Trump Economy Naysayers Lesson

Reading Instructions: 

• Put Down the iPhones
• Know a 10 Sec. News Sound Byte is not all the Facts
• Read actual Historical Facts on Record
• Learn how to discover the Real Facts for yourself 

Fully understand what President Trump is accomplishing by comparing today's real facts to historial facts from 1843 to 2018 - You be the Judge... Enjoy this article, a real US History lesson!

To Every Thing There Is a Season,                                               But Your Portfolio Shouldn’t Turn                                                   

By: Jason Zweig, Wall Street Journal

Sept. 21, 2018

Every year, as the end of summer approaches, monarch butterflies head for Mexico, birds migrate south for the winter, and financial pundits predict that the stock market is about to crash.

Is the longstanding popular belief that September and October are the worst months for stocks valid?     Yes and no—mostly no.

Yes, some of the worst days in Wall Street’s history have hit during September and October - But that’s no reason to panic.

• On Sept. 24, 1869, the original Black Friday, the price of gold collapsed roughly 20% and took the stock market down with it.

• On Sept. 18, 1873, the investment bank Jay Cooke & Co. suspended payments, setting off a series of bank failures that triggered one of the worst depressions in U.S. history.

•  On Oct. 16, 1907, a busted speculation in copper led to a run on some of New York’s biggest banks, sparking a panic that ended only when J.P. Morgan personally intervened—ultimately leading to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

• On Oct. 28, 1929, “Black Monday,” the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 12.8% in the crash that set the stage for the Great Depression.

•  On Oct. 19, 1987, the Dow fell 22.6%, the worst daily loss in its history.

• On Sept. 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers failed, ushering in the darkest days of the global financial crisis.

Is this destiny, or just random variation?

According to William Schwert, a finance professor at the University of Rochester who studies the history of asset prices, September does have the lowest average return of any month. From 1834 (the earliest date for broad market data) through 2018, September is the only month whose average return is negative -- at minus 0.4%.

Why Do You Think They Call It 'Fall'? The U.S. stock market has, on average, earned its lowest monthly returns in September. That might be a predictable result of less sunlight and colder weather–or it might just be a random fluctuation. Average returns on U.S. stocks between 1946–2018 by month. Source: G. William Schwert, University of Rochester

But the differences across months have been small, so you shouldn’t read much into September’s relatively poor historical average return, cautions Prof. Schwert.

Over the long run, December has the best average monthly return, at nearly 1.4%, with January close behind at 1.2%. The variations “don’t have much economic significance,” says Prof. Schwert.

As for October, its returns are positive on average, at 0.4% since 1834. Since 2002, October is the third-best month, with an average 1.6% return -- even though the S&P 500 lost nearly a fifth of its value in October 2008.

So investors’ fear of September and October is based less on evidence and more on what psychologists call “availability”—the human tendency to judge how likely an event is by how easily we can recall vivid examples of it. The horrific losses of October 2008 are hard to forget. The milder gains of 7% in October 2015 and 11% in October 2011 are hard to remember.

Investors might be more prone to worry this time of year, though. Researchers have found in numerous independent studies that as summer fades into fall, people’s behavior does turn with the leaves. As the hours of daylight dwindle, brain chemistry can change, reshaping how much risk some people are willing to take.

In his 1903 book, “The ABC of Stock Speculation,” the financial chronicler Samuel Armstrong Nelson wrote: “Speculators are not disposed to trade as freely and confidently in wet and stormy weather as they are during the dry days when the sun is shining, and mankind cheerful and optimistic.” 

Investors trading options are more likely to expect losses in fall than in spring or winter. In the U.S., Canada and Australia, mutual-fund shareholders are all net sellers in their respective fall months, even though Australia’s autumn runs from March through May and it has a different tax year. 

Average returns on U.S. Treasuries appear to be higher in fall than in spring, suggesting that investors seek safety in the darker months. Stock analysts’ earnings forecasts are less optimistic in fall and winter than in spring and summer. 

Across more than 150 years of data, bidders at fine-art auctions paid more, on average, for paintings sold on longer, sunnier days than they did on shorter, darker days. Even players in the National Football League tend to be more aggressive in games played on hot days than on cool days. 

Of course, not all investing decisions are driven by psychology. Nowadays, people might tend to sell stocks in the fall in order to fund tuition payments coming due in September or to pay off credit-card debt they racked up on summer vacations. They might invest more in the first quarter of the year after pocketing year-end bonuses and tax refunds.

Still, “if bad news comes out in the fall, many investors may react more extremely than they might a few months later or earlier, when daylight is more plentiful,” says Lisa Kramer, a finance professor at the University of Toronto who has run several studies on how seasonal mood changes may affect financial behavior.

Although the stock market doesn’t always crash in the fall, you might well be more likely this time of year to treat smaller declines as harbingers of doom. Try, instead, to remember that the darkest months of the year often have the brightest returns.

Write to Jason Zweig at intelligentinvestor@wsj.com 

A Real Spin in an Airplane - A Tall Tale of a Story

THE GULFSTREAM G550

LEGENDARY QUALITY, FLEXIBLE PERFORMANCE

The G550 has the efficiency to fly 6,750 nautical miles/12,501 kilometers nonstop, but also is capable of operating out of short-field, high-altitude airports. Payload is a plus, too. The G550 can transport up to 18 passengers and still has the range to fly nonstop more than 12 hours.

The Whole Story

Famous Quotes:  …You already know the end of the stories!

• ·         Obama said, "You can keep your plan & your Dr." ... 
• ·         Bill said, "I did not have sex with that woman"…
• ·         Hillary said, "It's a video that started the attack that killed the Ambassador" …
• ·         Loretta said, “We talked for half an hour about grandkids and golf”…

A Field-base operator (FBO) is a commercial business granted the right by an airport to operate on the airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling and parking. Unidentified personnel who worked at the FBO in Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport called a TV anchor at the local ABC Station who verified the meeting. A second independent source at the airport said Loretta and Bill were alone together on board AG Loretta Lynch’s jet for half an hour.

Question: Why would AG Loretta Lynch go to Phoenix first which is 600 miles South of Aspen and then go North to Aspen from Phoenix? Anyone check on the actual flight plans of both planes?

Well, let’s see... AG Loretta Lynch was headed to Aspen, Co from Washington DC for a speaking engagement, a distance of around 1500 miles in almost a direct line from East to West. The Government plane she was flying in was more than likely a G550 with a range of 6750 miles.

She did not need to stop in Phoenix for fuel because if she would have flown direct, fuel would not be necessary. In fact, if you do the math, the G550 has the range to make that direct round trip route without refueling.

Question: Why was Bill Clinton’s plane waiting for AG Loretta Lynch’s plane to land in Phoenix when she was going to Aspen?

Also remember now, AG Loretta Lynch does not have any grandkids and doesn’t play golf. ...Hmmn!

The meeting was either planned to put the Clinton Fix on or to decide on which golf course Bill played on in Phoenix.

 

Bail Out U.S. Debt with Your Retirement Funds?

With only two weeks left before the November 4, 2014 midterm elections, the Democrats have evoked a populist riff to bolster the votes to retain majority senate control. Any companies that seek legal ways to invest their previously taxed foreign earnings in the U.S. without penalities, the CEO is branded as a "corporate deserter" by Obama. So let's go after the big bad boogyman, the greedy bloodsucking huge corporate behemoths stealing the milk out of babies' bottles who are left to starve! 

Every year, there are news stories outlining how much multinational corporations are paying in taxes. Many of the more sensational stories lead people to believe that U.S. companies pay little or nothing in taxes on their foreign earnings.

Source: KPMG LLP, U.S. audit, tax and advisory services firm,

Some politicians suggest implementing a “minimum tax” on corporate foreign earnings to prevent tax avoidance. Unfortunately, legislation that would impose these types of taxes on multinational corporations is based on a misunderstanding of how U.S. international tax rules work.

In any discussion of U.S. corporate tax policy and tax reform, it is important to understand how and to what extent multinational firms’ foreign earnings are taxed. Let's look at official U.S. IRS Tax Tables Key Findings: 

• The United States’ worldwide system of corporate taxation requires multinational corporations to pay taxes twice, first to the foreign country in which they do business and then to the IRS after they repatriate their profits.

• Petroleum and coal products manufacturing corporations paid $42.7 billion in foreign taxes on $118.2 billion in taxable income. Remarkably, this industry accounted for a quarter of all foreign earned income and 33 percent of all foreign taxes paid by U.S. multinationals. The average effective tax rate paid by petroleum and coal products manufacturers was 36.1 percent.

• While there are undoubtedly U.S. multinationals that paid low effective rates on their foreign earned income in some countries, a majority of foreign taxable income reported by U.S. corporations was taxed at effective rates between 20 and 30 percent overseas.

Source: IRS Form 1118 (2010).

Note: Includes only repatriated income and income subject to current taxation. Does not include income currently held abroad.

Conclusions

While it is undoubtedly true that U.S. multinational firms use numerous tax planning techniques to minimize the taxes, they pay on their foreign earnings.

IRS data shows that the subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals reported paying more than $128 billion in corporate income taxes to foreign tax authorities on roughly $470 billion in foreign taxable income in 2010.

"Averaged across some ninety countries, U.S. companies paid an effective tax rate of 27.2 percent on that income. While many corporations paid less than that on foreign earned income, a majority of foreign income in 2010 faced effective tax rates of 20 percent or higher in foreign countries. Furthermore, most corporate income was earned, and most corporate income taxes paid overseas were paid, by manufacturers, especially those engaged in petroleum and coal products manufacturing."

NOTE: Reporters and lawmakers who criticize U.S. companies for “avoiding” taxes on their foreign earnings need to be more careful with their language and acknowledge that our U.S. worldwide tax system requires U.S. firms to pay taxes twice on their foreign profits:  

First time to the host country

Second time to the U.S. IRS

A major point is that before U.S. companies can retain earnings to reinvest their profits back home that they pay the applicable foreign country's taxes. Then, the residual income can be repatriated to the shareholders' dividends for income distribution; company operating expenses for payroll. R&D or inventory; and cash reserves.

Have you ever asked yourself what 401K programs, Union profit sharing programs and company retirement programs are about? Hint: It's to grow tax-free investment monies to pay out for your future program benefits; it's not to reduce overall principle earnings power by paying extra income taxes to support government waste or for more debt bailouts. When you withdraw future benefits as income, the IRS then taxes you.

Any discussion about reforming the U.S. corporate tax code must keep these facts in mind. 

Hillary & Jeb's Game of Three-Card Monte

Will 'Real Candidates' be running in 2016?

"Voting for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush after the leadership train wreck of what was the eight years under Barack Hussein Obama is like losing your pay check playing a rigged game of three-card Monte and then playing the same game again a week later 'cause the cards are a different color." ~ Anon. (No racial slur intended)

Wow, I didn't realize how true that person got it as we all are looking into the 2016 elections for the next President. It's also a problem about the two prospective candidates running, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, both have last names connected to former candidates that have been revered from their respective sides as great Presidents. I will concede that they both were less destructive than Obama, but both spent the taxpayer's monies with no regard to spending or balancing budgets. I will quickly summarize:  

Bill Clinton did not leave office with 'the only balanced budget in recent history,' he accomplished it with smoke and mirrors.

Clinton feverishly spent us into massive debt along with the Republican majority controlled Congress and transferred all 'social security funds' over into the treasury to balance his deficit and left an I.O.U. in the Fed Bank vault as uncollateralized notes guaranteed under the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. These debts are not included in the OMB National Debt line items which allows them to miraculously appear in the balance sheets with income or taxes, as assets to 'balance the budget deficit.' The Social Security 'lock box' that held its funds was pillaged and not repaid--now you can see why its under water and in a financial dilemma today while leaving social security retirees with less benefits. 

G.W. Bush, on the other hand, never met a spending bill that he ever vetoed either. He increased spending and had exercised little further oversight into the whole Wall Street debacle with homes sales and sub-prime mortgages ultimately sold as 'unregulated derivatives.' All of these flaky Sub-prime mortgages increased from $18.5 billion in 1995 to $507.9 billion in 2005 which was a disaster waiting to happen and it did under both Bush and Clinton. The bank act, TARP or the Troubled Asset Recovery Program, wrongly bailed out the banks which should have declared bankruptcy and reorganized under the bankruptcy court's scrutiny--that would have probably dug up too many political land mines for both parties. Still, in turn, the Federal government could have stood behind the depositors with their FDIC guaranteed monies in the meantime while the banks reorganized without the taxpayers bailing them out. But, Washington power politics favor the banking lobbyists in power with a taxpayer bail out.--Obama continued on with further bail outs while citing his Republican predecessor did it too. 

So, can we assume that Jeb and Hillary will continue those family policies?--Ah, yeah!  There are several important key issues to consider as a non-partisan voter: 

• Both candidates support 'Common Core State Standards", the Federal Government takeover of our children's educational system. It has stripped individualism, American ideals, nationalistic pride and democratic principles away to lay down a foundation of a 'one-world', 'for the good of all', socialistic identity as a member of the 'world community' under the United Nations World Charter. It is P.C., political correctness, at its zenith of intrusion into our children's thoughts and thinking, while they are young--believe it or not our Nationalist Sovereignty or Country identity is all important if the U.S.A. is to survive the onslaught of 'One World Government' dominance to lead or we will take a place in line behind lesser nations. The Federal "Common Core' Program is supported by U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan who continues to walk a line between supporting states as he implements funding grants and not giving critics ammunition to cry "federal overreach." Meanwhile, they are weaving it further into the fiber of our education system.

• The U.S.-Mexico border stretches 2,000 miles. At issue, specifically the Immigration Law, is up for votes at the ballot box and both candidates are for an 'Amnesty Bill.' Jeb Bush's faux pas is in describing the violation by illegal immigrants as "an act of love" to cross the borders while staying illegally even as it flaunts in the face of the prevailing laws. Jeb totally ignores the even larger group of people entering our very porous border to sell illicit drugs along with human and gun trafficking. The terrorists are now enlisting the cartels to transport themselves and their WMDs across the borders too. Some points to consider:

What about enforcing border security first and then take care of the immigration reforms?

How, otherwise, does the U.S. handle an existing immigration problem when the population grows exponentially every day unchecked?

Will either party own up to just beefing up the border patrol wth resources and personnel?--deploy returning troops from the middle east. Or do our politicians shrink from any actions due to offending future potential voters as being too harsh?

Why then don't the politicians just give up their whole charade and make all the illegal immigrants legal, put them all into our welfare system, then tax all the working people and be done with it?--problems solved! 

NOTE:  Please see my September 14, 2013 blog - I saw it coming then..

RINO - DEMO Obamacon Party Logo

Bush-Clinton 2016 Presidential Campaign On

*The Obamacon Party* - A choice between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton is interchangeable, both liberals will spit out warmed-over pap what voters want to hear in their Presidential 2016 campaign races.   

Serious Political Accusations:

Jeb is currently working as an advisor for a large Wall Street firm. This certainly bodes ill for his image as he is on the payroll with one of the biggest firms on Wall Street. Bush is the only major candidate who has a direct tie to a big Wall Street investment bank as a paid advisor, a role that began in 2007 after his second term as Florida governor ended and he was hired by banking firm Lehman Brothers and in 2009 transitioning to Barclay's. But hold on, it may be much ado about nothing, read about Hillary.

Hillary is currently on the Board of Directors with the Wall Street firm of BlackRock Investments and very close with Larry Fink, Founder, a large Democrat donor and a U.S. Treasury Secretary choice under Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. BlackRock is easily the biggest investor in the world, with $4.1 trillion of directly controlled assets (almost as much as all private-equity and hedge funds put together) and another $11 trillion it oversees through its trading platform, Aladdin. 

Question: Who will throw out the Wall Street smear as Campaign attack ads?

Yellin' Yellen's Yin-Yang

Ben Bernanke's Helicopter QE Money PolicyYin-Yang. In Eastern thought, two complementary forces make up all aspects and phenomena of life. Yin is present in even numbers. Yang is present in odd numbers. Their interplay on one another (as one increases the other decreases) being a description of the actual process of the universe and all that is in it.

The overall economic philosophy contrasting Yellen to Bernanke is their policy making. Ben acted upon market pressures of the moment instead of Yellen believing in the government wisdom to guide the economy constantly throughout - ever heard of socialism, communism? 

So, who is 'Yin' or 'Yang' here?

Ben is a 'Milton Friedman,' 'free-market laissez-faire' economist, but with some of his own 'momentus intervention' such as 'quantitative easing', QE, aka 'printing money and buying back our bonds' to buoy up U.S. currency while creating inflation - contrary to Milton Friedman's basic precepts.

Janet is a 'Maynard Keyes,' 'government centrist' economist, but with a 'James Tobin' twist, as a 'reconstructionist' about unemployment as the central focus over maintaining price stabilities to control inflation. She embraces the 'Phillips Curve' and 'NAIRU', non-accelerating inflation rate of employment, the trade-off between inflation and unemployment which means always doing the fine-tuning and meddling micro-management.

In the 'new Keynesian' theories, it assumes recessions are caused by some economy-wide market failure. So, Keynesian economics provides a rationale for government intervention into the entire economy, such as countercyclical monetary or fiscal policy. That means people are not circulating enough money and the Central Government needs to get more cash out into circulation with lower interest rates on bank loans and to increase numbers of recipients for Federal benefits to put into their open hands more money to spend.

This alternating sequence of expansion and contraction in economic activity is imperfect to say the least, unpredictable to say more which leans toward outright clairvoyance riddled with glitches in deciding future events. It does take from months to years to affect different sectors of the U.S. economy; i.e., finance and banking are immediate as monies flow directly from the Federal Bank, businesses and industries are cyclical due to seasonal changes, business cycles, or technological advances can take up to years while sporadically infusing funds. So, instead of letting the 'marketplace' dictate QE timing, the 'new-Keynesian' economists forecast with their crystal balls the 'marketplace' timing of QE - just like a coach that flips a coin on whether to put a player in the game.

So, Janet says, "Let's start up the printing presses, it's QE 'funny-money' time!"  Bring out large wheelbarrows too. You'll need a bunch more bills to buy bread at $6/loaf, milk at $8/gallon and gasoline at $12/gallon.

It's again like the German Weimar Republic (1919-1933) In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.