Isn't the point that Obama benefitted from free money so that to pat him on the back for a growing market is a bit fleeting?
Economics Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Isn't the point that Obama benefitted from free money so that to pat him on the back for a growing market is a bit fleeting?
Also, as long as confidence doesn't spiral downward from the sell-off a low market is good for people below 50. We aren't retiring anytime soon and we can buy either within our 401k's or other investment vehicles at a lower price point.
There is also an economy completely outside the market but you don't seem to care about that. When was the last time there was this type of wage growth?
There is also an economy completely outside the market but you don't seem to care about that. When was the last time there was this type of wage growth?
Good time to buy good stocks for cheap. If Apple surprises on feb 7, the market will take off like a rocket
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I am not here to defend Obama or his economic policies. He took over a very bad economy right after the housing bubble burst and it was a good economy trending upwards. We can talk about whether he was hindering or hurting the econony but at the end of his Presidency the economy had recovered and was going up. If quantive easing helped his economy its helping Trumps economy too. That money didnt decirculate because Trump won.
The Fed is enacting the opposite policies under this administration and for the most part they needed to because of the lengths they went to influx money into the economy after the housing crisis. But they decided to not change under Obama and then overcorrect under Trump. You be the judge.
Obama took over at the perfect time for a president. There was absolutely nowhere to go other than up after a massive recession and many studies have shown that his administrations policies led to the worst recovery in the history of our country.
Meanwhile - Even after a recovery we are seeing historic low levels of unemployement coupled with wage growth. More are entering the workforce than in decades. There is nothing to get upset over aside from a bunch of investment bankers potentially losing out and some people close to retirement who are getting nervous based on the uneasiness of the market. There are incredible opportunities for work right now in so many different fields. Spending is up which is indicative of disposable income. Small business are growing.
What I'd like to see is some more radical policies by this administration. Its long overdue to regulate companies like Walmart/Amazon/etc... They are now acting as counter capitalistic entities.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I am very interested to know more about this tactic. As many specifics as possible please.
I've long been a proponent of capping the number of stores one company can have in a set region. Whether that be at the state or county level I think we need to remove the chance of companies getting too large. I want more people to have the opportunity to become millionaires and if we divide up the market share amongst more participants then that is whats going to happen.
I don't care if the Waltons go from having 100+ billion to only 20 billion. I am for the people of the country to be prosperous and not some elite group of snobs.
Of course then you have the online platforms that need a different KPI to regulate. I know what the purists are going to say and I disagree. What we have now is not the intention of capitalism IMO.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Real wage growth is for **** right now.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
See above.
Do you think housing expenses and wages are related because that attributes for a majority of inflationary increases across the country, specifically in coastal areas, so those in the middle of the country have actually seen substantial 'real' wage growth.
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I don't have any sort of numerical limits or anything like that but I think you know that I agree with you at least on principal on this philosophy.
Its been an active disinformation campaign by the elite of the world to make people think that Globalization helps them and yet all we are seeing is more consolidation of wealth and the destruction of the American middle class. Always look to see the sources of the studies and who is funding them. Its typically big money groups that have a self-interest in ensuring that globalism doesn't go away.
Another example are these trade wars with China. I can't find the article but some have suggested that have 78% of the financial burden has fallen on China but yet we were told that the world was going to be over with tariffs on their cheap goods.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
let's have more tax cuts then
sturg33
I
Yes please
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
57Brave
Well-known member
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-apos-record-holiday-shows-150355431.html
Amazon sadly is the authority on gauging buying patterns.
Despite what some want to believe the economy is still going strong with little signs of slowing down.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
December ISM index and its new orders component showing one of the largest declines in recent decades. Absolute levels of the indexes remain at fairly healthy levels. So maybe just a slowdown from an economy that was overheating.
However, we may be entering a period where the quality of leadership in Washington starts to matter. Most of the time the economy does fine on auto pilot. But when the markets start to waver indications of adult supervision are helpful.
However, we may be entering a period where the quality of leadership in Washington starts to matter. Most of the time the economy does fine on auto pilot. But when the markets start to waver indications of adult supervision are helpful.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There is no doubt that China is more vulnerable to a tariff war than the U.S. And we are now seeing evidence of that. But the whole idea of winning a trade war is problematic. The "winning" side ends up being dragged down.
The right way to look at it is that trade is a win-win proposition for the most part. And trade wars are lose-lose. We need to be firm in areas (like protection of property rights) where China is a bad actor. But this tariff war approach is looking more and more counterproductive. And could trigger a global downturn.
The right way to look at it is that trade is a win-win proposition for the most part. And trade wars are lose-lose. We need to be firm in areas (like protection of property rights) where China is a bad actor. But this tariff war approach is looking more and more counterproductive. And could trigger a global downturn.