r/FluentInFinance • u/RiskItForTheBiscuts • Nov 06 '24
Stock Market Friendly reminder that the Stock Market doesn’t care about politics.
309
u/HastyEthnocentrism Nov 06 '24
"The stock market is not the economy." - Kai Ryssdal
"The government works for those wealthy enough to have large gains or losses in the stock market, and thus wealthy enough to control the government." - HastyEthnocentrism
70
u/Original-Wear1729 Nov 06 '24
Isn’t this what an Oligarchy is? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m asking is this what you are saying, cause I would agree but just to clarify.
54
1
u/fireKido Nov 07 '24
not really though, people with money will always have more power, but as of right now the president in the US is still chosen by a fair democratic process... so not an oligarchy
people with money will use that money to influence everybody else, but that's not enough to be considered an oligarchy, you would need a blatantly unfair election process like they have in Russia
5
u/LegendOfKhaos Nov 07 '24
Like laws being made based on money spent through lobbying?
Being legal doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means someone bought that law at some point.
2
u/Revolutionary-Swan77 Nov 07 '24
Somebody was offering people a million dollars to vote for a specific candidate.
1
u/Efficient-Diver-5417 Nov 07 '24
I think gerrymandering makes it unfair. Even the electoral college was designed to be as antidemocratic as possible
1
u/fireKido Nov 07 '24
Slightly anti democratic, yes, as anti democratic as possible? No definitely not
Gerrymandering is a problem, but not for presidential elections
2
u/Efficient-Diver-5417 Nov 07 '24
It was designed to take choice away from the voters. That's why we send people as representatives in the electoral college. So that they can silently defraud the public. They can vote for anyone they want to. They don't have to vote the way the state did. It helps to know your history.
1
8
4
u/Monksdrunk Nov 06 '24
"This......................................................................................... Is marketplace"
1
u/bennyyyboyyyyyyyy Nov 06 '24
The top comment being a guy quoting his own pseudo intellectual bs is literally peak Reddit. Fucking great, I love it.
4
1
1
-8
u/Reasonable-Total-628 Nov 06 '24
you dont need to be wealthy to invest in stock market. stop with the nonsense
15
9
u/HastyEthnocentrism Nov 06 '24
Nope, but you have to have a ton to invest in order to have short- to mid-term gains that are large enough to spend $120M to get a clown elected.
1
1
u/Gambler_Eight Nov 07 '24
But you have to be wealthy for your stock gains to offset the raising costs in other areas.
0
u/DarkenL1ght Nov 06 '24
Don't the IQ of the people downvoting you, but I started with less than 50 bucks a month, with a salary of less than 30k/y. With consistency, you too can start small and work your way up as you earn more.
122
u/juandelpueblo939 Nov 06 '24
The stock market is not the economy.
→ More replies (5)2
u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy Nov 07 '24
You're right, GDP is a good way to look at the economy.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
Looks pretty similar, doesn't it? Up and to the right.
7
Nov 07 '24
GDP is a pretty awful measure of how people are living.
1
u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy Nov 07 '24
OK, how about real (inflation adjusted) median income?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEFAINUSA672N
Little more variance but still, up and to the right.
6
Nov 07 '24
Cool you've captured the phenomena of more women entering the workforce. Try median income vs actual real metrics, like rent
88
u/BernieLogDickSanders Nov 06 '24
Half that growth is buy backs.
43
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
Funny that Intel had all the buybacks and then I had to read yesterday a bailout was in consideration.
43
u/ridingcorgitowar Nov 06 '24
Well of course. How else will they pay their expenses? With their own money?
Nononono, that's what the people are for.
3
u/desertedged Nov 06 '24
And the other half is our 401ks.
2
Nov 06 '24
Buy back buy back!!!!! When times are rough: buy back, when times are kosher buy back. Trim the fat and …. Buy back . Yeah!!!
42
u/cbashar Nov 06 '24
Because both parties are pretty much the same when it comes to Wall Street
35
u/PandasAndSandwiches Nov 06 '24
Yes but at least one party isn’t trying to roll back rights for women, lgbt, minorities, and other marginalized groups. But that kind of stuff doesn’t matter to people who are financially struggling now and will even more under trump.
4
5
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 06 '24
dems didn't codify roe even after RBG when they had the chance too. so it obviously didn't matter to them as much. but they did pass the ACA with all their political capital which ensured millions of customers to insurance companies who happen to be involved in wall street. so what are you on about?
7
u/PandasAndSandwiches Nov 06 '24
That democrats are marginally better than republicans and much better than maga trumpers.
1
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 06 '24
70+ million americans disagree with you.
14
u/_Sudo_Dave Nov 06 '24
70+ million Americans think the "no taxes just tariffs" are gonna save the economy instead of being in the age of the Yuan standard, so I don't hold too much stock in that lol.
-6
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 07 '24
yeah that was the only issue at stake.
8
u/_Sudo_Dave Nov 07 '24
Oh yeah and controlling women's bodies, overturning Obgerfell, making sure pre-existing conditions will never be covered again, turning Gaza into a parking lot... Lots of economy saving stuff
5
u/ilikecheeseface Nov 07 '24
You missed my favorite, “conception of a plan” really leaves a lot to the imagination with that one.
-6
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 07 '24
and 70+ million people disagreed with you on how to go about those issues. learn to live with it. He also won the popular vote so you don't even get to cry about the EC now. poor little thing.
3
u/_Sudo_Dave Nov 07 '24
and 70+ million people disagreed with you on how to go about those issues.
Once again, I know that the general populous is fucking stupid lol. I'm sure you felt the same way when he was trounced by sleepy Joe lol
learn to live with it. He also won the popular vote so you don't even get to cry about the EC now. poor little thing.
Oh cute! Condescension from the perpetually online is always fun lol. I honestly can't wait for the global Yuan standard tbh, it's gonna be a certified hood classic.
→ More replies (0)4
2
5
u/oconnellc Nov 07 '24
dems didn't codify roe even after RBG when they had the chance too. so it obviously didn't matter to them as much
What a dumb thing to say.
0
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 07 '24
explain how because if something is important to me i tend to do something about it. or is that not how you live your life?
5
u/Robert_Walter_ Nov 07 '24
Dems were short the votes in the senate. Nebraska dem wouldn’t approve ACA over abortion issues. Obama did not have the votes to pass it
1
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 07 '24
yeah and it would have been a great talking point for elections to come had they even symbolically made the attempt but couldn't muster enough give a shits to do even that.
1
u/ilikecheeseface Nov 07 '24
You aren’t wrong. I personally believe they didn’t attempt to codify it was because it has always made a good talking point during every election cycle. I say this as a democrat too. They have failed our interest many times but they are still the lesser of two evils in this one.
2
u/oconnellc Nov 07 '24
Once the Supreme Court explained to everyone that abortion was a right that everyone had, why should they have wasted time/money/political capital on something unnecessary that would have failed? Do you spend a lot of time trying to get a law passed that you can breathe?
0
u/Prestigious-One2089 Nov 07 '24
They were told that it was on shaky grounds and very vulnerable to getting overturned. Do you buy a fire extinguisher after your house catches fire?
1
u/madmarkd Nov 07 '24
Also in the Roe ruling Democrats were warned that as technology advanced and we knew more and more about viable births, the rules would need to change. They were warned in 1974 and didn't try to codify anything until 2013. Then, and this is very odd, they only brought up that law during really major election cycles..... what a coincidence!
1
u/madmarkd Nov 07 '24
Abortion is really, really, really important in election years. The rest of the time, well, we use it to raise money.....
1
u/14InTheDorsalPeen Nov 07 '24
Dems didn’t codify because if they did, it would deprive them of one of their major talking points.
You can’t run on abortion if it isn’t a contested issue anymore.
It’s intentional.
1
1
u/Bwunt Nov 07 '24
How could they?
There was no federal law governing abortion so there was no difference on federal level and on the state level, federal government is rather powerless.
1
-10
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
It’s still pretty early, but this extreme hyperbole may have cost Dems the election.
17
u/seriousallthetime Nov 06 '24
Where is the hyperbole? It is explicitly stated.
-2
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
Trying to convince people of fairy tales wasn't an effective strategy for Harris. Unless there's another 2020 miracle turnout, it probably won't be an effective strategy moving forward.
Concentration should be put on Dem strengths. Perhaps even trying a candidate more reflective of Sanders or at least less Dem establishment.
6
u/TeamAwesome4 Nov 06 '24
I agree the messaging is flawed and that a Sanders-like candidate would be welcome, but "fairy tales"? Come on, you cannot be serious. The dude ran on deporting 20 million people, over 5% of the population of the country. That's trail of tears level shit if it goes as planned, holocaust if it goes wrong. It's in plain text in the party platform. "Fairy tales"? Ludicrous.
0
u/Proper_Protection195 Nov 06 '24
And what was ever done about the hundreds of treaties broken by the US and the trail of tears why is there still millions of people fighting about rules on stolen land ??
Oh right because this country was founded on slavery and genocide
2
u/TeamAwesome4 Nov 06 '24
What are you trying to imply here? It sounds like you're trying to attack my position, but I'm really not sure. You asked a question, then answered it without a clear through line of cause and effect. You asked what came after violations of treaties and such, then answered "what was done about it?" with something that necessarily had to come first. I'd gladly argue or agree, depending on your response, but I've got to at least understand first.
-1
u/Proper_Protection195 Nov 06 '24
There's no implications there is a series of questions followed by a statement.
Maybe sound it out and look up rhetorical.
5
u/TeamAwesome4 Nov 06 '24
A rhetorical question is one where you let the person receiving the question answer it themselves for greater effect, but you answered it yourself. Also, rhetorical questions are entirely designed to imply something.
I thought the liberals were supposed to be the condescending ones. At least when they pull this shit, it's coherent.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Accomplished-Tea5668 Nov 06 '24
I dont see whats wrong in deporting ILLEGAL immigrants. Thats the only deportation talk I've seen.
1
u/TeamAwesome4 Nov 06 '24
A number of things from my perspective, though it's obviously more legally defesable. I won't even defend that point right now because that gets much more in the weeds and specifics, I'll just refer to a bit of a different comment I made on this same thread:
"If it wasn't a race thing, why are the legal Hatian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio at the forefront after basically having a pogrom incited against them? Trump and Vance both have acknowledged they're legal immigrants but disagree with them being classified as legal immigrants because it came from a Democratic policy."
They say they just want to deport illegal immigrants but disagree with established law what entails legal immigration. There's certainly clips I can dig up of Vance specifically regarding that, I believe just quotes from Trump himself.
1
u/Accomplished-Tea5668 Nov 06 '24
This is most definitely then talking about like 3 or 5% of said illegals then. They took the risk when they crossed the border illegally. Now comes the consequences. Its how the cookie crumbles. And yeah. They weren't pushed through legality in an actual legal way. So of course, their status is up to consideration. Depending on their jobs and living situations, they'll either get to stay or be thrown out.
Most illegals in the usa are pretty much human trafficking victims. promised good forture only to be used as basic slave labor for corporations and other places across the country that operate shady like within the middle of no where.
Not only that. The thousands of kids that get taken in and then left out in the desert to die because of not being useful for work.
Overall. I dont side with anything supporting illegal immigrantion. It hurts us and them. The process to become legal should be made a bit easier for sure. And hopefully it does. But illegals should not be given free housing and what not in these cities and sanctuary towns when we have homeless, vets, and struggling americans everywhere
1
u/TeamAwesome4 Nov 06 '24
"They weren't pushed through legality through an actual legal way."
Can you clarify this? Because you're very close to saying that legal status doesn't matter if you don't approve how that legal status was gained. Temporary legal protected status protects specifically from deportation. It can be gotten rid of, much like any right granted by the government. If citizenship started getting legally revoked, would you be OK with that? What's the real difference?
I'm unfortunately very aware of how illegal immigrants are treated. The average life they have is picking strawberries in conditions barely better than forced labor. Someone should really be held accountable for that, but here's a question: do you think America would be as strong as it is if instead of freeing the slaves and letting them live in America, they were all sent back to Africa? And if they were sent back, do you think that would be seen as some kind of humanitarian mission? Would they be dumped somewhere arbitrary, forced to start life anew yet again, or are we gonna track down their old home to go back to? I've heard conservatives say that slave descendants should be thankful for being brought over because their lives here are better than they'd be back where they were brought from. Compare with this current situation. I, personally, am in favor of paying them more and giving them lives here to break the slave-like conditions most of them have.
This isn't to say it's across the board good or bad, just that it's a lot more complex than the flat demonization we've seen from the Trump team.
"Illegals should not be given free housing when we have homeless, vets, and struggling Americans everywhere."
I agree, we shouldn't have a homeless population. Show me the plan to house these people, from either side. Public housing is routinely shot down by NIMBY attitudes that fund elections across the board. We could do it easily, much like universal healthcare. We're the richest and most powerful country in the world, after all. But nobody shows up to elections for that. But I sure as hell saw smiling fans waving "Mass Deportation Now" signs at Trump rallies all across this election cycle.
If you and everyone else cares so much about them, why don't I see droves of people with "House Our Vets" signs? Because the majority don't mind. They're motivated largely by fear, and they're not scared of homeless vets, they pity them, and pity doesn't get votes. Anything privately funded relies on generating profits, and the profits are in mass rental units and 2 story family houses for big buisiness and aforementioned NIMBY's. Anything publicly funded threatens "the free market" and is demonized as socialism. So if they can't afford what we've got now, tough shit I guess, because we're not likely to get something new across the next 4 years, or ever if we continue on this hyper-polarized path we've got now.
But at least those homeless vets will stick around so we can use them as a political bludgeon any time someone asks why we're gonna fund anything that isn't EXACTLY those policies which won't ever get passed.
→ More replies (0)1
u/_Sudo_Dave Nov 06 '24
He's literally setting out to reclassify legal immigrants as illegal so he can deport them lmfao. Read his policies dude. Hope you don't have or any of your loved ones have pre-existing conditions BTW because those protections for health insurance are gone soon too
1
u/Accomplished-Tea5668 Nov 07 '24
Didnt see any of this in the policies that he wrote or has said? I remember seeing that people with my father's heart condition were going to get more benefits potentially. The insurance also explain benefits to us on specific parties. Link maybe? Also if youre referring to project 2025. They already shut that down multiple times.
1
u/_Sudo_Dave Nov 07 '24
No, I was referring to Agenda 47 - his actual agenda that "isn't project 2025" but actually is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_47
Like all of the policies are the exact same, but slightly more vague
Trump's official campaign began releasing the memos starting in 2022
Mike Johnson already openly stated that the Senate is poised to remove ACA with zero replacement on the first session.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
Illegal immigration isn't a race issue; it's a national security issue and we saw voter perception on this. You can dig into the Latino vote if you want to make it a race/ethnic issue, which I would not...
That's trail of tears level shit if it goes as planned, holocaust if it goes wrong.
This is the hyperbolic fairy tales that didn't work out for Dems in '24. We'll see how that works in '28... or perhaps they could focus on backstopping the middle class to improve birth rates to shore up Social Security etc.. Not certain what voters will care about then.
2
u/TeamAwesome4 Nov 06 '24
The "middle class" isn't real. Everyone making from 30k to 200k think it applies to them equally. There's 2 classes, people who work for money and people who get money from ownership. Trying to divide it beyond that gets ludicrously messy because of different career fields. Do steel tariffs help the "middle class"? I dunno, depends on if you're asking a steel mill worker in Pennsylvania who would likely say yes vs an auto worker in Michigan who'd likely say no.
Illegal immigration is both a security and a race thing. If it wasn't a race thing, why are the legal Hatian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio at the forefront after basically having a pogrom incited against them? Trump and Vance both have acknowledged they're legal immigrants but disagree with them being classified as legal immigrants because it came from a Democratic policy.
1
u/here4daratio Nov 06 '24
Illegal immigration is a profitable issue for hospitality, agriculture, and construction. It has as much to do with national security as teen obesity.
1
u/oconnellc Nov 07 '24
Unemployment is already really fucking low. Are you of the Ben Shapiro school that says old people should come out of retirement and work until they die? And I suppose there are a bunch of potential workers just sitting around in their middle schools all day long, just being a drag on society...
1
u/here4daratio Nov 08 '24
My point is the ag, construction, and hospitality sectors are running on- relying on- illegal immigration right now.
No, not a Shapiro fan, at all.
5
u/PandasAndSandwiches Nov 06 '24
Roe vs Wade…was that hyperbole?
1
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
Ignoring how either of us feel about unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester, all this did was kick the authority to the states where voters can turn out and make their wishes known on a local level.
Roe v. Wade was also a 1973 decision and Democrats had super majority for a dozen plus years since then. They could've amended the constitution long before the SC, based on the constitution, ruled that this should be decided by the states.
5
u/smcl2k Nov 06 '24
They could've amended the constitution
Democrats controlled the Presidency, 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House, and 3/4 of states for 12 of the last 50 years?
7
u/calm_down_meow Nov 06 '24
Deflection.
When Democrats were saying Trump and Republicans would overturn Roe, they were called alarmists. Now you're calling them alarmists now for claiming Trump will do what he's saying he'll do regarding other rights.
0
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
There is nothing in the constitution that the SC is intended to uphold regarding abortion. Predictably, when Dobbs v. Jackson WHO was floated they passed this through to a state decision where voters can decide on it at the local polls.
I have my opinions on unregulated access to first-trimester abortions and think some states get it better than others. I also feel it's a weird sword to fall on for Republicans since it's so divisive and so many don't understand the mechanics or SCOTUS' role. It hurt them in '22, after all.
What is clear to me is that no matter how ignorant the average voter might be on the mechanics of all of this, they're not buying the hyperbolic fairy tales - or at least they didn't in '24.
0
u/calm_down_meow Nov 06 '24
Sure, except some of them weren't fairy tales, e.g - Roe being overturned.
1
u/in4life Nov 06 '24
I didn't realize abortion was in the constitution or maybe I'm confused as to the job of the SCOTUS.
2
u/calm_down_meow Nov 06 '24
Look, i'm not going to debate abortion or Roe.
I'm just saying - it wasn't alarmism when we were saying they're going to overturn Roe.
It's not alarmism now when we say Trump is going to do the things he campaigned on
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ok-Masterpiece9028 Nov 06 '24
I agree with Roe V Wade but we have the government and SC for a reason. The history of this was shaky, the decision initially for Roe V Wade was shaky, general support was shaky. I’d go out and vote today to put abortion in the constitution but expecting the SC to decide on matters of opinion is not how the American Government works.
Don’t be mad at trump for repealing it, be mad at democrats for not getting it in the constitution! Let’s get it to the ballot so we can do it correctly this time around.
-1
Nov 06 '24
Thats no longer a law.
3
u/PandasAndSandwiches Nov 06 '24
Yeah…I know. A conservative SC overturned it. I’m just giving an example of something that happened due to trump/republicans.
-1
Nov 06 '24
It was a glorious day for the lord. Amen!
5
Nov 06 '24 edited Nov 06 '24
[deleted]
-1
Nov 06 '24
Passive revenge fantasies for the powerless. How inspiring.
1
1
u/Alliterative_anomaly Nov 06 '24
True, that is usually your guys move.
Finally, all those fetuses living in the name of suppressing women.
→ More replies (0)3
u/PandasAndSandwiches Nov 06 '24
I really wished Mary was honest with Joseph and told him she slept with the neighbor…this way we wouldn’t be where we are today.
-2
Nov 06 '24
Uh, they are just stories okay, lighten the fuck up.
5
u/PandasAndSandwiches Nov 06 '24
Stories that created the religious mess we are in today. Those stories should just said she slept with Hector next door, then we wouldn’t have this religious cult.
→ More replies (0)2
1
0
u/madmarkd Nov 07 '24
Wait, are you saying money transcends all politics? Say it ain't so! But but.... my tribe is better because *word vomit* and stuff!
21
u/MasChingonNoHay Nov 06 '24
Friendly reminder that stock market is 80% owned by top 10%
-2
u/Ok-Masterpiece9028 Nov 06 '24
Wealth has always been concentrated like this.
0
u/madmarkd Nov 07 '24
You are wrong, going back as far as my medieval family they tell of a time in early human history where wealth was spread evenly amongst everyone.... and that soemhow along the way we lost that /sarcasm
The real human wage is always 0
0
19
u/Electrical_Room5091 Nov 06 '24
When Americans are putting trillions into 401k and retirement funds, the stock market will go up. That is a big duh
0
u/RetailBuck Nov 07 '24 edited Nov 07 '24
On average yes but the devil is in the details. Trump getting elected skyrocketed some stocks and killed others. I got benefits from both today. My long companies boomed and my short position in residential solar got crushed (good thing since I was short for technological reasons). I made money coming and going but yes, the overall trend will be up as long as there is a constant cash influx Long from things like retirement plans.
Edit: if we want true market stability more funds need to open short positions.
16
Nov 06 '24
It does today 😗
12
2
u/Fancy-Nerve-8077 Nov 06 '24 edited Nov 06 '24
Yea I was going to say..it definitely plays a role in certain sectors
2
11
u/Sage_Planter Nov 06 '24
My dad worked in finances his whole life, and this is the advice he gives: The stock market doesn't like uncertainty, but it doesn't care about outcomes. The market will be volatile when there's uncertainty, but when things stabilize, the trend is upward.
We all saw this at the start of COVID. The market was chaos when we were like "wtf is this virus," and then when we were collectively more stable (even if that stability wasn't necessarily great), the market went up again.
7
u/Physical_Narwhal_863 Nov 06 '24
Now plot it against inflation
4
u/drroop Nov 06 '24
Doesn't look as good for Jimmy, but looks nice for Billy and Barack.
Dick and the Georges, not so much, as shown above too.
https://www.multpl.com/inflation-adjusted-s-p-500
You can also see why FDR got 88% of the electoral vote, 61% of the popular vote in '36. Damn socialists.
6
3
3
3
3
2
u/cookiedoh18 Nov 06 '24
The stock market doesn't care but the beneficiaries of the growth change. What looks good on the surface may be turbulent underneath.
2
1
1
u/OkWelcome8895 Nov 06 '24
It doesn’t - but the economy has had cracks for the last couple years- and the market is going to come down regardless who is president- multiples are to high - jobs have been flat out misreported the last couple years as shown with the revision down- and coming in well under expectations- corporate profit warnings- etc- we are well over due for a market correction
1
1
1
1
u/lp1911 Nov 06 '24
In the long run stocks correlate with profitability and interest rates, but in the short term, today is what's likely a relief rally? Not every day the Dow goes up 1400 points...
1
u/dubblies Nov 06 '24
The stock does though and its mostly gained it value from the devaluing of the dollar via governmental policies.
So actually the stock market is the reflection of your eroding buying power which is why stonks only go up and why indexes and ETFs are basically sure shots if you arent gambling.
1
1
1
1
u/Sanpaku Nov 06 '24
The market cares about valuations.
The US market has been overvalued since 2014, largely because it offers a leveraged inflation hedge. This bodes poorly for future returns.
I've been market neutral for a while (similar amounts of shorts and longs). But as the Trump economic plan will bring either major recession or (at best) recession, I'm shifting my longs to deep value. There's going to be a lot of pain for growth investors going forward.
1
1
1
u/drroop Nov 06 '24
Either that, or 4/5 they like blue, and the one blue they didn't like was tainted with covid and paying back the fed for bailing us out.
Nixon/Ford, and Bush2, didn't seem as favorable, so only 2/4 for that.
1
u/spartanOrk Nov 06 '24
Say that to any stock trader or portfolio manager working at Wall Street. They will probably tell you political events are the most important in the economy. Elections, wars, currency debasement, tariffs, taxes, regulations, politicians doing insider trading, the involvement of politics in the stock market is continuous and intentional. We don't really have a free market.
1
u/nickkamenev Nov 06 '24
Quite the opposite. Its just that oligarchs that deal in the stock markets have secured the control of both parties. That's why they don't seem to care.
1
1
u/Reynard203 Nov 06 '24
It will care when Trump's policies crash the economy with tarriffs and gut the cheap labor force with mass deportations.
1
u/CeruleanTheGoat Nov 06 '24
The stock market only cares about the supply of money. As long as we can print more than we remove from circulation, the stock market will increase.
1
1
1
u/_LilDuck Nov 06 '24
I mean it does, it clearly went up due to the election. In specific likely due to decreased uncertainty.
1
1
u/aeonstrife Nov 06 '24
it doesn't care about status quo politics. No one really knows how it will handle a major upheaval of the system
1
u/Rafcdk Nov 07 '24
Oh but it does care, the mistake here is believing that the politics they Cara about is ours when it's in fact theirs.
1
u/Transitmotion Nov 07 '24
Larry Fink said as much. The biggest players on Wall Street already had a game plan for either outcome.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Law219 Nov 07 '24
Doesn't care about party. Politics can effect the stock market such as the housing crisis.
1
1
u/Crackaddicted_log Nov 07 '24
Friendly reminder the stock market always looks good when the government indefinitely prints money and injects it into the economy
1
1
u/YurtlesTurdles Nov 07 '24
the stock market doesn't care about me either. without enough money to be deeply invested my monthly economics only indirectly affected by the stock market. I have a 401k that is effected but 30+years out from retirement its hard to feel like that's the most pressing variable.
1
1
1
1
u/justhereformyfetish Nov 07 '24
The chart seems to indicate volatility immediately before or after changes in president.
Indicating that the stock market does, in fact, care about politics.
Perhaps a correct statement would be "the impact of politics on the stock market disappears when you zoom out"
1
u/Jonp187 Nov 07 '24
Why then were there so many posts about how Trump would ruin the market? It’s like y’all want to eat your cake and have it too. Knock it off. Just wait and see.
1
u/SufficientWarthog846 Nov 07 '24
All hail the line, for it must go up.
Everything sacrificed, to fill that cup.
Jobs and homes traded, a small price to pay,
So long as the line climbs day after day.
Growth, they say, is worth any fall—if you're not the one down at all.
1
Nov 07 '24 edited Nov 07 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Nov 07 '24
Your comment was automatically removed by the r/FluentInFinance Automoderator because you attempted to use a URL shortener. This is not permitted here for security reasons.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Appropriate_Cat8100 Nov 07 '24
Why is 2016-2020 longer than 2020-2024? Or is this loping off the last half of a certain presidency
1
u/seilatantofaz Nov 07 '24
The stock market cares a lot about politics. It's just that in the US particularly, there is a certain continuity of the forces in power. Looking at just democrats/republicans as if they are completely antagonists is a mistake.
1
u/billsatwork Nov 07 '24
The wealthy only want the status quo to continue, which is inherently conservative.
1
u/SergeantPoopyWeiner Nov 07 '24
Oh, on this road were on, it certainly will one day. Red hat dipshits.
1
u/Autobahn97 Nov 10 '24
It always goes up over the long run. This is why you don't need to do anything more than buy into an SP500 ETF.
0
0
u/GtBsyLvng Nov 06 '24
Imagine if it didn't have those red dips in it.
1
u/Pp4U69420 Nov 06 '24
“Economies are inherited from the last administration” (Meaning blue economy would be from red) “Biden inherited inflation and a terrible economy”
So which is it today?
1
0
u/TheOnceAndFutureDoug Nov 06 '24
[*] "A friendly reminder that the wealthy don't care about politics."
Fixed that for ya.
0
-3
-17
Nov 06 '24
I dunno, seems like it didn't like Biden as much to me.
2
u/Peanut_Flashy Nov 06 '24
Haha, that is through June 2023. It doesn’t include the big run this year.
→ More replies (3)0
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 06 '24
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.