The Trump implosion thread!

Poll
2 votes (8.69%)
1 vote (4.34%)
No votes (0%)
2 votes (8.69%)
2 votes (8.69%)
13 votes (56.52%)
No votes (0%)
2 votes (8.69%)
No votes (0%)
1 vote (4.34%)

23 members have voted

July 29th, 2020 at 5:06:48 AM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4157
Quote: Mission146
I really don’t understand why you would continue to insult someone with an economics degree by suggesting that the person does not understand that events can impact the market in the short-term. I’m not calling it an insult in the forum sense of the term and request no action be taken.

Yes, reduced taxes and regulation are generally good for the bottom-lines of companies. However, the markets are a wide-variety of interrelated things that encompass a LOT more than that. Otherwise, you could just have zero taxes and zero regulations and you would be guaranteed to have a great market...which isn’t at all true. More than that, POTUS would have to be unilaterally capable of putting these things in place, which he is not. Granted, having a POTUS who would not veto certain tax cuts makes such tax cuts more likely (for one oversimplified example), but it would still require Congress to pass a bill that entails such tax cuts.


You were the one who said use the Inauguration Day to start attributing the market’s success or failure to a President. That is simply not so. The markets started going up after the election results were in. The markets at least try to figure out future results more than present ones.

Agree that markets are ‘wide variety of interrelated things’. And I’ll never really figure those out.

Your simplistic ‘zero taxes and zero regulation’ would be good for the market is both wrong and too simplistic. The markets soared after Trump’s election because they expected a decrease in OVERREGULATION and OVERTAXATION. They believed there was a lower level that would be good for business, and actually, that turned out to be correct.

And of course most important things require Congress to pass a bill first that the President then signs. That is why I like it when one of the houses of Congress is of the opposite party of the President, like we have now. It limits his power substantially. And this requires give and take to get any bill passed.
July 29th, 2020 at 5:08:17 AM permalink
RonC
Member since: Nov 7, 2012
Threads: 8
Posts: 2452
Quote: rxwine
If they're caught doing a crime, let justice take its course.


That means you actually have to allow the police to do their jobs. That is not happening where local and state governments are allowing the destructive forces to have their way. It is a nice thing for you to say, but where is the call for peace and arrests of those who try to harm people and property from the left?
July 29th, 2020 at 5:10:57 AM permalink
ams288
Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 29
Posts: 12422
Wow. This is how you conduct an interview. Great follow ups. Let the interviewee dig their own grave.

Donny is a traitor. Anyone who truly cares about the safety of US troops could never vote for this monster.

“A straight man will not go for kids.” - AZDuffman
July 29th, 2020 at 5:45:51 AM permalink
Tanko
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 1964
Quote: Mission146
Obama inherited a DOW that was lower than when Bush took office in the first place, what prevents that from being your capricious, “Recovery point?”


A 124 year old practice.

Measuring recovery by the length of time for the Dow to recover its previous peak, following a correction or bear market, has been the standard since 1896.
Quote:
Okay, so by the same standard, the DOW is currently down relative to its all-time high, and therefore, we actually have a bad economy under President Trump. Do you see why this fails to make any sense?


Of course it doesn’t make any sense. You're the one who rates the economy based on the Dow performance. Not me. You’re the one who stated “....Obama left the DOW 148.3% higher than it was when he took office. Those are just facts.”

The Dow is not a reliable indicator of a good or bad economy. Especially with a stock market bloated by the Fed. GDP, manufacturing, construction, exports, consumer confidence and employment growth are the reliable indicators.

Two of those articles about the slowest economic recovery since WW2, didn’t even mention the Dow, or the stock market, yet you remain fixated on it.

Quote:
Also, the President has very little to do with how the markets perform!!!


Not true of course, but if that is what you believe, why didn't you mention it when you posted "Obama left the Dow 148.3% higher than when he took office".?

Why were you so quick to defend him when I mentioned it took five and a half years for the Dow to recover?
July 29th, 2020 at 6:31:46 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: SOOPOO
You were the one who said use the Inauguration Day to start attributing the market’s success or failure to a President. That is simply not so. The markets started going up after the election results were in. The markets at least try to figure out future results more than present ones.


Whatever, use the day after he was elected, then. It really doesn't make a huge difference. I really don't see how the day after he was elected to inauguration can be attributed to his, "Success," when he hadn't actually done anything policy-wise yet. It's just usual short-term confidence stuff. Okay, he gave the investors confidence. That's not the result of an actual policy, though. It's the result of policies that might happen, things he might do or the general notion that tax cuts just became a little more likely.

Quote:
Agree that markets are ‘wide variety of interrelated things’. And I’ll never really figure those out.


Won't you? Feel free to stop lecturing me on economics at any time, then. I won't figure them out, either, and I have a degree in the subject. I would say that I understand maybe 10% of what there is to understand about the market...and my specialty (if I could even be said to have one) would have to be picking short-term corrections in a few specific industries...primarily after drops in stock price associated with poor earnings reports.

Quote:
Your simplistic ‘zero taxes and zero regulation’ would be good for the market is both wrong and too simplistic. The markets soared after Trump’s election because they expected a decrease in OVERREGULATION and OVERTAXATION. They believed there was a lower level that would be good for business, and actually, that turned out to be correct.


My post literally says that. That's just a slightly shorter version of most of my second paragraph. Getting lectured as to why you are wrong is even more fun when the lecturer is saying a slightly modified version of the thing that you said.

Quote:
And of course most important things require Congress to pass a bill first that the President then signs. That is why I like it when one of the houses of Congress is of the opposite party of the President, like we have now. It limits his power substantially. And this requires give and take to get any bill passed.


And...that would be a restated version of the remainder of my second paragraph you quoted.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
July 29th, 2020 at 6:45:31 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Tanko
A 124 year old practice.

Measuring recovery by the length of time for the Dow to recover its previous peak, following a correction or bear market, has been the standard since 1896.


I agree with that. The disconnect here is how that relates to the President. For example, Obama would have nothing to do with the high point of 2007 and did nothing to cause it, nor did he do anything to cause the fall in stock price that predated him being elected. He also didn't have a ton to do with the eventual recovery, because as I have stated, I don't think any POTUS is more than some low percentage responsible for what the markets do.

An extremely simplified definition of Economics is just the application of cause and effect as relates to monetary things. While Government actions often cause certain effects, that's not the majority of what moves the markets.

Quote:
Of course it doesn’t make any sense. You're the one who rates the economy based on the Dow performance. Not me. You’re the one who stated “....Obama left the DOW 148.3% higher than it was when he took office. Those are just facts.”

The Dow is not a reliable indicator of a good or bad economy. Especially with a stock market bloated by the Fed. GDP, manufacturing, construction, exports, consumer confidence and employment growth are the reliable indicators.

Two of those articles about the slowest economic recovery since WW2, didn’t even mention the Dow, or the stock market, yet you remain fixated on it.


I DON'T rate the economy that way. That's the standard that innumerable Trump Trumpeters want to use. I said in an earlier post what my standard would be for overall economic performance, or at least, for how to measure the average standard of wealth/living as relates individuals.

And, that is a fact. You might not like that it's a fact, but if you look at one number and compare it to the other number, one number is 148.3% greater than the other. I'm not accusing you of any such, but there are many Trumpers who point to the DOW as compared to the DOW under Obama and say that, therefore, Trump is much more of a success for the economy than Obama was.

My point is that, if a person is going to use the DOW as a measuring stick in the first place, which I wouldn't necessarily, there are many different ways even that could be looked at.

Further, I also agree that the combination of the things you said (and more) are generally pretty good indicators. Not the DOW or any one of those things taken individually is a great indicator unto itself.

Quote:
Not true of course, but if that is what you believe, why didn't you mention it when you posted "Obama left the Dow 148.3% higher than when he took office".?

Why were you so quick to defend him when I mentioned it took five and a half years for the Dow to recover?


I did mention it! THE PRESIDENT. Any President. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. Any of them. I have been mentioning it. I've said the same thing in multiple posts.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying that, if someone is absolutely determined to use the DOW as a measuring tool, then they are either both successful, both failures, or both neutral. You can't say that one is doing a good job and the other didn't. If you said both did (same thing) then I probably wouldn't even argue against that.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
July 29th, 2020 at 6:59:31 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Mission146
I really don't see how the day after he was elected to inauguration can be attributed to his, "Success," when he hadn't actually done anything policy-wise yet.


Are you not hearing what several of us are screaming at you?

It is not about what he "did" it is about what he "will do" and more important what Hillary would not do.

When pols campaign on putting industries out of business and adding regulations like it is a bodily function then profits will go down. If profits are going to go down rational people will not invest.

Because Trump promised to get rid of unneeded and irresponsible regulations businesses would make more profit. When more profit is coming people invest.

Get it?
The President is a fink.
July 29th, 2020 at 7:17:15 AM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4157
Quote: AZDuffman
Are you not hearing what several of us are screaming at you?

It is not about what he "did" it is about what he "will do" and more important what Hillary would not do.

When pols campaign on putting industries out of business and adding regulations like it is a bodily function then profits will go down. If profits are going to go down rational people will not invest.

Because Trump promised to get rid of unneeded and irresponsible regulations businesses would make more profit. When more profit is coming people invest.

Get it?
I'm too frustrated to continue... I'll let you carry the burden. I don't like screaming at Mission. He's spent a bunch of time helping me to learn some AP plays.
July 29th, 2020 at 7:18:14 AM permalink
ams288
Member since: Apr 21, 2016
Threads: 29
Posts: 12422
“A straight man will not go for kids.” - AZDuffman
July 29th, 2020 at 7:40:25 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: AZDuffman
Are you not hearing what several of us are screaming at you?

It is not about what he "did" it is about what he "will do" and more important what Hillary would not do.

When pols campaign on putting industries out of business and adding regulations like it is a bodily function then profits will go down. If profits are going to go down rational people will not invest.

Because Trump promised to get rid of unneeded and irresponsible regulations businesses would make more profit. When more profit is coming people invest.

Get it?


Yeah, I'm hearing it. I'm also saying there is no, "Will do," to any great extent. There's only, "More likely to do." If the stock markets, or even the stocks of individual companies, were comprised entirely of absolutes...then it wouldn't be a confidence game in the first place.

Therefore, I'm saying that favorable policies for businesses, particularly big businesses, become more likely with Trump as President. There is no, "Will do," there is just increased probability of certain things. Trump can enforce certain laws less stringently, for example, but he cannot change them or outright circumvent them, for the most part.

I agree with your next statement, but even then (as with most things in the markets), the initial impact tends to be an overreaction by amateur investors who are not deeply analytical, OR BY PEOPLE who are deeply analytical and know how to profitably play against the tendencies of amateur investors.

I also agree that EITHER major party having both the Presidency and both branches of Congress would be a terrible thing one way or another. Obviously, Democrats having total control would be likely to be an abject disaster for businesses, particularly so for big businesses in industries that are already heavily regulated. You're talking to me as if I have disputed that point already or even would dispute it. Far from it. I agree 100%.

I think Republicans having absolute control would be terrible in many other ways, but not so much for big business.

And...that's yet another flaw with this two-party system made necessary by the Electoral College.

Even then, most long-term investors aren't going to do the bulk of their decision-making based on worst-case scenarios or low probability events. That's for amateur investors to do. At that point, skilled individual investors might play off of those fears and major Institutional Investors might load up on a company they already hold (or sometimes a new company) if they feel like they are getting the right price. Generally speaking, however, Institutional Investors are most inclined to hold.

When Institutional Investors start taking big actions in either direction (buying or selling) that's when you start seeing the biggest and most pronounced movements in the market...or when unskilled investors who usually play short-term fairly exclusively start panicking. You could look at any number of Institutional Investors holding casino stocks during the downturn earlier this year and see that many of them did not change their positions either way.

Anyway, Trump can promise whatever he wants to promise, but he's very limited in his capacity to, "Get rid," of anything. The main tool he has in his box is that he can be less stringent when it comes to the actual enforcement of certain regulations, but that is obviously going to be somewhat temporary.

Also, it isn't even necessarily going to change things all that drastically. Do you think that profits are suddenly going to triple in a year simply because Trump has decided not to enforce a fairly specific regulation that only impacts a percentage of what the underlying company does in the first place?

For example, say that a safety regulation related to the manufacturing of airbags for new cars is loosened. For one thing, your production lines are already designed to have that regulation in place and you're already manufacturing cars that way, so you might not even change anything. Secondly, the manufacturing plant might decide to keep it as if the regulation was in place just because the regulation itself (as occasionally happens) is actually a good idea that improves the integrity of the vehicle and safety in the event of a collision. It's usually not good publicity to have more people dying in your cars than other car manufacturers have, you know? Finally, that's a very small component of the car's overall production and even getting rid of that regulation may result in only small cost-savings (percentage-wise) relative to the overall production cost of the vehicle.

IOW, people tend to react to these things more than the actual change justifies. Although, people sometimes underestimate the impacts of things. Either way, the market eventually corrects...especially as relates the stock values of individual companies.

Get it? Simply saying that regulations are going to go away does not make it so, and even if it did, depending on the regulation; it might not even impact the bottom line all that much. Regulatory costs are generally going to be passed on to end users in some form or fashion anyway.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman