Where are all the trumpsters with their response to this???
This was literally the only thing he had going for him
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Stock Market under Trump (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
This was literally the only thing he had going for him
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
NREC34
Footballguy
They’re probably hanging out in the stock market thread where their messiah can’t be criticized.
NREC34
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Not unexpected: Argentina will become a hopeless country if Cristina Fernandez wins
"Consider this: Out of Argentina’s population of 44 million, there are only 6.7 million private-sector employees and 2.3 million self-employed workers who are paying for 15.3 million people subsidized by the state, including public employees, pensioners and people who receive government subsidies.
In other words, about 9 million workers who don’t work for the government maintain 15.3 million who are paid by the government. No country on Earth that can afford such government largess in the long run."
"According to various studies, Argentina has less than one private-sector worker for each public employee or pensioner paid for by the state,” Werner told me in an interview. “Chile and the United States have more than two private-sector workers for each worker paid for by the state.”
yak651
Footballguy
i was trying to explain to some Trump friends at work a year or so ago that Obama was good for his 401K but he was having none of it.
Ya, but Obama had the benefit of starting his term when the market was so much lower so it was easy to get big returns. DJT did it after inheriting one of the worst economies in the history of economies. Oh, and Jerome Powell is dumb. How's that?
NREC34
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Plus it has been posted that they find it so annoying when non-Trump supporters expect a response.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
identikit
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
BOOMERANG!!
August is typically a month with low volume and high volatility. Welcome to August.
jamny
Footballguy
I can't speak for all supporters, although I'm sure there are plenty that disregard the market gains under Obama while touting them under Trump, but most people realize there are a lot of factors besides who is sitting in the Oval Office. I gave Obama credit and was happy with my returns while he was in office and feel the same with Trump. We should all be happy. Also, Obama took office after a massive pullback while Trump took office at or near all time highs. Kinda skews the results but kudos to Obama for preventing a disaster and stabilizing the economy that Trump inherited.
The market and our economy are fine right now. Tariffs are suppressing things a bit but hopefully we come out of it stronger than before. I know there are Chicken Littles in every market but it's funny how, for the most part, the bulls sit back and enjoy the ride while the bears come out in force in this thread on any and every pullback.
Sand
Footballguy
Argentina goes broke every decade or so. It amazed me when I saw they were putting out 100 year bonds a bit back. What rube would buy this junk? It was the junkiest of junk in the bottom of the high yield junk drawer. Chances of it making to maturity were exactly zero before being blown up.
What they lack for in financial sense they certainly make up in smokin' hot women, though.
The Commish
Footballguy
This thread is a caricature of Trump support. I don't think the hot takes in here (the bears as you refer to them above)are anything but jabs at the shtick started by "Trump's the best thing ever, look at the market" yahoos. Now, all the quips you read aren't towards the markets and/or finance rather that nonsense. The bold is demonstrably false in this particular thread. Excuse after excuse for the disparity is lofted up time and again. Said it a million times, "one man does not the economy/market make". The underlined is willfully overlooked depending on the preconceived notion the person is pushing.
Sand
Footballguy
The setpoint is a bit off here. This thread is actually a decent back and forth on the markets and the last couple presidents.
The rest of this forum is a caricature of Trump bashing.
jamny
Footballguy
If you think that the reactions in this thread are merely jabs at Trump supporters and not actual market fears, and at times, market panic, I don't know what to say.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Gopher State
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Bringing up past Presidents in specific, cherry picked ways isn't really a "decent back and forth on markets" at least IMO. We don't have a legit economy thread on this entire site that I am aware of.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Almost every pullback has been directly related to something Trump has said or done. That's sort of important.
The Commish
Footballguy
I think the points that HF has made, which have been dead to rights so far can be described as cautionary. I don't think they are "fear" by any stretch. I think the "doh, the dow dropped, where are all the trump supporters when the dow drops" derp derp derp is simply shots at the Trump guys who go away when things go down and come back when they go up. There is no real analysis in "See, GDP is X so that equals best economy ever" either. I don't know if NREC is shtick or not, guessing a little bit? The rest is cherry picking nonsense and hyperbole. I can tell you, a good number of my most recent posts are results of boredom and being amused by the fishing trips. And seeing what happens with the philosophies touted if applied consistently.
For instance, market goes up "because of Trump"....market goes down "because of something other than trump"...it's clockwork in these threads. It's also tough to ignore that the markets are reacting, frequently, in direct correlation to something Trump says. It's been both directions until recently. Seems now that the positive things he says aren't moving the needle as much in the positive direction as the negative things he says are moving things in the negative direction. Or to put it another way, the markets appear to be onto Trump, finally.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
NYT had a reasonable though fluffy article on August volatility yesterday.
BOOMERANG!!
August is typically a month with low volume and high volatility. Welcome to August.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/upshot/august-financial-troubles-history.html
When the global financial system wobbles, it always seems to happen in August.
Maybe it is because so many traders are on vacation, making for less liquid markets and wilder swings. Maybe it’s just coincidence. But some of the most turbulent events in financial markets in recent times have arrived in the late summer, including the Augusts of 1989, 1998, 2007, 2011 and 2015.
And so it is again in 2019, as a trade and currency war between the United States and China, as well as a slowing European economy and geopolitical strains worldwide, has sent markets spinning. The pattern continued with a steep global sell-off Monday.
To make sense of this latest turbulence, and what it portends for the global economy, two past episodes of August volatility are particularly worth studying. In fact, the outlook for the economy in 2020 depends in large part on which historical moment proves to be the better comparison: August 1998 or August 2007.
In both years, there were problems similar to, though not exactly like, those afflicting the global economy and markets today. But in 1999 the United States economy ultimately continued booming, whereas the events of 2007 led straight into the deepest recession in modern times.
Sign up for The Upshot Newsletter
Get the best of The Upshot’s news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life.
August 1998: An emerging markets crisis
What happened: Several East Asian nations had been in financial crisis for about a year, but in August 1998, a full-blown crisis in the debt of emerging nations enveloped global markets.
The immediate cause was Russia’s decision to default on its debt obligations, which sparked fears that other nations might do the same. Money flooded into safe assets, particularly government debt of the United States and Germany. The value of the dollar rose on exchange markets, worsening the situation for emerging nations that owed money in dollars. Commodity prices fell, reflecting a slowing world economy and adding to the strain on nations that relied on oil and similar exports.
The United States economy was in the midst of a boom at the time — the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent in August 1998. But American policymakers worried that the international turbulence would tighten the flow of credit in the United States and put the expansion at risk.
“Let me just go a step further and point out the one thing that I find particularly bothersome: It is that this element of disengagement, fear, uncertainty and the like is really pervasive around the world, and it is occurring in the same time frame,” said Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman at the time, on a confidential conference call with the central bank’s policy committee in September 1998 (a transcript was released after a long lag).
Mr. Greenspan and his colleagues acknowledged that the domestic economy still appeared strong, but cut interest rates that month to forestall damage that might come from overseas.
“While we have yet to see this in the real variables of the U.S. economy, except at the margins, it is very hard if history is any guide to believe that growth above 3 percent is possible in the context of the types of decisions that are being made for capital investment and inventories,” Mr. Greenspan said at that meeting.
The Fed would ultimately cut interest rates three times that fall.
The results: It turned out he was too pessimistic. The United States economy grew a stunning 4.8 percent in 1999, and the jobless rate kept falling. The emerging markets panic subsided, and the combination of the dot-com boom and the Fed’s rate cuts turbocharged the stock market.
If anything, the economy might have been running too hot in 1999, in the sense that the eventual popping of the stock market bubble and resulting drop in corporate investment in 2001 caused a recession (albeit a mild one).
The parallels: As in 1998, the danger in 2019 comes from a slumping world economy, reflected in falling commodity prices, a rising dollar and money gushing toward Treasury bonds and other safe assets. And as in 1998, the Fed is in an interest-rate-cutting mode to try to offset the damage to the United States.
The differences: But there are important differences, too. Trade tensions are at the core of the current bout of volatility, and in this case policy in the United States is driving the uncertainty — witness the Trump administration’s plans to apply additional tariffs on China on Sept. 1 and its declaring the country a currency manipulator last week.
Additionally, the economic damage to the United States in 1998 was limited not only thanks to the Fed’s actions, but also because the real crisis was taking place far away — it was not striking at the heart of the supply chains and export markets of America’s biggest companies.
The lesson: The episode is a reminder that financial contagion, though real, is not inevitable.
August 2007: Beginnings of the global financial panic
What happened: Throughout 2007, more and more American homeowners were defaulting on their home mortgages. As a result, the supposedly safe securities backed by these mortgages — especially subprime mortgages — were falling in value.
That generated losses, especially among the European banks that were heavy holders of those securities, and led them to hoard cash and become reluctant to lend to one another.
A dangerous cycle was taking hold: A slowing housing market in the United States was causing a slowdown in the economy and losses in the financial system around the world. The breakdown in the financial system in turn was tightening the availability of credit, which made the housing situation worse.
The European banking system was freezing up, and on Aug. 9, the European Central Bank injected 95 billion euros to try to ensure the free flow of money and avoid a credit crunch. It was the first in a long series of aggressive actions by central banks around the world.
By September, the Fed was cutting interest rates in hopes of preventing a recession, and the government ultimately engineered a series of huge bailouts of the financial sector. But the vicious cycle was too powerful: The United States entered a recession in December 2007, and the downturn became severe in the fall of 2008 after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The results: The global financial crisis was a transformative event, inflicting enormous pain on billions of people and undermining the credibility of centrist politics and elite institutions worldwide.
The parallels: As in August 2007, the forces unleashed in global markets this month reflect complex, intertwined forces across different oceans and markets.
This time, instead of the American mortgage sector, the problems are rooted in a rapidly escalating trade war between the United States and China, and in longer-term problems in Europe. Those forces are combining to drag down global growth and commodity prices, putting a damper on investment spending by American companies, despite a generally solid economy.
Bond markets are increasingly pricing in lower growth and inflation in the years ahead, and more rate cuts from the Fed are expected, suggesting investors believe that a meaningful downturn is on the way and a recession is a significant risk.
The differences: But there are also major differences between 2007 and today, which give reason to think things won’t be nearly as bad as they were then.
First, one of the key drivers of today’s economic troubles — the trade war — is within the power of policymakers to end. If President Trump starts to see evidence that it is about to cause a recession in an election year, he will presumably look for ways to de-escalate the tension and calm things.
Second, global banks are significantly better capitalized than they were in 2007 — they have bigger cushions that allow them to suffer losses without becoming insolvent. That means there’s less potential for a similar vicious cycle that does more damage than policymakers can control.
Or, at a minimum, if those kinds of financial contagions and dangerous feedback loops were to re-emerge, they would probably come from somewhere different this time. High corporate debt levels, for example, could be such a source of risk.
The lesson: In trying to figure out whether this month’s financial turbulence will turn into a major disruption to the economy itself, the contrast of 1998 and 2007 gives some guidance.
Is the disruption driven primarily by events in other countries, or are domestic and international problems interrelated? Are there key nodes through which risk can metastasize, as occurred in the global banking system in 2007? Do policymakers have the tools and the will to try to contain the damage?
The lesson for policymakers may be this: Pray for this to be more like August 1998; plan in case it turns out to be more like August 2007.
Maybe it is because so many traders are on vacation, making for less liquid markets and wilder swings. Maybe it’s just coincidence. But some of the most turbulent events in financial markets in recent times have arrived in the late summer, including the Augusts of 1989, 1998, 2007, 2011 and 2015.
And so it is again in 2019, as a trade and currency war between the United States and China, as well as a slowing European economy and geopolitical strains worldwide, has sent markets spinning. The pattern continued with a steep global sell-off Monday.
To make sense of this latest turbulence, and what it portends for the global economy, two past episodes of August volatility are particularly worth studying. In fact, the outlook for the economy in 2020 depends in large part on which historical moment proves to be the better comparison: August 1998 or August 2007.
In both years, there were problems similar to, though not exactly like, those afflicting the global economy and markets today. But in 1999 the United States economy ultimately continued booming, whereas the events of 2007 led straight into the deepest recession in modern times.
Sign up for The Upshot Newsletter
Get the best of The Upshot’s news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life.
August 1998: An emerging markets crisis
What happened: Several East Asian nations had been in financial crisis for about a year, but in August 1998, a full-blown crisis in the debt of emerging nations enveloped global markets.
The immediate cause was Russia’s decision to default on its debt obligations, which sparked fears that other nations might do the same. Money flooded into safe assets, particularly government debt of the United States and Germany. The value of the dollar rose on exchange markets, worsening the situation for emerging nations that owed money in dollars. Commodity prices fell, reflecting a slowing world economy and adding to the strain on nations that relied on oil and similar exports.
The United States economy was in the midst of a boom at the time — the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent in August 1998. But American policymakers worried that the international turbulence would tighten the flow of credit in the United States and put the expansion at risk.
“Let me just go a step further and point out the one thing that I find particularly bothersome: It is that this element of disengagement, fear, uncertainty and the like is really pervasive around the world, and it is occurring in the same time frame,” said Alan Greenspan, the Fed chairman at the time, on a confidential conference call with the central bank’s policy committee in September 1998 (a transcript was released after a long lag).
Mr. Greenspan and his colleagues acknowledged that the domestic economy still appeared strong, but cut interest rates that month to forestall damage that might come from overseas.
“While we have yet to see this in the real variables of the U.S. economy, except at the margins, it is very hard if history is any guide to believe that growth above 3 percent is possible in the context of the types of decisions that are being made for capital investment and inventories,” Mr. Greenspan said at that meeting.
The Fed would ultimately cut interest rates three times that fall.
The results: It turned out he was too pessimistic. The United States economy grew a stunning 4.8 percent in 1999, and the jobless rate kept falling. The emerging markets panic subsided, and the combination of the dot-com boom and the Fed’s rate cuts turbocharged the stock market.
If anything, the economy might have been running too hot in 1999, in the sense that the eventual popping of the stock market bubble and resulting drop in corporate investment in 2001 caused a recession (albeit a mild one).
The parallels: As in 1998, the danger in 2019 comes from a slumping world economy, reflected in falling commodity prices, a rising dollar and money gushing toward Treasury bonds and other safe assets. And as in 1998, the Fed is in an interest-rate-cutting mode to try to offset the damage to the United States.
The differences: But there are important differences, too. Trade tensions are at the core of the current bout of volatility, and in this case policy in the United States is driving the uncertainty — witness the Trump administration’s plans to apply additional tariffs on China on Sept. 1 and its declaring the country a currency manipulator last week.
Additionally, the economic damage to the United States in 1998 was limited not only thanks to the Fed’s actions, but also because the real crisis was taking place far away — it was not striking at the heart of the supply chains and export markets of America’s biggest companies.
The lesson: The episode is a reminder that financial contagion, though real, is not inevitable.
August 2007: Beginnings of the global financial panic
What happened: Throughout 2007, more and more American homeowners were defaulting on their home mortgages. As a result, the supposedly safe securities backed by these mortgages — especially subprime mortgages — were falling in value.
That generated losses, especially among the European banks that were heavy holders of those securities, and led them to hoard cash and become reluctant to lend to one another.
A dangerous cycle was taking hold: A slowing housing market in the United States was causing a slowdown in the economy and losses in the financial system around the world. The breakdown in the financial system in turn was tightening the availability of credit, which made the housing situation worse.
The European banking system was freezing up, and on Aug. 9, the European Central Bank injected 95 billion euros to try to ensure the free flow of money and avoid a credit crunch. It was the first in a long series of aggressive actions by central banks around the world.
By September, the Fed was cutting interest rates in hopes of preventing a recession, and the government ultimately engineered a series of huge bailouts of the financial sector. But the vicious cycle was too powerful: The United States entered a recession in December 2007, and the downturn became severe in the fall of 2008 after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
The results: The global financial crisis was a transformative event, inflicting enormous pain on billions of people and undermining the credibility of centrist politics and elite institutions worldwide.
The parallels: As in August 2007, the forces unleashed in global markets this month reflect complex, intertwined forces across different oceans and markets.
This time, instead of the American mortgage sector, the problems are rooted in a rapidly escalating trade war between the United States and China, and in longer-term problems in Europe. Those forces are combining to drag down global growth and commodity prices, putting a damper on investment spending by American companies, despite a generally solid economy.
Bond markets are increasingly pricing in lower growth and inflation in the years ahead, and more rate cuts from the Fed are expected, suggesting investors believe that a meaningful downturn is on the way and a recession is a significant risk.
The differences: But there are also major differences between 2007 and today, which give reason to think things won’t be nearly as bad as they were then.
First, one of the key drivers of today’s economic troubles — the trade war — is within the power of policymakers to end. If President Trump starts to see evidence that it is about to cause a recession in an election year, he will presumably look for ways to de-escalate the tension and calm things.
Second, global banks are significantly better capitalized than they were in 2007 — they have bigger cushions that allow them to suffer losses without becoming insolvent. That means there’s less potential for a similar vicious cycle that does more damage than policymakers can control.
Or, at a minimum, if those kinds of financial contagions and dangerous feedback loops were to re-emerge, they would probably come from somewhere different this time. High corporate debt levels, for example, could be such a source of risk.
The lesson: In trying to figure out whether this month’s financial turbulence will turn into a major disruption to the economy itself, the contrast of 1998 and 2007 gives some guidance.
Is the disruption driven primarily by events in other countries, or are domestic and international problems interrelated? Are there key nodes through which risk can metastasize, as occurred in the global banking system in 2007? Do policymakers have the tools and the will to try to contain the damage?
The lesson for policymakers may be this: Pray for this to be more like August 1998; plan in case it turns out to be more like August 2007.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Well, he does like the Twitters.
And shockingly it looks like they didn't change the headline to ensure a POTUS bashing. How very mature of them.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
It isn't healthy for the markets or the country.
The results from his constant tinkering with the Fed and the markets reminds me when my oldest was 3 and wanted to paint the walls like daddy.
Sand
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Trump backed off his threat.
ETA: Or "postponed" part of his threat to be more accurate.
Last edited by a moderator:
identikit
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Although maybe you were upside down, not the phone. I suppose that does suggest one should hang onto one's hat.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State
Footballguy
With Trump you have to be in the market, ez 
adonis
Footballguy
I'm in the market for a new president.With Trump you have to be in the market, ez
The market is really a no lose situation so you've got to be fully invested. Either it goes up (hooray!) or it goes down and Trump loses re-election (hooray!)
NREC34
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, that’s long-term why you don’t want investors thinking there are going to be lots of rate cuts coming.
Jackstraw
Footballguy
It's always come up Aces for his investors amirite?With Trump you have to be in the market, ez
jamny
Footballguy
Similar threads
