Dow jumps more than 200 points to 28,000, posts 4-week winning streak

Performance of the stock markets was better under Obama than under Trump.

 

No it wasn't. What was the highest mark under that failure Obama? 19k? That's almost 10k less than under Trump. Whatever nonsense metrics you are trying to push doesn't reflect reality. Its the closing numbers that matter...

 

So you don’t understand trend lines or percentages. That explains your confusion. The stock market increased at a faster rate under Obama than under trump. Obama was not a socialist. He was a slightly right of center corporatist.

 

Irrelevant nonsense. Only the closing numbers count. There is no confusion, Obama was a socialist, if he was right of anything it is right of Stalin yet still left of Mao...

 

Empirical fact which refutes your claim.

Not to any intelligent person, or anyone who took Econ 101.

Demonstrably false.

 

Irrelevant numbers that prove nothing at all. Its simple. Which is bigger? 19 or 28. No more necessary. Why on Earth would I care what you clowns have to say anyway? You've said numerous times the market would have crashed by now, or Trump would have resigned, or all sorts of predictions. Nothing you people say can be taken seriously. Tossing out irrelevant 'rates' doesn't change anything...

 

Verified economic data that refutes your claim.

Only if you don’t understand economics, percentages or trend lines.

I couldn’t care less if you care about anything I say. I’m simply correcting your false claims by pointing out reality using empirical facts.

 

You remind me of my old, highly-respected forum opponent, @Iriemon , and I hope you'll take that as a compliment. I miss him, even though we didn't agree on economics very often. I haven't seen his posts here in a long time. He was always fact-based, able to prove every point he made when he posted about economics, per se, and I learned a lot from him. But I never learned to love the Fed (for which Iriemon was always an able, sympathetic apologist), or any central bank. Even liberal Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, whose faction gave birth to the Fed, came to regret it bitterly, and he was honest enough to say so later....

One thing you wrote in your post baffles me... "Interest rates creates a demand for borrowing, not the other way. It's the supply of money in the banking system that influences the interest rates." Yes, it is obvious that when the Fed crushes interest rates downward (and please don't try to tell us that it doesn't do this), people who are desperate to get their hands on credit -- whether they are really credit-worthy or not -- will queue-up to load up on it! If the Fed doesn't set interest rates, then exactly who does?! The "man behind the curtain" doesn't even bother to hide himself... no, the Fed sets interest rates in this country... period.

Maybe I'll just stop right there and ask you -- if the demand for credit/cash is very, very high (as it obviously is right now), shouldn't the interest rate spiral upward instead of being forced back downward? To my mind, this is nothing more sophisticated than the simple law of supply-and-demand, and yet, for whatever reason, the Fed just keeps on churning out more money from its little "money factory", and, crushing interest rates downward simultaneously. If that isn't counter-intuitive, I can't imagine what would be....

 

Wow, where did you learn about economic returns,! What would give the better return? $1000 invested at index 9000 selling at index 18000 or $1000 invested at index 19000 selling at index 28000

 

Thank you. You don't need to like the Fed. It's important that we understand how it functions. The Fed isn't all powerful. There are some things the Fed can do, there are others the Fed cannot do. However, it doesn't help anyone to be intellectually dishonest about how it operates (which is why I lack respect for most MMT proponents). Can the economy operate without a central bank? I think so. There is some modern evidence of how such a system would function (Hong Kong is one example). However, historically, we have been unable to control and mitigate bank panics. So, for now, we are stuck with the Fed.

The Fed sets the rate, but there isn't a specific rate than it is trying to set (separate from the target rate). There is a natural rate of which the economy needs to function, and the Fed tries to implement tools that will get the target rate close to the natural rate (it's very complicated).

Other than trying to achieve its dual mandate, it isn't really trying to do anything specific. Banks don't lend simply because they have reserves; they lend when they have credit-worthy borrowers. Banks are constrained by their capital, not their reserves.

If there is a lack of loanable funds, interest rates may decline to incentive borrowing. However, it isn't the demand for credit that will change interest rates. Policy makers want to see what the affect will be on the economy. If it manages to spur unwanted inflation, that may signal to policymakers to increase interest rates. The Fed keeps interest rates low because we haven't seen the desired responses from their interest rate policy, notably higher inflation.

You can argue that this policy is flawed; however, inflation is very difficult to measure or manage, which is why it focuses primarily on these factors.

 

Who is investing in the gross index?

 

What are they stealing?

 

Except we did put one in and that didn't happen. Try rejoining us back in reality instead of making **** up. The stock market is on the same upward trend under Trump as it was under Obama. Sorry that reality is inconvenient for your politics, but facts remain facts.

 

Please have words with whoever sold you this lie. Or at least do some homework.

 

Money and then they suck the very life out of every notion of freedom and liberty...

 

History says that you're full of ****.

 

You were the one quoting DJIA numbers what with 10k less than under Trump, closing numbers that matter....you clearly don't understand that it is not the closing numbers they matter, it is the percentage change

 

The closing number matters more to each individual company. It isn't the rate that matters, nobody is investing on the rate, they invest in individual companies. Every day there are winners and losers, but the market does not go up to record numbers if there are more losers than winners...

 

You clearly have no experience in trading. The rate of change (and dividends) is the only thing that matters. Every sentence in your post is wrong

 

The rate of change is based on whatever the closing number is. He isn't wrong in this regard.

 

Not one lie there.

Record food stamps, record black child poverty under obama.

With Trump its record low unemployment, rising real wages, increased investor and consumer confidence, and less in taxes.

 

Trump's employment, wage, consumer confidence, stock market, etc. numbers were all an upward trend he inherited. They grew at about the same rate under Obama. Taxes? Trump's unconstitutional tariffs are, collectively, one of the largest tax increases we've had in decades. He just keeps lying about who is paying them.

 

Yes, but that is not what he is saying. In his mind an investment going from an index of 9000 to 18000 is not as good as going from 19000 to 28000

 

This sorta thing only makes you happy if you're benefiting from it. If you're not, then bitterness and resentment set in, and you look for some dark lining in the otherwise good news.

 

Well, yes, it is complicated. And it's made more so because of the machinations of competitive economic blocs around the world -- especially China, which with its belt-and-road initiative is making significant inroads and having demonstrable success everywhere it goes.

I've tried to follow the European perspective from learned economists like Axel Weber, and now I watch the European Central Bank, the EU, and the IMF as it plays 'musical chairs' with its top slots. I've been observing Ursula von der Leyen closely since her rise in the Merkel Admn. as Verteidigungsministerin (German Defense Minister), and now, as I'm pretty certain you know, she's been selected as President of the European Commission at the same time that long-term IMF head, Christine Lagarde has just become head of the European Central Bank. Ooh! From the IMF to the ECB! What could possibly go wrong...?

Clearly, the U. S. is part of an international economic 'community', but given the current state of our economy, featuring rising incomes for many Americans, and the lowest unemployment rates since 1969, I don't see why we have to cut our own interest rates. At this time, and in these circumstances, it simply makes NO sense to me... but everyone with a savings account is being hurt. I'm among them -- to the tune of several thousand dollars a year. Thanks, Donald Trump! Thanks, Jerome Powell!

This interest rate cutting is not a strategy that will avert deflation in the long run, but it will put way too much money in the hands of people and businesses which very likely will not be able to pay it back... just like 2007 and 2008.