4 ms·
What a silly comment. If the guy you don't like puts up good numbers, those numbers are meaningless? What numbers does Carter have that you like? The Dow (or S
by UIUC_06 5y ago
What a silly comment. If the guy you don't like puts up good numbers, those numbers are meaningless? What numbers does Carter have that you like?
The Dow (or S&P 500) is the weight of the world's expectations about the US economy, as much as any single number is.
No, you cannot "double the stock market by printing money." If that were true, then the Fed's loose money policies during the 70s would have doubled the stock market. They didn't, did they?
- quickthrower2 5y agoI’m purely on the numbers here. No agenda. No guy I like. “Good numbers” - what does that mean? They are numbers for sure. I gave reasons why weight summing market caps might not be a perfect score, can you counter them specifically. I agree printing money might not double the stock market. Are you saying money supply has no affect on stock market? It scares money away from savings and devalues risk. I’m not sure you can pick apart my comment logically.
- AlbertCory 5y agoOK, let's try. First of all, if you don't think that a broad stock market average, for any country at any time, tells us something really important about the country's prospects and overall confidence, then we can probably stop right there. I think it's axiomatically true, but there's certainly no way I can prove it to you As for money supply and the stock market: that too is the subject of many volumes of economics. I happen to think that Milton Friedman was basically right, and he came into his own during the 70s debacle. But if you don't believe that, it's, again, way beyond the scope of a HN thread. Now, as to the "Carter set it all in motion" argument, it reminds me of the movie scene where the guy can't open a window, his son-in-law elbows him aside and opens it, and the first guy yells "I loosened it!" Let's concede, purely for the sake of argument, that Carter had the right ideas. Did he have the political ability to carry them out? Did he have a party behind him? The question answers itself -- he had no ability to persuade anyone of anything, and that's why he lost in a landslide and his VP lost in an even bigger 49-state landslide 4 years later. In politics, being right is not enough -- you have to sell it and you have to finish the job.