First order effects are all that is taught in Community Organizing to the base level student from the work books I’ve seen. And to their leaders only the power and money that flows from those 1st order actions is of any importance. Works well locally I suppose but on a larger stage there is an audience beyond an auditorium or meeting room.

I don’t get the tactics against Sinema.

She must come back into the fold or be CAST OUT.

My long-time observation is that leftists don’t “do” second-order effects. Sure, there are probably subtle strategists out there who plot things five moves in advance, but the average leftist activist only thinks about what they want NOW and the whole concept of unintended consequences is a mystery to them.

I understand your question. Your question is misconceived. The salient datum would be the trajectory of corporate earnings among the set of companies from which the index is composed, not any other component of gross domestic product.

What effect this will have on the party’s behavior re cheating is unknown. But it may make the party more willing to go for a Hail Mary on the filibuster or SCOTUS packing!

Republicans need to start banging the drum loudly that cheating, rules changing, or packing are hills they will die on, because they would signal the inevitable death of America!

Dude, you’re saying a whole bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the basic question I’m asking. Let me break it down for you.

Over the last 40 years, the U.S. economy has grown. The U.S. stock market over the last 40 years has also grown, but its increase is so far above and beyond the country’s actual economic growth as to stagger the imagination. The performance of the market over the last 40 years has also been radically different than the performance of the market for at least the 70 years before that.

Talking about p/e ratios and the Taylor Rule doesn’t address my basic concern in ANY way. To me, the U.S. stock market (and our whole financial system) appear to have little if any connection to the underlying economic realities of the country. Is that true? Has that always been the case? If it is true and has always been the case, why has the stock market grown so much more in the last 40 years than the 70 years before that? If it is true and has not always been the case, is the current dynamic of a stock market VASTLY overvalued compared to the real economy sustainable? If it is not true, why does it appear that way?

Mike

Not entirely certain that he’s the guy though (since it seems that he DID support Trump, though I could have gotten that wrong), so I’m not sure. Possibly…
Anyway, here’s a link to a video of some sort:
https://ellacruz.org/2021/08/21/watch-patrick-byrnes-the-deep-rig-movie-how-a-fraud-cost-a-nation-a-presidency/

And at the expense of re-opening a most revolting can of worms, here’s something that came up on a DuckDuckGo search that included “statistics”. Once again, FWIW…and, of course, “caveat emptor”:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/still-unexplained-caught-pennsylvania-results-show-statistically-impossible-pattern-behind-bidens-steal/

The real problem? The Democrats have gone full RABID…and about half the country either isn’t aware OR agrees with ’em…

You’re looking at the wrong numbers. The stock price over time is going to be a function of the market’s understanding of the discounted present value of the company’s earnings stream. The p/e ratios of major stock indices do vary over time, but they tended for four generations to fluctuate around a set point of 14. During the period running from 1990 to the present, they’ve been persistently high, typically around 22.

During the period running from 1985 to 2003, the monetary policy stance was not entirely determined by the Taylor Rule, but it was largely so. Alan Greenspan said as much explicitly and Taylor has said that monetary policy in that era was conducted the way he preferred. The phase change occurred during a period of rules based policy. It was only around 2002 that the Fed began to make ad hoc maneuvers and only in 2008 that they began to use unconventional policy tools. Interestingly, p/e ratios in the era of ‘quantitative easing’ haven’t exceeded those of the period since 1990 generally.

Note, the Fed’s most consequential task is maintaining price stability, something they did rather well from 1990 to 2019.

“Canst thou, O partial sleep, give thy repose
To the wet sea-boy in an hour so rude,
And in the calmest and most stillest night,
With all appliances and means to boot,
Deny it to a king? Then happy low, lie down!
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”

Henry IV

I for one, though I fear for the future of the country I love, sleep just fine as I have stolen nothing, nor lied my way into what little power I have.