President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[old_gregg]

but then go on to point out that Clinton and Obama were good for the market based on a reporter's simple correlation study.

surely you can appreciate the irony here

[Pelado]

surely you can appreciate the irony here

Where's the irony sheriff when you need him?

[Moliere]

how in the world is trump responsible for any market growth? and nobody cares to actually consider whether gorsuch is a quality appointment? yikes

Here is og’s original question. Note that he says “any market growth”. Trump is inarguably responsible for some market growth and I gave an example backed by observable data. Jeff “DJIA” Lebowski’s linked article even agreed with my point and debunked og’s dumb rhetorical question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[old_gregg]

Here is og’s original question. Note that he says “any market growth”. Trump is inarguably responsible for some market growth and I gave an example backed by observable data. Jeff “DJIA” Lebowski’s linked article even agreed with my point and debunked og’s dumb rhetorical question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

inarguably is a very strong word bro. your example to show trumps responsibility for market growth is that the market has grown.

[BYUMizzou]

At the end of the day, does it matter if Trump is or isn't responsible for market performance. I'd hope we could all agree the upward market trends are a good thing. As bad as Trump is with his dumb tweets and constant pissing matches, at least we live in a country where our freedoms are protected sufficiently that regardless of who is in the white house, generally we're free to live our lives as we choose and have opportunities to prosper.

As much as I despised Obama, he had negligible effect on my day to day life unless I let myself get caught up in the pissing and moaning on social media. For those beside themselves about Trump, it'll be the same.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Where's the irony sheriff when you need him?

Irony!

[creekster]

inarguably is a very strong word bro. your example to show trumps responsibility for market growth is that the market has grown.

If you're going to be that picky, then you need to be more precise in your definitions. Any market growth could Mean overall growth of the market or growth in any given segment of the market. Moreover, in the context of this discussion it seems pretty clear that moliere's example fit your criteria. But I'm sure I'm wrong and you're not because you tell me so all the time.

[old_gregg]

If you're going to be that picky, then you need to be more precise in your definitions. Any market growth could Mean overall growth of the market or growth in any given segment of the market. Moreover, in the context of this discussion it seems pretty clear that moliere's example fit your criteria. But I'm sure I'm wrong and you're not because you tell me so all the time.

you're right, trump is responsible for the market gains since his election by virtue of the fact that there have been market gains since his election.

[Jeff Lebowski]

'71 says the market is better than it would be under Hillary > Old Gregg asks what a president has to do with the market > Moliere says Trump affected bank stocks > you google a couple articles saying Trump isn't responsible for the market, but then go on to point out that Clinton and Obama were good for the market based on a reporter's simple correlation study.

No, the point I have been trying to make is that I don't believe the POTUS (Trump or Clinton or Obama) has as big an impact on the market as many here seem to believe. Recall that I started with a claim that linking the rise in the market to Trump's election was over-simplistic, and backed that up with some essays on how there are broader factors at work. The point of the second link was that markets have often risen immediately after a democratic presidential election and fallen after a republican election, which is counterintuitive! and would further discredit the notion that Trump's election is responsible for the steady rise over the past year (or even the post-election bump).

Looking at trends over entire presidencies, Democrats will gleefully tell you that historically the market has performed better under democratic presidential tenures, which has been well-documented if you just look at the numbers. But I think that also is over-simplistic.

(trigger alert: I am going to link to another article)

From Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterla.../#6238c0e5239d

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting the president’s party has any statistically significant impact on U.S. equity market returns (see Campbell and Li 2004). Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.

Here is the Federal Reserve study cited:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200469/200469pap.pdf

From the conclusions:

We find that the rift between these results and the results of previous studies employing the OLS estimator results from the performance of the stock market across Democratic and Republican presidencies during volatile market conditions. During periods of high market volatility Democratic administrations have experienced significantly higher stock market returns than Republican administrations. Since this large difference in stock market performance has occurred during more volatile periods this evidence is down weighted in the WLS and GARCH estimators relative to the OLS estimator. Once the effect of stock market performance during rather volatile market environments is controlled for the apparent discrepancy between the stockmarket performance of Democrats and Republicans is largely reduced. Accordingly, the apparent disconnect between risk and return is partially resolved: these results are consistent with the notion that neither risk nor return is significantly different across the presidential cycle.

Moliere, please feel free to point out my errors!

[creekster]

you're right, trump is responsible for the market gains since his election by virtue of the fact that there have been market gains since his election.

Ummm not my point, as you know. Having a bad day at work? I hope everything is ok. 'bro.'

[Jeff Lebowski]

No - this is entirely about your assertion that you didn't participate in the discussion and hadn't made an argument, when clearly you had.

Haha. Ok chief.

This is a really funny threadjack. I think we have literally had more posts about whether or not I was arguing with moliere or byu71 than about the original question.

[Pelado]

The point of the second link was that markets have often risen immediately after a democratic presidential election and fallen after a republican election, which is counterintuitive! and would further discredit the notion that Trump's election is responsible for the steady rise over the past year (or even the post-election bump).

Why would that discredit the notion? Everyone knows Trump is a Democrat.

[creekster]

Haha. Ok chief.

This is a really funny threadjack. I think we have literally had more posts about whether or not I was arguing with moliere or byu71 than about the original question.

Maybe a moment of self-reflection would be if value.


I'm just mad because I have never been on cowboys christmas card list.

[old_gregg]

Ummm not my point, as you know. Having a bad day at work? I hope everything is ok. 'bro.'

??? i'm not being picky about anything other than requesting some kind of evidence of a causal relationship between the trump presidency and the value of "bank stocks"

[Topper]

??? i'm not being picky about anything other than requesting some kind of evidence of a causal relationship between the trump presidency and the value of "bank stocks"

Aren't financial investments relied upon in times when interest rates are expected to rise? So if people believe Trump will cause interest to rise because of Mnunchin's policies, shouldn't he be to blame for their rise?