|
Ardennes posted:[The S&P in particular has looked rather "saw-toothed" for the past 9 months.] This is some laughable sample bias rear end poo poo. By which I mean have you considered a career in professional finance analysis?  The S&P500's two collapses in the last year have both been due to reasons that have little do to with the actual US economy. The first in August was a direct consequence of the Leverage Stock Market crash in China which sent every market in the world into a worry-break for several months. The second one back in January was similarly the result of the investors flinching as Oil prices and further problems in China made people worry about a recession with powerful players screaming fire at the top of their lungs. What I'm trying to convene here is that the S&P500 is a bad indicator for predicting the state of the economy.
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Not not really? Personally, I think the indexes have been over-inflated for years due to the low-rate environment and that if anything is likely to trigger a recession it's going to be a return to the norm on central rates which would most definitely trigger speculation crashes on real estate in countries like Canada and Sweden. A correction is bound to happen, it's just a matter of when. But that is just a hunch. You can guess that a crash is imminent, and history might very well prove you right with all the monstrous profits making that call can include, but you can't scientifically predict it before it happens. There are simply too many factors at play. As for the S&P500, I would argue that it is far more likely to fall as a result of whatever the disaster will be then it is to be the cause of the disaster. EDIT: Stop editing your post. 
MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, I doubt it is only going to be Canada or Sweden, just look at the Bay Area and how much real estate has exploded. I said like, not exclusively, you will find no argument here.  ( )Ardennes posted:It isn't going to cause the disaster but it is one of multiple indicators. They have been over inflated for years, but the question is while they are still in so much of a holding pattern especially since the Fed is still dragging their feet on rates. It is almost certain we will have a recession before rates return to their pre-crisis norm. I mean in 2006-2007 they were at over 5 percent, which would takes years at the rate the Fed is moving. Yeah of course there is a finite horizon, did I claim otherwise? 9 months of S&P500 activity is still a poo poo indicator. Put your money where your mouth is if you believe otherwise instead arguing with me, there's millions in it for you if you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
rscott posted:There's only a few ways to fix wealth inequality (socializing the means of production, a 100% estate tax over a certain amount, a wealth tax) and none of them are palatable to liberals because intergenerational accumulation of wealth is literally what capitalism is designed to do. Kinda, the endgame of capitalism is effectively transitioning back into feudalism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
e_angst posted:So wait, the endgame of the very system that tore down feudalism is to transition back into feudalism? Well that's a matter of debate, traditional liberal thinkers like Adam Smith clearly had an understanding that there are limitations to private ownership that need to be respected to maintain a capitalist system. In the Wealth of Nations he argues that you should let the invisible hand do its thing but keep a watch on wealth concentration and lack of competition less the system collapse unto itself. Then we have more recent thinkers like Robert Nozick who in Anarchy, State and Utopia declares that private ownership is at the core of being free and that the state only exists to protect that freedom. Property is an exentension of the body and as such redistribution of any kind is tantamount to depriving an individual of its limbs and is unacceptable except when necessary for the state to upphold and protect private ownership and voluntary agreements. One of these systems has naive notions about the viability of free markets, and the other creates a system of inheritance which over generations can only concentrate wealth and offset the role of the state as anything but muscle to protect that wealth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I guess it's time to discuss the election's impact on the economic prognosis of America and the world. There's not really anything to discuss until January though? So far the prospective stock market collapse has been thwarted by Trumps victory speech and on the currency markets it is clear that people are stocking up on dollars. As we literally don't know how many election promises Donald plans on enforcing or what of them he will be able to actually successfully affect anything could happen next year.  Expect worldwide economic collapse if the US actually puts up tariffs.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Worse for the world or worse for America? I'm just wondering how hard we'll be hit by that. Mostly worse for the world. The EU could probably be fine it wasn't so busy circling the drain with austerity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:We're almost done with 2016. Stop loving trying to jinx December for us.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
I'm both. Hedging my personal finances while speculating with my business portfolio.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:financialadvisors.txt I know that it sounds ridiculous but from an accounting viewpoint I can assure you that it's very rational.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
I don't even want to imagine what effects the second biggest currency in the world collapsing would have on exchange markets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Mozi posted:The great (?) thing about living in interesting times is we get to see what happens. I'd prefer if it didn't happen during the most important investment years of my lifetime. Boomers had it so easy by comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm gonna ask something dumb: the DOW and NASDAQ and all that have been hitting records after Trump's election, and people are saying that means Trump is good for the economy. However, I don't really understand how we go from high DOW and NASDAQ to "everyone has jobs and money now". I also don't see how Trump himself is what caused the market changes. How does this matter and why is it happening? It's an effect of Trump's victory speech. The markets are basically like a horse, nervous as gently caress and will get spooked by anything unexpected. For example, in 2014 the market would collapse basically every single time Syriza announced a press conference and then immediately rebound when the press conference turned out to be nothing. (I made a lot of money off of this) What happened after the election is kinda similar. After it was clear that Trump was winning we had a market panic (the markets had already begun deflating after the FBI announcement about Hillary but they really turned at this moment) for about 2 hours, until his victory speech that is. The tone of that speech was so unexpected and out of character that the markets basically rebounded immediately. There was hope that maybe the world wasn't ending and we have basically been riding it since. I think Trump speaking with a lot of republican and investment bank insiders is also further increasing that effect since there is then hope that maybe he won't actually end global trade as we know it. For now, the markets are mostly optimistic. This has no bearing on anything in the real economy but companies ability to get loans.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Fiscal policy from any western nations would probably send markets exploding upwards at this point. Everyone is tired of the low-growth environment.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Keeping in mind that stuff like the Dow and NASDAQ at this point have an extremely, extremely tenuous relationship with reality and are even further away from the 'real' economy. It's all financial organizations trading numbers back and forth to get their numbers to go up. This is dangerous thinking. Momentous shifts in the market have little effect on reality (aside from traders exchanging profits/losses) but actual crashes have wide-ranging implications for everything from lending to pension funds. It's only fake until a big financial institution gets hit by liquidity crunch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Lol, I'm bearish on the economy but anyone thinking that a Trump administration immediately leads to a recession is probably thinking emotionally about the election (and can feel free to short the market). I don't think it'll crash the S&P500 anytime soon but I'm very worried about the international bond markets. So many economies are completely drowning in housing bubbles and all it'd take to burst it at this point is someone shouting fire loud enough to crash the entire thing. Like look at household debt in Canada, Australia, Sweden, UK, Ireland, etc. It's terrifying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
You can't really call central banks support-buying bonds "expansionary", it's a mockery of the concept.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Is this the right thread to post gulag the bankers or is that a no-no That's not even in a left sentiment anymore in 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:This mother fucker has straight up sued the EPA to allow more mercury, arsenic and sulfur in the air. Didn't realize Trump was an adherent to satanism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:the Grover Iraq Invasion List. The what now? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
People who have latched unto the concept in the last year don't seem to actually be aware that neoliberalism has been the dominant political ideology since the aftermath of the second Saudi Oil on both right and left. Reagan kicked it off in the US and for Europe Thatcher was our emissary. Anglo-saxon nations such as the US and UK changed much quicker than social democratic Scandinavia or Ordoliberal Germany (not really kicking it off until the 90's) but everyone was along for the ride after that point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Noone was suggesting anything about the race of said mothers until Helsing brought it up after my statement. Noone was making any kind of value judgement about minorities wrt work but enjoy your popcorn I guess? He was making a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:I'm currently under the impression the chinese don't care how well their investments perform. They'll have to eventually or face the consequences, this is why fiat currencies are tricky.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:How could anyone think this is a good idea? Because just like you built the amount incrementally you will be draining the amount incrementally. Crashes and downturns don't really hold as much a sway when you're diversified across both stock markets and asset classes. You can just eat the small short-term loss because you will be dead in 20 years. Pollyanna posted:I also just can't really see a genuine, reliable way to make more than marginal profit off of the stock market without both a major crash and a whole bunch of luck. What? All you really need is time. A dead person could be a successful long-term investor given a couple of decades and a steady income. This is doubly true in the age of index funds were some lovely investor can't take your money and gamble it away on the derivatives market or whatever to earn himself a bonus. What you cannot make without luck, insider trading or a crash is massive short-term gains. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I guess I don't quite understand how this all works. If this is the system we have to work with, I might as well figure out how to game it as much as possible... Financial literacy is a good skill to have until the day that the world reverts to some pre-1980's state or goes full communist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Do you realize there are other countries besides the US, and they have all done much worse than the US in the past 8 years? Obama did make massive changes and that led to things going from completely terrible to sorta good. I'm not sure why you think this best case scenario, whatever it is, would have even been achievable. That's not really a counterargument in any way. Haha also what? Who is doing worse than the US? I guess the UK is steadily catching up to you on homelessness and poverty but the rich northern economies with some at their literal worst in centuries with massive unemployment are still a whole lot better than the US. The US is richer than almost every northern economy and on the list of exceptions the only relevant one is Norway. It doesn't have to be like this. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:That’s not really how a court system works. Just because a company can challenge a country’s laws doesn’t mean it is likely they will win ISDS are not a traditional court system, it's a system of arbitration and no that is exactly the opposite how they tend to work out. It has successfully been used to bully third-world countries from enacting everything from labor and environmental laws to re-nationalization of mishandled resources. Mining methods poisoning your fresh-water supply? Better buckle up because if you try to do anything about it you can be sued to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Nationalized healthcare is actually a pretty great corporate subsidy as every country to ever try it has found out. Also, unlike weapon production and 3rd world bombing which is for the most part glorified plate-spinning healthcare actually does produce some efficiency in the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
anonumos posted:He's reducing taxation to just the first step: taking money out of the economy. And it would shrink the economy of its journey ended there. Nation states, famous for hoarding cash.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's funny because apparently taking double the money that public health care would cost 'out of the economy' to pay for private health care and the insurance industry is just fine. Hey now, you better watch your tongue before the god of supply-side economics strikes you down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Seriously, gently caress dental costs. I ended up delaying some dental work at the beginning of last year until it was a legitimate emergency because my insurance doesn't cover dental and I was desperately trying to avoid the expense. My total out of pocket costs were around $2000 after using a dental discount plan to defer some of the cost. The whole thing honestly scared the poo poo out of me because I have no idea what I would have or could have done if I hadn't been able to absorb that cost. Well for old people the solution is to either fork over anywhere in between 10-40k (Case: ) or rip out all of their teeth. Dental care a class issue? No way!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Thoughts? I for one am wondering when the bubble is gonna burst on Wall Street's dream of there's going to be a massive economic boost from Trump's economic policy. Not anytime soon, there are a lot of fortune 500 companies which would stand to gain from both tax cuts and the tariffs Trump keeps promising. I'd be more worried about Silicon Valley imploding on itself if Uber, Snapchat or Airbnb tries to IPO which could shake faith in the entire tech sector and kick off a recession.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
It's very telling that the third world countries that didn't wholesale adopt the Washington Consensus are the ones that are actually doing better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:benevolent dictatorship? Logistically impossible
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
I'm going to make the counterargument that the decrease in poverty we're seeing is the direct result of the investments and funds made available by the World Bank and IMF rather than the often predatory demands that follow those investments. If you replace dirt roads with asphalt, tills with tractors and people with conveyor belts you're going to have economic growth almost irregardless of what policies follow. If you look at the results it's clear as a day that the third world economies that worked around the policies advocated by the Washington consensus rather than with it are doing better.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
cheese posted:The end goal of globalization is to open up all markets to western goods, gain access to cheap raw material and to fully neutralize the high wage labor of western workers. Anything else is just incidental. No one needs to look further than the IMF to see proof of this. First, we'll in-debt your nation-state at the first chance we get (dictators, populist and corrupt governments in general are great for this). Secondly, we'll bail you out but only if you agree to policy demands that will make it impossible for your economy to recover or you to ever meaningfully pay us back putting you in a debt-spiral. Finally, we will graciously buy whatever assets or resources that still reside in your country at a bargain price point that you will have no recourse but to accept as you're drowning in interest payments from paying back our loans. Try to resist and we'll implode your banking sector/currency exchange rate and make your people starve as food stops coming in and cars run out of gas. It's... Yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Yes and exactly during that time there was no economic growth (for literally thousands of years) and one third of your country might suddenly die because there's too much or too little rain. If you're going to post nonsense can't you at least give us the courtesy of pretending that you're operating on some kind of rational basis?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The middle class doesn't determine global economic trends on the political level at all. Uh, Reagan? Thatcher? Nixon? TRUMP????? EDIT: Like sure, but only if you pretend that economic ideas manifest into politics from the aether. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Speaking of NAFTA, the poorest households actually benefit the most from NAFTA and other free trade agreements with poorer countries because they disproportionately consume cheap, imported goods. Consequently, protectionist trade policies, e.g. Trump's border adjustment tax proposal, hurt poor families the most. I'm sure being able to buy cheaper smartphones, TV's and baby-gap t-shirts is a huge comfort to the lower income strata working in uncertain 8$ an hour employments while drowning in debt, increasing property costs and healthcare they could never afford. No way is this just not patchwork on a completely unsustainable situation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Zikan posted:why do people keep arguing with the guy who has stated that some of his opinions on economics come from RTS videogames Oh?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 17:45
|
|