That's not true. He restored stock market levels which is a success, and he didn't lie or cheat to do that.
It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers. Political policies may drive the market to react in a certain way from time to time but the only real 'direct' effects come from whichever Fed Chair is appointed at the time.
That is what gives it value to the purchases of the stock.
It is purchased because the buyer expects to earn more from it than they paid, and that they likely can pass it on later.
The value of stocks is certainly connected to real value, and it is one of humanity’s greatest inventions.
However, the majority of Americans do not associate stocks with voting rights. Only a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with!
Most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.
The value of the stock market, like you said, is based on the buyers expectations. Which is what I said: the market is controlled by institutions and money managers. Those are the majority of your buyers.
I wish I could convince people to spend only half of what they spend on weed and alcohol on buying stocks - it would be of great benefit to the masses. How can we show them the benefits?
>the stock market has little correlation to reality... It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers
>a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with...
>most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.
And therefore an improved stock market does not equate to an improved 'economy', and therefore it is incorrect to credit Donald Trump with an improved economy purely because tax cuts to the rich may have bumped the stock market. What on Earth does your comment have to do with that?
Earners of $100,000/year or more have 5x the amount in holdings as compared to those earning $99,000 or below.
Only 14% of Americans are invested in individual stocks outside of a 401k program.
401k assets only amount to 17% of the total US retirement.
None of these numbers tell a great story because Americans are not saving for retirement. If they are, they’re barely saving a years worth of their salary.
At least in Germany most people still have a private care insurance option because the free stuff doesn’t cover everything and it’s just as expensive as the USAs insurance so I don’t think the insurance industry will go away just because their is a single payer system.
Universal access to healthcare is a human right, and insurance as a product by its very nature - is non-universal - as it relies on denying access to make profit.
The pre-existing conditions loophole in the current system means that you can purchase insurance one day before you get sick or need a major medical procedure and a private company is mandated by the government to pay up. The whole Obamacare plan is a clusterF*.
Healthcare comes from a provider. Would you say a provider has an unequivocal obligation to provide its service to the people?
As a practical matter of policy, the government can incrementally build the path towards universal coverage. By identifying problems in the outcomes of the existing system, and using various common-sense priorities to draft legislation, this can be done in a slow and sustainable manner. There are various proposals out there drafted by people far smarter than I. Its not that I think any particular one is a silver-bullet, but the current system where people go bankrupt due to medical costs is very alarming. We need to start somewhere if we are to tackle this problem.
I totally get the fear of creating yet another entitlement program, and how hospitals will possibly milk the government, but the current system isn't working, people are quite literally dying and/or having their lives be destroyed due to medical costs, so it about time we did something. I've seen some of this damage first hand and its terrifying to think it could happen to people I care about or even myself.
Let’s first find our common ground. If you are a doctor and a patient comes to you, and the doctor refuses on the grounds he will not be paid enough, you think you have the right to compel this doctor to perform the service anyway?
The emergency care example you give is an extreme and shouldnt be used as the basis for all other policy. I would say a doctor who chose the job as an emergency care provider acknowledges your stance when he took the job, to provide service to matter what, not because it is a right but a contractual obligation.
Lets instead look at distilling the universal access idea to its essence, we need
1) A capital pool to fund the program
2) A legislative framework that
2.1) Lays out the products and services and the pricing of those
2.2) Allows for price negotiation based on geography and other market driven criteria
2.3) Drafts fines for inappropriate behavior - excessive billing, using unapproved medication, etc
2.4) Defines licensing terms for a provider to bill the government
Now the question really becomes - why would any provider not take this deal? Certainly, there could be several reasons, and those can be addressed on a case by case basis. But the point I want to make is, we can start small, maybe we only tackle preventative care at first.
The bottomless debt and asset inflation Trump inherited was not a sign of a strong and growing economy.
How can you call a countries economy Strong when its lending its money for near zero interest? It’s a deeply flawed idea that’s not sustainable in the long run. Obama’s fed tried to placate this worry that the QE and low rates were temporary.
Well here we are. 12 years after 2008 and we are back to zero % rates and more QE that doubles the national debt every Presidents term limit.
The Truth is the economy began to show signs of cracking in dec 2018 with the yield curve reversal when Trumps fed tried to raise rates above a measly 2%. A healthy economy would not do this. The economy hasn’t been healthy since early 2000s
To claim that Trump "restored" stock market levels when in reality the S&P 500 had gained 183% in the previous 8 years (the second highest returns of any presidency after Clinton), is an admission of blatant bias and sheer ignorance.