The Economy and the Stock Market

[dawg80]

This needs to be a separate thread. The focus of THIS THREAD is the economy and the stock market, as they are, and as they react to "the forces" that influence them. Yes, that includes politics. But, this is NOT just another political thread.

Now, that said, let me start with a political comment:

if Trump wins the economy, overall, will be much better, but the stock market will be just okay. Probably about an annual 3% growth.

if Hillary wins, the economy will continue in its anemic slump, with a slightly better performance than what obummer has done to it, and the stock market will perform well, about 9% annual growth.

Why is there an inverse correlation between the economy as a whole and the stock market? Simple. Only about 5,500 companies are listed in the stock exchanges(NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX) and there are 30 million businesses (companies) in the US. When big government democraps are in control, the big companies get lucrative government contracts and prosper. Thus the stock market goes up. Government regulations, by the volumes, hamper all businesses, but the big companies have the resources to cope, while small and mid-size companies struggle mightily. So, again, the biggies benefit, the economy as a whole suffers, but the stock market goes up. That is why Hillary is peddling influence on Wall Street. They let her bash them publically, while behind closed doors, deals totaling in the $billions are being made.

Look at the 80's....under Reagan, the economy boomed! more people JOINED the middle-class than at any other time in history, except for the period immediately after WWII....1946-1949. The stock market did okay, but not great.

Look at the 90's....under Billy K., the economy did okay, and the stock market averaged 8% growth during his tenure.

Look at the 2010's....under obummer, the economy has had its WORST 7-year run in our history, an anemic annual 1.7% growth. But, the stock market....hello! More people have dropped OUT of the middle-class than at any other time in our history. 94 million Americans are not working. For the first time EVER, average household incomes are down over a 5-year (now going on 8 years) period. Only the great depression had some worst individual years, but stretched out for a 5-year period back then, obummer's record is worse. YET! the stock market has done very well since 2008's lows.

How is this possible? The conventional wisdom is the 'craps are good for the average person, and they hamstring big corporations. Right? That's what they say. The numbers say differently.

Okay, that is the political introduction to this thread. Future posts will focus on the economy, the "free" market, and yes the stock markets too.

[johnnylightnin]

You're making a great case for some international exposure!

[T1]

Clinton was president when the tech industry exploded, which caused the stock market boom.

Obama's market is being influenced by the Federal Reserve policies. Companies are borrowing at low interest rates and loaning to their own businesses... buying their own stock cheaply.

The Fed has to start raising rates soon or we will have hyperinflation. When they do, the market will correct regardless of who is president.

I would say it's just a coincidence that Democrats have been in office when the market performs well. There's really not much they can do outside of tax policies, imo.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Clinton was president when the tech industry exploded, which caused the stock market boom.

Obama's market is being influenced by the Federal Reserve policies. Companies are borrowing at low interest rates and loaning to their own businesses... buying their own stock cheaply.

The Fed has to start raising rates soon or we will have hyperinflation. When they do, the market will correct regardless of who is president.

I would say it's just a coincidence that Democrats have been in office when the market performs well. There's really not much they can do outside of tax policies, imo.

If not for Newt Gingrich (contract with America) and the Dot Com revolution, Clinton's presidency would have been a disaster.

I would add that the multi liberal, socialist billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet family , Bloomberg, Spielberg, Katzenberg, W. Koch, Opperman, Getty family, Oprah Winfrey, Winfrey Linder, William Randolph Hearst family ,Ralph Lauren, Kushner, Ted Turner etc... influence the markets and world policy more than any of us realize. And those are just the "American ones". When you throw in the bigger commie, socialist ones in Europe, world markets and policy is screwed and controlled by some pretty powerful and evil "one world order" folks.

[dawg80]

In the entire history of the US and the stock market....the NYSE began in 1792.... the market has performed better under democrapic prezzes than Repubs:

Demos - 9.7% avg. annualized returns during terms
Repubs - 6.7% returns

Only two presidents since WWII have had negative numbers for their tenures:

Nixon -5.1% (that's a negative 5.1%)
GWB -4.6%

obummer is on pace to have an overall 12.5% gain. Bill K. enjoyed an overall 14.2% gain, Reagan was at 9.4% gain. The single best was Ford at 18.6% return, but remember he inherited the rest of Nixon's 2nd term and took over just as the nation was coming out of recession (1973) and he served thru 1976. GWB inherited a robust market from Klinton (2001) and unfortunately for him, the market collapsed while he was still in office (thru 2008). So, yeah, timing has a lot to do with these stats. But, overall the market has performed better under demos (9.7%) than Repubs (6.7%). Not that 6.7% is bad....still beats getting 0.5% from a bank in some saving account.

But why do major corporations do better, earn more revenue, under demo prezzes? I mentioned it in the first post. They make a killing with big guvmint contracts. Kind of ironic, ain't it!