Dow jumps 500 points as Wall Street bets on red wave in midterms

Stocks rose for the third straight session on Tuesday as voting began in the crucial midterm election that will determine control of Congress, with investors hoping for Republicans to take back one or both chambers...

…“The market views Republican gains as positive for business at this point,” said Christopher Grisanti, chief equity strategist at MAI Capital Management in Cleveland. “A Republican victory is seen as removing either current regulations, like in the energy sector, or potential future regulations like in the pharmaceutical sector.”…








https://nypost.com/2022/11/08/dow-jumps-on-election-day-as-investors-hope-for-gridlock/








This Reuters news article is an optimistic view of what’s happening today. Clearly they are betting/ hoping for a change in the federal legislatures. Gridlock is now good.

 

I’m hoping that gridlock will keep the markets up and prevent an inflation caused recession. A new GOP Congress will limit spending and reduce the size of feds interest rate increases.

 

So your theory is when the rich and business class do well, everyone does well? Hmm, that's funny because it's been shown time and time again there is no real correlation there. In fact, it's hilarious to hear your party talk as it's the party of working class people...but making sure rich elites, people you claim to despise, have all the money and deregulation they want. I'd say I'll never understand the hypocrisy, but I do. You just like thinking you're right all the time. It's OK, we are all human that way, but it's hilarious to watch it happen in the face of facts, reality, and your own words at times.

I don't really care if the republicans take the house or the senate, they've had it before and they've made their usual messes. It can typically be undone when it needs to be when either party messes up.

 

The stock market going up will increase inflation...you do understand how it works, right? The stock market sets the prices for investing in companies. The higher those prices go, the more money is in the economy. The more money available to spend, the higher prices rise because demand goes up. I'm beginning to wonder if high school economics actually happens in this country. Also, a recession isn't defined by the price of stocks, it's mostly agreed upon that a recession happens with two successive quarters where GDP declines. The stock market may rise or fall in that time regardless. In fact, it's easy to have a recession and the idea that it's a problem if we do is sort of silly. Growth isn't always the answer.

 

So a rise in the stock market only benefits 'the rich'? No 'working class' people or retirees have money in the markets?

Deregulation, or in reality, limited regulations, benefit businesses, which usually roles down to the COGs for other businesses, which relates to prices, and what the consumer pays. You know, those 'working class' people.

 

Yes, the old, "if you have a 401k you are aligned with the Wall Street elite" argument. The money the average American has in their 401k's is literally pennies by comparison to the dollars large investors and firms have in the market. Furthermore, local dips in the stock market don't matter to the majority of current investors as they are in it for the long term. The investment strategy of the average American, who at most has maybe 400,000 in their 401k on average (and that's the main investment vehicle, sure there are IRA's and other types of accounts, but that's just different flavors of the same thing), should be to keep putting money in when the market goes down, and shift it to bonds when it goes up. That's about it.

The idea that the market should only go up and up and that republicans only make it go up is silly and easily argued away with facts and history. The party in power can't make stocks do anything for anyone.

De-regulation may help business, but it may also harm society. We don't easily regulate in this country, that's true of both parties. Most regulations, those businesses earned by being bad actors by either hurting the environment or people directly. Simply getting rid of regulation doesn't equal better prices at all. The market sets the price. If the price is set high above the costs, and regulations are a costs, then those regulations doesn't impact price one bit. That's basic economics.

Few are actually looking out for working class people, least of all, country club elites like Trump and his ilk. Literally, he owns the very places that shun and exclude working class people. The reason no one cares is because working class people mostly don't vote. They tend to be young and of all races and they don't just work in factories, but in restaurants and other service industries as well. Many of them aren't given the time to vote, early voting and mail in aside, and frankly, many of them don't think it matters because for decades this country has ignored their needs in favor of those with lots of money.

 

Yeah funny that

 

A lot of projection here

 

Not a lot of substance here, but you get what you give in life.

 

Gridlock is good, now more than ever.

The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.
-- P. J. O'Rourke

 

Plenty enough for those paying attention

 

You guys almost figured that out on January 6th, 2021. Almost. Well, not quite, but you sure tried to stop the government of the people. I know, it's not YOUR government because it doesn't 100% agree with YOU, but gee, I don't recall that being a requirement of the US government, so I think the real mystery here is why people on the right hate their own government when they live in one of the most self-governed countries in the world?

 

Again, the notion that Wall Street doing well is good for everyone isn't accurate. That's been proven time and time again. And the stock market going up or down in anticipation of an election doesn't equate to a recession. And people invested in 401k's should care more about long term results, not short term changes that happen say as the result of anticipating of less or more regulation of an upcoming election, because it doesn't matter to their style of investing and the amount they have invested. Anyway, good chat.

 

Yeah, this has been building for the last week or two:

 

Way to miss O'Rourke's point, but when you guys think obtusity serves fabricating a dishonest narrative, stupidity is a virtue.

 

I think that we are are the end of this rally as the DOW has reached a downtrend line of consequence that is not likely to be broken given that a recession is still likely to be seen and therefore the fundamentals do not call for the downtrend to be broken.

 

The next best thing to a small government is gridlock.

 

The idea that the wealthy doing poorly isn’t an indication everyone else will follow is absolutely absurd.

 

Well, just a starting count, but two strawmen from the get go doesn't bode well for an honest discussion.

Nowhere did I say the 'working man' was the equivalent of 'Wall Street Elite'. What the working people have invested is important to THEM. It doesn't even have to be a 401k.... it could be $5, or $100,000. You do understand that, yes?

Where did I say the market should only go up? And the assumption I am a Republican, well, I won't even count that one.

Yes, the Federal government and it's tentacles OVER regulate virtually every aspect of a citizen's life. You may deem it as 'may harm society', but most people don't need the government to do what is best for them, without harming anyone else. What is 'good' for you, is likely not 'good' for me, yet the governmental one size fits all approach does not benefit society, it benefits their pockets.

Regulations don't impact price one bit? Any requirements by regulations are a cost to the company. And yes, just like taxes, flow through to the end user. THAT is basic business economics.

I would be interested in seeing the actual support for your statement that 'working class people mostly don't vote' because personal experience indicates otherwise. Until recently with an influx of well-to-do Northerners discovering the positives of a small town, the entire population in this area is 'working class', and the turnout percentage was very close to the national average. People here care what happens, but mayhap that is a regional thing.

 

That depends on the circumstances I suppose. Let's say if the wealthy gave everyone in the country their money. I would argue them doing poorly in that specific circumstance would be to others benefits. Obviously, that's not going to happen. The idea that the wealthy should be given preeminence when it comes to economic policy because them doing well is predicated on the rest of us doing well is just as if not more absurd.

The circumstances goes to the stock market prediction recession, which implies hard times for all. That isn't necessarily true or a valid indicator of recession. It's not in the definition of recession. The market going up because investors think less regulation is on the way says lots about Wall Street investors. They are republicans. Despite what some republicans say about them, they clearly are waiting for their cut. I don't think that indicates anything good for you or me necessarily.

 

No it doesn’t depend at all. It’s a simple fact, if the rich fall, we all do.

 

Self-governed? Not quite the terms I'd use to describe a body of the government that lied to the people about the 'inflation' bill that was in reality a tax-and-spend bill on the American People. The majority of the people will think of it as 'our' government when it stops lying to us.

 

How will congress reduce the size of fed interest rates?

 

If you can't easily refute an alleged straw man argument, how will you discuss anything with substance? I find the first to accuse straw man is the one who simply doesn't have a better response. That doesn't bode well either.

Good, accuse me of making up stuff you said and then turn around make up things that I didn't say. I never talked about the money being important or not. What I said was they are not the same because of the strategy used by 401k's and other retirement accounts as well as the total value of those accounts. Both of those matter when you are setting up investment strategies. Ask a financial advisor if you don't believe me. Mine told me those exact words.

So you're saying the market goes up and down regardless of the party in power because they can't control it? Cool.

Your tolerance for regulation of your life, of which there is very little to none, is probably not the same tolerance as others. Who says your definition is the right one for every American?

The government provides rules to ensure society gets the overall objectives it wants. It determines that based on how we vote for our representatives. Not everyone gets their way all the time, that's part of our system and life.

How does it benefit their pockets? Their pockets, by the way, are our pockets, so I'm not sure why you act as if they are a separate entity. And I think you are under the mistaken impression that we are more different than alike. I promise you all, all people are way more alike than different when it comes to how they want life to be. Government doesn't deal in the minutia. It deals in broad strokes, as in, don't pollute the drinking water that we all need to survive. It doesn't regulate how much water you drink, for example.

No, that's you mixing two different aspects of so called "business" economics. It's just economics.

The price of a good or service is set by what people are willing to pay. That price is influenced by the supply of said good or service, but not the cost. A business decides to meet that demand based on the cost is can incur in doing so. If the cost is less than the price AND it's sufficiently less that they make the money they want to make, they do it. But at no point do those costs dictate the price. You can't tell someone, well it costs me 300 dollars to change your oil, so it will cost you 350 because I have to make a profit even though others offer the same service for less than half that price. It just doesn't work that way. If it did, everything would cost 5000 dollars and constantly go up every quarter because costs would mysteriously keep going up. In other words, if cost dictated pricing, there would be no efficiency in the market place. Efficiency comes from the market setting what it's willing to pay.

What's your definition of working class people? Anyone with a job? That's my definition of it. Now I can't know which American has or doesn't have a job, so I have to make a bit of an educated guess. I would say the majority of people with jobs are aged roughly 18-65. I pick 18 because you can vote at 18, and while you can argue many 18 year olds are in college, I can point out that being in college and having a job are NOT mutually exclusive.

Voter turn out is highest in the over 65 population, in 2020, it was 76%. It was lowest in the 18-24 at 51.4% in 2020. It increased little by little as you went up in age. So when I say they don't vote, what I mean is, they don't vote in significant numbers to make politicians pay attention to their needs. They haven't in decades in this country for various reasons. Also note, that 2020 was a water mark high in voter turn out. 2022 may be close, but these percentages are inflated as a result of that interest in the 2020 election. Past elections have shown even less participation by working class voters while older voters who tend to not have jobs, have relatively high turnout through the decades.

The biggest problem in those numbers is I can't say how many of those 18-65 year olds don't have jobs because they are wealthy. While it's not a high percentage, if one looks at voting participation based on income, it goes up the more money you have. I would estimate that people who are too rich to need a job and thus don't have one probably vote pretty regularly meaning their small contribution to those percentages are only inflating them incorrectly.

As for what constitutes a job, that's tricky. Is Kim Kardashian working class? She would argue she works harder than you or me. So it's really hard to define working class without a series of variables that are agreed upon. The CEO of my company has a job that he works it. It just happens to pay him about 25 million in total compensation. Is he working class?

If you put an income definition in place, basically 18-65 who make less than 100k vote very little compared to those who make more and who are older. So again, why should politicians listen when people don't vote? I mean, it's cynical but sort of accurate.

 

Well, if I presume that what you say is accurate, which I'm not, a tax and spend bill doesn't cause inflation. If you tax money and then spend it, you aren't inflating the money supply. You are taking money in the form of taxes and spending on other things. It's a 1:1 ratio of tax dollars to spending. In theory because republicans pushed for spending legislation that must pay for itself, and they always follow that.

Now imagine a scenario where you don't raise taxes but continue spending. And not only do you keep spending, you spend more and you DECREASE taxes...hmm, who did that recently and just before inflation peaked?

Anyway, you vote for who represents you. If you think they lied, vote them out. It's that simple. That's called self rule. Self-rule doesn't mean you get to do what you want or that everything you think is correct. It means you have a say in your own government and you do.