The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[JohnStOnge]

Hahah, he still can’t admit it.

#TrumpTrain

To me you bolstered my case with your graphic. You apparently eyeballed the graph and picked a point you thought looked like one at which something changed. And you picked a point representing a date prior to the 2016 election. The date you picked was a great deal prior to the election. But prior is prior.

So what is your theory? People knew Trump was going to win so they started buying optimistically a few days before the election?

There are alternative explanations for an upturn associated with an election anyway. One plausible take is that people can be holding on as an election approaches because there is relative uncertainty then once the election is done they uncertainty is reduced.

If I had to pick something where it is really clear that Trump and the Republican Congress doing something had an impact I'd look at late 2017. It's very possible that seeing the tax cut getting close then getting done juiced things. But, then, things flattened out shortly thereafter. At this point the Dow remains below the all time high it reached shortly after the tax cut legislation passed. It maxed at 26,616.71 on January 26 of this year and as I type now it's at 25,373.97.

The main thing is, all that aside, it has not performed during November 8, 2016 through present outside the range of variation associated with the bull market during March 9, 2009 through November 7, 2016. It just hasn't. That's objective, quantitative fact.

[93henfan]

Hahah, he still can’t admit it.

#TrumpTrain

To me you bolstered my case with your graphic. You apparently eyeballed the graph and picked a point you thought looked like one at which something changed. And you picked a point representing a date prior to the 2016 election. The date you picked was a great deal prior to the election. But prior is prior.

So what is your theory? People knew Trump was going to win so they started buying optimistically a few days before the election?

There are alternative explanations for an upturn associated with an election anyway. One plausible take is that people can be holding on as an election approaches because there is relative uncertainty then once the election is done they uncertainty is reduced.

If I had to pick something where it is really clear that Trump and the Republican Congress doing something had an impact I'd look at late 2017. It's very possible that seeing the tax cut getting close then getting done juiced things. But, then, things flattened out shortly thereafter. At this point the Dow remains below the all time high it reached shortly after the tax cut legislation passed. It maxed at 26,616.71 on January 26 of this year and as I type now it's at 25,373.97.

The main thing is, all that aside, it has not performed during November 8, 2016 through present outside the range of variation associated with the bull market during March 9, 2009 through November 7, 2016. It just hasn't. That's objective, quantitative fact.

The point I picked "was a great deal prior to the election"? Wasn't the election in November 2016?



You're killing me here. It doesn't get any clearer than this. Stock market flatlined for a year and a half, Trump gets elected, market is up over 8,000 pts in a few months. The Trump effect clear as day:

[JohnStOnge]

I'll just post this because I kind of did it for fun as my wife gets ready so we can check out of the hotel. The Dow increased by a total of 293% during the period starting with the March 9, 2009, through yesterday's close. I made a graph of what it would look like if you had a constant daily percent growth rate throughout that period that would end up giving you 293% total growth over that time frame. It's every day and not just trading days so doesn't QUITE match up but still illustrates the principle. Here's what it looks like:



So it shows you the illusion created when you look at the Dow in terms of absolute value over time. Just looking at it you think performance got better later but in reality it was constant throughout the 3,433 day period. If you look at approximately the first 1000 days (1 through 1,065) the value increased by only 0.5 from 1 to 1.5. If you look at approximately the last 1000 days (2,395 through 3,433) the value increased by almost 1.5 from a little under 2.5 to a little under 4. So you're looking at an absolute value increase late in the period about 3 times that associated early in the period.

But in terms of return on investment the first 1,000 days was exactly the same as the last 1000 days. So thinking things got better later in the period based on the impression created by the increasing upward curve of the graph is a mistake.

[HI54UNI]

I'll just post this because I kind of did it for fun as my wife gets ready so we can check out of the hotel. The Dow increased by a total of 293% during the period starting with the March 9, 2009, through yesterday's close. I made a graph of what it would look like if you had a constant daily percent growth rate throughout that period that would end up giving you 293% total growth over that time frame. It's every day and not just trading days so doesn't QUITE match up but still illustrates the principle. Here's what it looks like:



So it shows you the illusion created when you look at the Dow in terms of absolute value over time. Just looking at it you think performance got better later but in reality it was constant throughout the 3,433 day period. If you look at approximately the first 1000 days (1 through 1,065) the value increased by only 0.5 from 1 to 1.5. If you look at approximately the last 1000 days (2,395 through 3,433) the value increased by almost 1.5 from a little under 2.5 to a little under 4. So you're looking at an absolute value increase late in the period about 3 times that associated early in the period.

But in terms of return on investment the first 1,000 days was exactly the same as the last 1000 days. So thinking things got better later in the period based on the impression created by the increasing upward curve of the graph is a mistake.

So is your wife happy that she voted for Trump?

[CAA Flagship]

I'm having trouble reading graphs. Can someone tell me if the volume at the bottom was a continuation of the Obama years?

[AZGrizFan]

93 I’ve proven him wrong so many times on this but he just keeps coming back for beating after beating.

[BDKJMU]

Hundreds line up for gushing West Texas oil jobs
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/hundreds-line ... nance.html

[Gil Dobie]

Saw this at a lake cabin in central Minnesota

[SDHornet]

93 I’ve proven him wrong so many times on this but he just keeps coming back for beating after beating.

It's one of the reasons I stay on this site.

[89Hen]

https://www.rferl.org/a/what-we-know-ab ... 15851.html

Chants so far, based on videos sent to RFE/RL's Radio Farda or posted online by other reliable sources, include:

“Death to high prices and inflation.”
“We don’t want incompetent officials.”
“Not to Gaza, not to Lebanon. May my life be sacrificed for Iran.”
“Death to the dictator.”
“Our enemy is right here. They lie when they say it’s America.”
"Reza Shah, bless your soul.”
“Iranians, shout out your demands.”
"Police forces, support [us], support [us].”
“Death to Hizballah.”
“Iranians die, [but] they don’t accept abjection.”
“Death to Khamenei.”
“Mullahs must get lost.”
“Don’t be scared, we’re all together.”

[JohnStOnge]

To me you bolstered my case with your graphic. You apparently eyeballed the graph and picked a point you thought looked like one at which something changed. And you picked a point representing a date prior to the 2016 election. The date you picked was a great deal prior to the election. But prior is prior.

So what is your theory? People knew Trump was going to win so they started buying optimistically a few days before the election?

There are alternative explanations for an upturn associated with an election anyway. One plausible take is that people can be holding on as an election approaches because there is relative uncertainty then once the election is done they uncertainty is reduced.

If I had to pick something where it is really clear that Trump and the Republican Congress doing something had an impact I'd look at late 2017. It's very possible that seeing the tax cut getting close then getting done juiced things. But, then, things flattened out shortly thereafter. At this point the Dow remains below the all time high it reached shortly after the tax cut legislation passed. It maxed at 26,616.71 on January 26 of this year and as I type now it's at 25,373.97.

The main thing is, all that aside, it has not performed during November 8, 2016 through present outside the range of variation associated with the bull market during March 9, 2009 through November 7, 2016. It just hasn't. That's objective, quantitative fact.

The point I picked "was a great deal prior to the election"? Wasn't the election in November 2016?



You're killing me here. It doesn't get any clearer than this. Stock market flatlined for a year and a half, Trump gets elected, market is up over 8,000 pts in a few months. The Trump effect clear as day:

It was a typo. I meant to type it wasn't a great deal prior. But it was prior. You picked a point prior to the election. You eyeballed the graph and you picked a point at which people didn't even know Trump was going to be President.

[JohnStOnge]

93 I’ve proven him wrong so many times on this but he just keeps coming back for beating after beating.

You have not proven me wrong even once. Not unless you are the person who corrected me on the Gulf of Mexico being part of the Atlantic Ocean.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll just post this because I kind of did it for fun as my wife gets ready so we can check out of the hotel. The Dow increased by a total of 293% during the period starting with the March 9, 2009, through yesterday's close. I made a graph of what it would look like if you had a constant daily percent growth rate throughout that period that would end up giving you 293% total growth over that time frame. It's every day and not just trading days so doesn't QUITE match up but still illustrates the principle. Here's what it looks like:



So it shows you the illusion created when you look at the Dow in terms of absolute value over time. Just looking at it you think performance got better later but in reality it was constant throughout the 3,433 day period. If you look at approximately the first 1000 days (1 through 1,065) the value increased by only 0.5 from 1 to 1.5. If you look at approximately the last 1000 days (2,395 through 3,433) the value increased by almost 1.5 from a little under 2.5 to a little under 4. So you're looking at an absolute value increase late in the period about 3 times that associated early in the period.

But in terms of return on investment the first 1,000 days was exactly the same as the last 1000 days. So thinking things got better later in the period based on the impression created by the increasing upward curve of the graph is a mistake.

So is your wife happy that she voted for Trump?

As you know she did not vote for Trump. But she has told me numerous times that, given that Trump is now the face of the Republican Party, she is happy that she resigned from her position as a member of the Louisiana State Republican Central Committee and canceled her Republican Party registration.

[AZGrizFan]

93 I’ve proven him wrong so many times on this but he just keeps coming back for beating after beating.

You have not proven me wrong even once. Not unless you are the person who corrected me on the Gulf of Mexico being part of the Atlantic Ocean.

Listen, John. You’ve hitched your wagon so securely to the Trump Derangement Sydrome wagon, I wouldn’t expect you to EVER admit your were/are wrong about the stock market (among many other things). But, Just because YOU don’t see it/won’t admit it, doesn’t mean you’re not wrong.

[HI54UNI]

So is your wife happy that she voted for Trump?

As you know she did not vote for Trump. But she has told me numerous times that, given that Trump is now the face of the Republican Party, she is happy that she resigned from her position as a member of the Louisiana State Republican Central Committee and canceled her Republican Party registration.

She won't tell you the truth because of your TDS. But the evangels all pulled the lever for him in the General Election because they wanted the supreme court seats.

[Ibanez]

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics- ... 96580.html

Beleaguered Fairfield County is losing another 126 jobs after TV-maker Element Electronics said Monday it will close its Winnsboro plant in response to tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.

The layoffs come a year after Cayce-based SCE&G and state-owned Santee Cooper canceled their decadelong effort to build two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, putting 5,000 construction workers out of work and wiping away a promised economic boon to the poor, rural county.

Element’s announcement also comes a year after Fairfield County’s last textile mill closed, eliminating 200 more jobs.

Swedish automaker Volvo has said it may have to break its promise to hire 4,000 employees for a new plant in South Carolina. And German automaker BMW recently wrote U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the tariffs could jeopardize 45,000 S.C. jobs, including 10,000 at its Spartanburg plant and 35,000 at BMW suppliers.

[AZGrizFan]

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics- ... 96580.html

Beleaguered Fairfield County is losing another 126 jobs after TV-maker Element Electronics said Monday it will close its Winnsboro plant in response to tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.

The layoffs come a year after Cayce-based SCE&G and state-owned Santee Cooper canceled their decadelong effort to build two nuclear reactors at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, putting 5,000 construction workers out of work and wiping away a promised economic boon to the poor, rural county.

Element’s announcement also comes a year after Fairfield County’s last textile mill closed, eliminating 200 more jobs.

Swedish automaker Volvo has said it may have to break its promise to hire 4,000 employees for a new plant in South Carolina. And German automaker BMW recently wrote U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross saying the tariffs could jeopardize 45,000 S.C. jobs, including 10,000 at its Spartanburg plant and 35,000 at BMW suppliers.

He's gonna blink....guaranteed.

[JohnStOnge]

You have not proven me wrong even once. Not unless you are the person who corrected me on the Gulf of Mexico being part of the Atlantic Ocean.

Listen, John. You’ve hitched your wagon so securely to the Trump Derangement Sydrome wagon, I wouldn’t expect you to EVER admit your were/are wrong about the stock market (among many other things). But, Just because YOU don’t see it/won’t admit it, doesn’t mean you’re not wrong.

Ok. I say that the kind of percent growth we've had in the DJIA under Trump is within the range of variation within the current Bull Market run prior to Trump getting elected or taking office. You can look at annual returns at http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm. The Bull market started during 2009.

The range of return rates for the DJIA for 2009 through 2016 is -2.23% through 26.5%. We have one full year under Trump to evaluate. The rate of return for 2017 was 25.08%.

Is 25.08 within the range -2.23 through 26.5 or is it not? There's an objective answer to that question. It's not a matter of opinion.

Now, there is a chance that we could get something beyond the range of what happened during 2009 through 2016 if the return for 2018 exceeds 8.74%. If that happens the first two full years under Trump will exceed any two year rate of return during 2009 through 2016. If that happens I will say so. It will be objectively true.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm having trouble reading graphs. Can someone tell me if the volume at the bottom was a continuation of the Obama years?

I can't find it on the legend but if the bars at the bottom are volume then yes that is something. The problem is that it doesn't necessarily correlate to positive movement. Like look at this:



Notice that there was a lot of that volume activity around when the DJIA bottomed out around 2009. And that volume activity was low during 2013 when the percent return on the DJIA was higher (26.5) than it was in 2017 (25.08).

[AZGrizFan]

Listen, John. You’ve hitched your wagon so securely to the Trump Derangement Sydrome wagon, I wouldn’t expect you to EVER admit your were/are wrong about the stock market (among many other things). But, Just because YOU don’t see it/won’t admit it, doesn’t mean you’re not wrong.

Ok. I say that the kind of percent growth we've had in the DJIA under Trump is within the range of variation within the current Bull Market run prior to Trump getting elected or taking office. You can look at annual returns at http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm. The Bull market started during 2009.

The range of return rates for the DJIA for 2009 through 2016 is -2.23% through 26.5%. We have one full year under Trump to evaluate. The rate of return for 2017 was 25.08%.

Is 25.08 within the range -2.23 through 26.5 or is it not? There's an objective answer to that question. It's not a matter of opinion.

Now, there is a chance that we could get something beyond the range of what happened during 2009 through 2016 if the return for 2018 exceeds 8.74%. If that happens the first two full years under Trump will exceed any two year rate of return during 2009 through 2016. If that happens I will say so. It will be objectively true.

What was the rate of return in 2015 and 2016? You go back to 2009 and sure it looks good. Market was DEAD SOLID flat for two straight years before the election. I’ve proven that to you, you just choose not to see it.

[Chizzang]

"Trump obliterates his dishonesty record: 132 false claims last week, 280 for July.."

The hilarity continues



https://www.thestar.com/news/world/anal ... -july.html

[UNI88]

John's anti-Trump bias clouds his judgement and makes it impossible for him to acknowledge that Trump has had any positive accomplishments.

The bias does not reflect well on someone who likes to present themselves as a coldly rational adherent of the scientific principles of observation.

[AZGrizFan]

Ok. I say that the kind of percent growth we've had in the DJIA under Trump is within the range of variation within the current Bull Market run prior to Trump getting elected or taking office. You can look at annual returns at http://www.1stock1.com/1stock1_139.htm. The Bull market started during 2009.

The range of return rates for the DJIA for 2009 through 2016 is -2.23% through 26.5%. We have one full year under Trump to evaluate. The rate of return for 2017 was 25.08%.

Is 25.08 within the range -2.23 through 26.5 or is it not? There's an objective answer to that question. It's not a matter of opinion.

Now, there is a chance that we could get something beyond the range of what happened during 2009 through 2016 if the return for 2018 exceeds 8.74%. If that happens the first two full years under Trump will exceed any two year rate of return during 2009 through 2016. If that happens I will say so. It will be objectively true.

What was the rate of return in 2015 and 2016? You go back to 2009 and sure it looks good. Market was DEAD SOLID flat for two straight years before the election. I’ve proven that to you, you just choose not to see it.

Here's the answer, John. And pay attention, because this is the last time I'm explaining this to you:

12/31/14: 17,823.07
12/31/15: 17,425.03
11/04/16: 17,888.28

So, the market had gone up just 7.92% in the 35 MONTHS prior to Trump's election night victory, and had actually gone DOWN in the almost two full years prior to his election. The market was dead. Stagnant. Void of any energy because of the onerous regulations put on it by the Obama presidency. So, how did it respond to a Trump victory?

By 12/31/16 (just 56 days): 19,762.60 (up 10.48% in just 56 days)
By 12/31/17: 24,719.12 (up another 25.08%)

Anyone with an OUNCE of integrity would look at those numbers and KNOW that is the Trump effect. From a 2.5%/year average for 3 full years, to up 35+% in just over 13 months.

But you're right. No effect. None at all.

[Skjellyfetti]

Would you say the "Trump effect" has worn off YTD?

[AZGrizFan]

Would you say the "Trump effect" has worn off YTD?

Actually, I'd say THAT's a Trump effect as well. (tariffs, etc.). But, after a couple months of struggle, it is up over 2,000 points since its March 23rd low. And a fairly steady 1400 point gain since 6/26. So, not sure if it's "stabilized", but the jitters appear to have somewhat settled.