Posts
Chart #1
Chart #1 shows households' financial burdens, which are defined as monthly debt service payments as a percent of disposable income. This is a robust measure of debt burdens since it compares a flow (debt payments) to a flow (income). By this measure, households' debt burdens are at historically low levels, and have been for a number of years. No sign here of excessive borrowing, as there was prior to the past three recessions.
Chart #2
Chart #2 compares a stock (liabilities) to a stock (assets), and by this measure household leverage is as low as it has been since the mid-1980s.
Chart #3
Household net worth (Chart #3) has reached another all-time high: $109 trillion. This has been achieved primarily by increased savings and investments in both stocks and bonds. Home price appreciation has played only a minor role, since the value of households' real estate holdings has appreciated less than 20% since the housing price peak of 2006. At the same time, total debt has increased by only 10% since 2007. If only our government could be so frugal!
Chart #4
Chart #4 shows the inflation-adjusted value of household net worth, which has also reached an all-time high. It's important to note that this measure of financial well-being has been increasing by about 3.6% per year for many decades. Recent gains are almost exactly in line with historical experience. Nothing unusual or unsustainable about this.
Chart #5
Chart #5 shows the inflation-adjusted, per capita level of net worth, which is also at an all-time high ($329K per person). Note that this too has been growing at close to its long-term trend rate of about 2.3% per year. That growth rate is only slightly higher than the 2% annualized increase in labor productivity since 1950. That makes sense: living standards can only rise if we work harder and more efficiently, and that in turn requires investments of time and money (i.e., capital).
Chart #6
Federal debt owed to the public (currently $16.2 trillion) has been soaring by virtually any measure (see Chart #6). As a percent of GDP, federal debt is approaching 80%, the highest level since the early 1950s. It's worth noting that, contrary to what many might think, rising debt burdens do not necessarily translate into higher interest rates. If anything, there appears to be an inverse correlation between debt burdens and interest rates.
Chart #7
When compared to household net worth, federal debt has actually been declining for the past 6-7 years (see Chart #7). The current level (15%) may be high, but it's not beyond the range of believable: if we all wrote a check to the government for 15% of our net worth—a painful thought, but not a killer—federal debt would disappear.
61 comments:
Your last chart is revealing and perhaps largely a reason why despite what appears to be a dangerous escalation of federal debt, the yield on the 10 year continues to defy expectations an remain shockingly low. One would think that if the federal debt were pernicious that interest rates would soar.
Great charts and commentary.
At the risk of sounding like a financial nihilist, I am beginning to wonder what is federal debt and if it matters.
The Federal Reserve, and also the Bank of Japan and the ECB, appear to be able to buy back federal debt without inflationary consequences.
There are trillions of dollars of sovereign bonds outstanding that offer of negative interest rates---indeed a growing pool.
We will see if the United States joins Japan and Europe, and becomes a sovereign that issues bonds at 0% or even less.
For students of financial history, it is a Brave New World.
It may be that monetary authorities will lose ability to stimulate or contract economies, at at least with conventional tools, which may now include quantitative easing.
If true, that would suggest that national governments should engage in deficit spending and then have central banks buy back the bonds. This need not entail wasteful social programs but could be accomplished by cutting taxes on productive behavior--- that is, working and investing.
Sir, You always blow me away with solid facts just when I'm about to fall prey to the fake news syndrome. Thank you.
My only concern with these "household debt and net worth" statistics is that I worry that we have this bi-modal distribution. We have many Americans with nearly no assets and credit card debt. And then we have wealthier people with plenty of assets and very little debt outside of a mortgage. The average or median may well be misleading.
So much seems to be riding on financial assets appreciation, namely the stock market. I wonder how some of the charts above may change if there is a crash.
Also, while consumer spending may remain stable given the low household debt burden to what extent a capex freeze and a sharp slowdown in the inventory cycle may affect the same. After all, the appreciation on stocks may have not come as a result of household leveraging but corporations buying back their stocks. Once money dries, there goes the rallies. And perhaps the rise on unemployment or layoffs.
I guess if some of this plays out we are for the 3rd leg: Federal Reserve directly buying any financial asset. Which may mean there is still another 3 to 5 years for this bull run.
Adding..
1st it was us, retail leveraging.
2nd it was corps, buying back their stocks.
3rd it will be the government leveraging to the hilt a-la-BOJ.
The 4th leg will be Wilie Coyote's at the end of the road.
Thank you for the revealing charts Mr. Grannis.
Is the appreciation of financial assets ephemeral? Hardly. The bedrock of equity price appreciation is corporate profits, which have been at historically high levels, both nominally and relative to GDP, throughout most of the past decade. Equity prices are vulnerable should corporate profits decline, but presumably that would occur only if there is some shock to the economy (e.g., a recession caused by overly tight monetary policy, an increase in corporate tax rates, a natural disaster, a war, etc.). If after-tax profits remain at current levels relative to GDP (9-10%) then there is every reason to believe that the stock market will not suffer a debilitating crash. In other words, stock prices are not a bubble at risk of bursting just because.
Speaking of Households....
Andrew Ross-Sorkin just pointed out on CNBC this morning that the median household net worth for a black family in Boston is $8.
He and his guests say that's proof capitalism doesn't work, and we need a massive redistributive tax code (socialism) so that everybody has a chance to make it. Double down on government dependency, and punish the wealthy.
There is simply too much capitalism out there, and its killing America. Trump broke our economy.
HIGHER TAX RATES, NOW!!!
REPARATIONS!!!
We need a tax on stock and bond trades so we can forgive all student loans, and keep the indoctrination camps funded.
FWIW, 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.
Capitalism's fault, obviously.
Sadly, single moms aren't as prosperous as married.
Single moms get bigger government checks than married moms.
Cycle of glorious government dependency continues!
Please ignore the record low unemployment rate for blacks in Trump's economy.
Those numbers are a disgrace.
When we "force" people to support themselves and find a job, we rob them of their dignity.
So good to see America "having this discussion". The DEM primary debates will be glorious.
All Praise the State! Eat the rich.
Scott, what do you say in response to people who say that the size of the US national debt is a deeply immoral act, in the sense that it is effectively stealing from our children and grandchildren and those not yet born ? Thanks.
Johnny Bee: Ditto, ditto. Progressives go to great lengths to avoid holding people responsible for their actions. Income redistribution is the wrong way to counter inequality; it only makes things worse. Education would be much better (e.g., "give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he can eat forever"). In the debates tonight we will hear 20 people promising "free stuff" in one form or another in an attempt to buy votes. It's really disheartening to think that some fraction of the voters will be attracted to these promises.
Rob, re national debt: It's not so much immoral as it is wasteful. Keep in mind that future interest payments on all that debt will flow to someone's pocket; debt service does not flush money down the drain, it simply redistributes it. The worst thing about all the debt is that it represents inefficient and wasteful spending. The economy would be much stronger today if the money the government borrowed in the past were instead left in the private sector, where it would have been put to better use. Keep in mind also that 75% of federal spending is devoted to transfer payments: taking money out of a working person's pocket and putting it in the pocket of someone else who didn't have to work for it.
Thank you for your analysis sir.
What Andy had said about credit cards, also sparked a thought.
There's also the dimension of time to this too.
Baby boomers are retiring, downsizing, and then dying. - That's going to be a long term fundamental change!
What do you think about that Mr Grannis?
Donald @ newsography.com
Yes, households are in good shape, but I am looking For Commodity Updates. Hope so you will post related to it soon. Free Commodity Tips.
Scott, your insight would be appreciated about the fact that the 10-year French bond is almost in negative territory. Obviously, this does not make sense from the point of view of French public finances. It seems that the market discounts a deepening in QE by the ECB, but to what extent monetary policy with rates already well below zero becomes effective, in a context in which there are still no structural reforms in the Eurozone?
Thanks.
I'll try to add some "balance" to the always bullish outlook here -- Hopefully Johnny Bee Dawg won't get too upset::
For "Households Are in Good Shape", why ignore the Household Employment Survey ?
Employment data are lagging indicators, so they typically look good until the month a recession begins .... but both surveys had unusually bad news last month.
The May 2019 "Payroll" Employment Survey, released in early June, was bad news, but few people realized just how bad (see note below).
The May 2019 Household Employment Survey has been bad news for six months (see note below) -- so bad it suggests a recession began last month.
MAY 2019 HOUSEHOLD SURVEY:
This phone survey of households for May 2019 found there were
156,758,000 employed Americans, LOWER THAN NOVEMBER 2018
-- six months earlier, when there were 156,803,000 employed Americans !
MAY 2019 ESTABLISHMENT "PAYROLL" SURVEY:
The +75,000 new jobs estimate for May 2019 was obviously bad news.
Rarely mentioned by the media: March 2019 and April 2019 negative revisions added up to negative -75,000). That means the total number of American jobs reported in May 2019 was exactly the same as the total number of American jobs reported in April 2019! No jobs growth!
Best first half for the S&P 500 in over TWO DECADES!!
Despite the best efforts of all the nattering nabobs of negativity in the media and the Swamp.
Thank you, Donald.
If not for unbridled socialist policies around the developed world, and Swamp monsters fighting against We The People, markets would be twice as high as they are now.
Let’s see if America decides to embrace the prosperity produced by limited government power & low tax rates, or chooses to buy into the failed Statist/redistributive policies of the past.
Gonna be up to the voters and the vote-riggers!
God Bless Donald.
Never in my lifetime has there even been a politician that so thoroughly follows thru on his campaign promises.
Let's compare the Johnny B. Dawg "Trump cheerleader" style, with honest journalism that does not mislead investors:
Johnny B. Dawg, so excited he's out of breath, and can barely talk:
"Best first half for the S&P 500 in over TRWO DECADES."
.
.
.
Real journalism should be calm and without bias.
(1)
The S&P 500 stock average hit 2,872.87 on January 26, 2018.
(2)
The S&P 500 stock average closed yesterday, June 28, 2019, at 2,941.76,
for a gain of less than +2.4% in the past 17 months.
I'm just guessing now, but i suspect Johnny Bee Dawg would be reporting using style (2) if Obama has been president !
Cliff, I'm all for "Real journalism should be calm and without bias". To that end, VFINX a Vanguard surrogate for the S&P 500 was down 4.5% in '18 and is up 18.5% YTD for an 18 mos total return of 11.3% or 8.5% acr.
Obviously if we go back a little further it's much better.
Stock futures up another 220 points on Sunday nite!
God Bless Donald!!
This was a thoroughly America-First week at the G20!!
Kept us out of that One World Government Climate idiocy, too!
I’m out of breath, I’m so exited that America is Great Again!!
I’m not a journalist...I’m just an investment man, making huge returns from Donald J. Trump!
I’m not tired of winning, yet, Donald!!
Johnny Bee Dawg
If you are an "investment man"
then you must have made a
lot of money in the bull market
that started two months after
obama became president,
but you never mentions that
-- you seem fixated on the
mere additional +25% while
Trump was president
-- why is that ?
Steve
I quoted exact numbers for the S&P 500 average to two decimal places.
Yet you can't accept reality.
Why is that?
Cliff, why did you select January 26, 2018 as your starting point. It sure seems real random for someone quoting returns out to two decimal places. Oh wait! You carefully picked your starting point in order to falsely support your thesis. The S&P500 was up about 7.5% in the month of January alone (not even including dividends). Why would you not include those returns? Maybe, just maybe, the concept of "fake news" has been illustrated by your posts.
Yessir, I bought the day of the low in March 2009, when Barney Frank agreed at 8:15am his committee would address mark to market accounting reforms. I added after the Million person Tea Party rally that July 4. We The People pushing back against socialism sent stocks soaring. Kicking DEMs our of the House, and then the Senate really got us going!
The best thing that happened during Obama was the Sequester, when government spending was actually CUT for the first and only time of my life. 2013 was a record year for me and it started the minute PUBs passed the bill on the Jan 1 holiday.
I wrote about all of that. DEMs controlling Congress is like throwing sand in the gears of the stock market.
Last Fall was no exemption.
The PUB spending bill engineered by Paul Ryan watered down all kinds of Trump goals. The Swamp snookered Donald with that. If they had more tax cuts and less spending, stocks & GDP would be much higher today, already. The coup attempt was approved by Swamp PUBs, with the same goals. The biggest enemy of prosperity is the government mafia and the socialists within.
Cliff, you have lost any credibility you may have dubiously had with your last post.
Seriously, go away.
Down South
I picked the high point for 2018, which was a down year for stocks.
The question for investors is whether they would have been smart selling at that high point, and investing elsewhere, such as in Treasury Bonds, or just holding on to all their stocks through 2018.
So far the right answer is that selling all stocks at the January 2018 high, and investing in Treasury Bonds, would have been the best choice.
With stock (and other markets) you ALWAYS keep an eye on previous peaks (and troughs) to be sure the bull market (or bear market) is still in progress.
That means comparisons with the 2018 high point are meaningful, not data mining, and the S&P 500 stock average has been struggling since then -- a small gain over those 17 months -- and that fact is meaningful information.
Insults from you Steve, are taken as a complement by me.
And people who claim they bought the "day of the low in March 2009" are usually liars, implying they had no stock investments during the bear market, and invested 100% of their cash on March 6, 2009. That did not happen.
"So far the right answer is that selling all stocks at the January 2018 high, and investing in Treasury Bonds, would have been the best choice".
So you have a magic wand to tell when the market has made a peak now? BTW, as of today S&P 500 at an all time high.
Another poor pessimist. A dime a dozen.
Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ all three closed at fresh new record all-time HIGHS today!
The S&P Low Vol index is up over 16% since that Jan 18 high.
The best action was not to sell stocks and buy bonds, but to maintain investments in the parts of the stock market with the best relative strength. No need to own the laggards.
The low vol S&P index is beating the S&P 500 by 120bp ytd, and hit it’s all time high months ago in February.
Longest economic expansion in US history. Lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, best first half for stocks in over 2 decades! AND CLIMBING!!
America is Great Again!
Happy Independence Day, everybody!!
God Bless Donald, and God Bless America!!
Wait...I just read Cliff’s last statement.
Did you just call me a liar??
Excuse me, I had ZERO equities remaining after Jan 2008, and wrote about it all the way.
Bonds and commodities were blowing away ALL equitiy indexes in relative strength, and finally even they lost in relative strength vs Cash.
Bullish percents were at the lowest ever recorded when Barney Frank made his mark to market announcement...exactly as I stated.
That combination is the reason I bought that very day. Futures had reversed up over 800 points in just a few minutes, pre-market after that announcement, you twit. I started with triple leveraged financial ETFs which were already up 20% at the open, but rose anyway. Brian Wesbury had been pointing out in numerous articles about mark to market accounting effect, and the banking index reacting to rumors of its repeal. I added funds that week, mistakenly took profits in June, and went all-in after the July 4 Tea Party rally when I decided Jefferson and Madison were smarter than Barack and Soros, and America was pushing back against socialist idiocy.
You called me a liar because you were too stupid to evaluate the situation, and you assume everyone else is just as stupid as you are.
Cliff, you haven’t been right on a thing you’ve posted in any of your garbage I’ve bothered to read, yet I’ve never been so rude as to point it out before.
All your hand-wringing has been dead wrong for as long as I’ve noticed you on here.
Dead wrong. Spectacularly wrong. You are the definition of a fool, never learning from your errors.
I’ve never bothered to point THAT out either, until you just called me a liar.
Every word I wrote is true. Go suck an egg.
JBW,
Can I have your autograph and email so I can move all my money to your firm and take advantge of your perfect track record?
Ha! Kinda funny and JBW, seriously, you're full full of s*^T.
Johnny Bee Dawg
The S&P 500 index has barely increased since the January 26, 2018 peak of 2872.87
Friday we closed at 2990.41, up a mere +4% in 17 months !
You Mr. Dawg, who won't even use his real name online, will probably claim you made +40% while the S&P 500 was up +4% !
If you are insisting that you were 100% in cash through the last bear market, and suddenly invested 100% of that cash in stocks on March 6, 2009, then either you are the best investor in the United States, or you a a liar.
My money is on liar.
By the way Obama averaged +2.2% economic growth over the 7.5 years after the recession ended.
Your hero Mr. Trump averaged +2.55% growth in his first two years = not much better than Obama !
2017 Real GDP was up +2.2%, over 2016 (Trump)
2018 Real GDP was up +2.9%, over 2017 (Trump)
2.2% + 2.9% / 2 = 2.55%
Obama averaged +2.2%, after the recession ended
Richard Greene
BS 1975
MBA 1977
Retired at age 51 in January 2005
Bingham Farms, Michigan
Cliff...did you read my post?
Your summary of what I said bears no resemblance to what I wrote.
It’s something you made up in your own head.
Fred. No, I won’t help you.
You don’t take advice well.
Steve...you can go suck an egg, too.
If I recall correctly, you’ve been sitting in cash wringing your hands while markets soared to all time highs.
If I have you confused with someone else, pardon me.
Go suck an egg anyway., though. Seriously
JBD- Can I at least have your autograph? Seriously.
Fred: Its in the mail. My pleasure!
Thanks JBD. It will look great hanging over my toilet.
Glad I could make your dreams come true, Fred.
Johnny Bee Dawg:
Please take your medications.
You are getting hysterical (like a leftist does about climate change).
People who brag about their investments
are usually misleading, or lying, especially
when they brag about buying at the exact bottom.
Do you manage the money for your motorcycle gang?
Being a "Trumpophile" is one thing in Mr. Dawg's favor.
but let's not exaggerate Trump's accomplishments
-- Trump does enough exaggerating for ten men.
The S&P 500 is up about 3.5% since the January 2018 high.
That's not much progress in 17.5 months.
Something is wrong with the economy .
The Atlanta Fed GDP NOW forecast is for 1.3% growth in 2Q 2019.
The New York Fed Nowcast forecast is for 1.48% growth in 2Q 2019.
The only way to make those numbers look good is to multiply them by 2 or 3 !
Re GDP NOW forecasts: The St. Louis Fed's GDP forecasting model is now (as of 7/8/19) predicting 2.89% for Q2/19 GDP growth. The NY Fed 's forecast is 1.48%
Cliff, re S&P 500 returns: What is the rationale for picking the Jan. '18 high as a starting point? How about the Nov. '16 elections? Since Nov. 8 '16, the total return of the S&P 500 is 46.7%. Not too shabby
Scott: how does Trump compare to Obama over the same period for stock market performance? I think Obama's returns are higher from inauguration to this time in the 3rd year of their presidencies. I prefer most of Trump's economic policies except trade which I think has hurt the market returns.
Lol..."everyone" else is stupid, steve?
Best first half in over 2 decades.
You nattering nabobs of negativism convict yourselves.
God Bless Donald.
Hey, Fred...
Can you describe any Barack policies or rhetoric that were pro-growth, and made markets rise?
I'll hang up and listen
JBD: I didn't vote for Obama and believe his policies generally were bad for long term growth of the economy. However, from his election to the end of his presidency we had 10 million new jobs, US corporate profits grew by 70% and the S&P 500 rose 226%. Just think how much better it would have been had he not promoted the regulated state! As for Trump, just think how much stronger the economy would be if he coupled spending cuts with his tax reform and he didn't believe tariffs were good! Hopefully he will be able to do better on these fronts but I do worry that his tariffs will ultimately reverse the positive effects of his tax cuts. I am already seeing tariff escalation clauses added in contracts for new commercial construction projects due to the impacts on pricing. This is not good for the economy.
Fred: what I meant was, can we reasonably attribute any of the growth and market rise to Barack’s anti-growth rhetoric and policies?
Or was it because we had crashed far too much from the combination of mark-to-market accounting changes and socialist threats to policy in the first place, and We The People threw the bastards out of Congress?
The trend of GDP took a very muted path once DEMs took over Congress in 2007, until Barack was on his way out.
Highlighted by record cash on the sidelines the whole way.
Worst recovery of the modern era.
In fact, Scott has pointed out that GDP is $3 TRILLION below trend because of that period.
We don’t have as robust of a tax and spending cut package as we should have because of the NeverTrump swamp forces, led by Paul Ryan. RINO PUBs blocked ObamaCare Repeal and spending cuts, and snookered Trump into a corner.
PUBs also opened all the fake “Russia Conspiracy” investigations, too.
The only thing holding back America is the Swamp and the politicized FED, at this point.
The Fed is the chaos agent as we speak.
"Cliff, re S&P 500 returns: What is the rationale for picking the Jan. '18 high as a starting point? How about the Nov. '16 elections? Since Nov. 8 '16, the total return of the S&P 500 is 46.7%. Not too shabby"
The high point for 2018 was in january.
If the 2009 bull market is still in progress
you'd expect the 2019 high point to be
significantly higher than the 2018 high point.
A bull market is a series of new highs.
The fact that today the S&P 500 is only about 4% higher than the January 2018 peak,
17.5 months ago, shows that the bull market has been weak since then -- a lot of action,
but not much upward progress -- suggesting something is wrong with the US economy
and/or corporate profits.
A guess might be the 'never ending' trade war that does not seem to be going well.
.
.
.
Concerning Mr. O'Bummer:
He took office in the middle of a steep recession
-- a great stating point to make you "look good"
a few years down the road, since all recessions end.
Mr. O'Bummer had been the furthest left of all 435
Congress people when he left the Senate -- but compared
with current Dumbocrat candidates, he now seems "moderate" !
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.
7,309
11:38 AM - May 7, 2015
Dow above 27000 for the first time!! Another milestone.
Extending gains to the already best First Half in over 2 decades.
Trump Election Day to yesterday, S&P total return up 48%
Same period, Barack Election Day to July 11, 2011, S&P total return was up 39%
And Barack had the benefit of bouncing back from total collapse, and had mark-to-market reform at His back.
Barack lost our AAA status in US Treasury debt.
Donald's trade negotiations are setting us up for decades of prosperity.
Everything is better with Donald.
God Bless Donald!!
Make America Great Again
After reading all of the above comments between Cliff and Johnny, Johnny 1 Cliff 0.
to Bob "the Judge"
I DEAL IN FACTS WITHOUT BIAS
MR. DAWG is a Trump Cheerleader / lapdog
unwilling to give Obama any credit
for most of the 300% rise of stock prices
which happened BEFORE Trump was elected
Lay some of those "FACTS WITHOUT BIAS" on us, Cliff.
Can you describe any Barack policies or rhetoric that were pro-growth, and made markets rise?
Please explain why anyone should "give credit" to Barack for the market rise during His reign.
I'll hang up and listen.
Mr. Dawg, are you forgetting that after two years of O'Bummer,
Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives
for the next six years (also happened to Bill Clinton)
-- that's a very important "accomplishment"
that greatly benefitted the nations (just like it did
in Bill Clinton's last six years).
Why is it that when Trump is president, you think::
Anything Trump starts / promises to do, is assumed to be accomplished ? ?
Anything good that happens is credited to Trump ?
Anything bad that happens is ignored or blamed on someone else ?
And when Obama was president, anything good that happened
was in spite of him ?
Obama was handed an economy in a deep recession.
The economy improved and there was no other recession for the next 10 years.
I suppose Obama gets absolutely no credit for that ?
Trump was handed an economy with seven years of growth.
If he can keep it going, he'll be reelected.
Hey Dawg, for your next comment, why don't you claim
Trump is a bum, and I'll argue that he's the best president
in American history, just to keep this interesting ?
I didn't forget that voters pushed back and put PUB back in Congress, Cliff.
In fact, I EXPLAINED all that to you in a previous post. That's why markets rose and the economy recovered.
Now instead of babbling and obfuscating, can you actually answer my question?
Can you please describe any Barack policies or rhetoric that were pro-growth, and made markets rise?
Please explain why anybody should give Barack any "credit" for the market going up. Which policies, Cliff?
I'll hang up and listen.
Obama and the Fed bailed out banks and the auto industry.
An economic expansion started a few months later, and has lasted over ten years so far.
Either Obama caused that good news, or nothing he did prevented it from happening.
I was impressed that you used two big words, babbling and obfuscating, and actually spelled them right.
That was impressive, coming from a bloviating, prattling, Donald Trump lapdog, cheerleader, and all around blabbermouth.
Say hi to your motorcycle gang.
By the way, Mr. Trump cheerleader, Trump is to blame for getting Nasty Nancy Pelosi elected as the Speaker of the House again -- I thought he did a decent job in the first two years, but apparently many other voters did not.
Obama bailed out the banks??
The DEM Congress signed TARP, and Bush signed it.
And the the banks kept crashing.
The Fed pumped TRILLIONS into excess reserves, which the banks never loaned against. Not Barack.
The only thing that made the banks rise was Mark to Market accounting reform in March of 2009. That was Congress, not Barry..
Mark to market changes in Nov 2008 made them fall in the first place in an artificially created crisis.
Obama had nothing to do with any bank bailout.
He did bail out the mismanaged auto unions, however. And sent tax money to unions in Canada.
Not sure how anybody could think that saving failing inefficient corrupt labor unions was pro-growth.
So you got nothing. You cant cant name any pro-growth policy or rhetoric out of Barack, yet you somehow want to give him credit for the market going up.
As I explained....markets crashed at the very thought of His arrival after the DEM takeover of Congress in 2007, and their subsequent Mark to Market changes and ANTOI-growth policy threats.
Markets rose only because those bad things were reversed, and We The People rose up and stopped the DEMs.
Please back up your silly thesis that Barack gets credit for markets rising with a list of His pro growth policies. Or His pro growth rhetoric.
You cant do it, because that list doesnt exist.
There goes the Trump lapdog again !
.
Nothing good that happened while Obama was president is credited to him.
You could not be more biased.
Now how about judging Trump's lack of performance without bias?
-- Border security = worse than ever before in American history.
-- "Deal" with Iran broken & their behavior is as bad as ever
-- Fictional "deal" with North Korea -- their nuclear program continues.
-- The nothing burger "NAFTA 2.0" was not approved by Congress.
-- No trade deal with China, and any deal as an election approaches will be "toothless"
-- Economic growth slightly above Obama (2.65% for 2017 and 2018 vs. 2.2 % from mid-2009 to end of 2016),
in spite of unprecedented stimulus: Deficit spending for this point in the business cycle is unprecedented, and the tax break for corporations came when they were already doing well, with high stock valuations, and high profit margins BEFORE the tax break.
-- Repeated ridiculous, embarrassing Tweets, such as telling American citizens who happen to be Congresswomen to go back to where they came from !
-- No attempt to challenge the CO2 endangerment finding -- the most damaging regulation from the Obama Administration
-- The continued false belief that a trade deficit means the US is "losing", which has already caused tension with trading partners, and the trade war could get worse unless Trump folds up like a cheap suitcase.
-- Making Nasty Nancy Pelosi the House speakers again, so her Three Stooges committee heads can harass Trump with more "investigations" for two years.
Obama gets credit for the good news, and the bad news, while he was president, so does Trump.
Obama gets credit for hiring such inept people that his FBI and CIA tried to help Hillary win the election, yet managed to help her lose !
My "grade" for Obama = D
My "grade" for Trump = B
You still haven’t answered the question, Cliff.
You’re babbling off topic again.
Please name Barack’s pro-growth policies or rhetoric that made the market rise.
Third time asking.
Please justify why you feel people should give credit to Barack for the market rise.
Do you understand the question?
Try to stay focused this time.
BTW, markets are hitting more FRESH new all time highs today, further proving your bearish stance wrong.
In fact, you’re so wrong it’s actually the best first half in 2 decades.
Spectacularly wrong.
Mr. Dawg
The best first half of 2019 is because of the steep correction in late 2018.
Presidents get credit or blame for things that happened while they are in office
even if all they did was sign some Congressional legislation.
George Bush is remembered for the mortgage bubble.
Obama is remembered for the bank and auto industry bailout.
Trump will be remembered for the Russian Collusion Delusion.
I would guess that we are the only people still reading comments on this old article.
It's time for less talk, and more action.
Where do you live?
I'm coming to get you.
Beware, I'm 4' 10" tall and weigh 395 lbs.
-- once I get going there's no stopping me!
Excellent data! The 15% of Networth check might be worth it but interest rates are at such a historical low that it wouldn't make sense.
Wonder is Bernie as part of the 1% would be willing to write that check.
Nice Article .important post for us.thanq for sharing with us..!!
Get Stock Trading Tips
Equity Tips
Future Trading Tips
Post a Comment