Chelsea Clinton's husband lost a ton of money on Greece - page 2

To add comments, please log in or register
pavaka
4412
pavaka  
davidcraigson:
I can't agree on that one. In GENERAL you can rely on it... but in practice? Not so much. For example, the theory of wars being created to help out peoples kids may be true, but may also not be. I agree she might try and help, BUT no one can predict certain things. Such as who will win an election and what policies he/she might try to affect/inflict.

elections are done deal...so is policies...so you are not correct 2 times...plus...99.9% of what we get in the news is prearranged...my point is ...if we did not need to hear about that jerk loosing 200 millions we would not...they would kill the story even if some journalist discovered it...and we know that of late journalists don't do anything unless...

techmac
2973
techmac  
davidcraigson:
I can't agree on that one. In GENERAL you can rely on it... but in practice? Not so much. For example, the theory of wars being created to help out peoples kids may be true, but may also not be. I agree she might try and help, BUT no one can predict certain things. Such as who will win an election and what policies he/she might try to affect/inflict.

Come on :

How many "professional politician" families are there in the USA (where Congress and Senate is flooded by those). What about the Kennedy family? What about the Bush family? The last Bush ruined an oil drilling company, got bailed out (bought out) from that company by the bin Laden family and then he became a president of the USA?

Same things in Europe. Same things in Asia (check the "political families" in India and China)

Nothing is as predictable as politics.

And nothing is as predictable as what those "politicians" are doing and are going to do once they grab any kind of power

thenews
28489
thenews  

Three reasons why markets would love a President Hillary Clinton

Greg Valliere at Potomac Research says Hillary Clinton, "has to be considered the favorite to win the presidency."

And for the markets, Valliere thinks a Clinton presidency would be a positive.

"Our very early bottomline is that the markets could gladly live with her," Valliere wrote in a note Tuesday.

Valliere gives three main reasons why:

  1. A divided government is good for markets: Stocks rose over 200% when Bill Clinton was president. Hillary would have to deal with a Republican-controlled house – currently a 246 - 188 majority, and the GOP is likely to be in control until the next redistricting exercise in 2021.
  2. She'll avoid the "us-versus-them rhetoric" against Wall Street, with a more moderate approach to big business than President Obama.
  3. She's a crony capitalist, or someone who would develop a close relationship with businesses and give them incentives to invest in the economy. While some like senator Elizabeth Warren see this as a problem, it's actually a plus for Clinton because she would look to market leaders for advice more than Obama has. Regulations on business would not be as tough as they are under Obama, if she wins.

And what's more, Valliere adds that if the 2016 presidential race turns out to be Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush, markets will find either winner acceptable.

12
To add comments, please log in or register