Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dow plunges 1000 points

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 365 posts

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#281

Post by cmontella »

sanderjd wrote: post #228
cmontella wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current admin has proposed a multi billion dollar wall (turns out we will pay for that after all), a trillion dollar infrastructure project, and increases in military spending. What is this "reduced spending" you're talking about?

It seems pretty straightforward: they likely aren't in favor of those policies either.

Who is "they" exactly? The party that spent the past 8 years talking about how deficits and spending are going to destroy the country are currently running things... and looking to increase deficits and spending. Self labeled "fiscal conservatives" just voted for a $1.5T unfunded tax cut, banking on essentially fairy dust (trickle down economic voodoo) to save the budget.

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#282

Post by megy »

xienze wrote: post #198
state_less wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't a big fan of the tax cuts, even though I'll see the proceeds from them. Some think that the less you pay, the better, all the way to zero. In my view, taxes are like porridge, you don't want it too hot or too cold. The best amount is not too little or too much. I too worry about the deficit and think we need to tax the biggest gainers a bit more and provide safety nets for the economic losers so they can bre…

> I wasn't a big fan of the tax cuts, even though I'll see the proceeds from them. Some think that the less you pay, the better, all the way to zero. So I take it you’ll be paying extra on your federal taxes next year and earmarking the difference for the federal debt or other things you find worthwhile?

Yes, because obviously me paying an extra $10,000 is the same as everyone paying an extra $10,000. Do you think we just hate money?? Is that where you are coming from?

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#283

Post by cmontella »

vkou wrote: post #245
mtanski wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If salaries rise, the expectation is that people will spend more and push inflation higher. Sure sucks to be a worker. When your salary rises your real gains will be inflated away.

If salaries aren't coming out of investor profits, they have to come out of the cost of goods. The only way workers can win is: 1. Productivity gains make goods easier to make. 2. A bigger share of investor profits get redistributed to workers, be it through taxes, pension fund investments, co-ops. #2 will not be happening anytime soon.

And #1 has been happening for decades, yet wages have stagnated. So the conclusion is workers can't win?

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#284

Post by oculusthrift »

gonational wrote: post #194
oculusthrift wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how can you simultaneously care about the deficit and support the tax cuts. Cognitive dissonance?

Um... by reducing spending.

yes but there’s no plan to do that. so as it stands we’ve committed to less income with increased spending. (the wall, wars, infrastructure) sounds legit.

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#285

Post by mcguire »

prepend wrote: post #175
mcguire wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long term returns over the last century have been about 3%, after taxes, inflation, etc. If have to do some digging to find the chart. "Long term" is longer than 20 years.

Cool. I’d like to see that chart because there will need to be some interesting assumptions about taxes. The 20th century was particularly good and I think the average return was closer to 6 than 3.

https://www.crestmontresearch.com/stock-matrix-options/

The assumptions should be documented there.

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#286

Post by gibybo »

bduerst wrote: post #108
gibybo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those assets only produce income because of the current working population. This isn't strictly required of course, but it has been the case for a long time and is likely to remain mostly true for the foreseeable future.

This is some strange, broad descriptive logic that makes me think you just want to give credit to the working population for retirees. You could make similar claims about consumers or infrastructure being required for assets to make income, or any other facet of an economy. It doesn't make any of it like a ponzi scheme.

Eh I don't think it's a ponzi scheme, I'm just defending that it does have an important property in common: new participants pay for old ones.

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#287

Post by richardknop »

cmontella wrote: post #278
richardknop wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every time a president claims economic growth to be because of them they reveal themselves to either be a liar or a fool. Every president claims credit if economy is doing well. Same for Obama, Bush and Clinton. All were claiming credit for their periods of solid economy. That's just what you do as politician, take credit for good things and try to blame somebody else for bad things. Part of the political professio…

True, but it's rare that a President claims on an almost daily basis that he alone is responsible for the current standing of the stock market specifically. Just last week he claimed had Clinton been elected, the market would have lost 50% of its value.

Yeah I mean Trump is obviously more extreme in bragging about everything good being because of him. But the other side also kept predicting that if Trump won the election stock market would crash immediately and recession would ensue, instead we got one of the craziest bull markets for over a year and a very robust economy (I mean let's see what happens next, this could be start of a bear market, but stocks are still up a LOT since his election).

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#288

Post by quickthrower2 »

Matt_Mickiewicz wrote: post #84

I was just reading: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5581f17ee4b01f59c2b15... tldr; * The Global Short Volatility trade now represents an estimated $2+ trillion in financial engineering strategies that simultaneously exert influence over, and are influenced by, stock market volatility * Since 2009 Global Central Banks have pumped in $15 trillion in stimulus creating an imbalance in the investment demand for and…

How is Volatility an asset, and how does one take advantage of this?

Re: Dow plunges 1000 points

#290

Post by myrandomcomment »

usaar333 wrote: post #273
propman wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top rate before was 39.6% for over 480k, over 480k now hits the 35% and 37% mark and that is a HUGE difference. Let's only consider how that effects the top 1% and a rough estimate. Currently that's around 1.73M filers with an average income of 1.4M a year. Under the new tax rules the average 1% will save $40,000 over 480k (will obviously save more under 480k but not counting that). That totals out to be $692B in…

> Under the new tax rules the average 1% will save $40,000 over 480k It'd probably a lot lower. You need to consider other code changes. For instance a filer in CA with W2 taxable income of $1.4M saves only $4,500 due to the loss of state income tax deduction offsetting the vast majority of beneficial rate changes. ref: http://taxplancalculator.com/

Ugh. Just checked the link. I pay more. In CA so state tax deduction loss kills.
Post reply on HN