BREAKING: Dow closes above 26K - Fastest 1K Milestone EVER

This is another sophomoric error, using raw numbers to compare figures over time in a chart. The scale will make it appear there are more dramatic changes in recent years, but its an illusion. Folks fall for this all the time.

For example, here's a chart of the Dow since 1915:



That chart makes it look like there's never been a gain in the Dow such as we've seen since 2009, right? 1929 is barely a hiccup.

Now, here's the exact same chart, but in logarithmic scale:



Charts courtesy of: http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

A totally different picture.

When you compare data over time in charts, you must use a logarithmic scale to avoid distortions.

 

You're blaming Obama for the Great Recession?

Congratulations. You are all I've come to expect from conservatives whose world view comes from RW propaganda.

About 8000 to about 19,800. What's your point?

 

The tough question is when.

Folks knew the dot.com bubble was going to pop too. In 1995.

 

I'm not blaming Obama. Read what I wrote instead of imposing what you want to see. The conditions leading up to the "Great Recession" were set in motion in the late 1990's with policies that created almost no standards for mortgage lending. If you could breath, banks were willing to give you solid 6 figure mortgages. It was a train wreck 8-10 years in the making, and it happened.

You're mostly right. But any impact Obama had on the markets ended 11/08/2016, the day of the election. The Dow closed at 18,322 that day. Starting 11/09/2016 moving forward, the "Trump Bump" solidly took effect, moving the market to it's close today at 26,115.

So let's recap:

Obama ---------> 8,000 - 18,332

Trump ----------> 18,332 - 26,115

So in almost Obama's entire 8 year tenure, the market increased about 10,300 points. In the 14 months Trump has owned the market, the increase has been about 7,800 points. In other words, In a very short period, Trump has achieved 75% of the gains Obama saw over almost 8 years. THAT'S my point. Stop breaking your arm patting yourself on the back.

 

"I love the way you dismiss the period of the “wreckage” as not belonging to Obama in any way."\

Sounds to me like you're saying the "wreckage" belongs to Obama, at least in some way.

That's just speculation. Trump didn't do a damn thing until he took office Jan 20.

In addition to ascribing blame of the GR to Obama (essentially blaming him for the poor market performance in early 2009), trying to credit donald for economic performance when he wasn't even in office, you are making sophomoric error of comparing raw figures over time. Even using your figures, the gains under Obama more than 100%, while for donald, not even 50%.

 

Again, you jumped to conclusions and read things into my post that weren't there, regardless of how you thought it sounds. The GR didn't belong to Obama. And it mostly didn't belong to Bush.

No speculation at all. The market is pragmatic. It doesn't care if you're Republican or Democrat. It's just looking at the conditions for performance moving forward. Effective 11/09/2016, the market was everything Trump. That means every economic policy he ran on, and all the promises he made. The market loved it and it started reflecting in equity values immediately. Everything Obama did or didn't do had been baked into equity values well before that. If you're telling me a lame duck POTUS who had long given up on 3%+ GDP improvements moved the markets after 11/08/2016, you're smoking too much of the wacky-tobacy.

 

Depends on your perspective. To me, it was your inartful use of language.

Of course it is speculation. Feel free to prove that the market increase was solely because of donald.

 

The term "inartful" is your personal projection. My message to you was that you were completely absolving Obama from anything bad. That's what one would expect from a rabid leftist partisan. That was my only point.

Well, look at the leftist NY Times analysis:

"After a sharp sell-off overnight in Asia, markets staged a recovery on Wednesday as investors shook off the shock of a Donald J. Trump presidency and began to focus on whether his mix of policies could spur a still-fragile global economic recovery.

Futures for the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index initially plunged 5 percent but recouped nearly all their losses when stocks started trading in the United States. The major market indicators ended the day up more than 1 percent.

By their nature, markets are wired to look beyond the moment and into the future. In that regard, the bounce-back in stocks reflects the bet being made by many investors that Mr. Trump’s promises to increase government spending, cut taxes and ease financial regulations will outweigh his anti-trade rhetoric".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/business/dealbook/stock-markets-election.html

You can cry "speculation" all you'd like, but here it is. The NY Times, which is loath to give Trump credit for anything, did just that right after the election. They didn't wait until the mythical date of the inauguration in January 2017. Regardless, it wasn't just the NY Times. It was the general consensus of the financial community at the time and has been moving forward. I hope this clears things up for you.

 

You resemble this remark.

 

You just proved my point but are unable to comprehend it. Thanks Obama, straight line of upward steady growth handed off to tRUmp.

 

But, if the market goes down that'll be on Trump right?

 

Uncle Ferd says, "Long as the Donald...

... keeps makin' America white again...

... he'll take it."

 

Yes. Once he ruins the Obama economy, he owns it.

 

Actually, I'm somewhat thankful we didn't elect McCain. I didn't trust Palin with the VP. I just wish Obama the President tried matching Obama the candidate.

 

That would be correct.

The hotter a fire burns, the faster it burns itself out.

Plus, recent history shows the tendency of GOP supply side tax cuts to create asset bubbles which then burst and result in severe recessions.

So, yes, the proponents of supply side policies can't just take credit for the GDP growth, but then attribute the deep recessions to the market cycle. That is disingenuous.

 

The economy that's so great that you all keep demanding free **** from your fellow citizens, and an endless stream of debt to finance your lives? That economy?

 

No, one uses logarithmic scale to make exponential growth appear linear.

 

Why would you even concern yourself with the Dow?

 

That's exactly what scientists do. Otherwise, you can't graphically illustrate the growth rate.

The problem is that most people don't understand what a logarithmic y-axis scale means and then misinterpret the data.

 

Why would you even make this post with a non sequitur? Obama economic recovery still chugging right along until the Cheeto puppet chokes.

 

Because I hardly think you have any skin in the game (market).

 

Keep the faith, try harder. Obama economic recovery still chugging right along until the Cheeto puppet chokes it.

 

And if he did crash it, why would you care? It’s not like iit is going to affect you.

 

Straw............man reaches and passive aggressive ad hominem are for little men .
Obama economic recovery still chugging right along until the Cheeto puppet chokes it.

 

It was an honest question. Why do you concern yourself with the Dow?