World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

I think the protectionist policies, depending on how they are implemented, could be good for the American worker in the long run... or terrible. There is so much unpredictability in the market that it's just hard to know how they'll react to a lot of things. (Seriously, if I or anyone else had it completely figured out, we'd be, like, gazillionaires or something.)

Much of the ebullience of investors during the Obama years was less built on fundamental economic strength and more on the policies of quantitative easing that flooded the market with dollars. It's kinda hard to ignore that gravy train, but it's also divorced from "Main Street" as well. The current Trump enthusiasm is for policies that are seen as pro-business, but it's certainly got the potential to be reigned in by bad choices in other areas.

So basically, yeah, I don't see the stock market as necessarily an indicator of economic health. It can be, but it's not always.

[Exhuminator]

I hear the stock market has historically gone up over time.

If it had gone down instead, reporters world over would blame Trump immediately. Therefore I posit the reverse is fair game to indicate Trump had a positive effect thus far.

And with that, I leave you gentlemen to your pleasant discussions. I hope you all have a wonderful day!

[MrPopo]

I disagree with your conclusion. You're correct that had it gone down it would be an indication that investors are nervous about Trump. It going up is an indicator that they aren't nervous about Trump, which is not the same as being positive about Trump.

[ElkinFencer10]

Having an erroneous association with negative trends does not justifying holding an equally erroneous association for positive trends.

tl;dr - two wrongs don't make a right

[Blu]

This podcast is informative on the notion of the DJIA. What is it really comprised of, and how much faith to put in it?



Meanwhile, enjoy those gag orders. No new hiring on federal agencies is going to hurt people who were recently hired for something like USPS, or other gov't jobs that might've put food on the table.

And the gag orders are outrageous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarge]

Well, sure. I think that was Exhuminator's point. It shows there are some biases in much of the press that would lead them to associate only bad things with him.

I don't think it's really going out on a limb to say that, for right now, some of the proposed policies of the Trump administration have the business world excited. So attributing that bounce to Trump certainly isn't unreasonable. Nor would it be unreasonable to attribute a drop in enthusiasm to too much protectionist meddling.

[ElkinFencer10]

I think we also need to keep in mind that some of the proposals exciting the business community aren't necessarily going to be good for the nation as a whole. I agree with some of his ideas, like protectionism. The gag rule on the EPA, however, that undoubtedly has coal and oil companies excited, is legitimately offensive IMO.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I really do try to stay out of this thread for many reasons, but today I did see this:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/investi ... index.html

Not a bad start IMO.

Undoubtedly, the current administration and congress will be friendlier to business interests, which is why we saw a spike in stock prices immediately after the election. Sadly, however, only half of Americans own any stocks at all, and the wealthiest Americans own an increasing percentage of the stock market. Accordingly, stock market gains help the wealthiest Americans much more than they do poorer Americans.

Certainly, however, stock market gains are good, and I am personally happy to see my accounts looking so flush at the moment. A business-friendly environment is also good. The issue, however, will be whether the efforts taken to help businesses will be worth their consumer protection, environmental, social, etc. costs. I am not sure that they will be, and I think that the key to long-term prosperity (i.e., the type that will matter to my children) is widespread economic gains. It would be great if the Trump administration and the Republican congress could pull this off, but based on their policy proposals, I suspect that most of the gains we will see in the coming years will be (1) short term and (2) overwhelmingly in favor of the wealthiest Americans.

[Ack]

I expect the federal hiring freeze will not last. After all, one of the departments most hurt by it is the currently heavily understaffed Department of Veterans' Affairs. Trump's claims of being pro-veteran are going to look pretty bad if the VA doesn't begin hiring soon. That said, he is claiming that the freeze is for the duration of his nominees being appointed, so...We shall see.

[marurun]

One more enlightening video I saw on the Oreilly Show

The phrase I always found myself least likely to hear after "Wow, teachers are fucking rich!"

It might surprise you, but O'Reilly's actually done some great work over the years. While he's steadfast in his views, he has given some excellent interviews(his interview with Marilyn Manson being one of the best I've ever seen the performer give). I've also seen Bill argue and make counterpoints to people on his program that I know he agrees with. And he has a determined pro-education stance which has led him to write multiple history books, likely stemming from his background as a teacher.

Now he is by no means perfect. His response to the sexual harrassment claims against Roger Ailes has been troubling at best. But he's not just another alt-right mouthpiece the way he is portrayed(or the way some on his network, such as Sean Hannity, appear to be). I think you do yourself a disservice to immediately discount him, even if you disagree with his views.

Bill O'Reilly's historical writing has been widely criticized for putting his views first and framing (or outright misrepresenting) key historical data to ensure that view is upheld. This is a dangerous way to write history. History is where what we know takes us, not how do we interpret it to arrive at the conclusion we like.

Further, he hasn't been a journalist for a long time. He's an opinion person, a commentator. He isn't reliably informative. Sometimes he is, sometimes he's not, and if you don't know which is which and rely on him to tell you, you can easily be led astray. Basically, O'Reilly is informationally dangerous to his most devout viewers. To folks like Ack he could be viewed as entertainment and even sometimes informational, but to many others he is a highly unreliable source of information held up as a unflagging journalist.