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

[Airyaman]

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.

I'll give you that. I was ready to list caveats, as this president has done more to meddle with the private sector than past presidents. But none before him were so heavily invested in the private sector and simultaneously unwilling to separate themselves from their private sector earnings. Yet no one cares.

Trump is pushing the system to the max, and he is getting away with it. I hope he gets a second term. He will hopefully wreck our government, who seems to be filled with spineless ass-kissers who fear losing office more than serving their country. **** em' all.

 

[Bullseye]

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?

You have an right to your own opinions, no matter how idiotic and incorrect they are. Seriously, from the DAY AFTER he was elected the markets have risen dramatically for a couple of reasons. 1) economic decision maker saw the end of anti-prosperity Obamanomics and the return to pro-growth policies and 2) Trump fought through Dem obstruction and DELIVERED lower taxes, reduced regulation and a stable economic environment. The stock markets are generally considered leading indicators and they continue to indicate business and consumer enthusiasm in the strength and potential of the economic. Your mileage may differ.

 

[Airyaman]

You have an right to your own opinions, no matter how idiotic and incorrect they are.

Please demonstrate how my opinion may be "idiotic and incorrect". The stock market is basically trending along the same path as it was during the Obama recovery period, there was no noticeable acceleration.

Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart | MacroTrends

Seriously, from the DAY AFTER he was elected the markets have risen dramatically for a couple of reasons. <snip>

See above link. Trends do not support this statement so the rest is garbage.

 

[Bullseye]

Please demonstrate how my opinion may be "idiotic and incorrect". The stock market is basically trending along the same path as it was during the Obama recovery period, there was no noticeable acceleration.
Dow Jones - 10 Year Daily Chart | MacroTrends



See above link. Trends do not support this statement so the rest is garbage.

Seriously? You don't see that huge upswing around the first of November 2016? You may be the only living person on the fact of the earth that can't see it.

 

[Airyaman]

Seriously? You don't see that huge upswing around the first of November 2016? You may be the only living person on the fact of the earth that can't see it.

So he had an effect on the market before he even took office? Even before making any policies?

Sounds like voodoo.

Or doo-doo.

 

[bearpoker]

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



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

So Americas billionaires are billions richer. Why should I care?

 

[Bullseye]

So he had an effect on the market before he even took office? Even before making any policies?

Sounds like voodoo.

Or doo-doo.

As I said the market looks to the future. Escaping the anti-business, anti-prosperity nightmare of Obamanomics and the prospect of pro-business, pro-economic growth under Trump signaled a future of economic growth and prosperity and encouraged investors to bet on prosperity.


No voodoo involved.

 

[Bullseye]

So Americas billionaires are billions richer. Why should I care?

so you think half the population are billionaires? That's the percentage of Americans that benefited from the stock market gains. Even a few in Tennessee. :lol:

 

[iguanaman]

oh, yawn, how many times are you going to spew this nonsense.
It was at a historic high throughout the Obama Administration - Trump inherited that.

• the federal deficit is at a historic high

Not true Obama had at least four deficits higher than any Trump has had.
LOL, you finally got something right, and Trump's working on that as we speak
So friggin' what? Wanna better those wealthy ones learned the value of investing and smart money management from an early age and worked their way up the employment chain rather than whining about somebody making or having more than them?
So mostly you don't like what Trump inherited or what he's improved on. Why am I not surprised.

Trumps soon to be trillion$ deficit is unprecedented in a "healthy" economy. Obama had a Great Recession that cratered revenue left him to deal with by the last GOP President. There is no excuse for these rising deficits in a supposedly strong economy. What happens when it tanks?

 

[Airyaman]

As I said the market looks to the future. Escaping the anti-business, anti-prosperity nightmare of Obamanomics and the prospect of pro-business, pro-economic growth under Trump signaled a future of economic growth and prosperity and encouraged investors to bet on prosperity.


No voodoo involved.

So you're just basically making **** up...

 

[Bullseye]

So you're just basically making **** up...

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed or idiotic it happens to be.

 

[Bullseye]

Trumps soon to be trillion$ deficit is unprecedented in a "healthy" economy. Obama had a Great Recession that cratered revenue left him to deal with by the last GOP President. There is no excuse for these rising deficits in a supposedly strong economy. What happens when it tanks?

The reason for the expanding deficit is congressional spending, and BOTH parties are at fault. Tax revenues are up.

 

[iguanaman]

The reason for the expanding deficit is congressional spending, and BOTH parties are at fault. Tax revenues are up.

The CBO says the Trump tax cuts are responsible for much of the deficit. We charged $202 billion more on the credit card so billionaires could sock more away and corporations could buy back stock to raise their executive bonuses and you like it.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated fiscal 2018 revenue would be $3.5 trillion under the laws that were in place before President Donald Trump signed the GOP tax cut bill. The actual amount Treasury reported Monday was $202 billion less. That $202 billion would have more than covered the $127 billion in extra spending in 2018.

This comparison, to tax revenues that were expected had the laws stayed the same, unambiguously shows that virtually all of the federal deficit increase that occurred from 2017 to 2018 was because of the new cuts in corporate and individual taxes. Had the tax changes not been enacted, the federal deficit in 2018 would have dropped to well below $600 billion, rather than rising to close to $800 billion.

Blame Republican tax cuts for skyrocketing federal deficits and debt

 

[ashurbanipal]

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



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

The value of all American stocks today is estimated at roughly $36 trillion, according to a report by Nasdaq. So we have already seen a $10 trillion to $12 trillion wealth boost under this president...It is also equivalent to roughly $10,000 for every American household.

I take it the idea is that American households own all that stock (which is not correct; a lot of it is foreign-owned), and hence they are all somehow enriched. But as the article notes, only about 100 million Americans own stock--and, at a guess, most of those only own a few shares. Companies I've previously consulted with who had stock share vestment as a benefit only gave, on average, something like 50 shares per full year of service, so that someone with a full 40 year career at that company would retire with a whopping total of 2000 shares. But of course, very few employees last 40 years at a single company any more. Many people do own some stock, but the vast majority is owned by the wealthy. See, for example, here:

The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

Furthermore, there seems to be an error of at least one order of magnitude in the above calculation. If that $10 trillion (to take the low number--that's 10 with 12 zeroes after it) were distributed evenly over the approximately 100 million American households as the article suggests, that would be $100,000 per household, not $10,000, as the article asserts. (10,000,000,000,000/100,000,000=100,000). I doubt that very many people seriously believe the net worth of every (or most) middle class households in American has improved by $100,000 since Trump took office.

I'm sure the net worth of all Americans in sum has probably increased since Trump took office. But as other posters have recognized, almost all of that has continued to flow to the upper echelons. I cannot for the life of me think why someone should find this article persuasive. Only someone who is already in the grip of an ideology (and someone who cannot do basic math) would agree with its conclusions.

 

[Bullseye]

I take it the idea is that American households own all that stock (which is not correct; a lot of it is foreign-owned), and hence they are all somehow enriched.

Foreign ownership doesn't effect the benefits accrued by American owners.

But as the article notes, only about 100 million Americans own stock--and, at a guess, most of those only own a few shares.

And do you suppose some of those hundred million just might be part of a family?

Companies I've previously consulted with who had stock share vestment as a benefit only gave, on average, something like 50 shares per full year of service, so that someone with a full 40 year career at that company would retire with a whopping total of 2000 shares. But of course, very few employees last 40 years at a single company any more. Many people do own some stock, but the vast majority is owned by the wealthy.

So what - some of those "wealthy" got that way buy stock appreciation.

See, for example, here:

The Richest 10% of Americans Now Own 84% of All Stocks | Money

Why does that matter. The article doesn't claim that every shareholder became a billionaire since Trump was elected; just that hundreds of millions have benefited.

Furthermore, there seems to be an error of at least one order of magnitude in the above calculation. If that $10 trillion (to take the low number--that's 10 with 12 zeroes after it) were distributed evenly over the approximately 100 million American households as the article suggests, that would be $100,000 per household, not $10,000, as the article asserts. (10,000,000,000,000/100,000,000=100,000). I doubt that very many people seriously believe the net worth of every (or most) middle class households in American has improved by $100,000 since Trump took office.

Assuming it WAS evenly distributed you would be correct, but, as you observed above the stock ISN'T evenly distributed: mutual funds, retirement plans, insurance companies comprise the largest pool of share holders.
"

I'm sure the net worth of all Americans in sum has probably increased since Trump took office. But as other posters have recognized, almost all of that has continued to flow to the upper echelons. I cannot for the life of me think why someone should find this article persuasive. Only someone who is already in the grip of an ideology (and someone who cannot do basic math) would agree with its conclusions.

Why does it matter is if some got more because they had MORE invested? Class warfare and jealousy shouldn't matter.

 

[Bullseye]

The CBO says the Trump tax cuts are responsible for much of the deficit. We charged $202 billion more on the credit card so billionaires could sock more away and corporations could buy back stock to raise their executive bonuses and you like it.

Actually, no it doesn't. That was a PRE-cut projection that turned out disastrously wrong. The monthly CBO budget report that came out yesterday said revenues are ahead of what they were at this time last year. As usual any deficit grow was the result of SPENDING.

Blame Republican tax cuts for skyrocketing federal deficits and debt

You understand the meaning of the word "opinion" what you linked proves nothing other than the authors prejudices.

 

[Riverside]

If the things Trump has done...tax reform, regulatory reform, trade deals, etc, are kept as the direction for the country in the next 30 years everyone, including the grandkids, will be better off than anyone on Main Street has been for the last 30 years.

How about the trillion dollar deficit? Remember those deficits that were the doom of the nation when Obama was president?

 

[iguanaman]

Actually, no it doesn't. That was a PRE-cut projection that turned out disastrously wrong. The monthly CBO budget report that came out yesterday said revenues are ahead of what they were at this time last year. As usual any deficit grow was the result of SPENDING.
You understand the meaning of the word "opinion" what you linked proves nothing other than the authors prejudices.

So you can't read? Revenues would have been over $200 billion more without the tax cuts which would have more than covered the increase in spending which is mostly on the military.

 

[Bullseye]

So you can't read? Revenues would have been over $200 billion more without the tax cuts which would have more than covered the increase in spending which is mostly on the military.

I can read and understand the word "opinion", apparently you can't.

 

[Airyaman]

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how ill-informed or idiotic it happens to be.

You keep saying that without ever doing anything to support it...

 

[Bullseye]

You keep saying that without ever doing anything to support it...

I gave you information, not just my opinion, but info I've gleaned from several economists. You chose to not accept it - that's your right.

 

[Mycroft]

How about the trillion dollar deficit? Remember those deficits that were the doom of the nation when Obama was president?

Sure. At one time...and from time to time when someone needs a political talking point...the deficit was a concern. No politician really cares about it enough to do anything about it. It's a non-issue.

 

[Airyaman]

I gave you information, not just my opinion, but info I've gleaned from several economists. You chose to not accept it - that's your right.

You gave me...nothing.

Are you hallucinating?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Foreign ownership doesn't effect the benefits accrued by American owners.

I’m not trying to say that actual conditions are not what they are. I am saying that the article is incorrect. It implies that the gain in stock value has resulted in a net worth gain only to Americans. In fact, a substantial portion of the gain it claims has accrued to foreigners. The article failed to mention that.

And do you suppose some of those hundred million just might be part of a family?

I’m sure they are. So what?

So what - some of those "wealthy" got that way buy stock appreciation.

The article is trading on a non-sequitur. The wealthy got wealthier under Trump (as under roughly the last 8 Presidents) while the middle and lower classes saw negligible gains (see previous remark about last 8 Presidents). The article conflates stock ownership with wealth concentration in stocks. That $10 trillion dollar net gain did little to help anyone aside from the wealthy, which is exactly the fact the article seeks to obscure.

Why does that matter. The article doesn't claim that every shareholder became a billionaire since Trump was elected; just that hundreds of millions have benefited.

Nothing cited in the article warrants that conclusion. And furthermore, even if it were true, the point is that “benefit” is an ambiguous term. That $10 trillion can be distributed all sorts of ways; the way it actually is distributed makes it more or less irrelevant to the vast majority of people, at least a great many of whom are nevertheless apparently persuaded by this kind of article to vote for the guy who will increase their debt to ensure some billionaires get even more money.

Assuming it WAS evenly distributed you would be correct, but, as you observed above the stock ISN'T evenly distributed: mutual funds, retirement plans, insurance companies comprise the largest pool of share holders.

First, the answer to “what is ten trillion divided by one hundred million” doesn’t change based on how stock is distributed. It is likely the author wanted to trade on the mathematical ineptitude of a certain group of voters to make his implied point plausible. But in fact it is not plausible. Hardly anyone has seen a $100k improvement in their situation. The author wants to claim that Trump has been good for the country, but to make that claim, has to reckon with the fact that the country comprises a lot of non-billionaires.

Why does it matter is if some got more because they had MORE invested? Class warfare and jealousy shouldn't matter.

When the wealthy stop waging class warfare, I’ll agree with you. But those who have more invested got that more to invest off the backs of others, except in a few rare cases.

 

[Bullseye]

I’m not trying to say that actual conditions are not what they are. I am saying that the article is incorrect. It implies that the gain in stock value has resulted in a net worth gain to Americans. In fact, a substantial portion of the gain it claims accrued to foreigners. The article failed to mention that.



I’m sure they are. So what?



The article is trading on a non-sequitur. The wealthy got wealthier under Trump (as under roughly the last 8 Presidents) while the middle and lower classes saw negligible gains (see previous remark about last 8 Presidents). The article conflates stock ownership with wealth concentration in stocks. That $10 trillion dollar net gain did little to help anyone aside from the wealthy, which is exactly the fact the article seeks to obscure.



Nothing cited in the article warrants that conclusion. And furthermore, even if it were true, the point is that “benefit” is an ambiguous term. That $10 trillion can be distributed all sorts of ways; the way it actually is distributed makes it more or less irrelevant to the vast majority of people, at least a great many of whom are nevertheless apparently persuaded by this kind of article to vote for the guy who will increase their debt to ensure some billionaires get even more money.



First, the answer to “what is ten trillion divided by one hundred million” doesn’t change based on how stock is distributed. It is likely the author wanted to trade on the mathematical ineptitude of a certain group of voters to make his implied point plausible. But in fact it is not plausible. Hardly anyone has seen a $100k improvement in their situation. The author wants to claim that Trump has been good for the country, but to make that claim, has to reckon with the fact that the country comprises a lot of non-billionaires.



When the wealthy stop waging class warfare, I’ll agree with you. But those who have more invested got that more to invest off the backs of others, except in a few rare cases.

Ok, far too fragmented for a reply. Have a good evening.