551–560 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook and Google make their money off businesses buying advertising, people rightly see their profits as being very fragile.
Advertising is a half a trillion dollar market - how is that fragile?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is he still rich? The fact that he still hasn't released his taxes raises a lot of questions. Mark Cuban speculated that he wasn't a billionaire, and maybe not even a 500-millionaire. He talked big and pushed the brand, because that's all he had. His main claim to fame, nearest I can tell, is a mix of poorly run real estate, reality TV, schlepping shit tier steaks, and his online university that got sued out of exist…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The Fed would probably welcome inflation right now. I feel like this while correct will look funny in the context of history. I believe inflation will explode in the next 5 years with near zero interest rates and the fed printing money for all the programs we hear about during the recent debates.
Inflation is a consequence of money spent foolishly. The same arguments were made against the New Deal. Time will tell whether recapitalizing the American educational system and/or cost-limiting health care is wise or foolish.
No, it's a consequence of printing money as soon as the newly printed money gets out into the economy. The only reason the previous rounds of QE in the last decade didn't cause inflation was that practically all of it stayed in the banks' accounts at the Fed and never got loaned out, so it never actually got into the economy.
> The same arguments were made against the New Deal.
Yes, and they were valid then too. The New Deal didn't work; what restarted the US economy was World War II.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He used it as a tool, the companies became bankrupt, he got rich. I imagine he will get rich even if U.S. goes through a bankrupcy.
He didn’t “get” rich. He was born rich. He would have much more money today if he had passively invested it. The man is a managerial train wreck that’s been consistently burning untold wealth for 30+ years. Much of what he has left was gotten by repeatedly breaking the law, and somehow only ending up with civil liability instead of criminal convictions. Now he is actively wrecking the US economy and has somehow bulli…
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…
I'm in the "worse than 2008" camp, mostly due to the reasons the OP gives. Another consideration is that our current expansion has been a very long one, and the longer an expansion goes on, the more fraudulent cruft accumulates, the cruft beings things like assets not marked to actual market value, money-losing businesses subsidized in various ways, and sometimes outright Madoff-like fraud. This cruft appears financi…
Whaaaat, noooo, we don't have any of those...
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.
I would have guessed that it's an attempt to make other US-friendly countries (Vietnam, Phillipines, India, etc) relatively more attractive as places to set up factories, to move that manufacturing base out of China and reduce their geopolitical influence.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/under-tru...
[2] https://time.com/5651345/rusal-investment-braidy-kentucky/
[3] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013549/ru...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, all three of these things were a direct result of the second industrial revolution, as was the rise of communism. The first industrial revolution was punctuated with the American civil war. The second industrial revolution was punctuated with the great depression and World War 2. Just imagine what the digital revolution is going to be punctuated with. We are in for a hell of a bumpy ride.
Memes and shitposts?
Key recession indicator is flashing red. Unlike the stock market, which is both backward- and forward-looking, the bond market is myopically forward-looking. When the yield between the 10-year and 2-year US treasury inverts, a recession is months away. This chart, showing the difference between the yield (or spread), shows recessions in grey: https://journal.firsttuesday.us/using-the-yield-spread-to-fo... Notice how…
QE is unprecedented. If you look at the absolute yields, we're talking about rates below inflation (1.8%). It's an inversion but the magnitude is so low it's hard to compare it to past inversions. Equity valuations are pretty much in line with earnings with the S&P 500 index as a whole trading around 20x earnings. Considering how low the risk free rate is (US treasuries), that's not a booming valuation and is probabl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
During the dot com bust that was part of the problem. As the startups started dying, it turned out that the big companies had started to rely on them for their profitability.
Yeah, but the only one of these that might be reliant on a booming tech startup industry for profitability is Amazon (due to AWS - I'm not sure how much of its revenues come from traditional enterprises vs. VC-fueled growth money).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"federal government" is probably a better term than "deep state" unless you're intentionally trying to be inflammatory...
I think the rational definition of Deep State is just the government “lifers” who stay in significant spheres of influence for most of their career. I.e. key defense, intelligence, financial, etc positions.