djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,064
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 16, 2019 13:14:23 GMT -5
incidentally, the stock market has gone nowhere for the last 17 months. the dow has been stuck at 26k (mostly lower than that, actually). so yeah, it is up 31% since 3 months before Trump was president. but it was up that same amount in January of 2018. your fingers must be stained red from all that cherry picking, Value Buy
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,386
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 17, 2019 9:01:56 GMT -5
I never thought he would be a disaster for the markets. He promised to cut regulations and cut taxes. The markets love that. I'm not sure we have a stable economy, or a healthy country, but the markets are riding on the promise that business can do whatever they want, no matter who gets hurt. Kind of negative. Businesses hire more people when doing well. Neither party has a good track record of providing "good" jobs in recent history.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 13:04:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:11:51 GMT -5
Or the mathematical differentiation can be shown in regards to the size of Obama's starting point vs Trumps. 140% of a much smaller number, doesn't equate to 31% of a much larger number. Kind of humorous what gets ignored. yeah, it really is.
140% of 8000 is a HELL of a lot more than 31% of 18000.
but more importantly, if you are judging your returns on an absolute basis, you are going to get ignored. literally nobody does it that way.
so, yeah, your biases are clearly showing, @jma
So's yours. Quote; The DJIA hit a market low of 6,469.95 on March 6, 2009, having lost over 54% of its value since the October 9, 2007 high The bear market reversed course on March 9, 2009, as the DJIA rebounded more than 20% from its low to 7924.56 after a mere three weeks of gains. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2007%E2%80%9309Do you think the +20% gain in three weeks after, was because of Obama's policies ? Or, was it the size of the near recession drop, and a % of mere opportunity
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 13:04:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:17:13 GMT -5
Kind of negative. Businesses hire more people when doing well. false. Businesses hire more people when forecast that demand will exceed production capacity. period.
a company doing poorly might very well hire to take advantage of a good forecast.
Continuum fallacy. You just added another reason why a company will hire. Hiring is not just restricted to forecasts. Orders are placed for production, often before forecasts are made.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 13:04:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 12:38:54 GMT -5
Kind of negative. Businesses hire more people when doing well. Neither party has a good track record of providing "good" jobs in recent history. I have to agree. Nonsupervisory pay has only held steady. fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI/
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,875
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 17, 2019 12:43:24 GMT -5
the Dow was up 140% under Obama. but this number clearly can be ignored. and that was in spite of him being in office holding it back. Should have been up 240%. Do not forget as the market rises ever higher, the same percentage rise is harder to reach after a couple of years Much of the rise came in his eighth year in office when the markets knew he was finished and either Hillary or Trump would be better for them than Obama. So the market goes up 140% under Obama, and you bitch that it would have been 240%, if he wasn't 'holding it back.'
Yet you celebrate it being up 30% under Trump, because you claim it is at least 'partly' due to his greatness. Then you go ahead and list a whole string of non-Trump related things that could happen that would cause a recession - none of it being the fault of Trump's policies.
Seems like whatever Trump does, he's blameless, and whatever Obama did, he screwed it up.
I don't think I'll be taking my market predictions from you, in the future. You seem pretty biased.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,064
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2019 15:12:44 GMT -5
false. Businesses hire more people when forecast that demand will exceed production capacity. period.
a company doing poorly might very well hire to take advantage of a good forecast.
Continuum fallacy. it is not a continuum fallacy, because "doing well" is insufficient to produce hiring.
this is like saying that because you have gas in your tank, you can drive to work, not knowing your car is missing ignition wires.
PS- thanks for exposing me to a new term.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,064
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2019 15:16:52 GMT -5
Hiring is not just restricted to forecasts. Orders are placed for production, often before forecasts are made. sorry if I made it seem like it was ONLY forecasts.
what I was trying to say is that it is irrational to hire UNLESS there is forecasted growth. that does not mean they will hire if they forecast growth (or DEMAND, if you prefer that term). for example: they might have sufficient capacity to meet it (that is the case with my mfg business).
this argument is between "necessary" and "sufficient".
a business that is "doing well" may be sufficient to hire, but they will not find it necessary until forecasted demand exceeds capacity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,064
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2019 15:21:17 GMT -5
my point is this:
I am not running a f(*king charity. I am not going to hire simply because I am doing well. if I am doing well, and can do better by FIRING people, I will FIRE people. I will ONLY hire if I have NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. having employees is a royal pain. it has to be worth it to me to make that move. and I have to be SURE I am going to need them, because it is WAY harder to fire than it is to hire, in the most general case.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,064
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 17, 2019 15:27:49 GMT -5
yeah, it really is.
140% of 8000 is a HELL of a lot more than 31% of 18000.
but more importantly, if you are judging your returns on an absolute basis, you are going to get ignored. literally nobody does it that way.
so, yeah, your biases are clearly showing, @jma
So's yours. Quote; The DJIA hit a market low of 6,469.95 on March 6, 2009, having lost over 54% of its value since the October 9, 2007 high The bear market reversed course on March 9, 2009, as the DJIA rebounded more than 20% from its low to 7924.56 after a mere three weeks of gains. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2007%E2%80%9309Do you think the +20% gain in three weeks after, was because of Obama's policies ? Or, was it the size of the near recession drop, and a % of mere opportunity the latter.
but this was not an argument about which president did better. at least not for me. I think both of us agree that Obama did better. so then this boils down to WHY Obama did better. and the answer is that he had MORE OPPORTUNITY to do better. and clearly, Obama did have MORE OPPORTUNITY. if that was your point, I concede it.
my point is that taking market gains in absolute terms is absurd. if the dow goes from 700 to 1400, that is way different than having it go from 25000 to 25700. nobody would even consider debating that in any other venue than this one.
that was my point. f(*k Obama. f*&k Trump. f*&k Bush. I don't give a crap about US presidents.
but I do care about math.
edit: lmk if you still think that I am biased, friendo.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,386
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 18, 2019 10:11:33 GMT -5
my point is this: I am not running a f(*king charity. I am not going to hire simply because I am doing well. if I am doing well, and can do better by FIRING people, I will FIRE people. I will ONLY hire if I have NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. having employees is a royal pain. it has to be worth it to me to make that move. and I have to be SURE I am going to need them, because it is WAY harder to fire than it is to hire, in the most general case. My company had a banner year, and they put on a hiring freeze and challenged each group to reduce headcount by 10%.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 13:04:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 10:59:21 GMT -5
it is not a continuum fallacy, because "doing well" is insufficient to produce hiring.
this is like saying that because you have gas in your tank, you can drive to work, not knowing your car is missing ignition wires.
PS- thanks for exposing me to a new term.
We can probably go all day on the bolded, but no need, I get the point you're trying to make.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 13:04:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 11:02:09 GMT -5
So's yours. Quote; The DJIA hit a market low of 6,469.95 on March 6, 2009, having lost over 54% of its value since the October 9, 2007 high The bear market reversed course on March 9, 2009, as the DJIA rebounded more than 20% from its low to 7924.56 after a mere three weeks of gains. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bear_market_of_2007%E2%80%9309Do you think the +20% gain in three weeks after, was because of Obama's policies ? Or, was it the size of the near recession drop, and a % of mere opportunity the latter.
but this was not an argument about which president did better. at least not for me. I think both of us agree that Obama did better. so then this boils down to WHY Obama did better. and the answer is that he had MORE OPPORTUNITY to do better. and clearly, Obama did have MORE OPPORTUNITY. if that was your point, I concede it.
my point is that taking market gains in absolute terms is absurd. if the dow goes from 700 to 1400, that is way different than having it go from 25000 to 25700. nobody would even consider debating that in any other venue than this one.
that was my point. f(*k Obama. f*&k Trump. f*&k Bush. I don't give a crap about US presidents.
but I do care about math.
edit: lmk if you still think that I am biased, friendo.
My point was opportunity. I think you are one of the least biased people on this site.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 24, 2024 13:04:41 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2019 11:07:25 GMT -5
my point is this: I am not running a f(*king charity. I am not going to hire simply because I am doing well. if I am doing well, and can do better by FIRING people, I will FIRE people. I will ONLY hire if I have NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. having employees is a royal pain. it has to be worth it to me to make that move. and I have to be SURE I am going to need them, because it is WAY harder to fire than it is to hire, in the most general case. I would of done better by saying that I hired when the workload required it, not "doing well" which leaves out the requirement issue, which forecasts don't cover in certain situations.
|
|