Nothing will actually happen to Texas companies anyway. Most of them have a legal agreement with the state, and those are hard to terminate just because an election is swung. That's the point after all.
Don't think they would suddenly be more lawless, just that there was likely less oversight by the Republican administration and if the laws are actually enforced by the Democrats who just got voted in things may change.
The reality is that these day-to-day "movements" mean absolutely nothing without the context of the longer term changes. And, considering (for example) Google recently sold 100 year bonds, even that is almost irrelevant. What the modern financial system - specifically stocks - amounts to, is a sort of "non-violent" mutually assured destruction. Except in this case, it isn't the people in charge of the "large issuers" who are going to be destroyed, it is the society in which those organizations operate.
Money is an illusion. The Federal Reserve is obsolete
>The rebound “was in part due to the president’s initial tone and reaction to the results,” said Jay Woods, chief market strategist at Freedom Capital Markets. “Still more uncertainty looms, but one thing is certain, there will be gridlock and historically this is good for the market.”
I agreed with Woods here. The pre-election drop was in large part due to uncertainty over whether Trump would accept the results. I think there were a lot of unspoken concerns about whether Trump would go to extreme lengths to stop the ballots from being counted.
We will see, but I think another issue I haven't seen mentioned in this thread, I think Iran will be wrapped up soon. Trump threated to escallate, but I don't think that's feasible anymore. Like potentially he could crash out until the Senate is sworn in, and they have to brute force end the war, but I think that's off the table.
Over the last few hours, there seems to have been a battle of headlines either trying to blame the Democrats and their decisive victory over the economically illiterate Republican party for stock market movement, or credit them such as with this headline here.
Look, we all know that Democrats are the the superior politicians. Sometimes they goof by making campaigns about something that affects functionally nobody, but more often than not, they represent what real Americans want.
But can we tone it down with blaming or crediting politicians with movement in markets that we know deep down is largely decoupled from partisan politics?
The 2 year treasury yields moved overnight in concert with polling results coming in. I think it's hard to argue that the bond market doesn't react to the level of sanity in government or that the bond market doesn't interact with the equities market.
> I mean, stocks and bonds require stability and predictability
Ehhh, for the most part sure, but at the same time there absolutely is a class of player that can and will use instability and unpredictability to try to garner an advantage.
No one wants to build a factory or negotiate a trade deal as long as there’s a risk that Trumps ketchup bottle will tell him to slap tariffs on penguins again.
Those guys can afford the tariffs tho, look at them all in their fancy tuxedos, and with their ties to one of the most notorious crime bosses in Gotham City...
It might be possible for Dems to get a supermajority to stop tariffs and the Iran War. Both are pretty unpopular and Maga is dying so they might flip a few Republicans on this. Tariffs especially are just bad for business.
You're right, way cheaper for companies to dump waste into rivers. Way cheaper for everyone to defund public education. Who needs thinkers, when it's cheaper to defund research? Let's just let the already wealthy pay off universities to let their kids study medicine there. Much cheaper than educating poor kids who care about learning.
A regulation everyone pays for is good for business because your competitors are also paying it. It means stability and prevents any party from taking a short term gains decision that would screw themselves.
Your hot talking points will be good for karma. They will not create jobs. In the age of AI, the last thing you need to do is make conducting business less friendly
And if there there are no wars, gas prices will go back down meaning traveling (car/ airlines/ shipping of everyday products from outside the U.S.) will be cheaper again. Also laptops for college students and cars/ building equipment/ farming tools will not be extra expensive (tariffs) to purchase. One could say it will make America great again.
High oil prices certainly fucks the economy, I question your understanding of the US economy.
The Iran War is literally depressing economic activity in the consumer sector, people buying less groceries, less durable goods. High Gas increases prices on everything that uses a Truck, boat or car for transportation.
You can question my understanding of the US economy. But I'm confident that I understand it just fine.
The market is not the economy. The DJIA breaking 50K and record GDP don't equate how well average working Americans are faring. IMHO, regular folks are doing worse than ever.
But that's not what I was talking about - the market, generally understood as the STOCK market.
That said, the American economy is currently on fire. Business activity is at an all-time high.
>Depression, in economics, a major downturn in the business cycle characterized by sharp and sustained declines in economic activity; high rates of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness; increased rates of personal and business bankruptcy; massive declines in stock markets; and great reductions in international trade and capital movements.
Companies have and do go out of business. There have been several recessions and depressions in US history, one as recently as 2008.
Not saying we are in a recession and depression... but Consumer sentiment and Consumer Spending are tracked indicators of recession.
$3,800 spending increase for Households due to Illegal Tariffs and Oil Price jumps due to the Iran War ( $ 930 of those dollars )
Now across the entire US that looks really bad economically. People are spending extra money for no good financial reason BUT bad decisions from the Executive Branch and GOP. Personal savings take a hit, and more Credit is used which is not good economic signals for consumers or the economy.
>The average U.S. family is on track to pay more than $2,500 in tariff-related costs this year—a 43% increase from the $1,745 average estimated during the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, according to data recently released by the Joint Economic Committee.
>The report suggests that rather than providing the expected inflationary relief, the administration's immediate pivot to new, legally compliant tariffs has kept the tax burden on consumers at historic highs, forcing more households to juggle everyday bills, higher prices and existing debt all at once.
>A worse scenario, in which the disruptions to shipping and energy infrastructure continue well into 2027, would see global growth fall sharply to just 2.1% in 2026, and 1.8% in 2027.
>That would tip some economies into, or close to, recession, Scarpetta warned.
>But higher prices continue to be the biggest economic pain point for Americans. Mortgage rates accelerated to their highest level in three years on Thursday from 7% to 7.28%, the largest weekly jump since 2022.
>The 10-year treasury yield, which underpins mortgages and other loans, also reached a 24-year high as the recent global bond sell-off continued.
Are we currently in a recession ? No.
Are people concerned about their spending habits ? Yes.
Numbers from agencies seem to rate the possibility of recession between 30 % to 60 %. As the Iran War is ongoing, it seems unlikely that these projections will significantly decrease.
I agree, the economy for working Americans has been bad since Covid and has gotten much worse under Trump. The Epstein Class is happy though - they have continued to increase their wealth. Here's to hoping the blue tide results in changes to public policy and the economy.
Exactly. Because the cause of the volatility and the correction was about uncertainty, not which outcome. It would have bounced back up either way. Regardless of Dem/Rep.
I literally said, "Dem/Rep - no difference. It is all about certainty."
I did not say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's a reading comprehension issue.
Calm down Becky. I'm only referring to today's 900 point surge - what the post is about.
I have a master's in finance and was one voter who helped turn Texas blue yesterday. I absolutely understand about the economy under Dems vs Republicans.
Read and understand before you fly off the handle for once.
He's right. There wouldn't be this level of uncertainty to resolve in the first place if the market priced both outcomes at +900. Uncertainty is emergent, you need to look at least 1 layer deeper if you want to infer causal factors.
Yes - I’m not saying the stock market is always reacting to politics. I’m saying ignoring a shock to the market immediately after a surprising election result is either ignorant or disingenuous. Take your pick.
> I’m saying ignoring a shock to the market immediately after a surprising election result is either ignorant or disingenuous.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm actually here commenting on it. You just seem to want to project your politics on it, and don't seem to appreciate me not sharing your bias.
>Has the market not repeatedly set record highs under a Republican monopoly over our government for the last 2 years?
No, it has not.
There's no such thing as "a record high market". There's a variety of statistics that need to be examined in context in order to determine the actual state of an economy. It's like saying the economy is doing great because stock prices are high while half of your population can't afford basic groceries; an economy with stagnant wealth that sucks up all excess capital isn't a healthy economy, but it sets record highs.
yeah, the world doesn't need to validate or convey every statement in a manner you can understand. You're an ignorant idiot if you think google is yielding good financial information. Its showing you what the loudest actors want you to do.
Are you illiterate or just drunk? Google can absolutely provide a description of how the market has grown under dem or republican presidents in the last 30 years. Or have you just never used google?
I'm a bit surprised by you attributing the market fluctuation entirely to uncertainty vanishing - the dems and the republicans have completely different macroeconomic agendas, no? Wouldn't that impact the stock market too?
Some industries will potentially see subsidies again, some other will see more regulations, which surely would affect the value of stocks across many industries.
(I don't live in the US so maybe I don't understand what's going on well enough :D)
> I'm a bit surprised by you attributing the market fluctuation entirely to uncertainty vanishing
Republican corruption and market manipulation has done nothing but enrich Wall Street and the Investment Class. You would think the market would have rallied on a red wave.
However, the reversal of inflation driven by high oil prices and punishing tariffs will likely boost consumer confidence, increase consumer spending, which will be good for business.
You could argue a rally being driven by either outcome.
The market was down before the election because of uncertainty. We now have certainty, and the market is back up.
The relationship between uncertainty and volatility is as well understood as supply and demand - but not by people in this sub apparently.
Well, the new Dems who were just elected aren't even in office yet so it is too early to give them credit for anything. Chalk it up to psychology for now.
But It's ok to give them the win for now. They earned it.
If you don't think Trump, tariffs, and the Iran war represent unfettered market volatility you do not have a portfolio or eyes. You could use the VIX as a radar for Trump stupidity.
Speculators take long and short positions before and after big changes betting on market volatility. It is the main mechanism that brings prices back to the mean.
If the market is suddenly 900 points down, bargain hunters will take long positions expecting the price to come back up - and that increased demand puts upward pressure on price. When it comes back up, people betting on a correction will take short positions betting on it oscillating back down. You see this kind of thing happening every day. And the bigger the news/uncertainty, the bigger the volatility.
Once you know whether it is option 1 or option 2, you have a much better idea of who the winners and losers will be, and have a much better chance of making accurate investment decisions.
It's not saying "we're fine" in either case. It's knowing where an investment is more likely to pay off.
There is a saying that "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain liquid".
That said, the market tends to respond to levels of certainty and uncertainty (risk). Typically, uncertainty doesn't mean 'bad' but instead means 'opportunity for greater returns' (i.e., 'risk = return')
Because now Donald no longer can control the Congressional narrative and has lost the ability to squash investigations into his administration, he's a rabid dog pushed into a corner and I worry that he's going to lash out with the use of the military like we've seen in Iran.
And, people on the Left especially, are hopeful for the future for the first time in a while so they took some of their savings and bought some stocks. Some people probably think Democrats getting elected is going to be good for the economy, or for the companies they care about anyways, so they are buying stocks.
Do you understand how that makes no fucking sense? following your reasoning, 1/2 events will always happen, so you should always invest in the market. No it’s because the market wants democrats.
but certainty will always be resolved at the time, so it should be priced in. Are you saying the market was also pricing in potential anti-democratic actions
The market is always changing to price in new information, including whether the AFC or NFC wins the Super Bowl.
See Strong Form Market Efficiency: security prices incorporate every piece of relevant information including public and insider information.
It is the impact of billions of investors trying to game the system for profit. But the best minds have proven again and again that it is a random walk, and you'll drive yourself crazy trying to predict and explain day to day fluctuations. A chimpanzee tossing darts at the stocks page of your newspaper outperforms leading fund managers.
Regulation and oversight will cause companies to cry poverty in the short term. Who cares? It beats the moral hazards that eventually give us 2008 type events. I would very much enjoy boring, slow, and sustainable growth rather than an economy based on gambling on bubbles.
EDIT: not a lot of fans of prudent growth, I guess...
And people need to watch out for the Russia aligned anti-war factions. They want to abandon Ukraine and Europe still. They have the same policies as Trump, they're just not much of a boar as him.
Yeah I’m already seeing IN THIS POST not even a full day later people mad at democrats for not fixing the inflation issues that the republican president caused
Wins one midterm cycle
“Superior politicians”
Holy shit yall are gonna shoot yourselves in the foot, it’s like clockwork. This is why im an independent
>Sometimes they goof by making campaigns about something that affects functionally nobody
This. I wish Dems understood that the culture-war nonsense MAGA made the most ground on, and what helped propel Trumps 2nd term, were niche social justice issues Dems started with that blew up in their face.
Fortunately for them, the economy has gotten so bad and the War with Iran, Tariffs, and many other Trump blunders have been so egregious that it has overridden MAGA's culture war BS with enough voters.
Hopefully Dems learn from this in 2028 and stay on the tried and true "it's the economy, stupid" strategy
> I wish Dems understood that the culture-war nonsense MAGA made the most ground on, and what helped propel Trumps 2nd term, were niche social justice issues Dems started with that blew up in their face.
Nationally, when have Democrats actually run on this stuff? Was trans rights a central part of Kamala or Biden's campaigns? Was Biden about defund the police?
No. It's 24/7 Rethugs and the oligarch owned media telling voters that's all Democrats care about.
For example Harris didn't mention trans people once in her entire campaign or any of her advertising. Yet 50% of Americans said "Democrats care too much about trans issues"
So yeah she didn't run on it, but don't pretend that Dems didn't bring it front and center. They just had to downplay it once it became clear it hurt more than it helped on the campaign trail (which again, MAGA knew and exploited).
I doubt even 1% of voters are even aware of that. The culture war has nothing to do with the miniscule crumbs thrown to lgbt or something, its a reaction to cancel culture and political correctness, perceived or real, and just growing acceptance / tolerance in general, either way had nothing to do with dem party policy. Dems can't change any of that.
Man we really cant have shit in Tranistan. People like me had to grow up the butt of half the jokes on TV, get fired from jobs, deal with multitudes of health crises like AIDs and healthcare discrimination, etc., for fucking most of our lives. And now that we had 5 years of progress in the mid 2010s, were now to blame for both shit parties getting elected and for creating the bigoted zeitgeist aimed directly at us.
Fucks sake, the culture war the right is fighting is very clearly due to big money looking to create an enemy out of thin air with a population too small to do anything about it. Its not because Biden made TDoV a thing, or because anti-discrimination ordinances were passed, but because they needed to manufacture something to rile people up.
Dont fucking blame people trying to make things better for the fact that others stir up hate for votes. Its plain bs
So Biden signed a random EO tossing a bone to trans people.
Compare that to 24/7 trans ads on the GOP side. Over 90% of their ad spend this cycle I heard. They're gonna keep fighting their culture war no matter what Dems do.
Biden created the official "Trans day of visibility" while president and his campaign did make a big deal about appointing a member of the trans community to his staff. Kind of undeniable that a focus on Trans issues was a part of his agenda.
As for "Defund the police", agreed that was never a part of the national campaign (and Kamala was in fact repeatedly called "a cop" by some progressives)... but that deeply unpopular slogan (outside of reddit) still has stained Democrats all over the campaign trail.
Nationally Dems do try to avoid/downplay these kind of niche topics when they get to the general.... correct.
The problem is, the way Progressive discourse goes... they have to battle around all of this in primaries, local elections, state level elections, and so on.
So niche issues come up in a primary, they get addressed by a sound byte or a policy position. Sometimes the politician trying to avoid it says something more moderate and then they get raked over the coals... consider Amy Acton stepping in it with the trans community.... big backlash from within her party when she's trying to wrestle a Governor seat away from a MAGA Republican in a center-right state.
Democratic infighting turns off moderates, hardest left folks get disillusioned... and then MAGA can come in and paint everyone with the culture war brush... and it's effective.
This is the whole problem with Progressive Purity tests and culture war nonsense. And it still hurts Dems because once they get to the general, MAGA can seize on it all and paint them with the same brush EVEN IF they had a moderate position.
This is also what redditors refuse to accept. Hard left policies... Palestine, trans issues, ACAB, getting offended by SNL monologues... this may play really well and get upvotes online. But the average American does not give a shit, and in fact actively dislikes the discourse or disagrees strongly with it.
So you create more MAGA W's by dying on these hills instead of doing what we finally saw last night... focusing on the economy, stupid.
It's crazy how successful MAGA think tanks have been at convincing people that these sort of issues are Democrat forefront problems that they create, and not MAGA wedges that they create.
Spoiler alert: a token day of acknowledgement is not centering the trans issue for the Democrat party despite your insistence otherwise. Republicans run hate ads in every state in the country alleging that Democrats are gonna "trans your kids" despite none of them ever bringing it up unprompted and that's somehow the left's fault, incredible.
Truly, the billions of dollars spent on the bot farms, talking heads, political propaganda and psy ops has worked wonders, because it's fucking insane that I see people push this completely fabricated narrative. Not a shred of truth to this theory.
Why make the day of acknowledgement if it's not a part of your platform? Why make a big show about appointing a trans person to your cabinate if it's not part of your platform?
But my point isn't that it's a central Dem issue... it's always been fringe. But taking the time to put it in the platform and taking steps like making that day of acknowledgement DOES bring it to the platform in a very clear way.
MAGA seizes on this. So no, it's not MAGA making up fringe issues out of thin air with no basis. It's MAGA taking a piece of the platform that has proven to be a drag with the general electorate, and magnifying it.
And again, look at Amy Acton... the fringe issue is FREQUENTLY brought up within party races by advocates and media members to drag primary candidates as being problematic or too moderate.
MAGA seizes on that as well.
It's a losing issue with the general electorate, and pretending Dems have zero hand in giving MAGA ammo around it is just sticking your head in the sand. Which is what a bunch of Progressives did in 2016 and 2024.
They don't magnify, they fabricate. They outright lie about whatever they want, whenever they want. MAGA has not been beholden to truth at any point during its tenure.
Unless your position is that Trans people should stop existing to please MAGA's desires, they will never be happy. Pretending like catering to them alleviates their lies and bigotry is nonsensical, as is pretending like Democrats center this issue just to get knocked down about it. Half of the Democrat candidates gleefully throw trans people under the bus and it does nothing to move the needle on their candidacy.
This is the narrative that gets run when a Democratic candidate says something moderate about a Trans issue. Or doesnt specifically address it. Or doesn't go far enough by certain progressive estimations on an issue.
So they get dragged when they're trying to be the first woman to be elected Ohio's governor. When they're trying to flip a Center-Right state with Republican governors for the last 16 years Blue. When they're literally running against an actual MAGA bigot and trying to appeal to enough voters to actually win.
You can spin stories all you want about "bowing to MAGA"... but the progressive purity tests around fringe issues 100% hurt Democrats at the polls. And it's self inflicted.
And MAGA loves it.
If Vivek didn't completely fumble his campaign with that smear ad, he may have won. I wonder how many progressives didn't bother to vote for Amy?
Similarly to those who didnt vote for HIllary in 2016. Or Kamala in 2024.
And so you'd rather hurt her chances at election by infighting and media call outs, give Vivek extra ammo when Amy has to respond, clarify, and alienate moderates in the process... so you end up with Vivek.
Just terrible strategy and more harmful than anything else.
You're okay with MAGA monsters winning because you can't have a perfectly pure Democrat.
Yes, the conservative propaganda apparatus is old, well oiled, and incredibly effective. I also agree that the Democratic party has long since dropped the ball on actively courting the votes of and improving the lives of working class people. They need to return to that as a central policy.
But please don't throw us under the bus.
El-Sayed found a brilliant and effective strategy in refusing to engage by saying that standing up for trans rights is standing up for all rights, because the minute you concede one group's rights, you've made everyone's rights negotiable.
That's what we need.
I will also say that visibility is important. It's much harder to convince people we're horrible disfigured freaks who want to stomp your child at sports and give them surgery when we're also your neighbors, your sons and daughters, niblings, and representatives.
The propaganda is so effective because we're such a tiny percent of the population, because people aren't (aware they're) seeing us in day to day life, they don't conceive of us as normal people with everyday needs and desires just like them.
So don't make it a central issue, and refuse to engage when Republicans try to make it one (which they will continue to do, I'm sure), but continue to shore up our rights quietly and as permanently as possible.
Thank you for getting it. If only more people got it. :/. Democratic choices are what handed victory to Trump in the past. Trump would never have been able to get so many supporters if they didn't have a culture war to rail against.
Candidate gets asked question about Trans issue in a contentious Primary
Candidate says something that is moderate, or seen as moderate... likely much closer to what the general electorate would align with.
Candidate gets raked over the coals by LGBTQIA+ activists, dragged through the media mud.
Candidate, still trying to win primary, attempts to clarify statements, shifts their campaign language to the left slightly, meets with LGBTQIA activitts and focuses on listening. Makes a trans taskforce or something. (MAGA gleefully goes "Gotcha!")
Hardest left voters in primary still unconvinced, feel "betrayed", and even decide they wont vote for candidate in general because they simply arent pure or are neoliberal or whatever else.
Candidate Gets to general... MAGA runs their whole campaign ascribing the hardest left position on trans issues to candidate. Turns off some in the general public. Makes campaign and debates about anything but the biggest issues (where a Dem, for example, might have some great economic/populist ideas).
Polls open, Republicans circle the wagons and vote for their team. Republicans pull some folks who were on the fence but didn't want to vote for a hardcore leftist. Meanwhile, actual hardcore leftists, activist students, and others just stay home and post on reddit because their primary candidate lost and their nominee was "basically a transphobe" because they had a moderate position.
Actual Republican MAGA transphobe wins election and makes everyones lives miserable.
You act like this bogeyman, "LGBTQIA+ activists," have massive power to determine primary elections... Primaries can elect more extreme candidates than is optimal for victory in the general election. But that is more a problem for right wing whose "extreme" groups probably outnumber the equivalent on the left. And bad primary winners are an obvious big contributor to a lot of these races (texas for example).
The original problem of dems supposedly focusing on cultural issue is separate from this. And you are conflating the democrat party with your idea of "LGBTQIA+ activists", like you seem to admit here the party actually doesn't care at all about these issues. Its entirely a manufactured wedge issue by the GOP. So I'm not sure what you think the party could do about anymore than the GOP can stop a single racist thing being posted online by their extreme.
Honestly I think that the Republicans are guilty of this too. They took their victories as a mandate to massively expand ICE and attack abortion rights, both of which were very unpopular with the middle. It's more a side effect of the structure of the primary / two-party system. Unfortunate, but still not the worst system (because it has a lot of brakes). The Democrats are only more guilty because they're so much more vocal and in people's faces about stuff than the Republicans are.
They didnt say that it's morally right to maintain a more moderate position on culture war issues, they are saying it's the more strategically advantageous position. We live in a democratic republic, and while you may be morally correct, that doesn't matter if you are in the minority and your positions are not represented because you can't get elected.
The culture war bs is the Repubs. Trans panic, kids in litter boxes, bathroom bs. Bcs their economic policies can’t stand on their own. Just wait till ‘27 when the healthcare subsidies from the big beautiful bill fall out, and costs soar. Just another repub poison pill.
Yeah, and the culture war BS that the repubs pulled in 2024 won them the executive branch and both houses of Congress. That poison pill is now set to go off when the Democrats hold Congress, and they will take the blame.
The point is that engaging in the culture war BS is a losing battle for Dems. And you engaged in it by calling calling someone who pointed out the strategic folly a bigot.
Doesn’t matter if it was part of a national campaign or policy initiative if the state and local politicians are pushing an unpopular agenda or narrative. That’s what resonates with people.
Problem is dems didn't start any culture war, its entirely a Republican manufactured wedge issue, an obsession over public tweets and such made by an extreme minority of SJWs online which is dwarfed by the equivalent ultra-racists on the right. Somehow there is this double standard of holding any random far leftie online as some official ambassador of the party, while even more unhinged things said by the GOP's literal president of thr U.S. is dismissed as fringe.
It is true, the dems have done nothing to push cultural policy, in fact they mostly avoid it like the plague or even move right like in ohio. It is true the underlying culture is becoming more progressive, tolerant, etc. and there is a reaction to that is real, but the dems did nothing to create it. The GOP just leveraged that reaction to distract on real issues. There is nothing dems can do to make people more conservative or something to appease more conservative minded people.
Progressive represent what real Americans want. Not all Democrats are actual progressive.
Look at the top Dems in the House and Senate, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. Both of them are useless. The other corporate dems are useless, too.
What I hope is that as more and more actual progressive win elections and join the likes of AOC, Bernie Sanders (who is not a Democrat, but who caucses with them), Abdul El-Sayed, Troy Jackson, Mayor Mamdani, and others who actually do things to help the working class, so that Democratic Party really does become a progressive party like it was during the New Deal days.
> Bloomberg News reported in November 2021 that Democratic presidents held seven of the top ten positions of S&P 500 returns during the first year of a presidential term, measured from their election days. Biden ranked first with a 37.4% return, with the next five highest positions also held by Democrats.[25] The Democratic outperformance is even more striking if data from the Great Depression and World War II are included. From 1927 through 2016, the average excess stock market return (that is, the difference between the stock market return and the return on a risk-free investment) was 10.7% per year under Democratic presidents and -0.2% per year under Republican presidents.[26]
I think this is just a news narrative that’s fun. The reality is the market has all of the same information and prices are already baked in. The fluctuations are due to fundamentals changing
The stock market is a measure of how much value you can steal from workers. That is why it goes up under republicans under normal circumstances. But fascism is only profitable until the whole thing collapses so the market is factoring that in now as well.
> Look, we all know that Democrats are the the superior politicians. Sometimes they goof by making campaigns about something that affects functionally nobody, but more often than not, they represent what real Americans want.
75% of America is now being represented by Democratic governors, so clearly, voters have correctly recognized that it is not a load of shit.
Republican politicians are garbage people, and America got a glimpse of just how garbage they are when they are given free reign. Real Americans - good Americans - voted accordingly.
Edit: lol, love it when emotionally weak people like this person blocks you immediately after responding because they can't handle reality.
It's US bots trying to steer the narrative in battle to control the country.
But it is the bots of various factions doing it domestically. Pentagon bots are for foreign countries. Unsure where CIA, NSA are aligned and or if they are fully busy with botting foreign countries politics and society
Don't worry we know he will try and break it so he can blame Dems for that. So tired of the toddler just breaking shit while toddler worshippers cheer. Prison 2028.
Now Dems need to pass and get policy signed that undos or stops changes from the BBB/etc taking effect after this election. Massive cuts to safety net programs while billions go to ICE. Needs change.
A narrow Democratic majority would have meant the new Speaker wouldn't be in a position to get all their party members on board with any legislation, leading to paralysis. A large majority solves that problem.
We all know is actually a debate of rich vs non-rich. Thats why all the rich people are so scared of the world “socialism”, and they tell all their underlings how horrible it will be for them.
No the rich love socialism because that is how they pull up the ladder behind themselves. Using socialism to kill social mobility is great for those already on top.
Let's start with the fact that social mobility is higher in every single socialist economy by the pure virtue that a centralized economy can appoint Joe Schmoe to whatever it wants
otherwise you must be someone who arbitrarily labels arguments without elaboration and uses that as a means to shutdown any productive debates
in either case, the correct response is to refuse engagement and better spend my time elsewhere, because nothing i can say will ever convince a fool or technology
You know why China is currently the economic rival of the US right now? Because they gradually moved away from socialism over the decades, and are now just as capitalist economically as the US.
The only thing still socialist/communist about China is their government and Flag.
If even one of the most communist nations in history can recognize that the idea of socialism doesn’t work economically whatsoever, why can’t you?
Actually, the "opening-up" of China's economic model dates back to the late 70s, early 80s.
I know this because I've actually read about it in detail. Have you? Are you capable of actually explaining why China isn't a socialist country, or... did you just hear that on Twitter, my dude?
Are you referring to single-party communism? Socialist policies paired with democracy show the absolute highest social mobility in the world.
Single-party monolithic communism on the other hand was historically extremely vulnerable to the follies of that single-party, ie Mao's great leap forward, the famines in the USSR, etc.
This is mainly driven by the fact that any single party system can't be challenged and thus can become irresponsive to varying conditions. A political party being able to fail and get booted from power is the greatest hedge against this in the same way that allowing a company to fail and go out of business clears the board for competitors to move into that market space.
Markets liking this fits the usual divided government logic, since a Democratic Congress facing a Republican president makes big new spending or tax changes harder to pass. Futures can fade before the open though, so a 900 point overnight move isn’t a settled verdict.
I hate to say it but markets do better with split power. Per wikipedia:
> In November 2020, The Washington Post cited a study by CFRA Research that the stock market (as measured by the S&P 500) averaged the following annual rates of return, under different control scenarios, from 1945 to September 2020:[24]
Democratic president with split Congress: 13.6%
Democratic president with Republican Congress: 13.0%
Republican president with Republican Congress: 12.9%
Democratic president with Democratic Congress: 9.8%
Republican president with split Congress: 5.8%
Republican president with Democratic Congress: 4.9%
Static and Stable is a boon for markets. The recent swings point to some form of corruption, at least vs announcements from the White House. When policy flips week to week someone must be making bets.
a DEM congress is WAY less lickley to sign off on a data center bailout, once the bubble bursts, or let the gravy train for coporate tax cuts keep flowing
Democrats have usually been pretty strongly behind economic bailouts, even under Republicans presidents. Republican follow a similar plan when it's a democratic president. They're both not usually going to let the economy die, out of self interest as much as anything, they both plan to be president next anyway, so keeping the economy alive is good. Dead economies are how you get Reagan and Trump 2024. The incumbent loses, then the new incumbent loses.
Datacenters aren't the only thing that collapses if the bubble pops. Just like how in 08, housing wasn't the only thing impacted
As for tech? Tech industry is all over states like Illinois, Washington, New York, and especially California. Also they just won Texas, so those jobs are democratic covered.
Yeah, they're not going to let the bottom fall out on that if they can avoid it.
If there is a bubble that pops and wall street/silicon valley are on the hook for their bad bets, giving them a bail out will truly lead to a left-wing takeover of the centrist dem seats. It would be an absolute bloodbath at the next election.
I think centrist dems are smart enough to know that if they grant wall street a bailout for the AI shenanigans that they will be risking the centrist control of the party.
If the economy collapses and the democratic party doesn't do a bailout, those seats are toast too. Nobody is voting for the guy who just fiddled while Rome burned. We just saw that. Republican thought they could fuck around and they found out.
And to be clear, any economic plan would involve bailouts because that's how you get the economy rolling. Just reducing taxes ain't gonna cut it. Money needs to be shoveled into and the fire stoked. That's what made the US recover from the 2008 recession not 1933.
The AI bubble will predominately hit Tech companies and not the rest of the economy. There will obviously be a slowdown if it all goes to hell, but the majority of the bad debt is under enormously profitable companies (mag 7) as well as private investment banks and a bit of private credit.
If the Rich on wall street and silicon valley get taxpayer money, there will be an uproar.
I have a feeling it will be much worse than you think. Or rather your not remembering how it would spiral. First AI isn't some fad anymore. It's a mainstream investment portfolio option with buying power across the world economy. This means it has investments from major investments firms, including banks and companies.
When that bubble pops, those firms are all going to grab the belt and pull hard. Credit freeze, hiring freeze, capital investment freeze, and of course layoffs. And if they have debt they can't service because it's all relaint on number go up, that's a problem... because where the banks go, we go. It's why we put safeguards on banks, because we don't want them doing idiotic shit with our money.
But the safeguards here may not be adequate. There is simply a lot of money in AI, a lot of loans, credit, debt, all of it. And the US economy may not be healthy as is. Trump is infamously keeping data concealed.
Maybe it is just the dot com or 89 recession, but assuming it will not be bad seems unwise given who is in charge, what data we have, and how much the brake pedal is not being used.
I don't disagree with you, but there are ways in which this time is different than the housing bubble from 07-08. The debt is largely held privately. If they are bailed out at this stage there will be real political unrest - everyone is hyper aware of this bubble and it wasn't until the big short that people knew what happened during the GFC. It's not as easy to justify a bail out this time, people are already fed up.
Corporate democrats are just shills after all. The banks and auto industry were the big fish at the time and paid a lot. Now it’s tech bros lining their pockets. They’ll get a bailout.
US debt is $40 trillion and we pay $1.25 trillion in interest every year. Democrats will try to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the mandate the people wanted, or try to fund economic expansion and dilute the debt away (but it wont work; interest compounds faster than the economy grows).
So if Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, they risk a global financial meltdown that voters might punish them for. If Democrats refuse to acknowledge spending constraints, compounding interest could trigger a bond market crisis that forces austerity anyway.
Republicans are going to have Democrats eat the imploding economy, something something commie socialists, and because people are idiots, we will keep playing this game. Republicans approving boatloads of spending on dumb, unproductive shit, cutting taxes, all while preaching about entitlements wasn't an accident.
People's eyes glaze over when they hear the words "Bond Market", but people really need to understand what keeps them locked in this cage and what strips you of your sovereignty. The math always wins.
We're inevitably going to have to have government open up public lands for resource extraction, central bank monetization, support unpopular AI initiatives in order to boost productivity/GDP, austerity, and financial repression., but they'll get to blame the socialists for it. All while those with the means to hide their wealth will continue to hide their wealth, or just outright expatriate to the new financial centers they've been building in the Middle East.
Haute finance doing what haute finance does.
The migration of wealth to the Middle East is just the latest iteration of a recurring historical cycle where haute finance abandons a fiscally declining empire by financing the rise of its successor; this is what the Iran War is entirely about. Same story we've seen before; Dutch merchants in the 18th century used their wealth to fund England’s emerging naval infrastructure to escape domestic debt and taxes, and British financiers later bankrolled American railroad and industrial expansion to insulate their capital from the British Empire’s terminal stagnation. Modern Western capital is currently constructing its own parallel exit options in the Gulf.
In every historical transition, finance treats the nation-state as a temporary host; when the structural math of domestic debt turns terminal, capital relocates to the legal and technological infrastructure it built abroad, leaving the domestic public to bear the full weight of forced austerity and economic collapse.
Decoupling economics from the macro-historical lens is the most frustrating aspect about this discipline.
Realistically taxes need to be raised to address the economic issues which means that the 1BBB is going to need to be rolled back. The Democrats won with enough margins that they have the political capital to do that and I suspect that if they balance taxes going up with concessions to affordability (ex., single payer healthcare) they can get the debt under control.
This would only fall on Trumps head. He would have to veto measures to raise the debt limit. Dems just one both chambers and will control strong majorities in both come Jan. There is only one Republican that can refuse reconciliation actions. The margins are so high for Dems that they can afford to let the blue dogs vote no and still pass it. It’s a whole different ballgame - what’s about to go down.
Investors know that repairing the injustices and economic damage wrought by Conservatives' kowtowing to ultra-wealthy interests will be a lengthy, arduous path that is beginning with a first step.
Trump is already taking credit for it. Since going radio silence on Truth Social for 10hr+ (democrats already doing good). His only two posts are an article from NYP stroking his small and below average ego, and talking about how great the stocks and our 401ks look right now.
I think oil deserves more attention in explaining this rally. WTI has fallen roughly 15% over three sessions, which is a pretty significant change in the inflation outlook. That can support equities regardless of how investors feel about the election result.
Ask your fuckin president to make that happen for you. It’s amazing how democrats win the mid terms and not even a full fucking day later and you dorks are blaming them already.
Stock market is forward looking. It implies that investors are expecting good things to come. To be fair the market also ripped after Trump got elected
Markets were going down because amazon and Google and other tech companies released earnings showing massive Capex spending. Nothing to do with the mid terms then.
Trump also ran on lower gas prices, lower groceries, and releasing the Epstein files. None of those were fulfilled and you dickheads had 2 years with a majority and all three branches. Just shut the fuck up, just admit that you're lonely and you blame everything on the mail loneliness epidemic and now you take it out on Reddit.
Call your dad, go to therapy, go feel the warm embrace of a human.
WSBiden | 22 hours ago
Stocks of companies run by unhinged sociopaths not doing well in pre-market trading. PLTR down 4%, SPCX down 7%, TSLA down 5%, ORCL down 4%.
I love this for them. Surprised META isn't seeing similar declines, but maybe that's because they didn't move their HQ to Texas (lol).
Words words words words words words words.
Mist_Rising | 20 hours ago
Nothing will actually happen to Texas companies anyway. Most of them have a legal agreement with the state, and those are hard to terminate just because an election is swung. That's the point after all.
Kelsig | 20 hours ago
how many are abiding by texas law though
Mist_Rising | 19 hours ago
Most I would assume, no reason to assume they suddenly started being more lawless in Texas.
pro-gram-mer | 19 hours ago
Don't think they would suddenly be more lawless, just that there was likely less oversight by the Republican administration and if the laws are actually enforced by the Democrats who just got voted in things may change.
Mist_Rising | 19 hours ago
The thing is that the move was because Texas has less regulation not because it enforces them less. There just isn't anything to enforce.
Kelsig | 19 hours ago
republican governance is that reason
jjwhitaker | 15 hours ago
I know a podcaster that flaunts drug laws on camera all the time.
whomad1215 | 20 hours ago
hedgefunds will be concerned that data center buildout will be slowed
irrelevantusername24 | 17 hours ago
The reality is that these day-to-day "movements" mean absolutely nothing without the context of the longer term changes. And, considering (for example) Google recently sold 100 year bonds, even that is almost irrelevant. What the modern financial system - specifically stocks - amounts to, is a sort of "non-violent" mutually assured destruction. Except in this case, it isn't the people in charge of the "large issuers" who are going to be destroyed, it is the society in which those organizations operate.
Money is an illusion. The Federal Reserve is obsolete
Prestigious_Load1699 | 5 hours ago
Now we’re upvoting comments like “the Federal Reserve is obsolete” in an economics sub?
It’s the most powerful financial institution in the world. Small policy decisions move mountains.
Wild, wild stuff.
cogit4se | 19 hours ago
>The rebound “was in part due to the president’s initial tone and reaction to the results,” said Jay Woods, chief market strategist at Freedom Capital Markets. “Still more uncertainty looms, but one thing is certain, there will be gridlock and historically this is good for the market.”
I agreed with Woods here. The pre-election drop was in large part due to uncertainty over whether Trump would accept the results. I think there were a lot of unspoken concerns about whether Trump would go to extreme lengths to stop the ballots from being counted.
LogoffWorkout | 8 hours ago
We will see, but I think another issue I haven't seen mentioned in this thread, I think Iran will be wrapped up soon. Trump threated to escallate, but I don't think that's feasible anymore. Like potentially he could crash out until the Senate is sworn in, and they have to brute force end the war, but I think that's off the table.
boeings_door_plug | 22 hours ago
Over the last few hours, there seems to have been a battle of headlines either trying to blame the Democrats and their decisive victory over the economically illiterate Republican party for stock market movement, or credit them such as with this headline here.
Look, we all know that Democrats are the the superior politicians. Sometimes they goof by making campaigns about something that affects functionally nobody, but more often than not, they represent what real Americans want.
But can we tone it down with blaming or crediting politicians with movement in markets that we know deep down is largely decoupled from partisan politics?
ants_are_everywhere | 21 hours ago
The 2 year treasury yields moved overnight in concert with polling results coming in. I think it's hard to argue that the bond market doesn't react to the level of sanity in government or that the bond market doesn't interact with the equities market.
greenroom628 | 18 hours ago
I mean, stocks and bonds require stability and predictability; the current administration and Congress has been anything but stable and predictable.
Eating_Astros_9677 | 17 hours ago
Plus economies and businesses in general perform better under stable, predictable governance.
dern_the_hermit | 17 hours ago
> I mean, stocks and bonds require stability and predictability
Ehhh, for the most part sure, but at the same time there absolutely is a class of player that can and will use instability and unpredictability to try to garner an advantage.
anewleaf1234 | 11 hours ago
But that's always short term and if there are massive changes, your entire plan is going to fail.
dern_the_hermit | 10 hours ago
Yes it is not healthy behavior. A certain number of participants in the market do not have healthy mindsets.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 22 hours ago
The market is up because the outcome of the election is now known, which provides certainty, which the market values.
Dem/Rep - no difference. It is all about certainty.
Administrative_Shake | 21 hours ago
I think it might be that Trump can't fund crazy wars or tariff everyone now. At least not as easily, which is good for inflation and market valuations
Vagus_M | 20 hours ago
This is the correct answer.
No one wants to build a factory or negotiate a trade deal as long as there’s a risk that Trumps ketchup bottle will tell him to slap tariffs on penguins again.
MedCityMoto | 19 hours ago
Those guys can afford the tariffs tho, look at them all in their fancy tuxedos, and with their ties to one of the most notorious crime bosses in Gotham City...
Hot-Fudge-Inc | 18 hours ago
They can afford them, but they still a want predictability when it comes to markets. They always want more more more and more.
All_Hail_Hynotoad | 16 hours ago
Those are secondhand tuxedos!
elmundo-2016 | 16 hours ago
Their margins would take a hit and show a downward movement instead of upwards like how most shareholders want.
mechajlaw | 19 hours ago
It might be possible for Dems to get a supermajority to stop tariffs and the Iran War. Both are pretty unpopular and Maga is dying so they might flip a few Republicans on this. Tariffs especially are just bad for business.
meadowlakeschool | 19 hours ago
Markets want stability? Along with the rest of us.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 21 hours ago
We need new House and Senate leadership who aren't complicit with Trump's corruption. Schumer and Jeffries need to go.
UniqueIndividual3579 | 19 hours ago
Was it Schumer who said his top priority is Israel?
thetimechaser | 18 hours ago
Something to that effect I think lol
Seven19td | 19 hours ago
Unserious comment
Constant-Plant-9378 | 17 hours ago
Ignorant comment
Zepcleanerfan | 21 hours ago
Oh my god.
Super_Mario_Luigi | 21 hours ago
How good will extra taxes and regulation be for business?
RashmaDu | 20 hours ago
Much better than self-inflicted trade wars and energy shocks with no plan to deal with them apart from picking a fight with the Fed.
idkmyotherusername | 21 hours ago
You're right, way cheaper for companies to dump waste into rivers. Way cheaper for everyone to defund public education. Who needs thinkers, when it's cheaper to defund research? Let's just let the already wealthy pay off universities to let their kids study medicine there. Much cheaper than educating poor kids who care about learning.
robotic_rodent_007 | 19 hours ago
A regulation everyone pays for is good for business because your competitors are also paying it. It means stability and prevents any party from taking a short term gains decision that would screw themselves.
HGpennypacker | 19 hours ago
> How good will extra taxes and regulation be for business
Won't someone please think of the billionaires and their empires?
Super_Mario_Luigi | 19 hours ago
Your hot talking points will be good for karma. They will not create jobs. In the age of AI, the last thing you need to do is make conducting business less friendly
HGpennypacker | 19 hours ago
You are more than welcome to donate to Elon, Peter, and Bill to help them through these difficult times.
KarmaticArmageddon | 18 hours ago
Businesses benefit disproportionately from public resources. That's why they need to be taxed.
Businesses are incentivized to harm the rest of us if it makes them more money. That's why they need to be regulated.
elmundo-2016 | 16 hours ago
And if there there are no wars, gas prices will go back down meaning traveling (car/ airlines/ shipping of everyday products from outside the U.S.) will be cheaper again. Also laptops for college students and cars/ building equipment/ farming tools will not be extra expensive (tariffs) to purchase. One could say it will make America great again.
pickleparty16 | 21 hours ago
"We can rationalize anything"
NolanR27 | 21 hours ago
They literally can use anything to rally the market. Jobs up? Good economy. Jobs down? The Fed will act.
Krieghund | 20 hours ago
And also because it seems like it is being recognized by Republicans as legitimate. Yesterday, that wasn't certain to happen.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
Margins of victory had to be sufficiently wide to overcome Republican-led election fraud AND be undeniable.
Here's hoping now that we have some new-blood in office, we'll see some unwinding of the gerrymandering and strengthening of election security.
SurprisedJerboa | 17 hours ago
High oil prices certainly fucks the economy, I question your understanding of the US economy.
The Iran War is literally depressing economic activity in the consumer sector, people buying less groceries, less durable goods. High Gas increases prices on everything that uses a Truck, boat or car for transportation.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 16 hours ago
You can question my understanding of the US economy. But I'm confident that I understand it just fine.
The market is not the economy. The DJIA breaking 50K and record GDP don't equate how well average working Americans are faring. IMHO, regular folks are doing worse than ever.
But that's not what I was talking about - the market, generally understood as the STOCK market.
That said, the American economy is currently on fire. Business activity is at an all-time high.
But don't take my word for it. I recommend taking this in: Americans Are About to Get a Lot Richer
Though I would qualify it by saying not ALL Americans are going to get richer. The poor will get poorer and the rich will get far richer.
SurprisedJerboa | 16 hours ago
Many companies on the stock market do rely on actual goods, services and dollars. Most of the companies are not in fact decoupled from the market.
Like have you heard of the Dot-Com bubble ?
Constant-Plant-9378 | 16 hours ago
> Most of the companies are not in fact decoupled from the market.
Never said they were. They just pass the increased costs to us while paying lower taxes and enjoying higher profits.
SurprisedJerboa | 16 hours ago
>Depression, in economics, a major downturn in the business cycle characterized by sharp and sustained declines in economic activity; high rates of unemployment, poverty, and homelessness; increased rates of personal and business bankruptcy; massive declines in stock markets; and great reductions in international trade and capital movements.
Companies have and do go out of business. There have been several recessions and depressions in US history, one as recently as 2008.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 16 hours ago
Are you trying to argue we are in a depression? Because we aren't. We're not even officially in a recession.
SurprisedJerboa | 14 hours ago
Not saying we are in a recession and depression... but Consumer sentiment and Consumer Spending are tracked indicators of recession.
$3,800 spending increase for Households due to Illegal Tariffs and Oil Price jumps due to the Iran War ( $ 930 of those dollars )
Now across the entire US that looks really bad economically. People are spending extra money for no good financial reason BUT bad decisions from the Executive Branch and GOP. Personal savings take a hit, and more Credit is used which is not good economic signals for consumers or the economy.
March 2026
>Tariffs Cost the Average U.S. Household $2,500 This Year — Up 43% Since Last Year
>The average U.S. family is on track to pay more than $2,500 in tariff-related costs this year—a 43% increase from the $1,745 average estimated during the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, according to data recently released by the Joint Economic Committee.
>The report suggests that rather than providing the expected inflationary relief, the administration's immediate pivot to new, legally compliant tariffs has kept the tax burden on consumers at historic highs, forcing more households to juggle everyday bills, higher prices and existing debt all at once.
Oct. 2026 Articles
>Consumer sentiment nears all-time low ahead of midterms The reading is the second lowest numerically in the [74 years] history of the survey.
>A worse scenario, in which the disruptions to shipping and energy infrastructure continue well into 2027, would see global growth fall sharply to just 2.1% in 2026, and 1.8% in 2027.
>That would tip some economies into, or close to, recession, Scarpetta warned.
>Meanwhile, higher oil prices have cost Americans an estimated $936 per household.
>But higher prices continue to be the biggest economic pain point for Americans. Mortgage rates accelerated to their highest level in three years on Thursday from 7% to 7.28%, the largest weekly jump since 2022.
>The 10-year treasury yield, which underpins mortgages and other loans, also reached a 24-year high as the recent global bond sell-off continued.
Are we currently in a recession ? No.
Are people concerned about their spending habits ? Yes.
Numbers from agencies seem to rate the possibility of recession between 30 % to 60 %. As the Iran War is ongoing, it seems unlikely that these projections will significantly decrease.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 14 hours ago
Solid comment with good sources.
I agree, the economy for working Americans has been bad since Covid and has gotten much worse under Trump. The Epstein Class is happy though - they have continued to increase their wealth. Here's to hoping the blue tide results in changes to public policy and the economy.
yesimfinewhyyouask | 19 hours ago
What uncertainty there could have possibly been?
Constant-Plant-9378 | 18 hours ago
Whether Republicans or Democrats would retain or gain control of our government and economic policy.
That's a pretty big issue to be uncertain about.
yesimfinewhyyouask | 17 hours ago
You just said dep/rep - no difference
Constant-Plant-9378 | 16 hours ago
Exactly. Because the cause of the volatility and the correction was about uncertainty, not which outcome. It would have bounced back up either way. Regardless of Dem/Rep.
I literally said, "Dem/Rep - no difference. It is all about certainty."
I did not say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's a reading comprehension issue.
Joyride0012 | 21 hours ago
"Dem/Rep - no difference. It is all about certainty."
For once in your life please use google or ask gemini about cumulative stock market growth under dem or republican presidents in the last 30 years.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 21 hours ago
Calm down Becky. I'm only referring to today's 900 point surge - what the post is about.
I have a master's in finance and was one voter who helped turn Texas blue yesterday. I absolutely understand about the economy under Dems vs Republicans.
Read and understand before you fly off the handle for once.
xrailgun | 9 hours ago
He's right. There wouldn't be this level of uncertainty to resolve in the first place if the market priced both outcomes at +900. Uncertainty is emergent, you need to look at least 1 layer deeper if you want to infer causal factors.
garytyrrell | 20 hours ago
And you think it would have gone up the same if republicans held both houses? That may be the stupidest take I’ve heard about the midterms.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
Has the market not repeatedly set record highs under a Republican monopoly over our government for the last 2 years?
Your comment may be the stupidest take based on ignoring recent history I've read this year.
garytyrrell | 19 hours ago
Yes - I’m not saying the stock market is always reacting to politics. I’m saying ignoring a shock to the market immediately after a surprising election result is either ignorant or disingenuous. Take your pick.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
> I’m saying ignoring a shock to the market immediately after a surprising election result is either ignorant or disingenuous.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm actually here commenting on it. You just seem to want to project your politics on it, and don't seem to appreciate me not sharing your bias.
TotallyObviousBot | 19 hours ago
>Has the market not repeatedly set record highs under a Republican monopoly over our government for the last 2 years?
No, it has not.
There's no such thing as "a record high market". There's a variety of statistics that need to be examined in context in order to determine the actual state of an economy. It's like saying the economy is doing great because stock prices are high while half of your population can't afford basic groceries; an economy with stagnant wealth that sucks up all excess capital isn't a healthy economy, but it sets record highs.
Did you just not go to college, or...?
Constant-Plant-9378 | 18 hours ago
> No, it has not.
>There's no such thing as "a record high market".
Ok you are a dissembling liar arguing in bad faith. The DOW broke 50K for the first time during Trump's second term. How is that not a record high?
Go argue with yourself if you're going to lie, deny facts, and spout bullshit. This is r/economics, not r/alternativefacts
TotallyObviousBot | an hour ago
Okay, now read the rest of the comment, sweetie. You can do it
Joyride0012 | 21 hours ago
Maybe you should have written what you meant then - because if you re-read your post it does not, in any way, convey what you think it does.
flyinhighaskmeY | 20 hours ago
yeah, the world doesn't need to validate or convey every statement in a manner you can understand. You're an ignorant idiot if you think google is yielding good financial information. Its showing you what the loudest actors want you to do.
tl;dr shut the hell up
Joyride0012 | 20 hours ago
Are you illiterate or just drunk? Google can absolutely provide a description of how the market has grown under dem or republican presidents in the last 30 years. Or have you just never used google?
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
Nothing wrong with my writing skills. What I wrote was short, simple, and clear.
Your reading comprehension skills though...
DudelyMenses | 20 hours ago
I'm a bit surprised by you attributing the market fluctuation entirely to uncertainty vanishing - the dems and the republicans have completely different macroeconomic agendas, no? Wouldn't that impact the stock market too?
Some industries will potentially see subsidies again, some other will see more regulations, which surely would affect the value of stocks across many industries.
(I don't live in the US so maybe I don't understand what's going on well enough :D)
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
> I'm a bit surprised by you attributing the market fluctuation entirely to uncertainty vanishing
Republican corruption and market manipulation has done nothing but enrich Wall Street and the Investment Class. You would think the market would have rallied on a red wave.
However, the reversal of inflation driven by high oil prices and punishing tariffs will likely boost consumer confidence, increase consumer spending, which will be good for business.
You could argue a rally being driven by either outcome.
The market was down before the election because of uncertainty. We now have certainty, and the market is back up.
The relationship between uncertainty and volatility is as well understood as supply and demand - but not by people in this sub apparently.
XA36 | 10 hours ago
"My chosen team of billionaires actually loves me"
Joyride0012 | 10 hours ago
No one insinuated that chief. Pointing out when the market performs well doesn’t mean anything beyond that. Go back to eating lead paint chips.
ADHDebackle | 18 hours ago
Congress deferring to the whims of the president was also not good for certainty. I'd say that's a big difference between dem / rep.
No_Hell_Below_Us | 13 hours ago
This makes no sense.
If the outcome made no difference, then what was the uncertainty?
Whether or not the sun would rise this morning?
There’s obviously a different reason why the market had its best day after a mid-term in 44 years that wouldn’t equally apply to every other mid-term.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 13 hours ago
The outcome DOES make a difference.
However, either outcome results in winners and losers. The difference is simply in who those winners and losers will be.
Not knowing the outcome is the source of UNCERTAINTY.
And that uncertainty is the source of the volatility.
That uncertainty being resolved will have a similar result regardless of the outcome.
Because the volatility was due to the uncertainty of the outcome and that uncertainty collapsing, not the specific outcome itself.
No_Hell_Below_Us | 12 hours ago
I know this is conventional wisdom - a finance reporter with the NYT said something similar earlier this morning:
“For investors, more important than who won is that the uncertainty created by the election campaign is over.”
I just think the conventional wisdom doesn’t sufficiently cover today’s events.
Why couldn’t the market react more positively to one outcome over the other?
It’s speculative, but I don’t think my portfolio would be as green today if last night’s wave were red instead.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 12 hours ago
Well, the new Dems who were just elected aren't even in office yet so it is too early to give them credit for anything. Chalk it up to psychology for now.
But It's ok to give them the win for now. They earned it.
BeKindBabies | 12 hours ago
If you don't think Trump, tariffs, and the Iran war represent unfettered market volatility you do not have a portfolio or eyes. You could use the VIX as a radar for Trump stupidity.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 12 hours ago
Never said I did. Those are your words.
Financial-Barnacle79 | 21 hours ago
Yeah, same thing happened when Trump beat Clinton. Market initially dropped and then came back up. Party was irrelevant.
flyinhighaskmeY | 20 hours ago
yeah, it's called a "chump pump". The market is up because idiot liberals think prosperity is coming. So they'll pay more for stocks today.
The same shit happens when there's news that benefits cuntservatives.
What the market is telling you is that the US majority is braindead garbage.
Seven19td | 19 hours ago
“Idiot liberals” “cuntservatives”
What a joke you are.
Alone_Hunt1621 | 19 hours ago
I agree. Certainty is stability. These are things that markets and governments value.
Infraction94 | 17 hours ago
But if it would go up regardless of outcome because it was now a known event why did the uncertainty actually cause a down shift?
Constant-Plant-9378 | 17 hours ago
Speculators take long and short positions before and after big changes betting on market volatility. It is the main mechanism that brings prices back to the mean.
If the market is suddenly 900 points down, bargain hunters will take long positions expecting the price to come back up - and that increased demand puts upward pressure on price. When it comes back up, people betting on a correction will take short positions betting on it oscillating back down. You see this kind of thing happening every day. And the bigger the news/uncertainty, the bigger the volatility.
Lots of option traders making money on it.
dust4ngel | 15 hours ago
> Dem/Rep - no difference. It is all about certainty
this doesn't make sense:
Constant-Plant-9378 | 14 hours ago
Once you know whether it is option 1 or option 2, you have a much better idea of who the winners and losers will be, and have a much better chance of making accurate investment decisions.
It's not saying "we're fine" in either case. It's knowing where an investment is more likely to pay off.
JohanPertama | 10 hours ago
Let me explain in a way that should make it clearer.
Party A wins: oil and tech industries favored
Party B wins: renewables and service industries favored.
Before election: investors withdraw some investments to manage their risk due to uncertainty
After election: country policy is clearer so investors know which industries to invest in
moddingminecrafter | 15 hours ago
When does the market follow certainty? The market has shown it’s detached from reality time and time again.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 14 hours ago
There is a saying that "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain liquid".
That said, the market tends to respond to levels of certainty and uncertainty (risk). Typically, uncertainty doesn't mean 'bad' but instead means 'opportunity for greater returns' (i.e., 'risk = return')
HGpennypacker | 19 hours ago
> The market is up because the outcome of the election is now known, which provides certainty, which the market values.
I agree with you but the scary thing is that now Donald truly might fly off the handle at some point over the next two years.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
He's been flying off the handle for the last decade.
Snoo93833 | 19 hours ago
How is that different from 2 days ago? And why does it matter?
HGpennypacker | 19 hours ago
Because now Donald no longer can control the Congressional narrative and has lost the ability to squash investigations into his administration, he's a rabid dog pushed into a corner and I worry that he's going to lash out with the use of the military like we've seen in Iran.
Snoo93833 | 17 hours ago
So the alternative is?
Kingmav24 | 19 hours ago
holy reddit paranoia
HGpennypacker | 19 hours ago
Donald has already started two wars in his first two years, why do you think he won't continue in his last two years?
BoringPoolPlaying | 18 hours ago
You know this stuff happens right? It wouldn’t even be the first coup he’s attempted ffs.
elebrin | 18 hours ago
And, people on the Left especially, are hopeful for the future for the first time in a while so they took some of their savings and bought some stocks. Some people probably think Democrats getting elected is going to be good for the economy, or for the companies they care about anyways, so they are buying stocks.
mxzf | 18 hours ago
I'm dubious that a meaningful number of people went and bought stocks in the last 12h based on the election results to make that kind of difference.
Double_Suggestion385 | 16 hours ago
It's just about the removal of uncertainty. The market doesn't care who is in power, it just cares about stability.
elebrin | 15 hours ago
The market doesn't care about anything; people do. And people are irrational. One of my favorite Economic terms is "irrational exuberance."
Freak-Of-Nurture- | 21 hours ago
Do you understand how that makes no fucking sense? following your reasoning, 1/2 events will always happen, so you should always invest in the market. No it’s because the market wants democrats.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 21 hours ago
I understand you have no fucking clue what you are talking about - or the role uncertainty plays in market volatility.
Freak-Of-Nurture- | 21 hours ago
but certainty will always be resolved at the time, so it should be priced in. Are you saying the market was also pricing in potential anti-democratic actions
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
The market is always changing to price in new information, including whether the AFC or NFC wins the Super Bowl.
See Strong Form Market Efficiency: security prices incorporate every piece of relevant information including public and insider information.
It is the impact of billions of investors trying to game the system for profit. But the best minds have proven again and again that it is a random walk, and you'll drive yourself crazy trying to predict and explain day to day fluctuations. A chimpanzee tossing darts at the stocks page of your newspaper outperforms leading fund managers.
Alatarlhun | 21 hours ago
So the after hours selloff last night when the outcome was also known was what?
Richandler | 16 hours ago
That's not why. It's all speculative non-sense. The certainty isn't gone at all. Not remotely.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 16 hours ago
The uncertainty about the mid-term election results is absolutely gone.
What the fuck are you on about anyway?
dually | 20 hours ago
No the market is up because it expects the Democrats to be so incompetent that the Fed will have to lower interest rates.
Constant-Plant-9378 | 19 hours ago
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself I guess.
dually | 19 hours ago
I'm so sorry this has happened to you.
NomadicFantastic | 20 hours ago
Tariffs and Iran and corruption are actually very bad for the economy and it's never been more partisan.
MC_Fap_Commander | 20 hours ago
Regulation and oversight will cause companies to cry poverty in the short term. Who cares? It beats the moral hazards that eventually give us 2008 type events. I would very much enjoy boring, slow, and sustainable growth rather than an economy based on gambling on bubbles.
EDIT: not a lot of fans of prudent growth, I guess...
Richandler | 16 hours ago
And people need to watch out for the Russia aligned anti-war factions. They want to abandon Ukraine and Europe still. They have the same policies as Trump, they're just not much of a boar as him.
banditcleaner2 | 18 hours ago
Yeah I’m already seeing IN THIS POST not even a full day later people mad at democrats for not fixing the inflation issues that the republican president caused
It’s insane! It hasn’t even been one day yet!!!!
LordDaedalus | 18 hours ago
The new congress won't be sworn in for another two months.
werephoenix | 17 hours ago
wasnt it from a dem issue before tump was in?
TraderJulz | 15 hours ago
No it was not. Trump policies ignited inflation and then he lost the subsequent election which Dems had to fix
Chemical-Agency-3997 | 19 hours ago
The results provide certainty, markets like certainty.
They also don’t like random tarrifs and wars at the whim of one erratic man.
Ds having full control over congress would certainly aid in that. Not sure why you think it’d be separate.
mistressbitcoin | 19 hours ago
Democrats just buying back into the market at record highs, as expected.
CadmiumKing | 14 hours ago
Wins one midterm cycle
“Superior politicians”
Holy shit yall are gonna shoot yourselves in the foot, it’s like clockwork. This is why im an independent
scotsworth | 19 hours ago
>Sometimes they goof by making campaigns about something that affects functionally nobody
This. I wish Dems understood that the culture-war nonsense MAGA made the most ground on, and what helped propel Trumps 2nd term, were niche social justice issues Dems started with that blew up in their face.
Fortunately for them, the economy has gotten so bad and the War with Iran, Tariffs, and many other Trump blunders have been so egregious that it has overridden MAGA's culture war BS with enough voters.
Hopefully Dems learn from this in 2028 and stay on the tried and true "it's the economy, stupid" strategy
Bodoblock | 18 hours ago
> I wish Dems understood that the culture-war nonsense MAGA made the most ground on, and what helped propel Trumps 2nd term, were niche social justice issues Dems started with that blew up in their face.
Nationally, when have Democrats actually run on this stuff? Was trans rights a central part of Kamala or Biden's campaigns? Was Biden about defund the police?
CommercialHour6660 | 18 hours ago
No. It's 24/7 Rethugs and the oligarch owned media telling voters that's all Democrats care about.
For example Harris didn't mention trans people once in her entire campaign or any of her advertising. Yet 50% of Americans said "Democrats care too much about trans issues"
scotsworth | 18 hours ago
Biden literally made the Trans Day of Visibility an official proclamation while president. Harris was his VP.
So yeah she didn't run on it, but don't pretend that Dems didn't bring it front and center. They just had to downplay it once it became clear it hurt more than it helped on the campaign trail (which again, MAGA knew and exploited).
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 17 hours ago
I doubt even 1% of voters are even aware of that. The culture war has nothing to do with the miniscule crumbs thrown to lgbt or something, its a reaction to cancel culture and political correctness, perceived or real, and just growing acceptance / tolerance in general, either way had nothing to do with dem party policy. Dems can't change any of that.
DogadonsLavapool | 14 hours ago
Man we really cant have shit in Tranistan. People like me had to grow up the butt of half the jokes on TV, get fired from jobs, deal with multitudes of health crises like AIDs and healthcare discrimination, etc., for fucking most of our lives. And now that we had 5 years of progress in the mid 2010s, were now to blame for both shit parties getting elected and for creating the bigoted zeitgeist aimed directly at us.
Fucks sake, the culture war the right is fighting is very clearly due to big money looking to create an enemy out of thin air with a population too small to do anything about it. Its not because Biden made TDoV a thing, or because anti-discrimination ordinances were passed, but because they needed to manufacture something to rile people up.
Dont fucking blame people trying to make things better for the fact that others stir up hate for votes. Its plain bs
AdminOnBreak | 17 hours ago
Oh boo hoo Biden asked for equality for all. How unamerican. Go back under your rock.
scotsworth | 17 hours ago
Did I say I had a problem with it?
I said it provided MAGA Ammo to bring these niche issues to the forefront and talk about them instead of more populist issues like the econonmy.
Try to keep up.
CommercialHour6660 | 16 hours ago
So Biden signed a random EO tossing a bone to trans people.
Compare that to 24/7 trans ads on the GOP side. Over 90% of their ad spend this cycle I heard. They're gonna keep fighting their culture war no matter what Dems do.
AdminOnBreak | 16 hours ago
Why don’t you keep up? Take a look around. Maga is fucking dead.
scotsworth | 16 hours ago
MAGA was "dead" after the 2018 midterms too.
What happened?
If Dems don't take the right lessons (and people like you keep refusing to take them)... MAGA will come back.
AdminOnBreak | 16 hours ago
Mississippi.
scotsworth | 18 hours ago
Biden created the official "Trans day of visibility" while president and his campaign did make a big deal about appointing a member of the trans community to his staff. Kind of undeniable that a focus on Trans issues was a part of his agenda.
As for "Defund the police", agreed that was never a part of the national campaign (and Kamala was in fact repeatedly called "a cop" by some progressives)... but that deeply unpopular slogan (outside of reddit) still has stained Democrats all over the campaign trail.
Nationally Dems do try to avoid/downplay these kind of niche topics when they get to the general.... correct.
The problem is, the way Progressive discourse goes... they have to battle around all of this in primaries, local elections, state level elections, and so on.
So niche issues come up in a primary, they get addressed by a sound byte or a policy position. Sometimes the politician trying to avoid it says something more moderate and then they get raked over the coals... consider Amy Acton stepping in it with the trans community.... big backlash from within her party when she's trying to wrestle a Governor seat away from a MAGA Republican in a center-right state.
Democratic infighting turns off moderates, hardest left folks get disillusioned... and then MAGA can come in and paint everyone with the culture war brush... and it's effective.
This is the whole problem with Progressive Purity tests and culture war nonsense. And it still hurts Dems because once they get to the general, MAGA can seize on it all and paint them with the same brush EVEN IF they had a moderate position.
This is also what redditors refuse to accept. Hard left policies... Palestine, trans issues, ACAB, getting offended by SNL monologues... this may play really well and get upvotes online. But the average American does not give a shit, and in fact actively dislikes the discourse or disagrees strongly with it.
So you create more MAGA W's by dying on these hills instead of doing what we finally saw last night... focusing on the economy, stupid.
Penguin_FTW | 17 hours ago
It's crazy how successful MAGA think tanks have been at convincing people that these sort of issues are Democrat forefront problems that they create, and not MAGA wedges that they create.
Spoiler alert: a token day of acknowledgement is not centering the trans issue for the Democrat party despite your insistence otherwise. Republicans run hate ads in every state in the country alleging that Democrats are gonna "trans your kids" despite none of them ever bringing it up unprompted and that's somehow the left's fault, incredible.
Truly, the billions of dollars spent on the bot farms, talking heads, political propaganda and psy ops has worked wonders, because it's fucking insane that I see people push this completely fabricated narrative. Not a shred of truth to this theory.
scotsworth | 16 hours ago
Why make the day of acknowledgement if it's not a part of your platform? Why make a big show about appointing a trans person to your cabinate if it's not part of your platform?
But my point isn't that it's a central Dem issue... it's always been fringe. But taking the time to put it in the platform and taking steps like making that day of acknowledgement DOES bring it to the platform in a very clear way.
MAGA seizes on this. So no, it's not MAGA making up fringe issues out of thin air with no basis. It's MAGA taking a piece of the platform that has proven to be a drag with the general electorate, and magnifying it.
And again, look at Amy Acton... the fringe issue is FREQUENTLY brought up within party races by advocates and media members to drag primary candidates as being problematic or too moderate.
MAGA seizes on that as well.
It's a losing issue with the general electorate, and pretending Dems have zero hand in giving MAGA ammo around it is just sticking your head in the sand. Which is what a bunch of Progressives did in 2016 and 2024.
Penguin_FTW | 16 hours ago
They don't magnify, they fabricate. They outright lie about whatever they want, whenever they want. MAGA has not been beholden to truth at any point during its tenure.
Unless your position is that Trans people should stop existing to please MAGA's desires, they will never be happy. Pretending like catering to them alleviates their lies and bigotry is nonsensical, as is pretending like Democrats center this issue just to get knocked down about it. Half of the Democrat candidates gleefully throw trans people under the bus and it does nothing to move the needle on their candidacy.
scotsworth | 16 hours ago
It's not about making MAGA happy at ALL.
It's about beating MAGA in general elections, and not cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
"Dr. Amy Acton betrays Ohio’s trans community"
This is the narrative that gets run when a Democratic candidate says something moderate about a Trans issue. Or doesnt specifically address it. Or doesn't go far enough by certain progressive estimations on an issue.
So they get dragged when they're trying to be the first woman to be elected Ohio's governor. When they're trying to flip a Center-Right state with Republican governors for the last 16 years Blue. When they're literally running against an actual MAGA bigot and trying to appeal to enough voters to actually win.
You can spin stories all you want about "bowing to MAGA"... but the progressive purity tests around fringe issues 100% hurt Democrats at the polls. And it's self inflicted.
And MAGA loves it.
If Vivek didn't completely fumble his campaign with that smear ad, he may have won. I wonder how many progressives didn't bother to vote for Amy?
Similarly to those who didnt vote for HIllary in 2016. Or Kamala in 2024.
And then we end up with MAGA.
Penguin_FTW | 16 hours ago
Her statement is bigoted and deserves to be called out.
scotsworth | 15 hours ago
And so you'd rather hurt her chances at election by infighting and media call outs, give Vivek extra ammo when Amy has to respond, clarify, and alienate moderates in the process... so you end up with Vivek.
Just terrible strategy and more harmful than anything else.
You're okay with MAGA monsters winning because you can't have a perfectly pure Democrat.
Better_Noise_9677 | 16 hours ago
Yes, the conservative propaganda apparatus is old, well oiled, and incredibly effective. I also agree that the Democratic party has long since dropped the ball on actively courting the votes of and improving the lives of working class people. They need to return to that as a central policy.
But please don't throw us under the bus.
El-Sayed found a brilliant and effective strategy in refusing to engage by saying that standing up for trans rights is standing up for all rights, because the minute you concede one group's rights, you've made everyone's rights negotiable.
That's what we need.
I will also say that visibility is important. It's much harder to convince people we're horrible disfigured freaks who want to stomp your child at sports and give them surgery when we're also your neighbors, your sons and daughters, niblings, and representatives.
The propaganda is so effective because we're such a tiny percent of the population, because people aren't (aware they're) seeing us in day to day life, they don't conceive of us as normal people with everyday needs and desires just like them.
So don't make it a central issue, and refuse to engage when Republicans try to make it one (which they will continue to do, I'm sure), but continue to shore up our rights quietly and as permanently as possible.
Eating_Astros_9677 | 17 hours ago
Thank you for getting it. If only more people got it. :/. Democratic choices are what handed victory to Trump in the past. Trump would never have been able to get so many supporters if they didn't have a culture war to rail against.
scotsworth | 17 hours ago
And again, Dems do his work for him:
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 15 hours ago
You act like this bogeyman, "LGBTQIA+ activists," have massive power to determine primary elections... Primaries can elect more extreme candidates than is optimal for victory in the general election. But that is more a problem for right wing whose "extreme" groups probably outnumber the equivalent on the left. And bad primary winners are an obvious big contributor to a lot of these races (texas for example).
The original problem of dems supposedly focusing on cultural issue is separate from this. And you are conflating the democrat party with your idea of "LGBTQIA+ activists", like you seem to admit here the party actually doesn't care at all about these issues. Its entirely a manufactured wedge issue by the GOP. So I'm not sure what you think the party could do about anymore than the GOP can stop a single racist thing being posted online by their extreme.
Eating_Astros_9677 | 17 hours ago
Honestly I think that the Republicans are guilty of this too. They took their victories as a mandate to massively expand ICE and attack abortion rights, both of which were very unpopular with the middle. It's more a side effect of the structure of the primary / two-party system. Unfortunate, but still not the worst system (because it has a lot of brakes). The Democrats are only more guilty because they're so much more vocal and in people's faces about stuff than the Republicans are.
scotsworth | 15 hours ago
I agree. I think Trumps Tariffs and Iran are additional examples of that.
He took the victory, and so he's died on hills that are unpopular even with his own base.
AdminOnBreak | 17 hours ago
u/scotsworth ok bigot
rhythmbandit | 16 hours ago
They didnt say that it's morally right to maintain a more moderate position on culture war issues, they are saying it's the more strategically advantageous position. We live in a democratic republic, and while you may be morally correct, that doesn't matter if you are in the minority and your positions are not represented because you can't get elected.
AdminOnBreak | 16 hours ago
The culture war bs is the Repubs. Trans panic, kids in litter boxes, bathroom bs. Bcs their economic policies can’t stand on their own. Just wait till ‘27 when the healthcare subsidies from the big beautiful bill fall out, and costs soar. Just another repub poison pill.
rhythmbandit | 15 hours ago
Yeah, and the culture war BS that the repubs pulled in 2024 won them the executive branch and both houses of Congress. That poison pill is now set to go off when the Democrats hold Congress, and they will take the blame.
The point is that engaging in the culture war BS is a losing battle for Dems. And you engaged in it by calling calling someone who pointed out the strategic folly a bigot.
scotsworth | 17 hours ago
lol case and point.
AdminOnBreak | 16 hours ago
Indeed bigot.
scotsworth | 16 hours ago
What have I said that is bigoted? Please be specific with a direct quote.
Fun-Needleworker6842 | 16 hours ago
This is such loser energy
Negative-Day-7014 | 5 hours ago
Doesn’t matter if it was part of a national campaign or policy initiative if the state and local politicians are pushing an unpopular agenda or narrative. That’s what resonates with people.
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 17 hours ago
Problem is dems didn't start any culture war, its entirely a Republican manufactured wedge issue, an obsession over public tweets and such made by an extreme minority of SJWs online which is dwarfed by the equivalent ultra-racists on the right. Somehow there is this double standard of holding any random far leftie online as some official ambassador of the party, while even more unhinged things said by the GOP's literal president of thr U.S. is dismissed as fringe.
Richandler | 16 hours ago
> Problem is dems didn't start any culture war,
That's just not true. C'mon man, live in reality.
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 15 hours ago
It is true, the dems have done nothing to push cultural policy, in fact they mostly avoid it like the plague or even move right like in ohio. It is true the underlying culture is becoming more progressive, tolerant, etc. and there is a reaction to that is real, but the dems did nothing to create it. The GOP just leveraged that reaction to distract on real issues. There is nothing dems can do to make people more conservative or something to appease more conservative minded people.
TJ_McWeaksauce | 16 hours ago
>they represent what real Americans want
Progressive represent what real Americans want. Not all Democrats are actual progressive.
Look at the top Dems in the House and Senate, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. Both of them are useless. The other corporate dems are useless, too.
What I hope is that as more and more actual progressive win elections and join the likes of AOC, Bernie Sanders (who is not a Democrat, but who caucses with them), Abdul El-Sayed, Troy Jackson, Mayor Mamdani, and others who actually do things to help the working class, so that Democratic Party really does become a progressive party like it was during the New Deal days.
Cuddlyaxe | 10 hours ago
> Progressive represent what real Americans want
It represents what you want lol, if this is what "real Americans want" then progressives would be having much more success
vahntitrio | 19 hours ago
Normally yes, but in this unique circumstance reigning in tariffs and wars can significantly alleviate a lot of the current headwinds businesses face.
Richandler | 16 hours ago
These single day pumps are never lasting, so it doesn't matter.
jjwhitaker | 15 hours ago
https://thumb.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Average_annual_change_in_unemployment_rate_by_president.png/500px-Average_annual_change_in_unemployment_rate_by_president.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail
> Bloomberg News reported in November 2021 that Democratic presidents held seven of the top ten positions of S&P 500 returns during the first year of a presidential term, measured from their election days. Biden ranked first with a 37.4% return, with the next five highest positions also held by Democrats.[25] The Democratic outperformance is even more striking if data from the Great Depression and World War II are included. From 1927 through 2016, the average excess stock market return (that is, the difference between the stock market return and the return on a risk-free investment) was 10.7% per year under Democratic presidents and -0.2% per year under Republican presidents.[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
The data points to never voting GOP never ever. But then, I can read and have a degree that involves some math and science.
telperion101 | 11 hours ago
I think this is just a news narrative that’s fun. The reality is the market has all of the same information and prices are already baked in. The fluctuations are due to fundamentals changing
BroughtBagLunchSmart | 21 hours ago
The stock market is a measure of how much value you can steal from workers. That is why it goes up under republicans under normal circumstances. But fascism is only profitable until the whole thing collapses so the market is factoring that in now as well.
JC_Hysteria | 22 hours ago
Meh, most politicians- in both parties- tries to appeal to what their data says people care about.
Agree completely on your last paragraph. That’s as much as it is for engagement as it is partisan politics.
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
> Look, we all know that Democrats are the the superior politicians. Sometimes they goof by making campaigns about something that affects functionally nobody, but more often than not, they represent what real Americans want.
What a load of shit
boeings_door_plug | 18 hours ago
75% of America is now being represented by Democratic governors, so clearly, voters have correctly recognized that it is not a load of shit.
Republican politicians are garbage people, and America got a glimpse of just how garbage they are when they are given free reign. Real Americans - good Americans - voted accordingly.
Edit: lol, love it when emotionally weak people like this person blocks you immediately after responding because they can't handle reality.
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
It doesn't mean they will do what you want.
It's a two party system dude, it was their only other choice.
And now if everything continues to go to shit (it will) I can blame you.
shadowboxer47 | 10 hours ago
Not every candidate is the same. This kind of cynicism is both unrealistic and unproductive.
What's your alternative? Revolution? Dictatorship?
Suibeam | 21 hours ago
It's US bots trying to steer the narrative in battle to control the country.
But it is the bots of various factions doing it domestically. Pentagon bots are for foreign countries. Unsure where CIA, NSA are aligned and or if they are fully busy with botting foreign countries politics and society
--TheCity-- | 22 hours ago
Don't worry we know he will try and break it so he can blame Dems for that. So tired of the toddler just breaking shit while toddler worshippers cheer. Prison 2028.
jjwhitaker | 15 hours ago
Now Dems need to pass and get policy signed that undos or stops changes from the BBB/etc taking effect after this election. Massive cuts to safety net programs while billions go to ICE. Needs change.
dfsw | 25 minutes ago
It will be vetoed
Richelieu1624 | 9 hours ago
A narrow Democratic majority would have meant the new Speaker wouldn't be in a position to get all their party members on board with any legislation, leading to paralysis. A large majority solves that problem.
Capadvantagetutoring | 8 hours ago
But also a large majority means that the fringe groups can’t hold the party hostage
KalaiProvenheim | 7 hours ago
Yeah like people like Joe Manchin and Jared Golden
rzr-12 | 22 hours ago
We all know is actually a debate of rich vs non-rich. Thats why all the rich people are so scared of the world “socialism”, and they tell all their underlings how horrible it will be for them.
Gnoccho1 | 19 hours ago
sir ... the rich just got richer ... by 900 points
jjwhitaker | 15 hours ago
The only moral investment portfolio is my portfolio.
Realistic_Being_2038 | 17 hours ago
Well yeah. It turns out people without wealth are big fans of wealth redistribution and people with wealth are not. Is that surprising to anyone?
dually | 20 hours ago
No the rich love socialism because that is how they pull up the ladder behind themselves. Using socialism to kill social mobility is great for those already on top.
TotallyObviousBot | 19 hours ago
I don't think you understand what socialism is
Let's start with the fact that social mobility is higher in every single socialist economy by the pure virtue that a centralized economy can appoint Joe Schmoe to whatever it wants
dually | 19 hours ago
Oh look it's the "you're not doing socialism correctly" argument.
TotallyObviousBot | 19 hours ago
No, I'm saying you literally do not understand what the very basic idea of socialism is, because you're uneducated and likely unintelligent.
Let's start with: can you define what a dialectic is?
dually | 18 hours ago
I have no doubt the basic idea of socialism works in your mind.
TotallyObviousBot | 18 hours ago
Okay so you don't know about dialectical materialism. I'm assuming you also know nothing about Marxist historical critique, then?
dually | 11 hours ago
You really ought to sprinkle some ranch on all that word salad.
shadowboxer47 | 10 hours ago
>You really ought to sprinkle some ranch on all that word salad.
You could just say you don't know a goddamn thing about Marx and socialism rather than continuing to embarrass yourself.
TotallyObviousBot | an hour ago
Okay so those are the two things you're gonna want to Wikipedia if you want to start having a chance of being taken seriously my dude, good luck
Metabrick | 18 hours ago
your objective measure of what socialism is is incorrect so let me help
soviet union = bad
taxing billionaires and mega corps to fund public services like social security and infrastructure = good
hopes this helps!
dually | 11 hours ago
Oh look it's the "you're not doing socialism correctly" argument.
Metabrick | 11 hours ago
oh this is a bot
otherwise you must be someone who arbitrarily labels arguments without elaboration and uses that as a means to shutdown any productive debates
in either case, the correct response is to refuse engagement and better spend my time elsewhere, because nothing i can say will ever convince a fool or technology
Adagio-Adventurous | 18 hours ago
Socialism doesn’t work. Never has, never will.
You know why China is currently the economic rival of the US right now? Because they gradually moved away from socialism over the decades, and are now just as capitalist economically as the US.
The only thing still socialist/communist about China is their government and Flag.
If even one of the most communist nations in history can recognize that the idea of socialism doesn’t work economically whatsoever, why can’t you?
TotallyObviousBot | 18 hours ago
Oh, is China capitalist this week? I can't tell, since people like to just say it's whatever they last heard on Twitter.
Tell me, which of Deng's market reforms specifically do you think is most responsible for their current economy?
Adagio-Adventurous | 18 hours ago
“Whatever they last heard on Twitter.”
Dude, have you been living under a rock? China has actively been a big capitalist entity for the last 20 years at least.
TotallyObviousBot | 18 hours ago
Actually, the "opening-up" of China's economic model dates back to the late 70s, early 80s.
I know this because I've actually read about it in detail. Have you? Are you capable of actually explaining why China isn't a socialist country, or... did you just hear that on Twitter, my dude?
Adagio-Adventurous | 17 hours ago
Emphasis on opening up, it didn’t actually start kicking into gear until the late 90’s early 2000’s.
Hence why I said “last 20 years”.
LordDaedalus | 17 hours ago
Are you referring to single-party communism? Socialist policies paired with democracy show the absolute highest social mobility in the world.
Single-party monolithic communism on the other hand was historically extremely vulnerable to the follies of that single-party, ie Mao's great leap forward, the famines in the USSR, etc.
This is mainly driven by the fact that any single party system can't be challenged and thus can become irresponsive to varying conditions. A political party being able to fail and get booted from power is the greatest hedge against this in the same way that allowing a company to fail and go out of business clears the board for competitors to move into that market space.
dually | 11 hours ago
tldr don't copy and paste ai slop
LordDaedalus | 11 hours ago
Those are just my thoughts, no ai involved.
Paigedreams129 | 21 hours ago
Markets liking this fits the usual divided government logic, since a Democratic Congress facing a Republican president makes big new spending or tax changes harder to pass. Futures can fade before the open though, so a 900 point overnight move isn’t a settled verdict.
jjwhitaker | 15 hours ago
I hate to say it but markets do better with split power. Per wikipedia:
> In November 2020, The Washington Post cited a study by CFRA Research that the stock market (as measured by the S&P 500) averaged the following annual rates of return, under different control scenarios, from 1945 to September 2020:[24]
max_power1000 | 14 hours ago
Makes sense. Since nobody can pass anything except for a baseline funding bill, things are stable and companies can invest relatively predictably.
jjwhitaker | 13 hours ago
Static and Stable is a boon for markets. The recent swings point to some form of corruption, at least vs announcements from the White House. When policy flips week to week someone must be making bets.
Corcorans-ghost | 21 hours ago
Not suprised
a DEM congress is WAY less lickley to sign off on a data center bailout, once the bubble bursts, or let the gravy train for coporate tax cuts keep flowing
Mist_Rising | 20 hours ago
Democrats have usually been pretty strongly behind economic bailouts, even under Republicans presidents. Republican follow a similar plan when it's a democratic president. They're both not usually going to let the economy die, out of self interest as much as anything, they both plan to be president next anyway, so keeping the economy alive is good. Dead economies are how you get Reagan and Trump 2024. The incumbent loses, then the new incumbent loses.
Tribe303 | 20 hours ago
Historically, they've also been more protectionist and pro tarrif than the GOP. We Canadians don't expect too much to change.
Mist_Rising | 20 hours ago
Depends on how you define history, because it definitely shifts round as both parties circle each other for votes.
Scrandon | 18 hours ago
What a dumb statement. Trump is nothing like the historical GOP.
Tribe303 | 16 hours ago
That would be why I used the word "historically". 🤦
Scrandon | 16 hours ago
Sigh. Do I really have to walk you step by step through your logical failure?
Comparing historical Dem vs Rep stances on tariffs is completely irrelevant when Trump isn’t aligned with the historical Rep stance.
So your conclusion that Dems will somehow not push back on Trump’s global trade war is a bad one. Got it?
Corcorans-ghost | 20 hours ago
for the auto industry, or the banks sure, but data centers and tech?
Mist_Rising | 20 hours ago
Datacenters aren't the only thing that collapses if the bubble pops. Just like how in 08, housing wasn't the only thing impacted
As for tech? Tech industry is all over states like Illinois, Washington, New York, and especially California. Also they just won Texas, so those jobs are democratic covered.
Yeah, they're not going to let the bottom fall out on that if they can avoid it.
JFHermes | 19 hours ago
If there is a bubble that pops and wall street/silicon valley are on the hook for their bad bets, giving them a bail out will truly lead to a left-wing takeover of the centrist dem seats. It would be an absolute bloodbath at the next election.
I think centrist dems are smart enough to know that if they grant wall street a bailout for the AI shenanigans that they will be risking the centrist control of the party.
Could see it going both ways personally.
Mist_Rising | 16 hours ago
If the economy collapses and the democratic party doesn't do a bailout, those seats are toast too. Nobody is voting for the guy who just fiddled while Rome burned. We just saw that. Republican thought they could fuck around and they found out.
And to be clear, any economic plan would involve bailouts because that's how you get the economy rolling. Just reducing taxes ain't gonna cut it. Money needs to be shoveled into and the fire stoked. That's what made the US recover from the 2008 recession not 1933.
JFHermes | 16 hours ago
The AI bubble will predominately hit Tech companies and not the rest of the economy. There will obviously be a slowdown if it all goes to hell, but the majority of the bad debt is under enormously profitable companies (mag 7) as well as private investment banks and a bit of private credit.
If the Rich on wall street and silicon valley get taxpayer money, there will be an uproar.
Mist_Rising | 15 hours ago
I have a feeling it will be much worse than you think. Or rather your not remembering how it would spiral. First AI isn't some fad anymore. It's a mainstream investment portfolio option with buying power across the world economy. This means it has investments from major investments firms, including banks and companies.
When that bubble pops, those firms are all going to grab the belt and pull hard. Credit freeze, hiring freeze, capital investment freeze, and of course layoffs. And if they have debt they can't service because it's all relaint on number go up, that's a problem... because where the banks go, we go. It's why we put safeguards on banks, because we don't want them doing idiotic shit with our money.
But the safeguards here may not be adequate. There is simply a lot of money in AI, a lot of loans, credit, debt, all of it. And the US economy may not be healthy as is. Trump is infamously keeping data concealed.
Maybe it is just the dot com or 89 recession, but assuming it will not be bad seems unwise given who is in charge, what data we have, and how much the brake pedal is not being used.
JFHermes | 15 hours ago
I don't disagree with you, but there are ways in which this time is different than the housing bubble from 07-08. The debt is largely held privately. If they are bailed out at this stage there will be real political unrest - everyone is hyper aware of this bubble and it wasn't until the big short that people knew what happened during the GFC. It's not as easy to justify a bail out this time, people are already fed up.
peanutski | 20 hours ago
Corporate democrats are just shills after all. The banks and auto industry were the big fish at the time and paid a lot. Now it’s tech bros lining their pockets. They’ll get a bailout.
Corcorans-ghost | 19 hours ago
if we hadn't bailed out the banks, we would have had a great depression in 08
Were_all_dead_anyhow | 19 hours ago
IMO, Democratic win is ultimately a trap.
US debt is $40 trillion and we pay $1.25 trillion in interest every year. Democrats will try to raise the debt ceiling in order to pay for the mandate the people wanted, or try to fund economic expansion and dilute the debt away (but it wont work; interest compounds faster than the economy grows).
So if Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, they risk a global financial meltdown that voters might punish them for. If Democrats refuse to acknowledge spending constraints, compounding interest could trigger a bond market crisis that forces austerity anyway.
Republicans are going to have Democrats eat the imploding economy, something something commie socialists, and because people are idiots, we will keep playing this game. Republicans approving boatloads of spending on dumb, unproductive shit, cutting taxes, all while preaching about entitlements wasn't an accident.
People's eyes glaze over when they hear the words "Bond Market", but people really need to understand what keeps them locked in this cage and what strips you of your sovereignty. The math always wins.
We're inevitably going to have to have government open up public lands for resource extraction, central bank monetization, support unpopular AI initiatives in order to boost productivity/GDP, austerity, and financial repression., but they'll get to blame the socialists for it. All while those with the means to hide their wealth will continue to hide their wealth, or just outright expatriate to the new financial centers they've been building in the Middle East.
Haute finance doing what haute finance does.
The migration of wealth to the Middle East is just the latest iteration of a recurring historical cycle where haute finance abandons a fiscally declining empire by financing the rise of its successor; this is what the Iran War is entirely about. Same story we've seen before; Dutch merchants in the 18th century used their wealth to fund England’s emerging naval infrastructure to escape domestic debt and taxes, and British financiers later bankrolled American railroad and industrial expansion to insulate their capital from the British Empire’s terminal stagnation. Modern Western capital is currently constructing its own parallel exit options in the Gulf.
In every historical transition, finance treats the nation-state as a temporary host; when the structural math of domestic debt turns terminal, capital relocates to the legal and technological infrastructure it built abroad, leaving the domestic public to bear the full weight of forced austerity and economic collapse.
Decoupling economics from the macro-historical lens is the most frustrating aspect about this discipline.
Dapper_Engineer | 18 hours ago
Realistically taxes need to be raised to address the economic issues which means that the 1BBB is going to need to be rolled back. The Democrats won with enough margins that they have the political capital to do that and I suspect that if they balance taxes going up with concessions to affordability (ex., single payer healthcare) they can get the debt under control.
tackle_bones | 17 hours ago
This would only fall on Trumps head. He would have to veto measures to raise the debt limit. Dems just one both chambers and will control strong majorities in both come Jan. There is only one Republican that can refuse reconciliation actions. The margins are so high for Dems that they can afford to let the blue dogs vote no and still pass it. It’s a whole different ballgame - what’s about to go down.
49orth | 22 hours ago
Investors know that repairing the injustices and economic damage wrought by Conservatives' kowtowing to ultra-wealthy interests will be a lengthy, arduous path that is beginning with a first step.
snowrazer_ | 16 hours ago
Doesn’t the stock market going up make the rich, richer?
tacobellrefugee | 14 hours ago
own MAGA by making them richer
Acceptable_Job_5486 | 17 hours ago
Trump is already taking credit for it. Since going radio silence on Truth Social for 10hr+ (democrats already doing good). His only two posts are an article from NYP stroking his small and below average ego, and talking about how great the stocks and our 401ks look right now.
w3_vic | 7 hours ago
I think oil deserves more attention in explaining this rally. WTI has fallen roughly 15% over three sessions, which is a pretty significant change in the inflation outlook. That can support equities regardless of how investors feel about the election result.
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
BuT tHe StOcK mArKeT iSnT tHe EcOnOmy.
How does this help the little guy?
Aren't democrats supposed to help the little guy? How does this help me?
breakfastburrito24 | 18 hours ago
I don’t think the Democrats directly did that
BigGlassesApe | 18 hours ago
Lol wah wah wahhh
feculentcuntfist | 16 hours ago
Nothing can help you, you are irreversibly lost.
Disastrous-Fox8505 | 18 hours ago
Willfully ignorant.
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
I was making 13% without them.
It was going down because of them too (worried that democrats will overregulate), and then it went back up.
Wow who cares.
Is my gas cheaper yet? How about food? I'll be waiting for those improvements.
banditcleaner2 | 18 hours ago
Ask your fuckin president to make that happen for you. It’s amazing how democrats win the mid terms and not even a full fucking day later and you dorks are blaming them already.
tacobellrefugee | 14 hours ago
i read for four years on reddit that the president doesnt control gas prices, now he does all of sudden?
shadowboxer47 | 10 hours ago
>i read for four years on reddit that the president doesnt control gas prices, now he does all of sudden?
If there's a pandemic and two gas producers go to war against each other, POTUS is not affecting gas prices.
If POTUS goes to war with a major oil producer and then closes off the Strait of Hormuz, they affect gas prices.
Hope this helps!
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
I mean the title literally brings up what the stock market is doing the day after the election of democrats...
I didn't bring it up, you guys did.
antiramie | 18 hours ago
Dems can walk and chew gum unlike dumbass Republicans.
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
I'll believe it when I see it. Tick tock.
Zorkonio | 18 hours ago
Stock market is forward looking. It implies that investors are expecting good things to come. To be fair the market also ripped after Trump got elected
Whaddduptho | 18 hours ago
To me all it did was recover.
It went down just prior to the election (under the assumption that democrats would overregulate) then it recovered.
Then people cheer.
But life isn't any cheaper and that is the platform they ran on, so get to it.
TheTexasHammer | 17 hours ago
You do realize they aren't even in office yet right? I swear there are so many dumb mother fuckers out there who have no idea how shit works.
Zorkonio | 18 hours ago
Markets were going down because amazon and Google and other tech companies released earnings showing massive Capex spending. Nothing to do with the mid terms then.
Disastrous-Fox8505 | 18 hours ago
Trump also ran on lower gas prices, lower groceries, and releasing the Epstein files. None of those were fulfilled and you dickheads had 2 years with a majority and all three branches. Just shut the fuck up, just admit that you're lonely and you blame everything on the mail loneliness epidemic and now you take it out on Reddit.
Call your dad, go to therapy, go feel the warm embrace of a human.