Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 166
Thanks Tree121Thanks

Thread: So This Is What A Trade War Does To The Stock Market

  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    2532

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    How do you know what Trump's actual value is to make that claim?

    How do you know what Trump inherited?
    I know what Trump himself has said about his net worth over the years, and what others like Forbes have estimated it at, as well as what they estimated Trump's father at. Pick your numbers, but they all give you a miserably low rate of return.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,939
    Thanks
    1649

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    No, that's not something I do. What made you imagine it was? I'm happy to discuss the entirety of Obama's presidency, just as I'm happy to discuss the entirety of all the presidents' tenures, regardless of which indicator we're looking at. Generally, when you do that, you find that Obama's presidency was disappointing, by the high standards of Democratic presidents, but middle-of-the-road by the low standards of Republican presidents.

    For example:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS

    As you can see, the annualized job creation rate for Obama was 1.05%, which compares as follows to the rest of the field:

    FDR 5.35
    Johnson 3.80
    Carter 3.06
    Truman 2.49
    Clinton 2.40
    Kennedy 2.30

    Nixon 2.25
    Reagan 2.06
    Ford 1.08

    Obama 1.05
    Ike 0.86
    Bush 0.61
    WBush 0.13


    Right now Trump's at 1.4% -- it'll be interesting to see where he stands by the time his term is up.

    Anyway, as you can see, Obama would be a median Republican, but is an embarrassment relative to how Democrats usually perform. That's the usual pattern with him -- though not across the board. For example, if you measure how the US dollar did against a basket of currencies, you'll see Obama leads all presidents:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DTWEXM

    Similarly, there are some social stats where Obama looks really good:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_12.pdf

    Of all modern presidents, Obama's presidency is the only one when the percentage of children born to unwed mothers actually went down. It's also a strong period in terms of incarceration -- one of the only times in modern history when the number of incarcerated Americans grew more slowly than the population as a whole.

    Obama's numbers are also outstanding in terms of the change deficit -- he's first or second among all modern presidents if you look at the change of the Surplus-or-Deficit numbers as a share of GDP. His era is also one of the presidential eras when murder rates actually fell, and one of the best with regard to the decline of violent crime rates overall, and property crime rates. His was also one of the presidencies when real average weekly earnings rose and poverty fell.

    In all those cases, I'm measuring from the start of a presidency to the end, wherever I have numbers for that. In no cases do I cherry-pick by counting the last few months of one president's term into the next president's column, merely to skew the numbers in a way that favors my argument.
    What does your CDC cite have to do with Obama?
    Volume 48, Number 16
    (Revised)
    October 18, 2000

    What does the fertility rate have to do with Obama?

    Murder and violent crime rates have been plummeting since the 1990s.

    The deficit number doesn't mean much as a historical metric, the deficit number doesn't properly account for debt, it considers some debt income. The change in national debt is was really counts. It went to over 100% of GDP under Obama.

    A good example is 2016, the stated deficit was $587 billion while the actual national debt went up by $1,400 billion. $1,400 billion is the number that really matters, it must be repaid and is additional drag on the economy going forward.

    Obama's 1.53% average annual growth rate is the worst in history, compounded by the fact that his economy received over $9 trillion in fiscal stimulus and over $5 trillion in monetary stimulus, but only produced $4 trillion in economic growth.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...z1-fy2019.xlsx

    Debt as a percent of GDP went from 68% to 105% in Obama's tenure.
    Last edited by Libertine; 19th June 2018 at 11:18 AM.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,939
    Thanks
    1649

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I know what Trump himself has said about his net worth over the years, and what others like Forbes have estimated it at, as well as what they estimated Trump's father at. Pick your numbers, but they all give you a miserably low rate of return.
    What numbers did you use for your claim?

  4. #34
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,884
    Thanks
    31756

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    The S&P 500 is down 0.60%, is that a big deal?

    It is up 25% since Trump was elected.
    The 1% are doing great.

    Wealth of millionaires surges 10.6% to top $70 trillion for the first time

    Millionaires' wealth up 11%, tops $70 trillion


    The combined wealth of the world’s millionaires rose for a sixth straight year and topped $70 trillion for the first time ever in 2017 thanks to an improving global economy and strong stock market performance, according to a new report released Tuesday.

    The world’s millionaires saw their wealth grow 10.6 percent to a record $70.2 trillion, the global consulting firm Capgemini reports in its annual World Wealth Report 2018.
    https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/n...1-9ee01811844f

    MAGA
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  5. #35
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    2532

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    What does your CDC cite have to do with Obama?
    Volume 48, Number 16
    (Revised)
    October 18, 2000

    What does the fertility rate have to do with Obama?
    The links provide data to back up my claim about what happened to the percentage of children born to unwed mothers -- which actually went down during Obama's presidency. As you can see, nonmarital childbearing was becoming more and more common throughout nearly the whole modern period, but then actually started heading the opposite direction under Obama. As for what that has to do with Obama, remember that he greatly improved our healthcare system, which included efforts to make high-quality birth control more available.

    Murder and violent crime rates have been plummeting since the 1990s.
    Off and on, yes. But, they haven't been doing so at a consistent pace. For example, on Bush's watch the violent crime rate fell from 506.5 to 457.5, whereas the decline was to 397.1 on Obama's watch. That's a 10.7% improvement on Bush's watch, versus 15.2% on Obama's watch. Granted, both of them look good compared to miserable failures like Ronald Reagan (violent crime rate was UP 6.8% on his watch). But Obama looks considerably better than Bush.

    The deficit number doesn't mean much as a historical metric, the deficit number doesn't properly account for debt, it considers some debt income. The change in national debt is was really counts. It went to over 100% of GDP under Obama.
    The deficit number means a great deal. As you'll recall, the catastrophic Bush presidency left the nation with the largest deficits in American history. That's a lot of negative momentum, such that it was inevitable we'd run up quite a bit of debt on Obama's watch, in the same sense as if you were handed control of a car barreling down the road at 100 miles per hour, it's inevitable you'd have covered a lot of ground before stopping, no matter how quick and how hard you hit the brakes. But on Obama's watch we lowered deficits to a huge extent.

    Of course conservatives don't like to acknowledge improvements like that, so deficits became unimportant to them the moment it became a metric that looked good for Obama. Not to worry -- if at some future point a Democratic president raises deficits, it will again be an important stat for the conservatives. Their principles are dictated by whatever is convenient for their argument of the moment.

    A good example is 2016, the stated deficit was $587 billion while the actual national debt went up by $1,400 billion. $1,400 billion is the number that really matters, it must be repaid and is additional drag on the economy going forward.
    We've discussed why deficit numbers don't equal debt before. Do you remember why?

    Obama's 1.53% average annual growth rate is the worst in history
    What makes you imagine that? Here's the GDP info:

    https://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

    Q4 2016 is at $16,851.4, Q4 2008 is at $14,577.0. That's an annualized growth rate of 1.83%. That compares to 1.76% on GW Bush's watch. So, we can say it's the worst average annual growth rate since GW Bush left office.... or the best in that time. Both are true.

    , compounded by the fact that his economy received over $9 trillion in fiscal stimulus and over $5 trillion in monetary stimulus, but only produced $4 trillion in economic growth.
    As a reminder, deficits fell by about half on Obama's watch. That's a massive decrease in stimulus, which is what makes the growth in that period all the more impressive.

    Try to think of it in business terms. Let's say that for years you've been running your business on $100,000 per year, and earning just $60,000. Then you start running it on $80,000 per year and still earning $60,000. What is likely to happen to the growth rate of your business? Well, we'd expect it to decline, other things being equal. Your'e going to have to be cutting back on the spending that might otherwise grow the business, even though you're continuing to run up debt. That's what happened on Obama's watch. He inherited a deficit-addicted economy, and started to ween it off that addiction, even as he somehow managed to get a better annualized real growth rate than his predecessor.
    Last edited by Arkady; 19th June 2018 at 12:05 PM.
    Thanks from OldGaffer and BigLeRoy

  6. #36
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,121
    Thanks
    28162

    From
    New Hampshire
    Warren Buffett isnt worried, says this is all just saber rattling..

    "Investors shouldn't overreact to the back and forth trade retaliation announcements between the U.S. and China, according to top market veterans. Warren Buffett said he was optimistic the U.S. and China will avoid a serious trade conflict because countries eventually do what it is in their best economic interests. "I don't think either country will dig themselves into something that precipitates and continues any kind of real trade war," he said."

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/inve...trade-war.html

  7. #37
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    2532

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    What numbers did you use for your claim?
    I've used a number of different numbers from different sources, but regardless of their differences, they point to the same big picture truth. For example, in November 1976, Trump said his net worth was "more than $200 million.":

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesl.../#19953bc54bfd

    To give him the best chance to show a decent return, we'll assume it was just negligibly more than $200 million, and count that as exactly $200 million. As of March 2018 it was just $3,100 million:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalex.../#a6551f413575

    This calculator will give you total return for the S&P 500:

    https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

    In that time, a generic investment in an S&P 500 index fund would have gotten 11.348% annualized return (dividends reinvested), for a total return of 8403.270%. So, if he merely did as well as someone who invested by blindly picking a random selection of large cap stocks, he'd have been worth about $17 billion in March 2018, instead of just $3.1 billion.

    Now, of course, it's possible Trump was lying. Maybe he is such a shameless liar he doubled his real net worth in 1976. But then he'd still be worth $8.5 billion today. And maybe today Forbes is underestimating his worth by half. But, even making BOTH those forgiving assumptions --that he was half as wealthy as reported in 1976 and twice as wealthy as reported today, he STILL got crappy returns.

    And even that is underestimating the extent of his incompetence for two reasons:

    (1) He was managing a mid-cap company, not a large cap one, and they tend to get better returns. So, he was basically controlling a smaller, more potentially nimble company, and still getting rings run around him by the big guys.

    (2) It doesn't count the tens or even hundreds of millions he would have gotten from his father's estate when he passed away. At the time his father was worth as much as $300 million, and at Donald's urging had disinherited one of Donald's brothers' so Donald's net worth should have gotten a big boost then.

    There are lots of numbers out there you can use, but they all show the same thing: Donald Trump was a MISERABLY incompetent businessman, who got a far lower return with his father's money than a literally retarded person would have gotten with the same windfall just by leaving it sitting in a passively managed index fund.
    Last edited by Arkady; 19th June 2018 at 12:06 PM.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    35,083
    Thanks
    27786

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by carpe diem View Post
    Remember when you all said he had zero chance to beat Hillary?
    I never said that.

    I realized a while ago that people are just about as dumb as republicans think they are.
    Thanks from Arkady

  9. #39
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    34,625
    Thanks
    30063

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Warren Buffett isnt worried, says this is all just saber rattling..

    "Investors shouldn't overreact to the back and forth trade retaliation announcements between the U.S. and China, according to top market veterans. Warren Buffett said he was optimistic the U.S. and China will avoid a serious trade conflict because countries eventually do what it is in their best economic interests. "I don't think either country will dig themselves into something that precipitates and continues any kind of real trade war," he said."

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/19/inve...trade-war.html
    You know, I both like and admire Warren Buffett, I really do. But I find that particular statement to be both extraordinarily naïve and completely ahistorical. Was China doing what was in its best economic interests circa 1430 AD when it became completely isolationistic, burned all its ocean-going ships, turned inward, erected a Great Wall of the Mind against the outside world, and proceeded to FORGET much of the technology it had previously invented?

  10. #40
    Radical Centrist BigLeRoy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    34,625
    Thanks
    30063

    From
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by BoiseBo View Post
    Yep, this is why I put pulled out of all my stock investments first week of February when Trump started yammering about his stupid trade war and how "easy it would be to win".

    Got out of everything at 26,600 now down 2,000 points and betting on another thousand in next few weeks.

    -310 just on the day.

    Market Summary > Dow Jones Industrial Average
    INDEXDJX: .DJI
    24,676.72 −310.75 (1.24%)
    Jun 19, 11:34 AM EDT
    I remember back then that a lot of the Trump defenders were saying that he was just using the tariff threats as a negotiating tactic, and that he wouldn't REALLY start a trade war!!


    Oops!!
    Thanks from BigBob

Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2nd March 2018, 10:15 AM
  2. Stock market dip
    By bajisima in forum Economics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 25th May 2012, 06:18 AM
  3. Stock market plunges
    By justoneman in forum Economics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 8th February 2010, 06:19 PM
  4. Someone who knows the stock market please help me
    By The_Bear in forum Economics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24th October 2008, 09:47 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed