Carbon Express Arrows
$5.6 Trillion...Thanks President Trump
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Rupe 09-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 09-Nov-17
South Farm 09-Nov-17
bigeasygator 09-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 09-Nov-17
Rocky 09-Nov-17
HDE 09-Nov-17
bigeasygator 09-Nov-17
Tiger-Eye 09-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 09-Nov-17
HA/KS 09-Nov-17
WV Mountaineer 09-Nov-17
Atheist 09-Nov-17
Whitey 09-Nov-17
sleepyhunter 09-Nov-17
HA/KS 09-Nov-17
Bentstick81 09-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 09-Nov-17
HA/KS 09-Nov-17
HDE 09-Nov-17
HDE 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
HDE 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
HDE 10-Nov-17
Pete In Fairbanks 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
South Farm 10-Nov-17
TD 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
Spike Bull 10-Nov-17
Mint 10-Nov-17
TD 10-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
Whitey 10-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 10-Nov-17
Whitey 10-Nov-17
bigeasygator 10-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 11-Nov-17
From: Rupe
09-Nov-17
That's how much the value of the stock market value has increased since Trump was elected. Even you Leftist morons are richer because of Trump.

You're welcome!!!

From: Gray Ghost
09-Nov-17
So, when it corrects, or even crashes, can we thank Trump for that too?

Matt

From: South Farm
09-Nov-17
None so blind as he who refuses to see, 'eh GG? Nope, rather than give credit where due you'd rather hypothesize on the hypothetical..

From: bigeasygator
09-Nov-17
Curious...how much did Obama have to do with the over $16 trillion dollars in value that was added under his watch? Since it's all America first now, we're winners and everyone else is losers and stuff...how much does Trump have to do with the $28 trillion dollars that has been added to global markets since he was elected?

From: Gray Ghost
09-Nov-17
It's not hypothetical, South Farm, it's inevitable. Since Trump is just in his first year, it's likely the next market downturn will happen on his watch.

Then, the same people who are praising Trump now will be searching for someone or something to point their finger at.

Matt

From: Rocky
09-Nov-17
Shoot a 59 and it will ruin your career because you can't do better. So it would best to three put that 3 footer and leave room for improvement . Right?

Talk about convoluted thinking. Wow.

The Rock

From: HDE
09-Nov-17
"Curious...how much did Obama have to do with the over $16 trillion dollars in value that was added under his watch?"

What would've been added to bring it up that much in term 2...?

From: bigeasygator
09-Nov-17
Not following your comment HDE?

The point I was trying to make is folks never give any credit to the other team's guy when he's in power but are quick to heap praise on their guy when they hold the office. The market returned an average of about 12% a year under Obama's eight years -- and he had next to nothing to do with that. Just like Trump has next to nothing to do with the market returns we're seeing now.

The reality is one person and one administration have next to zero to do with the state of the economy, even when that one person is the President. The forces that have the economy rolling have been in motion for quite some time now, and you're seeing that globally (not just here in the USA).

From: Tiger-Eye
09-Nov-17
No GG, Trump gets to blame Obama for 3 years just like Obama blamed Bush Obama's Fault

From: Gray Ghost
09-Nov-17
LOL, as senseless as that is, it's how it usually goes, Tiger-eye. Politicians take credit for the good, never the bad, regardless if they had anything to do with it, or not.

Matt

From: HA/KS
09-Nov-17
Presidents get far too much credit and blame for the stock market. I still believe that the big run-up during the clinton years was the culmination of Kennedy's space program and Reagan tax cuts. Bill was too interested in chasing to have time to mess it up, so he deserves some credit for that

09-Nov-17
The market responds to stimuli. Government policy is stimuli. The president has great influence in government policy. So, who the president is does affect markets.

While the economy boosted under Obama says the numbers, no one can deny the effect Trump being elected had on the markets. With futures doings as well as they have since last years election, it'd be ignorant to suggest any different. But, some here posses that trait so, lets set back and watch.

From: Atheist
09-Nov-17
He’s about to add a trillion or so to the national debt with this tax fiasco. Add that to the artificial bubble of the stock market and we’re gearing up for another 2008.

From: Whitey
09-Nov-17
Ok Eeyore didn’t hear you liberals crying when Obama racked up $9 Trillion never mention paying it back. Trump at least has a plan to pay it back.

From: sleepyhunter
09-Nov-17
For all the doubters, your free to pull your money out of the market. I'm leaving my investments alone they're making money.

From: HA/KS
09-Nov-17

HA/KS's Link
"Under Trump, stock market has best first year since FDR"

From: Bentstick81
09-Nov-17
atheist. Are you crying like a little baby, AGAIN? 8^))))

From: Annony Mouse
09-Nov-17

From: HA/KS
09-Nov-17

HA/KS's Link
"Veteran unemployment rates fall to record low in October"

From: HDE
09-Nov-17
"Not following your comment HDE?"

What portion of $16T was added from 2009 to 2013 that was not part of the obama revolution, and what remaining amount was from 2013 to 2017? What goods and services equate the $16T, when, and where?

What parts were bush jr and obama responsible for?

From: HDE
10-Nov-17
"He’s about to add a trillion or so to the national debt with this tax fiasco. Add that to the artificial bubble of the stock market and we’re gearing up for another 2008."

Reduce the size of gov't by 85% and cut all freeloader tax funded programs and watch that trillion dollar budget and deficit disappear...

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
Well, if we're comparing apples to apples and people are going to give credit to Trump for the $5.6T increase in market capitalization, then you gotta give credit to Obama for increasing the market capitalization of US markets by $16T during his eight years. None of it occurred under Bush.

That said, as I've maintained all along, neither men deserve much credit for market movement. Obama benefited from the rebound coming off one of the largest financial crashes in history (a crash that his predecessor had essentially nothing to do with), a rebound that has continued into Trump's first year. Obama, Bush Jr, and now Trump are responsible for little, if any, of the value from the increased market capitalization.

From: Gray Ghost
10-Nov-17
BEG,

When you press people for specific legislation or policy that Trump has passed to claim credit for the current markets, "expectations" is usually the only answer they come up with. At least that's how this discussion has went the last few times.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
I know Matt. When I saw the original post all I could think was "here we go again."

Expectations are certainly part of the equation. Hell, a company's market cap is essentially the market's expectation on a companies ability to generate free cash. But fundamentals matter a lot more than good feelings. Company fundamentals have been extraordinarily strong the last year and a half. We've had earnings beat after earnings beat. You can go sector by sector (tech, energy, finance, you name it) and there's a story why -- nearly all of which have next to nothing to do with Trump.

Yes, there is a Trump bump, particularly from expected tax reform (his trade policies are disastrous and will no doubt erode market value if they come to bear). However, he hasn't delivered any legislation yet and I sense the market is getting impatient -- the "Trump Trade" has been lagging behind the rest of the market with respect to returns the last few months. My opinion is you haven't seen a correction because the general economy is rolling, despite what's happening in Washington, not because of it.

From: HDE
10-Nov-17
"Obama benefited from the rebound coming off one of the largest financial crashes in history (a crash that his predecessor had essentially nothing to do with), a rebound that has continued into Trump's first year."

I would say took credit is more like it. None of obama's policies really made a coin, free market capitalism is the real culprit...

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
Agreed. And now that Obama's gone you can replace the word "Obama" with "Trump."

From: HDE
10-Nov-17
Retraction: he did increase firearm sales like no tomorrow - and health insurance premiums...

10-Nov-17
BEG,

So using your figures, Obama could have been responsible $16 trillion over 8 years, thus $2 trillion a year on average. And Trump is responsible for nearly $6 trillion in just one year.

It appears that you are proudly crowing that Obama is about 1/3 as good as Trump at increasing the value of the Stock Market?

Pete

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
Pete,

Where to start...You obviously are missing my message. I'm saying neither man has much to do with changes in the stock market. I only bring up the Obama example as it's hilarious to see people credit Trump (when he had nothing to do with the market) but not give Obama credit for what he did to the market if they think the President is so important to the trajectory of the economy.

The market gave the same return in Obama's first year as it did in Trump's first year. While $5.6T in increased value sounds impressive, it is meaningless without putting it in the context of returns. The Russell 3000, which serves a benchmark for all U.S. equities, has returned about 22% since Trump was elected. The Russell 3000 returned 30% during Obama's first year in office, even if market capitalization only increased by a lower absolute amount (about $2T dollars). So had you invested the same amount during Obama's first year, you'd be richer than you would be if you did the same at the start of Trump's election win.

Again, neither man has much to do with this. And all of this is just to say that people that think Trump actually is responsible for the rolling stock market are (a) wrong and (b) clearly blinded by partisan politics as none of them would give credit to Obama for actually doing better with respect to market returns than Trump over the same time period of their respective terms (again, neither man should get any credit).

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
Duplicate post.

From: South Farm
10-Nov-17
Fair enough GG, call me when it actually happens though, not when you think it will.

From: TD
10-Nov-17
I think it would be disingenuous to deny Trumps election lifted the market with "expectations". The market reacts to such "projections" or predictions all the time. Time will tell, but the plainly stated direction of lowering corporate tax rates, incentive to return businesses to the US instead of leaving in droves under Obama, the expectations of economic incentives to create and grow business in turn creating more and better jobs.... I think all that certainly has a positive effect. Especially when compared to "you didn't build that" mentality of the leftist socialist Obama administration.

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
Happy feelings only go so far...and in the grand scheme of things there are far, FAR bigger market movers. For all the happy feelings he's created, he's added a whole lot of negative ones too -- his positions on trade and foreign policy have worked against him when it comes to the economy. Markets don't like the isolationist approach. So on the whole I'd say it's a wash.

But I do love the sentiment. Trump has the economy rolling especially when compared to that socialist Obama -- even though Obama delivered higher market returns his first year. So, again, the market's rolling because we have a Republican in power (one with all this supposed great business acumen...lol)...but when the market was rolling when the big, bad socialist was in power it wasn't because of Obama. So, if expectations are so good under Trump and they're an obvious improvement over Obama...why did the market do better in Obama's first year than in Trump's first year?

Hmmm could it be that it doesn't matter much who is in power when it comes to the factors that move companies that move the market?? I work for one of the largest companies in the world...in my 15 years with the company, the President's name has never come up in a single business decision I've ever been a part of.

10-Nov-17
"...why did the market do better in Obama's first year than in Trump's first year?"

Just curious how much of Obama's "success" was due to all the taxpayer money he gave away to Wall St.?

From: Mint
10-Nov-17
The stock market went up under Obama because of Quantitative easing which was basically printing money which made all the commodities go up, including the stock market. Unfortunately we are still paying for that nonsense. With Trump its going up because of earnings and the potential tax cuts and reduction in regulations.

From: TD
10-Nov-17
So still refuse to give credit where credit is do....... like it or not, much of the recent market upswing can be traced to Trump. I'm not a Trump fan, but facts are facts and I'm not going to let my personal opinion of him take away the good things he's done.

WRT Obama.... Where was the market to go but up when Obama took over? Plus for many years there was really only one option of investment that had a snowballs chance at much return....... where else are you going to park your money? Other than the vultures with cash picking at the bones of peoples foreclosed homes.

The economy picked up DESPITE Obama trying to "fundamentally transform" it or trying to "necessarily skyrocket" the cost of energy. (note the quotes, his words, not mine). Natural gas discoveries destroyed his plans to bankrupt energy and make his chosen buddies rich after shoveling millions of cash at them (which they never paid back).

Speaking of shovels...... leftist socialists had to love his admitted lies about shovel ready jobs when he took the lions share of that "recovery" money and used it to bail out state pension plans and spent next to nothing on the infrastructure it was to go to. Now that was a real investment..... when called on it he said it didn't matter how the money got out there, you could drop it out of airplanes....... now that is what a community organizer thinks is the best economic investment for stimulus..... and about the extent of any of his efforts to ramp up the economy again. He saw it as a chance to tear down, not jump start and repair.

The comparison of their economic ideologies are unarguably night and day. There SHOULD be optimism in the business world with Trump. Just as there was optimism in the socialist world with Obama.

From: Gray Ghost
10-Nov-17
Central banks all over the world pumped money into the markets, not just in the US. And they are still doing it. When they begin unwinding those balance sheets in earnest, Trump's tailwind will stop blowing.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
Lol Love it. Look at the last two responses. They're everything you need to know.

One, it's all because of QE but that was bad cause we're still paying for it. Well, we aren't still paying for it...those assets have more than paid for themselves. But no, QE, nor Obama, was not responsible for $2T in equity gains in 2009. You're right that earnings are definitely pushing the market higher tho (which is not because of Trump).

And then we have a post that says the market going up now is because of Trump but when it went up under Obama it was despite Obama with nary a point of data to show how either statement is true. More of those good feelings, eh?

From: Whitey
10-Nov-17
You leave out the possibility that the countries don’t have to unwind. It’s not real value it’s printed/pretend there’s lots of ways they can balance it out with little effect. If we lived in a real value based world the 20 Trillion and 300+ Trillion in unfounded liabilities would make it impossible for us to do business. China is even worse off.

From: Gray Ghost
10-Nov-17
Whitey,

Japan is the only central bank that hasn't shown signs of slowing their QE program. None of them are fully committed to it, nor do they know how aggressive they can get without causing the same problem it fixed.

Rest assured though, the trend is for central banks to tighten monetary policy, which will result in a market slowdown, or even declines.

Matt

From: Whitey
10-Nov-17
Gold bugs have been saying that for 10 years. The fed nor China can be audited that leaves limitless possibilities as options. Most people don’t take that into consideration and look at the balance sheet like they would a company. Here you have a company that can print and control the value of its money and not be audited. On top of it the one thing that drives all economies ,oil is priced via its fiat money. Pretty unique animal.

From: bigeasygator
10-Nov-17
When I was getting my MBA back in2009, my macro professor was David Altig, who was a VP in the Atlanta Fed. He would literally have meetings with Bernanke and then fly in to teach class. He always devoted the first 30 or so minutes of his lecture to Q&A and as you can imagine the stimulus was always prominently featured. It was like behind the scenes access and I kick myself for not remembering more than I do from the conversations. What I do remember was that the Fed really felt they had no other choice. They couldn't pull the interest rate lever since rates were essentially zero, so they worked up a mechanism that they thought would bring some stability and andress some dislocations in the lending markets. Hearing him tell it, no one was really a fan of the idea in the Fed but they felt they had to do something and this was about all they could think of. Nobody at the Fed was interested in blowing up the balance sheet like they did. They were concerned back then as to how they would unwind it all...and I think that you're really gonna see the concerns come to bear over the near future.

From: Gray Ghost
11-Nov-17
Agreed, BEG.

This is the longest period of time QE has been used to fuel a recovery that I recall. Every time they start unwinding it, the markets react in a bearish fashion. The feds strategy appears to be to unwind it slowly in small increments. We'll see how effective they are, but experience tells me it will have the same result.

Matt

  • Sitka Gear