Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.

[Zan15]

So, with Trump declaring the economy will crash if he's not re-elected, I have to wonder if he intends to deliberately crash the economy if he loses (assuming he hasn't crashed it before then)? He's petty and crooked enough I wouldn't be shocked if he did; he'd probably just resign immediately after and have Pence pardon him.

he seems to not be able to purposely control much, he just throws shit at a fan and sees how it plays out.

[Breccia]

So, with Trump declaring the economy will crash if he's not re-elected, I have to wonder if he intends to deliberately crash the economy if he loses

He's crashing the economy now. GDP growth this low, a deficit this big, an inverted yield curve with such low unemployment? And every expert saying it's because Trump's trade war is a dismal failure? At the absolute best, he's hastening what would have happened eventually. At worst, it's 100% his doing. It's impossible to defend that Trump isn't causing this now. There is no "if".

- - - Updated - - -

Below is my interpretation of Trump's phone call to major banks as the stock market fell 800 points on Wednesday:

"Why is the stock market crashing?"
"Because you promised to make things more expensive for Americans."
"No I didn't, I said I would raise tariffs."
"Mr. Trump, tariffs are paid by the people who purchase the goods. That means Americans."
"Stop making things up and fix the stock market, or you're fired."
"Mr. Trump, just try this: say you'll put the tariffs off until after Christmas. You'll get all the stocks back. Your numbers will go up, and everyone will say you're smart and handsome again."
"Okay, that sounds like sound economic reasoning to me."

The real phone call took 20 minutes.

[jeezusisacasual]

Most of the land is unpopulated. So when people complain about lack of places to live, what they mean to say is lack of places to live where there's jobs. Cities and densely populated areas are more likely to have good paying jobs than those out in the country. Especially during a recession the people will move closer to cities just to make ends meet.

At this point we need to do what Alaska does and that's give out money so people have options, just that we need to give out a lot more money. I'm sure there's some people who'd rather live out in the country than in a stuffy apartment.

Laws should be put in place but I figure if these people buy a bunch of property in anticipation of people moving into an area, it can get very expensive to pay taxes and maintain what could be mostly an empty home. If you get $12k a year from the government, you can move to basically anywhere and avoid price hiking. I can still see towns benefiting from this as these homes would still collect taxes either way, but just to prevent this craziness from continuing we need laws that prevent purchasing of homes for the purpose of renting it.

Capitalism as we know it has been dying for a while, and this will be the last recession as far as I'm concerned. Mostly because the future of our economy will have to accommodate for automation with UBI, which means being poor will be eliminated. The wealthy will soon see the end of free money for them, which means we could see a class war between the wealthy and the poor. And yes, things like the stock market and collecting rent is basically free money as no work was put into it besides ownership.

I agree 100% with you on this and would be the reasonable expectation going forward. I was talking to another analyst and who agreed with me in the sense of why our economic model is looked down upon is due to the crony aspect of it all. Looking at it now i would likely use my portion of the UBI to invest since my home is paid off along with my post high school education debt ( And no i would not be against absolving those who still owe even tho i paid off 70 grand ). The problem is that people are not looking at why these proposals are even being brought up in the first place but that is another conversation.



That is the thing about this economy, Trump has expanded the bubble far more then i thought would be possible. The economy is a slow and steady machine to make the landing far more softer then it would if we do casino style policies. This trade war has been a disaster and Peter Schiff wrote about it in a decent manner ( i disagree with alot of his stances mind you ) and showed exactly what is wrong with his entire economic outlook. I wonder what the overall market would look like if we had every central bank clear their balance sheets? Because its not uncommon for outside national banks to buy assets in other nations to provide a rise. The market would likely act in a violent manner is my guess.

[Vash The Stampede]

That is the thing about this economy, Trump has expanded the bubble far more then i thought would be possible.

My belief is that Hillary and Trump would have done equal damage to the economy as there's little needed to push it over. Both are supportive of the wealthy, which means both would have found ways to funnel money to them. There's a reason why Hillary wasn't the winner because she gave free speeches to banks. This situation was inevitable, including how quickly it came.

The economy is a slow and steady machine to make the landing far more softer then it would if we do casino style policies. This trade war has been a disaster and Peter Schiff wrote about it in a decent manner ( i disagree with alot of his stances mind you ) and showed exactly what is wrong with his entire economic outlook. I wonder what the overall market would look like if we had every central bank clear their balance sheets? Because its not uncommon for outside national banks to buy assets in other nations to provide a rise. The market would likely act in a violent manner is my guess.

The trade war has little if any effect on the economy. All Trumps tariffs do is temporarily cause a reaction in the market, which is why the Dow Jones is already rising. The real shit show starts when the Holiday season sales kick in, or more likely have Q4 results. Before Trump the economy was already going down the toilet because people ignored that auto sales were down for years and that over 7 million people are 90 days late making auto loan payments. The electronic sales are down. Amazon has been destroying retail stores to the point where we're getting record breaking store closings and people are losing jobs. Debt is at a all time high.

Trumps Tariffs are just negatively effecting the stock market, and even then just temporarily. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that the tariffs are irrelevant. The reason this recession is happening is because people have reached max debt and prices are still going up when pay isn't. The reason the recession from 2008 has lasted this long is because people adapted to this situation. They either had savings that lasted this long, or debt they could manage this long, or family/friends they could rely on this long. Whatever it is, they reached max debt. This is why I say you can go back to George Bush who likely started the mess while Obama did little to fix it. Compared to Obama's bailouts to banks and auto industry, it makes Trump look like he's doing a good thing. The reality was that GM and a number of banks needed to go out of business back in 2009.

[Zan15]

My belief is that Hillary and Trump would have done equal damage to the economy as there's little needed to push it over. Both are supportive of the wealthy, which means both would have found ways to funnel money to them. There's a reason why Hillary wasn't the winner because she gave free speeches to banks. This situation was inevitable, including how quickly it came.

.

No proof what so ever that any of her policies would have caused any damage to the economy. especially not like tax cuts to no one but corps and rich and tariffs.

.

The trade war has little if any effect on the economy.
.

LOL, said no one but you.

All Trumps tariffs do is temporarily cause a reaction in the market, which is why the Dow Jones is already rising.

.

already rising? its flat since the tariffs took effect in jan 2018. We are in the 19th month.

The real shit show starts when the Holiday season sales kick in, or more likely have Q4 results. Before Trump the economy was already going down the toilet because people ignored that auto sales were down for years and that over 7 million people are 90 days late making auto loan payments. The electronic sales are down. Amazon has been destroying retail stores to the point where we're getting record breaking store closings and people are losing jobs. Debt is at a all time high.

.

Crazy part is, Amazon has been replacing those jobs and they pay way more than a Macy's, Sears, ET all. Their warehouses pay a lot more than the big box stores and has promised 15 dollars an hour. Not all the jobs of course

Debt is at a all time high.

Trumps Tariffs are just negatively effecting the stock market, and even then just temporarily. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that the tariffs are irrelevant. The reason this recession is happening is because people have reached max debt and prices are still going up when pay isn't. The reason the recession from 2008 has lasted this long is because people adapted to this situation. They either had savings that lasted this long, or debt they could manage this long, or family/friends they could rely on this long. Whatever it is, they reached max debt. This is why I say you can go back to George Bush who likely started the mess while Obama did little to fix it. Compared to Obama's bailouts to banks and auto industry, it makes Trump look like he's doing a good thing. The reality was that GM and a number of banks needed to go out of business back in 2009.

again, tariffs are the main reason why we have been flat since Jan 2018 that is not "temporarily" since whenever the market starts to shake it off, he opens his big mouth again and plans another round.


Debt is the only thing right now that is going to stop a great Christmas season because if the stock market continues to be "fearful" it will cause people to actually pause before spending like the have for the last 2 years.


As for GM the impact was not worth them going full bankruptcy and out of business. They needed to die slowly not overnight which was a very large possibility which would have been round two of the massive crash that thankfully never happened.

Enough of the banks did go out of business and the bailouts actually made money thanks to the mortgage giants. If anything we don't have enough BIG banks to compete against each other and def not enough middle market banks to push the big banks in anyway.

[Vash The Stampede]

No proof what so ever that any of her policies would have caused any damage to the economy. especially not like tax cuts to no one but corps and rich and tariffs.

Nobody has proof of anything, including that Trumps tariffs are responsible for anything. Fact is the tariffs force the sellers to either raise prices or eat the difference. This is not the cause of the coming recession or even accelerating it. We know Hillary is in favor of banks from her private speeches, so it's safe to assume that Hillary would bail out the banks where Trump may not. Hillary wasn't even in favor of Universal Health Care until Bernie Sanders convinced her, and she would have likely backed away from that arrangement.

LOL, said no one but you.

Lots of people said the economy was doing great as well when I said it wasn't for a while now. You don't always have to be a sheep. Always better to think for yourself than let others do the thinking for you.

already rising? its flat since the tariffs took effect in jan 2018. We are in the 19th month.

The Dow shouldn't have been flat either, since the only thing increasing the stock market is stock buy back. Long before January of 2018 sales have been down and nobody noticed because the stocks kept rising. More than half of Americans can't afford the cheapest brand new car which is $14k, and that's been for many years now. None of this should be a shock to anyone who ignores mainstream media for economic news.

Crazy part is, Amazon has been replacing those jobs and they pay way more than a Macy's, Sears, ET all. Their warehouses pay a lot more than the big box stores and has promised 15 dollars an hour. Not all the jobs of course

Problem is that warehouse jobs suck and pay shouldn't even be $15 an hour, let alone $11. Doesn't matter, eventually even Amazon jobs will be automated away.

again, tariffs are the main reason why we have been flat since Jan 2018 that is not "temporarily" since whenever the market starts to shake it off, he opens his big mouth again and plans another round.

Nothing will restore the stock market once it crashes. No such thing as infinite growth, and that's what's expected from stock holders.

Debt is the only thing right now that is going to stop a great Christmas season because if the stock market continues to be "fearful" it will cause people to actually pause before spending like the have for the last 2 years.

If you look at Christmas of last year, specifically December 24th you'll see that it plunged real hard. They rallied the stock market and have been doing so since to keep it afloat. The reason I say this Holiday season will crash it is because it nearly happened last year. The people running the stock market are very resilient, but at some point sales are what matters and nobody has had good sales in a while. Even Amazon is showing slow growth.

As for GM the impact was not worth them going full bankruptcy and out of business. They needed to die slowly not overnight which was a very large possibility which would have been round two of the massive crash that thankfully never happened.

GM already died overnight, but everyone ignores that they cut jobs and closed down factories because they stopped selling cars. The only reason GM and Ford haven't filed for bankruptcy is because they're waiting until after the holiday season, like most companies. I'm not even sure what keeps Chrysler around, with their horrible sales. Though to be fair the entire auto industry is doing poorly.

Enough of the banks did go out of business and the bailouts actually made money thanks to the mortgage giants. If anything we don't have enough BIG banks to compete against each other and def not enough middle market banks to push the big banks in anyway.

Nope, banks are evil. Bernie was right to say we need them broken up. We should definitely go back to banking at the post office. Does Wells Fargo have a CEO yet? Of course they don't, because nobody wants to touch that hot mess with a 10 foot pole. They still have Allen Parker as temporary CEO. That's what happens when a bank gets too big and starts ripping people off. Of course someone will just end up buying Wells Fargo. Deutsche Bank is also in a real shit pickle as well as they're just laying off people left and right.

I hate Trump like any normal person but his Tariffs didn't do any of this. Don't let your hate cloud your judgement for who's really to blame, and there's a lot of people who deserve the blame. Obama failed to put the financial burden of the recession on the 1%, as well as George Bush who kinda started the recession to begin with. Make no mistake we've been in a recession, but the upcoming recession is for the wealthy but it does effect everyone else as well.

[Breccia]

Well, let's count 'em down.

My belief is that Hillary and Trump would have done equal damage to the economy as there's little needed to push it over.

This is conjecture. More importantly, this is wishful thinking. This is something a Trump supporter would say, after seeing the damage done to the economy, and trying to absolve Team Trump and by proxy themselves of the blame. "The economy would have been damaged anyhow" will never be backed by evidence because time is linear.

This also reeks of intentional disingenuous sentiment, in this case, without citing how Clinton would have waged an equally damaging trade war, or otherwise intentionally taken actions that do nothing but damage the economy. Like Trump did. Unless your defense is that Trump is incompetent, which is still contrary to your defense of him.

Both are supportive of the wealthy, which means both would have found ways to funnel money to them.

Once again this is conjecture. It's also an accusation of corruption not only without evidence, but in a circumstance in which evidence is literally impossible. But it's far worse in this case, and intentionally so. Trump has multiple businesses into which he's been found to funnel money due to his position of power, such as the sale of 666 5th Ave and his hotel across the street from the FBI. The Clintons can't do that, because they don't have such businesses. They have a charity (Trump doesn't) that's constantly watched and whose taxes are publicly available. Trump has been hiding his taxes when even Nixon didn't.

There's a reason why Hillary wasn't the winner because she gave free speeches to banks.

Again, trying to attack Clinton as friend of the rich, when Trump is involved, is ridiculous. Clinton gave a paid speech for banks. Trump is owned by them, including an admitted Russian money launderer, and we don't even know how bad it is because Trump refuses to release his taxes. Which means I can say "Trump owes Russians $20 billion dollars" and you can't contradict me with evidence. I'm wrong, Deutsche Bank would never loan Trump that much, but you couldn't prove it.

The trade war has little if any effect on the economy.

I have literally posted dozens of articles citing experts who specifically disagreed. MMO-C allows you to track post by poster and go back 40 pages. Or, a Google search including things like "breccia" "trump" "tariff" and maybe "bangs Graham's wife in the shower" should give a quick list.

I will take literally any of the vast number of professionals, including people whose job it is to watch the economy, over you.

All Trumps tariffs do is temporarily cause a reaction in the market, which is why the Dow Jones is already rising.

This might be one of the most dishonest things posted on these forums.

This line suggests that the DOW exists in a vacuum, and that people buy and sell stock for reasons not connected to reality. That's just stupid. People, especially professional investors, buy and sell stock for a reason. Generally speaking, people invest in a company they think will return their investment with a profit. It's not called the Charity Market.

When there is a mass selloff because of something Trump did, it's not just because they felt like it. It's because they feel their investment is in trouble, and the risk of keeping their investment outweighs the reward. People sold off their stock because something Trump said or did threatened their investment. Not because the DOW is a random set of d20's whose results don't correllate with anything, and a natural 1 just happened to happen the same day Trump was due to finalize the biggest tax increase on American taxpayers in the history of the country.

The real shit show starts when the Holiday season sales kick in, or more likely have Q4 results.

Trump put off those tariffs he put off, because his aides told him he would ruin Christmas. And more tariffs were actually applied, so he still could.

Before Trump the economy was already going down the toilet because people ignored that auto sales were down for years and that over 7 million people are 90 days late making auto loan payments.

First of all, you need to cite your evidence. Not just because otherwise we assume you're making shit up, although that's part of the deal. It's to show that, for example, things were going down and somehow Trump didn't make it worse. If things are getting worse due to Trump's words and actions, your point is defeated.

But I found the source of your car payments thing. It's an article from February. This February. You said that was before Trump. You lied.

Also, I found data about total US car sales by year. They dropped in the last recession, climbed from 2010 to 2015, and have been roughly constant there. Oh, except for the first half of this year, and expected to continue the second half of this year, because prices jumped. Because of Trump's tariffs. You lied again.

And don't bother trying to find a pre-Trump article that has the same numbers. 7 million was a new record. It happened in Trump's tenure. That's objectively worse than pre-Trump.

The electronic sales are down.

Nope. 3.9% growth in 2019 and we've seen growth for years.

Now, maybe you'll drag out an article or two from 2016 or 2015 or whatever about a specific manufacturer. That's valid, but bear in mind, for every one you find I can find two or more that are more recent. And, if Trump puts tariffs on electronics Dec 15, it'll drop further and tank your argument.

Debt is at a all time high.

I don't understand why you'd even post this. If debt is at a high now, how does this somehow absolve Trump of blame? And how would Clinton have done the same? This statement does nothing for your argument.

Trumps Tariffs are just negatively effecting the stock market, and even then just temporarily.

"Just" is a lie. Prices are going up directly because of the tariffs. And even "temporarily" is false. The DOW's been flat since 2017.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that the tariffs are irrelevant.

China seems to be responding pretty hard for something that's irrelevant.

The reason this recession is happening is because people have reached max debt and prices are still going up when pay isn't.

None of what you said magically absolves Trump from blame. Trump directly raised prices. And his actions have not helped debt or salary in any way.

Compared to Obama's bailouts to banks and auto industry, it makes Trump look like he's doing a good thing. The reality was that GM and a number of banks needed to go out of business back in 2009.

I assume you're comparing what Obama did with Trump's socialist farmer bailout. I have to assume that because you didn't specify. It also sounds like you're saying that a number of farmers need to go out of business now, to complete the parallel.

Except you'll have to prove that Obama did damage to banks and the auto industry, and did so intentionally, and bailed them out to fix his own mess. You could try that with W, but not with Obama. Farmers are in trouble because Trump's actions tanked their sales.

Everything about this post seems to be "Trump is blameless" which is exactly what I would say if I was a Trump supporter and I knew Trump caused the problem. I would say that to deflect, to lie, and to somehow make myself feel better for backing a lame-ass limp-dick incompetent businessman who broke basically every promise he made about the economy. Jobs? Nowhere near the pace to hit 25 million. GDP growth? He hasn't gotten the 4% he promised, he hasn't gotten the 3% he said was baseline, he might not even get TWO percent this year. Trade deals? Name one that's signed. Wage growth? You said yourself it didn't happen. Tax benefits? That $4,000 refund he promised vanished like a first and/or second wife he cheated on. And you called out stock buybacks but failed to mention that was supposed to create jobs and investment. It didn't, by the way. Steel and coal jobs? Incremental and offset by losses in manufacturing and solar. And, of course, a massive deficit in both nominal and proportional terms.

Your argument is a strange paradox: you claimed something that was impossible to prove, and yet, you had to lie to do it. The entire thing was an embarrassing display on how to be wrong. Shame on you.

[Felya]

Problem is that warehouse jobs suck and pay shouldn't even be $15 an hour, let alone $11. Doesn't matter, eventually even Amazon jobs will be automated away.

This doesn’t make any sense... shouldn’t jobs that suck, pay more... because otherwise people will just go for jobs that... uhm... rock?

[Vash The Stampede]

This is conjecture. More importantly, this is wishful thinking. This is something a Trump supporter would say, after seeing the damage done to the economy, and trying to absolve Team Trump and by proxy themselves of the blame. "The economy would have been damaged anyhow" will never be backed by evidence because time is linear.

The issue you have is that you're making this into a Democrat vs Republican issue, a Red vs Blue, a right vs left, an us vs them. In this situation they're both equally guilty.

This also reeks of intentional disingenuous sentiment, in this case, without citing how Clinton would have waged an equally damaging trade war, or otherwise intentionally taken actions that do nothing but damage the economy. Like Trump did. Unless your defense is that Trump is incompetent, which is still contrary to your defense of him.

I'm not defending Trump, just calling it as I see it. The tariffs are the result of Trumps idiotic tax cuts he gave to the wealthy. That source of income is gone, so how is Trump going to balance the books? He taxes the goods coming into America, all in the name of promoting more jobs. The reality is that he moved the tax burden from the rich to the sellers or consumers, depending on who gets to eat the difference. But like I said, that's not the reason for this recession. People just don't have disposable income. Most of that blame falls onto high rent and wage stagnation.

Once again this is conjecture. It's also an accusation of corruption not only without evidence, but in a circumstance in which evidence is literally impossible. But it's far worse in this case, and intentionally so. Trump has multiple businesses into which he's been found to funnel money due to his position of power, such as the sale of 666 5th Ave and his hotel across the street from the FBI. The Clintons can't do that, because they don't have such businesses. They have a charity (Trump doesn't) that's constantly watched and whose taxes are publicly available. Trump has been hiding his taxes when even Nixon didn't.

It's all conjecture. You believe Trumps tariffs are the reason for the coming recession but have no evidence of it. You're not anymore correct than I am.

Again, trying to attack Clinton as friend of the rich, when Trump is involved, is ridiculous. Clinton gave a paid speech for banks. Trump is owned by them, including an admitted Russian money launderer, and we don't even know how bad it is because Trump refuses to release his taxes. Which means I can say "Trump owes Russians $20 billion dollars" and you can't contradict me with evidence. I'm wrong, Deutsche Bank would never loan Trump that much, but you couldn't prove it.

If Hillary gave speeches to banks then she's owned by them as well. As a Bernie voter, Hillary rubbed me the wrong way, especially when she was in favour of universal health care in the past, but then she wasn't.

I have literally posted dozens of articles citing experts who specifically disagreed. MMO-C allows you to track post by poster and go back 40 pages. Or, a Google search including things like "breccia" "trump" "tariff" and maybe "bangs Graham's wife in the shower" should give a quick list.

I will take literally any of the vast number of professionals, including people whose job it is to watch the economy, over you.

I bet those are the same "experts" that said not long ago that our economy is doing great because we have a 3% unemployment rate. I can show you articles that show that this year we've had the most layoffs since 2009, but nobody cares as long as the experts tell you otherwise.

This might be one of the most dishonest things posted on these forums.

This line suggests that the DOW exists in a vacuum, and that people buy and sell stock for reasons not connected to reality.

That's generally it. Our economy went from trying to get more sales to trying to gain more stock value. The stock market is far more profitable than the goods and services that companies are trying to provide. That's why we have corporations who took their tax savings and dumped them into their stock, instead of putting into R&D or expanding their business.

That's just stupid. People, especially professional investors, buy and sell stock for a reason. Generally speaking, people invest in a company they think will return their investment with a profit. It's not called the Charity Market.

Investors will invest. Who would have thunk it? Investors aren't the problem, just the stocks themselves. We live in a day in age where investors rely on algorithms to trade, and not market research. It's gotten so bad that people will spend millions for a small amount of land if it means they can lower the latency to trade stocks faster.

When there is a mass selloff because of something Trump did, it's not just because they felt like it. It's because they feel their investment is in trouble, and the risk of keeping their investment outweighs the reward. People sold off their stock because something Trump said or did threatened their investment. Not because the DOW is a random set of d20's whose results don't correllate with anything, and a natural 1 just happened to happen the same day Trump was due to finalize the biggest tax increase on American taxpayers in the history of the country.

The stock market will dip if someone sneezes. None of this is the real recession anyway because it didn't dip hard enough. At some point investors are waiting for sales numbers and Christmas is when the real money maker starts. That's when the sales numbers come in and the stocks will tumble.

Trump put off those tariffs he put off, because his aides told him he would ruin Christmas. And more tariffs were actually applied, so he still could.

That won't stop the recession from coming. None of that will increase sales, because again people don't have disposable income.

First of all, you need to cite your evidence. Not just because otherwise we assume you're making shit up, although that's part of the deal. It's to show that, for example, things were going down and somehow Trump didn't make it worse. If things are getting worse due to Trump's words and actions, your point is defeated.

But I found the source of your car payments thing. It's an article from February. This February. You said that was before Trump. You lied.

It helps to do a bit more searching. Here's the same story in 2016 where there's 6 million that are 90 days late on auto loan payments. You can go all the way back to 2010 when we had cash for clunkers.

Also, I found data about total US car sales by year. They dropped in the last recession, climbed from 2010 to 2015, and have been roughly constant there. Oh, except for the first half of this year, and expected to continue the second half of this year, because prices jumped. Because of Trump's tariffs. You lied again.

Keep in mind that nobody can actually "buy" cars since they cost a small fortune today. So it's all about auto loans and lease payments, but when you have a record high amount of late auto loan payments, you begin to see a problem, especially when this problem has been going on even before 2016. Auto sales are slowing down in Europe and China as well. Especially when those markets have distinctly different cars for a different market. Fact is 50% of Americans can't afford the cheapest new car, which is $14k. They haven't been able to for a many years, long before Trump.

Nope. 3.9% growth in 2019 and we've seen growth for years.

Now, maybe you'll drag out an article or two from 2016 or 2015 or whatever about a specific manufacturer. That's valid, but bear in mind, for every one you find I can find two or more that are more recent. And, if Trump puts tariffs on electronics Dec 15, it'll drop further and tank your argument.

This is a more recent thing but yea.

I don't understand why you'd even post this. If debt is at a high now, how does this somehow absolve Trump of blame? And how would Clinton have done the same? This statement does nothing for your argument.

It doesn't but then again he's not alone for this blame.

China seems to be responding pretty hard for something that's irrelevant.

Of course they would, they don't want this to catch on with other nations. If China loses their manufacturing then China loses their power. But in terms of the American market, it's irrelevant.

None of what you said magically absolves Trump from blame. Trump directly raised prices. And his actions have not helped debt or salary in any way.

Trump has certainly added to the shit sandwich economy but he isn't the only one or the majority of the reason.

I assume you're comparing what Obama did with Trump's socialist farmer bailout. I have to assume that because you didn't specify. It also sounds like you're saying that a number of farmers need to go out of business now, to complete the parallel.

Absolutely, because we shouldn't fund farmers with subsidies. Though we do give out a lot of subsidies and it is very socialism like.

Except you'll have to prove that Obama did damage to banks and the auto industry, and did so intentionally, and bailed them out to fix his own mess. You could try that with W, but not with Obama. Farmers are in trouble because Trump's actions tanked their sales.

Obama didn't damage the banks or auto industry, they did that to themselves. GM has been making shitty cars because they're cutting costs, and want people to keep buying cars. GM even made a commercial to try and debunk their car reliability issues. Wells Fargo seems to be doing dirty business so often that nobody wants to be the CEO. If these companies failed then they would have no choice but to do better. They will fail again and expect another bailout from the government.

[Breccia]

I'm not defending Trump, just calling it as I see it.

"It was going to crash anyhow, and Clinton would have done it too" is literally defending Trump. That's three lies.

Defending lies with lies is unacceptable.

You believe Trumps tariffs are the reason for the coming recession but have no evidence of it.

I have posted dozens of articles featuring industry heads and financial experts, all of which have specifically called out Trump's policies. And all of them are far more qualified than you or I.

That's four lies.

If Hillary gave speeches to banks then she's owned by them as well.

Nope. Clinton does not owe billions of dollars to banks because of her real estate. That's Trump.

Five lies.

Investors aren't the problem, just the stocks themselves.

Stocks are nonsentient, and have no decision-making ability. They change their value because of investors. Six lies.

The stock market will dip if someone sneezes.

Holding steady since Dec 2017 isn't "sneeze". This is deflection. This is disingenuous.

It helps to do a bit more searching. Here's the same story in 2016 where there's 6 million that are 90 days late on auto loan payments. You can go all the way back to 2010 when we had cash for clunkers.

Yes it would help to do more researching. Too bad you said seven million. Which happened in Trump's tenure. In Trump's time, it got worse. You just lied about what you said in your first post. That's seven.

Obama didn't damage the banks or auto industry, they did that to themselves.

This is admission that what Trump did and what Obama did wasn't the same. It's retroactive to your earlier post, but now that's eight lies.

Please post constructively. Spamming the forums with objective lies is unacceptable.

[Gestopft]

"It was going to crash anyhow, and Clinton would have done it too" is literally defending Trump. That's three lies.

I don't think that's fair.
And I think his point isn't about what Clinton would've done, it's about what she wouldn't have done.

If you think, as I do, and as Vash presumably does, that decades of supply-side economics, wage stagnation, short-termism and increased financialization, consolidation, etc, that have weakened the consumer class are deep problems underlying a superficially good economy, then the charge is that a failure to appreciably change the status quo and begin to undo decades of damage will eventually have the same result as Trump's policies.

[Breccia]

I don't think that's fair.

I think it's plenty fair.

My belief is that Hillary and Trump would have done equal damage to the economy as there's little needed to push it over. Both are supportive of the wealthy, which means both would have found ways to funnel money to them. There's a reason why Hillary wasn't the winner because she gave free speeches to banks. This situation was inevitable, including how quickly it came.

He flat-out said Clinton would have taken money for herself, and ruined the economy just as quickly. He said this with zero evidence in any way, and in fact, in spite of evidence. Considering Trump gave the tax cut for the rich and created trade wars on purpose, while lying about their effects, this requires more than "I think so" as backup -- and bear in mind, Clinton wasn't elected, so that evidence will never happen. He has feelings he's using to defend Trump. And then, lied eight times to justify them. Unacceptable.

[Zan15]

Nobody has proof of anything, including that Trumps tariffs are responsible for anything. Fact is the tariffs force the sellers to either raise prices or eat the difference. This is not the cause of the coming recession or even accelerating it. We know Hillary is in favor of banks from her private speeches, so it's safe to assume that Hillary would bail out the banks where Trump may not. Hillary wasn't even in favor of Universal Health Care until Bernie Sanders convinced her, and she would have likely backed away from that arrangement.

.

Umm, there is actual statistical data to prove the tariffs are negative for the economy. No one said it was the "only" cause, but its a part and yes the addition of it is accelerating any possible recession. So its the opposite of your deflection of "nobody has proof of anything"

2016 campaign donations to Trump. Savings & Loans $2,013,152

"oh no Trump is in favor of the banks"!!!
Maybe you forgot how much Trump actually owes "big banks"?

As for more deflection to Hillary, get over it she lost.

You don't always have to be a sheep. Always better to think for yourself than let others do the thinking for you.

The Dow shouldn't have been flat either, since the only thing increasing the stock market is stock buy back. Long before January of 2018 sales have been down and nobody noticed because the stocks kept rising. More than half of Americans can't afford the cheapest brand new car which is $14k, and that's been for many years now. None of this should be a shock to anyone who ignores mainstream media for economic news.


Nothing will restore the stock market once it crashes. No such thing as infinite growth, and that's what's expected from stock holders.

Sales has not been down. Revenue and sales have been increasing, otherwise you would have a much lower GDP increase way closer to actual inflation and possibly below it. All the revenue charts show that the aggregate sales/revenue is increasing at a steady rate.

Where do you see this data? Maybe you should trust the MSM a little more especially when it comes with charts and data vs your alternative fact media?

Also why buy a brand new car? that is one of the worst investment for the middle class and the poor. You can buy a year old car for 40% less and have it include an extended warranty that is better than the original one.

As for infinite growth, sure there is....you just keep creating money...inflation...poof infinite growth. Of course you are technically right since the universe will implode in a few hundred billion years so, I guess it can't be infinite.

Problem is that warehouse jobs suck and pay shouldn't even be $15 an hour, let alone $11. Doesn't matter, eventually even Amazon jobs will be automated away.[/url]

If you look at Christmas of last year, specifically December 24th you'll see that it plunged real hard. They rallied the stock market and have been doing so since to keep it afloat. The reason I say this Holiday season will crash it is because it nearly happened last year. The people running the stock market are very resilient, but at some point sales are what matters and nobody has had good sales in a while. Even Amazon is showing slow growth.

Ever work in a warehouse? I agree pay shouldn't be 15 it should be more. Most people would not be able to last a week doing that kind of work, but could sit in a office pushing papers in a job with as much needed skill for 25+ an hour.

Still waiting for automation to take away all the auto jobs, they have been trying for what 30 years?
Supermarkets have had automated check outs for 15+ years and there are still plenty of jobs in that industry.

Automation will impact jobs, but the impact will not be as extensive as you think.

Growth is slowing for Amazon because competition is heating up with Walmart et all in the goods area and Microsoft in the AWS division. Walmart had a 3 billion dollar loss in their online division last Quarter because they are undercutting Amazon at a loss to gain market share and hurt Amazon.
Has nothing to do with actual lower sales since amazon sales last quarter were up 20%. Their revenue was up 10 billion dollars.

Maybe go to MSM sites and actually read their Quarterly report?

GM already died overnight, but everyone ignores that they cut jobs and closed down factories because they stopped selling cars. The only reason GM and Ford haven't filed for bankruptcy is because they're waiting until after the holiday season, like most companies. I'm not even sure what keeps Chrysler around, with their horrible sales. Though to be fair the entire auto industry is doing poorly.

Nope, banks are evil. Bernie was right to say we need them broken up. We should definitely go back to banking at the post office. Does Wells Fargo have a CEO yet? Of course they don't, because nobody wants to touch that hot mess with a 10 foot pole. They still have Allen Parker as temporary CEO. That's what happens when a bank gets too big and starts ripping people off. Of course someone will just end up buying Wells Fargo. Deutsche Bank is also in a real shit pickle as well as they're just laying off people left and right.

I hate Trump like any normal person but his Tariffs didn't do any of this. Don't let your hate cloud your judgement for who's really to blame, and there's a lot of people who deserve the blame. Obama failed to put the financial burden of the recession on the 1%, as well as George Bush who kinda started the recession to begin with. Make no mistake we've been in a recession, but the upcoming recession is for the wealthy but it does effect everyone else as well.

GM did not die overnight.
They died shortly after the banks went belly up because they could no longer get credit to run their business. Their customers could no longer get credit to buy cars. Without the bank failures at worst GM would have filed for reorganization just like they have in the past.

As for banks, I agree they need to be broken up. Too large to be of any good to the country. However size does not matter when it comes to fraud and ripping customers off. They all do it.


"I hate Trump like any normal person but his Tariffs didn't do any of this".
Wrong wrong and wrong. Already enough evidence out there you just choose to ignore it.

[Vash The Stampede]

I don't think that's fair.
And I think his point isn't about what Clinton would've done, it's about what she wouldn't have done.

If you think, as I do, and as Vash presumably does, that decades of supply-side economics, wage stagnation, short-termism and increased financialization, consolidation, etc, that have weakened the consumer class are deep problems underlying a superficially good economy, then the charge is that a failure to appreciably change the status quo and begin to undo decades of damage will eventually have the same result as Trump's policies.

No one person is to blame for this, but there are key players who made things worse. Like I said, what are auto manufacturers doing making cars well beyond what most Americans can afford? Either most Americans lost purchase power or most Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck. Lots of people want to turn this into a political blame game where we point at who's currently in power to make our side look better, when in reality the economy isn't in it's own universe every 4-8 years depending no who's in charge. Lots of lobbying, money in power, deregulation, and ignorance has a lot more to do with what's going on than Trump. Hillary would be no different.

"It was going to crash anyhow, and Clinton would have done it too" is literally defending Trump. That's three lies.

Defending lies with lies is unacceptable.

Making a prediction isn't a lie.

I have posted dozens of articles featuring industry heads and financial experts, all of which have specifically called out Trump's policies. And all of them are far more qualified than you or I.

That's four lies.

I'm not going to search for your posts, and those "experts" probably not long ago proclaimed the economy couldn't be better. Just because someone is "qualified" doesn't mean they're correct.

Nope. Clinton does not owe billions of dollars to banks because of her real estate. That's Trump.

Five lies.

What's with the lies thing? Nothing I state is a fact, it's always been opinion. Also, Hillary did in fact give private speeches. What do you think those speeches were about, Love and Peace? There was an idea that Hillary may have even wanted war. Right here.

Yes it would help to do more researching. Too bad you said seven million. Which happened in Trump's tenure. In Trump's time, it got worse. You just lied about what you said in your first post. That's seven.

Yes but 6 vs 7 million means that in Trumps time it gained another million, but where did the 6 million come from? Like I said, Trump didn't make things better but it was bad before Trump arrived.

[Zan15]

I bet those are the same "experts" that said not long ago that our economy is doing great because we have a 3% unemployment rate. I can show you articles that show that this year we've had the most layoffs since 2009, but nobody cares as long as the experts tell you otherwise.


.

No it says " It's the highest number of job cuts in a quarter since 2015." "The U.S. saw its highest level of layoffs in a first quarter since 2009"
Way different than "most layoffs since 2009"

The report is not even the official count its from a third party that is using data of layoffs that have not even happened yet "U.S.-based employers announced plans to cut"


You should read the data and the report vs just the headlines and 3 line story rushing to prove someone wrong. you have no idea what you even posted.

You should stick to the Main Stream reporting

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS00000000LDR

The official rate is lower in the first 3 months of 2019 then it as been since, well before 2000 when they started tracking.

Its still running lower than all of last year.

[Zaydin]

If there were justice in the world, the coming Trump recession would only hurt Trump supporters/red states. Unfortunately, though, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt.

And you just know that when the recession hits and the press calls it the Trump recession Trump is going to lose his shit.

[D Luniz]

If there were justice in the world, the coming Trump recession would only hurt Trump supporters/red states. Unfortunately, though, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt.

And you just know that when the recession hits and the press calls it the Trump recession Trump is going to lose his shit.

meh, he already calls them fake news and pulls their WH passes on the flimsiest of reasons, there isnt more he can do directly that wont get slapped down by courts
really all has left is to go back to his "wont someone rid me of these meddlesome priests journalists" rants and wait for CCN to get bombed, then give a shocked face for the first day, and be cheering it the second day

and he'll probly be doing that by the end of the month just due to the cover of the markets

[Paranoid Android]

CEOs rake in 940% more than 40 years ago, while average workers earn 12% more

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ceo...mpression=true

Thank goodness we have enough stupid people in this country who blame everything else but the corporate power structure.

I don't know what is more amazing; the CEO pay or only 12% in 40 years for the worker. I say worker.

CEO compensation rose 940% from 1978 to 2018, compared with a 12% rise in pay for the average American worker during the same period, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

To be clear this is the American worker so no influence from the outside.

[Somewhatconcerned]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ceo...mpression=true

Thank goodness we have enough stupid people in this country who blame everything else but the corporate power structure.

I don't know what is more amazing; the CEO pay or only 12% in 40 years for the worker. I say worker.



To be clear this is the American worker so no influence from the outside.

Something something, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and become a CEO.

[Breccia]

Before we get back on topic, one last tent peg to be smashed into the ground:

I'm not going to search for your posts, and those "experts" probably not long ago proclaimed the economy couldn't be better. Just because someone is "qualified" doesn't mean they're correct.

I want everyone to read this line.

When presented with information, this poster said "I choose to ignore this information, and without looking at it, assuming they are all wrong and I am right".

The worst kind of ignorance is willful ignorance. Anyone who says "I choose to ignore your evidence and replace it with my feelings instead" has proven what kind of poster they are. And there can only be one response to that: lack of. Ignored.

Back on topic.

Yet another study, this time the Nationalist Association of Business Economics, shows a heightened chance of a recession. Since February, the percent of their members who predict a recession before 2021 has jumped from 22% to 31%, adding themselves to the list of professional, qualified experts predicting significantly increased risk.

And, yes, they specifically cited Trump's tariffs and his handling of the economy.

Incidentally, due to the (as posted before) large number of qualified, professional experts who have agreed with this, the WH official response is "I don't believe it". In other words, the same handwaving used for climate change and Russia attacking the election. In fact, Trump even went so far as to say the media was trying to create a recession.

"How?"

Well, that would require some knowledge of economics I'm losing confidence Trump has. In theory, he could have a point: if everyone says "this bank is unstable" and everyone pulls their money out of that bank, it becomes unstable. But this theory, in this context, has significant flaws.

1) Trump said we weren't going to have a recession. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the media is trying or not.

2) The media is, as I've linked dozens of times, quoting professional, qualified experts. If a professional, qualified expert says "I have a warning" and the media reports it, it is not the media's fault if people heed the warning.

3) The media didn't invert the yield curve. They couldn't if they tried.

4) Trump attacks the media for everything, even his own weight, a factor that's 100% in his own control.

5) Saying "there is no recession and it's XXX's fault there will be one" is laying the groundwork for a scapegoat when it turns out there is a recession. Even Trump thinks there is a greater chance of a recession, by making this argument.

6) And most importantly, even FOX News posted the same story I posted above.

Simply put, there don't seem to be any qualified, professional experts who think the chance of a recession is dropping, or even holding steady. Except the White House, who are going with "my feelings outweigh this evidence" -- willful ignorance, the worst kind of ignorance, and almost exclusively on display by Team Trump.

(glares)