International equities have outperformed US equities by over double over the last year.
That's what you get for having a piece of shit protectionist President. And it's just the beginning for the pain to come on the path we are down.
Get ready to get a lot poorer. Idiocracy is in full effect. The pain that's about to rain down on a dumbass Trump voters is just starting. They will look at nominal GDP numbers, pretend they are winning, while the USD falls so hard they won't understand why they can't afford to buy anything like they used to.
It has very little to do with Trump. The U.S. stock mkt cap relative to the U.S. GDP hasn't been this high since I think 1929. It's a scary chart. Buffet says over a 100% is a bubble. We're over 200% currently. Trees don't grow to the moon or maybe it's different this time.
I'm not sure an indicator of the SP500 to US GPD has a lot of value. The index is dominated by global behemoths that get over half their revenue from outside the US.
Maybe a ratio of Global GDP to Global Equity market cap is more relevant. But I'm sure that's even actionable.
You correctly identified the one big factor that has changed over the last 100 years. Someone threw out a rough estimate of it being around 130-50% when trying to control for it (take it with a grain of salt). A gold bug I can't stand loves to show it (he hates Bitcoin) and markets do seem to course correct off of it eventually. Intuitively it makes sense to me. At some point it does matter because the value of labor is getting crushed, which is 75-80% of the population main source of purchasing power. I'll always maintain you don't have to worry about the bottom 10-20% of society being pissed off, it's the 25-75% that will f#ck up society. You also want them to be having children.
I have never seen our country so divided about truly fundamental issues. We have a socialist in charge of our largest city.
And this division appears to be equal, which when the beliefs are so polar is not a good thing.
People have Trump Derangement Syndrome. This isn’t a troll or hyperbole it’s fact. It colors how we see things. It is my hope that when he is out of office we get a bit of a reset. I think thereafter we’ll better be able to gauge where things stand.
I agree—things will be clearer once he’s finally gone. He’s dominated the spotlight for over a decade, sucking up all the oxygen, and plenty of people are rightly tired of it.
Some of his voters insist on ignoring his behavior and focusing solely on policies. In theory, that’s noble—but it’s out of touch with political reality. In practice, the messenger often matters as much as—or more than—the message, especially when you’re asking for public buy-in, writ large.
It's a great question for political scientists. Everyone has a different theory/belief.....
I'm not sure what can be done at this point. But it's not like this is the first time in US history where we've had such massive division and dysfunction. Unfortunately, usually takes big wars to break out of it.
I agree, but why the mass division?
Civil War - result of unresolved slavery issue from original founding that finally came to a head, and the economic realities of a South w/o slaves.
Great Depression - unfettered capitalism leading to societal decay and economic castastrophe assisted by climate factors in the midwest/plains.
60's - Vietnam War, interventionism, civil rights
Today - ??
Sure, Trump's divisive. Biden was braindead. A lot of people blame Obama but I think that's a copout. No president ever caused the disrutpion above. They were societal ills. So what is the issue today that so divides left and right? Trans? No. Abortion? No. Death of demoracy? overblown nonsense. I think there's something deeper - the K shaped economy, wealth inequality growing - but is that even left v right? Doesn't seem so in my mind.
Very strange.
All joking side it's the economy. Being the reserve currency, offshoring, and importing cheap labor (too many people think this solves the issue, but it doesn't when you have a large welfare state) has it's tradeoffs. If you look at average wages as a percentage of GDP it costs a lot more to buy houses, stocks, healthcare, and etc. The thing that is blowing my mind is I don't understand why (both parties) don't just codify the tariffs and cut income taxes to 0 for people making 100k or less. It seems like a no brainer and would turn down the temp and help out the wage earners. Hopefully, this becomes a thing in 28.
Sure, we are cutting down on illegals, but we are also cutting down on legals.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-negative-net/story?id=129175522
And tourism is dropping, too.
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/us-tourism-decline-2025-20786214.php
This is what MAGA wants. Closed borders doesn't just mean fewer people sneaking across the Mexico border. It means fewer foreigners stepping foot in America altogether. That's what our current leadership is pushing for, and they're getting it.
Does wanting less legal immigration, either temporarily or permanently make one a nativist? Does believing immigration policy should shift circumstantially make one a nativist?
What is the correct number of green cards to issue each year? Less or more than the million or so we seem to have done for a decade?
It’s an interesting question and a worthwhile discussion that can’t happen if it’s started by simply calling people nativists.
@snarlcakes for some the economy is doing great. Those in boardrooms, even middle management. For the administrative assistants and custodians, not so much.
First, from Fox:
I think there are kind of two legs to that story. One is the labor market: when you look at wages going into people's bank accounts in our Bank of America data, we're seeing higher income wage growth of around 4%, and lower income wage growth of around 1.4%, and that's very close to the largest gap for around 10 years in the data," he explained. "So on the income side, the K-shape is very apparent too.
It is startling to realize that severe delinquency rates on non-mortgage debt are nearly as high today amid a period of relative economic prosperity as they were during the worst recession of our lifetimes. So, it is hardly surprising that 36% of YouGov respondents recently said their family finances are in worse shape today than a year ago (45% said the same, 14% said better, 5% Don’t Know)— far higher than negative response rates of the pre-pandemic period in 2018-2019 — even as the domestic economy chugs along and financial markets soar.
Airlines are seeing this, here is one example from Delta:
At Delta, premium revenue was up 9% in the third quarter, 13 percentage points better than the 4% drop in main cabin revenue. Other airlines have seen similar, if less dramatic, trend lines quarter after quarter.
The Conference Board has consumer confidence at a 12 year low, probably explained by the debt and delinquency above. Interesting, consumer confidence is lower now than in 2020.
I thought our natavists wanted middle America to be better off, but the data is that the Elon Musks are doing better (the difference between the top 10% and the rest of us grew considerably) but the middle class and below aren't doing nearly as well. I've already covered fewer manufacturing jobs, and all the above shows that the economic growth you are touting is not rising all boats. If the stock market were to drop like you suggest it will, there won'd be anyone left to spend money to drive the economy (CNBC):
The so-called “K-shaped economy” has performed well so far, at least according to broad economic measures such as GDP and consumption. Yet the growing dependence on a small sliver of consumers at the top carries risks.
Zandi said a deep and prolonged decline in the stock market, which is driving almost all of the wealth gains at the top, could send wider ripples through the economy.
“The economy is being powered in big part by the spending of the extraordinarily well-to-do, who are cheered by the surging value of their stock portfolios,” he said. “If the richly (over) valued stock market were to stumble, for whatever reason, and the well-to-do see more red on their stock tickers than green, they will quickly turn more cautious in their spending, posing a serious threat to the already fragile economy.”
@arthur-dent The middle America I know, middle management at companies, are buying vacation condos, houses at their kids' schools, $100k SUVs and absolutely thriving under Trump. The upper class forget it. Charmed, charmed life right now. The lower middle class and poor absolutely cooked.
@sharinincarmel Middle income is $55,000 to $167,000. Median income for a family in 2024 was $105,800. Median family income in 2024 was $83,730.
So yes, maybe someone bumping into that $167,000 can lead that Carmel lifestyle. Especially if they don't have kids. Or if they inherited a ton. But a person who didn't inherit, has two kids, makes $150,000 for the family? They probably aren't in Carmel with a $100,000 SUV. Maybe Avon or Greenwood with a used SUV.
And if they are at that $105,800 income with a family of 4 and no massive inheritance, they sure aren't living that life.
@arthur-dent I'll tell ya what Greenwood has really cool houses. Huge lots. Room for ice rinks. Big garages for toys. I spent a weekend there not too long ago and was really impressed with the set up. Little out of the way for me but I liked it a lot.
Carmel, my middle America, LOL. Try Martinsville, or Crawfordsville, or Shelbyville. Places where you cook dinner, not make reservations. Places where you leave on vacation to go camping or fishing, not to stay at a Ritz-Carlton or a golf resort.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
@snarlcakes for some the economy is doing great. Those in boardrooms, even middle management. For the administrative assistants and custodians, not so much.
First, from Fox:
I think there are kind of two legs to that story. One is the labor market: when you look at wages going into people's bank accounts in our Bank of America data, we're seeing higher income wage growth of around 4%, and lower income wage growth of around 1.4%, and that's very close to the largest gap for around 10 years in the data," he explained. "So on the income side, the K-shape is very apparent too.
It is startling to realize that severe delinquency rates on non-mortgage debt are nearly as high today amid a period of relative economic prosperity as they were during the worst recession of our lifetimes. So, it is hardly surprising that 36% of YouGov respondents recently said their family finances are in worse shape today than a year ago (45% said the same, 14% said better, 5% Don’t Know)— far higher than negative response rates of the pre-pandemic period in 2018-2019 — even as the domestic economy chugs along and financial markets soar.
Airlines are seeing this, here is one example from Delta:
At Delta, premium revenue was up 9% in the third quarter, 13 percentage points better than the 4% drop in main cabin revenue. Other airlines have seen similar, if less dramatic, trend lines quarter after quarter.
The Conference Board has consumer confidence at a 12 year low, probably explained by the debt and delinquency above. Interesting, consumer confidence is lower now than in 2020.
I thought our natavists wanted middle America to be better off, but the data is that the Elon Musks are doing better (the difference between the top 10% and the rest of us grew considerably) but the middle class and below aren't doing nearly as well. I've already covered fewer manufacturing jobs, and all the above shows that the economic growth you are touting is not rising all boats. If the stock market were to drop like you suggest it will, there won'd be anyone left to spend money to drive the economy (CNBC):
The so-called “K-shaped economy” has performed well so far, at least according to broad economic measures such as GDP and consumption. Yet the growing dependence on a small sliver of consumers at the top carries risks.
Zandi said a deep and prolonged decline in the stock market, which is driving almost all of the wealth gains at the top, could send wider ripples through the economy.
“The economy is being powered in big part by the spending of the extraordinarily well-to-do, who are cheered by the surging value of their stock portfolios,” he said. “If the richly (over) valued stock market were to stumble, for whatever reason, and the well-to-do see more red on their stock tickers than green, they will quickly turn more cautious in their spending, posing a serious threat to the already fragile economy.”
The middle class is getting crushed because of high taxes, too many regulations, and having to compete against global workers through outsourcing and immigration. The Democrats use to be for the working class and recognize some of these issues. Hence, deporter and chief, Obama. After Obama they said f#ck it, let's abandon the middle class and just import enough votes to win. By the way people like Elon innovate and drive down costs.
Sure, we are cutting down on illegals, but we are also cutting down on legals.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-negative-net/story?id=129175522
And tourism is dropping, too.
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/us-tourism-decline-2025-20786214.php
This is what MAGA wants. Closed borders doesn't just mean fewer people sneaking across the Mexico border. It means fewer foreigners stepping foot in America altogether. That's what our current leadership is pushing for, and they're getting it.
Does wanting less legal immigration, either temporarily or permanently make one a nativist? Does believing immigration policy should shift circumstantially make one a nativist?
What is the correct number of green cards to issue each year? Less or more than the million or so we seem to have done for a decade?
It’s an interesting question and a worthwhile discussion that can’t happen if it’s started by simply calling people nativists.
Of course wanting less legal doesn’t make one a nativist, the op is just butthurt trolling. We’ve probably seen legal immigration suffer because for 4 years no one needed to go through the hassle of legal immigration, they could just walk in, be flown somewhere, & given housing & money.
In the sciences, immigration begats innovation, discovery and even Nobel prizes. Not one foreign student of hundreds I have worked with came here illegally. Now, some of them can't come here at all, while a great many others would never want to come here due to the economic, political, and anti-science environment. Foreign applicants to US colleges are down dramatically. Most who come here and graduate would eventually stay here and innovate.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Sure, we are cutting down on illegals, but we are also cutting down on legals.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/us-1st-time-50-years-experienced-negative-net/story?id=129175522
And tourism is dropping, too.
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/us-tourism-decline-2025-20786214.php
This is what MAGA wants. Closed borders doesn't just mean fewer people sneaking across the Mexico border. It means fewer foreigners stepping foot in America altogether. That's what our current leadership is pushing for, and they're getting it.
Does wanting less legal immigration, either temporarily or permanently make one a nativist? Does believing immigration policy should shift circumstantially make one a nativist?
What is the correct number of green cards to issue each year? Less or more than the million or so we seem to have done for a decade?
It’s an interesting question and a worthwhile discussion that can’t happen if it’s started by simply calling people nativists.
No, it doesn't, but I've already made the case that MAGA is an essentially nativist movement, and I don't feel the need to do it again.
I've already made the case that MAGA is an essentially nativist movement,
At this point it would be hard to argue otherwise.