Over 2 trillion $ added to market since Trump was elected


I bet CNBC hates having to publish this great market news :slight_smile:



The stock market lives in its own world much of the time; partly because of our monetary policies.


Confidence helps, it’s a driver of investment


Again, it’s pretty much its own world.


Nope, markets respond to a lot of things, epecially speculation on how a President will push economic and tax reforms.


You didn’t respond to what I said, please read the article

As it lays out, stock markets rely on cronyist arrangements and signals, so they have a high degree of insulation from what actual market trends are out there. They can be bullish even when the rest of the economy is receding.

I don’t deny at all that Trump can have a positive effect on them. What I’m saying, is that the Stock market is it’s own world, because of its cronyism. A world Trump knows all too well.


Both crony capitalists and the not crony capitalists respond to many things - including political climate and Presidential direction, agreed


But we’re not talking about non-cronies, nor are we talking about markets at large. We’re talking about the Stock Market.

This is the only thing your article refers to. A sector of the economy that handles finance, not the economy at large. And while the tax cuts aren’t even in yet, throwing uncertainty onto the whole “perception” being angled at, there is a place Trump has spurred investment in: Defense stocks.

This example may not be one of outright cronyism, but it also isn’t natural economic occurrence. Rather, it’s political economy.

Political economy, is just as deleterious long term as Government crowding out credit markets with Treasury bonds, or using TARP funds to build more things we don’t need.


That etf is different. Markets are reacting, and it’s not cronyism as the driving factor - maybe speculation, thats mainly it


Most of what Trump has actually done thus far is cronyism.

Dude was never a fan of free markets, so it’s not surprising he uses cronyism and political economy as staples of his agenda.

I get the impulse to want to cheer on the Red-team, but I’m not going to turn a blind eye to economic charlatanism or stupidity. Not from anyone.

Either you get the policies right, or you’re just more of the same. Right Wing flavor of statism vs the Left wing flavor we had before.


He doesn’t control the markets or how they respond. They respond independently. Not sure where you’re going with your tangent.

Supporting and promoting “American” is exactly what got him elected by a surprising number of Americans - it’s not inherently cronyism. American workers are more motivated and speculating the future will be worth investing in


Good, then we can forget the part where we try arbitrarily assign success to him like this.

Stock markets are a spurious indicator, are highly indulged in unnatural economic subsidies, and even if Trump is helping them, it’s no indicator he’s doing anything that helps the wider economy.

Which, we should lay out right now, is something he cannot do anyway. He cannot help the economy, the economy helps itself, the only thing he can do is not hurt it. Or hurt it.

Yes it is, because it only calls for protectionist policies. Tariffs on foreign goods, punishing corporations who have part of their operations overseas, picking fights with countries we have free trade agreements with, etc.

“Made in America” isn’t important, because it was never in trouble. Manufacturing capacity has grown year after year; jobs decreased because machines took over, and the goods America made went further up the value chain.

China is experiencing the same trend right now.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, Populism does not = economic rectitude. Trump being elected on it, says nothing of substance.

In both Greece and France right now, economic populism means more benefits and subsidies for everyone, along with nigh-permanent job security. The popularity of those agendas, doesn’t change that it’s economically infeasible, and that they won’t be getting it no matter who they elect.

Indeed, it’s precisely because economic cycles can outlast human lifespans, that we can say political agendas are frequently mismatched against economic realities.

You can do things for decades that will turn out to not be sustainable or helpful, and Joe Schmoe will be none the wiser as he’ll have been lied to about it all his life by rent-seeking politicians promising bigger pies.


You making an argument for that or what?

He doesn’t control markets but they respond.

There is much more to “American” than you are arguing about.


I disagree, but the economy isn’t the topic here - it’s the market which enjoys Bulls and Bears in up and down economies alike


You’re only metric is the Stock market. Meanwhile, job growth and GDP slowed compared to the last 6 months of the last administration.

But even saying that much annoys me, because again, the entire point I’m making? It’s wrong to credit administrations with economic performance like this. Policies are almost never 1:1, especially not in the near-term.

They don’t control the economy, as the economy has its own cycles to work through regardless of whose in charge in that the particular moment. This could mean that there’s a recession coming, and there’s nothing Trump can do but bear it. Or it can mean that an explosion of growth is upon us, and nothing Trump can do will dismember it.

Economy is its own entity, with its own will. Politics and its assorted actors are mostly chimps mashing buttons on a console.

Fine, I’ll bite, tell me what the policies you’re supporting are; what the end game is and how you get there.


I think you keep conflating the economy and the s&p 500’s run. Investment is driven by confidence in a future return, speculation. People’s confidence in the future is different from actual economic progress of today.
This market run of 2 trillion $ is impressive, and is in direct contradiction to what many predicted a Trump presidency would cause (predicted: lack of confidence and a nation and world afraid to invest; actual: the opposite)


It sounds to me that that is what you wanted this to mean, that he’s having a positive effect on the economy.

But as I said; the stock markets are a spurious indicator, as they pretty much live in their own world.


Please point out where I ever said economy … but fair enough, just a mistake in assuming I meant economy when I said market