• Carvex@lemmy.world
    361·
    2 days ago

    I’m too stupid to read and understand a picture, this means Tramp daddy is hurting the right people? The minority ones I don’t like?

    • Vent@lemm.ee
      512·
      2 days ago

      Hell yes, brother 💪😎 All of those beta cuck minorities 🦋❄️☠️☠️ are getting FUCKED 🍆💢 I lost my job of 69 ♋ years 🏗️💩🧓 but it’s all worth it 💯 to get one mutilated trans 🌈 devil 😈 off of the little girls 👸🤤💦 sports team 🏅🎾 get those genius 🧠 hard working sigma 🍑 billionaires 🤑🧑‍💼💵 more of the money they deserve and so desperately need 🎰🏆 stock buybacks and shorts will siphon money where it belongs 📈 instead of in the hands 👐 of irresponsible fucks 🤡 like me 🤏 and you🫵that immediately blow 💨 all our money 💸 on dumb shit 💩 like groceries 🍎🥦🍗

  • koper@feddit.nl
    213·
    2 days ago

    Stocks going up mostly benefits the wealthy. We shouldn’t measure success that way.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      3·
      8 hours ago

      Agreed, but this was how they measured Trump being “better on the economy”. With this final proof, there’s no reason for the rich to continue to back him…

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      481·
      2 days ago

      On the other hand stocks going down have a habit of affecting the rest of us even more.

      • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
        10·
        2 days ago

        This is a curious one. 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%, so stock going down would lead to less inequality. Yet the top 10% also gets to take out their anger at us.

        Edit: and only 50% of American house holds have any retirement savings.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          5·
          1 day ago

          They use falling stock prices a pre text to extract extra money from peasants via the state and the stage enables them.

          Most people don’t understand that this is what modern oppression looks like in the developed world. Slowly degrade quality of life over generations.

          Parasite got so fat is that now they are attempting to dismantle the US federal government and getting away with it too

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        41·
        2 days ago

        Thank you!

        I think including his first term actually sells the point of how bad this term is even more effectively than leaving it out.

      • AnonomousWolf@lemm.ee
        13·
        2 days ago

        Thanks, I don’t know why they left out his first term.

        Id actually like to see the last 10 terms

        • trashboat@midwest.social
          5·
          1 day ago

          To be fair COVID had a great deal to do with that

          Obviously he handled COVID extremely poorly and it didn’t need to be as dramatic of a crash, but I think that factor alone was the leading reason of why that happened

          • Rhaedas@fedia.io
            3·
            9 hours ago

            Handled Covid poorly as it spread, and was instrumental in undoing the tools to help stop such outbreaks developed initially by GWB and then by Obama. Oh, right, that’s why he undid a lot of it. Out of spite, not out of sense. Mirrors more or less everything he’s doing now.

          • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            2·
            13 hours ago

            I agree, and that’s one of the reasons that I’m interested in how they compare now, as those graphs were made before Biden’s term and it would be insightful to see the comparison between Biden post COVID, Trump, and the others listed.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          6·
          2 days ago

          Here’s an interactive one where you can select where you want to compare. Obama’s first term was a slide indeed, but it’s important to note that his term started after the slide had already started. I agree it should be included here in fairness, but then you’d see both the plummet as well as the recovery, and maybe some don’t want to give him credit for that and only focus on the first days.

          • Gloomy
            2·
            12 hours ago

            Wasn’t his first term in 2008? Like, the year the world housing hubble burst and banks had to be bailed out and all that? You can’t blame that on him, as little as you can blame the Corona dip on Trump. Both happend on a global scale.

            What’s different around now is that the rest the world is doing just fine while the American stock market crashed. I can’t remember any other time this happend to this extend.

    • cm0002@lemmy.worldM
      3·
      2 days ago

      I want to post it to ND so bad, but I know it’ll just get removed under the no national politics rule lol

      (Which isnt the worst rule TBH lmao)

      • uienia@lemmy.world
        17·
        2 days ago

        He didn’t do it any good either. Also even though his first term was a disastrous dumpster fire, it was still relatively tame compared to what is going on now. Back then he could still be intimidated somewhat by the system, this time he knows he can do anything he wants.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 days ago

          I assume they are implying that it will be similar to the first rerm, which requires ignoring all the differences between the two.

            • snooggums@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 days ago

              So what? Liars lie and that has zero relevance when discussing something that is factually accurate.

              • zout@fedia.io
                12·
                2 days ago

                Yeah, I’ll just delete my comments here and block this community from my feed. The way people communicate over here is not for me. Have a great day everyone, and good luck sticking it to the GOP’s.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 days ago

        You mean when he had an administration that kept guard rails in place to stop him from doing the things he really wanted to do unlike this time? Yes, it was better when he wasn’t given kingly powers.

  • cm0002@lemmy.worldM
    6·
    2 days ago

    Well DUH Don’t you LiBrUlS know? Line going up is nothing but woke DEI propaganda!11!!11!!! Drump just sees through all that and courageously makes line go down!!!1!111

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      29·
      2 days ago

      Because of the 2008 recession, obviously, which would undercut the visual argument.

      The underlying fundamentals still hold, because no one would ever argue that Obama caused the 2008 recession, while Trump did all of the work of causing the current situation himself with his dumb tariff games.

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        32·
        2 days ago

        Then you get a graph that doesn’t start at zero and you can undercut the visual argument even further

        • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
          8·
          2 days ago

          Starting at 0 would actually be silly for a normalized market index value graph like this one because the market going to true 0 is not a realistic situation. Or thought of another way, this graph is essentially zero-indexed, but 0 is marked as 100 on the Y axis. 90 in this case could be thought of as -10% value and that would be perfectly accurate. These kinds of graphs are usually misleading in other ways, usually by picking specific time ranges to represent or cut off on the X axis. For instance, you could argue that the value that Trump is erasing here is largely offset by the market gains from November to January that could be arguably attributed to speculative optimism about Trump winning the election and so the crash that is shown is actually just a market correction. One might point out that triggering a market bubble and subsequent correction is no matter of pride in response to that argument, but it is there