161–170 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if this was Nov 1999 (one year before the crash), S&P 500 was at $1.4k, so it would've taken you 14 years for your position to be in the green again
Now do this experiment with reinvesting dividends instead of just looking at the chart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Fed does not have the tools at its disposal that it did in 2008, they have been exhausted. That hasn't been exhausted even in the slightest. The Fed has the exact same tool at its disposal as it did in 2008: it controls the global reserve currency and can run an annual trillion dollar QE program for years as necessary, forcing the rest of the world to partially foot the bill of that QE program to the benefit of…
Maybe I'm a crazy for taking the state of the fed funds rate, the budget deficit, and the Fed's balance sheet into account? We can print money, but so far the USD hasn't reflected any sort of consequence for that. They can do a QE program, but will other actors accept the implicit loss on their treasury holdings? I can think of one major player there that is a lot less likely to do so now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And things will be worse because China is also heading into recession. You know, you need sell all these products to somebody... And when US consumer stops buying new iPhones (or what ever) combined with recession then situation is going be really really tough. So this will be worse that 2008. Much worse. Back in 2008, China was growing and helping to ease the recession. I do not think China's economy will grow durin…
It certainly won't be worse than 2008. 2008 was a financial crisis, core parts of the banking system were suspect, nobody knew who they could trust or who was solvent and worse nobody had a clue how to solve it for a dangerously long period of time. The financial system is not in that same position this time and as for China, China's growth is largely kept to china itself and guarded jealously, China did little or no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you in index funds? Take a look at what they did in 2008. The selling point is not "they only go up." It's "you can't beat the market."
It is a myth that the market can’t be beaten. You can beat the market if you take more risk and it works out for you. I’m beating the market right now, I’m up 33% this year still in my portfolio even with all the bullshit that’s happened. And recently, I’ve dumped all the extra margin I was holding so now I’m holding 100% equity in my stocks and paying no interest. Beating this market since 2010. That’s why my net wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is what is the point of the trade war. What does trump get from initiating/escalating it, or who is directing him to do it. Seems to be a net negative for all sectors of the economy.
> What does trump get from initiating/escalating it Kudos from his base, enhances his "tough guy" image, helps his 2020 campaign.
But I don't think it's that simple, he's clearly a coin operated guy so which coin is operating him to escalate this trade war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have a time machine. Economic indicators work every time - until they don't. >Notice how even getting close to zero spread can sometimes be followed by a recession. But a negative spread always does. Everything since the last recession is, on some timescale, followed by a recession. So, technically, you'll be correct. But so were the people saying this in each of the years since 2008. If you don't have an u…
The main issue here is that events like these become a self fulfilling prophecy. Since 100% of inverting yield curves have resulted in recessions in the past, stock market investors will start behaving as if an recession is inevitable which in turn starts the recession. The only way this would not turn into recession is if the tariff's are withdrawn or fed lowers the rate even further or with quantitative easing. Any…
Last 10 years people bought a lot more ETFs so it is not like someone will call their broker screaming "SELL SELL SELL". Online brokers are a thing now but you have much more data visible in online interfaces. Like fees for selling all your stuff "RIGHT NOW". With more information easily available and people understanding what ETFs are, there is a huge stabilizing element in stock market.
Games and internet goods are now real, not like 2008 or at the time of .com bust. Though those things are still virtual in essence but they affect real life much more than earlier. So even if there is manufacturing slowdown, no one has numbers on how much people are spending on virtual stuff. Sales of books, movies, software went really up, because delivery mechanisms of today were not there 10 years ago.
People who knew technology like me 10 years ago did not had money to spend it on virtual stuff. People who grew up playing computer games are now in their 40ies or 30ies. Now they have money and can spend it on stuff that previous gen was seeing as stupid.
That said virtual goods market still has plenty of potential to grow. There are multiple jobs to fill for filtering and creating content. There was no such thing as "influencer" or full time youtuber 10 years ago. In the end, no there is no artificial intelligence or algorithm that can filter original content or create one.
Manufactured good you can sell once, virtual good you can create once and sell to everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm calling it now, but you won't actually see a recession until after he leaves office. The rich and powerful control the market and it has no actual real indicator to the effects a majority of people are seeing in their personal lives.
That supposes the rich and powerful give a rip about trump. They don't. If anything, they don't like his unpredictability. But, I don't think it's really tied to a person or party. For example, Obama provided the wall street bailout.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Fed does not have the tools at its disposal that it did in 2008, they have been exhausted. That hasn't been exhausted even in the slightest. The Fed has the exact same tool at its disposal as it did in 2008: it controls the global reserve currency and can run an annual trillion dollar QE program for years as necessary, forcing the rest of the world to partially foot the bill of that QE program to the benefit of…
Maybe I'm a crazy for taking the state of the fed funds rate, the budget deficit, and the Fed's balance sheet into account? We can print money, but so far the USD hasn't reflected any sort of consequence for that. They can do a QE program, but will other actors accept the implicit loss on their treasury holdings? I can think of one major player there that is a lot less likely to do so now.
Over the next ten years the public US debt will hit $32 trillion give or take (possibly closer to $35t; I'm expecting a +$3.5t deficit in just two years in the next recession), about 1.2x to 1.3x GDP at that point. China's share of that $32-$35 trillion will be a mere 3% or lower. By the day their position becomes less meaningful (at this point the US Government is running up enough new public debt to equal China's treasury holdings every year, and that's before the recession blows out the deficit).
I find the general interest of the public in inversions - similar to their interest in negative yields - a bit surprising. I suppose it must be due to these concepts seeming counter-intuitive. Some brief notes, not all of which are meant to tie seamlessly together: 1. What's the lag time? Inversions in the past have had rather large lag times before recessions actually began (most recently they've been 24 months, 13…
I haven't heard about this. Any public reading material?
Everyone serious knew that a trade war would set a recession in motion, and that it would be a trade war the US would lose because of the directionality of the trade. The thought has always been that the president was using a high leverage negotiating strategy (see https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/for-trump-diplomacy... , for example) to extract maximal concessions from PRC. But in the end, most of the people…
My question is what is the point of the trade war. What does trump get from initiating/escalating it, or who is directing him to do it. Seems to be a net negative for all sectors of the economy.