Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.

[lolpve]

This thread aged badly

[Machismo]

Careful, you might get Thwarted.

Well, I made a claim, and when challenged, I backed it up. If the powers that be want to hit me for that, that's on them.

[Zan15]

This thread aged badly

You should try reading the thread and participating like an adult instead of a troll

[rda]

You should try reading the thread and participating like an adult instead of a troll

He's right, the thread aged badly, and I said why - the graphs in the first post, if they are extended to cover Q1 2019, look very much differently (better). The title of the thread was a little silly when the thread was created, and now it looks even sillier.

[Dontrike]

He's right, the thread aged badly, and I said why - the graphs in the first post, if they are extended to cover Q1 2019, look very much differently (better). The title of the thread was a little silly when the thread was created, and now it looks even sillier.

When it was created it was spot on, that's when Tariff Man came and fucked things up.

[rda]

When it was created it was spot on, that's when Tariff Man came and fucked things up.

When it was created, the only thing in the post that supported the title ("Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.") was a little tip at the end of the graph for Trump on OP's chosen metric. It was a little silly because the graph was overall very positive (you can see this on the third chart when the Trump's graph is compared to graphs for many other presidents, not just to Obama's graph) and it was just a little tip that was supposedly "heading negative". Now it's even sillier because Q1 2019 removed even the tip and the Trump's graph - again, on OP's chosen metric - actually points up and outperforms nearly everyone except Obama, no longer even "heading negative" even though that was a silly metric.

I am not saying the state of the US economy is perfect - it isn't, and yes, Trump did make some decisions that seem bad to me - but the point is: the OP chosen a single metric trying to make a point, couldn't really make his point well (based it all on a small tip of the graph and lack of real analysis), and after some time even that shaky basis predictably disappeared ruining the OP's supposed point completely.

[Draco-Onis]

When it was created, the only thing in the post that supported the title ("Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.") was a little tip at the end of the graph for Trump on OP's chosen metric. It was a little silly because the graph was overall very positive (you can see this on the third chart when the Trump's graph is compared to graphs for many other presidents, not just to Obama's graph) and it was just a little tip that was supposedly "heading negative". Now it's even sillier because Q1 2019 removed even the tip and the Trump's graph - again, on OP's chosen metric - actually points up and outperforms nearly everyone except Obama, no longer even "heading negative" even though that was a silly metric.

I am not saying the state of the US economy is perfect - it isn't, and yes, Trump did make some decisions that seem bad to me - but the point is: the OP chosen a single metric trying to make a point, couldn't really make his point well (based it all on a small tip of the graph and lack of real analysis), and after some time even that shaky basis predictably disappeared ruining the OP's supposed point completely.

I think his point was rather simple Trump has claimed time and time again that the stock market would only rise under his tenure, a rather idiotic claim since the president of the US is not a magician. As a result when the market goes through periods of lulls as market tend to do he shuts up and starts bragging again when it rises. If anything shows how much of a con man he is this does.

[Fahrenheit]

I think his point was rather simple Trump has claimed time and time again that the stock market would only rise under his tenure, a rather idiotic claim since the president of the US is not a magician. As a result when the market goes through periods of lulls as market tend to do he shuts up and starts bragging again when it rises. If anything shows how much of a con man he is this does.

That and all of Trump's and his minions in the WH and here bitching and moaning about the FED raising the prime interest rates.
The only reason any of these people care about the FFTR ticking up is because it has a slight downward pressure on GDP, and the GDP is tied to Trump's perceived performance in handling the Economy at large by the public. Since the Economy is the one non partisan thing Trump can point to and say, look I haven't royally fucked this up yet, he's overly protective and hostile to anyone who would do harm to it, regardless if it's good for the country or not. We need to continue to slowly build up the FFTR to head off inflation and give us a useful tool for when the next recession hits, but that doesn't matter to him, the only thing that matters is squeezing out every ounce of GDP. So long as it reflects good on him, he doesn't care about what may or may not happen in the future.

[Zan15]

When it was created, the only thing in the post that supported the title ("Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.") was a little tip at the end of the graph for Trump on OP's chosen metric. It was a little silly because the graph was overall very positive (you can see this on the third chart when the Trump's graph is compared to graphs for many other presidents, not just to Obama's graph) and it was just a little tip that was supposedly "heading negative". Now it's even sillier because Q1 2019 removed even the tip and the Trump's graph - again, on OP's chosen metric - actually points up and outperforms nearly everyone except Obama, no longer even "heading negative" even though that was a silly metric.

I am not saying the state of the US economy is perfect - it isn't, and yes, Trump did make some decisions that seem bad to me - but the point is: the OP chosen a single metric trying to make a point, couldn't really make his point well (based it all on a small tip of the graph and lack of real analysis), and after some time even that shaky basis predictably disappeared ruining the OP's supposed point completely.

The single metric was because we were talking about a single topic not the economy as a whole. It was very accurate as the year did end up negative (topic nailed it) and the bull market was technically over the only thing they held on to was the Nasdaq was a fraction above -20% (nailed it again).
This is also Trumps go to metric when its doing well.


Its finally not heading negative, but its taken 14 months to get back to the highs so its now flat instead of negative. That is not a bull market.


The additional point was that our president and its party said Obama was horrible for the stock market and the economy, the worst president ever. So if he is doing multiples worse than Obama then it ganders by his very own admission he is doing even "more horrible". Would you not agree?

He's right, the thread aged badly, and I said why - the graphs in the first post, if they are extended to cover Q1 2019, look very much differently (better). The title of the thread was a little silly when the thread was created, and now it looks even sillier.

Here's the thing, lets expand it to include the 1Q...now beware because you know, Obama's numbers were also moving during his 1Q that year.


at the time he was 206% lower performance on the SP500% and 62% on the dow.


Dow

OP
Obama 37.6%
Trump 23.2%

Today
Obama - 57.1%
Trump- 33.1%

58% higher performance (Was 62% - Trump improved a few percent's but still way lower than "Obama's horrible performance")


SP500

OP
Obama 42.9%
Trump 15.9%

Today
Obama 62.9%
Trump 28.3%

222% lower performance. (Was 206% -Trump doing worse than the OP date on the broader stock market measurement)


The performance delta did not change at all, proving the OP aged well.

if they are extended to cover Q1 2019, look very much differently (better)

Nope it looks about the same for the Dow and Worse for the SP500.

you should have looked at the charts before you commented.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp5...e-by-president
https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/sto...e-by-president

Feel free to check next time you wana comment.






I do agree that the market is performing about on par with most of the prior common day presidents like Reagan, Clinton and HW. He's even beating a few like GW and Carter. I think as far as the stock market is concerned its doing quite well, but again that is not the metric by which Trump, its supporters and its party goes off. They go off the Obama metric.
When comparing Trumps results to the worst stock market president ever, Trump is now in pace to take over that title (of course trumps metric is ridiculous).

[Breccia]

Its finally not heading negative, but its taken 14 months to get back to the highs so its now flat instead of negative. That is not a bull market.

Indeed. It took, what, eight months? For the market to correct from the massive dive it took due to Trump's words and actions. And the original thread remains valid: the year 2018 sucked royally.

Hey if a bull market is up and a bear market is down, what do you call a flat market? Is it a "snake market" or is it "floundering market"?

- - - Updated - - -

More info, or rather, more interpretation of the same info:

In 2018, companies spent more on stock buybacks than they were paying in taxes. In 2019, they are on trend to spend even more on buybacks than 2018.

That means that a large chunk of the GDP growth was companies buying themselves. And not, like, "hey let's build a new factory" either. Just paying more money for more ownership of what they already had. Actual new investment ("private final demand") grew by 1.5%, the smallest increase in six years.

"Hey, does it help or hurt if the companies start paying off their debts?"

Doesn't matter. They weren't doing it. Companies are spending less and less on debt repayments, spending half as much in Q3/4 combined as Q1 2018. Basically, companies aren't using the tax cut for the rich to improve. They're using it to artificially inflate their stock numbers.

Related: remember how the "84% of the tax cut for the rich is going to the 1%" and similar numbers was going around before, during, and after it was voted on? Well, the numbers are in. It's not 84%.

"Hah! Trump delivers! MAGA!"

It's 94%.

This article contains a lot of old ground -- why the tax cut for the rich created so many loopholes, why it was made in secret, etc -- but also this:

Just 6% of the tax savings was spent on workers, according to Just Capital, a not-for-profit that tracks the Russell 1000 index.

In the first three months after the bill passed, the average weekly paycheck rose by $6.21. That would be $233 a year.

The $6.21 is, of course, from a study covering large numbers of Americans. Anyone on these forums who tries to dismiss it with "well I got more" is handwaving.

[Breccia]

People not getting as big of tax return or having to actually have to pay more in taxes this year surely didn't help. The question is this ripple going to blip or the start of a trend?

To be fair, now that the surprise of the tax cut for the rich is over, people who figure out withholding will probably do a better job. However, none of that changes the fact that, regardless of how it happened, the average American worker saw nearly nothing (0.5% or so, as cited above) total. In exchange, however, they are seeing a massive debt/deficit blowup to the point that the Republican Party is refusing to carry out Trump's campaign promise infrastructure -- in addition to other things we've discussed, such as inflation eating wage growth.

[Zan15]

More info, or rather, more interpretation of the same info:

In 2018, companies spent more on stock buybacks than they were paying in taxes. In 2019, they are on trend to spend even more on buybacks than 2018.

That means that a large chunk of the GDP growth was companies buying themselves. And not, like, "hey let's build a new factory" either. Just paying more money for more ownership of what they already had. Actual new investment ("private final demand") grew by 1.5%, the smallest increase in six years.

"Hey, does it help or hurt if the companies start paying off their debts?"

Doesn't matter. They weren't doing it. Companies are spending less and less on debt repayments, spending half as much in Q3/4 combined as Q1 2018. Basically, companies aren't using the tax cut for the rich to improve. They're using it to artificially inflate their stock numbers.

Related: remember how the "84% of the tax cut for the rich is going to the 1%" and similar numbers was going around before, during, and after it was voted on? Well, the numbers are in. It's not 84%.

"Hah! Trump delivers! MAGA!"

It's 94%.

This article contains a lot of old ground -- why the tax cut for the rich created so many loopholes, why it was made in secret, etc -- but also this:



The $6.21 is, of course, from a study covering large numbers of Americans. Anyone on these forums who tries to dismiss it with "well I got more" is handwaving.

More great info on where we would be without this huge corporate giveaway

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...cks-2019-05-02


its amazing how much of a difference it makes, and it will only increase at a much larger rate thanks to the tax cut and a lot of it going right into stock buybacks funded by trillion in debt.

Good for corporations and the top 5% of the country in the short term


Not so much for everyone else in the long run

[Fahrenheit]

Good for corporations and the top 5% of the country in the short term
Not so much for everyone else in the long run

That’s basically the Trump presidency in a nutshell. The crazy deficit spending during a ‘boom’ economy, the harping at the FED over raising prime rates, the tax cut to the wealthiest and corporations. They’re all engineered to give the economy a sugar high in the short run to boost his shot to get re-elected, but all have significant consequences a few years down the road, but who cares? Trump and his cronies don’t. He’ll either be nearing the end of his second term or be defeated in 2020 and tweeting from his golden tower In Manhattan, that it was whoever the Dem 2020 winner’s fault when shit starts to sour.

[Jeezy911]

I keep seeing these topics come up and wonder what universe OP lives in. Based on numbers alone, Trump is in the 99th percentile when it comes to presidential economic success. It's really hard to dispute at this point.

[Dontrike]

I keep seeing these topics come up and wonder what universe OP lives in. Based on numbers alone, Trump is in the 99th percentile when it comes to presidential economic success. It's really hard to dispute at this point.

The world where last October through December we saw Tariff Man fuck up anything, perhaps that world. Why is it that all of you and your kin can't tell the date the thread was created?

[Jeezy911]

The world where last October through December we saw Tariff Man fuck up anything, perhaps that world. Why is it that all of you and your kin can't tell the date the thread was created?

Because it doesn't matter, your kin was wrong like always.

[Dontrike]

Because it doesn't matter, your kin was wrong like always.

Ah yes, the time it was talked about and therefore the context that would be given from it doesn't matter. "Smart."

[Draco-Onis]

I keep seeing these topics come up and wonder what universe OP lives in. Based on numbers alone, Trump is in the 99th percentile when it comes to presidential economic success. It's really hard to dispute at this point.

Welcome back and just like all your posts you have no facts to back that up but you know what don't ever change.

[Felya]

Because it doesn't matter, your kin was wrong like always.

No, it’s why necro threads are against forum rules. Read the forum rules and apply that explanation, to this reaction.

[Zan15]

I keep seeing these topics come up and wonder what universe OP lives in. Based on numbers alone, Trump is in the 99th percentile when it comes to presidential economic success. It's really hard to dispute at this point.

Who was talking about the economy as a whole in the OP?

Did you also realize that in the last 14 months the stock market is FLAT and right back to where we started?

Did you read the comments that talk and show data that proves many of the reasons why even though the economy is doing well, the vast majority of people are not benefiting and most of the benefits is going to the top 1-5% of the country and corporations?

Ya you are just trolling again, got it.


Also 90% of his (99%tile performance was by the prior president). Congrats on continuing the same pattern that HE used to call a failure and the worst.

BTW just 4 big categories he is average at best.

Stock market - way lower than Obama's performance so far and on par with 3 of the last 6 presidents, losing to 2, beating 1. So he is running about AVERAGE to BELOW AVERAGE.

GDP. Still below 3% only the 2nd president ever, historical normal GDP is 3.2-3.4% and trump max is 2.9%. BELOW AVERAGE

Wage Growth - Higher than Obama, but way lower than the historical norm of 4+% - BELOW AVERAGE

Debt - Bigly. Already on pace to match or exceed Obama. and all this during a 99th percentile economy....LOL - WAY BELOW AVERAGE

I got more if you want.....

So trump is not even close to the 99th percentile as far as performance. I'd put him about 70% tops.