Hillary Clinton win = what for the economy?

[vanzandt]

you're so convinced stocks will go higher forever; population growth in America has declined steadily, headed for the negatives...just look at japan the past 25 years to get an idea of how wrong you are

After the crash in 2009, people were saying the EXACT same thing when the DOW broke 10K. "We will never see DOW 12K". Here we are at 18K. I guess this time its over for good though huh? We'll see. I doubt it though.

We are in the infancy of a bull market the likes of which have never before been seen and it will be fueled by technology, biotech, cheap energy, and globalization. America will lead the charge. Bringing Japan's population growth and economic woes for the last 20 years into the equation here is like sighting the scarcity of whale blubber as impetus for an energy crisis. Its completely irrelevant and so far out in left field that it shows how wrong YOU are.

The world is going to keep on spinning for 100's of more years. I wouldn't bet the farm on Armageddon just yet my friend. To think otherwise is naive. Canned goods and ammo are nice to have around, but trust me, there are many future generations to come and they won't be inhabiting caves.

 

[piezoe]

That is all great for the poor but nowhere in your points does that benefit the middle class. The middle class works and is mostly insured and pension secured. The changes are really a drop in a bucket for the middle class which explains why she can't attract more middle class undecided potential voters. Nor has Hilary shown where the middle class wins. I am all for demanding a higher share from the rich and reallocate that to the bottom 20% or 30%. Many of the super rich actually agree with that. But there is very little for the middle class in her policy proposals.

She outlined, briefly, but succinctly, her demand side job stimulus plan. It went by too quickly for the media to grasp its importance. It will mean a huge boost to middle class jobs and income. She is also pushing a higher minimum wage. That will be a "huge", really "huge", demand side stimulus that will once again leave a little capital in the hands of the lower middle class. She is proposing all the right things. Maybe not as aggressively as I would like to see, but going in the right direction. Go, Hillary!

 

[piezoe]

you're so convinced stocks will go higher forever; population growth in America has declined steadily, headed for the negatives...just look at japan the past 25 years to get an idea of how wrong you are

This is what is so absurd about Trump. He thinks, apparently, we can compete with China's GDP growth rate. That's insane. (Trump is an unmitigated idiot!) We are a mature economy. They are no where near a mature economy. Growth forever is impossible, but in the current world we can do 2-3% a year again with the right kind of economic leadership. 2.5-3 % would be fantastic for us considering our slowing population growth. We are headed there by 2020. but no higher. And that's about right for us.

 

[heavenskrow]

WTF does the sex of the head of the IMF and FED have to do with anything unless you're somehow scared of women or don't believe they can perform these functions?
Let me guess, your "America of the founding fathers" is a place where white men get to rule everything, blacks are slaves, and women can't vote let alone hold import positions? I wish you and those like you could move to an island somewhere and live your bigoted utopia far away from the rest of us. BTW, do you completely fail to see the irony in your hate of immigrants while at the same time thinking you should get to move to whatever county you want and they should welcome you with open arms?

LOL, people like you who don't understand my post and go off saying I am sexist reminds me of Hilary's campaign against Trump. Women are just as capable to perform the same functions a man does. Although I do believe there is a natural way in the world in which men should be the ones taking charge and deal with the harshness of life while the women are the soft caring creatures. It's also equated to "physical normalness" in which men who have muscles and look strong are attractive whereas a woman with the same type of physique is usually a turn off. Vice versa a skinny man with no muscle is nowhere ideal but a thin woman is preferred.

I am all for equal rights, but lately FEMINISM has gone to almost every female's damn mind. IN TODAY'S SOCIETY, MEN HAVE BECOME NEUTERED. Feminism has gone to my OWN single mother's mind, she lost the concept of being a nurturing loving figure, and hence the relationship between me and her completely deteriorated as I grew up. It's like as a guy if your mother is a kind nurturing loving figure, you step up on your own to become a "man" and care for her as well. But if feminism and narcissism takes over, she becomes worse than an abusing father as she lost the concept of parenting. It's like yin and yang.

Seriously even at my workplace, the female office manager was literally gossiping about how other ladies dress and how just because one girl dresses a little slutty, she calls her tons of names ALL DAY LONG. I don't have any respect or time to hear a manager that does that hence I quit and focused on my trading.

ALL I WAS SAYING was LOOK at the WORLD NOW. HEAD OF IMF=WOMAN, HEAD OF FED=WOMAN, AND NOW FROM THE LOOKS OF IT, HEAD OF AMERICA= WOMAN.

Isn't it odd that just recently, women are starting to take over leadership? And no I am not sexist, I fully endorse Aung San Suu Kyi as an amazing woman fulfilling an important position.
Why do I support her? Because she's a Nobel Peace prize winner and she still is a woman-like figure and you can see she is a real person? Now Clinton on the other hand, I don't trust that evil C at all. She exudes evil.

Again, I just am a conspiracy nut and I feel like once Clinton does become President, it officially declares the sign of the times in which men have become neutered. After all we are living in the Age of Acquarius after all.

 

[Zzzz1]

Agree on the direction, too, though I stand by my stance that she has little to nothing to offer the middle class. It's scary to hear the US lower middle class has to concern itself with minimum wage.

She outlined, briefly, but succinctly, her demand side job stimulus plan. It went by too quickly for the media to grasp its importance. It will mean a huge boost to middle class jobs and income. She is also pushing a higher minimum wage. That will be a "huge", really "huge", demand side stimulus that will once again leave a little capital in the hands of the lower middle class. She is proposing all the right things. Maybe not as aggressively as I would like to see, but going in the right direction. Go, Hillary!

 

[USDJPY]

If all the money in the world was redistributed equally, every one would be poor.

 

[Zzzz1]

Absolutely, maybe someone closer to 65. Imagine near retirees were invested to the degree of 50% in equities. A single longer recession would wipe out a whole generation of retirees. And where do the cash flows come from, you would have to continuously sell equities. Which ones? Then you would sell low at the worst time during a financial crisis, which almost guaranteed occurs within 20 years.

Mate, you can keep on accusing me left and right, but fact remains that as a general advice and rule most retirees are strongly advised to hold hardly any investments in stocks bbut bonds and money market instruments. Disagreeing with this does not disagree with Mr but makes you disagree with a whole industry.

would you give this advice to a 60 year old man with a pension and life expectancy of 20years?
.

 

[Zzzz1]

Look at his past comments on stocks. Nowhere does he give any time frame and over most time frames I looked at for most of the stocks he touted he was dead wrong, almost 80% of his calls were wrong in September and October so far alone. Some people make for perfect fade indicators.

Nothing like a good ole ambiguous timeframe.

 

[Zzzz1]

Disagree. Your buying power would incredibly increase not just because you have more money in your pockets, as a poor, but all products and services would be vastly cheaper as result from basic demand and supply mechanics. Plus remember that communism does not work, so about the same percentage of today's poor will most likely end up making good poor choices with the money they got (and I don't lay blame on them in generalized terms) so someone who had more before the redistribution will most likely also end up in a better position over the longer run.

If all the money in the world was redistributed equally, every one would be poor.

 

[USDJPY]

Disagree. Your buying power would incredibly increase not just because you have more money in your pockets, as a poor, but all products and services would be vastly cheaper as result from basic demand and supply mechanics. Plus remember that communism does not work, so about the same percentage of today's poor will most likely end up making good poor choices with the money they got (and I don't lay blame on them in generalized terms) so someone who had more before the redistribution will most likely also end up in a better position over the longer run.

People in Africa and South America and the Middle East would have greater buying power, while people in North America Europe and Asia would have less buying power. Prices for raw materials would be more expensive such as food and metals and energy, because everyone would want to consume quality food, use lots of metals in construction of their homes, and use energy for transportation, heating and cooling, and chemicals. Unlike now where this consumption isn't available to much of the population. So your wrong that people's quality of life would remain the same while getting cheaper. And like you said the balance of the money supply wouldn't last long as individuals monetize their value. The point is you cannot create lasting monetary equality with turning the world upside down and creating a lot of unhappy people in the process, and its results are only temporary.