The stock market is on pace for its worst December since the Great Depression

[Faun]

LOL

Nutcase, I said the rate was increased 4 times between 12/16 and 12/17 — and then you posted a chart showing it was increased 4 times between 12/16 and 12/17.

You may have said that. If you feel I'm supposed to search for it, you're talking to the wrong guy. Purpose of the graph was to point out the frequency of increases. Although, that, evidently, is a bit too complicated for you.

Dumbfuck, no one asked you to search for it. Meanwhile, you posted a graph anyway which displayed exactly what I said about the federal fund rate and then you idiotically posted how I need bifocals as if it showed something different from what I said.

Resorting to name calling now. Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

That isn't even the argument, Faun. You grasping for anything right now, huh?

You’re blaming the market crash on the fact that the federal fund rate was increased 2.25 points in 2 years. Meanwhile, I showed it it was increased 6 times for a 2.5 point increase in 1994 alone.

In fact, in the year from 2/94 to 2/95, it went up 3 points, from 3% to 6%. A three point gain during 7 increases in a one year span — and the market didn’t collapse like it is now. According to your nonsense, such a big increase in such a short period of time should wrecked the stock market.

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck, no one asked you to search for it. Meanwhile, you posted a graph anyway which displayed exactly what I said about the federal fund rate and then you idiotically posted how I need bifocals as if it showed something different from what I said.

Resorting to name calling now. Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

Hahaha, you can interchange the points with a percent they charge, Faun. .25 points is the same as .25%......talk about idiotic.

LOLOL

Uh, no, you can’t. Well, you can if you’re an imbecile. But otherwise, no you can’t. They have entirely different meanings.

Going from a rate of 3% to 6.5% is a 117% increase, not a 3.5% increase. It’s an increase of 3.5 percentage points. There is a difference, even if you don’t quite grasp the distinction.

But this certainly puts your posts in perspective.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. We were and have been talking about the Fed Res raising the interest
rate....period.

LOLOL

Of course you don’t know what I’m talking about. The reason that’s funny is because I too am talking about the Fed rating the federal fund rate.

 

[Meister]

You may have said that. If you feel I'm supposed to search for it, you're talking to the wrong guy. Purpose of the graph was to point out the frequency of increases. Although, that, evidently, is a bit too complicated for you.

Dumbfuck, no one asked you to search for it. Meanwhile, you posted a graph anyway which displayed exactly what I said about the federal fund rate and then you idiotically posted how I need bifocals as if it showed something different from what I said.

Resorting to name calling now. Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

That isn't even the argument, Faun. You grasping for anything right now, huh?

You’re blaming the market crash on the fact that the federal fund rate was increased 2.25 points in 2 years. Meanwhile, I showed it it was increased 6 times for a 2.5 point increase in 1994 alone.

In fact, in the year from 2/94 to 2/95, it went up 3 points, from 3% to 6%. A three point gain during 7 increases in a one year span — and the market didn’t collapse like it is now. According to your nonsense, such a big increase in such a short period of time should wrecked the stock market.

It was a different economy back then, Also, a different world, Faun. apples and oranges
Like I said this isn't the argument

 

[Faun]

So? It’s been a quarter of a point each time this year too. And the rate is still at only 2.5% which is still very low. Especially in a good economy.

2.5% is a lot when you're borrowing the amounts that corporations borrow. It's no longer a full throttle economy.....not a recession either.
Geeze, I thought you were smarter than this.

Nonsense. It was increased 21 times while Clinton was president, from 3% to 6.5%; and the market soared despite the increases. When the economy is strong, it can take those increases. That’s why the Fed increases the rate during good economies and lowers it when the economy is bad. Like I said, you’re just fishing for excuses.

You are a LIAR, Faun. It wasn't increased 21 times under Clinton, they raised and lowered the rate.
Clinton took office in 1993. Fed made no changes.
1994: GDP = 4.0%, Unemployment = 5.5%, Inflation = 2.7%
Feb 4 3.25% Fed raised rates to keep growth and inflation in a healthy range.
Mar 22 3.5%
Apr 18 3.75% Conference call.
May 17 4.25%
Aug 16 4.75%
Nov 15 5.5% Raised rates.
1995: GDP = 2.7%, Unemployment = 5.6%, Inflation = 2.5%
Feb 1 6.0% Raised rates.
Jul 6 5.75% Lowered rates.
Dec 19 5.5%
1996: GDP = 3.8%, Unemployment = 5.4%, Inflation = 3.3%
Jan 31 5.25% Kept rates low despite inflation.
1997: GDP = 4.4%, Unemployment = 4.7%, Inflation = 1.7%
Mar 25 5.5%
1998: GDP = 4.5%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 1.6%
Sep 29 5.25% LTCM crisis.
Oct 15 5.0%
Nov 17 4.75%
1999: GDP = 4.8%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 2.7%
Jun 30 5.0% Raised rates.
Aug 24 5.25%
Nov 16 5.5%
2000: GDP = 4.1%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 3.4%
Feb 2 5.75% Raised rates despite stock market decline in March.
Mar 21 6.0%
May 16 6.5%
2001: GDP = 1.0%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 1.6%
Highest and Lowest Interest Rates and Why They Changed

I stand corrected. They raised it 14 times and lowered it 7.

It was still raised 6 times for 3 points in 1994, as I pointed out. Compared to 7 times for 2.25 points in 2 years under Trump — and the market did not collapse like it is now.

Looks like Trump’s economy might just be made of straw.

And in 93 they left it alone, so what? That still isn't the argument.

Yes, so what? In Trump’s first year, they raised it three times and the market was booming.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Financial assets were highly inflated due to ZIRP and huge expansion of the Fed Balance sheet. The Great Unwinding is painful - and never would have happened in the first place if the Fed hadn't conspired with Obabble to create a false sense of economic progress by pushing interest rates to zero and making stocks the only way to get any return.

Imbecile, the rate was lowered to one quarter of one percent while Bush was president, not Obama. And that was done as Bush’s economy was in free fall.

Do they never cease to amaze you with their buffoonery?

 

[Meister]

Resorting to name calling now. Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

Hahaha, you can interchange the points with a percent they charge, Faun. .25 points is the same as .25%......talk about idiotic.

LOLOL

Uh, no, you can’t. Well, you can if you’re an imbecile. But otherwise, no you can’t. They have entirely different meanings.

Going from a rate of 3% to 6.5% is a 117% increase, not a 3.5% increase. It’s an increase of 3.5 percentage points. There is a difference, even if you don’t quite grasp the distinction.

But this certainly puts your posts in perspective.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. We were and have been talking about the Fed Res raising the interest
rate....period.

LOLOL

Of course you don’t know what I’m talking about. The reason that’s funny is because I too am talking about the Fed rating the federal fund rate.

When the fed raises the fed rate by 1 point.....aren't they raising the lending fed rate by 1 percentage point.
Example....the lending rate is 2.5% they raise it a point to a lending rate of 3.5%
Seems you're making an argument about nothing

 

[Meister]

2.5% is a lot when you're borrowing the amounts that corporations borrow. It's no longer a full throttle economy.....not a recession either.
Geeze, I thought you were smarter than this.

Nonsense. It was increased 21 times while Clinton was president, from 3% to 6.5%; and the market soared despite the increases. When the economy is strong, it can take those increases. That’s why the Fed increases the rate during good economies and lowers it when the economy is bad. Like I said, you’re just fishing for excuses.

You are a LIAR, Faun. It wasn't increased 21 times under Clinton, they raised and lowered the rate.
Clinton took office in 1993. Fed made no changes.
1994: GDP = 4.0%, Unemployment = 5.5%, Inflation = 2.7%
Feb 4 3.25% Fed raised rates to keep growth and inflation in a healthy range.
Mar 22 3.5%
Apr 18 3.75% Conference call.
May 17 4.25%
Aug 16 4.75%
Nov 15 5.5% Raised rates.
1995: GDP = 2.7%, Unemployment = 5.6%, Inflation = 2.5%
Feb 1 6.0% Raised rates.
Jul 6 5.75% Lowered rates.
Dec 19 5.5%
1996: GDP = 3.8%, Unemployment = 5.4%, Inflation = 3.3%
Jan 31 5.25% Kept rates low despite inflation.
1997: GDP = 4.4%, Unemployment = 4.7%, Inflation = 1.7%
Mar 25 5.5%
1998: GDP = 4.5%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 1.6%
Sep 29 5.25% LTCM crisis.
Oct 15 5.0%
Nov 17 4.75%
1999: GDP = 4.8%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 2.7%
Jun 30 5.0% Raised rates.
Aug 24 5.25%
Nov 16 5.5%
2000: GDP = 4.1%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 3.4%
Feb 2 5.75% Raised rates despite stock market decline in March.
Mar 21 6.0%
May 16 6.5%
2001: GDP = 1.0%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 1.6%
Highest and Lowest Interest Rates and Why They Changed

I stand corrected. They raised it 14 times and lowered it 7.

It was still raised 6 times for 3 points in 1994, as I pointed out. Compared to 7 times for 2.25 points in 2 years under Trump — and the market did not collapse like it is now.

Looks like Trump’s economy might just be made of straw.

And in 93 they left it alone, so what? That still isn't the argument.

Yes, so what? In Trump’s first year, they raised it three times and the market was booming.

Yes, but that was because the fed fund rate was at near 0.
Now it's not, also, as we're arguing this one point, the world economy now is starting to slow.
There are many layers

 

[Faun]

Dumbfuck, no one asked you to search for it. Meanwhile, you posted a graph anyway which displayed exactly what I said about the federal fund rate and then you idiotically posted how I need bifocals as if it showed something different from what I said.

Resorting to name calling now. Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

That isn't even the argument, Faun. You grasping for anything right now, huh?

You’re blaming the market crash on the fact that the federal fund rate was increased 2.25 points in 2 years. Meanwhile, I showed it it was increased 6 times for a 2.5 point increase in 1994 alone.

In fact, in the year from 2/94 to 2/95, it went up 3 points, from 3% to 6%. A three point gain during 7 increases in a one year span — and the market didn’t collapse like it is now. According to your nonsense, such a big increase in such a short period of time should wrecked the stock market.

It was a different economy back then, Also, a different world, Faun. apples and oranges
Like I said this isn't the argument

Your argument is a 2.25 point increase in 2 years is the reason for the market crash. That’s what you said. I’m saying that’s ludicrous because it’s too small of an increase over too large a time span to produce a market like this. And I gave you an example of where the time frame was shorter and the rate increase was bigger and it didn’t create havoc in the stock market.

And yes, I agree the economy was different. It’s always different. In some ways, it was worse. Like Bush handed Clinton a 7.3% unemployment rate whereas Obama handed Trump a 4.8% unemployment rate. In some areas it was better, the GDP was 3.5% for 1992 compared to 1.6% in 2016.

And still, in neither case was raising the federal fund rate devastating to the stock market. Does it have some effect on the market? Of course. But even the weather can affect it.

 

[Faun]

Financial assets were highly inflated due to ZIRP and huge expansion of the Fed Balance sheet. The Great Unwinding is painful - and never would have happened in the first place if the Fed hadn't conspired with Obabble to create a false sense of economic progress by pushing interest rates to zero and making stocks the only way to get any return.

Imbecile, the rate was lowered to one quarter of one percent while Bush was president, not Obama. And that was done as Bush’s economy was in free fall.

Do they never cease to amaze you with their buffoonery?

You would think they would, right??

 

[bendog]

Taking nothing away from Trump's tweeting ability to tank the Dow for a day, or even the longterm effect his increasing with full employment a deficit budget by 25% over a recession budget. There WILL be a debt crisis, but as Trump predicts, it will be after he's gone. But the current Dow trends stem from quantitative easing.

How Long Will The Fed's Reverse-Quantitative Easing Last?

"The stock market has been going up since the credit crunch of 2007/2008 because liquidity has been pumped into the system and made the value of assets go up as the cheap credit has driven participants to seek out assets that will appreciate faster than the interest they have to pay. This is how QE (quantitative easing) saved the global economy and a lot of people’s homes and jobs.

"Now that rescue cycle is deemed over, the Federal Reserve has decided to (and has been encouraged to) reverse the QE, to get its assets and liabilities downsized. From a QE high of $4.5 trillion they have shrunk the balance sheet down to $4.1 trillion.

"It is no coincidence that this process started in earnest this January and coincides with the U.S. stock markets going into cardiac arrest or at least changing its never-ending upward trend into a serious of vicious slumps and rallies. (emphasis mine)
-------
the Fed's balance sheet:
Federal Reserve Board - Recent balance sheet trends
-----
Again from the Forbes article:

"The trouble is if the Fed is to get its balance sheet back down to 2008 levels of approximately $1 trillion at the advertised rate of $50 billion a month it will take 3-4 years of reverse-QE and ever-increasing tightening to get there."

Before the mortgage crisis, the Dow was around 14K and the Fed had about a billion in assts. The Fed started buying Treasuries and Mortgage Backed Securities in 2009 (Dec 08). The Dow cratered then at around 7200. (I can't link a user generated dow chart, but if you know how to get to yahoo, you can get your own)

I think the question is what will the Dow be when the Fed pulls out two .... or even three trillion in bonds. I believe the 700 million or so the Feds gotten off it's balance sheet mostly just reached maturity ... and ceased to exist. The Fed didn't pay actual money for them. If the fed starts selling ... it could get mighty interesting fast. If the Fed owns a security that pays 2% interest, and if the fed rate is 2.5% .... that security is worth less than its face value. Again, the Fed has no real reason to fear selling at a loss because it's all paper money. But somebody may be willing to pay real money to buy a security paying 2% interest on ten thousand dollars for ... say .... nine thousand dollars.

That's not good news for the stock market, but it might be good news for the bond market

You may have said that. If you feel I'm supposed to search for it, you're talking to the wrong guy. Purpose of the graph was to point out the frequency of increases. Although, that, evidently, is a bit too complicated for you.

Dumbfuck, no one asked you to search for it. Meanwhile, you posted a graph anyway which displayed exactly what I said about the federal fund rate and then you idiotically posted how I need bifocals as if it showed something different from what I said.

Resorting to name calling now. Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

That isn't even the argument, Faun. You grasping for anything right now, huh?

You’re blaming the market crash on the fact that the federal fund rate was increased 2.25 points in 2 years. Meanwhile, I showed it it was increased 6 times for a 2.5 point increase in 1994 alone.

In fact, in the year from 2/94 to 2/95, it went up 3 points, from 3% to 6%. A three point gain during 7 increases in a one year span — and the market didn’t collapse like it is now. According to your nonsense, such a big increase in such a short period of time should wrecked the stock market.

You are absolutely on the right track. See my thread that I'm posting now.

 

[Faun]

What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”

Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.

Hahaha, you can interchange the points with a percent they charge, Faun. .25 points is the same as .25%......talk about idiotic.

LOLOL

Uh, no, you can’t. Well, you can if you’re an imbecile. But otherwise, no you can’t. They have entirely different meanings.

Going from a rate of 3% to 6.5% is a 117% increase, not a 3.5% increase. It’s an increase of 3.5 percentage points. There is a difference, even if you don’t quite grasp the distinction.

But this certainly puts your posts in perspective.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. We were and have been talking about the Fed Res raising the interest
rate....period.

LOLOL

Of course you don’t know what I’m talking about. The reason that’s funny is because I too am talking about the Fed rating the federal fund rate.

When the fed raises the fed rate by 1 point.....aren't they raising the lending fed rate by 1 percentage point.
Example....the lending rate is 2.5% they raise it a point to a lending rate of 3.5%

Yes, that’s a one point, or one percentage point, gain.

You idiotically referred to a gain like that as a one percent gain. That’s retarded. Sorry, that’s just how it is. As such an increase would actually be a 40% gain, not 1%.

Seems you're making an argument about nothing

Well I’m trying to educate you. How am I doing?

 

[Meister]

Hahaha, you can interchange the points with a percent they charge, Faun. .25 points is the same as .25%......talk about idiotic.

LOLOL

Uh, no, you can’t. Well, you can if you’re an imbecile. But otherwise, no you can’t. They have entirely different meanings.

Going from a rate of 3% to 6.5% is a 117% increase, not a 3.5% increase. It’s an increase of 3.5 percentage points. There is a difference, even if you don’t quite grasp the distinction.

But this certainly puts your posts in perspective.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. We were and have been talking about the Fed Res raising the interest
rate....period.

LOLOL

Of course you don’t know what I’m talking about. The reason that’s funny is because I too am talking about the Fed rating the federal fund rate.

When the fed raises the fed rate by 1 point.....aren't they raising the lending fed rate by 1 percentage point.
Example....the lending rate is 2.5% they raise it a point to a lending rate of 3.5%

Yes, that’s a one point, or one percentage point, gain.

You idiotically referred to a gain like that as a one percent gain. That’s retarded. Sorry, that’s just how it is. As such an increase would actually be a 40% gain, not 1%.

Seems you're making an argument about nothing

Well I’m trying to educate you. How am I doing?

Seems you are confused about how I worded my posts. Might want to go back and re read it and not infer what I meant.

 

[Faun]

Nonsense. It was increased 21 times while Clinton was president, from 3% to 6.5%; and the market soared despite the increases. When the economy is strong, it can take those increases. That’s why the Fed increases the rate during good economies and lowers it when the economy is bad. Like I said, you’re just fishing for excuses.

You are a LIAR, Faun. It wasn't increased 21 times under Clinton, they raised and lowered the rate.
Clinton took office in 1993. Fed made no changes.
1994: GDP = 4.0%, Unemployment = 5.5%, Inflation = 2.7%
Feb 4 3.25% Fed raised rates to keep growth and inflation in a healthy range.
Mar 22 3.5%
Apr 18 3.75% Conference call.
May 17 4.25%
Aug 16 4.75%
Nov 15 5.5% Raised rates.
1995: GDP = 2.7%, Unemployment = 5.6%, Inflation = 2.5%
Feb 1 6.0% Raised rates.
Jul 6 5.75% Lowered rates.
Dec 19 5.5%
1996: GDP = 3.8%, Unemployment = 5.4%, Inflation = 3.3%
Jan 31 5.25% Kept rates low despite inflation.
1997: GDP = 4.4%, Unemployment = 4.7%, Inflation = 1.7%
Mar 25 5.5%
1998: GDP = 4.5%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 1.6%
Sep 29 5.25% LTCM crisis.
Oct 15 5.0%
Nov 17 4.75%
1999: GDP = 4.8%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 2.7%
Jun 30 5.0% Raised rates.
Aug 24 5.25%
Nov 16 5.5%
2000: GDP = 4.1%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 3.4%
Feb 2 5.75% Raised rates despite stock market decline in March.
Mar 21 6.0%
May 16 6.5%
2001: GDP = 1.0%, Unemployment = 6%, Inflation = 1.6%
Highest and Lowest Interest Rates and Why They Changed

I stand corrected. They raised it 14 times and lowered it 7.

It was still raised 6 times for 3 points in 1994, as I pointed out. Compared to 7 times for 2.25 points in 2 years under Trump — and the market did not collapse like it is now.

Looks like Trump’s economy might just be made of straw.

And in 93 they left it alone, so what? That still isn't the argument.

Yes, so what? In Trump’s first year, they raised it three times and the market was booming.

Yes, but that was because the fed fund rate was at near 0.
Now it's not, also, as we're arguing this one point, the world economy now is starting to slow.
There are many layers

Uh, no, not exactly. Actually, it was at 0.75% when Trump became president. That is very low, but not “near zero.” Near zero was how it was described when it was at 0.25% and even worse for your argument, it was raised 3 times after that to 1.5% and the market did phenomenal.

But the death knell to your position is your claim that going up 1 percentage point from 1.5% to 2.5% is causing such mayhem in the market.

Even worse still, you’re ignoring how the market first tumbled back in February when the rate was just 1.5%. You ignore how it climbed back up following 2 quarter point increases to to 2%.

You ignore any and every cause/causation in order to cling to your talking points when your actual argument, when viewed under a microscope, is really claiming 2 increases, totaling a half of a one point increase from 2% to 2.5%, has caused the stock market to tremble in fear, with the Dow losing nearly 4000 points during those 2 months.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Uh, no, you can’t. Well, you can if you’re an imbecile. But otherwise, no you can’t. They have entirely different meanings.

Going from a rate of 3% to 6.5% is a 117% increase, not a 3.5% increase. It’s an increase of 3.5 percentage points. There is a difference, even if you don’t quite grasp the distinction.

But this certainly puts your posts in perspective.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either. We were and have been talking about the Fed Res raising the interest
rate....period.

LOLOL

Of course you don’t know what I’m talking about. The reason that’s funny is because I too am talking about the Fed rating the federal fund rate.

When the fed raises the fed rate by 1 point.....aren't they raising the lending fed rate by 1 percentage point.
Example....the lending rate is 2.5% they raise it a point to a lending rate of 3.5%

Yes, that’s a one point, or one percentage point, gain.

You idiotically referred to a gain like that as a one percent gain. That’s retarded. Sorry, that’s just how it is. As such an increase would actually be a 40% gain, not 1%.

Seems you're making an argument about nothing

Well I’m trying to educate you. How am I doing?

Seems you are confused about how I worded my posts. Might want to go back and re read it and not infer what I meant.

Sure, let’s review what you said. Why not, eh?

[QUOTEBig difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.

Regarding the part I highlighted...

The Federal fund rate increasing under Clinton from 3.0% to 6.5%, represents how much of an increase? You said it’s a “3.5% rate increase.”

Is it really...

A) a 116.7 percent rate raise
B) a 3.5 percentage point rate raise
C) all of the above
D) none of th above
E) potato

 

[bendog]

the fed loaned money to investors at zero interest. Then when the fed lacked enough takers, the Fed itself bough three.something TRILLION in bonds. Meanwihile the Dow had lost nearly 50% of value. When the economy started to grow again ..... investors took that free money and bought stocks.

the Fed is doing two things. It's gotten rid of the .something in bonds. And it's not giving out free loans.

The Fed's job is not to protect stock market speculators. Anyone who is going to need money in ten years shouldn't be speculating in the stock market.

 

[McRocket]

DOW Returns

5 Day -7.34%
1 Month -6.84%
3 Months -14.50%
YTD -7.79%
1 Year -7.82%

.DJI: Dow Jones Industrial Average - Stock Quote and News - CNBC

 

[Indeependent]

DOW Returns

5 Day -7.34%
1 Month -6.84%
3 Months -14.50%
YTD -7.79%
1 Year -7.82%

.DJI: Dow Jones Industrial Average - Stock Quote and News - CNBC

Which sucks if you plan and live by your investments.
If you’re young, making 80K+ and saving, things are good.

 

[bendog]

It's pre-mortgage crisis high was around 14K. Even if it went all the way back to that, it's still 100% over it's mortgage crisis low, that was around 7K. Trump just got bent out of shape having to be better than Obama. Not that any president is the cause of overall economic sentiment, which is basically what the Dow measures. The high in the Obama years was around 18K,

I doubt we'll see 26K again while Trump's potus. And the Fed's reason for setting rates, or selling off bonds from its balance sheet, have nothing to do with Trump ... or Obama. That's the point of having a Fed. Politicians can't fdk with interest rates just to get reelected.

 

[bendog]

DOW Returns

5 Day -7.34%
1 Month -6.84%
3 Months -14.50%
YTD -7.79%
1 Year -7.82%

.DJI: Dow Jones Industrial Average - Stock Quote and News - CNBC

Which sucks if you plan and live by your investments.
If you’re young, making 80K+ and saving, things are good.

I remember when interest rates fell in the Slick years, and seeing old people with very sad faces coming out of a brokerage.

 

[rightwinger]

The Trump economy is horrible