The Dow is a bad index, but if it's the warmest year ever, we shouldn't focus on all that's wrong with the Fahrenheit scale.
Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
131–140 of 214 posts
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine, but what if there is a chance that the huge heap of regulations supporting entrenched interests is broken up? I'm looking at you Comcast
Let's see which regulations get cut first. So far, it's not the government contracting regulations. Bonus: when Trump "freezes the size of Federal employment" do you think that will be match by a freeze in contracting, or a boost in crony contracts?
What I learned reading The Art of The Deal is his MO:
Trump: "I have a problem (e.g. Wollman Ice Rink) but know nothing about this topic. Who is the best company that makes ice rinks?"
Makes a few calls to hockey teams to find this information.
Learns the name of the company.
Calls CEO of the ice rink company.
After 15 mins of conversation, learns that freon-based ice rinks suck the monkey and that brine-based ones last forever.
Total elapsed time: Probably an hour.
Hires ice-rink company to help with Wollman Rink.
Project completed in four months and under budget.
No studies, no meetings, just results.
Government bureaucrats: REEEEEEEEEE!
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#133Remember when nearly the entire business media predicted that if Trump was elected the stock market would crash immediately? Some of my smartest friends (at hedge funds) placed large bets mid to late 2016 that the market would decline. Now here we are. The lesson isn't that Trump is awesome for the economy (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) or that the market won't crash tomorrow (maybe it will, maybe it won't) but rather…
Well, hang on.
Firstly, Brexit hasn't happened yet, and nobody knows the plan. Every time the PM asserts something about where we're headed plan-wise, the markets tank. Once Article 50 is invoked, you'll see GBP slide and FTSE will get... interesting. Because a lot of the FTSE is made up companies with a lot of different EU dependencies, it's hard to call where it's going to go. But it's not likely to be good for most investors.
As for Trump and the stock markets? Well, suggesting an "immediate crash", that was silly.
Right now though, the US is in the same place as the UK is with Brexit: nobody is quite sure what's about to happen. He's made a lot of promises that he might not actually be able to keep. If he does, it's likely to cause some serious mayhem in the markets. Not least: he's specifically said he wants to devalue the dollar.
Just let that sink in for a minute: the sitting President of the United States of America got into the Oval Office by promising to lessen the dollar's buying power and value.
The hope then is that this will make US shares more favourable to overseas investors, imports more expensive promoting internal trade (and therefore jobs), and therefore US business more worth overall.
Will it work? Who the hell knows? None of us. And that's why it's too early to call those predictions of decline, wrong.
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#134I understand that people believe Trump is good for business. And I also understand that people believe Trump is good for the rich. And I also understand that people believe Trump is good for the blue-collar worker. But I don't understand how Trump could be a good influence, in the long term, on business and the stock market, when looking at his positions and policy changes. Why Trump isn't good for poor working class…
I'm sorry that I don't have the time to respond to all of your assertions, but I have done a reasonable amount of research on one of the points and figured I'd add my $0.02.
> Why Trump isn't good for poor working class America - Assuming there's a large tax on every good coming into the country, then the cost of groceries will increase dramatically.
The United States is a net exporter of agricultural goods[1], where a large portion of the expense and challenge is transportation without creating a high amount of spoilage (as many of the products require a maintained temperature range and are only considered fit for human consumption within a (compared to dry goods) tight time-tolerance). On a much smaller scale, if you've been to a farmer's market and you've noted that the goods may come from a number of smaller farms, this (along with normalizing product with slightly variadic crop-yield) is often the "why."
As is intuitive, the challenges of transporting (food) product become more complicated over greater distances and time. This very obviously translates to greater expense, which means that the economic choice to sell internationally is only made when less profit can be had if remaining in the domestic market. An exception to this pattern is if a product is unrealistic to turn a profit on if attempting to grow in a non-native climate (e.g. trying to grow bananas in Alaska or coffee).[2]
What this means is that the USA can handily supply its own food product, with its lands available for agriculture easily being enough for its population, opposed to high-density regions such as China, which are approaching the point of being dependent on globalization to feed its population or a foray into geopolitics to get more arable land.[3] Put another way, the USA is rich in food goods to the point that, unless Russia decides to make up for a major global deficit[4], the US can demand higher prices for its exports. Further, being the world's dominant market, the USA can demand more favorable prices on its imports, due to the fact that it is more than capable of domestic supply and, if the cost of international trade becomes unwieldy, will instead invest in domestic infrastructure and supply, which adds further challenges for international competition -- "the cost of groceries" will only increase to the point that it becomes logical to switch to domestic supply. Coffee and tropical foods may increase in price, but consumption rates are a marketing problem due to a wealth of substitute goods.
[0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/ [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery... [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12285198 [4] https://www.ft.com/content/af66f51e-6515-11e6-8310-ecf0bddad...
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine, but what if there is a chance that the huge heap of regulations supporting entrenched interests is broken up? I'm looking at you Comcast
I only see him cutting regulations that hurt the large organizations. He'll keep the stuff in that helps our current monopolies. That's what he's wanted his whole life, why change now?
That's what he's wanted his whole life?
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's see which regulations get cut first. So far, it's not the government contracting regulations. Bonus: when Trump "freezes the size of Federal employment" do you think that will be match by a freeze in contracting, or a boost in crony contracts?
Stuff still needs to get done, so a hiring freeze means needing a workaround, they will find money for contractors because it is seen as a limited time expense, even though it is probably 3x or 4x more expensive over the long term. When they tell you they cut the size of government they won't tell you that government costs went up, or they will tell you government payroll is down and contractors get costed as somethi…
"3x or 4x more expensive over the long term"
And that's where you're wrong. If done right, 3x to 4x more expensive up front and less TCO in the long run.
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#137Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#138I understand that people believe Trump is good for business. And I also understand that people believe Trump is good for the rich. And I also understand that people believe Trump is good for the blue-collar worker. But I don't understand how Trump could be a good influence, in the long term, on business and the stock market, when looking at his positions and policy changes. Why Trump isn't good for poor working class…
For an indicator, look at what Silvio Berlusconi did for Italy: pretty much nothing. The country stagnated while he was in power, mostly looking after his own interests.
He accomplished little in a country that really does need some "market friendly" reforms.
Also, be wary of the difference between being pro-business and pro-market:
https://promarket.org/donald-trumps-economic-policy-pro-busi...
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more that he's pro-business-he-likes. If you happen to be a company focused on renewable energy or nuclear fusion he's likely to side with old energy companies and try to throw as many regulatory hurdles in front of your ventures to ensure his friends win. All in the name of free market capitalism of course (/s).
Not strictly true, or he wouldn't be working with Elon Mask, for example. [1] However what's certain is that he wants to achieve US independence from Middle Eastern oil so as to stop enriching Saudi princes. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
Trust me, when your Sec of State pick is an Exxon-Mobil executive, there's no energy independence in the cards. Those vultures want to ensure they get a monopoly on oil regardless of the country in question. That's just how they roll.
Re: Dow Hits 20000 for First Time
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefi…
"Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs" Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?
Since we are speaking in ridiculous hyperbole -- if everyone worked for private industry and no one had the option to work for the government -- what do you expect would be the effect on the distribution of wage and labor benefits?