Why is the stock market rallying when the economy is so bad?

Post by chipotle_coyote » Mon, May 11, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #595

unethical_ban wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Sanders says, when half a million people are homeless, our healthcare system is a joke, and our infrastructure is unmaintained, we have a LOT of work to do. And a lot of spending. There is a far-left opinion that there should be no such thing as a billionaire, that a single human's marginal tax rate should hit 100% at some point. I wouldn't say "never" to the idea at this point.

> our infrastructure is unmaintained Bernie supporters are generally the least likely to get their hands dirty and do the kind of work necessary to build and maintain infrastructure. Pretty much everyone I meet that does that kind of work is Republican. Not saying this is a universal truth, but it's a somewhat accurate generalization. Source for party affiliation by a sampling of occupations: http://verdantlabs.com/p…

Post by VRay » Mon, May 11, 2020, 5:40 AM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #546

maest wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing for taking out loans to invest in the stock market, which sounds irresponsible to me.

Are you saying every person who buys a home with a mortgage, while still throwing 5% of salary in their 401(k) is irresponsible? Many, many people do this.

Post by rcpt » Mon, May 11, 2020, 5:42 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #636

lotsofpulp wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guillotines might have worked well in the past, but with modern weapons and technology, you can use a much smaller portion of the population to suppress a much larger portion of the population. You can pay 10% of the population well enough that they support the top 0.01%, and the top 10% can pay the next 20% to 30% well enough or provide a sufficient probability to move up (or illusion) that they are incentivized to…

There is a much simpler alternative. The general strike.

Post by callalex » Mon, May 11, 2020, 5:44 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #508

aeturnum wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if 0.1% of your savings is in the market, you're "participating" in some sense, but not with any real impact. My sense is that, for the great majority of people in the United States, the stock market's value doubling would mean little for their financial health. Having a retirement fund that goes from $10,000 to $20,000 (or even $100,000 to $200,000) has a relatively small impact on the prospect of retiring […

> if 0.1% of your savings is in the market That means you chose not to participate in the market, not that you were prevented. In which case I can't accept grousing about not getting the gains from investing in the market. > retirement-calculator Use it. It'll show how much you need to invest monthly to retire a millionaire. Your money will do a lot better than double.

Post by kennywinker » Mon, May 11, 2020, 5:51 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #401

magicsmoke wrote: post #9

> And as has often been the case in recent years, investors find themselves faced with few attractive alternatives if they opt out of betting on stocks. The problem is so familiar it has its own acronym: TINA, or There Is No Alternative to stocks. Cash: Gets eaten away by inflation. Although the CPI doesn't indicate high inflation it only measures consumer goods. Inflation is there in the price of investments. If you…

Buying stocks has never been more democratic. Anyone with $100 can buy stocks. No brokerage fees, and fractional shares are now common. We also just passed what in hindsight will likely be seen as a historic buying opportunity.