The Dow's 31% gain during Trump's first year is the best since FDR

Over 50% of Americans invest in the stock market...

 

your not just having to offset the increased cost of your employees you also having to offset the cost of the employee raise increase of you venders those you buy your raw martial from those that ship that raw martial to you all your expenses increase not just your personal businesses labor cost

 

I know exactly what it means.

 

Agreed. My post was directed at those who claim that Obama doubled the stock market when most of that was recovery of wealth and not creation of wealth.

As you point out the stock market gain was the result of the very low economic growth rate under Obama which forced the Fed to keep interest rates so low that the only place to get a decent return (but with risk) was the stock market.

 

He grew it by 4K his first year. Now imagine if Trump had been in there. It would have been over 20K the first year. His win gave confidence to the stocks so much that he has grown an already record stock another 7,000+ in just one year. That's 3K more than king of the economy could do in any single year.

DJI under Obama:

March 6, 2009 - 6,626.93
March 26, 2010 - 10,850.36
March 18, 2011 - 11,858.50
March 2, 2012 - 12,977.57
March 15, 2013 - 14,514.11
March 7, 2014 - 16,452.72
March 20, 2015 - 18,127.65
March 16, 2016 - 17,213.31

Election night - 17,888.28
Inauguration day: 19,827.25
That's almost 2,000 points from Trump's election victory to his inauguration. Obama couldn't pull that off in any one single year (much less 3 months) outside of coming out of the recession the liberal congress put us in.

DJI under Trump:

January 20, 2017 - 19,827.25 (Even though it began to rise immediately after he was elected.
January 19, 2018 - 26,071.72

Having posted all of that, can you please explain to me how the sudden rise is attributed to Obama?

The DJI grew 8,183.44 points from the night of Trump's victory and 7,037.92 under the last 7 years of Obama.

 

and damn the other 50 % who are to cheap to do so.

Make no mistake, I have no problem with high stock prices. I have made my own little bundle or two over the years during bull runs.

But this windfall is not related to increased sales, or increased efficiencies, or market expansion or any of the usual fundamentals. Its mostly based on a taxation windfall and the speculation of what the benefit to shareholders will be. (my bet is increased dividends as opposed to large scale expansion of the business and its markets).

Of course the continuing benefits are also dependent on other market developments, not the least of which is if the US withdraws from NAFTA. Self inflicted wounds tend to hurt a lot more.

 

lol you're grasping at straws
keep dancing for me though, you humor me

 

You will be bailing them out with socialism again when the bubble bursts again. Watch.

 

Not Obama. POTUS has little direct control over the actions of the Fed, other than hiring the Chair for a fixed term. The Fed made it's own decision to drive interest rates down and indirectly force money into equities. It was their strategy for shoring up the economy.

So what did Obama do that he had direct control of?? When he had the house and the senate, what policies did he endorse for Congress to enact legislation to stimulate business activity?

 

If he keeps doing what he's doing then I would assume a bigger victory than that, but I don't think we'll ever see another Reagan landslide like we saw in '84. Not unless New York and the West Coast crumble into the ocean.

 

Perverting facts and then running with the fact it has been turned into what fits your agenda is a liberal SOP. I’m sure it is confusing for you.

 

The elephant in the room (definitely no pun intended) is that Obama was black and that's the only reason he won. That's how the democrats became progressives. They suddenly realized that they wanted the first black man in the White House, then they wanted to be able claim they were the first to put a woman in the White House. God only knows what they'll try to put in there next, probably a tranny. It won't be an Asian though, that, you can bet on.

 

You did not take macro or microeconomics; that is obvious.

 

It was in a free fall because democrats controlled Congress and blocked everything he tried. The DJI was at 14,098 when democrats took control of Congress in 2007. They blocked anything Bush tried and knocked the economy into the free fall it was in. Obama inherited the mess his own people created. He didn't inherit Bush's mess. Stop peddling lies. Liberal policies destroy countries.

 

Privatize Social Security and those remaining 50% will also be able to benefit from the stock market. The lowest gain over any 45 year period has been ~ 4.5% real return. The average has been ~ 7% real return. Ad to that the benefit that one's beneficiaries would receive the balance in your account when you pass.

NAFTA will be improved/renegotiated for the benefit of US citizens.

 

Exactly - here is how that works:


The housing bubble and financial crisis are actually two different things although the collapse of the housing bubble resulted in the financial crisis. The housing bubble was caused by the lowering of lending standards due to the HUD requirement that Fannie and Freddie make a set percentage of loans to low income borrowers. This policy was initiated by Bill Clinton and was based on an interpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act. At the end of Clinton's term that percentage was 50%. This was increased to 55% by the Bush administration. The lowering of the lending standards was used by unscrupulous mortgage lending firms like Countrywide and New Century to make many other high risk loans. Adding to the housing bubble was the easy money policy of the Fed which made loans easier to afford due to low interest rates. The housing bubble suddenly burst in 2008. This was similar to the dot.com bubble which burst in 2001 and recovered from by 2003 but why was the financial industry so terribly affected this time.


The financial crisis triggered by the housing bubble collapse was the result of a combination of financial and banking regulations going back to 1936 (See the list below). Mortgage backed securities have been around for years before the 00's. They are securities formed by conglomerating home mortgages and are a way for investors to earn a return through the housing market. They have historically been very safe investments. The HUD housing policies however resulted in a portion of the MBS's created in the 90's and 00's to consist of the subprime and other low standard loans. The Basel rules were based on the assumption that securities consisting of home mortgages were of very low risk. Therefore the reserve requirements for MBS's were set at a very low rate of 5%. This meant that for every $50K of MBS's that a commercial or investment bank had it could make loans totaling $1M. Since banks make money from loans they would use the investment vehicles with the lowest reserve requirement. And very many of them did. They bought AAA rated MBS's (the ratings were determined by the National Ratings Agencies - Fitch, Moodys, and Standard and Poors). This was required by gov regulation. But the ratings agencies were not doing due diligence on the make up of the MBS' which was unknown to the banks involved who trusted the ratings and Basel guidelines. Collapse of the housing bubble caused foreclosures in the subprime mortgages especially. This created fear and uncertainty in the value of the MBS's even though they were still paying ~ 90% of their returns. The market price dropped (in some cases a price could not be determined because no one was interested in buying). This is where the mark to market rule came in resulting large paper and consequently the banks reserves falling below the already low 5%. The bailout from the gov started out as TARP which was passed to buy up all these MBS's which had now large paper losses due to mark to market. It was quickly changed however to give money directly to the banks so that they could bring their reserves up to the 5% level. Bear Stearns was bailed out but Lehman was allowed to fail. This resulted in uncertainty and the credit markets froze (none of the banks wanted to lend to other banks who might not be bailed out). Some commercial banks like WaMu also had MBS's in reserve and ended up being taken over.



The analysis of what happened is contained in the book by Friedman and Kraus – “Engineering the Financial Crisis” – 2011. As can be seen these rules were issued over the years with no analysis on how they might conspire together to set up a catastrophic house of cards situation due to the homogenization of asset mix held by many of these investment houses. Collapse of the housing bubble which affected these assets including MBS’s (whose contained loans were still paying at ~ 80%) then lost value due to the market price dropping way below value triggering large paper losses due to mark to market accounting rules. This reduced the capital and lending capacity of the banks due to Basel I and the Recourse Rule (an adoption in the U.S. of part of what later became Basel II), which specify those capital requirements. The conflation of all of this resulted in the financial (really the banking) crisis. The authors also show that the repeal of Glass Steagal had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Glass Steagal prevented the mixing of private deposits with investments and that was not a factor. Here are the set of regulations:




1. SEC Regulations from 1936 requiring mandated minimum ratings for a growing number of institutional investments.


2. SEC decision in 1975 to confer NRSRO on the big three ratings agencies.


3. Basel 1 from 1978 which established favorable risk weighting for mortgages and GSE issued MBS’s.


4. Mark to market accounting established by FAS 115 in 1993 and refined by FAS 157 in 2006.


5. HUD targets for mortgages to low-income families in the late 1990’s resulting in reduction of down payment requirements for the GSE’s.


6. Recourse Rule issued by the FED, FDIC, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.






Here are some excerpts from an editorial from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166723093578272.html


Google – The Meltdown Remains a Whodunit

 

You answered your own question. At least a third of Americans are profiting from rising stock market in 401ks. As for retirement funds I don't think you know how that works. My retirement fund is all the wealth I accumulated over a life of work and all the buckets it's in. One of those buckets is the stock market.

 

If those damn other 50% can afford iphones, jewelry, hightop basketball shoes, getting their hair and nails done, gambling at casinos, etc., then they can afford investing in the stock market.

You don't have to be "rich" to invest in the stock market.

 

"Some investors" AKA Democrats.

 

Wrong. Things started changing the very day Trump was elected. A new ship captain got everyone up and moving.

 

care to demonstrate?

 

Public employee unions invest in the stock market.

 

I have. See above.

 

The extremely unpopular Trump and the conspicuously impotent Republicans in charge of Congress cannot get their act together. Their desperate attempt to place the blame elsewhere for their inability to run the government is doomed.

They're in control, and Trump had promised to sign the bipartisan compromise they achieved.

He lied, as he often does. Senator McConnell pleaded that he cannot do anything if the Trump will not provide credible leadership.

He had lied about Mexico paying for it as well.

And Americans do not want his silly wall:

Americans will blame Republicans for their failure, and coherent Republicans know that.

 

Global models show no addition to the debt. And the ~ $1.5T is over 10 years which amounts to ~ 3% of gov spending. Why aren't D's clamoring for reduced spending ?? Why are D's pushing for benefits for non citizens ?? How do US citizens benefit from D illegal immigration, lottery immigration, and chain immigration policies ??

BTW, diversity does not make the US stronger. Unity does. And the preceding is NOT a racist statement as I'm sure you know.