Stock Market Is Also Good For The Working Man

I was just reading the news this morning and I see on this day in 1995 the DJIA passed the 10,000 mark. Now it's about to pass the 4,000 mark. It closed at 39,807 yesterday.
When I graduated high school in 1957 the Dow had an average for the year of 476. Yep, that's four hundred and seventy-six. I like to say the Stock Market is like a drunk -- continuously taking one and a half steps forward and one step backwards. The one step backwards is what scares many people away.
What would my dad say? If I told him this info he would not say a word, just stare out into space. Then a few minutes later he would say, "You got to vote democrat, they are for the working man. I remember the republican Hoover and the Great Depression." -- LOL

 

Unfortunately, results show that the working man is worse off under Dem control. Look at California. My dad used to say "Politicians are like a swarm of mosquitoes campaigning for a spot on your neck."

 

Maybe you can show actual data that the working man is worse off under Dem control?

In any case, as to the topic of the thread, it is interesting that in MAGA world, stock market gains are great for the working man when Trump is in office (you know, the working man has a 401k), but of no consequence for the working man when a Dem is in office. This is called selective reasoning and is happening in today's hyperpartisan politics all the time.

The reality is somewhere inbetween:

https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/

"Key findings

• About 158 million Americans, or 61% of U.S. adults, own stock.
• The top 1% holds 54% of stocks, worth $19.16 trillion.
• The bottom 50% of U.S. adults holds only 0.6% of stocks, worth $21 billion.
• White Americans own 89% of stocks, worth $31.87 trillion.
• U.S. families held a median value of $52,000 in stocks as of 2022, far below the peak of more than $58,592 in 2001. This figure includes directly held stocks and mutual funds."

 

Im not in the MAGA world. In the real world, government is not responsible for growth; only the degree in which growth is hindered. Im surprised that you didn't know that California leads the nation in poverty in spite of unobstructed dem control, abundant resources, and high taxes.

 

$39,807 return on a $10,000 investment sounds really good. However, you need about $20,500 in current dollars to equal $10,000 in 1995 dollars. So your real profit on the investment is $19,300.

Alas, if you sell, you probably owe 15% taxes on the $29,807 appreciation, which is $4471 to Uncle Sam.

So your real profit after inflation and capital gains taxes is $14,829 in 2024 dollars, which is $7,234 in 1995 dollars.

A return of $17,234 on a $10,000 investment after 25 years is about a 2.2% interest rate.

You have to work hard as an investor to stay ahead of the government's inflation and taxation policies.

 

That was before we went completely off the gold standard and money was actually worth something.

 

Where the dems lead, the people become dependent, and the whole ends up suffering. But the lazy will always vote into office the party that gives them what is taken from the earners. A lot of the earners have seen this far too long and are leaving NY and CA for Florida as the dependent ones head to NY and CA.

 

Except it's not the "dems" that were in charge when Reagan foisted trickle-down on us and destroy America as the manufacturing GIANT of the world. It' wasn't the "dems" when Bush tanked the economy like it hadn't been tanked since the Great Depression. I can't think of one financial disaster that happened on a "dems" watch.

Actually it's the moneyed "lazy" that continue to buy the best Congress they can affoard to rig the "game" to their advantage so things just fall their way. I don't know any working poor that can afford to do that.

 

What a load of crap. People become dependent by their OWN choosing. It has zero to do with who is in office. Throughout the world there are doers and there are takers. Both ways are a CHOICE.

 

There are actually very few "takers", just a lot of poor people doing their best to hang on while the privileged few TAKE everything of value and look down on them.

 

My father was a small businessman, but was decidedly blue collar. When I was young he worked alongside his employees in a plant that made and sold holly wreaths at Christmas time. He tried to sell Easter wreaths, but that never took off from I could see as a little kid. When that business failed, he sold auto parts.

My father invested in the stock market. He bought common stock in blue chip firms mostly, but he also looked at the portfolio that supported a time pension my mother had from when she taught at a prestigious private school for a short while. He used that as a model, and it worked pretty well. My parents had plenty of money when they retired despite the fact that they had rough patch in the late 1950s when the holly business failed.

 

All the gold standard did was limit the amount of money in circulation. The Democrats, who were your political ancestors, didn't like they. They pushed for paper money or "free silver."

Having read many of your posts, I dare say you would have opposed the gold standard back then.

 

That sounds like an excuse to me. But then I’ve never been one to tolerate excuses or laziness.

 

Just the facts mam, only the facts.

 

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

That's crazyness, it was a wealthy cartel that pushed the FED through and took us on the roller coaster ride of expansion and crash that we've been on since 1913.

 

You can, I don't.

 

The need for a central bank is essential for a “first world economy.” Without it, you have monetary chaos.

There are instances where you could argue that the Fed initiated the wrong policies, but that is not an argument to do away with the agency.

 

All evidence to the contrary. Before the fed the value of money was consistant for hundreds of years. Since the FED the dollar has a negative value from what it was when they took over.

No, the argument to do away with the FED is that it's insane, and a breach of OUR Constitution, to put private bankers in charge of our money AND let them create it, as debt - at interest, from ... NOTHING.

 

What agency would have combatted inflation for you precious little Biden if it had not been the Fed? It sure would not have been Congress. Yea, I know. Without the Fed there would be no inflation. Nonsense.

 

Actually if you look at historical data, that case can certainly be made. The Fed's ability to manufacture money as debt - from nothing - and charge interest on it - interest that goes to private bankers - assures that we will have inflation and an un-repayable amount of debt.

 

Not surprising ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Ever since it became clear that the Trump lead was durable and Trump took the lead in the betting markets, we've been enjoying the "Trump Bounce" in the markets. It's been quite a run, taking some profits after this nice run up, is probably a good idea, because at the moment, Bribed Joe is still the president, and as Obama notes. never underestimate Bribed Joe's ability to f things up.

'In a recent poll, Trump is capturing the independents by 14 points, 51 to 37 percent. It's the independents and the swing states that may turn the tide in this race. Hispanics and white women also had Trump up 48-45 percent and 50-45 percent, respectively. Although Biden is still up with black voters, he's slipped from his 2020 numbers, and Trump has a dangerous number for him there.'



But the Stock Market has enjoyed a nice run up since Trump took a durable lead, but, now's probably a very good time to take some profits, because Trump isn't actually president yet.

 

The stock market is driven by microtransactions. The massive bundle of fiberoptics that run under the Atlantic Ocean to the UK was funded to tune of hundreds of millions by private investors who wanted a 10th of a second faster access to the US stock market so they could make hundreds of billions buying and selling stocks faster.

The stock market used to be a force for good, helping businesses expand based on their success. But now its mostly just a video game where you win real money and no one is banning hackers.