4 ms·

What goes up, must come down. The stock market is cyclical and a correction is bound to happen. I don't see why a Trump presidency would be bad for the market.

What goes up, must come down. The stock market is cyclical and a correction is bound to happen. I don't see why a Trump presidency would be bad for the market. Maybe it would take a short term dive because of his stance on protectionism, but long term it would probably rise because of his goal to repatriate dollars and stimulate domestic manufacturing. Right now, it's the uncertainty about Senate and presidential outcomes that might spook investors. Even the Supreme Court is in play. We live in interesting times.

lintiness 10y ago
anything positive about trump gets shilled to the basement on the internet, cable news, ...
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  I'm not sure about that. I think Trump gets a lot of play as a product of New York, compared to the rest of the republicans. /r/The_Donald rules reddit; often times every 5th story comes from that subreddit. These thing have contributed to his success.
  - lintiness 10y ago
    i wish i could believe you. everytime i venture to r/all, it's littered with sanders believers and their conspiracy theories.
    - digitalneal 10y ago
      Sanders believers are the new Rand Paul believers of this election cycle.
      - m0llusk 10y ago
        Hillary got to where she is today by doing well and failing in primaries and then contributing significantly to the administration and its agenda.
hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago
Protectionism would send the market in a tailspin down. You should read some more about the great depression and its causes
- blisterpeanuts 10y ago
  Yes, the stock bubble burst, and Hoover's attempt to impose tariffs backfired badly. I doubt that Trump would implement protectionism. His rhetoric generally points to leveling the playing field rather than simply banning foreign imports. He talks a good talk about screwing the Chinese, but when push comes to shove there's nothing he'd be able to do about the trade imbalance.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > His rhetoric generally points to leveling the playing field rather than simply banning foreign imports. His rhetoric is consistently vague, which allows people to read what they want into it. > He talks a good talk about screwing the Chinese, but when push comes to shove there's nothing he'd be able to do about the trade imbalance. There's plenty he could do about the trade imbalance; for instance, net imports necessarily must be balanced by a capital inflow; obstruct the capital inflow and you prevent the trade imbalance. Of course, doing so would likely be disastrous, but its not impossible.

lintiness 10y ago

anything positive about trump gets shilled to the basement on the internet, cable news, ...

forgetsusername 10y ago
I'm not sure about that. I think Trump gets a lot of play as a product of New York, compared to the rest of the republicans. /r/The_Donald rules reddit; often times every 5th story comes from that subreddit. These thing have contributed to his success.
- lintiness 10y ago
  i wish i could believe you. everytime i venture to r/all, it's littered with sanders believers and their conspiracy theories.
  - digitalneal 10y ago
    Sanders believers are the new Rand Paul believers of this election cycle.
    - m0llusk 10y ago
      Hillary got to where she is today by doing well and failing in primaries and then contributing significantly to the administration and its agenda.

hellogoodbyeeee 10y ago

Protectionism would send the market in a tailspin down. You should read some more about the great depression and its causes

blisterpeanuts 10y ago
Yes, the stock bubble burst, and Hoover's attempt to impose tariffs backfired badly. I doubt that Trump would implement protectionism. His rhetoric generally points to leveling the playing field rather than simply banning foreign imports. He talks a good talk about screwing the Chinese, but when push comes to shove there's nothing he'd be able to do about the trade imbalance.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > His rhetoric generally points to leveling the playing field rather than simply banning foreign imports. His rhetoric is consistently vague, which allows people to read what they want into it. > He talks a good talk about screwing the Chinese, but when push comes to shove there's nothing he'd be able to do about the trade imbalance. There's plenty he could do about the trade imbalance; for instance, net imports necessarily must be balanced by a capital inflow; obstruct the capital inflow and you prevent the trade imbalance. Of course, doing so would likely be disastrous, but its not impossible.