Trump's stock market beats ALL modern day Dems! MAGA!!

[TomS]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-stock-market-record-stacks-193002360.html

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-11-11 10:29 p.m., TomS wrote:
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-stock-market-record-stacks-193002360.html
>

Convenient for you to be able to decide which "Dems" to include and
which not...

[-hh]

The assumptions used are keys in papers like this - the current low inflation
being a key example, as is also deficit spending.


And from the article itself:

“It’s worth noting, though, that there’s not a whole lot separating him
from John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. A bad week
or two, and he could easily fall to eighth place.”

As well as the reader comments, such as:

“Trump jumped on a speeding train. He didn't create stock market growth.
He inherited it. Like he inherited a growing economy and a record setting
monthly job growth streak. The only thing he did was give a huge f_____
tax cut to the wealthy and guess what, they blew that money on the stock
market. Did FDR, Truman or Eisenhower do that? No. Back when they
were president the wealthy paid significantly more of their income in taxes.
So what does that mean. It means that this stock growth for Trump is
primarily inherited, was helped along by tax cuts for the rich which are
increasing our deficit and debt and all at a time when interest rates are
exceedingly low historically. In essence this market is rigged completely
and will implode soon enough.

We all know that business investments have been pulling back, there’s
talk again of a market bubble (Buffet is very heavy on cash) and pretty
much the only thing stopping a crash right now is consumer confidence.


-hh

[TomS]

How convenient for you to IGNORE REALITY!

[TomS]

Beat is beat. Period.

Libtards like you make reader comments - not worth reading.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 11:35:32 AM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 3:30:17 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > The assumptions used are keys in papers like this - the current low inflation
> > being a key example, as is also deficit spending.
> >
> >
> > And from the article itself:
> >
> > “It’s worth noting, though, that there’s not a whole lot separating him
> > from John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. A bad week
> > or two, and he could easily fall to eighth place.”
> >
> > As well as the reader comments, such as:
> >
> > “Trump jumped on a speeding train. He didn't create stock market growth.
> > He inherited it. Like he inherited a growing economy and a record setting
> > monthly job growth streak. The only thing he did was give a huge f_____
> > tax cut to the wealthy and guess what, they blew that money on the stock
> > market. Did FDR, Truman or Eisenhower do that? No. Back when they
> > were president the wealthy paid significantly more of their income in taxes.
> > So what does that mean. It means that this stock growth for Trump is
> > primarily inherited, was helped along by tax cuts for the rich which are
> > increasing our deficit and debt and all at a time when interest rates are
> > exceedingly low historically. In essence this market is rigged completely
> > and will implode soon enough.

{editorial correction: end of quote}

> > We all know that business investments have been pulling back, there’s
> > talk again of a market bubble (Buffet is very heavy on cash) and pretty
> > much the only thing stopping a crash right now is consumer confidence.
> >
> >
> > -hh
>
> Beat is beat. Period.

"While the efficient markets hypothesis continues to be taught
by some, it has been proven that markets are over-reactive dynamic
systems, and investors are not always rational."
- Simply Wall St. November 10, 2019

> Libtards like you make reader comments - not worth reading.

Oh, so then this comment must be thrown out too:

"Trump’s a good man, and an excellent business tycoon. If
the nation doesn’t dip into recession or depression by 2025,
then we know his business strategies have worked for the
long term."

Of course, the unspoken corollary is if a dip before 2025, then...



-hh

[Alan Baker]

You're the one ignoring reality, Snowflake.

You picked and chose WHICH Democrat presidents you'd include.

:-)

[TomS]

LOL!

When I first made this very same point you likened it to GAMBLING:

> BUT you can observe human behavior and bet on the probabilities, which in this case
> that they will come back to their senses after a panic.

Put your money down on Black and spin that roulette wheel! /s

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

I picked the LAST FOUR, including your HERO, Obummer!

[-hh]

Yes, because what you were doing is betting on the people in the Market,
not the actual fundamentals of any of the companies. As such, you were
gambling, not investing.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, Snowflake... ...but no politicians of any stripe are heroes to me.

[TomS]

WRONG AGAIN, Loser! The fundamentals of ALXN are, and were, outstanding. Your OWN post proves EXACTLY what I was doing: observing irrational behavior and taking advantage of it.

[TomS]

Not even Obummer?

[Alan Baker]

Was my sentence unclear to you?

[-hh]

> WRONG AGAIN, Loser! The fundamentals of ALXN are, and were, outstanding.

But if that's true, then why did you sell instead of holding?

> Your OWN post proves EXACTLY what I was doing: observing irrational
> behavior and taking advantage of it.

Nope. Your admission above that ALXN has solid fundamentals even though
you've bailed out of it is an illustration that you're gambling not investing.

Similarly, there's also your CVX buy which failed to pan out as you had hoped,
which you've been silent in mentioning because you want everyone to forget
about that not-an-investment gamble.


-hh

[TomS]

I answered that question before.