When a Trump cultist points to the stock market

He gloated about the stock market showing how well the economy, and Trump by implication, were doing. I just looked at him and said, "that is great news, any special plans for your 10% raise this year as a consequence of the stock market doing so well?"

He was not aware that I knew he'd been laid off a month earlier and was working a part-time job.

For those of you who think that was a bit cruel of me, you're absolutely right.

Not much of a defense, I'll admit, but this is a guy who is a far right wing racist idiot who has been on unemployment more times than I can count over the last 20 years, but still buys into the welfare queen myth. He's firmly in the "I deserve it, no one else does" camp. Screw him!

for far too long trolls have been getting away with their bullshit because good people are nice to them.

Thanks, Nick.

living in a delusion. That to me is an act of kindness and concern.

Hey, you are right to defend yourself regardless of his situation ... his gloating was intended to throw a wrench at you and your beliefs and you have the right to defend yourself.

A major portion of the credit of the stock market increase still goes to Obama, who laid the foundation for the increase to occur, after he took office immediately after Bush, and the markets severely imploded then.

How soon the republicans forget that they caused the whole crap to go downhill to begin with, if you really want to kind of pinpoint their accomplishment (causing the crash in 2008).

my own employment situation! For the record, I've been part of the same organization for over three decades, so obviously, there are plenty of positive things that have kept me there for that length of time, but my immediate supervisor's attitude is not one of them.

K&R.

I always point this out to those who say their 401K is up under Trump.

I usually get blank stares.

Yep. Got told, nuh-uhhh, the stock market was in the crapper all during Obama's terms. Didn't turn around til Trump was inaugurated.

I told the guy, "Oh, for God's sake, man. You have an investment portfolio, and you know damn well how it grew during Obama's terms."

The response was a quick shifting of the goal posts: "Well, the stock market isn't the whole economy, you know..."

It all illustrates once again: there's no sense "reaching out" to voters this delusional in 2020. Far better to work to inspire other demographic groups to get out there and vote.

Some tool who probably has 10k or so in an ira gets all indignant abour how horrible his did while bho was potus and hiw his is so wonderful now.

The disconnect From reality these people need to be in order to think things are so incredible now is an equal in inverse proportion to the disconnect from reality they had with how horrible things were with bho.

They deny that he had anything to do with it. The evidence doesn’t fit their theory that only tax cuts and deregulation can boost the economy so they can’t even process the information.

They simply do not deal with reality at all. And even if you throw facts at them, they still won't believe you. They have their narrative and there is no talking them out of it. It's ridiculous.

I tell Trumpsters that for Trump to do the equivalent, the Dow would need to be over 50K

First, I think your math is off a bit. The Dow Jones increased from 7949 to 19827 during Obama's presidency, which is closer to a 150 percent increase than a 270 percent increase.

Second, even at 150 percent, the market increase during Obama's 8 years in office is impressive and dwarfs the 43 percent increase during Trump's presidency thus far.

But for most people it is the increase in the value of their stock portfolio in dollars, not percentage, that gets them excited. During the Obama presidency, the Dow increased by an average of 1484 points a year. So far during the Trump presidency, the Dow has increased by an average of around 2900 points per year -- nearly double the average Obama presidency increase.

and it will hit people with 401ks hard. There will be lots of layoffs as companies sacrifice employees to the gods of Wall Street in order to appease investors.

The toll of the tariffs will be intense. The rich will buy up foreclosed houses and rent them out at exploitative prices.

The crash is coming. It always does.

Rents in California are out of control. I have a rent increase coming in June. My social security increase was a whopping $15. Medicare increase wiped out any 'largesse '. My rent last year went up by $70. So I'm using my savings to pay rent. I'd move but there is no where to go.

And we need your vote!

A house of that size in the close-in Atlanta metro will be north of $1,700 a month depending on condition. One bedroom apartment rent is $1,000+.

Rent costs are nothing like the Bay Area, though. So please still come! Indeed, we need every vote we can get. Atlanta is a blue oasis. I love the Bay Area and lived in Mountain View years ago.

Carry on!

two years ago because he was about to lose his house after draining his savings. He was close to retiring age when he was laid off, and no one would hire him — he even was an electrical engineer. He is able to live in Atlanta on his retirement income, and it’s nice that my husband has a retired friend to pal around with.

Anyways, every year, was an Xmas bonus.

Last year of her employment, "Business is down so there will be no bonus this year."

Meanwhile, 12/16, out in the parking lot, appears a new Lexus. Guess Who's?

And recent law changes make employees opt OUT instead of opt IN. Which means they're invested as soon as eligible without having to sign up.
And if the company has a match, thats FREE money & you should always invest at least that amount.

And you can set up your own if you work for a company that doesnt have one. The tax advantages are the same and you even have more investment options.

Not everyone has extra money after putting food on the table. Ok?

When i started working i was told by my older brother "you live on what you bring home". I started with $10 a month. 90% of people working can find $10 a month to start contributing.
Or you can stick with the original excuse.

pension, or worse, the disappearing pension.

and Obama created more jobs

and Obama was born here and was loyal to the United States of America

So was Obama's wife.

The stock market did considerably better in Obama's first year compared to Trump, but good performance over the last year has put them just about even over their first 23 months.

The difference is the stimulus package Obama signed had a lot to do with those gains, which came after a significant recession which could have lasted far longer without it. The wealthy tax giveaway Trump signed produced virtually no benefit. So Obama inherited a very shitty economy and fixed it. Trump inherited a very strong economy and more than likely fucked it up long term due to the needless vast increases to the public debt.

https://fortune.com/2019/11/01/trump-obama-markets-comparison-s-and-p-500-dow-nasdaq-economy/

The S&P 500 Is at an All Time High—But Markets Still Performed Far Better Under Obama Than Trump

January 20, 2009: S&P = 805.22
January 1, 2011: S&P = 1,257.64

Net gain: 56%

January 20, 2017: S&P 2,271.31
January 1, 2019: S&P 3,230.78

Net gain: 42%

The article you referenced is 2 months old and the stock market rose 4% in December alone which narrows the difference.

That's not to say the 2 year difference isn't significant, it's just that the difference between the first year is far more striking, especially when you consider the nosedive the stock market was trending which started before Obama took office and the proven efforts Obama took to fix it vs the upward trend it was in when Trump took office and the steps he took which were proven worthless and counterproductive to a healthy economy.

The Dow gained 33.3 percent between January 20, 2009 and January 20, 2010 and 31.5 percent between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2018. But in actual dollar terms, which is what most people care about, the market grew by 2654 points during Obama's first year and by more than twice that amount, 6244, during Trump's first year.

Which is why it probably is fruitless to try and convince people that the market did better under Obama than it has done under Trump.

The difference between the two is significant. Comparing gains in the number is virtually meaningless. It’s the percentage that matters.

January 20, 2009: S&P = 805.22
January 20, 2010: S&P = 1138.04

Net gain: 41%

January 20, 2017: S&P 2,271.31
January 20, 2018: S&P 2,810.30

Net gain: 23%

When most people look to see how the market is doing, they focus on how many points it has increased or decreased. Not surprisingly, since given the choice between having the value of their portfolio increase by 2654 or by 6244, most people will choose the latter without the slightest regard to the percentage increase each represents.

To put it another way: If someone making $50,000/year gets a $7500 raise (15%) in year one and the next year they get an $8000 raise, they are going to be happy because they have more additional $$ in their pockets after the second raise than they did after the first one, even though the second raise represented a smaller percentage increase (14%).


And very few people pay attention to the S&P as compared to the Dow Jones.

Some people who pay attention to how the market does on a given day will concern themselves with the point increase or decrease because it makes it easier to recognize short term trends. Anyone who invests in the stock market cares about the percentage increase or decrease over time because that’s what directly translates to your own bottom line.

The S&P 500 is a better index of the stock market as a whole because that’s exactly what it’s designed to do, compared to the DJIA which only represents 30 companies. If someone pays more attention to the DJIA, it’s a pretty good indicator they don’t know much about the stock market.

They aren't investors who closely follow the ups and downs of the market but mostly look to see how many dollars did their investment account increase or decrease from the last statement? What they know of the fluctuations in the market probably is based on daily news reports that invariably lead off with how the Dow Jones did that day and may not even mention the S&P. If they hear the market went up or down by a 1.5 percent one day and 1.0 percent the next, they don't really know what that means to their bottom line. But the number that does mean something to them is the number of points that the market increased or decreased.

To give another example: Someone with a 401K worth $100,000 sees it increase by $25,000, a 25% increase. The next year, the 401K increases by the same amount, $25,000. That is a smaller percentage increase (20%). But the reaction of most people looking at their statements is that they did as well as the did the year before. And if the amount actually increases by more than the year before (22% or $27,500), they are going to feel like they are doing better because at the end of year their 401K increased by a larger dollar amount than it did the year before. The average person does not think that the market did better between 2009 and 2010, when it increased by 2900 points than it did between 2017 and 2018, when it increased by more than 6000 points. Maybe they should, but the average person focuses on the bottom line -- how much $$ do they have in their pockets or investment account, not percentage changes.

Why would anyone consider anything other than that and their bottom line especially if they don’t understand how the indexes work?

But I suspect most people care more about the number of dollars their 401K increased (or decreased) by than the percentage increase or decrease that $$ figure represents.

As I said, if you asked someone whether they thought they did better in a year in which they their net worth grew by $6000 than they did in a year in which their net worth grew by $3000, the answer is going to be pretty obvious.

I've had a 401K for 30 years and have worked a number of jobs that offered 401Ks. They are discussed often and I've never heard anyone concern themselves with the point value of the index and the percent increase from year to year is the most often discussed subject and the one that sticks in people's mind. I couldn't tell you the dollar figure my account rose in any given year. I can tell you in the 90s there were several years that had > 25% gains and almost no years that had loss percentages.

Even if I were to imagine someone who is only concerned with a dollar increase year to year, it stands to reason they would intuitively tie this to a percentage. A $6,000 return on a $1M investment is paltry by any measure. If your investment is $20K it's huge.

They can't afford the first one.

Benefits no-one. It's an empty feel good gesture to ease the conscience of the guilty.

There are so many things which fall into this these days.

those tweet dips and tweet rallies are being tipped off our i aint a daughter of ireland.

Fucker has been manipulating the market from day one ...

That was in the '70s and '80s. Now it's their ocean front Tuscan-style mansion.

I always reply by asking how that helps put food on the table for the kids tonight or how it pays next month's rent. Of course, I get no answer beyond insults and name calling, but at least I put it out there.

did you know that this farm bailout is now twice the amount of the auto bailout? He had not one fucking thing to say.

wasn't nearly as expensive as the agricultural bailout will be . The government invested a little over $80 billion in the Big Three, and after selling stock etc. it ended up costing the American taxpayer a little over $10 billion.

Trump's bailouts to mostly corporate farmers has gone past the $30 billion mark, and don't expect corporate agricultural companies to pay back a penny of the money they've received from the American taxpayer. They'll take the money and run. Small farmers are going bankrupt, going out of business, or are taking on massive debt. Of course Trump lies to his cult and tells them the Chinese are paying these tariffs. Smart people know better, but then again smart people don't vote for Trump. It's actually a tax on American consumers, but Trump and his cult never let facts get in the way of a good lie.

The car was a Cadillac, though.

My Dr would always wear a timex to the office, even though he owned four Rolex watches....

smart man.......

Rolexes. A funked-up Timex can be tossed in the red bag.

https://www.axios.com/trump-stock-market-gain-obama-bush-d4f951ec-1fd7-4b53-bb4e-b33d4e91df37.html

and drive up productivity...
.
.
.
and help drive the company's profits higher...
.
.
.
I will be able to buy another one next year!"

You don’t feed the chickens by giving oats to the horse!

S&P 500 performance:
https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president

This is from Fortune Magazine, which Republicans have always found to be reliable:
https://fortune.com/2019/06/03/stock-market-trump-obama-sp-500/

The title of the Fortune article is "S&P 500 has performed far worse under Trump than under Obama."

Reality time: Just quoting the fact that we have "a new record high" is meaningless. If the Dow closed at a "record high" of 29,000 on Friday, and then it closed at 29,005 on Monday, 29,010 on Tuesday, 29,015 on Wednesday, 29,020 on Thursday and 29,025 on Friday, Trump will tweet "the stock market registered five record highs in one week!"...and I will reply "you dumbass, the market rose $25 in one week. If it had done that six years ago, your stumpy fingers would be dancing over your phone demanding Obama be impeached for killing the economy."

Trump has another problem. A stock price chart should look like a bread knife blade on about a 20-degree angle - a gentle rise with a few ups and downs. Trump is thoroughly capable of knocking several thousand dollars out of the Dow in a couple days' time. (I would really love to see a comparison of the people Trump owes money to with short activity in the equities market, because I have a strong suspicion Trump is manipulating the market for the benefit of his creditors.)

Trump is failing to deliver what investors need - high percentages of gain and stability. Combine that with the trade deficit caused by the little worm's ill-advised trade war, and I wouldn't be surprised if the business community rallies around the Democrat next year.

I'd be happy with lower gain but keeping the stability. Long term stability is more important.

How much of the gains are the market feeding on itself, people having money to park somewhere and just buying anything, and how much is a reflection of the health of the US economy?

Or is it like the pre subprime mortgage collapse, people seeing value where there is one, and suddenly a dark cloud on the horizon makes people rush to cash in their profits, and dumping the markets into a hole?

With trade tariffs, farm subsidies, Boeing going badly, and the accelerating Federal debt, I only see instability in the future.

Companies used the money to do share buybacks (at inflated prices) rather than give their employees raises or reinvest in company infrastructure. Who benefits from buybacks? Those who get stock options and can legally sell out their free shares for a profit.

If you have to fight on that ground, though, there are some stats floating around (that I assume are credible) that show how the market actually isn't as strong under Trump as under Obama or Clinton and, of course, Trump's Tariffs are hurting the manufacturing and farming industries (I mean, farmers are literally being bailed out). Also, be sure to point out that, despite his pledges to the contrary, the Coal Industry is still faltering because it's more or less inevitable and that, despite him yelling at Windmills, clean energy is not just going to vanish and that people are more interested in it than propping up dying, dirtier energy industries.

I think that the overarching argument Democrats should be making is that another 4 years of Trump is another 4 years of uncertainty and instability and wouldn't it be better to have a stable President instead of an unstable one. Stability is good for the country's economy, foreign policy, etc.

Most stock funds only had a slight gain from January 1 2018 to Dec 31 2019 and a person could have done better with a 2.5% CD over those 2 years.