161–170 of 499 posts
For those saying the Fed is running out of ammunition, study what the Bank of Japan has done. It owns close to 80% of the Japanese ETF market currently, with no end to the expansion of balance sheet in sight. After buying long treasuries, it's not unreasonable to imagine the Fed buying stocks, either individual issues or ETFs. The President would be for it, and it would be hard to drum up any opposition to it in cong…
For those saying the Fed is running out of ammunition, study what the Bank of Japan has done. It owns close to 80% of the Japanese ETF market currently, with no end to the expansion of balance sheet in sight. After buying long treasuries, it's not unreasonable to imagine the Fed buying stocks, either individual issues or ETFs. The President would be for it, and it would be hard to drum up any opposition to it in cong…
Edit: ~ "Thomas Jefferson" changed to "~ Someone, supposedly Thomas Jefferson"
From what I gather after spending more time than I'm willing to admit listening to every finance talking head out there, the consensus on the street seems to be that this will result in a temporary market recovery followed by the continued deterioration of stock prices given that fiscal or monetary* policy can't really affect the real economy in the near term* i.e. if the supply chain is indeed impacted due to COVID-…
You should edit that 24 days fact, it's simply incorrect and will spread misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes a return to trend, right? If stocks are temporarily depressed you can get them at a discount. If stock prices are permanently lower as a result, though, it's certainly not good for you. And, believe it or not, this is probably the more accepted idea -- that price movements are memoryless, that we shouldn't subscribe to the gamblers fallacy (that down today means up tomorrow), and that being happy for a p…
> If stock prices are permanently lower The only way that can happen is if the economy is permanently less productive. There are things that can make that happen (climate change, for example) but the corona virus is not among them. Fear of the virus is causing vastly more damage than the virus itself. The virus itself is mainly killing old, unproductive people. I don't want to minimize the severity of the problem or…
> permanently less productive
A short-term reduction in profits reduces the discounted sum of future returns. Not as much as if interest rates were lower, though.
Also, the example of the virus could indicate that these infections are on average more common and more severe than we figured, and that could reduce expected long-term growth.
Finally, a "pause" on activity could delay productivity increases. Probably a small effect, but this could represent investment not happening in the short term.
I sent some lumpy buy orders yesterday, but I'm not sure I was right to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it ironic that the people who say "the government should just spend tons of money because the debt doesn't matter" and don't care about punting the problem to the next generation are the same ones who say how irresponsible the Baby Boomers are for punting the environment problem to the next generation.
And you managed to both completely avoid my point and bring up generational politics.
Printing your way out of debt is not a solution, ask Argentina. Eventually your investors will lose faith in the value of the money they're getting back in return and the currency will collapse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> fiscal policy can't really affect the real economy Fiscal policy ( e.g. the government buying tanks) absolutely affects the real economy. The central bank doesn't control fiscal policy. It controls monetary policy. Monetary policy also affects the real economy, just indirectly.
Monetary policy is about increasing or decreasing the money supply. The argument is that it cannot have long-term real effects because if it did we would all be incredibly rich, since it costs nothing to increase the money supply by whatever amount. Every underdeveloped nation would simply increase their money supply and poverty would be a thing of the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only because the toolset is artificially restricted for ideological reasons. Fiscal responses (having the government spend actual money, either on things like infrastructure it by just handing it out to the population, which will then largely spend that money as they see fit) rather than monetary policy responses (reduce rates and hope that people will borrow more) are known to work well in most cases. The Corona vir…
> inflation has arguably been far too low for far too long anyway... Do you not need a roof over your head, health insurance, a car, college education, etc? Inflation has been rampant, it's just not apparent in manufactured goods because the actual cost of production dropped rapidly with offshoring and technological progress. Without significant inflation, we would have seen a steady march down of consumer prices, as…
Let's go over Housing, healthcare, and education in turn:
- Housing, overpriced because the jobs are concentrated, stupid zoning, etc. We deserve dense cities but UBI means no job, no stave, which in the short term takes away the demand to move. Let's not rest on that and continue to stupid-suburb, but do take some refuge in that short term benefit of decreasing the necessity of people moving.
- Education, overpriced because of a shortage of work and a credentialist rat race. I'm all for people being educated---say a liberal arts that includes engineering not because it pays well but because one has to understand the machines that surround us to understand the modern human and social condition. But it's stupid to expect people to stuggle to acquire credentials that won't get them hired and won't actually help with the stupid jobs that get if they are hired.
UBI helps eliminate unproductive by removing the desperation that forces people to take them. The decreased demand for employment hopefully will end the credentialism rat race, lowering the cost of education. And the decreased drudgery of the education that remains should make the education better, and push employers to shoulder more of the remaining cost.
- Healthcare. Unlike the others this probably is less overvalued; avoiding being sick or getting well when sick is incredibly valuable to the individual, and thus I view the price gouging as inevitable. I don't think there is a market based solution to this one, but that's OK. Just do the universal thing and remove this from the market, and now its not subject to inflation in the same way. [The power of the state commands the supply to exist.]