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

Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 671 posts

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#251

Post by tempguy9999 »

SkyBelow wrote: post #234
tempguy9999 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicely put, but a real drunken master doesn't get repeatedly decked. Look at trump's financial record, that should have been quite enough (6 bankruptcies was it?) Those who were fooled, were fooled because they chose to be.

Why should the number of bankruptcies matter if the person is still rich? It shows that they are using it as a tool, which might inform us we need to consider how bankruptcies work, but that doesn't make someone incompetent. If you want to see someone who is incompetent with money, look at lottery winners who within 5 years end up worse than before they won.

I presume he became less rich by becoming bankrupt rather than more?

If he could have been richer by not being bankrupt then that would indicate competence to me.

Also daddy gave him $435 million IIRC. If everyone on HN had got that I suspect most of us would have done better.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#252

Post by jimmaswell »

SkyBelow wrote: post #234
tempguy9999 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicely put, but a real drunken master doesn't get repeatedly decked. Look at trump's financial record, that should have been quite enough (6 bankruptcies was it?) Those who were fooled, were fooled because they chose to be.

Why should the number of bankruptcies matter if the person is still rich? It shows that they are using it as a tool, which might inform us we need to consider how bankruptcies work, but that doesn't make someone incompetent. If you want to see someone who is incompetent with money, look at lottery winners who within 5 years end up worse than before they won.

It's a bit different when someone is repeatedly bailed out by a richer parent.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#253

Post by papito »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #109

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…

"Strategy".

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#254

Post by pesmhey »

SkyBelow wrote: post #234
tempguy9999 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicely put, but a real drunken master doesn't get repeatedly decked. Look at trump's financial record, that should have been quite enough (6 bankruptcies was it?) Those who were fooled, were fooled because they chose to be.

Why should the number of bankruptcies matter if the person is still rich? It shows that they are using it as a tool, which might inform us we need to consider how bankruptcies work, but that doesn't make someone incompetent. If you want to see someone who is incompetent with money, look at lottery winners who within 5 years end up worse than before they won.

The Russians bailed him out and he’s been in their pocket ever since. In this particular case, that’s why the number of bankruptcies matter.

In general, I agree with you.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#255

Post by intuitionist »

hasitchanged wrote: post #199
dageshi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> core parts of the banking system were suspect, nobody knew who they could trust Serious question - how has that changed? It looks to me like since about 2009 banks have been trying very hard to get back to the same shenanigans they were pulling before 2008, and are mostly succeeding. They were given the message that, "Hey - you're too big to fail. Uncle Sam's got your back, and there will be no consequences for the…

The incentives still aren’t great, it’s true. But a lot of things are better. The Volcker rule discourages investment banks from making big directional bets with shareholder money, and the Fed stress tests force them to regularly consider and mitigate downside risks. Both of these things are gameable but at the same time have real effects.

Also, like, Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch both got sold at fire sale prices. Shareholders don’t want those risks, and even if managers are too insulated from financial consequences of a collapse they probably care about reputational risks as well.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#256

Post by pm90 »

taude wrote: post #237
chronotis wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure whether to feel vindicated to see someone else echoing my own internal thoughts, or to feel nauseous about reliving those years. I was fortunate enough to have been at a company that was making money, but I still remember growing from 500 employees to 4000 or so in 2 years...and then dropping back down to 1500 two years later. We bought a small software company for the talent, and 3 months later was told…

Most my friends went back to grad school and retrained for other professions, too, like attorneys and some optometrists. I think what's a bigger risk these days is just how much tech talent if off-shored to other parts of the world, even at fast growing startups. Serious risk for engineers, likely in the Valley, where I don't know if you remember all of the billboards going from having ads on them, to pretty much bei…

That seems exactly how you would expect capitalism to work, isn’t it? Labor retrains when demand for it drops and chases capital in other industries which do need it.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#258

Post by md2be »

kart23 wrote: post #150
WarDores wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, what is the bubble? I'd argue the entire stock market is the bubble right now, with boomers throwing everything they have into the market to get some of that free money before they retire. Once they start pulling back it's going to be a sad day. Right now US household "wealth" is sitting at >500% of GDP. That's not sustainable.

Not just boomers. Robinhood has made it so you can buy stock on your iphone in a couple minutes. Everyone has stock, and I think the market is crazy overvalued right now. I think everything's a bubble right now. People are in loads of debt, more regular americans invest in the stock market, driving prices higher, all we need is a spark to get the fire going. Could come in the form of china and Hong Kong, could be the…

Sorry; but you are spewing misinformation on the equity market. But thanks, because bull markets need a wall or worry to climb.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#259

Post by harimau777 »

roymurdock wrote: post #227
jonny_eh wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it have been wrong to call King George III mad?

We don't live in medieval times. Trump is not a good human being, I don't like him one bit, but he's sane (I would go as far as to call him cunning) and democratically elected. Comparing him to insane kings from the 18th century just gets people to chuckle and move on, sweeping deeper critical thought under the rug. To call him stupid or mad ends any line of further inquiry into why he does the things he does, and th…

I don't think that sane, cunning, or democratically elected are the same as intelligent.

Re: Yield Curves Invert in U.S., U.K

#260

Post by ummonk »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #109

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…

and that it would be a trade war the US would lose because of the directionality of the trade

I expect the US to lose the trade war simply because China will have the fortitude to outlast it, but why would the direction of trade favor China in the trade war? Shouldn't China have more to lose due to being a net exporter?

Post reply on HN