As easy as winning the presidency and having enough loyalty within your base to say "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." then win reelection just 8 years later?
Because even with crises, over the long term the only direction is up.
Its probably not so much that people trust it but either you invest broadly (index funds) and trust long historical data that the likely direction is up or you think you have more information than other people and can beat the market.
Only if you look at American stock market data. And that's extreme cherry-picking, because the American stock market is by far the best performing over the last century. What are the chances the American stock market will be the best performing next century?
The standard claim is that "even if you bought at the absolute worst time, if you held for 10 years you would have been positive after inflation". This statement is true for the US stock market, but not true for many other stock markets.
There's "lost decade" periods in the US market as well, that's why you shouldn't invest in a single market, and should apply unit cost averaging instead of dumping all your money at once.
In nominal terms it always goes up. In real terms, like priced in gold, DJIA is cheaper today than in 1929. (13 ounces of gold today vs. 14 ounces of gold in 1929).
But how often is that true? Gold prices doubled in the past 5 years, with 10% of that coming in the past few months, after declining for most of the 2010s.
To be clear, here, this form of "manipulation" is kind of impossible to really deal with? Or do you have something in mind that should be able to more smoothly work with this?
From the president of the united states? Especially knowing that controlling tariffs and such are easily argued to be in his core powers, in the current setting, what authority would they possibly have to do something on this?
But they would have to prove insider info? Which would require discovery against communications to/from the president. Which you know they would argue against.
So, let me rephrase, do you think it is likely that they would do anything?
Any action they are taking around deciding whether or not there is a national security interest in managing tariffs is easily covered by everyone's understanding of what is in the presidential duties. As such, it is fully off limits for any review, per last year's immunity ruling. No?
Now, congress can take away that delegation. They could also cancel any declarations. But actions taken by the admin in pursuing this will almost certainly be seen as core duties by the supreme court. As such, I don't see any real opening for review in this?
I trust the stock market only after at least 5 years have passed, preferably 10. Short term (less than that) the stock market has always been about popularity, but long term the most profitable companies always rise to the top.
Traditionally US stockmarkets are not that easily manipulated. This type of blatent grift and insider trading was for banana republics, and that's why stock markets in those places aren't serious.
