Sfdebris.net

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-t ... 30205.html

Only 90 record highs on the S&P 500 compared to 118 on Obama's second term and 135 and 140 on Clinton's 1st and 2nd term respectively, trailing behind all Democratic term presidencies since Reagan aside from Obama's first term.

Such figures looks damning removed from context, but make a lot more sense when objectively analysed.

I would say that the biggest difference between Clinton and Trump's time is competition. Russia was in the post-Soviet slump, China was a shadow of what it is today, Britain had a rough 1980s it was just recovering from, Japan was in recession, the EU was a lot smaller. It wasn't hard to have record breaking stock market performances back then.
Today however, China is a powerhouse, Russia is no slouch, and things really are not that bad in Britain, the EU and Japan.

Another clear difference is technology and the globalisation that brought. The internet and cellphones were in their infancy back then; now they have revolutionised the business landscape to an unrecognisable degree.

The US is still arguably the biggest boy on the block; the problem is that the other boys have been spending time in the gym.

Yeah, but it's consistent that Democrats for the most part have prosperity correlated to them while Republicans are symmetrically opposite (or reversed what have you). The article makes note, as everyone should, that Trump's first term isn't even over yet, but I'm a little more curious on that ongoing trend.

I know that Obama inherited the worst recession since the great depression era, but you never know.

I thought that the stock market collapsed and never recovered after Trump's election? It must have, Paul Krugman said it would and he won a Nobel Prize in economics. I don't think it did, but I don't have a Nobel Prize in economics, so I think we have to go with the expert here.

Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:21 pm I thought that the stock market collapsed and never recovered after Trump's election? It must have, Paul Krugman said it would and he won a Nobel Prize in economics. I don't think it did, but I don't have a Nobel Prize in economics, so I think we have to go with the expert here.

Well at least you are cognisant of where you stand in the grand scheme of things.

I've actually never heard of any collapse under Trump, but if that's just a snark about Krugman, then fair enough I suppose. The worst I've heard about Trump and the economy is that he is (or was) sailing off the winds or current of the economic development under the Obama administration. Trump would boast positive rates, or surpluses over the previous year, that weren't credible to his administration. Economics tends to be judged in hindsight.

It's just really funny to me some Libertarians (not even old enough to drink yet) think that Trump gave us a surplus on par with the one we had when we left the 1990s, bwahahahaha! We had a balanced budget in addition to a surplus. That's a hell of a superhuman accomplishment, and I miss those times. Plus there was none of this crap we got today where it's just endless war and we have to be the world's policemen and now there's aggressive Russian expansion and nationalism threatening Europe, and it's become a huge mess. But getting back to the point, even if you wanna argue Trump is nowhere near as bad as the bogeyman some media make him out to be (which is a valid criticism, since I think most would agree he's bad, but that other presidents are worse), you can't argue the reverse - that he's helped us out economically, when what he's really done is pushed through more tax cuts for the rich. At best you could argue he's mediocre. At best. Now I'm no economics expert, but a man who runs his business like a mafia don and a shark the way Trump has been repeatedly reported to do, does not obviously care about the little guy, and would much rather help out himself and his rich buddies. And we have heard how he'd refuse to pay people who did work for him, to the point they had to take him to court, and then sometimes even those lawyers who represented him got stiffed. He's a shark, but then, you get what you pay for.

Guy, is one long paragraph with no breaks or anything really that necessary in the so many posts that you've tended to churn out lately?

clearspira wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:09 pm Such figures looks damning removed from context, but make a lot more sense when objectively analysed.

Because you're the objective one, and all us leftists are clouded by human weakness and emotions and sloppy thinking.

I'm glad you finally can admit the truth. But seriously. The thing you accuse clearspira here, do you not see how this equally applies to you? Data can always be interpreted in different ways of which even opposing interpretations can both be true.

Well I don't necessarily agree with Clearspira. He talked about global trade while the stock market translates to overall investment in the economy translating to development of enterprise and productivity.

International accounts accounted for, sure. But these aren't impactful on the US stock market.