MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, April 23rd 2024 - 10:42 UTC

 

 

Dow Jones closes past a historic 20.000 point marks on Trump's actions

Thursday, January 26th 2017 - 08:56 UTC
Full article 14 comments

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) surged and closed past a historic 20,000 points mark on Wednesday (25 January), on strong earnings data from major constituents and US President Donald Trump's reaffirmation of his pro natural resources stance which sent related stocks higher both overnight and in early trading. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Marti Llazo

    We always knew Trumpismo would cause the US economy to crash, but who would have expected such strong evidence of decline so soon?

    Jan 26th, 2017 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Indeed. The wealthy establishment and rich Wall Street bankers must be very happy with their new president.

    For future reference, how long did the K's rule Argentina before the economy went into recession? And how about Brazil under the PT?

    Jan 26th, 2017 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @DT

    You're clearly unfamiliar with the US economy and the generally positive correlation between stock market direction and the Average Joe's portfolio. Do you have any idea at all how economies work?

    Jan 26th, 2017 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    You'd think it would have a positive correlation, wouldn't you? But I heard recently that the people have not been sharing in the wealth; that the establishment had protected itself, but not the people of America; and that while rich people celebrated in the nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families across the land.

    Since the US stock market has risen pretty steadily since 2009, but many people are complaining about the terrible state of America today, I can only conclude that in fact it hasn't done much for the average Joe.

    Oh, and I looked up Lula. Brazil's GDP was .5T US$ when he took over in 2003, and when he left office in 2010 it was over 2T. Would you say that the effects of mismanaging the economy can take a long time to become apparent, or do you think Lula was doing a good job?

    Jan 26th, 2017 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @DT Somewhere around half of the residents of the US own stocks. A substantial number who do not own stocks directly also benefit from the investments represented by stock ownership. A higher valuation that results from good stock market performance means, in general, greater wealth or potential wealth for a substantial portion of the US population. And yet in your mind a condition which generates greater wealth for a very large number of people while allowing commerce to grow and enhance overall economic performance of a nation is somehow a negative thing ? I think we are on the road to understanding your problem.

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    52% to be precise. It was in the mid 60s before that large portion lost most of it in the 2008 collapse. And, mist over half own stock, almost all of it is retirement in 401K and are not active nor day traders. This bench mark is speculating on the future, which is fine. But, eventually speculation is besieged by reality.

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Marti, try actually reading what I wrote. I didn't say the stock market rising was a negative thing. It's generally a good thing except when it's due to a bubble.

    But it's interesting to see how much the supposedly anti-establishment candidate has supported the establishment already. Bank shares have been among the biggest gainers, since Trump is planning to deregulate the banks, leaving them free to them to create another bubble and another financial crisis. But this is unsurprising since he has already recruited several Wall Street Bankers to his team.

    It should be obvious even to you that wealthier people have more invested in the stock market, and therefore get a bigger benefit from its rise than smaller investors. And as I said, the stock market has risen very considerably since 2009, “generating greater wealth for a very large number of people while allowing commerce to grow and enhancing overall economic performance of the nation”, yet Americans evidently do not feel that their economy is performing very well.

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @Captain P

    That percentage varies over time, of course. If those retirement funds with a stock component are well managed, and properly balanced and diversified then, also over time, the average-Joe workers affected historically do a lot better than things like the low interest IRAs. And we are indeed talking about what is available and used by mainstream workers, and during sufficiently long periods to avoid the temporary effects of short-term events. Why DT is so opposed to the idea of having middle-class workers achieve growth in their retirement funds is something of a mystery. He/she sounds like the type that expects a Social Security system to make him/her comfortable. I rather suspect he/she doesn't understand any of it.

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    @ML
    Since you are evidently having serious difficulty with reading comprehension: I think middle-class workers having growth in their retirement funds is a good thing, and I think the stock market rising is in general good too.

    However, as you have been unable to address anything I actually said, and would rather argue with a socialist fantasy of your own creation, there is no point continuing the discussion.

    It won't stop me pointing it out when you are wrong in the future though. ;)

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Captain Poppy

    Some people will need SS to retire. And I want and expect my country to remain that way. There are days I regret Marbury v. Madison.

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @DT This is what you wrote: “Since the US stock market has risen pretty steadily since 2009, but many people are complaining about the terrible state of America today, I can only conclude that in fact it hasn't done much for the average Joe.”

    Not only is that a textbook example of non sequitur and reliance on insubstantial hearsay, but unambiguous evidence of your utter inability to even wish to understand economies.

    Jan 27th, 2017 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @ML
    Firstly, I assume you now agree that I did NOT say that the stock market rising is a bad thing.

    Secondly, you will have to be more specific. Which part is a reliance on hearsay? The fact that Americans aren't happy with their economy? There are surveys showing it to be true. And how is my statement a non-sequitur? We both agree that a rising stock market has a positive effect on the average person's wealth. The question is the size of this effect. Since the stock market has been rising strongly for the majority of the last 8 years, yet the average person does NOT feel that they are much better off, we may safely conclude that the effect is not a very large one, in the current circumstances.

    And to return to my original point, Trump promised to help the ordinary people, and accused Clinton of being beholden to Wall Street. Yet his actual plans are far more beneficial to Wall Street banks, speculators etc than hers were, hence the stock market rise.

    Jan 28th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    @ DT “....yet the average person does NOT feel that they are much better off,...” “....Aren't happy....”

    Feelings ? You base your Weltanschauung on unnamed surveys of people's unqualified “feelings” ? Child, we do not make important economic decisions based on “feelings” -- particularly the feelings of people who are too stupid or inept to actually analyse how their retirement portfolios were performing for that component which was related to stock performance. Joe Six-pack in the US has no idea how much his company's retirement plan or his own 401(K) is growing from stocks at any given time. Do you think Joe Six-pack has any idea that his retirement portfolio includes a mix of stocks that have averaged annual increases of 6 percent plus dividends? Of course not. Maybe, just maybe this Joe Six-pack is unhappy because he “feels” that his former job as a carpenter was under-bid by José Fulano and his gang of shirtless sinaloeses and Missus Six-pack “feels” unhappy because her classroom-assistant job was replaced by a Spanish-speaking bilingual aide, and maybe both of them “feel” that this Trump feller is going to make them feel better.

    “Since the stock market has been rising strongly ..... we may safely conclude....”

    Wrong. Complete rubbish. Where is the connection? Or rather, where is the causality? You can't logically make any such conclusion. You have failed completely to establish any sort of argument for a causal relationship between the stock market performance and people “feeling better off” -- let alone a causal connection in their actual conditions. Do you even understand the difference between coincidence (correlation) and causality? A proclivity for non sequitur is the least of your problems.

    Jan 29th, 2017 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “Child, we do not make important economic decisions based on “feelings””

    Wrong. First, it's not 'we'; you do not live in the US and have denied being an American.

    Secondly, in the US everyone has a vote, even “people who are too stupid or inept to actually analyse how their retirement portfolios were performing”, and however foolish or irrational their choice, the people they elect make the important economic decisions.

    Thirdly, you are making my point for me. It is exactly true that the average person cares more about whether they have a decent job or not than how well their pension fund is performing. And despite your poor opinion of the average US worker, this is neither foolish nor irrational. No job means no money now, and no more money to pay into their pension either.

    “You have failed completely to establish any sort of argument for a causal relationship between the stock market performance and people “feeling better off””

    Marti, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, but I am arguing that there is NOT a strong connection between those two things for the average person. Do you agree with me or not?

    Jan 29th, 2017 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!