Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows • Hacker News Board

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#401

Post by jusben1369 » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 11:48 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #378

jusben1369 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 0% interest rate for several years is not healthy That's not healthy or unhealthy. It's just a thing. > QE is not healthy Ask Europe that didn't do quantitative easing (or did too little too late) which economy they'd rather have right now. And it's no longer a thing - because it ran its course and largely worked. >Inflating assets is not healthy Some classes of assets are inflating. Some are deflating. Again it's…

>Ask Europe that didn't do quantitative easing (or did too little too late) which economy they'd rather have right now. And it's no longer a thing - because it ran its course and largely worked. This isn't an excluded-middle sort of question. QE is indeed very unhealthy, precisely because it's a solely monetary stimulus, pumping up finance while households and public services starve. Fiscal stimulus works far better…

You mean less optimal not unhealth .

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#402

Post by acjohnson55 » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 12:17 PM UTC

cryoshon wrote: post #222

acjohnson55 wrote: post #152

A whole lot of aphorisms in this commentary about falling knives and dead cats, but very little actual information. If you're trying to time the bottom you may as well take your money to the blackjack table. The quants are probably going to make a bunch of money, but if you're just a regular person, you should probably just continue making your regularly scheduled 401k contributions and diversified investments. Histo…

So the assumption is that stock prices increase on an infinite time scale? Seems a bit naive...

Not necessarily, assuming there's still a whole lot of economic development, growth, and innovation left before we achieve stasis. I think we've got generations left to go before we shift into a new paradigm.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#403

Post by maratd » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 1:25 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #400

maratd wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism is state ownership of all property. The parent gave the proper definition of socialism. It is the state ownership of the means of production. Europe is not socialist. There were various attempts, but the means of production is still overwhelmingly private.

Reading Lenin's letters in the Lenin museum in Tampere was very eye opening and educational. Communism was never meant to be the state ownership of all property. It was meant to be the centralized state ownership of the means of production (mainly mining and large infrastructure) with cottage industries (local farmers and makers etc) existing and operating in a free market. Shortly before his death Lenin warned the p…

> Reading Lenin's letters in the Lenin museum in Tampere was very eye opening and educational.

Since when is Lenin an authority on communism? He was a thug, same as Stalin.

> cottage industries (local farmers and makers etc) existing and operating in a free market.

To his credit, they did do some very interesting things in the 20s. Then Stalin came to power and that ended.

> Again social ownership of the means of production does not necessarily mean state ownership.

Yes, it does.

The USSR was NEVER communist. United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

It was a truly socialist state. All the means of production were state controlled, but private property did exist.

The GOAL was to eventually reach communism.

> Today Europe is largely a social democracy which aims to walk the line between socialism and capitalism.

Ok, but the line between socialism and capitalism isn't socialism. As previously mentioned, a welfare state seems a more apt description.

> Socialism has had a major impact on European politics.

Agreed.

> there is not such a fervent religious belief in unbridled capitalism as one would find in the States

There is no "fervent religious belief in unbridled capitalism" in the US. Zero.

Capitalism is a mixture of free market and government subsidy. The government doesn't manufacture anything, but does get heavily involved in the markets through subsidies, regulations, financial instruments, outright purchases of goods, etc. Generally a 70/30 split is considered the norm, where 30% of all market activity is government controlled.

Nobody is excited over this.

There is a "fervent" belief in the free market and the idea that capitalism isn't ideal and that we should tweak that split and reduce government involvement. That we should move toward a free market. That gets people excited.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#404

Post by redwood » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 1:36 PM UTC

rancur wrote: post #387

redwood wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is dangerous stuff because you're implying that a few success stories or missed opportunities are representative of what folks can expect

no...each should be very careful...in my case, I was dead right twice. The third was a wash, and is why I don't bother unless I'm 100% certain (which I wasn't, the third time)

Don't mislead the inexperienced: there is no such thing as 100% certainty unless you're peddling something or being peddled abd then it's gambling and luck and manipulation and a game of chicken.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#405

Post by rorykoehler » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #403

rorykoehler wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading Lenin's letters in the Lenin museum in Tampere was very eye opening and educational. Communism was never meant to be the state ownership of all property. It was meant to be the centralized state ownership of the means of production (mainly mining and large infrastructure) with cottage industries (local farmers and makers etc) existing and operating in a free market. Shortly before his death Lenin warned the p…

> Reading Lenin's letters in the Lenin museum in Tampere was very eye opening and educational. Since when is Lenin an authority on communism? He was a thug, same as Stalin. > cottage industries (local farmers and makers etc) existing and operating in a free market. To his credit, they did do some very interesting things in the 20s. Then Stalin came to power and that ended. > Again social ownership of the means of pro…

>There is a "fervent" belief in the free market and the idea that capitalism isn't ideal and that we should tweak that split and reduce government involvement. That we should move toward a free market. That gets people excited.

Serious question. How is this any different than unbridled capitalism? No government involvement and a laissez-faire approach to the market is exactly what unbridled capitalism looks like in my understanding.

Just because Socialism is in the name USSR doesn't necessarily mean anything. If we are to look at the name Nazi which was the National Socialists Party and their Italian counterpart was a major proponent (even father of) of Corporatism, a rather extreme form of capitalism (though in the case of USSR it might be true, as I said earlier Communism is a form of Socialism).

The Welfare State has it's roots in Socialism. Socialism is an umbrella term. Anarchism is a main branch of Socialism (the other two being reformism and Marxism) and to be fair extreme Anarchists don't want a State at all so Socialism cannot and does not mean State ownership. This is one of the major confusions into what Socialism means and kills any possible meaningful discussion around the topic, especially in the USA where Communism and Socialism are used interchangeably. The spectrum of allowable political ideology in the USA is so narrow that only center-right and far-right exist. This is a very unhealthy situation as there are great ideas to be found from across the political spectrum. Just to be clear I'm not saying this to say Europe is better or anything but I do find it an unfortunate state of affairs.

Also Lenin didn't kill 50m+ people just because he was paranoid. You can't lump them together. Stalin was arguably worse than Hitler. While Lenin was certainly not a saint, he was an intellectual with brilliant ideas, operating in an extremely difficult environment.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#406

Post by photosinensis » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 2:43 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #291

photosinensis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it should. He should have known to short-sell pretty much everything if he really predicted it. I remind everybody that it takes no money to short sell. If you really think everything is gonna tank, do it. Put your skin in the game.

Note well, however: This is almost always terrible financial advice. Don't do it unless you're prepared to be bankrupt if you're wrong.

Yep. Short selling is usually very bad financial advice, outside of some very specific situations where you have solid reasons to believe that prices will fall. But if you're going to say financial catastrophe is right around the corner, put some skin in the game. Be prepared to go bankrupt if you're wrong.

It's easy to say "I saw it coming!" after it's happened. But if you saw it coming, why didn't you do something to take advantage of the situation (given that doing something about it is pretty much impossible)?

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#407

Post by unprepare » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 3:15 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #234

dataker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of your ideological background, you cannot possibly assert the U.S economy is healthy. 0% interest rate for several years is not healthy. QE is not healthy. 100+ % debt:GDP ration is not healthy. Inflating assets is not healthy. A vanishing middle-class is not healthy.

A vanishing middle-class is not healthy. Everyone's been picking at all your claims except this one, so let me jump in on this part. You've been drinking too much of the kool-aid. It's certainly fashionable for talking heads to spout platitudes about the middle class, but it doesn't match the real world. The picture that's being painted is that the vast majority of us will be living lives as serfs, while a group of o…

When you actually look at the numbers, rather than simply believing the graphic, you will find that your data proves your opponent correct.

The income levels that fell during the studied period:

15,000-24,999

25,000-34,999

35,000-49,999

50,000-74,999

75,000-99,999

Income levels that grew:

100,000-100,000+

100k + increased by 6%

75k-99k decreased by 1.1%

50k-74k decreased by 3.1%

But sure, you could make up your own categories for the data to make 75,000+ look like it went up, when in reality it was only 100,000+ that showed an increase.

The fact is that the middle class is shrinking, and wages are stagnant or falling.

I encourage you to actually check the sources linked in articles - when you find different categories of data in the article than the study, its likely something is being misrepresented.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#408

Post by 6stringmerc » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 3:35 PM UTC

tertius wrote: post #319

6stringmerc wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I think there's some pretty clear correlation that numerous large companies have been using cheap credit in the bond market to buy back shares at a rapid pace (billions) and further inflate the status of the equities market. That's the cheap credit that isn't doing anything other than fleecing the non-investor class. It's simply financial engineering dependent on access to cheap credit, from what I understand.

Yes, buy backs has been a large contributor to indices heading upwards. A lot of these companies issue their own bonds at rates lower than even their dividends. In the public bond market, how is lending fleecing the "non-investor class"?

How? Because the Federal Reserve enables the cheap credit pegged to a near-zero interest rate to institutions on Wall Street, who turn around and loan to large organizations through channels by which the Wall Street firms will receive compensation by way of financial transactions. If you add up all the pocketing that goes along before a single retail investor has a shot at a position, then you'll understand what I meant by the 'fleecing' comment. Well, that and go back to the first point that the Federal Reserve's ridiculously low interest rate for the past half-dozen years punishes Savers, who are not investors in the market directly (that's why they're called savers), and that's a very large population being taken advantage of by a sophisticated system.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#409

Post by AnimalMuppet » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 4:17 PM UTC

rsmckinney wrote: post #386

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the Fed no longer pumping QE at $80B/month.

For now... QE 4 is coming, there is no doubt. It's the only tool in the chest. This time around though it won't be parked directly in the banks, but more likely it will be helicoptered directly to consumers, probably in the form of tax breaks, directly or indirectly. QE 4 will happen, but it still won't work of course because the economy sucks and people won't spend it, it will find its way back into the banks after…

> For now... QE 4 is coming, there is no doubt.

Actually, I doubt that.

But if you're going to classify even tax breaks as QE4, then, sure, sooner or later there's going to be some tax breaks to somebody for something. Big enough to really classify as QE4? I doubt it.

Re: Stocks Off Sharply as Market Upheaval Grows

#410

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 25, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

rsmckinney wrote: post #386

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see the Fed no longer pumping QE at $80B/month.

For now... QE 4 is coming, there is no doubt. It's the only tool in the chest. This time around though it won't be parked directly in the banks, but more likely it will be helicoptered directly to consumers, probably in the form of tax breaks, directly or indirectly. QE 4 will happen, but it still won't work of course because the economy sucks and people won't spend it, it will find its way back into the banks after…

> QE 4 is coming, there is no doubt. It's the only tool in the chest.

Only if -- as you apparently do -- you redefine "QE" so broadly as to include not only every tool in the chest, but tools in completely different chests, as well.

> This time around though it won't be parked directly in the banks, but more likely it will be helicoptered directly to consumers, probably in the form of tax breaks, directly or indirectly.

QE is a kind of monetary policy, tax breaks are fiscal policy (and QE is specifically monetary stimulus by central bank purchase of financial assets from financial institutions.) These differ in kind (not degree) and authority -- the Federal Reserve can do monetary policy like QE, but not tax breaks; only Congress can do fiscal stimulus.