this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
858 points (97.9% liked)
People Twitter
5162 readers
2570 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, better. The markets are all time high since god left the white house and historically, the markets always performed better under democrats, but facts cannot reach your pebbles.
Maybe your investments haven't been performing but the S&P500 average return is over 14% per year thus far into the current administration. It averaged 12.1% during Trump. Simplifying your portfolio might be a good idea, when you don't know what is going on you should stick with a basic low cost ETF like VOO until you have a clue about things.
This discussion right here on "whose candidate is best for The Market" at a time when most people have less than $1000 in savings is peak Capitalism.
Yeah, I know that in the US many if not most people have their retirement funds tied to Markets, and having worked in Investment Finance let me tell you that you were and are being swindled (but, hey, your savings for old age really make a LOT of money for a small number of people, not least because of occupying the niche of being the suckers in most markets), but that itself is peak Capitalism.
The Markets mater very little for most people - except for the unfortunates forced by governments to bet their old age prosperity on them - but they're really important for the largest Asset Owners, or in other words, the Very Rich.
While that may be a valid point to raise, in the context of this conversation, it's of little consequence since both sides are fixated on the capital markets as a general indicator.
The data for "real world" finances correlate with the pandemic and the emergency work to vaguely prevent economic disaster has resulted in some longer term issues that continue to need work. Despite the problems, it's likely better than the alternative, and in these specific terms both sides started and continued the strategy that got us here.
Now both candidates are mostly vaguely citing the need to do something about the cost of goods, housing, and healthcare, and Harris has been a little bit more concrete about what she claims to want to make happen specifically to improve that. Taking his words at face value, Trump wants to increase prices for now, assuming that a moving to a more nationalistic economy will work better. Short term is definitely higher cost of goods, and his long term is generally regarded as unrealistic, not a whole lot of data in modern economy to support nationalism over globalism as an economic principle.
Sauce please.