Dow, NASDAQ, S&P All-Time Highs

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Let's not lose focus that the major indices set records yesterday. There are some on this board who are easily distracted.

This morning's futures give hope to another record setting day.
With the Fed on the sidelines for the present, Christmas will be jolly.

Jolly for the 54% of the eligible people in this country who have investments in the markets. No impact on the 46% who do not.

How's the GDP doing? What happened to the promise of a minimum of 3% growth?

"U.S. GDP growth will slow to 2.2% in 2019 from 3% in 2018 (actually 2.9%). It will be 2% in 2020 and 1.9% in 2021. That's according to the most recent forecast released at the Federal Open Market Committee meeting on September 18, 2019.

The projected slowdown in 2019 and beyond is a side effect of the trade war, a key component of Trump's economic policies."

Tariffs are costing the average family in this country an estimated $1,000 a year. Quite a bit more than the average family gained with the tax reform package.

"The unemployment rate will average 3.7% in 2019 and 2020. It will bump up to 3.8% in 2021. That's lower than the Fed's 6.7% target. But former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted a lot of workers are part-time and would prefer full-time work. Also, most job growth is in low-paying retail and food service industries. Some people have been out of work for so long that they'll never be able to return to the high-paying jobs they used to have. Structural unemployment has increased. These traits are unique to this recovery."

https://www.thebalance.com/us-economic-outlook-3305669

The economy is the one issue on which Trump can claim success to some degree. Some people are doing better, some not so much. IF the economy falters in the next 12 months . . .

[gnadfly]

Are these articles by the same people who "confirmed" Obamacare wouldn't add "one dime" to the deficit?

Go away Grubered.

Almost everyone has a stake in the stock market whether they know it or not.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I think your memory might be slipping.



IB has it right regarding the two.

The fact that the polls were taken 8 years apart may have something to do with it. We all know that Trump is a much less liked POTUS at at this point in time than Obama was in 2011. I agree with most on this forum that people who do not support Trump will give him little credit on many issues.

If I was in the polling, I would say "Some credit" is due to both.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Are these articles by the same people who "confirmed" Obamacare wouldn't add "one dime" to the deficit?

Go away Grubered.

Almost everyone has a stake in the stock market whether they know it or not.

"The Balance" is considered politically neutral.

Strange that you attack the source rather than attack the issues. Do you disagree with any of the statements made?

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Jolly for the 54% of the eligible people in this country who have investments in the markets. No impact on the 46% who do not.

Yes, this was a thread about the market and it's doing well for the majority of this country at one level or another.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Are these articles by the same people who "confirmed" Obamacare wouldn't add "one dime" to the deficit?

Go away Grubered.

Almost everyone has a stake in the stock market whether they know it or not.

And yes, many not included in that 54% percent number of those directly or indirectly in the market, have an even further indirect relationship to those who are doing well in the market in the form of available jobs, wage increases, spending, etc. etc.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The fact that the polls were taken 8 years apart may have something to do with it. We all know that Trump is a much less liked POTUS at at this point in time than Obama was in 2011. I agree with most on this forum that people who do not support Trump will give him little credit on many issues.

If I was in the polling, I would say "Some credit" is due to both.

My point was you saying you didn't remember Obama getting much credit. Regardless of the polls being at different times. Obama certainly from the polls at the time got "significant" credit.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

My point was you saying you didn't remember Obama getting much credit. Regardless of the polls being at different times. Obama certainly from the polls at the time got "significant" credit.

You are correct. I have trouble at times remembering what happened 8 minutes ago, let alone 8 years ago.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Yes, this was a thread about the market and it's doing well for the majority of this country at one level or another.

Even the OP opened up the discussion beyond the stock market by mentioning other issues. Not passing USMCA. Sabotage of China trade.

I think it's fair to counter one's argument that the economy is doing great in one area by pointing out "not so fast". This is a political forum and I'm hoping for discussion for a change rather than name-calling. You for one are usually very open to political discussions on the issues impacting the 2020 election.

Do you agree or disagree with the statements made in "The Balance"?

[Austin Ellen]

I disagree with the 46 percent who do not benefit from the stock market. Like Eccielover stated they benefit indirectly from the market. Here's a small example - when I was in property management and the market was doing well, the companies would pay for everything - education,meals,trips,ect. When the market started going down the first thing I saw cut was education classes. You could still go - but you had to pay for it yourself. The second thing was no pay raises. The third thing was any item on the property that was not in complete disarray - stayed - no replacements. And the last one - and this is the one that got me - the companies would require that you attend company events. Like I said these were huge events and they paid for everything. The next year we were told to ask our vendors for "contributions" to the party to help pay for it. The following year - we had to purchase a ticket to attend the party - so we could help offset expenses. And then I got laid off. Along with other employees. And I was told it was because of the market. I just recently spoke to a friend of mine in property management. We both chuckled because things are back to the way the were - property owners are paying again for all employee benefits.

And they all know it's because of Trump.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Do you agree or disagree with the statements made in "The Balance"?

I think they went largely out on a limb without really good backing or taking anomolies into account. There were lots of this will be how it is, but it's largely all supposition. Nobody predicted the recent jobs numbers, yet they happened again and previous months adjusted upward again.

We are seeing historically high good results that continue to defy the odds, and yet it's being historically downplayed by many.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by eccielover

We are seeing historically high good results that continue to defy the odds, and yet it's being historically downplayed by many.

Maybe because we have historically low interest rates and GDP.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

Maybe because we have historically low interest rates and GDP.

That was the Obama years.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

That was the Obama years.

Except for the recession and sequester the Trump and Obama GDP numbers look similar....

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

"The Balance" is considered politically neutral.

Strange that you attack the source rather than attack the issues. Do you disagree with any of the statements made?

They are just projections by someone you consider nonpartisan. I have no idea who they are. That's why I asked the 'dime' question.

CNBC has been saying "recession is just around the corner" for over a year now. Eventually they'll be correct. Bloomberg about a month ago said the possibility was quite small and they would stop touting it.

Whether some govt agency says the GDP growth is 1.6 vs 3.0 is at some levels moot. There is always the revised figures both in the short term and long run.

The market numbers are here and now and totally objective.

But you know this. You're just mumbling because it's happening during Trump's watch.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

The market numbers are here and now and totally objective.

.

No one is arguing the validity of the market numbers....we are discussing how they are getting there.

Lower corporate tax rate

Fed lowers interest rates

Higher government spending

Leads to:

Higher deficits and debt...23 Trillion.

I remember a time when you bitched about that.

You might consider what some are saying is that the government is creating a stock market bubble....I suppose you can argue the merits of that.