforms only Ronald Reagan but still underperforms Coolidge, Clinton, Roosevelt, Obama, and Eisenhower.
-
So, in other words, nobody knows. Lol
However I predict that the stock market will do just fine. The economy will do just fine. We all will do just fine.
@taiwan_girl said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
So, in other words, nobody knows. Lol
However I predict that the stock market will do just fine. The economy will do just fine. We all will do just fine.
Ok, let's see... Biden has stated on the record multiple times that he will raise taxes on corporations, reinstate all the regulations that were killing the economy, and spend until trillions of dollars chasing every goony left wing wet dream out there, and you think none of that will cut into profits, or drive business out of the country again......
Bwaaaahahahahaaaaaaa
-
See https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
In percentage terms, the US stock market rose the most under these US Presidents:
- Calvin Coolidge
- Bill Clinton
- Franklin Roosevelt
- Barack Obama
- Ronald Reagan
If we judge them only by US stock market performance in their first 45 months in office (roughly where Trump is today), then Trump outperforms only Ronald Reagan but still underperforms Coolidge, Clinton, Roosevelt, Obama, and Eisenhower.
@Axtremus said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
See https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president
In percentage terms, the US stock market rose the most under these US Presidents:
- Calvin Coolidge
- Bill Clinton
- Franklin Roosevelt
- Barack Obama
- Ronald Reagan
If we judge them only by US stock market performance in their first 45 months in office (roughly where Trump is today), then Trump outperforms only Ronald Reagan but still underperforms Coolidge, Clinton, Roosevelt, Obama, and Eisenhower.
After what you said about babies yesterday, you can take your opinions and go fuck yourself.
-
@Larry said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
https://www.ccn.com/biden-would-be-absolute-disaster-stock-market-heres-why/
From the exact same website, 3 months later
https://www.ccn.com/wall-street-trump-turn-biden-victory-gdp-good/
-
I'd say pretty much everything is far from certain at the moment.
-
I don't participate in the stock market, because I prefer to actually make a profit. But for those who do, if you think raising corporate taxes and putting tons of business strangling regulations back in place, and then spending trillions of dollars chasing leftwing pipe dreams is going to have no effect on the stock market, you're nuts.
-
I don't participate in the stock market, because I prefer to actually make a profit. But for those who do, if you think raising corporate taxes and putting tons of business strangling regulations back in place, and then spending trillions of dollars chasing leftwing pipe dreams is going to have no effect on the stock market, you're nuts.
@Larry how do you measure economic success for the nation as total? I would be willing to bet a cup of coffee with you that if you look at at least five measurements
(for example:
GDP increase %
Unemployment
Wage increase vs inflation
Stock market %change
Inflation
Net # of jobs added
Etc)And looked at the four year president cycles, on average, There would not be a clear @winner” between the Republics and Democrats
-
I measure economic success by using common sense instead of googling for statistics that support my politics. Black employment is at an all time high, Latino employment is at an all time high. This isn't because a bunch of wall street nerds wrote an article, it's because things were done that created jobs. You don't create jobs by doing things that limit profits by the companies these people have jobs with, or by doing things that will give the company reason to move out of the country. Factories make stuff. People buy the stuff they make. If people can't afford to buy the stuff the factories make, the factories will have to make fewer of the stuff they make.
Then you raise taxes on the people who buy stuff but now can't buy because they lost their job... the company still makes money because they've moved to Ireland where the taxes are lower, and left wing Google searchers will say "See? The stock market is still goid!" While tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs are drawing unemployment checks and sitting around trying to keep from losing their homes. All so some people can virtue signal about how they're saving the environment and increasing unemployment checks....
Take it to its ultimate conclusion - if stifling business and raising taxes has no negative effects, then just go ahead and take 100% of corporate profit. Tax the working folk at 100%, take it all. When you finally figure out just how the economy actually works, it will be too late.
-
I measure economic success by using common sense instead of googling for statistics that support my politics. Black employment is at an all time high, Latino employment is at an all time high. This isn't because a bunch of wall street nerds wrote an article, it's because things were done that created jobs. You don't create jobs by doing things that limit profits by the companies these people have jobs with, or by doing things that will give the company reason to move out of the country. Factories make stuff. People buy the stuff they make. If people can't afford to buy the stuff the factories make, the factories will have to make fewer of the stuff they make.
Then you raise taxes on the people who buy stuff but now can't buy because they lost their job... the company still makes money because they've moved to Ireland where the taxes are lower, and left wing Google searchers will say "See? The stock market is still goid!" While tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs are drawing unemployment checks and sitting around trying to keep from losing their homes. All so some people can virtue signal about how they're saving the environment and increasing unemployment checks....
Take it to its ultimate conclusion - if stifling business and raising taxes has no negative effects, then just go ahead and take 100% of corporate profit. Tax the working folk at 100%, take it all. When you finally figure out just how the economy actually works, it will be too late.
@Larry But Larry, A person has to use data to be able to accurately compare things. Maybe for you, economic success is black or hispanic employment. But it is measurable. For Horace, maybe it is the price of Apple stock.
You mention profit. What would be a good translation for the nation as a whole? GDP change? Stock market change?
All I am asking is for at least five measures of what the nation (or you) considers a picture of the economy.
One measure is not enough I don’t think.
Common sense is for sure important for any business, But very difficult to measure in quantity.
-
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
Education is extremely important.
-
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
@Horace said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
What percentage of scientists are leading and what percentage are non-leading?
-
In order to be a leading scientist, a scientist must submit to consensus with other leading scientists. The global warming debate has brought this into sharp focus. Leading science follows from conclusions. There is no leading science which does not lead to good conclusions.
As it turns out, 98% of scientists are leading scientists.
-
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
@Horace said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
I can tell you typed this on a recently bought iPhone.
