The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[UNI88]

Decided to take a look at where the Dow is in a different way. I took the core per session growth rate from the start of the Bull Market through 2016 election day and used it to estimate where the Dow would be now if it had continued at that rate since Trump took office in January 2016 through today.

Result: The Dow would be at 29,568.61 (it's currently at 28,004.89).

The rationale is as follows:

I did not give "credit" for what happened November 9, 2016 through January 20, 2017 because perception pertaining to who won likely impacted that. At the same time, I did not give "credit" to Trump because he could not actually do anything until he took office.

Of course Trump couldn't actually do anything until some point after he took office. So if anybody wants to suggest a start date as the point at which Trump's actual actions started to take effect I can plug that in.

I did just for the heck of it look at January 1, 2018 as a starting point. By that point the tax bill had been passed. The "where the Dow would be now" number for that starting point using the core pre 2016 election rate is 32,214.

You’re back dating a prediction to fit your opinion.

I’m with AZ...

Also, Get over it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Debating anything Trump-related with JSO is a waste of time. He refuses to consider anything that doesn't match his narrative.

[SDHornet]

Blah blah blah.....Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ you try soooo hard to twist facts to fit your narrative it’s almost comical.

You take the bottom of a bull market after the worst recession in 80 years....nice.

How about you look at how the market had basically stalled for almost the last THREE YEARS of obama’s Presidency...and then look at what it did literally THE MINUTE Trump was elected?

You are blind to what’s right in front of you. Your TDS is fully engaged at this point.

That magnificent orange bastard has one hell of a magic wand.

[AZGrizFan]

Blah blah blah.....Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ you try soooo hard to twist facts to fit your narrative it’s almost comical.

You take the bottom of a bull market after the worst recession in 80 years....nice.

How about you look at how the market had basically stalled for almost the last THREE YEARS of obama’s Presidency...and then look at what it did literally THE MINUTE Trump was elected?

You are blind to what’s right in front of you. Your TDS is fully engaged at this point.

That magnificent orange bastard has one hell of a magic wand.

Like nothing I’ve ever seen.

[JohnStOnge]

Decided to take a look at where the Dow is in a different way. I took the core per session growth rate from the start of the Bull Market through 2016 election day and used it to estimate where the Dow would be now if it had continued at that rate since Trump took office in January 2016 through today.

Result: The Dow would be at 29,568.61 (it's currently at 28,004.89).

The rationale is as follows:

I did not give "credit" for what happened November 9, 2016 through January 20, 2017 because perception pertaining to who won likely impacted that. At the same time, I did not give "credit" to Trump because he could not actually do anything until he took office.

Of course Trump couldn't actually do anything until some point after he took office. So if anybody wants to suggest a start date as the point at which Trump's actual actions started to take effect I can plug that in.

I did just for the heck of it look at January 1, 2018 as a starting point. By that point the tax bill had been passed. The "where the Dow would be now" number for that starting point using the core pre 2016 election rate is 32,214.

You’re back dating a prediction to fit your opinion.


No I'm not. I'm looking at the actual effects of Trump's actions while in power. He did not have any actions while in power during November 9, 2016 through January 20, 2017.


Also, Get over it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

You’re back dating a prediction to fit your opinion.

I’m with AZ...

Also, Get over it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Debating anything Trump-related with JSO is a waste of time. He refuses to consider anything that doesn't match his narrative.

I think the opposite is the case. I present you guys with objective data but you've decided in your own minds that the stock market is way better than it would be if Trump hadn't been elected. The objective data do not support that outlook so you do what you're doing now.

[AZGrizFan]

Debating anything Trump-related with JSO is a waste of time. He refuses to consider anything that doesn't match his narrative.

I think the opposite is the case. I present you guys with objective data but you've decided in your own minds that the stock market is way better than it would be if Trump hadn't been elected. The objective data do not support that outlook so you do what you're doing now.

Says the guy ignoring three years worth of data. Along with every other record breaking performance during Trump’s presidency.

[JohnStOnge]

Blah blah blah.....Jesus H Tittyfucking Christ you try soooo hard to twist facts to fit your narrative it’s almost comical.

You take the bottom of a bull market after the worst recession in 80 years....nice.

How about you look at how the market had basically stalled for almost the last THREE YEARS of obama’s Presidency...and then look at what it did literally THE MINUTE Trump was elected?

You are blind to what’s right in front of you. Your TDS is fully engaged at this point.

As I've told you before: The problem with your thing about the stall is that there was a periodic low during February, 2016 then things generally rose from that point. It was not a situation in which things were flat for three years then Trump got elected and they were no longer flat. Things were not flat between early 2016 and 2016 election day.

Also, the point about what I described was to look at what has happened from the point at which Trump was actually in power. Whatever happened during the November 9, 2016 through January 20, 2017 period did not happen because of anything Trump actually did while in power.

You guys accuse me of trying to make the data fit my opinion. That is not the case. You guys are the ones doing that. You've bought into a myth and you're seeing what you want to see in order to maintain your belief in the myth.

Again: Nobody who would look at economic data including stock market data without thinking about who was in power when would say that something happened around the time Trump got elected or took power to change the basic nature of things. It's just not there.

[AZGrizFan]

John. NOBODY is saying the market was flat. That’s a ludicrous statement and shows an immense amount of ignorance to take the statement “the market didn’t move” to its logical extreme. The market moves every day. But that does not change the fact that from mid 2014-late 2016 (right up until Election Day) the market moved less than 100 points overall. And since then it’s gone up over 10,000 points. Look at the graph in just the month of November 2016 and tell me again how you can’t see that something happened when Trump was known as the president.

Its there. You’re blind to the facts if you can’t see it.

[CAA Flagship]

Decided to take a look at where the Dow is in a different way. I took the core per session growth rate from the start of the Bull Market through 2016 election day and used it to estimate where the Dow would be now if it had continued at that rate since Trump took office in January 2016 through today.

Result: The Dow would be at 29,568.61 (it's currently at 28,004.89).

The rationale is as follows:

I did not give "credit" for what happened November 9, 2016 through January 20, 2017 because perception pertaining to who won likely impacted that. At the same time, I did not give "credit" to Trump because he could not actually do anything until he took office.

Of course Trump couldn't actually do anything until some point after he took office. So if anybody wants to suggest a start date as the point at which Trump's actual actions started to take effect I can plug that in.

I did just for the heck of it look at January 1, 2018 as a starting point. By that point the tax bill had been passed. The "where the Dow would be now" number for that starting point using the core pre 2016 election rate is 32,214.

Your math is wrong. There is no way the Dow could be at +29k using any projection of the DJIA thru the 2016 election, OR thru the 2017 inauguration. Show your work.

[JohnStOnge]

John. NOBODY is saying the market was flat. That’s a ludicrous statement and shows an immense amount of ignorance to take the statement “the market didn’t move” to its logical extreme. The market moves every day. But that does not change the fact that from mid 2014-late 2016 (right up until Election Day) the market moved less than 100 points overall. And since then it’s gone up over 10,000 points. Look at the graph in just the month of November 2016 and tell me again how you can’t see that something happened when Trump was known as the president.

Its there. You’re blind to the facts if you can’t see it.

No. If one looks at the graph objectively and isn't thinking about who was President when one would say that there was a "stall" or "flattening" with fluctuations up and down. But an upward tend started after the DJIA reached a periodic bottom of 15,691 on February 12, 2016. It was 16% higher than that on November 8, 2016.

That's what you'd say if you were OBJECTIVE instead of trying to find ways to argue that there was a big change in the basic nature of things associated with Trump getting elected and/or taking office.

[AZGrizFan]

John. NOBODY is saying the market was flat. That’s a ludicrous statement and shows an immense amount of ignorance to take the statement “the market didn’t move” to its logical extreme. The market moves every day. But that does not change the fact that from mid 2014-late 2016 (right up until Election Day) the market moved less than 100 points overall. And since then it’s gone up over 10,000 points. Look at the graph in just the month of November 2016 and tell me again how you can’t see that something happened when Trump was known as the president.

Its there. You’re blind to the facts if you can’t see it.

No. If one looks at the graph objectively and isn't thinking about who was President when one would say that there was a "stall" or "flattening" with fluctuations up and down. But an upward tend started after the DJIA reached a periodic bottom of 15,691 on February 12, 2016. It was 16% higher than that on November 8, 2016.

That's what you'd say if you were OBJECTIVE instead of trying to find ways to argue that there was a big change in the basic nature of things associated with Trump getting elected and/or taking office.

But your entire point is who was president. It’s integral to the entire discussion. So cherry picking the low point between early 14 and late 16 is just that: cherry picking.

You’ve proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about economics. You should just stop digging.

[AZGrizFan]

You’re back dating a prediction to fit your opinion.


No I'm not. I'm looking at the actual effects of Trump's actions while in power. He did not have any actions while in power during November 9, 2016 through January 20, 2017.


Also, Get over it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All he needed to do was get elected. The fact you can’t/won’t admit that just shows your ignorance as to how the markets work/respond.

[UNI88]

John. NOBODY is saying the market was flat. That’s a ludicrous statement and shows an immense amount of ignorance to take the statement “the market didn’t move” to its logical extreme. The market moves every day. But that does not change the fact that from mid 2014-late 2016 (right up until Election Day) the market moved less than 100 points overall. And since then it’s gone up over 10,000 points. Look at the graph in just the month of November 2016 and tell me again how you can’t see that something happened when Trump was known as the president.

Its there. You’re blind to the facts if you can’t see it.

No. If one looks at the graph objectively and isn't thinking about who was President when one would say that there was a "stall" or "flattening" with fluctuations up and down. But an upward tend started after the DJIA reached a periodic bottom of 15,691 on February 12, 2016. It was 16% higher than that on November 8, 2016.

That's what you'd say if you were OBJECTIVE instead of trying to find ways to argue that there was a big change in the basic nature of things associated with Trump getting elected and/or taking office.

John, you are NOT objective. You ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative that Trump is essentially satan. Why do you hate him so much? Did he sleep with your wife?

Trump is a dishonest schmuck but he has done some good things. Your hatred prevents you from acknowledging that.

[JohnStOnge]

John, you are NOT objective. You ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative...

No I do not. I counter them. For example: I've countered AzGrizFan's argument that things were stalled or flat or whatever one wants to call it until the day Trump got elected then a positive trend started. And I've done so effectively. His premise is false. That did not happen.

Instead, any reasonable assessment would conclude that after a flat period a positive trend started in February, 2016.

For the fun of it I just did a time trend analysis to verify that if you look at the closing Dow values during February 11, 2016, through November 8, 2016, there is a highly "significant" positive trend. It's significant at the 99.5% confidence level. There is absolutely no doubt that a positive trend was in place before people knew that Trump got elected.

Another thing: If the core percent change per session rate characterizing February 11, 2016 through November 8 2016 had been in place November 9, 2016 through present, the Dow would be at 34,546 right now. That's not a trick. That's not cherry picking. It's just math based on a reasonable assessment of the point at which the 2016 positive trend started.

The problem is that you guys decided to believe something and now you will rationalize in order to continue to believe it regardless of how strongly the data contradict the belief.

[Ibanez]

John, you are NOT objective. You ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative...

No I do not. I counter them. For example: I've countered AzGrizFan's argument that things were stalled or flat or whatever one wants to call it until the day Trump got elected then a positive trend started. And I've done so effectively. His premise is false. That did not happen.

Instead, any reasonable assessment would conclude that after a flat period a positive trend started in February, 2016.

For the fun of it I just did a time trend analysis to verify that if you look at the closing Dow values during February 11, 2016, through November 8, 2016, there is a highly "significant" positive trend. It's significant at the 99.5% confidence level. There is absolutely no doubt that a positive trend was in place before people knew that Trump got elected.

Another thing: If the core percent change per session rate characterizing February 11, 2016 through November 8 2016 had been in place November 9, 2016 through present, the Dow would be at 34,546 right now. That's not a trick. That's not cherry picking. It's just math based on a reasonable assessment of the point at which the 2016 positive trend started.

The problem is that you guys decided to believe something and now you will rationalize in order to continue to believe it regardless of how strongly the data contradict the belief.

You must be so angry every time you see the gains on your 401(k).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

No I do not. I counter them. For example: I've countered AzGrizFan's argument that things were stalled or flat or whatever one wants to call it until the day Trump got elected then a positive trend started. And I've done so effectively. His premise is false. That did not happen.

Instead, any reasonable assessment would conclude that after a flat period a positive trend started in February, 2016.

For the fun of it I just did a time trend analysis to verify that if you look at the closing Dow values during February 11, 2016, through November 8, 2016, there is a highly "significant" positive trend. It's significant at the 99.5% confidence level. There is absolutely no doubt that a positive trend was in place before people knew that Trump got elected.

Another thing: If the core percent change per session rate characterizing February 11, 2016 through November 8 2016 had been in place November 9, 2016 through present, the Dow would be at 34,546 right now. That's not a trick. That's not cherry picking. It's just math based on a reasonable assessment of the point at which the 2016 positive trend started.

The problem is that you guys decided to believe something and now you will rationalize in order to continue to believe it regardless of how strongly the data contradict the belief.

You must be so angry every time you see the gains on your 401(k).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I love seeing the gains on my 401(k). But I do wish more people realized, as I do, that Trump isn't responsible for that. There's no way to know for sure what would've happened if Hillary had gotten elected because she didn't get elected. But there is no indication that the basic nature of the economy, which is reasonably good, changed in association with Trump getting elected. Everything is about as one would expect it to be if things had simply continued as they were going. GDP. Job creation. Unemployment. Stock market. So on and so forth.

[AZGrizFan]

John, you are NOT objective. You ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative...

No I do not. I counter them. For example: I've countered AzGrizFan's argument that things were stalled or flat or whatever one wants to call it until the day Trump got elected then a positive trend started. And I've done so effectively. His premise is false. That did not happen.

Instead, any reasonable assessment would conclude that after a flat period a positive trend started in February, 2016.

For the fun of it I just did a time trend analysis to verify that if you look at the closing Dow values during February 11, 2016, through November 8, 2016, there is a highly "significant" positive trend. It's significant at the 99.5% confidence level. There is absolutely no doubt that a positive trend was in place before people knew that Trump got elected.

Another thing: If the core percent change per session rate characterizing February 11, 2016 through November 8 2016 had been in place November 9, 2016 through present, the Dow would be at 34,546 right now. That's not a trick. That's not cherry picking. It's just math based on a reasonable assessment of the point at which the 2016 positive trend started.

The problem is that you guys decided to believe something and now you will rationalize in order to continue to believe it regardless of how strongly the data contradict the belief.

And if the "core percentage change" rate characterizing 12/29/14 through 11/4/16 was in place the Dow would still be at 18,000.

Honestly, what's your fucking point? You've countered virtually nothing except some arbitrary cherrypicked stats that fit your narrative. Christ, Obama had to have that massive "positive core change" from 2/11/16 through election day just to get BACK all the ground he'd lost from 12/29/14-2/11/16.

Pick your fucking poison.

[AZGrizFan]

You must be so angry every time you see the gains on your 401(k).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I love seeing the gains on my 401(k). But I do wish more people realized, as I do, that Trump isn't responsible for that. There's no way to know for sure what would've happened if Hillary had gotten elected because she didn't get elected. But there is no indication that the basic nature of the economy, which is reasonably good, changed in association with Trump getting elected. Everything is about as one would expect it to be if things had simply continued as they were going. GDP. Job creation. Unemployment. Stock market. So on and so forth.

You're right. All at historic highs or lows. Just as one would expect. Despite the fact these things have NEVER happened in your lifetime. Just business as usual....

[CAA Flagship]

[Ibanez]

You must be so angry every time you see the gains on your 401(k).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I love seeing the gains on my 401(k). But I do wish more people realized, as I do, that Trump isn't responsible for that. There's no way to know for sure what would've happened if Hillary had gotten elected because she didn't get elected. But there is no indication that the basic nature of the economy, which is reasonably good, changed in association with Trump getting elected. Everything is about as one would expect it to be if things had simply continued as they were going. GDP. Job creation. Unemployment. Stock market. So on and so forth.

Presidents can’t move markets. If they could we’d never have losses, recessions, etc...


But they can help create an environment that supports growth (or the lack of).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

[

And if the "core percentage change" rate characterizing 12/29/14 through 11/4/16 was in place the Dow would still be at 18,000.

Honestly, what's your fucking point? You've countered virtually nothing except some arbitrary cherrypicked stats that fit your narrative.

The point is that a positive trend was established well before election day 2016. And I did not cherry pick.

Truth be told, the best thing to do is to pick historical events instead of picking starting points based on the graph. Like, for instance, picking the start of the Bull market instead of looking at the graph and picking a point at which you think it looks relatively flat for a while.

But, if you are going to pick points on a graph, picking early 2016 as the point at which an upward trend started is very reasonable. Again: It is clear that a positive trend was already well established by election day 2016.

I'm not the one guilty of cherry picking.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not sure if you agree but I interpret that is consistent with what I've been saying: We'd be in about the same place as we are now if the trend simply continued as it has throughout the bull market.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm not sure if you agree but I interpret that is consistent with what I've been saying: We'd be in about the same place as we are now if the trend simply continued as it has throughout the bull market.

Are you blind?

It supports literally NONE of what you have been saying...and EVERYTHING that CAA and I have been attempting to beat into your head for months.

But you do you, bro.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm not sure if you agree but I interpret that is consistent with what I've been saying: We'd be in about the same place as we are now if the trend simply continued as it has throughout the bull market.

Are you blind?

It supports literally NONE of what you have been saying...and EVERYTHING that CAA and I have been attempting to beat into your head for months.

But you do you, bro.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not sure if you agree but I interpret that is consistent with what I've been saying: We'd be in about the same place as we are now if the trend simply continued as it has throughout the bull market.

Are you blind?

It supports literally NONE of what you have been saying...and EVERYTHING that CAA and I have been attempting to beat into your head for months.

But you do you, bro.

Well I can only guess, if you say that, that the blue line must be a line of best fit for some period of the bull market prior to Trump getting elected and the red line must be a line of best fit for since Trump got elected. There is no legend.

The problem is that the relationships we are talking about are not linear. They are curvilinear. I've posted about that for you guys before. The "core rates" I'm referencing are based on taking the N root (with N being the number of sessions) of the ration of the end level of a period and the start level of a period.

When you have a curvilinear relationship like that the later part of the period always looks more impressive. This is what the relationship would look like if you had a constant core rate equal to that from the start of the current Bull Market through election day 2016 continuing through now:



Again: We'd be about in the same place.