I understand you were responding to a post by alloak, but this is a public forum so what the hell. Besides, this is one of those rare occasions where his view and mine align.
Here's the thing I can't resolve in my mind. Given that: 1)Market performance usually reflects earnings expectations , and 2) market performance has historically been better under a Democrat president, one would think that it is generally expected by investors that corporate earnings will benefit from the policies of a Democrat president. Yet Democrats are generally considered to be less business friendly than Republicans. How do you reconcile that? I'm not trying to play any partisan games here, it's an honest question.
Hi Bob
How's it going? I saw your post mentioning me. Thanks!Democrats are not a big fan of trickle down but this is a Republican mainstay. As an example Trump has a sizeable number of hedge fund managers on his economic committee and the reality--one that Trump has pointed out himself--is that hedge fund investors seldom invest in areas that create jobs. A general argument is that they CEOs take care of their own pocket book before worrying about broader economic concerns. Trump's tax plan is a CEO's dream. There is very little in it to benefit the working class.
Democrats promote polices that facilitate growth and not just line corporate profits. Democrats are more open on cultural issues and this creates markets, as well feeding the dream abroad that America is about freedom, hope and prosperity. It is easy to see how the arts, music and the commodity market benefit from the good will created by demographic politics both domestically and in foreign markets.
The dot.com era might not have grown the way it did under Clinton if a Republican was president, as Republicans are into the preservation of old industry and not the exploration of new opportunities. Besides being environmentally correct ideas that support the future of our species, fighting global warming and sponsoring green industries can contribute to economic growth. Republicans are not only negative in these areas but they are in denial about how our lives are inter-
connected with evolutionary factors.This is a survey of Silicon Valley types. They would be very familiar with policies that promote economic growth.
The surveys were conducted by Gregory Ferenstein, editor of the Ferenstein Wire and author of The Age of Optimists, a free online book about the politics of Silicon Valley. His polls draw random samples of people listed as founders of companies in CrunchBase, TechCrunch’s database of tech startups, incubators, and investors. The small sample—about 50 respondents per poll—makes for a relatively large margin of error, Ferenstein told me. But when it came to support for Trump, the results were unequivocal. The number of respondents who listed Trump as their top choice in the first round of polling: zero. In a second sample drawn from the same database, Trump gathered 4 percent.
Thanks Swifty. But how have the Republicans maintained their "business friendly" reputation for decades if their policies are actually less effective than the Democrats? I'm asking the question is a general way, not necessarily as it pertains to market performance. I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance. But somehow the party with the superior strategy for sustained growth has a reputation of being bad for business. How is that?
Well, the blue collar voters supporting Trump realize they have bought a bill of good for decades about this myth that feeding the rich will produce economic prosperity. Republicans have been their own best ambassadors in selling the message but now Trump has exposed this. Of course he is taking up the same mantra.
One could say the same thing about the Clintons and African Americans. The reality is the depth of that relationship is really questionable but it is very well promoted.
I think a lot of time honed perceptions will change because of this election.
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
I suppose, but according to the study I posted it really does better when there is a Republican Senate. I think I'll stick with my belief that politics matter less than other natural and market forces in determining the economy. If it was under human control I think we'd have figured it out by now. 😉
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
I suppose, but according to the study I posted it really does better when there is a Republican Senate. I think I'll stick with my belief that politics matter less than other natural and market forces in determining the economy. If it was under human control I think we'd have figured it out by now. 😉
If the President's party determines how the stock market will do, what decides who will win the presidency? Can our future be tied up in the World Series winner or whether the Redskins win in the week of the electio?
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/elections/a/baseballpres.htm
We have been arguing about the wrong things. 
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
I suppose, but according to the study I posted it really does better when there is a Republican Senate. I think I'll stick with my belief that politics matter less than other natural and market forces in determining the economy. If it was under human control I think we'd have figured it out by now. 😉
If the President's party determines how the stock market will do, what decides who will win the presidency? Can our future be tied up in the World Series winner or whether the Redskins win in the week of the electio?
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/elections/a/baseballpres.htm
We have been arguing about the wrong things.
Great, now I have to quit rooting for Detroit. 🙁
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
I suppose, but according to the study I posted it really does better when there is a Republican Senate. I think I'll stick with my belief that politics matter less than other natural and market forces in determining the economy. If it was under human control I think we'd have figured it out by now. 😉
I veered off a bit into trends that probably pertain to other eras when the party positions on the economy were much closer and politics did matter less. Trump has changed that. Today he continued on with his isolationist rhetoric that is going to impact on how the US is viewed abroad and to what extent people buy into the new American nightmare. If Trump does try and back out of trade deals this will further isolate the US. My view would be that these types of polices will have an adverse impact on the US in many ways.
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
So explain, why is the economy is no longer growing and expanding? Two percent growth under a Republican and the media is fit to be tied, complaining day after day about a "recession" starting any day now! Usually followed by a story on the lack of jobs and yet another expose on the homeless epidemic. Obama can't even break two and everything is super?
Economic growth is VITALLY important, but never even talked about anymore. Probably because there isn't any. If Trump wins, you can bet the GDP growth rate will suddenly become important again. And once again the media will be trying to convince the public a depression is right around the corner.
The economy lost jobs every month of 2009, albeit at a steadily slowing rate. The economy has gained jobs every month after February of 2010. Including 2009, the United States has added an average of 127,824 jobs per month during Obama's presidency, which places him fifth for job creation since FDR. However, excluding 2009, the average would be 191,747 per month, which would rank him second, and from 2011 to the present, we have averaged 207,429 per month, which would place President Obama just behind President Clinton for first place.
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gdp-growth-by-party
Bob pointed out though that the stock market does perform better under divided government.
I'm just guessing that those Trump fans are probably pretty pleased with their return on investments in the market the last almost 8 years.
Delusional. What makes you think Trump supporters even have stock portfolios?!
I still think political policies have a minor, not major, influence on market performance
The economy does do better with a democratic president so there must be something to that.
So explain, why is the economy is no longer growing and expanding? Two percent growth under a Republican and the media is fit to be tied, complaining day after day about a "recession" starting any day now! Usually followed by a story on the lack of jobs and yet another expose on the homeless epidemic. Obama can't even break two and everything is super?
Economic growth is VITALLY important, but never even talked about anymore. Probably because there isn't any. If Trump wins, you can bet the GDP growth rate will suddenly become important again. And once again the media will be trying to convince the public a depression is right around the corner.
You are one strange dude.
I'm just guessing that those Trump fans are probably pretty pleased with their return on investments in the market the last almost 8 years.
Delusional. What makes you think Trump supporters even have stock portfolios?!
That is funny!
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
GDP growth by year during Obama administration:
Jun 30, 2016 2.44%
Dec 31, 2015 3.00%
Dec 31, 2014 4.07%
Dec 31, 2013 4.31%
Dec 31, 2012 3.24%
Dec 31, 2011 3.64%
Dec 31, 2010 4.56%
Dec 31, 2009 0.11%
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year
Apparently you have a different source with different data, or a different definition of growth.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
I'm just curious, is your adamance here related to the color of Obama's skin? Do you have some kind of bias when you look at any data related to the success of non-whites. There is no other way to explain what you are doing here when you constantly post erroneous data with no reference.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
I'm just curious, is your adamance here related to the color of Obama's skin? Do you have some kind of bias when you look at any data related to the success of non-whites. There is no other way to explain what you are doing here when you constantly post erroneous data with no reference.
Advice to alloak: admit you were wrong about the growth data and stick with your (and my) position that the President has little impact on growth. That way you don't continue to look silly citing bogus data and you don't need to give Obama credit for the growth over the past 7-8 years. 
[Edited on 9/1/2016 by bob1954]
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
I'm just curious, is your adamance here related to the color of Obama's skin? Do you have some kind of bias when you look at any data related to the success of non-whites. There is no other way to explain what you are doing here when you constantly post erroneous data with no reference.
Advice to alloak: admit you were wrong about the growth data and stick with your (and my) position that the President has little impact on growth. That way you don't continue to look silly citing bogus data and you don't need to give Obama credit for the growth over the past 7-8 years.
[Edited on 9/1/2016 by bob1954]
With this option he has to feel silly for all the stuff he has already posted blaming Obama. He would have to start deleting posts to get around this.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
I'm just curious, is your adamance here related to the color of Obama's skin? Do you have some kind of bias when you look at any data related to the success of non-whites. There is no other way to explain what you are doing here when you constantly post erroneous data with no reference.
Advice to alloak: admit you were wrong about the growth data and stick with your (and my) position that the President has little impact on growth. That way you don't continue to look silly citing bogus data and you don't need to give Obama credit for the growth over the past 7-8 years.
With this option he has to feel silly for all the stuff he has already posted blaming Obama. He would have to start deleting posts to get around this.
I was just trying to help a brother out of a hole.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
I'm just curious, is your adamance here related to the color of Obama's skin? Do you have some kind of bias when you look at any data related to the success of non-whites. There is no other way to explain what you are doing here when you constantly post erroneous data with no reference.
Advice to alloak: admit you were wrong about the growth data and stick with your (and my) position that the President has little impact on growth. That way you don't continue to look silly citing bogus data and you don't need to give Obama credit for the growth over the past 7-8 years.
[Edited on 9/1/2016 by bob1954]
What growth? Paltry by any standard.
So what happened? We're now into the seventh year of practically a no-growth economy. You never explained.
"Practically" no-growth? What the hell is that? I can't find a definition in my Econ101 textbook. The last time the U.S. experienced negative GDP growth was 2008. 2009 was flat (0.1% growth). From 2010 to present we have had GDP growth every year ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%.
We have not reached 3% growth in any year under Obama, and have averaged 1.55% during that period. That's practically no-growth.
I'm just curious, is your adamance here related to the color of Obama's skin? Do you have some kind of bias when you look at any data related to the success of non-whites. There is no other way to explain what you are doing here when you constantly post erroneous data with no reference.
Advice to alloak: admit you were wrong about the growth data and stick with your (and my) position that the President has little impact on growth. That way you don't continue to look silly citing bogus data and you don't need to give Obama credit for the growth over the past 7-8 years.
[Edited on 9/1/2016 by bob1954]
What growth? Paltry by any standard.
Terence P. Jeffrey. Hehehe. Well, at least you finally cited a source.
I"ll concede that when "real" GDP figures are used (adjusted for prices and inflation) the numbers will nearly always be lower than when "nominal" GDP figures are used (not adjusted), at least in times of positive inflation. Nonetheless, the fact that real GDP has consistently increased further illustrates that we are in a sustained growth period. Now before you get your panties in a wad let me repeat that I am not saying Obama is responsible for it, or even that Democrats in general are better for the economy as some here have suggested. I really don't think that matters. I'm just saying that the numbers show we are in a period of growth, so you should stop denying it.
By the way, if you bypass the media sources and go directly to the Bureau of Economic Analysis you'll find that these are the numbers:
So, yes, real GDP has had real growth of under 3% in every year since 2010. That is called growth. Calling it something else is intellectually dishonest.
As previously asked by another poster, why are you so adamant about denying this? No one is asking you to give credit to Obama, just to acknowledge the numbers.
Now before you get your panties in a wad let me repeat that I am not saying Obama is responsible for it, or even that Democrats in general are better for the economy as some here have suggested. I really don't think that matters. I'm just saying that the numbers show we are in a period of growth, so you should stop denying it.
I will concede that you are correct, however these numbers reflect groundwork laid during the last Republican admininistration.
Now before you get your panties in a wad let me repeat that I am not saying Obama is responsible for it, or even that Democrats in general are better for the economy as some here have suggested. I really don't think that matters. I'm just saying that the numbers show we are in a period of growth, so you should stop denying it.
I will concede that you are correct, however these numbers reflect groundwork laid during the last Republican admininistration.
Yes, of course.
If you agree to that then you have to admit that these numbers could have been better, and Obama botched them, and they will be much better if Trump gets elected.
If you agree to that then you have to admit that these numbers could have been better, and Obama botched them, and they will be much better if Trump gets elected.
Yes, of course.
If you agree to that then you have to admit that these numbers could have been better, and Obama botched them, and they will be much better if Trump gets elected.
I just hope 2% is not the new normal. We can and must do better.
Donald Trump’s economic speech this morning to the Economic Club of New York was incoherent at best, nuts at worst. His “more detailed” economic plan would:
1. Explode the deficit. Trump still wants to reduce taxes, mostly on the wealthy and on corporations. He says his tax cut would cost $4.4 trillion over 10 years, and the money would come from economic growth. Yet he’d also spend like mad on the military and on infrastructure. His numbers are wildly out of whack. (I’m no deficit hawk, but I’m not a deficit humming bird. This is insane.)
2. Isolate the United States. He’d cut off much of trade with China, Mexico, and other current trading partners – thereby inviting trade retaliation, causing consumer prices to rise in the U.S., choke off growth in developing nations, and repeat the disastrous mistakes of Congressmen Smoot and Hawley who, in the 1930s, withdrew the U.S. from the global economy.
3. Scrap many environmental, health, and safety regulations in order to pursue economic growth. This is borderline insanity. Growth is not an end in itself. A higher standard of living is. If our air and water are unsafe, if we’re subject to more floods and droughts, if our workplaces are unsafe and unhealthy, and our food is unsafe, our standard of living drops.
4. And wouldn't even bring back manufacturing to the United States, as he asserts. Today’s factories are automated. Numerical-controlled machine tools and robots are replacing humans even in China.
Trumponomics is almost as cruel a joke as trickle-down economics.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-more-details-of-economic-plans-1473955537
Donald Trump’s economic speech this morning to the Economic Club of New York was incoherent at best, nuts at worst. His “more detailed” economic plan would:
1. Explode the deficit. Trump still wants to reduce taxes, mostly on the wealthy and on corporations. He says his tax cut would cost $4.4 trillion over 10 years, and the money would come from economic growth. Yet he’d also spend like mad on the military and on infrastructure. His numbers are wildly out of whack. (I’m no deficit hawk, but I’m not a deficit humming bird. This is insane.)
2. Isolate the United States. He’d cut off much of trade with China, Mexico, and other current trading partners – thereby inviting trade retaliation, causing consumer prices to rise in the U.S., choke off growth in developing nations, and repeat the disastrous mistakes of Congressmen Smoot and Hawley who, in the 1930s, withdrew the U.S. from the global economy.
3. Scrap many environmental, health, and safety regulations in order to pursue economic growth. This is borderline insanity. Growth is not an end in itself. A higher standard of living is. If our air and water are unsafe, if we’re subject to more floods and droughts, if our workplaces are unsafe and unhealthy, and our food is unsafe, our standard of living drops.
4. And wouldn't even bring back manufacturing to the United States, as he asserts. Today’s factories are automated. Numerical-controlled machine tools and robots are replacing humans even in China.
Trumponomics is almost as cruel a joke as trickle-down economics.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-lays-out-more-details-of-economic-plans-1473955537
These ideas are just bat $hit crazy. It doesn't take a Phi Beta Kappa to understand that these are a formula for disaster. Unfortunately the dug in the trench Trump swallowers probably can't comprehend the cause & effect here of what these actions would do. They're more concerned with catch phrases like "Make America Great Again" or watching old ladies get smacked around at Trump rallies.