I don’t agree with anything Biden has to offer. I’m simply commenting that Biden would play better than dyed in the wool socialist Bernie.
1 Like
lol
must be nice to be as wrong as he is and still be employed
not “socialist”. Communist. with a capital ”C”
; )
| Start Date | End Date | Start Value | End Value | Annualized Return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/09 | 01/19/17 | 805.22 | 2263.69 | 0.137872469 |
| 01/20/17 | 01/21/20 | 2271.31 | 3320 | 0.1347592977 |
Jan 20, 2020 was the first covid case in the US.
It’s simply amazing is what it is.
1 Like
I didn’t realize the s&p 500 represented the entire market either did you?
You have to give him extra credit for the extensive cherry picking it took him to come up with his desired spin. 
1 Like
We were talking about the DOW not the S&P 500.
In any case, let’s take our current situation. Due to the Coronavirus, the DOW has dropped 35% from its peak in the 29,000’s. The DOW will eventually recover to that peak. Let’s say that happens in 2021. Does the next President get credit for that recovery, or is that something that historically always takes place. Wouldn’t it make sense to credit the next President with any gains over the previous peak of 29k?
Prior to the 2008 recession, the DOW peak was about 17k. It took 6 years under Obama to recover to that prior peak. Wouldn’t that have happened regardless of who was President? One could argue that the recovery might have taken place faster if Obama’s policies were more business friendly.
That’s the fascinating thing about statistics. With the same data, they can be manipulated to tell any story one wishes to tell.
Thus my story. In the two years prior to the election, the DOW remained flat at 19k. During the two years following the election, they jumped 40%. One can point to many things that Trump did during that two year period. Obviously there was nothing that Obama did, even during his 8 year term. Unless you believe that raising taxes and crushing small businesses with burdensome regulations was responsible for Trump’s 40% increase in the DOW. 
We’ve been through this before, and I’ve done that. In my opinion, and it’s not very humble in this topic, your “analysis” is simply partisan-fueled hand waving sophistry.
There’s no data-based rebuttal you would accept.
No, it wouldn’t, not by any stretch of the imagination. But again, we’ve been over this before.
I don’t recall any prior conversations with you, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
As you must certainly be aware, conclusions regarding statistical analysis are really in the eyes of the beholder.
The old glass is half full conundrum.
In regards to historical analysis, simply cherry picking a piece of data that meets ones partisan objective and calling it conclusive is absurd. I can do exactly the same thing by cherry picking a different piece of data to meet my partisan objective. In that regard we are both factually accurate, yet we’ve reached very different conclusions. To dismiss my analysis in favor of yours is absolutely beyond the pale, and if you knew anything about statistics you would know that.
“Karl Rove predicts that Mitt Romney will win at least 279 electoral college votes, and 51 percent of the popular vote to President Obama’s 48 percent”
He’s still employed. Have you advocated for him to be fired for being so wrong?
he’s a pundit. not an nobel winning economist.
take another swing!
I don’t give a ■■■■ what award he won, he gave his opinion on something. He was wrong.
Karl Rove gave his opinion on something, and was wrong.
Both should be fired, right?
BTW, I thought Nobel prizes were laughed at since Obama won one. Now they seem to matter?
no youre thinking of the “nobel peace prize” for being so “historic” and as a way to have the biggest global left-gasm over him. but enough about that
economists (esp if MIT professors) should not let politics affect their analyses.
political pundits are expected to
conflation failure
Yes, we are under attack.
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist.
makes sure you ignore the part about his being an economist.
oh. you did. of course. ; )
Actually Krugman may have well been prescient…since the “bad event” he talked about has most definitely happened…and Trump’s response to that event has certainly not helped matters!
If Trump owns the stock market before the catastrophe, then he owns it afterwards. Economy almost always does better under Democratic Presidents.
nice try
often wrong leftist krugman did not predict a pandemic
weaker than weak
and trump responded just fine so you can quit running that stupid narrative.
he was responding when nancy was handing out impeachment pens and dems were calling him “racist”
democrats - dangerous to America.
1 Like
