• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dow plunges 600 points after bond market flashes a recession warning, Citigroup tanks 5%

HenryChinaski said:
Dow plunges 600 points after bond market flashes a recession warning When Trump was elected, I said that the only thing that would turn his base against him was a full on recession. Today I don't think that would even do it. Most of his base are either retired living off their pensions, SS, fixed incomes with no skin in the game, so they don't care if the US economy tanks. Trump is nothing more than entertainment value to them . Then there's those that may be working but they have no retirement investment savings. They've no idea what a 401k is and you cant lose what you don't have. Under Obama my IRA grew exponentially. The economy was even keeled and smooth. Since senor' clown car has been in office, my 401k value is where it was 28 months ago. This asshole playing president is not good for the working man and his financial future.
Click to expand...

Here it comes...
 
trixare4kids said:
I reluctantly sold high, liquidating into cash yesterday. Husband sold his on Friday. What goes up must come down. We'd only have ourselves to blame for our own greed if we delude ourselves for believing this couldn't happen.
Click to expand...
That's your big opinion? What goes up must come down? I'm sure you said that about Trump when the economy was booming, should we go back and look if you claimed Trump was responsible for going up, and then here preemptively lets everyone know your highly educated economic analysis that it's gotta come down, and it's our collective greed now suddenly at fault? Oh sweet jesus we need a better education system in this country.
 
Cardinal said:
The common wisdom that a President has limited impact on the economy doesn't factor in a President that actively hammers away at the economy for two and a half years straight using policies that every economic expert on earth agrees are imbecilic and disastrous.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I posted as much upthread in one of my replies.
 
American said:
What skin in the game did the 47% every have? Yet they get to vote to tax the tax payers.
Click to expand...
The days when only male landowners get to vote are long over.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Dow plunges 600 points after bond market flashes a recession warning When Trump was elected, I said that the only thing that would turn his base against him was a full on recession. Today I don't think that would even do it. Most of his base are either retired living off their pensions, SS, fixed incomes with no skin in the game, so they don't care if the US economy tanks. Trump is nothing more than entertainment value to them . Then there's those that may be working but they have no retirement investment savings. They've no idea what a 401k is and you cant lose what you don't have. Under Obama my IRA grew exponentially. The economy was even keeled and smooth. Since senor' clown car has been in office, my 401k value is where it was 28 months ago. This asshole playing president is not good for the working man and his financial future.
Click to expand...


Maybe you're in the wrong investments. My investments tripled under this president.
Yellen released a statement today where she thinks the US economy is strong enough to fend off a recession.

I guess yours like hers proves that everyone has a right to their opinion. You can't blame Trump for your poor investment decisions. That's just dumb.
 
Jay59 said:
If you are saying Obama had it easy, congratulations. Correct answer.

Somehow, that does not fit with the rest of your post. There is a lot of inconsistency there.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? If you have a point to make, please make it. A vague post adds nothing to the discussion.

How did Obama have it easy? What is inconsistent with my post?
 
MTAtech said:
The days when only male landowners get to vote are long over.
Click to expand...

The days of the 47% will be gone soon enough. We're getting closer to the point they can't be supported. Your 20 socialist candidates plan to speed that up by a lot.
 
Felis Leo said:
That is an extremely strange statement, iguanaman. Stocks are an investment, in which you can lose or gain money. Unless you are barred from purchasing stock, to say that they do not benefit you or the average American is like saying that the average American does not benefit when they buy real estate for the purpose of investment. Not being uberwealthy (or even moderately wealthy) has not prevented me from purchasing stock for my own retirement portfolio. And if you are working at a job where you have a 401(k) or pension, it is almost certainly invested in stocks or bonds as well for the purpose of your own retirement.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with the poster that said the falling stock market made the "uberwealthy" poorer so Democrats should be happy? Take it up with him. By the way how much did you lose today?
 
HenryChinaski said:
I see those commercials on TV during the day, right after the Men's pocket catheter commercial, and right before the Christian Mingle one. Easy to see who their target audience is.
Click to expand...
True.

But check out their recent (and historical) charts. There's a place for gold & gold stocks if one is willing ...
 
If you are an investor you should be very happy. The bear market is long overdue. If you do not see this as opportunity then keep your money in your mattress.


The bears make money and the bulls make money....the pigs never make money
 
Mach said:
That's your big opinion? What goes up must come down? I'm sure you said that about Trump when the economy was booming, should we go back and look if you claimed Trump was responsible for going up, and then here preemptively lets everyone know your highly educated economic analysis that it's gotta come down, and it's our collective greed now suddenly at fault? Oh sweet jesus we need a better education system in this country.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my big opinion.
Beats yours. Trump is responsible for the strength of the economy. Yellen said less than an hour ago, the economy will fend off a recession if push comes to shove.
Trump is not responsible for market drops. Smart people sell instead staying in forever. Were you smart today or dumb?
 
vegas giants said:
Not if you have a 10 year time horizon. Every person who has ever invested in the stock market for ten years has always made money.
Click to expand...
Not so. 1970 to 1980
Not so, 1999 to 2009.
I am sure many other periods.
 
Chomsky said:
True.

But check out their recent (and historical) charts. There's a place for gold & gold stocks if one is willing ...
Click to expand...

Gold is fine if you get in and get out. It is tricky. Over the long haul they dont do well but short term you can cash in
 
MTAtech said:
Not so. 1970 to 1980
Not so, 1999 to 2009.
I am sure many other periods.
Click to expand...

False. Prove it. If you kept your money in the market both of those times with dividends reinvested you made money
 
vegas giants said:
If you are an investor you should be very happy. The bear market is long overdue. If you do not see this as opportunity then keep your money in your mattress.


The bears make money and the bulls make money....the pigs never make money
Click to expand...

Something you write, I finally agree with.
 
Drawdown said:
When are you going to produce something that refutes my claim. Your same source tracks money supply velocity and I notice you ignored that one.
Click to expand...

The data refutes your claim. By all means, defend yourself.
 
American said:
What skin in the game did the 47% every have? Yet they get to vote to tax the tax payers.
Click to expand...
They provide all the labor, and do so without being able to influence government policy in their favor at anywhere near the same rate (17:1 I think last I checked in $ contributions), and they lack negotiation power...you want a pay increase, we replace you. We nearly eliminated all unions, labor now relies on government to tax properly. But some people fall for the wealthy marketing and vote more power to the wealthy, at their own expense. Keep making American less great.
 
American said:
The days of the 47% will be gone soon enough. We're getting closer to the point they can't be supported. Your 20 socialist candidates plan to speed that up by a lot.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that view is intellectually bankrupt. All of our western allies have social safety nets that are more generous than ours and they are able to afford it.
 
iguanaman said:
So you disagree with the poster that said the falling stock market made the "uberwealthy" poorer so Democrats should be happy? Take it up with him.
Click to expand...

That is a total non-sequitur as to whether the average American benefits from stock. As I said, anyone who has a 401(k) or a private or public Pension benefits from stocks or bonds. Stocks are not merely for the wealthy. As to your question, I am not a Democrat, so I cannot speak to what makes Democrats viscerally happy. I am happy when poor people are able to work, save and invest to the point that they are able to enter the comfortable middle class. I am happy when those within the middle class are able to work, save and invest the point they possess comfortable wealth. I am not happy when any given group of people loses their investments, whether they are rich or poor. I cannot speak for anyone else on the matter though.
 
HumblePi said:
Trying to make money in a declining market by buying stock at bargain prices is a huge risk. And, unless you have a whole lot of money to invest in something like the tech sector, you'd better be prepared to sit on that stagnant stock for a long time. Ordinary Americans don't have the ability to do that. Sure, there's some bargains out there right now, but investors aren't confident enough to buy because by Friday they might be seeing an even greater loss. Getting into the stock market today as a small investor is a real gamble that not many can afford.
Click to expand...

I believe he means short selling

A risky way of trading stock but with potential high returns
 
vegas giants said:
False. Prove it. If you kept your money in the market both of those times with dividends reinvested you made money
Click to expand...

He just pointed out specific time frames where markets were lower than they were 10 years prior. It's really not a difficult task, and you should be well enough versed in the history of equity prices to know he is correct.
 
Lutherf said:
FFS, these wild swings are due primarily to algorithms used by institutional traders doing their thing. JPM and Barclays make a few changes then everyone else follows suit and the calculations kick in and a ton of stuff gets sold. Two days later, when another set of algorithms says "we're good" for the next few days everything goes back up. It's only become worse since the US Congress decided they needed to save everyone from themselves after the "too big to fail" crisis.
Click to expand...
Maybe.

Yes, what you described may explain some of the micro-short-term swings we are seeing. But it does not explain the maco-time-frame where after many years of a steadily growing market, we now have seen no net market growth in the past 20 months or more. The tend line in place since early in Obama's term has been broken. And yes, that indeed indicates we may be in trouble. Maybe really big trouble.
 
Kushinator said:
He just pointed out specific time frames where markets were lower than they were 10 years prior. It's really not a difficult task, and you should be well enough versed in the history of equity prices to know he is correct.
Click to expand...

He is factually incorrect and does not account for ten years of dividend reinvesting.

You are just wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom