I am asking in all honesty. I have a Dem who sold his positions in the stock market before Trump took office and I was wondering if he was pissed and just sold or was it a higher percent of Dems that sold for whatever reason?
I sold stock before the election believing that Ms. Clinton would be elected, and missed some up before I got back in about a month later.
He might have been listening to Paul Krugman. He predicted economic calamity and a market crash from which we'd never recover. Krugman might be the most discredited economist in the country, because he very baldly lets his partisanship drive his economic analyses. At this point he should be taken about as seriously as palm reader. However, he's a very shrill partisan, so many Democrats do listen to him.
This type of baseless alarmism is why I have tuned out most of the so-called economic experts. Trump had several pro-business positions. The only reason to be somewhat nervous was his free trade stance but in no other way would he be worse for business than Obama had been.
The overwhelming majority of economists you see on TV had their ideology and assumptions discredited in the '70s. If they ever had to publicly answer for everything they've been wrong about since then, nobody would take them seriously anymore.
Yeah, I wonder if some of the animus from the Dems (thinking of a friend) is that they missed out on a huge rally because they think there **** don’t stink (compared to Trump). Sort of like how Obama’s foreign policy never changed in 8 years even after it failed time and time again.
Yep, I heard the alarmist and how Trump was going to screw the economy. The Dem did too and sold, I didn't I went all in. I just wanted to get a little survey of what people did when Trump was elected. It was the same people who had Clinton winning the election.
When DT was elected, I took the portion of my portfolio that was invested in international stocks and redirected it to US stocks.
What ever happened to Musberger? I remember he was trying to scare everyone that the market would collapse a couple years ago (give or take).
I naively assumes market forces would increase interest rates in response to massive debt accrual. The various central banks around the world have destroyed market forces, doubled down on debt issuance, and ended price discovery. It will eventually end badly, but no one knows when or what the catalyst will be.
I pretty much stayed fully invested. I think the tax cuts are bad for my kids, but good for my 401K. Honestly, from an economic stimulus perspective, the corporate tax cuts make more sense than the ones for individuals.
To match the tax revenue that will be lost? No tax cut to date have ever paid for itself. I took it as a reference to additional debt his kids would be responsible for.
It may or may not pay for itself. Despite what Husker thinks there have been tax cuts that have paid for themselves but there are also times where it hasn't(like in Kansas). However, Obama's nearly 4 trillion dollars of quantitative easing was way worse to our debt than what this tax cut could do.
Obama's. Before you yell "BUSH DID IT TOO", Bush didn't do nearly as much. Obama burned nearly as much money on quantitative easing alone as Bush added to the total debt. Let me guess, you found an article from The Washington Post or NYT that tries to put the blame on Bush for Obama's spending?
Ben Bernanke is "Obama's people"? Let's talk about the purposeful wall between the Federal Reserve and the Executive Branch. Ron Paul has been railing on the independence of the Federal Reserve for years.
If he did not do as Obama wished would he not have been replaced in 2010? Do you think Trump would tolerate 4 trillion dollars of quantitative easing under his watch? Come on. This is on Obama.
http://www.aei.org/publication/how-the-fed-works/ 4) Do Congress and the President influence the Fed? "The founders of the Federal Reserve understood that sound monetary policy requires central bankers to make unpopular decisions. As a result, the 1913 law gave the Fed a much higher degree of independence than other government agencies. The Fed has its own source of funds, so Congress cannot guide monetary policy through withholding or bestowing appropriations. Governors are appointed for 14-year terms, tenure that is second in length only to the lifetime appointments of federal judges. But the independence has boundaries. Each member of the seven-person Board of Governors is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Reserve must report annually to the Speaker of the House and twice annually to the banking committees of Congress. Of course, Congress can pass new laws affecting the Fed at any time. And Fed bankers read the newspapers. They aren’t completely insulated from politics."
The tolerance would depend on the situation. Theoretically the QE was the only option available short of an industrial revolution such as we saw in the 1990's. If the economy was tanking would Trump just sit back and let it self-adjust (revalue) while watching a major percentage of wealth go down the drain with the subsequent impact on consumer confidence and business investment?
My guess is he would have let the quantitative easing go until 2010. Bernanke then would have been replaced by someone else who would not have kept it going. Bernake kept it going for way too long and it became too expensive to justify. That's on Obama.
Ok, so I'm trying to track this. Bernanke was nominated by Bush for a 4-year term as chairman. Obama then nominated him for a second term which was approved by a 70-30 vote by the Senate (Dissent: 11 Dems, 18 Republicans, 1 Indepedent). So you think he was influenced (or a stronger adjective?) by Obama and was not operating independently to continue the QE?
Here's another comment (from Wikipedia) that supports the idea of Fed independence: "Although an instrument of the U.S. Government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."
I don't know about influence but the fact that he received his second nomination in 2010 tells you it was because Obama was happy with the quantitative easing. Obama could have pulled the plug on the easing by getting a supply side guy in 2010. That's why this is Obama's fault. The agency may have it's independence but the nomination process insures that the president will get his way.
