Donlad trump won

The guy who lost it.

 

You guys can argue who gets credit all you want but I think you are all missing the point. The point is not that Trump himself is creating jobs. What he has done and will continue to do is create a business friendly environment which encourages business owners to expand and grow. In the past 8 years it's been difficult for them to do so with all of the regulation and taxes. Trump gives business owners hope and optimism for the future and they want to gain spot light for their company by putting forth a a commitment to grow jobs as Trump has been promoting since day 1. This didn't happen when Obama was elected sorry. There's a reason why the stock market has been having record highs nearly every day since the election ended. It's about to reach an all time high and it's 100% because of who was elected and what the future holds. It's a very good indicator of an economy going in the right direction.

Asked about the timing, an IBM spokesman said the targets are new and the company is "announcing them now as a basis for engaging the incoming administration on how the right policies can create more New Collar opportunities for U.S. workers."

The open letter is not Rometty’s first outreach to the Trump administration. Days after he won, she penned a letter promising to work with Trump to “achieve the aspiration you articulated and that can advance a national agenda in a time of profound change.”

 

The market has definitely reacted to Trump in a positive way. But it's all just hype and speculation at this point.

And the market was already at record highs under Obama. Do you give him credit for that? (I don't)

 

I believe the people in the know, knew Trump was going to win early on, way before he was elected, and the market started spiking. I don't think it's a coincidence and I don't think it's speculation either. I was telling you guys long before he won that he was going to win, not that i'm anything great, but if I could see it coming, then i'm sure a bunch of braniacs on Wall Street knew too. I knew the minute I decided I was voting for him he was going to win.

 

Absolutely correct, XX. And....gracias.....been reading the surfing tread, you're getting some decent enough swell here & there in VB, good on ya

 

The market has been spiking since 2009... And the current spike is 100% speculation. I'm not saying he won't be good for the market, I hope he is

 

Yo Yo. Whats up dude

 

Nah Nah Nah, it hasn't been spiking LIKE THIS since 2009. It's about to break 20k!!! Never happened before. We're obviously going to disagree here. I see a direct connection, you don't. I understand your skepticism but at some point I think you'll look back and see what I'm saying to be true.

 

Still on the joust, I see mon ami

 

8/28/2009 @ 12:01AM
Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“On 9-10 May of this year,” the May 14 memorandum explained, “Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.” (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) “The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.”

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. “The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. “These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.”
Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. “The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.” Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. “A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.”

 

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? “Like other rational people,” the memorandum explained, “[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.” But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

“Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,” the memorandum continued. “Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.”

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. “The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”

“The document,” Kengor continues, “has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.”
Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.

Doing so, it turns out, requires pondering a document in the archives of the politburo.

When President Reagan chose to confront the Soviet Union, calling it the evil empire that it was, Sen. Edward Kennedy chose to offer aid and comfort to General Secretary Andropov. On the Cold War, the greatest issue of his lifetime, Kennedy got it wrong.

Peter Robinson, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a former White House speechwriter, writes a weekly column for Forbes

 

In the meantime, as you get all pumped on the market, it may be a good time to put some stop losses on your positions. NYNJ is right though....the market has been on a tear since it bottomed out. The trump rally is a legit 10% (close depending on how you measure) move in anticipation of his policy. Otherwise, the market is high as a kite on fed policy for the last 8 years. The Cyclical Price to earnings ratio is similar to the dot com bubble and 08-09' markets...even the 1929 crash. Bubbles always bust. This one may run a bit with Trumponomics but, I am very cautious at this moment personally...time to wait on the next correction.

 

Look at a chart. Actually it has been spiking. I understand that it has spiked hard recently, but it has been breaking record highs for years.
It was a record high at 15k, 16k, 17k and 18K. Those never happened before either... Is that because Obama did a great job and drove the market to record highs?

 

I'm no stock expert, let me be the first to say. I don't play with the market, not much of a gambler either. But I can see it's a positive thing when it's having record days after days after days. This is all i'm saying. I've never seen it like this. I've seen good days here and there, but this is different.

 

I hear what you're saying, i'm not saying he doesn't deserve any credit for anything either. I'm just pointing out that this is an obvious reaction to what looks like a positive future for business development. It's that simple.

 

I'm no expert either...hence the stop loss. It's like being up at the black jack table. you know....Know when to hold'm know when to fold'm.

It was the same in the 90s. Market was awesome....then it wasn't.

 

Love that commercial...

[video=youtube;JXl8oHlA5LM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXl8oHlA5LM[/video]

 

I hear you... I actually don't think Obama deserves credit for it. The market goes up and down. And it will continue to do the same...

And an "obvious reaction to what looks like a positive future" is speculation.

 

Gents, you can scamper around & try to figure out who gets the credit and who gets the blame but it's pretty much an academic exercise. Useful for historians 10, 20 years down the road when they ink their tomes. And for old Forumites kickin' it around the hot stove.

The reality is that there is actually very, very little that any modern president has done to influence the course of the stock market. There's a lot of credit & blame bandied about simply because it's easy to do, and because the lamestream media is in the biz of financial entertainment.

The Fed has much more to do with stock market direction. Monetary policy influences how much dinero the worker bee has in his pocket. It's about monetary policy, not about politicians barking about CRAAPL or MSFT or whatever they bark about.

Seems that the confusion emanates from the impact upon individual companies / stocks that can come from an administration. That can be very real. Ask any health care firm or biotech how ACA affected them, for example. Or how wars affected LMT & BAE & others of that ilk.

Butt, the market in general......prez hammer is way over-emphasized.

Ok back to it.

 

Buy any dips. Where do you think any smart money is going these days? Real estate (ask the Chinese & Brazzos who are sinking billions into USA CRE & res properties, sometimes sight unseen) and the USA stock market. In a convoluted world, investors always go with flight to quality. That's still the deal.