Earlier quoted context omitted.
2% is avg daily stock fluctuation..
So you think Trumps attempt at a pump failed.
Compared to -35% stock loss in last month yes. But Musk may get bunch of juicy government contracts (tesla, ai) from Trump eventually.
Wall Street sell-off turns 'ugly' as US recession fears grow
181–185 of 185 posts
Re: Wall Street sell-off turns 'ugly' as US recession fears grow
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think Trumps attempt at a pump failed.
Compared to -35% stock loss in last month yes. But Musk may get bunch of juicy government contracts (tesla, ai) from Trump eventually.
Up 10% since then, against the grain of the market. I'd say it was a successful pump. It's good to be the king.
Re: Wall Street sell-off turns 'ugly' as US recession fears grow
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
just cutting government spending would automatically put the US into recession, deficit spending is the only thing that has kept things going. Huge amount of job growth is either direct government hiring or indirect through businesses hiring off revenue from government contracts
Historic job growth means nothing if everyone needs 3 jobs to earn median household income.
I'm tired of this fallacy. Yes this administration does seem to be crashing economy for no good reason but I don't see last time I looked pre election the statistics for number of people with second jobs was low/not out of line with historical percent and I highly doubt that has changed significantly. Wheres your proof that everyone is working 3 jobs?
Re: Wall Street sell-off turns 'ugly' as US recession fears grow
#184Hopefully this isn't a biased take: I think this is a unique situation because the recent moves (in my opinion) are largely a result of everyone's uncertainty around America's policies. In other words, the recent stock moves aren't because we're seeing a bunch of companies fail to miss quarterly targets. There are no major economic indicators flashing red. If stocks can drop that fast in a couple weeks, they can also…
Well, the fact that Trump is breaking all the treaties one after the other are certainly not encouraging for markets, but there are also many signs that suggest that: 1. Trump is planning to deflate the dollar (not the least of which being that this his Secretary of Treasury wrote a plan to do this); 2. Trump might be planning to re-negotiate the US debt, for what I believe is the first time in history. Neither is th…
> Also, I've read a few economists, and they seem to agree that the prosperity of the US is largely a bubble based on the (artificially) strong dollar, but that the same strong dollar is killing US exports. By these accounts, Trump's maneuvers are an attempt to pop that bubble, which might be good, but will destroy the prosperity bubble, which nobody really wants. Whether it's true or not, that hypothesis is a good reason to not invest in US economy.
Not a bubble, can argue what artificially means but crashing the economy to get slightly more manufacturing is obviously bad short and long term
Re: Wall Street sell-off turns 'ugly' as US recession fears grow
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is completely true. Other than some small portion of companies with weird ownership structure (which the market should have punished but doesn't always) stock ownership is ownership of the business. There's probably a broader participation in the market (re: few people) than most of history, both direct and indirect. That can be good and bad. There's definitely a speculative component but it's noth…
> stock ownership is ownership of the business. I hate that argument, because it's the equivalent of my saying I won a board game by preventing too many people from playing it with me, starting with most of the resources already in my possession, and changed the rules so it's harder to spend those resources than to acquire new ones. As of 2022, Vanguard owned two-thirds of US companies by outstanding shares. That's o…
Vanguard generally owns stocks in their funds on behalf of people. Those people can chose to e.g. vote their share and if the business is sold (e.g.) will get their share. This is still ownership.
I'm not sure why the capital gains argument matters here. If the business can return money to shareholders in a way that increases their capital then they'll prefer to do so (e.g. via stock buybacks) but that benefits the fractional owner the same way it benefits the large owner.
It's true that if you own 0.0001% of a business you have very little influence about how it is run in the day to day. But the value of your investment is still anchored to the value of the business in exactly the same way as the larger owners are.