'Vindicated' by market's response to Trump victory?

[Lancebaby]

I don't mean in ANY political sense. . .I am indifferent.

What I mean by 'vindicated' is that prior to the election, and even the futures on election night, the general consensus was that a Trump victory would "crash", or "roil" the markets. . .and all kinds of hell would break loose.  Instead. . .the opposite.

My point is not that Trump was or is good for the markets, but that NO ONE REALLY nows what will happen.  Many of the experts (perhaps most) were once again dead wrong on the direction of the market proving (once again) that no one knows. . .

The long term, stay the course, diversified index fund approach was and is right.  The market could tank this week (no one knows) but our strategy will continue to be sound, and a whole lot less troubling.

[Vertical Mode]

Before enlightenment: index funds
After enlightenment: index funds

(not suggesting that Trump represents enlightenment, either. As my Oma used to say "this too shall pass")

[anisotropy]

Actually, plenty of forecasters had pointed out trump's policies (if implemented) would be akin to a massive stimulus (mostly unnecessary) and therefore bring the market to a all-time sugar high, which would then be followed by a crash on the magnitude of the .dot come burst.

Enjoy the ride :)

[MacGyverIt]

Actually, plenty of forecasters had pointed out trump's policies (if implemented) would be akin to a massive stimulus (mostly unnecessary) and therefore bring the market to a all-time sugar high, which would then be followed by a crash on the magnitude of the .dot come burst.

Enjoy the ride :)

Yeah... the initial sugar rush of de-regulating then the reality of impetus POTUS and the potential for trade war with China will scare the bejesus out of the market. At which point, maybe we'll see a sale comparable to the current surge.

[sol]

Before enlightenment: index funds
After enlightenment: index funds

Context provided for people unfamiliar with Zen proverbs.

[theolympians]

"While no one knows" what will happen, most (if not all) of the talking heads said that a Trump victory would cause market a crash. "They said the same about Brexit. Honestly those opinions are worthless, as say say more about the political leanings than about market advice.

Having been proved wrong, they are now saying "the crash is coming"; which is now different than many banner headlines through the years that are used to draw readers.

[Metric Mouse]

Actually, plenty of forecasters had pointed out trump's policies (if implemented) would be akin to a massive stimulus (mostly unnecessary) and therefore bring the market to a all-time sugar high, which would then be followed by a crash on the magnitude of the .dot come burst.

Enjoy the ride :)

Well, I for one am quite certain they'll be more right than they were the last seven times they predicted crashes...

[trollwithamustache]

hehe I think I know what you mean. Yes its kind of fun to watch things like this happen after everyone "knows" something else will happen. Even when there isn't really compelling evidence either way.

The most fun is to watch the Technical Analysts when they are on CNBC explaining that the market is forming a rare shape, the bulging walrus or whatever, on the less commonly used  17.3 min chart and that means...

[talltexan]

A big part of the rise in SP500 is driven by the financials...I have thought the bank stocks rose because of the Democrats failing to take the Senate, which meant Elizabeth Warren had a lot less power to go after them (and had a little bit to do with the regulation from Treasury).

[fattest_foot]

The interesting part to me being, he hasn't even taken office. There are no "policies" yet. I'm not entirely sure that Trump's election isn't anything but marginally influential to it.

That said, boy is it a good reminder to ignore the noise. I was even tempted to dump a bunch of money into the market on election night because the futures had crashed. Talk about market timing! Then again, that actually would have paid off bigly since we've had something like a 5 or 6% gain over the last month.

[meghan88]

Market might be something for those with richer blood:

http://www.businessinsider.com/carl-icahn-on-donald-trump-presidential-election-2016-11

[gliderpilot567]

hehe I think I know what you mean. Yes its kind of fun to watch things like this happen after everyone "knows" something else will happen. Even when there isn't really compelling evidence either way.

The most fun is to watch the Technical Analysts when they are on CNBC explaining that the market is forming a rare shape, the bulging walrus or whatever, on the less commonly used  17.3 min chart and that means...

Haha, technical analysts remind me of sports stats commentators. Who fill in the dead time between plays with "this is only the 4th quarterback since 1976 under age 27 in an AFC West team to throw 5 complete passes in the 3rd quarter on a rainy Monday night home game in the first five weeks of the regular season after trailing by at least 12 points at the half, in 3 of these 4 cases the team went on to make a comeback".... hahahahaha

[marty998]

hehe I think I know what you mean. Yes its kind of fun to watch things like this happen after everyone "knows" something else will happen. Even when there isn't really compelling evidence either way.

The most fun is to watch the Technical Analysts when they are on CNBC explaining that the market is forming a rare shape, the bulging walrus or whatever, on the less commonly used  17.3 min chart and that means...

I lit the candlestick that set fire to the Doji where Fibonacci retraced his shooting star which formed a parabolic arc and landed neatly on the rising pennant?

Now if only we could all stop picking bottoms we could make sense of it all.

[libertarian4321]

It appears that the "Trump Rally" is going to go on forever.  Or something.

[Metric Mouse]

It appears that the "Trump Rally" is going to go on forever.  Or something.

Unlikely, but wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

[MasterStache]

It appears that the "Trump Rally" is going to go on forever.  Or something.

Oh it will all come down in a blaze of glory, errr un-glory?

[talltexan]

I was tempted to take some gains yesterday, but then it went up again, so I didn't. Is that the bubble talking?

[trollwithamustache]

I lit the candlestick that set fire to the Doji where Fibonacci retraced his shooting star which formed a parabolic arc and landed neatly on the rising pennant?

Now if only we could all stop picking bottoms we could make sense of it all.

See that's what you are doing wrong. If you use candlesticks, always trade the shooting star otherwise you may experience a reversal of fortunes. And never buy the scented candlesticks.

[I'm a red panda]

He isn't president yet.
The market has plenty of time to crash in response to Trump and his policies.

My husband suggested we withdraw some money from our funds while they are high- and buy back in after that happens, but timing the market is silly, it's likely that it will crash, but it might not happen either.  So we are sticking with the plan and buying in each month at whatever price it happens to be.

[ChpBstrd]

In 2009, the perfect time to buy was on inauguration day, even though stocks continued their existing trend for 3 mos after the election. The holdout naysayers had all finally capitulated.

In 2017, we may see another trend reversal, as Trump fans finally pour their last dollar into stocks and no one else is left to bid stocks up.

[talltexan]

So I switched 10% of my Roth IRA into bonds in anticipation of gyrations of the election. Sure enough, the other 90% went UP (and, yes, the bonds are down about 5%).

So I'm wondering if I should turn over couch cushions to find some more cash to buy more bonds to get back to that 10% balance. Not selling. Just buying more protection.

[fattest_foot]

So I switched 10% of my Roth IRA into bonds in anticipation of gyrations of the election. Sure enough, the other 90% went UP (and, yes, the bonds are down about 5%).

So I'm wondering if I should turn over couch cushions to find some more cash to buy more bonds to get back to that 10% balance. Not selling. Just buying more protection.

I would say just use the experience as a pretty inexpensive life lesson about trying to time the market, and get back to a normal DCA type strategy (or whatever it was you were doing before trying to time the market).

[Vilgan]

My feeling is that the market was going to pop no matter who was elected, since the turmoil and uncertainty kept people nervous. Once the outcome was known, the "good things" (from an investor standpoint) started to drift to the surface resulting in a pop in equities.

I don't know how things will end up impacting equities in the long run. He could get into a twitter feud with someone in China and we get into a trade war which is really bad for us. Or the tax plan doesn't end up coming out to anything. And maybe the republicans block his infrastructure spending plan. Who knows.

All I know is equities have popped a lot and bonds are down a lot, so I'm finally picking up some bonds after avoiding them throughout 2016. I don't know that bonds are a "good idea", but I'd rather buy BND at 80 than at 85 and it provides a bit of a hedge against a market crash down the road.

[Kaspian]

Somebody really needs to put a stop to Paul Krugman.  He's had way too much of a hand in messing around with the American economy behind the scenes.  His Keynesian theories of bigger government, spend, spend, spend, spend have had way too much influence on politicians (he tells them what they like to hear about spending?) and I believe it's just all designed to sell his own books.  ...Plus he's gone off the conspiracy theory deep end.  PLUS, he doesn't know what he's talking about--recent election is case in point.

[talltexan]

**Economist-by-training here**

I agree with Kaspian that Krugman's tone has been lately...unhinged. I acknowledge many people are enjoying watching progressives squirm, and he has given those people an ample supply of it.

But many people other than Krugman predicted hyper-inflation would result from the large Budget deficits of 2008-2012 and loose monetary policy, and that never happened. Krugman got that prediction correct, and it's an important one because it gives a big clue as to what caused that depression. Krugman also acknowledges when he has gotten things wrong (like his claim about the importance of the internet), which you never see from many other people active in the space. He deserves credit for that.

The only serious academic economist who signed on with the Trump campaign was some Californian named Navarro. Even the conservative economists, like Feldstein, Mankiw, Barro, and Lucas, etc., stayed far away, leaving Trump to depend on journalists, like Larry Kudlow, and Stephen Moore. It's not just Krugman who has been vocal in criticizing Trump's trade policy and lack of fiscal realism.

[Scandium]

It's not just Krugman who has been vocal in criticizing Trump's trade policy and lack of fiscal realism.

A shit-flinging monkey could tell that cutting all taxes to 10-15%, while supposedly increasing spending, wars and tariffs is an unworkable fever-fantasy only an idiot would sign off on. $10 trillion deficit over next 10 years? sounds great!

Apparently the countryside has a lot of shit-flinging monkeys..

[Spork]

"While no one knows" what will happen, most (if not all) of the talking heads said that a Trump victory would cause market a crash. "They said the same about Brexit. Honestly those opinions are worthless, as say say more about the political leanings than about market advice.

Having been proved wrong, they are now saying "the crash is coming"; which is now different than many banner headlines through the years that are used to draw readers.

For what it's worth: I had sort of the same conversation with a few folks when Obama got elected.  The world was going to end.  It didn't. 

[ChpBstrd]

"While no one knows" what will happen, most (if not all) of the talking heads said that a Trump victory would cause market a crash. "They said the same about Brexit. Honestly those opinions are worthless, as say say more about the political leanings than about market advice.

Having been proved wrong, they are now saying "the crash is coming"; which is now different than many banner headlines through the years that are used to draw readers.

For what it's worth: I had sort of the same conversation with a few folks when Obama got elected.  The world was going to end.  It didn't.

I suppose the difference is that Obama's approach (Keynesian ) has now been fully vindicated as a means to recover from economic crisis, and Trump's approach (who knows? Tax rebate checks like in 2008?) is a wild card. The anti-trade, austerity talk is straight out of the Herbert Hoover playbook, but we'll have to wait and see how much of that was just a populist slogan.

The market's reaction to a change in policies from those that are known successes to those that are known failures was perplexing. Goes to show you can't anticipate investor behavior even if you could predict the future. Perhaps when Trump's fans are 100% invested, the bidding up of shares will stop.

[sol]

we'll have to wait and see how much of that was just a populist slogan.

But people love slogans!

Lock her up!  "That plays well before the election, but now we don't care, right?"

Drain the swamp!  "He now just disclaims that.  It was cute, but he doesn't want to use it anymore."

Build the wall!  Now it's "more of a metaphor for enhanced border security."

People loved that shit.  They took him seriously, and he has unsurprisingly betrayed the very folks who chanted those slogans.  But the one slogan they DIDN'T take seriously?  The one his supporters were quietly hoping he was just joking about, but it turns out it's the only one he's actually dead serious about?  That's "repeal and replace" and rural America is terrified he might actually go through with it.

So let's review.  All that crazy shit your people loved was obvious campaign lies.  All that genuinely hurtful stuff your supporters thought you were kidding about is now official policy.  Double winning!

I'm still waiting to see what he does with Roe v. Wade and the Muslim registry, but I'm pretty sure he'll fuck those up too.  How could he not?

[Spork]

"While no one knows" what will happen, most (if not all) of the talking heads said that a Trump victory would cause market a crash. "They said the same about Brexit. Honestly those opinions are worthless, as say say more about the political leanings than about market advice.

Having been proved wrong, they are now saying "the crash is coming"; which is now different than many banner headlines through the years that are used to draw readers.

For what it's worth: I had sort of the same conversation with a few folks when Obama got elected.  The world was going to end.  It didn't.

I suppose the difference is that Obama's approach (Keynesian ) has now been fully vindicated as a means to recover from economic crisis, and Trump's approach (who knows? Tax rebate checks like in 2008?) is a wild card. The anti-trade, austerity talk is straight out of the Herbert Hoover playbook, but we'll have to wait and see how much of that was just a populist slogan.

The market's reaction to a change in policies from those that are known successes to those that are known failures was perplexing. Goes to show you can't anticipate investor behavior even if you could predict the future. Perhaps when Trump's fans are 100% invested, the bidding up of shares will stop.

My personal opinion here is that the market wants to go up regardless.  It is the uncertainty that fucks you up. 

My favorite Keynesian economics quote:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribound business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Paul Krugman, 2002

Perfectly implemented.

[Mr. Boh]

Somebody really needs to put a stop to Paul Krugman.  He's had way too much of a hand in messing around with the American economy behind the scenes.  His Keynesian theories of bigger government, spend, spend, spend, spend have had way too much influence on politicians (he tells them what they like to hear about spending?) and I believe it's just all designed to sell his own books.  ...Plus he's gone off the conspiracy theory deep end.  PLUS, he doesn't know what he's talking about--recent election is case in point.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever seen on the internet. Sorry but I feel I needed to point this out.

For the record, I have seen a lot of stupid shit on the internet.

[davisgang90]

Somebody really needs to put a stop to Paul Krugman.  He's had way too much of a hand in messing around with the American economy behind the scenes.  His Keynesian theories of bigger government, spend, spend, spend, spend have had way too much influence on politicians (he tells them what they like to hear about spending?) and I believe it's just all designed to sell his own books.  ...Plus he's gone off the conspiracy theory deep end.  PLUS, he doesn't know what he's talking about--recent election is case in point.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever seen on the internet. Sorry but I feel I needed to point this out.

For the record, I have seen a lot of stupid shit on the internet.

Great rebuttal.  Your debating skills are sharp!  Did you by chance used to advise Enron like dear Paul Krugman?

[Metric Mouse]

we'll have to wait and see how much of that was just a populist slogan.

But people love slogans!

Lock her up!  "That plays well before the election, but now we don't care, right?"

Drain the swamp!  "He now just disclaims that.  It was cute, but he doesn't want to use it anymore."

Build the wall!  Now it's "more of a metaphor for enhanced border security."

People loved that shit.  They took him seriously, and he has unsurprisingly betrayed the very folks who chanted those slogans.  But the one slogan they DIDN'T take seriously?  The one his supporters were quietly hoping he was just joking about, but it turns out it's the only one he's actually dead serious about?  That's "repeal and replace" and rural America is terrified he might actually go through with it.

So let's review.  All that crazy shit your people loved was obvious campaign lies.  All that genuinely hurtful stuff your supporters thought you were kidding about is now official policy.  Double winning!

I'm still waiting to see what he does with Roe v. Wade and the Muslim registry, but I'm pretty sure he'll fuck those up too.  How could he not?

Hope and change!

You can keep your doctor!

$2500 back in your pockets, America!

Mission accomplished!

People ate that shit up. Trump is neither unique nor original with his use of obviously false promises to the electorate. He just happened to do it better this time.

I'm still waiting to see what he does with Roe v. Wade and the Muslim registry, but I'm pretty sure he'll fuck those up too.  How could he not?

Just out of curiosity... what would be a 'successful' Muslim Registry. I'm not sure if we should be rooting for him to fuck it up, or do it the best... :D

[sol]

Just out of curiosity... what would be a 'successful' Muslim Registry. I'm not sure if we should be rooting for him to fuck it up, or do it the best... :D

That's the point.  No matter what he does, some people will be butthurt that he so egregiously violated a campaign promise or some people will be butthurt that he's disassembling America's foundational ideology. 

[Mr. Boh]

Somebody really needs to put a stop to Paul Krugman.  He's had way too much of a hand in messing around with the American economy behind the scenes.  His Keynesian theories of bigger government, spend, spend, spend, spend have had way too much influence on politicians (he tells them what they like to hear about spending?) and I believe it's just all designed to sell his own books.  ...Plus he's gone off the conspiracy theory deep end.  PLUS, he doesn't know what he's talking about--recent election is case in point.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever seen on the internet. Sorry but I feel I needed to point this out.

For the record, I have seen a lot of stupid shit on the internet.

Great rebuttal.  Your debating skills are sharp!  Did you by chance used to advise Enron like dear Paul Krugman?

It wasn't a rebuttal. I was just stating my opinion just like every other poster in this thread.

[Kaspian]

Somebody really needs to put a stop to Paul Krugman.  He's had way too much of a hand in messing around with the American economy behind the scenes.  His Keynesian theories of bigger government, spend, spend, spend, spend have had way too much influence on politicians (he tells them what they like to hear about spending?) and I believe it's just all designed to sell his own books.  ...Plus he's gone off the conspiracy theory deep end.  PLUS, he doesn't know what he's talking about--recent election is case in point.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever seen on the internet. Sorry but I feel I needed to point this out.

For the record, I have seen a lot of stupid shit on the internet.

Great rebuttal.  Your debating skills are sharp!  Did you by chance used to advise Enron like dear Paul Krugman?

It wasn't a rebuttal. I was just stating my opinion just like every other poster in this thread.

And it was what?  Krugman's election/market prediction was "stupid"?  Or was my feeling that he's become an unhinged, arrogant, inaccurate, economic pain-in-the-ass "stupid"?  Normally I wouldn't give a toss about these sorts of predictions, he'd be just another talking head like Cramer, but Krugman actually holds heavy sway with politicians--they do listen to him. 

[talltexan]

I'm not sure what politician you think is listening to Krugman.

He was a very vocal critic of Obama (from the left) in 2009-2010. Summers and Geitner asked for much more stimulus than they got in ARRA, and the form of the program (infrastructure projects, payroll tax cut) was very different than what Krugman advocated (subsidies of the state governments, 98% of whom are legall required to balance their budgets.

While Krugman has lately praised Obamacare, he was completely uninvolved in its design (perhaps you're confusing him with Gruber?).

In 2010, Obama chose to re-appoint Ben Bernanke as chair of the Fed. This was not unconventional, and I couldn't tell you what Krugman said about it at the time because so many people (Bernanke was a Republican, after all) thought it was the correct choice.

During the fiscal cliff deliberations (in Dec. 2012), the payroll tax cut was ultimately revoked, creating an instant annual tax burden of about $1,000 for a household with average income. Krugman opposed this.

In Dec. 2015, the Fed raised their discount rate for the first time in 8 years. Krugman opposed this.

So who are these politicians who are listening to him?

[FrugalSaver]

I don't mean in ANY political sense. . .I am indifferent.

What I mean by 'vindicated' is that prior to the election, and even the futures on election night, the general consensus was that a Trump victory would "crash", or "roil" the markets. . .and all kinds of hell would break loose.  Instead. . .the opposite.

My point is not that Trump was or is good for the markets, but that NO ONE REALLY nows what will happen.  Many of the experts (perhaps most) were once again dead wrong on the direction of the market proving (once again) that no one knows. . .

The long term, stay the course, diversified index fund approach was and is right.  The market could tank this week (no one knows) but our strategy will continue to be sound, and a whole lot less troubling.

Sadly, we don't really have "news" any more, just propaganda to push an agenda.  A lot was exposed this election cycle which many have seen but few had previously acknowledged.  Always be careful where one gets their information.  Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

Not sure if congress under Trump has any plan to do anything about the mega-uber-debt we've now run up.  I am not sure how much it even matters, but I hope congress under Trump doesn't see how running up the credit card has inlated stock prices and think "hey if 20 TRILLION accomplished all this, what would $30 TRILLION do?"

At some point, one would think it would have to matter, but maybe that's well beyond the next 50+ years most of us on this board hope to be around.

[Kaspian]

I'm not sure what politician you think is listening to Krugman.
So who are these politicians who are listening to him?

Ersh... I watched a documentary about money ("Masters of Money"?) where in his interviews he talked about how he was called to certain emergency Washington think-tanks after the 2008 economic crisis.  (That may have been meaningless bluster, though.) His Wikipedia page does state that he worked for the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan, but that was a long time ago.

I think a Nobel Winner in Economic Sciences should be far more cautious and responsible with his pronouncements.  As a (previously) respected name, how many people sold out their stocks because of a crazy statement like "The market will never recover" by a writer from The New York Times? 

OK, sorry... I'm rambling like a fool.  Maybe I just don't like the guy?  Sort of like Jim Cramer.  Except his smarmy writing rubs me the wrong way as opposed to Cramer's boisterous yelling.  None of it helps the small investor at all and that's why average people won't even participate in markets anymore. 

[aspiringnomad]

I'm not sure what politician you think is listening to Krugman.
So who are these politicians who are listening to him?

Ersh... I watched a documentary about money ("Masters of Money"?) where in his interviews he talked about how he was called to certain emergency Washington think-tanks after the 2008 economic crisis.  (That may have been meaningless bluster, though.) His Wikipedia page does state that he worked for the Council of Economic Advisers under Reagan, but that was a long time ago.

Not defending the guy as he is a bit too ideological even for me (I'm center-left by US standards), but there are tens, maybe hundreds of Washington think-tanks that host thousands of panels, round-tables, and discussions with academics like Krugman. It's very unlikely that any one panel member influences prominent politicians, so if he does yield the influence you claim it's more likely through his NYTimes column.

And yes, his statement that markets would never recover was foolish.

[powskier]

Markets grow and crash and grow.
Politicians do  shitty stuff and cool stuff  and shitty stuff.
I just keep buying index funds, highs, lows, whatever.

[DavidAnnArbor]

I think a Nobel Winner in Economic Sciences should be far more cautious and responsible with his pronouncements.  As a (previously) respected name, how many people sold out their stocks because of a crazy statement like "The market will never recover" by a writer from The New York Times? 

In a fit of pique on election night Paul Krugman wrote the markets would never recover, which if you read the entire piece he wrote, was more a metaphor that the economy would never recover if the policies of Donald Trump are enacted. But by Nov. 11th he recanted this, specifically that "the markets wouldn't recover" which you, you can read in his blog or his column.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/the-long-haul/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/opinion/trump-slump-coming.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fpaul-krugman&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection


Paul Krugman defines himself as center left, there are many who are much more to the left of Paul Krugman.

Bottom line for me regarding Krugman is that he is an eloquent writer and a brilliant thinker. Krugman's concepts of macroeconomics are grounded in models that have proven themselves over and over again. Along with Lawrence Summers they have both proposed ideas about how to battle against economic stagnation, and one of the takeaways is that federal deficits are not bad, in fact fiscal stimulus is what is needed in lowflation/slow growth/low-zero interest rate economies. When the economy is running hot, Krugman recommends at that time to take away the punch bowl and have more fiscal rectitude. This flexible approach makes the most sense, in fact it reminds me of those mustachians who realize that when stock market is down you can be flexible in your spending in order to make your stash last forever.

The approach of economic advisors surrounding Trump are to cut government spending always and all the time, government is always bad/ business is always good, and a desire to return to the gold standard - these are the tenets of a religious faith and not at all based on any logical economic models.  When these right-wing policies fail at some point in the future, as they used to in the past before Keynesian economics existed, this will create an economic depression. Trump doesn't have the intellect to even know who to advise him correctly if this happens - it will just be more of the same, cut government spending, raise interest rates, and unless and until those policies are reversed we won't get out of an economic slump.

[Metric Mouse]

So are you suggesting that traditional Republican budgetary suggestions of tightening spending could be appropriate at this time, considering the state of the economy?

[DavidAnnArbor]

I think I've heard economists suggest that now is not yet the time, but if the inflation were to start getting significantly above 3 or 4% then yes that would be the right time to start doing belt tightening. Some economists are looking at labor inflation as a guide.

[DavidAnnArbor]

So are you suggesting that traditional Republican budgetary suggestions of tightening spending could be appropriate at this time, considering the state of the economy?

I'd also like to say that the traditional Republican budgetary suggestions of tightening spending has been thrown under the bus now that Trump has been elected.
Budgetary tightening was only in play when a Democrat was in the White House, partly as a means to keep the economy weak and undermine Obama's policies.

[sol]

Are you implying that politics just might not control the economy? Oh my...who are we going to praise or blame now for uncontrollable forces or events?

I would suggest that politics absolutely DOES control the economy.  If Republicans impose trade tariffs, deregulate the financial industry, and cut taxes on the rich in order to reduce government income, bad things will happen.  The economy will contract, deficits will go up.  Those are direct consequences of political intervention in the economy.

Just look at 2001-2008, as a good example of how Republican's policies can directly impact the economy.  Massive deregulation, tax cuts for the rich to reduce revenues, new entitlement programs to increase spending, and two new wars funded purely with deficits.  Result: economic collapse.

Then Democrats took control and instituted stimulus, raised taxes on the rich, and reduced war spending.  Result: 8 years of job growth, wage growth, market growth, and GDP growth.  They could have done better, but at least they stopped making it worse.

Now we have Republicans in control again.  Does anyone want to wager on how long it takes them to return to massive deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, new entitlement programs, and increased war spending?  They're just chomping at the bit to repeat the bad parts of this cycle, and now they will claim they're doing it because "it's what the American people demanded."

[boy_bye]

Trump and the folks he's installing in the executive branch want nothing more than to line their pockets while riding the oil-based economy till the wheels come off it. That's why it's all billionaires and oil people in his cabinet. It's pure kleptocracy. (Brilliant article about this can be found here: https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd)

I don't think Trump cares about "social" issues at all (though I hate the delineation between social and economic issues -- if you're not an affluent white guy, there is no difference between the two). Trump's all about making more $$$. He spouts his racist, sexist, xenophobic bullshit to get people whipped up, but I honestly don't think he cares about any of that at all. He only wants to gain power and make money, and he'll do or say whatever he needs to in order to make those things happen.

There's no doubt in my mind that his approach -- pumping up the Carbon Bubble -- is going to lead to a massive crash. There's no way it doesn't. The economy is based on the environment, after all, and when Miami starts to disappear, and Oklahoma turns back into a Dust Bowl, well, we are not going to be worrying so much about the performance of the stock market.

[Telecaster]

My favorite Keynesian economics quote:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribound business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Paul Krugman, 2002

Perfectly implemented.

I hate shit like this. 

Context is everything. If you read the actual article,  Krugman was clearly being sarcastic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

It that wasn't obvious enough, see this article written the next week, going into the detail about the dangerous of an upcoming housing bubble.  Written in 2002. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/opinion/mind-the-gap.html

I'll leave it an exercise for the reader your motivation for twisting Krugman's position 180 degrees in order to get in your snarky comment.

[DavidAnnArbor]

My favorite Keynesian economics quote:
"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribound business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Paul Krugman, 2002

Perfectly implemented.

I hate shit like this. 

Context is everything. If you read the actual article,  Krugman was clearly being sarcastic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

It that wasn't obvious enough, see this article written the next week, going into the detail about the dangerous of an upcoming housing bubble.  Written in 2002. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/opinion/mind-the-gap.html

I'll leave it an exercise for the reader your motivation for twisting Krugman's position 180 degrees in order to get in your snarky comment.

Thanks for clarifying the fakery.

[talltexan]

We're deep into this thread, so I cannot remember if this has been mentioned already (despite my liberal leanings, it would be irresponsible to omit it):

The President exerts significant control over the regulatory state. Large companies (think Ford, or General Electric) have the resources to hire lobbyists and lawyers to fight it and even shape it. Small businesses do not.

Many small-business-people are optimistic that a clearing of the brush as regards regulations will help small businesses (see the increase in the Russell 2000 index, which has surged much more than the SP500 index). Three places where this will play out: Clean Power Plan, Affordable care act, and the landscape for Union activities.