BS has created stock but backs mostly. Both more jobs were made and better performance on the stock market during Obama. Do math

Big gains are much easier to make, both on the stock and the job markets, coming out of a recession than in an already very mature economic cycle.

Obama wasnt at the end of a drop for his entire presidency. Youre cherry picking his first few years to ignore a decade long trend.




Sure, but its a nearly decade long trend, if he had great gains for 2 years and then flatlined there would be a great point to make, but the only part that was flat was the last year coming up to a presidential election.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 31 2019 08:02pm

on top of false statements about tRump economy being so much better.
1. QE still going on, why? Didn't like it under Obama if economy is so strong why are we still boosting a "Great" economy.
2. We should be able to put he deficit down during good economies.. What are we going ot use as "savings" next downturn?

So the markets flatlined for a year because of the uncertainty associated with the 2016 election, is that what you're saying? Then why did they take off after Trump's election?

The most qualified candidate in history who basically ran on a platform of continuing Obama's policies competed against the person who was a total trainwreck and who would crash the markets upon election, at least according to all the liberal-leaning pundits.
But then, Hillary's loss and Trump's election allowed the markets to kick into overdrive. Something doesnt add up, dont you agree?

If the markets "were relieved" that Trump won instead of Hillary, even though Hillary promised to continue Obama's supposedly successful economic policies, then perhaps these policies werent that great to begin with. Or your premise that the 2016 slump was caused by political uncertainty is wrong.



Oh, I totally agree with those points. I wasnt a fan of the Trump tax cuts, and I dont like the continuing deficit spending during the current boom.
With my previous post, I just wanted to stress that your specific point of Obama having had larger growth rates than Trump at the start of their respective first terms is a bogus argument. You just cannot compare such vastly different economic macro-states.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 31 2019 09:30pm

ayup! well said my friend!!! hillary ran on 'fixing' the obama economy too lmfao!!!



happy new years everyone!!!

Markets don't like uncertainty for the sake of uncertainty. It doesn't really matter who wins, when there is a winner there is certainty again and future predictions can again be made. It's a question of what sectors will benefit, not if there will be benefit. No matter who won after 2016 the markets would have turned up, but probably with winners in different areas. Trump was a boon for mining companies, for example, with the expectation that EPA enforcement would go down. Hillary would have been a boon for green energy initiatives.





Less impressive in context.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 31 2019 10:16pm

1.: Wasnt the narrative that Hillary had a 90+% chance of winning? The prevailing narrative in liberal media and pundit circles was that Trump stood no realistic chance at all. Hence, in quantitative terms, there would not have been all that much uncertainty - unless the markets didnt buy into this narrative anyway. Really puts things into perspective if you think about it.

2.: Your own chart shows that the "flatlining" actually begun in early 2015. This stands in contrast to what you said previously (flatline during the year preceding the election, when it was actually almost 2 years) and also contrasts with the logic of your argument (political uncertainty being the cause of the stagnation).

According to your own chart, the economy already flatlined before Trump even announced his candidacy. Therefore, the particular uncertainty associated with the prospect of a president trump cannot explain this stagnation. Also note that no similar effect could be observed in the 1-2 years leading up to the 2012 election, which was predicted, and turned out to really be, quite close. If general political uncertainty surrounding a generic presidential election would cause markets to stagnate, this phenomenom would have been observed in 2012, but it wasnt.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 31 2019 11:18pm

The "narrative" that is in the media and polls is immaterial. The primary leading up to it wasn't certain at all on the Democrat or Republican side. Neither Trump nor Bernie were standard candidates and those feelings of uncertainty from the primaries aren't gonna erase in the general just because one candidate is favored. 90% chance of winning still means 10% chance of loss after all. Again, you need to look at the whole picture instead of cherry picking.

2012 was a pretty standard election. Obama and Romney, and indeed most any candidate that had a chance, wouldnt have been a big change. The most "radical" candidate that even got a smidge of momentum was Ron Paul, and everybody knew he wasn't gonna win even if he technically went to the convention with a majority of delegates. 2016 had Bernie and Hillary being a tight primary and the republican primary was a shit show from day one. So its not really comparable. There was political uncertainty from the beginning in 2016 several orders of magnitude more than 2012. We could look at 2008, but the economy was in ruins so.... yeah.



Still got 28 minutes here.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Dec 31 2019 11:32pm