Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Baldy wrote:Something for JSO to gnaw on...

Trump stock market rally is far outpacing past US presidents

President Donald Trump’s stock market stacks up well against the majority of his presidential predecessors.

The S&P 500 has returned more than 50% since Trump was elected, more than double the 23% average market return of presidents three years into their term, according to data from Bespoke Investment Group dating to 1928.

The bellwether index gained more than 28% this year, well above the average 12.8% return of year three for past U.S. presidents.

Yes I saw that on the news. It is factual. I think they could have spun it better in that, in looking at the data, I could only find one President that enjoyed a greater increase in S&P 500 value during the period they defined (day of election through December 25 of the third following calendar year). I calculated the increase at 50.7% for Trump. Only President I could see as enjoying a better first three years of S&P after initial election is Eisenhower at 84.9%. It was 46.3% for Clinton and 45.1% for H.W. Bush.

I don't know if there is anything special about it being the election day to December 25 of the third following calendar year though. November 8, 2016 through December 25, 2019 was a 1,142 day period. I can find 1,142 day periods during previous administrations that were better. For example: The value of the S&P 500 increased by 63.2% during November 8, 2011 through December 24, 2014 (1,142 days...2012 being a leap year changed the end date). I can take one look at the Clinton years and see that I could find a LOT of 1,142 day periods that did better than 50.7%. And, while he may have another five years to go, the maximum annual calendar year growth during Trump's term so far (28.88%) falls short of the maximum annual calendar year growth of the Obama Administration (29.60%) as well as that of the Clinton Administration (34.11%),

It's not that it isn't good. I am happy with it. But it is not unprecedented Stock Market performance. I don't think I'm going to go through the trouble of setting things up for the S&P. But I have the thing I set up for the Dow. Right now, if the Dow had increased from November 9, 2016 through present at the mean per session percent increase characterizing the period from the start of the Bull Market through November 8, 2016, it would be at 28,835.30. It closed the year at 28,538.44. So it's about where I would expect it to be if things had generally continued as they went during the preceding part of the Bull Market. I'm pretty confident I'd get the same basic picture if I did the same type of thing with the S&P.

So, were you guys who are touting a 50.7% increase in the S&P during the 1,142 period spanning Trump getting elected through the day before that article was written touting the 63.2% increase over the 1,142 day period I referenced during the Obama Administration? Were you saying that it was like some "never seen before" thing? Were you telling your friends that Obama needed to be re-elected because "look at your 401-K?"

JohnStOnge wrote:So, were you guys who are touting a 50.7% increase in the S&P during the 1,142 period spanning Trump getting elected through the day before that article was written touting the 63.2% increase over the 1,142 day period I referenced during the Obama Administration? Were you saying that it was like some "never seen before" thing? Were you telling your friends that Obama needed to be re-elected because "look at your 401-K?"

You clearly don't have a clue as to what's going on, do you?

You look at a chart and think that tells the whole story.
Oh yeah, you said that outside influences were "crap".

CAA Flagship wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:So, were you guys who are touting a 50.7% increase in the S&P during the 1,142 period spanning Trump getting elected through the day before that article was written touting the 63.2% increase over the 1,142 day period I referenced during the Obama Administration? Were you saying that it was like some "never seen before" thing? Were you telling your friends that Obama needed to be re-elected because "look at your 401-K?"

You clearly don't have a clue as to what's going on, do you?

You look at a chart and think that tells the whole story.
Oh yeah, you said that outside influences were "crap".

So tell us the rest of the story Paul Harvey. Im genuinely curious.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: You clearly don't have a clue as to what's going on, do you?

You look at a chart and think that tells the whole story.
Oh yeah, you said that outside influences were "crap".

So tell us the rest of the story Paul Harvey. Im genuinely curious.

It's been told at LEAST 50 times on here. Pay attention, FFS.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So tell us the rest of the story Paul Harvey. Im genuinely curious.

It's been told at LEAST 50 times on here. Pay attention, FFS.

Link to where someone factually refuted JSO's claim?

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
It's been told at LEAST 50 times on here. Pay attention, FFS.

Link to where someone factually refuted JSO's claim?

Sweet Jesus. Go look for yourself. Flaggy and myself have refuted/disproven/destroyed his claims at least 50 times here. You can find it in just about any thread, since every thread turns into a JSO-bashing-Trump's-economy thread...

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Link to where someone factually refuted JSO's claim?

Sweet Jesus. Go look for yourself. Flaggy and myself have refuted/disproven/destroyed his claims at least 50 times here. You can find it in just about any thread, since every thread turns into a JSO-bashing-Trump's-economy thread...

I'm talking about Trump's economic gains. Start with what he just posted in this thread and refute the numbers and what he's saying. I'll take a look.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Sweet Jesus. Go look for yourself. Flaggy and myself have refuted/disproven/destroyed his claims at least 50 times here. You can find it in just about any thread, since every thread turns into a JSO-bashing-Trump's-economy thread...

I'm talking about Trump's economic gains. Start with what he just posted in this thread and refute the numbers and what he's saying. I'll take a look.

No. We've done it multiple times and I KNOW you've read them.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm talking about Trump's economic gains. Start with what he just posted in this thread and refute the numbers and what he's saying. I'll take a look.

No. We've done it multiple times and I KNOW you've read them.

Which would indicate you’ve provided very little factual substance.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
No. We've done it multiple times and I KNOW you've read them.

Which would indicate you’ve provided very little factual substance.

JSO is too focused on the numbers and believes they tell the whole story. Numbers only tell part of the story and JSO can't understand the other part so he ignores it. He's like the finance & accounting bean counter who looks at the numbers that tell him a company will save money if it outsources information technology to India. The impact of time differences, language & cultural barriers, lack of understanding of business and customer requirements, etc. are not easily quantifiable so they aren't properly accounted for. Business knowledge and expertise while subjective help fill in the picture and provide context that the numbers can't. AZ and Flaggy have provided that knowledge and expertise. Ignoring it doesn't make it insubstantial or wrong.

UNI88 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Which would indicate you’ve provided very little factual substance.

JSO is too focused on the numbers and believes they tell the whole story. Numbers only tell part of the story and JSO can't understand the other part so he ignores it. He's like the finance & accounting bean counter who looks at the numbers that tell him a company will save money if it outsources information technology to India. The impact of time differences, language & cultural barriers, lack of understanding of business and customer requirements, etc. are not easily quantifiable so they aren't properly accounted for. Business knowledge and expertise while subjective help fill in the picture and provide context that the numbers can't. AZ and Flaggy have provided that knowledge and expertise. Ignoring it doesn't make it insubstantial or wrong.

That’s why I asked for a refresher from Z because I don’t remember anything more substantive than massaging the numbers to make their OWN case.

And that works both ways. For example, positive stock market numbers and a hot commercial real estate development market don’t tell the whole story either or prevent another bubble from bursting.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
JSO is too focused on the numbers and believes they tell the whole story. Numbers only tell part of the story and JSO can't understand the other part so he ignores it. He's like the finance & accounting bean counter who looks at the numbers that tell him a company will save money if it outsources information technology to India. The impact of time differences, language & cultural barriers, lack of understanding of business and customer requirements, etc. are not easily quantifiable so they aren't properly accounted for. Business knowledge and expertise while subjective help fill in the picture and provide context that the numbers can't. AZ and Flaggy have provided that knowledge and expertise. Ignoring it doesn't make it insubstantial or wrong.

That’s why I asked for a refresher from Z because I don’t remember anything more substantive than massaging the numbers to make their OWN case.

And that works both ways. For example, positive stock market numbers and a hot commercial real estate development market don’t tell the whole story either or prevent another bubble from bursting.

The point is that the economic strides in the last three years are different than the strides made in the previous 8 years, even if you believe there is no real change in trajectory. The fact that the 8 year trend was supported by economic tailwinds such as QE, interest rate cuts, etc., and the 3 year trend has fought through economic headwinds such as QT, interest rate increases, trade wars, Brexit, etc., is proof that the engine that moves the economy is working harder now than it did before.

How is it that you missed these arguments before?
Here is just one of many exchanges: https://championshipsubdivision.com/for ... 0#p1278786

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
No. We've done it multiple times and I KNOW you've read them.

Which would indicate you’ve provided very little factual substance.

Nope. I've provided it like 50 times. As has Flaggy. It DOES indicate, however, that you're a lazy SOB.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Which would indicate you’ve provided very little factual substance.

Nope. I've provided it like 50 times. As has Flaggy. It DOES indicate, however, that you're a lazy SOB.

Nah. A person of my immense importance has to be selective with his precious time and learns to delegate. Now get to work or

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Nope. I've provided it like 50 times. As has Flaggy. It DOES indicate, however, that you're a lazy SOB.

Nah. A person of my immense importance has to be selective with his precious time and learns to delegate. Now get to work or

I'm AT work, motherfucker.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
That’s why I asked for a refresher from Z because I don’t remember anything more substantive than massaging the numbers to make their OWN case.

And that works both ways. For example, positive stock market numbers and a hot commercial real estate development market don’t tell the whole story either or prevent another bubble from bursting.

The point is that the economic strides in the last three years are different than the strides made in the previous 8 years, even if you believe there is no real change in trajectory. The fact that the 8 year trend was supported by economic tailwinds such as QE, interest rate cuts, etc., and the 3 year trend has fought through economic headwinds such as QT, interest rate increases, trade wars, Brexit, etc., is proof that the engine that moves the economy is working harder now than it did before.

How is it that you missed these arguments before?
Here is just one of many exchanges: https://championshipsubdivision.com/for ... 0#p1278786

Headwinds and tailwinds make for good copy.

It would be similar to claiming Obama was solely responsible for the recovery. Or that he had that massive tailwind of losing 800,000 jobs a month.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: The point is that the economic strides in the last three years are different than the strides made in the previous 8 years, even if you believe there is no real change in trajectory. The fact that the 8 year trend was supported by economic tailwinds such as QE, interest rate cuts, etc., and the 3 year trend has fought through economic headwinds such as QT, interest rate increases, trade wars, Brexit, etc., is proof that the engine that moves the economy is working harder now than it did before.

How is it that you missed these arguments before?
Here is just one of many exchanges: https://championshipsubdivision.com/for ... 0#p1278786

Headwinds and tailwinds make for good copy.

It would be similar to claiming Obama was solely responsible for the recovery. Or that he had that massive tailwind of losing 800,000 jobs a month.

Not only are the good copy, they're the underlying explanation for those who actually understand economics. Don't make us put you in the JSO category, klammy.

Anyway, even allowing for all that and not even "crediting" Obama for what happened in the market from his election day to 11/21/08 (bottom of the bear market) the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Headwinds and tailwinds make for good copy.

It would be similar to claiming Obama was solely responsible for the recovery. Or that he had that massive tailwind of losing 800,000 jobs a month.

Not only are the good copy, they're the underlying explanation for those who actually understand economics. Don't make us put you in the JSO category, klammy.

Anyway, even allowing for all that and not even "crediting" Obama for what happened in the market from his election day to 11/21/08 (bottom of the bear market) the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

I agree, they aren’t. But attributing the current economy to Trump’s policies based on headwinds vs. tailwinds would also be misleading....which is my point. There’s more to it, not the least of which as you noted, is the cyclical nature of markets. The why of that cyclical nature should also inform us especially when looking at the long term consequences of policy and considering recent history.

Reagan deregulated and cut taxes on the wealthy. Clinton deregulated the financial markets so weeeee! ...give me a credit card and/or deregulate the financial sector and I can make it hum for awhile too.

But I know...who remembers the last crash all those decade ago and the further competition killing wealth consolidation.

Because...free market!

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Not only are the good copy, they're the underlying explanation for those who actually understand economics. Don't make us put you in the JSO category, klammy.

Anyway, even allowing for all that and not even "crediting" Obama for what happened in the market from his election day to 11/21/08 (bottom of the bear market) the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

I agree, they aren’t. But attributing the current economy to Trump’s policies based on headwinds vs. tailwinds would also be misleading....which is my point. There’s more to it, not the least of which as you noted, is the cyclical nature of markets. The why of that cyclical nature should also inform us especially when looking at the long term consequences of policy and considering recent history.

Reagan deregulated and cut taxes on the wealthy. Clinton deregulated the financial markets so weeeee! ...give me a credit card and/or deregulate the financial sector and I can make it hum for awhile too.

But I know...who remembers the last crash all those decade ago and the further competition killing wealth consolidation.

Because...free market!

Deregulating and causing a huge bubble then ultimately crashing the economy
benefits one group only

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
I agree, they aren’t. But attributing the current economy to Trump’s policies based on headwinds vs. tailwinds would also be misleading....which is my point. There’s more to it, not the least of which as you noted, is the cyclical nature of markets. The why of that cyclical nature should also inform us especially when looking at the long term consequences of policy and considering recent history.

Reagan deregulated and cut taxes on the wealthy. Clinton deregulated the financial markets so weeeee! ...give me a credit card and/or deregulate the financial sector and I can make it hum for awhile too.

But I know...who remembers the last crash all those decade ago and the further competition killing wealth consolidation.

Because...free market!

Deregulating and causing a huge bubble then ultimately crashing the economy
benefits one group only

And the rest of the groups forget that by the next cycle.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:
I agree, they aren’t. But attributing the current economy to Trump’s policies based on headwinds vs. tailwinds would also be misleading....which is my point. There’s more to it, not the least of which as you noted, is the cyclical nature of markets. The why of that cyclical nature should also inform us especially when looking at the long term consequences of policy and considering recent history.

Reagan deregulated and cut taxes on the wealthy. Clinton deregulated the financial markets so weeeee! ...give me a credit card and/or deregulate the financial sector and I can make it hum for awhile too.

But I know...who remembers the last crash all those decade ago and the further competition killing wealth consolidation.

Because...free market!

Deregulating and causing a huge bubble then ultimately crashing the economy
benefits one group only

Those damn Kardashians.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Deregulating and causing a huge bubble then ultimately crashing the economy
benefits one group only

And the rest of the groups forget that by the next cycle.

They probably don't understand what's happening...
The News portrays it as a national calamity... when quite the opposite is true
When the economy crashed my brother purchased a half dozen foreclosures

He even shared the glory of economic destruction with his family
allowing me and my GF and my mom and dad in on a home in Palm Springs



He's excited about the next crash...

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Not only are the good copy, they're the underlying explanation for those who actually understand economics. Don't make us put you in the JSO category, klammy.

Anyway, even allowing for all that and not even "crediting" Obama for what happened in the market from his election day to 11/21/08 (bottom of the bear market) the two situations aren't even remotely the same.

I agree, they aren’t. But attributing the current economy to Trump’s policies based on headwinds vs. tailwinds would also be misleading....which is my point. There’s more to it, not the least of which as you noted, is the cyclical nature of markets. The why of that cyclical nature should also inform us especially when looking at the long term consequences of policy and considering recent history.

That, and the fact that some of it isn’t attributed to Trump’s policies, but what business believes the climate will be with him as president...thus the huge jump the day after the election, and business sentiment that’s been at all-time highs since his election.

Reagan deregulated and cut taxes on the wealthy. Clinton deregulated the financial markets so weeeee! ...give me a credit card and/or deregulate the financial sector and I can make it hum for awhile too.

But I know...who remembers the last crash all those decade ago and the further competition killing wealth consolidation.

Because...free market!

Point being, JSO gives zero credit to Trump, saying “the market is exactly where we’d expect it to be”...but that’s assuming NOTHING changed...but everything has changed (those pesky headwinds we keep referring to)...so reality is its a fucking miracle that “nothing has changed”. That’s the only point. Not attributing it to Trump, per se, just wishing JSO would look a bit deeper than a graph and just say that no trends have changed.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
I agree, they aren’t. But attributing the current economy to Trump’s policies based on headwinds vs. tailwinds would also be misleading....which is my point. There’s more to it, not the least of which as you noted, is the cyclical nature of markets. The why of that cyclical nature should also inform us especially when looking at the long term consequences of policy and considering recent history.

That, and the fact that some of it isn’t attributed to Trump’s policies, but what business believes the climate will be with him as president...thus the huge jump the day after the election, and business sentiment that’s been at all-time highs since his election.

Reagan deregulated and cut taxes on the wealthy. Clinton deregulated the financial markets so weeeee! ...give me a credit card and/or deregulate the financial sector and I can make it hum for awhile too.

But I know...who remembers the last crash all those decade ago and the further competition killing wealth consolidation.

Because...free market!

Point being, JSO gives zero credit to Trump, saying “the market is exactly where we’d expect it to be”...but that’s assuming NOTHING changed...but everything has changed (those pesky headwinds we keep referring to)...so reality is its a fucking miracle that “nothing has changed”. That’s the only point. Not attributing it to Trump, per se, just wishing JSO would look a bit deeper than a graph and just say that no trends have changed.

Fair enough, Z.