TyresmokinRx7

All I got was script error, on that link.

Baldy

I look at it this way. In the last election, the country was close to 50/50 on voting. So, no matter what, roughly half the country is going to disagree with whatever the potus does. From what I've noticed, people don't normally swap allegions to parties, despite what good or bad things the leader of that party does.

(not a personal attack)

I'm the business and finance track in school. In the 6 or so classes I've had dedicated to economy and business, I've never heard how the president directly affects the economy or stock market. Alan Greenspan, the Fed, but not the potus himself. If I'm missing something, please let me know, my thirst for knowledge is not yet quenched.



As for voting, I'm one of those people that voters love to hate, a non-voter. It's my right, not my duty, so don't bug me about it.

twstdmtl

Sometimes when people say Bush or name a president by name they mean the administration. Since most non-elected positions are appointed by presidential order, the administration staff is a direct reflection of El Presidente.



You are right about the FED and Greenspan. Fed Board members serve 17 year terms and I do not believe they are presidential appointees. Even if they were, 17 years is too long of a span for one president to get the credit for appointing one member.



The stock markets are as well their own entities. Are they in a vacuum? NO. These things are not all together unrelated. They influence each other in very intimate ways. The challenge is seeing the relationships.



Prezidential/administration policy is one of the biggest influencers of the economy. With the world literally being a global market, foreign policy is a good example. Japan normally imports 85% of its beef from the U.S. This administration had agricultural delegates on a jet to Japan the moment the mad cow disease story broke. I am not saying this will be a short ban but it is action like this that smoothes the way. A weak foreign policy would have lagged and not sent any delegates to one of our largest beef buyers. A weak policy or stance in any one area costs money, in this case big money.



Another example would be inflation (weakening of the consumers dollar). The U.S. fought to get China admitted to the WTO world trade orginization. We petitioned and even leveraged other countries into accepting China's goods. Now it is China's goods that are keeping our inflation at some of the lowest points in recent years. Typically when the Fed rate is lowered as low as it is now and has been for months, the growth is limited because inflation goes unchecked. But that is not happening because we as Americans are eager to buy cheap Chinese products. Thus the inflation is low and the Fed board has kept the fed rate very low for a longer period of time.



Economics is a very tough discipline to understand. I had a ruthless Japanese national for an economics professor. I was so discouraged that I dropped macroeconomics the first time I took it. But I learned that it was cause I did not like it at the time. The next semester I liked it and I kicked it's *** and went on to microeconomics.

Baldy

I guess that goes to show that though one group may directly make many decisions, other people indirectly affect these decisions.



This also goes to furthur support my own belief that the more I think I know about finance and economics, the less I understand.

twstdmtl

Don't be daunted. I think you will really enjoy finance and economics. They do have a way of making people feel very small though. The more you learn the less you feel like you understand. It is not an exact science by any stretch because of the emotions involved in making and losing money. But it is so practical in life. Everything from balancing your checkbook to world policy and everything in between, has something to do with money. It is just the way Earthlings are.

Baldy

damn earthlings!