The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[css75]

Would you be willing to make your position on Trump known?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Would you be willing to make your position on Trump known?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. And I am correct. As I've written many times before: The idea that there has been this big change in the economy associated with Trump getting elected and/or taking office is utter nonsense.

Now, that means I was wrong because I thought the stock market would crash due to someone who is obviously mentally ill being in that position. I thought people betting on the future would be very afraid to bet on the future under that circumstance.

But it's also the case that, as I've said many times, if someone is just objectively looking at the data and not TRYING to find some way to say Trump improved the economy they would not see anythiing in the data to make them think something changed fundamentally with the economy around the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017.

The only exception to that I've seen is variability in quarterly GDP growth. There were higher highs and lower lows in that area during the recovery before Trump took office. But when it comes to annual GDP growth the pattern has been completely consistent with what it's been since the start of the current recovery.

[BDKJMU]

* Lowest unemployment since 1969

I don't know why you guys persist with this one. It's obvious that a trend towards lowering unemployment was well in place before he took office.



Giving Trump credit for unemployment being as low as it is now is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no suggestion of a change in the trend associated with him being elected or taking office.

* Lowest black unemployment ever

Same thing as above. Same thing. Absolutely no indication of a change in the trend associated with Trump getting elected or taking office (this one shows "since Trump" in red):

* lowest Hispanic unemployment ever

One more time:



Again, absolutely no suggestion of a change in the trend associated with Trump.

* 27 stock market records in 2017 (largest one-year % increase since Roosevelt)

As the market moves up over time it hits record highs. The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over after the market took a big plunge and Trump took over when it was near a previous record high. The Dow hit an all time high of 14,164.43 in October, 2007. When Obama took office on January 20, 2009 it was at 7,949.09. So even though a bull market started in March of that year, there was a lot of climbing that had to happen before record highs could be reached.

When Trump was elected the market was in an upward trend. The record high was 18,636.52 and the Dow closed at 18,332.74 on November 8, 2016. So it didn't take much from that point in terms of continued upward movement to continue to set record highs.

I think the thing about the highest one year increase since Roosevelt is just false. At least it appears to be in terms of percent increase (which is the measure of convention). If you look at the history of annual returns at http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm you can see that the Dow increased by 25.08% in 2017. But it increased by 26.50% in 2013, 25.32% in 2003, 25.22% in 1999, 22.64% in 1997, 26.01% in 1996, and 33.45% in 1995. If you keep going backwards in time you can find a number of other years during which the return was higher than it as in 2017.

* First close over 27,000
* First close over 28,000

I probably shouldn't have to say this but if a guy takes the office when the stock market is near its historical high and in an upward trend that is going to happen unless something bad happens.

* Highest business confidence reading ever

That appears to be true. But that is not a measure of the economy. It is a measure of perception.

* longest economic expansion ever

And why does Trump get credit for that when most of it happened before he took office?

* Highest black business startup rate ever

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s ... 00-percen/

* 15,000,000 people off food stamps

Well, if there are positive economic trends we can expect fewer people to need food stamps. Doesn't mean the positive economic trends weren't in place before Trump.

* Renegotiation of NAFTA

That's a show. Minor tweaks to NAFTA and Trump branding it so he can pretend he did something big. Also we don't know about its economic impacts since it's not in place yet.

* Winning against China

That is a highly questionable assertion.

* Tax reform for middle class

Very small increases in take home income for the middle class at the expense of significantly increasing the deficit problem. Also associated with lying to the US citizenry with respect to the impacts. Telling them that it would result in consistent +3% economic growth when all credible analyses said that wouldn't happen. And it hasn't happened.

* Oh, and what CID said....THE JUDGES

That's not the economy.

[AZGrizFan]

Would you be willing to make your position on Trump known?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. And I am correct. As I've written many times before: The idea that there has been this big change in the economy associated with Trump getting elected and/or taking office is utter nonsense.

Now, that means I was wrong because I thought the stock market would crash due to someone who is obviously mentally ill being in that position. I thought people betting on the future would be very afraid to bet on the future under that circumstance.

But it's also the case that, as I've said many times, if someone is just objectively looking at the data and not TRYING to find some way to say Trump improved the economy they would not see anythiing in the data to make them think something changed fundamentally with the economy around the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017.

The only exception to that I've seen is variability in quarterly GDP growth. There were higher highs and lower lows in that area during the recovery before Trump took office. But when it comes to annual GDP growth the pattern has been completely consistent with what it's been since the start of the current recovery.

Again, you are basically saying that no matter WHO was in office, all these things would have happened, despite the fact many have NEVER happened before. That’s absolutely ludicrous. And you continue with your lack of understanding about Obama’s downwind leg of the economy compared to the nine rate increases Trump faced (up until July of this year).

Even an OUNCE of objectivity and you’d see that. I won’t be posting on this subject again. Your stupidity is mind blowing.

[Pwns]

Oh snap JSO got the dancing Bush gif Spanos usually gets.

[LeadBolt]

Trump's crime = winning the election, then presiding over the best American economy ever, as the murder rate by firearms falls.

Damn prosperity that leads to more freedom, less armed crime and less government control.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know why you guys persist with this one. It's obvious that a trend towards lowering unemployment was well in place before he took office.



Giving Trump credit for unemployment being as low as it is now is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no suggestion of a change in the trend associated with him being elected or taking office.



Same thing as above. Same thing. Absolutely no indication of a change in the trend associated with Trump getting elected or taking office (this one shows "since Trump" in red):






One more time:



Again, absolutely no suggestion of a change in the trend associated with Trump.



As the market moves up over time it hits record highs. The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over after the market took a big plunge and Trump took over when it was near a previous record high. The Dow hit an all time high of 14,164.43 in October, 2007. When Obama took office on January 20, 2009 it was at 7,949.09. So even though a bull market started in March of that year, there was a lot of climbing that had to happen before record highs could be reached.

When Trump was elected the market was in an upward trend. The record high was 18,636.52 and the Dow closed at 18,332.74 on November 8, 2016. So it didn't take much from that point in terms of continued upward movement to continue to set record highs.

I think the thing about the highest one year increase since Roosevelt is just false. At least it appears to be in terms of percent increase (which is the measure of convention). If you look at the history of annual returns at http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm you can see that the Dow increased by 25.08% in 2017. But it increased by 26.50% in 2013, 25.32% in 2003, 25.22% in 1999, 22.64% in 1997, 26.01% in 1996, and 33.45% in 1995. If you keep going backwards in time you can find a number of other years during which the return was higher than it as in 2017.



I probably shouldn't have to say this but if a guy takes the office when the stock market is near its historical high and in an upward trend that is going to happen unless something bad happens.



That appears to be true. But that is not a measure of the economy. It is a measure of perception.



And why does Trump get credit for that when most of it happened before he took office?



https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/s ... 00-percen/



Well, if there are positive economic trends we can expect fewer people to need food stamps. Doesn't mean the positive economic trends weren't in place before Trump.




That's a show. Minor tweaks to NAFTA and Trump branding it so he can pretend he did something big. Also we don't know about its economic impacts since it's not in place yet.



That is a highly questionable assertion.



Very small increases in take home income for the middle class at the expense of significantly increasing the deficit problem. Also associated with lying to the US citizenry with respect to the impacts. Telling them that it would result in consistent +3% economic growth when all credible analyses said that wouldn't happen. And it hasn't happened.



That's not the economy.

Obviously.

[JohnStOnge]

I think someone wondered why I do stuff like this. The reason is I like to. I like to play with data. I like to analyze data that are associated with the issues of the day. That's why you've seen the National Assessment of Educational Progress stuff. Gun violence stuff. Anything like that.

Also, one never knows if there may be people who are willing to consider what the data actually say.

In that regard: As you know, I developed a simple function to describe what the Dow did from the start of the Bull Market on March 6, 2009 through election day November 8, 2016. If I use that function to estimate what one would have expected the Dow to close to be yesterday without adjusting it for any data generated since November 8, 2016 I get a point estimate of 27,440.69. The 95% prediction interval is 25,403 through 29,478. The actual close was 28,066.47.

By any reasonable standard, that tells us that we are about in the same place as we would be had things gone since November 8, 2016 to date, overall, as they went from the start of the Bull Market through that date. I've been following it periodically too. Sometimes the point estimate is a little higher than the actual close. Sometimes it's a little lower. But so far it's always been fairly close and the actual close has stayed within the prediction interval.

Now for some graphical stuff. The graphs below show what the function indicates for the start of the Bull Market through yesterday (Predicted) and what the Dow has actually done (Actual). Yes there are lots of ups and downs. But the general shape of the function graph is pretty darned consistent with the general shape of the actual graph in spite of the fact that the function is based entirely on what the stock market did prior to November 9, 2016.

[SeattleGriz]

I think someone wondered why I do stuff like this. The reason is I like to. I like to play with data. I like to analyze data that are associated with the issues of the day. That's why you've seen the National Assessment of Educational Progress stuff. Gun violence stuff. Anything like that.

Also, one never knows if there may be people who are willing to consider what the data actually say.

In that regard: As you know, I developed a simple function to describe what the Dow did from the start of the Bull Market on March 6, 2009 through election day November 8, 2016. If I use that function to estimate what one would have expected the Dow to close to be yesterday without adjusting it for any data generated since November 8, 2016 I get a point estimate of 27,440.69. The 95% prediction interval is 25,403 through 29,478. The actual close was 28,066.47.

By any reasonable standard, that tells us that we are about in the same place as we would be had things gone since November 8, 2016 to date, overall, as they went from the start of the Bull Market through that date. I've been following it periodically too. Sometimes the point estimate is a little higher than the actual close. Sometimes it's a little lower. But so far it's always been fairly close and the actual close has stayed within the prediction interval.

Now for some graphical stuff. The graphs below show what the function indicates for the start of the Bull Market through yesterday (Predicted) and what the Dow has actually done (Actual). Yes there are lots of ups and downs. But the general shape of the function graph is pretty darned consistent with the general shape of the actual graph in spite of the fact that the function is based entirely on what the stock market did prior to November 9, 2016.

Not sure what you like to use for looking at data, but Microsoft offers a free version of their Microsoft BI.

[JohnStOnge]

The Actual graph provides another example of something I've been trying to get some people to grasp for some time now. It has to do with someone's insistence that there was a stall around 2015 that lasted until election day then all of a sudden things started upward again.

Look at the graph below. You can see a stall around 2015. The Dow actually lost value during that year. Now look at the "double dip" that's just about directly under the letters "ual" in the word "Actual." Any OBJECTIVE person looking at the graph would say that the Dow started upward from the bottom of that second dip. And the problem for those saying the upward trend started with Trump is that the bottom of that second dip was on February 11, 2016. That was just short of 9 months prior to election day.



February 9 would be pegged as the start of a general upward trend that continued through early 2018 by any OBJECTIVE person if all they were doing was looking at the data without knowing anything about what happened in the world and when. Now, there does appear to be a notable acceleration in the upward movement around the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. Since I do know what was happening and when I suspect that has to do with the tax bill. But after that it got highly variable and relatively flat (generally). It's 5.4% higher now than it was at the peak of that upward curve associated with tax bill time.

And the bottom line is that it's about in the same place as it would be if things had continued, overall, as they did from the start of the Bull Market through election day 2016.

[Baldy]

The Actual graph provides another example of something I've been trying to get some people to grasp for some time now. It has to do with someone's insistence that there was a stall around 2015 that lasted until election day then all of a sudden things started upward again.

Look at the graph below. You can see a stall around 2015. The Dow actually lost value during that year. Now look at the "double dip" that's just about directly under the letters "ual" in the word "Actual." Any OBJECTIVE person looking at the graph would say that the Dow started upward from the bottom of that second dip. And the problem for those saying the upward trend started with Trump is that the bottom of that second dip was on February 11, 2016. That was just short of 9 months prior to election day.



February 9 would be pegged as the start of a general upward trend that continued through early 2018 by any OBJECTIVE person if all they were doing was looking at the data without knowing anything about what happened in the world and when. Now, there does appear to be a notable acceleration in the upward movement around the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. Since I do know what was happening and when I suspect that has to do with the tax bill. But after that it got highly variable and relatively flat (generally). It's 5.4% higher now than it was at the peak of that upward curve associated with tax bill time.

And the bottom line is that it's about in the same place as it would be if things had continued, overall, as they did from the start of the Bull Market through election day 2016.

Jeezus Tittyfucking Christ...

Does your asshole ever get jealous of all the shit that spews out of your mouth?
Curious minds want to know.

[CAA Flagship]

February 9 would be pegged as the start of a general upward trend that continued through early 2018 by any OBJECTIVE person if all they were doing was looking at the data without knowing anything about what happened in the world and when. Now, there does appear to be a notable acceleration in the upward movement around the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. Since I do know what was happening and when I suspect that has to do with the tax bill. But after that it got highly variable and relatively flat (generally). It's 5.4% higher now than it was at the peak of that upward curve associated with tax bill time.

Is that your limit of understanding on the effects of external forces on the market and economy? Tax bills?
Look, if the market was flat since the 2016 election, it would have been a win considering all the negative influences including trade wars, global economy, Fed rate hikes, balance sheet unwinding, Brexit, etc.
You can't get all of the information on external forces by looking at a chart. Every chart has a story. If you understood how external forces affect the economy, you would know that your analysis is worthless.

[UNI88]

February 9 would be pegged as the start of a general upward trend that continued through early 2018 by any OBJECTIVE person if all they were doing was looking at the data without knowing anything about what happened in the world and when. Now, there does appear to be a notable acceleration in the upward movement around the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. Since I do know what was happening and when I suspect that has to do with the tax bill. But after that it got highly variable and relatively flat (generally). It's 5.4% higher now than it was at the peak of that upward curve associated with tax bill time.

Is that your limit of understanding on the effects of external forces on the market and economy? Tax bills?
Look, if the market was flat since the 2016 election, it would have been a win considering all the negative influences including trade wars, global economy, Fed rate hikes, balance sheet unwinding, global economies, etc.
You can't get all of the information on external forces by looking at a chart. Every chart has a story. If you understood how external forces affect the economy, you would know that your analysis is worthless.

Subjective data must be given careful and scientific consideration. The underlying scientific principles that are used to evaluate subjective data are very simple: if it supports JSO's hatred for Trump it is valid, if it doesn't, it isn't.

[HI54UNI]

Mr. Scientist can't accept that there are non-rational, emotional issues that play a role in all of this and that Trump was a positive for those emotions compared to Obama. Also Trump should get credit for stopping the Fed from sinking the economy by publicly complaining about the Fed raising interest rates.

[AZGrizFan]

Is that your limit of understanding on the effects of external forces on the market and economy? Tax bills?
Look, if the market was flat since the 2016 election, it would have been a win considering all the negative influences including trade wars, global economy, Fed rate hikes, balance sheet unwinding, global economies, etc.
You can't get all of the information on external forces by looking at a chart. Every chart has a story. If you understood how external forces affect the economy, you would know that your analysis is worthless.

Subjective data must be given careful and scientific consideration. The underlying scientific principles that are used to evaluate subjective data are very simple: if it supports JSO's hatred for Trump it is valid, if it doesn't, it isn't.

[AZGrizFan]

I like to play with data. I like to analyze data that are associated with the issues of the day. That's why you've seen the National Assessment of Educational Progress stuff. Gun violence stuff. Anything like that.

Except you do nothing of the sort. You merely take the data at face value, with absolutely zero understanding of what underlying dynamics are driving (or impeding) the data. You act like the data was created in some sort of "controlled experiment" where all the variables were the same for both players when they most certainly were not.

Obama inherited an economy that essentially had nowhere to go but up. We were just beginning to come out of the worst recession in 70 years...He was assisted with the residual effects of QE1, then QE2 and QE3, coupled with NINE rate decreases in the first year of his presidency and then rates held at historic lows throughout the remainder of his presidency. You could have installed ME as the president and with that help even I could have accomplished what Obama did.

Trump had NONE of that help, yet he was able to keep the growth going in all facets to the point where he's achieved historic highs (or lows) in a number of key economic indicators. I used a sailing analogy before, but it bears repeating: Obama was running on the downwind leg with a following sea his entire presidency, full sails hoisted (including spinnaker)...Trump has been beating against the wind, constantly tacking, with a shitload of ballast added to his ship in the form of NO economic assistance from QE-Infinity, AGAINST the NINE fed rate increases (until recently) that began JUUUUUST before he took over, AGAINST already historic achievements/levels in virtually every economic indicator, AGAINST a congress and media that fuel angst and worry about a non-existent recession, and he's STILL accomplishing historic records, with new ones coming out every single day.

The two scenarios couldn't be more different and are, in fact, POLAR OPPOSITES, and to sit there and say that he's accomplished nothing and had no impact because "no trends have changed"?????

Honestly, it's a fucking miracle no trends have changed. It's a fucking miracle we haven't sunk into a recession already given the almost constant headwinds his administration has been facing.

[CAA Flagship]

Literally the two scenarios couldn't be more different and are, in fact, POLAR OPPOSITES, and to sit there and say that he's accomplished nothing and had no impact because "no trends have changed"?????

Honestly, it's a fucking miracle no trends have changed. It's a fucking miracle we haven't sunk into a recession already given the almost constant headwinds his administration is been facing.

Well said.

[css75]

Charlie Brown to Lucy: Tell your statistics to shut up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

February 9 would be pegged as the start of a general upward trend that continued through early 2018 by any OBJECTIVE person if all they were doing was looking at the data without knowing anything about what happened in the world and when. Now, there does appear to be a notable acceleration in the upward movement around the end of 2017 and the beginning of 2018. Since I do know what was happening and when I suspect that has to do with the tax bill. But after that it got highly variable and relatively flat (generally). It's 5.4% higher now than it was at the peak of that upward curve associated with tax bill time.

Is that your limit of understanding on the effects of external forces on the market and economy? Tax bills?
Look, if the market was flat since the 2016 election, it would have been a win considering all the negative influences including trade wars, global economy, Fed rate hikes, balance sheet unwinding, Brexit, etc.
You can't get all of the information on external forces by looking at a chart. Every chart has a story. If you understood how external forces affect the economy, you would know that your analysis is worthless.

I see. What you're doing is trying to argue that we should appeal to these "external forces" to support the argument that things are significantly different under Trump than they were during the previous portion of the current expansion. I guess the idea is that we assume that things would've gone downward due to these external forces you're talking about and since they've been about the same that means we're way better off.

Again: What I'm telling you is that if somebody was just looking at the data with no knowledge of what was happening when in terms of things like who was in power one would not identify the period around the end of 2016 and/or the beginning of 2017 as a period during which something significant happened to change things. One might say something appeared to have happened around the end of 2017. I said I suspect it was the tax bill. That does not mean I think a tax bill is the only thing that could ever possibly happen to cause an effect.

Bottom line is that the basic nature of the economy has not changed in association with Trump getting elected or taking office. We are continuing in a recovery that is characterized by relatively low growth and job creation rates as compared to previous recoveries and we are in about the same place with respect to the stock markets as we would expect to be if the basic per session growth rate characterizing the Bull Market during the Obama years continued through the present.

The idea that there's been this big change associated with Trump is nonsense.

[JohnStOnge]

Is that your limit of understanding on the effects of external forces on the market and economy? Tax bills?
Look, if the market was flat since the 2016 election, it would have been a win considering all the negative influences including trade wars, global economy, Fed rate hikes, balance sheet unwinding, global economies, etc.
You can't get all of the information on external forces by looking at a chart. Every chart has a story. If you understood how external forces affect the economy, you would know that your analysis is worthless.

Subjective data must be given careful and scientific consideration. The underlying scientific principles that are used to evaluate subjective data are very simple: if it supports JSO's hatred for Trump it is valid, if it doesn't, it isn't.

Not true at all. Again: I wish the objective data suggested things have gotten worse under Trump. They do not. So I do not attempt to claim that they do. Instead, I stick with what the objective data say: The economy is going along about the same as it was before Trump got elected and/or took office.

[UNI88]

Subjective data must be given careful and scientific consideration. The underlying scientific principles that are used to evaluate subjective data are very simple: if it supports JSO's hatred for Trump it is valid, if it doesn't, it isn't.

Not true at all. Again: I wish the objective data suggested things have gotten worse under Trump. They do not. So I do not attempt to claim that they do. Instead, I stick with what the objective data say: The economy is going along about the same as it was before Trump got elected and/or took office.

Brawwwkkk!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I like to play with data. I like to analyze data that are associated with the issues of the day. That's why you've seen the National Assessment of Educational Progress stuff. Gun violence stuff. Anything like that.

Except you do nothing of the sort. You merely take the data at face value, with absolutely zero understanding of what underlying dynamics are driving (or impeding) the data. You act like the data was created in some sort of "controlled experiment" where all the variables were the same for both players when they most certainly were not.

Obama inherited an economy that essentially had nowhere to go but up. We were just beginning to come out of the worst recession in 70 years...He was assisted with the residual effects of QE1, then QE2 and QE3, coupled with NINE rate decreases in the first year of his presidency and then rates held at historic lows throughout the remainder of his presidency. You could have installed ME as the president and with that help even I could have accomplished what Obama did.

Trump had NONE of that help, yet he was able to keep the growth going in all facets to the point where he's achieved historic highs (or lows) in a number of key economic indicators. I used a sailing analogy before, but it bears repeating: Obama was running on the downwind leg with a following sea his entire presidency, full sails hoisted (including spinnaker)...Trump has been beating against the wind, constantly tacking, with a shitload of ballast added to his ship in the form of NO economic assistance from QE-Infinity, AGAINST the NINE fed rate increases (until recently) that began JUUUUUST before he took over, AGAINST already historic achievements/levels in virtually every economic indicator, AGAINST a congress and media that fuel angst and worry about a non-existent recession, and he's STILL accomplishing historic records, with new ones coming out every single day.

The two scenarios couldn't be more different and are, in fact, POLAR OPPOSITES, and to sit there and say that he's accomplished nothing and had no impact because "no trends have changed"?????

Honestly, it's a fucking miracle no trends have changed. It's a fucking miracle we haven't sunk into a recession already given the almost constant headwinds his administration has been facing.

That's an interesting take. Obama took over when things were really bad and they turned around so he had it easier. Trump, on the other hand, took over when things were going well so he REALLY had it tough. You are just speculating on the idea that things should have gotten worse.

So you have something like this Black Unemployment Rate graph with the blue showing what happened under Obama and the red showing what happened under Trump:



And I guess you're saying "OH BUT IF TRUMP HADN'T GOTTEN ELECTED THE TREND WOULD"VE CHANGED."

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

[JohnStOnge]

And this thing about the "headwind" of the Fed raising rates. Please. Take a look at the history of Federal Funds Rate changes at https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-ra ... ws-3306135.

There were 3 rate increases during 2017 and 4 during 2018. The economy grew by 2.4% and 2.9% during those two years.

There were 5 rate increases during 2004 and the economy grew by 3.3%. There were 8 rate increases during 2005 and it grew by 3.5%. There were 6 in 1994 and the economy grew by 4.0%.

Plus, regardless of increases, interest rates remain at historically low levels. This crap about "headwinds" because the Fed raised interest rates a little is just that: Crap

The Fed is and has been there. It's always a factor.

[AZGrizFan]

And this thing about the "headwind" of the Fed raising rates. Please. Take a look at the history of Federal Funds Rate changes at https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-ra ... ws-3306135.

There were 3 rate increases during 2017 and 4 during 2018. The economy grew by 2.4% and 2.9% during those two years.

There were 5 rate increases during 2004 and the economy grew by 3.3%. There were 8 rate increases during 2005 and it grew by 3.5%. There were 6 in 1994 and the economy grew by 4.0%.

Plus, regardless of increases, interest rates remain at historically low levels. This crap about "headwinds" because the Fed raised interest rates a little is just that: Crap

The Fed is and has been there. It's always a factor.

I give up. You’re an idiot.

[HI54UNI]

And this thing about the "headwind" of the Fed raising rates. Please. Take a look at the history of Federal Funds Rate changes at https://www.thebalance.com/fed-funds-ra ... ws-3306135.

There were 3 rate increases during 2017 and 4 during 2018. The economy grew by 2.4% and 2.9% during those two years.

There were 5 rate increases during 2004 and the economy grew by 3.3%. There were 8 rate increases during 2005 and it grew by 3.5%. There were 6 in 1994 and the economy grew by 4.0%.

Plus, regardless of increases, interest rates remain at historically low levels. This crap about "headwinds" because the Fed raised interest rates a little is just that: Crap

The Fed is and has been there. It's always a factor.

I give up. You’re an idiot.

It's time for the Spanos treatment.