America's $10 Trillion richer because of Trump's policies.

[Napoleon]

LOL, those accounts are still part of your wealth, so in fact you ARE becoming richer. Beyond that many mutual funds have low minimum investments.


Here in California they've just started a program for workers not covered by pensions or retirement accounts were the employ designates an amount to be invested for him. I'm not one that needs it so I haven't really looked into it in detail.

It might be a technical part of wealth but it is meaningless in a practical sense. Expendable income is the true measure of wealth not a retirement plan that should not and cannot be accessed until 30+ years later. 401Ks and pension plans are not supposed to be used as checking accounts.

 

[Bullseye]

That's such a BS stat, hold stocks due to retirement plans, that means what? That doesn't mean they are wealthy, and most people in this country have zero retirement plans. That stat is so dishonest, becasue someone could have 10K in their 401K and the stats would say "they have investments in stocks". Very disingenuous

I'll just repost this as it is so well state

And you went after me for ad hominem attacks. :roll:



By the way, according to BLS 70% of American employees have access to retirement benefits.

 

[Bullseye]

i will vote against the Republican anti-worker model for the rest of my life.

LOL, well that's a rational, well thought out approach. Enjoy whatever crumbs the Democratic anti-worker model deigns to toss you.

 

[Bullseye]

It might be a technical part of wealth but it is meaningless in a practical sense. Expendable income is the true measure of wealth not a retirement plan that should not and cannot be accessed until 30+ years later. 401Ks and pension plans are not supposed to be used as checking accounts.

Well, that may be YOUR definitions of "wealth", but you can't spend a house either, yet it's considered "wealth".

 

[Napoleon]

Well, that may be YOUR definitions of "wealth", but you can't spend a house either, yet it's considered "wealth".

There is such a thing as being asset rich and cash poor. Why, in a consumer driven economy, should wealth be measured by anything other than the income consumers have to spend? 401Ks and pension plans are not liquid assets until the account holder reaches the eligible retirement age. So why measure wealth based on money-in-waiting that cannot be accessed to purchase goods and services?

 

[bongsaway]

This is incorrect and Stephen Moore is an idiot. Just two months ago he was forced to withdraw his nomination for an appointment to the Federal Reserve Board largely over his past inflammatory writings about women.

The fact is that most Americans do not own stock. Does a couple from North Platte, Nebraska really benefit if they own 10 shares of IBM and the market goes up? It's the rich that benefit most from this rise. Obama inherited a toilet level economy at 8.000 DJIA and left it at 20,000 DJIA, despite total sabotage from the GOP. These are facts,

The stock market is doing well because most big corporations chose stock buy-backs, rather than employee compensation, to spend their 40% tax cut. So we borrowed 2 Trillion so the owners of the means of production could invest in....themselves.

The "distribution of stock ownership by wealth percentile," specifically 84 percent for the "top 10 percent," 9.3 percent for the "next 10 percent" and 6.7 percent for the "bottom 80 percent." You don’t measure economic success by the happiness of billionaires. Wealth inequality in America has never been worse: the richest 400 Americans hold wealth equal to the bottom 150 million Americans. We need to return to pre-Reagan income tax bracket levels to outlaw billionaires. No more tax cuts for corporations, billionaires and ultra-millionaires until the National Debt is ZERO.

Facts do not matter so breaking down who actually owns the majority of stocks does not work for the right. As long as they can claim over fifty percent of americans own stock, that's all that they're interested in. I posted earlier it's the folks making over 100k a year are the ones invested in the markets. I got a lot of prove it crap.

 

[Helix]

LOL, well that's a rational, well thought out approach. Enjoy whatever crumbs the Democratic anti-worker model deigns to toss you.

Democrats are a lousy alternative option. however, i work in a red state, and that's the only viable option to get these anti-labor assholes out.

 

[VanceMack]

"America"'s richer, I'm "America", where's my piece of the trillions?

Dood...You, like so many others commenting on th thread...migh benefit from actually READING the article before you start commenting on it.

OVER HALF of Americas families own stock and millions more are invested through their companies stock options plans, 401ks, matching investment incentive programs, etc. But in order to participate in the growth you have to own stock...which means you have to find a job that will pay you decent wages and offer benefits. Not knocking your 'career' joices...but you made that bed. What...do you honestly think that the idea of wealth creation is that it magically falls to people that literally dont do ANYTHUING to build their wealth?

Wait...you DO...dont you?

You HAVE to understand. With more than half of America invested in some form of stocks YOU are the anomaly. If you miss out on this time of economic prosperity and growth it wont be because the evil rich people are talking things from you. Believe me...they arent. It will be because you were satisfied with a low wage job that will be just enough for you to get by.

My matched fund had an after contribution value increase of 4.2k last month. In one month. Its been pretty consistent in growth this year but there have been some really good months on top of the steady growth. And heres the good news for you...I didnt start getting really serious about investing in a retirement fund til my early 40s. But really...the choice is yours. Sit back like others have done in this thread and make foolish comments about how its only the 1% that are getting richer. Or...get in the game.

 

[Bullseye]

Democrats are a lousy alternative option. however, i work in a red state, and that's the only viable option to get these anti-labor assholes out.

"Anti-labor"? In what way?

 

[Bullseye]

There is such a thing as being asset rich and cash poor. Why, in a consumer driven economy, should wealth be measured by anything other than the income consumers have to spend? 401Ks and pension plans are not liquid assets until the account holder reaches the eligible retirement age. So why measure wealth based on money-in-waiting that cannot be accessed to purchase goods and services?

IF that were there only assets you'd have a point, but I'd guess most retirement account holders have liquid cash flow as well.

 

[Helix]

"Anti-labor"? In what way?

in every way. right to work for less and fire at will are a couple of many examples.

 

[Napoleon]

IF that were there only assets you'd have a point, but I'd guess most retirement account holders have liquid cash flow as well.

We have paychecks. And the actual liquid cash flow from paychecks hardly makes anyone anywhere near wealthy. So if the case you’re making for crediting Trump with allegedly making Americans wealthy is limited to retirement accounts then you don’t really have one.

 

[Bullseye]

We have paychecks. And the actual liquid cash flow from paychecks hardly makes anyone anywhere near wealthy. So if the case you’re making for crediting Trump with allegedly making Americans wealthy is limited to retirement accounts then you don’t really have one.

It's not. Nor am I claiming he's making people wealthy instantaneously; wealth is build over time by those wise enough to start building.

 

[Napoleon]

It's not. Nor am I claiming he's making people wealthy instantaneously; wealth is build over time by those wise enough to start building.

It can be or all those gains could be lost in an instant if somebody farts in the Middle East somewhere and spooks the speculators. The kind of wealth you’re talking about is neither accessible or stable by design never-mind malfeasance ala Goldman Sachs so what’s the relevance?

 

[Bullseye]

It can be or all those gains could be lost in an instant if somebody farts in the Middle East somewhere and spooks the speculators. The kind of wealth your talking about is neither accessible or stable by design so what’s the relevance?

LOL, good thing we've worked our way to energy independence; now Arab farts don't matter. :lamo

 

[Airyaman]

If you consider 50% of families "the rich", what you say is true; otherwise just mental flatulence.

Using a simplistic view that 50% of people have stocks and then saying they all got wealthier is just that -- simplistic. Not all stocks gained in value in those 30 months.

 

[Bullseye]

Using a simplistic view that 50% of people have stocks and then saying they all got wealthier is just that -- simplistic. Not all stocks gained in value in those 30 months.

Yeah, I'm sure there were a few. I understand your desperation to avoid giving Trump any positive recognition.

 

[Moot]

Since Trump's elections $10 Trillion has been created in American's wealth.
Not a bad thirty month result.

Do not buy this class warfare nonsense that only the rich prosper when stocks do better. It is true the wealthy own a lot of stocks because they have more money to invest. But a recent Gallup poll found that more than half of American households own stocks directly, and millions more own stocks through their union or company pension plans. When companies do better, workers and families do better. Moreover, hiring and benefits are highly correlated with the stock market. Very few companies provide bonuses, wage increases, or job offerings when they are losing money.
One thing is certain. ...

And yes bear markets do occur - probably a slam dunk if any of the current dem clowns manages to beat Trump in 2020.

It says here that 78 percent of American workers are living paycheck to paycheck. So when are are all those trillions going to start trickling down?

Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck, according to a 2017 report by employment website CareerBuilder. Women are particularly vulnerable: 81 percent of them report living paycheck to paycheck, compared with 75 percent of men. - Jan 9, 2019
Shutdown highlights that 4 in 5 US workers live paycheck to paycheck - Page not found...​

Tomorrow, Chairman Powell of the federal reserve is going to testify before congress. It'll be interesting to see what he has to say about the economy and Trump's attempted interference.

When Powell appears in front of the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Banking Committee the following day, investors are seeking reassurance that Powell will reaffirm his commitment to keeping the Federal Reserve as an independent and apolitical body in the face of complaints and threats coming from the White House to fire or demote him.

As recently as Sunday, President Donald Trump asserted that the Dow Jones Industrial Average — which recently has fallen off record highs on worries over slowing global growth and trade tensions weighing on earnings — would be up to 10,000 points higher if the Fed cut rates and halted its balance sheet unwinding...

Fed head Powell wants to talk policy, but he can'''t avoid politics

Trump's interference in the market is making it volatile. It remains to be seen how long the feds can hold him off before he tanks the economy and the dems will have to clean up the mess...again.

 

[Airyaman]

Yeah, I'm sure there were a few. I understand your desperation to avoid giving Trump any positive recognition.

What did Trump do specifically that contributed to this?

I've never give any politician credit or criticism for the stock market, so why would I start with this one?

 

[smallvoice]

Added wealth to whom? THe top 1% and nobody else

I got me some of that. Why didn't you?

 

[smallvoice]

i would have benefitted more from a first world health care access system, union representation, and raises that outpaced inflation as the economy boomed.

You'll have to take that whine up with Obama.

 

[Helix]

You'll have to take that whine up with Obama.

#butObama

 

[smallvoice]

#butObama

Good. You understand.

 

[Helix]

Good. You understand.

definitely.

 

[Napoleon]

What did Trump do specifically that contributed to this?

I've never give any politician credit or criticism for the stock market, so why would I start with this one?

I normally don’t either, but this President has done more than most to influence the markets through tariffs, trade negotiations, threats of war, and random tweets. I’m just not sold on the idea that, on balance, what he has done thus far has been a good influence on the market either in the short or long term. So I too am interested to see Bullseye connect some dots.