So delusional? The stock market is not the economy. Taxes got cut, but the deficit is massive when we should be paying it down. Unemployment is low, but so is wage growth. About the only thing I agree with here is that we are not starting wars - despite Trump bringing us to the brink of war just so he can play with his toys.I think you'd like it. The economy is booming, unemployment is very low, taxes got cut, we're not starting wars all over the world - it's a good world to live in, you should try it.
Or stay in your imaginary world where everyone is racist, the world is about to end, and Trump made a phone call.
It's a pretty good indicator though, remember stocks tend to reflect how optimistic the market is. So if the market is doing well there is a reasonable belief that the stock issuers are going to be doing well in the foreseeable future. Now you could make an argument that we are in the midst of a bubble...The stock market is not the economy.
Wage growth been stagnant for decades now, so I would call low unemployment a win.Unemployment is low, but so is wage growth
The move is going to cost dear to the US, both strategically and in public image. Making such expensive favours to powerful authoritarian leaders is a sign of weakness, as it is a sign that the US are so scared of having Erdogan... leaving them or NATO, maybe, and set sails for elsewhere, that they are willing to make such bad (or at least image-shattering) deals.You answered your own question
Remember when US backed the Taliban against USSR and then went to war with them?
Negative yeld bonds anyone?It's a pretty good indicator though, remember stocks tend to reflect how optimistic the market is. So if the market is doing well there is a reasonable belief that the stock issuers are going to be doing well in the foreseeable future. Now you could make an argument that we are in the midst of a bubble...
That's a relatively low percentage of the population though, and there have always been and likely always be people who are working multiple shit jobs to make ends meet that's not really an indication of unhealthy economy.when people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet
It's not corporate profits that drive the market it's the expectation of future performance, which is why Apple stock drops every time a new phone is announced and is missing a bunch of features Android had for years. Then it always rebounds when they see how many units are being moved.Same is true for stocks; stocks represent corporate profits, not necessarily the health of the entire economy.
Does that include various retirement investments such as 401k and IRA?According to Gallup, the number of Americans invested in the market was down to 52% as of 2015 and it had been trending down since 2002 (except for a bump in 2007 before the slide continued).
My favorite!Negative yeld bonds anyone?
Court filings against Trump for sexual assault:Who has Trump sexually assaulted? And what the hell does that have to do with unequal rights or some other nonsense?
When all you look at is corporate earnings, yeah.It's one of the biggest indicators of how the economy is doing.
No, I worry about the deficit regardless of who is in office. Where I start getting vocal is when we pump up the deficit as a handout to the wealthy. We've already talked about this.I take it then that you don't support Warren or Sanders, considering how much their plans would increase spending, right? Or is this another case of a Democrat worrying about the deficit only while a republican is in office?
You cited low unemployment as a sign of the economy. If we take a simplistic look of straight "supply vs demand" then we should be seeing wages go up when unemployment is low - we aren't seeing that happen. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it's because people are working more low-wage jobs, driving down the unemployment numbers but not actually being able to get out of lower incomes despite the work.What does one have to do with the other? We've had stangant real wages since the 60s or something, that doesn't negate low unemployment.
Who mentioned LBJ or Democrats at all? Can't you go a single post without a Whatabout moment? We've been over this multiple times, I'm not indulging you again.Give me an example of institutional racism and a racist policy. I'd say the war on poverty under LBJ (a Democrat) was racist but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.
Again, we've been over this going back to his management of housing in the 1980s - feel free to go over it again, because I'm disinclined to post it for the third or fourth time just because you demand a review.That makes no sense; correlation, causation, etc. Again, give me an example of Trump's racist policy.
First, Obama was handed an economy that tanked within weeks of his taking office, the economic recovery is probably what he will be known for more than anything. Second, do you really want to build on the idea that people need 2-3 jobs to survive, because that sounds dystopian as hell. "Yeah, people have to work 80-90 hours per week to get by, look how awesome the economy is that they have that amazing opportunity." You sound like a caricature of a shitty villain.Where's your data that shows that more people are working more jobs than, say, under Obama or Bush? And even if that's the case, isn't the implication then that people were unable to find a second or a third job under Obama and now they can, which would mean that there are more jobs available?
Right, so a company's stock doesn't go up when they have a good earnings report with lots of profit? Okay, it's a function of disposable income, so the market is a gauge of how well the people with money are doing - and since more and more money is concentrated in so few, those people have lots of money to invest and make even more money. Thus, wealth continues to grow at the top as companies strive for better quarterly reports as a way to pander to their wealthy investors rather than paying workers a living wage. Does that make it any clearer for you? I thought you studied finance or economics or something.Stocks do not represent corporate profits Stocks are a function of people's disposable income (i.e. how much money they are willing and able to invest) and the people's perception of the health and direction of the economy (i.e. they will invest more if they think that they economy is doing well and therefore their investment will bring a positive return).
Sure, let me find a source for you that you might listen to. Oh, here's one.'d like to see some research that specifically shows that Americans aren't investing because they're "trying to make ends meet".
As I established earlier, only about half of Americans have anything in the market - so what does that say about their "disposable income"?Stocks are a function of people's disposable income
First, I never said only the rich have anything invested, I posted the breakdown of who has what invested and who has nothing invested. Now, add a couple of decimal points to your portfolio. Now add a couple more. And just like that you are making money just because you have money. How about the myth that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough?What? I'm not wealthy or in the top 10% but I get dividends and my 401k has increased quite a bit in this economy. Where is this myth coming from that only the rich have anything to do with the stock market??
Says an anonymous man on the internet who, in this very thread, revealed that he doesn't understand income tax brackets and stock prices. And who, in another nearby thread put his ignorance about economics on full display. Your having any such degrees from an accredited institution is a laughable thought.
I literally have degrees in economics and business and I work in finance. What's your claim to fame?