Hillary Clinton win = what for the economy?

[harami]

actually, i think all world leaders should be Women
[i've said this in the past]

for one simple reason - fewer Wars

marc

 

[drcha]

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.

So thanks for the laugh: the "I'm all for feminism" statement and then the diatribe about the proper place and demeanor of women. I just have to ask you, are you Donald Trump??

 

[zdreg]

Right, because people who are 60 or 65 today (and whom I specifically addressed) live until 100 or 120, right? Looks more like you fell for those who have a monetary interest to push stocks and etfs/index funds.

Are you completely discounting the possibility of what happened in Japan in the equity markets over the past 15-20 years that it might apply to US markets?

under the old parameters you are still wrong about the allocation to bonds. the point of contention is not what i think but what financial planners advice. financial planners do not recommend 100% in bonds as you wrote. I gave you the links. you offer none. obfuscate your replies somewhere else. you cannot admit that you are wrong, i am putting you on ignore.

 

[ajcrshr]

piezoe said:
Supply-side economics is sometimes referred to as "trickle down" economics. The idea behind it is that by increasing the amount of capital controlled by the wealthy class you can benefit all classes, including the middle class. In practice, however, supply-side economics produced self-reinforcing transfers of capital from the middle class to the wealthy class, deficits, and cost shifting, all of which proved damaging to the middle class.

That paragraph proves you don't know what you are talking about.

On Ignore!!

Funny current Fed policy is very akin to the "supply-side economics" the liberals love to decry as a regurgitated talking point, but we hear almost zero from them in that regard even though the Fed is the most economically influential force. Clearly they support the Fed's thought that the wealth effect will trickle down to the average American instead of fleecing them through debasement. Seems very hypocritical..

 

[birzos]

Just watched "13 Hours", was taking a broadly balanced view, but only the pure evil of a psychopath can make comments “Did we survive the day?” and 'What difference, at this point, does it make?'.

Anyone supporting that line is either in the same general category or an unfortunate lemming.

 

[Zzzz1]

I never said advisers advise to be 100% in bonds at any point. Glad you put me on ignore, and thanks for a link to some retail tard targeting news website as your source of authoritative investment advice.

under the old parameters you are still wrong about the allocation to bonds. the point of contention is not what i think but what financial planners advice. financial planners do not recommend 100% in bonds as you wrote. I gave you the links. you offer none. obfuscate your replies somewhere else. you cannot admit that you are wrong, i am putting you on ignore.

 

[Sig]

Agree fully in that it will be a long term process. But a rethink has to take place and if that is what the Trump phenomenon brought about then that shall be his greatest achievement. Though I find it still hard to credit him for anything.

But when you see those get rich quick schemes a la snap chat and Co, when you see the ridiculous compensations paid at Verizon, AT&T and many other corporates while infrastructure, most housing, the quality of kindergartens even pales in comparison with Greece then something is wrong. I am currently looking to buy a house near NYC and looked at properties in Connecticut and North of NYC and I have to say the quality 600k to 800k buys you is appalling and shocking (rotten, run down wood only constructs, old non insulating windows, crappie neighborhoods,...) . The better places I found around Princeton, NJ, but that's a 1 hour train ride into the city. When you look at the prices ISPs charge and the slow speeds and throughput caps you have to endure in exchange then that is something at the far low end of all other developed nations. When you look at how public schools look like and how run down they are compared with kindergartens or high schools in Spain or Greece then you know what I am talking about. The rich get richer by the hour (quite literally) while the middle class endures a horrible infrastructure and quality of services. What's with all those holes in streets all over Manhattan? Is this one of the world's most advanced cities or Aleppo? Something is not right and so far everyone shuts up about it because the establishment who lives in their nice multi million dollar mansions taught the rest that speaking up and criticizing and looking for improvements is UnAmerican when the opposite is actually true.

Just because something takes long time does not mean it should not be started to be tackled today. Under Clinton very little to nothing will change for the better for the middle class.

Don't get too down on the county based on NY. I've lived in Silicon Valley where it's the same insanity and it was easy to forget that this doesn't represent the other 98% of the country. Go to say Charlotte, Austin, or Denver and you'll find a pretty cool cosmopolitan city with far more reasonable housing prices, great public schools, and good infrastructure. Not to say you have a choice to move there, but at least it will give you a little hope for the country to know they're out there.

 

[fordewind]

How can a woman lead a nation in a sane society anyway?Bill is probably a victim of a constant domestic violence.

 

[Zzzz1]

I guess you are right, there is way more out there but as you also correctly stated sometimes the place to live is limited by career choices.

Don't get too down on the county based on NY. I've lived in Silicon Valley where it's the same insanity and it was easy to forget that this doesn't represent the other 98% of the country. Go to say Charlotte, Austin, or Denver and you'll find a pretty cool cosmopolitan city with far more reasonable housing prices, great public schools, and good infrastructure. Not to say you have a choice to move there, but at least it will give you a little hope for the country to know they're out there.

 

[piezoe]

What dried up opportunities do you have in mind? Investing? Spending?

There are opportunities of course. But if you are constrained in some way, e.g., no savings, working two jobs to make ends meet, etc., from your perspective they might as well not exist.