The Dow's 31% gain during Trump's first year is the best since FDR

More TDS combined with an ignorance of economic history. Too funny.

 

Tim Cook has stated that new jobs will be created. But once again those afflicted with TDS appear incapable of understanding the written word.

 

I am still waiting for someone to provide me a link to a respected, unbiased, financial source that factually proves that this 31% gain is a direct result of thing's Donald Trump has done as President?

I bet you no such link exists.

 

If it helps you to think that, go for it. Your generation have been failures from the start. Couldn't win in vietnam, couldn't make good on the gift the greatest generation gave you, now old and useless you're trying to rob the future from your kids with incompetence and mismanagement. I'll say it again, thankfully your generation won't be around much longer to screw the world up.

No go back to sitting around, sucking up government money and medicare while crying about liberals.

 

He didn't say he was going to create any of them, and he has no control over what other companies do. One thing that has proven false is that tax breaks create jobs. You've been duped and don't even know it. Poor little guy.

 

Saying he wanted to lower taxes is not the same as actually having input in the bill. That was just pandering to the right. You don't actually think donnie has any knowledge of anything pertaining to finances outside of how to file bankruptcy, do you?

I think you are confusing what Cook said to what he promised. He promised nothing. Of course he's going to lavish praise on a tax bill that allows him to stash more profits overseas and enriches him personally. We'll find out if hiring at Apple picks up in the future. Til then, it's just hot air.

Those tricks are legitimate fiscal and monetary policy. Ever wonder why we had growth so many months in a row? Were you alive in 2008 and 2009 when it all came crashing down after 8 years of an inept republican administration who's only shtick was tax cuts and more tax cuts with a sprinkly of deregulation? We literally have historical precedent for this not working. Not only not working but backfiring spectacularly. Ever wonder why all the crying about inflation never came to be? The bottom line is that trump has had zero effect on the economy outside of putting money into rich people's pockets. Supply side numbskulls always have this opinion that businesses are going to do the right thing when in reality they just pocket those profits. Now the only duty they have is to their shareholders but, let's not act like this has worked in the past. It hasn't and donnie is too stupid to understand any of this. Giving him credit is like giving a baby credit for pooping their pants.

 

Yea they did.....

N.Y. Fed raises U.S. fourth-quarter GDP growth view to near 4 percent

 

After retiring from owning a business, sitting on the boards of two others, and calling on the owners and top executives of fortune 500 companies for 46 years I think I have a pretty good understand the decision making process.
So screw your historical context and run with what owners and corporations think the temperature in the marketplace will be.
ANYONE who thinks obama had anything to do with this sudden boom is outright crazy. The only thing obama actually did to push this optimism is get the hell out of office.
Now that being said, I fully understand that any idiot in the DNC will ever acknowledge what is really going on here.

 

Apple is building a new campus. Are you claiming that no one will work there ??

Where has it been proven that corporate tax rate reductions do not result in more employment ??

 

Have you looked ??

 

To whatever extend any president may influence the Dow, he usually gets some token credit for it being high, and token blame for it being low.

Given that Trump's public approval numbers relentlessly stink even when it's up is quite an achievement.

 

I am not the one claiming Trump is largely responsible for the jump...others are.

I am simply asking them to factually prove their statement using a link to a respected, financial source.


But, it is obvious that the Fed has far, FAR more to do with the boom (as it has since 2009) then anything Trump or Obama has done.
Trump cut red tape a tad (not much) and cut the corporate tax (which IS great - but that happened after almost all of the '31%' gain).
And remember, Trump himself rightly said in 2016 that the DOW was nothing but a big, fat ugly bubble propped up by the Fed.

 

You post something that proved Obama had periods above that 4%.

 

I’ve never actually encountered a D who was actually interested in doing the homework to investigate what their talking points claim.

The Fed is raising rates.

 

Trump campaigned on lowering the target business rate to 15%:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1425/lower-business-tax-rate/

Congress made the final decision in crafting the bill, but saying Trump had no input is either disingenuous or ignorant. Which is it??

Read or listen to Cooks comments. He committed to creating 20,000 additional jobs over the next 5 years. His "promise" is his public commitment. Again, if you have evidence that he's not telling the truth, please do share.

That "growth" was an average of 1.9% a year over 8 years. That wasn't enough to accommodate the natural growth of the workforce, much less contribute to any real prosperity. Something had to be done. Hillary wasn't the answer so I don't know where you're going with all this.

It's clear you don't want to have an adult level conversation. Every time I try to engage a PF leftist in an honest conversation, it devolves into a TDS rant. Some things don't seem to change.

 

I've noticed that as well.

 

.

 

https://tradingninvestment.com/stock-market-historical-returns/

1995= 33%

1975= 38%

1954= 44%

 

This was due to GWB, who crashed the entire world economy.

 

Congratulations. You found a few instances over the past 60 years where yearly returns were better than what Trump achieved. It's interesting to note that none of those banner years were under Obama. So what's your point??

The stuff that an open Internet unleashes......

 

How utterly offensive, the OP mentioning Trump with FDR. Disgusting.

 

That's ridiculous.


The housing bubble and financial crisis are actually two different things although the collapse of the housing bubble resulted in the financial crisis. The housing bubble was caused by the lowering of lending standards due to the HUD requirement that Fannie and Freddie make a set percentage of loans to low income borrowers. This policy was initiated by Bill Clinton and was based on an interpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act. At the end of Clinton's term that percentage was 50%. This was increased to 55% by the Bush administration. The lowering of the lending standards was used by unscrupulous mortgage lending firms like Countrywide and New Century to make many other high risk loans. Adding to the housing bubble was the easy money policy of the Fed which made loans easier to afford due to low interest rates. The housing bubble suddenly burst in 2008. This was similar to the dot.com bubble which burst in 2001 and recovered from by 2003 but why was the financial industry so terribly affected this time.


The financial crisis triggered by the housing bubble collapse was the result of a combination of financial and banking regulations going back to 1936 (See the list below). Mortgage backed securities have been around for years before the 00's. They are securities formed by conglomerating home mortgages and are a way for investors to earn a return through the housing market. They have historically been very safe investments. The HUD housing policies however resulted in a portion of the MBS's created in the 90's and 00's to consist of the subprime and other low standard loans. The Basel rules were based on the assumption that securities consisting of home mortgages were of very low risk. Therefore the reserve requirements for MBS's were set at a very low rate of 5%. This meant that for every $50K of MBS's that a commercial or investment bank had it could make loans totaling $1M. Since banks make money from loans they would use the investment vehicles with the lowest reserve requirement. And very many of them did. They bought AAA rated MBS's (the ratings were determined by the National Ratings Agencies - Fitch, Moodys, and Standard and Poors). This was required by gov regulation. But the ratings agencies were not doing due diligence on the make up of the MBS' which was unknown to the banks involved who trusted the ratings and Basel guidelines. Collapse of the housing bubble caused foreclosures in the subprime mortgages especially. This created fear and uncertainty in the value of the MBS's even though they were still paying ~ 90% of their returns. The market price dropped (in some cases a price could not be determined because no one was interested in buying). This is where the mark to market rule came in resulting large paper and consequently the banks reserves falling below the already low 5%. The bailout from the gov started out as TARP which was passed to buy up all these MBS's which had now large paper losses due to mark to market. It was quickly changed however to give money directly to the banks so that they could bring their reserves up to the 5% level. Bear Stearns was bailed out but Lehman was allowed to fail. This resulted in uncertainty and the credit markets froze (none of the banks wanted to lend to other banks who might not be bailed out). Some commercial banks like WaMu also had MBS's in reserve and ended up being taken over.



The analysis of what happened is contained in the book by Friedman and Kraus – “Engineering the Financial Crisis” – 2011. As can be seen these rules were issued over the years with no analysis on how they might conspire together to set up a catastrophic house of cards situation due to the homogenization of asset mix held by many of these investment houses. Collapse of the housing bubble which affected these assets including MBS’s (whose contained loans were still paying at ~ 80%) then lost value due to the market price dropping way below value triggering large paper losses due to mark to market accounting rules. This reduced the capital and lending capacity of the banks due to Basel I and the Recourse Rule (an adoption in the U.S. of part of what later became Basel II), which specify those capital requirements. The conflation of all of this resulted in the financial (really the banking) crisis. The authors also show that the repeal of Glass Steagal had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Glass Steagal prevented the mixing of private deposits with investments and that was not a factor. Here are the set of regulations:




1. SEC Regulations from 1936 requiring mandated minimum ratings for a growing number of institutional investments.


2. SEC decision in 1975 to confer NRSRO on the big three ratings agencies.


3. Basel 1 from 1978 which established favorable risk weighting for mortgages and GSE issued MBS’s.


4. Mark to market accounting established by FAS 115 in 1993 and refined by FAS 157 in 2006.


5. HUD targets for mortgages to low-income families in the late 1990’s resulting in reduction of down payment requirements for the GSE’s.


6. Recourse Rule issued by the FED, FDIC, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.






Here are some excerpts from an editorial from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166723093578272.html


Google – The Meltdown Remains a Whodunit

 

Trump is growing the economy and will grow the economy at 4% or greater. FDR perpetuated a depression and in fact caused a recession in the middle of the Great Depression.

 

Now try that with adjustments for inflation.

 

this thread isn't about Obama.

let go of the ODS