The Stock Market

Lafayette · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
Republicans are all about Capitalism and Capitalism is all about greed to the max.

Whilst I agree with much of your argument contained in the above post, I must disagree with quoted portion.

Capitalism is a mechanism which has means and a purpose. Like a hammer is employed to drive a nail in wood.

It is the USE of capitalism that is all wrong in America. And that comes from an exceptional accent/focus on the accumulation of riches.

So, if we want to blame anybody, let's blame Ronald Reagan (and before him both LBJ and JFK). These are the real culprits as regards Income Disparity in America today, directly attributable to the lack of sufficient upper-income taxation. Just one look at the historic upper-income taxation rates tells the true story since the 1960s:

Each one of those dips in upper-income taxation coincides with the administration of JFK/LBJ or Reckless Ronnie!

So rather than palavering about "Who did what to whom", why not just go back to pre-1960 when our little world was just fine under the high, almost confiscatory taxation of mindlessly to high upper-incomes!!?!!

Lafayette · Oct 23, 2018

AMERICA'S TEN-PERCENTERS

ludin said:
You still don't get that in our financial system and society income disparity is not an issue. it is only an issue in countries that do not control their own currency.

Well, you are Right about one thing. I "don't get it" that in our "financial system and society income disparity is not an issue".

It is not an issue amongst ignorant Right-wingers like you who do not care to "discuss it". It is very much an issue when it comes to Net Wealth Fairness. Which Pickety picked-up on very diligently when he (and a group of economists at UofCal) investigated who is getting what and how much.

Lo and behold what they found:

Ten percent of American taxpayers today obtain the same share of wealth as the other 90%. Which indicates what to any economist who knows what s/he's talking about?

That Income Disparity is grossly exaggerated in the US. Get it?

I doubt it, the notion is far too much above your intellectual capacity ...

Lafayette · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
You still don't get that in our financial system and society income disparity is not an issue.
it is only an issue in countries that do not control their own currency.

Yeah, right.

And you don't know how to read a tell-tale infographic!

So we are even ...

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

James972 said:
?? it's a big issue in the press and in people's minds all the time.

that is because people are stupid. They don't understand how our system works.
If we were still on the gold standard then income inequality is an issue and you need a huge redistribution
system in order to keep money circulating.

We are not longer under the gold standard and we can add or take away from the money supply as needed.
hence income inequality isn't an issue.

the bigger issue is people not having the skills to find better paying jobs.

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

Lafayette said:
Bollocks - and especially in an Economics Forum. What I don't get is how some people can gloss over truths in a Debate Forum when the factual evidence is readily available!

The research in the matter (by economists!) is ample. The best and easiest to understand is called the Gini Coefficient employed to measure Income Disparity in a country. And it looks like this at an international level:

Please tell us how it is an issue when we control our own money supply?
You realize that we have the ability to expand and contract the money supply right?

the only time that income inequality is an issue and you need aggressive redistribution if we were like greece.
were we have no ability to expand or contract our own money.

I even gave you an example. If we were still on the gold standard we would be in major trouble and require
massive redistribution methods. The fact that we have the ability to expand or contract the money supply means
that it doesn't matter if someone makes 1m dollars. someone else can make a million dollars the next day or
a billion dollars the next day and everyone is perfectly fine.

It doesn't matter what someone make. why? we have the ability to contract or expand the money supply based on need.
that is the job of the federal reserve. to make sure that there is enough money in the system.

the bigger issue is the lack of peoples need or drive to find better paying jobs.

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
That is bull. the rich certainly have improved their standard of living but the poor and middle class not necessarily so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.87425ffc7c6c

Here’s what he found. There was a gradual and broad-based shift of Americans from poorer to richer status. Productivity gains have translated into higher living standards more than is generally believed.

The most spectacular change involved the explosion of the upper middle class (incomes from $100,000 to $349,999). It grew from 12.9 percent of Americans in 1979 to 29.4 percent in 2014 — from 1 in 8 U.S. households to more than 1 in 4. The rich ($350,000 in income or more) went from 0.1 percent of households to 1.8 percent in 2014. If these two groups are combined, nearly one-third of Americans have incomes exceeding $100,000. (Note: All these thresholds apply to three-person households; income levels are adjusted for differences in household size.)

Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to 32 percent.

You need to update your sources.

The improvement of ones status is up to the individual and the risk they are willing to take to improve it.

Luckyone · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.87425ffc7c6c

Here’s what he found. There was a gradual and broad-based shift of Americans from poorer to richer status. Productivity gains have translated into higher living standards more than is generally believed.

The most spectacular change involved the explosion of the upper middle class (incomes from $100,000 to $349,999). It grew from 12.9 percent of Americans in 1979 to 29.4 percent in 2014 — from 1 in 8 U.S. households to more than 1 in 4. The rich ($350,000 in income or more) went from 0.1 percent of households to 1.8 percent in 2014. If these two groups are combined, nearly one-third of Americans have incomes exceeding $100,000. (Note: All these thresholds apply to three-person households; income levels are adjusted for differences in household size.)

Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to 32 percent.

You need to update your sources.

The improvement of ones status is up to the individual and the risk they are willing to take to improve it.

It is funny, because you just made a good case for Obama being a good President, given that the results you gave are through 2014. I wonder how those numbers stack up now after the Tax Cut that benefited the rich.

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
It is funny, because you just made a good case for Obama being a good President, given that the results you gave are through 2014. I wonder how those numbers stack up now after the Tax Cut that benefited the rich.

Actually no i didn't,and your inference to that is complete bunk.
unless you can prove obama had anything to do with it which you can't.

it did prove you wrong in what you posted earlier.

Luckyone · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
Actually no i didn't,and your inference to that is complete bunk.
unless you can prove obama had anything to do with it which you can't.

it did prove you wrong in what you posted earlier.

No, you did not prove your point given that the last 4 years were not included. This is all a Trump negative. When you show me numbers for 2017 and 2018 that support your claim, I will listen.

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
No, you did not prove your point given that the last 4 years were not included. This is all a Trump negative. When you show me numbers for 2017 and 2018 that support your claim, I will listen.

umm they don't have data on that. all i did was prove your other point incorrect. that is all i needed to do.
and the TDS starts again. the thread isn't about trump or obama.

you made a claim and i proved it incorrect supported by facts.

People in the middle class and lower class have moved themselves up. Some more than others but there is still upward mobility going.
how far a person moves depends on what they do.

sitting around working as a cashier not going to go very well.

going to school or learning a trade and investing your money etc you are going to go a lot further and have more money making ability.
When i was younger i regret not being smarter. I had money to invest and i should have bought apple stock back in the mid-late ninties
when i could have bought it for like 95 cents a share.

It split 3 times 2:1, 2:1 and then a massive 7:1.

if i had bought in the $2000 investment i would have been a millionaire by now.

Lafayette · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
It doesn't matter what someone make. why? we have the ability to contract or expand the money supply based on need. that is the job of the federal reserve. to make sure that there is enough money in the system.

The money supply is an aggregate number and includes one helluva lot more than just personal incomes. It is an aggregate of all money in circulation (from M0 to M4 and all between).

And increasing or lowering the money-supply is NOT a prime measure the intent of which is to Increase Employment. You are confusing that relationship with Government Demand (for goods/services) which does indeed create and destroy jobs depending upon the expenditure level. (Government Demand is made possible by means of government borrowing and taxation income.)

James972 · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
It is funny, because you just made a good case for Obama being a good President,

Obama was anti business socialist with worst record in American History. Only president to never get one year of 3% growth, and that was even after he took over at end of huge recession which would have resulted in a huge V shaped recover had it not been for his anti business, "you didn't build that", socialist policy and attitude.

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

Lafayette said:
The money supply is an aggregate number and includes one helluva lot more than just personal incomes. It is an aggregate of all money in circulation (from M0 to M4 and all between).

And increasing or lowering the money-supply is NOT a prime measure the intent of which is to Increase Employment. You are confusing that relationship with Government Demand (for goods/services) which does indeed create and destroy jobs depending upon the expenditure level. (Government Demand is made possible by means of government borrowing and taxation income.)

I am not confusing anything. YOu simply do not understand how our system works and why income disparity isn't an issue so i will explain it to you.
i will use smaller number so that you understand it better.

So lets so i have a max of 10k dollars and i have 5 people.
Also i can't expand my money supply. I am fixed at 10k.

Once that 10k is distributed i have no way of adding more.

the only way to add more would be to borrow it.

in any even i distribute all 10k dollars and it makes it way to person 5.
then end up with 90% of the money. I need heavy taxes and heavy redistribution
in order to keep person 5 from hoarding all of that money.
This is what we call a zero sum game.

Now you have that same 10k dollars, but now as business grows and people need more
i can add more money into the system.

so now i need 12k instead of 10k. I can simply expand it.
now i need 20k instead of 12k. i can expand it as needed.

it doesn't matter if person 5 has 90% of the money as i can expand
how much money that is there as it is required. it is no longer a zero sum game.
person 1 makes 1500 instead of 500. i can simply add that into the pool and i don't
have to worry about redistributing it from somewhere else.

this is about as basic as i can get. not that you will understand it anymore than you have in the past.

James972 · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
I need heavy taxes and heavy redistribution
in order to keep person 5 from hoarding all of that money.
This is what we call a zero sum game.

don't really follow. If person 5 hoards all the money what good is it? He would have to clean his own pool, built his own house etc etc. Capitalism naturally distributes money. Further, people don't hoard money they want to earn interest so they want to loan it to others to start businesses etc etc.

Bullseye · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
First of all, let me give you may credentials regarding the Stock Market. I started in the business in 1977 as a trader in the commodities market. I then shifted to trading stocks in 1984. I worked for Merrill Lynch, Prudential-Bache and Dean Witter and was a broker/analyst. I was even one of the official tech analysts while at Prudential-Bache, giving technical advice on the markets.

I left the industry in 1988 to form a company with my ex-wife that was not associated with the market at all. We were very successful but that finished in 1998 when we got divorced. In 2005 I started trading again and since 2007 I have been offering a chart service to investors that is based on Charts and Moving Averages. With that service, I have shown a net result at the end of the year of a 67% return on investment. I have also shown 9 profitable years and only 2 losing years.

I am a trader and everything I do in the market is based on charts. I do not look at the fundamentals, believing that the charts reflect what the people-in-the-know are doing. I follow the money because those people know more fundamentals than I do and the charts usually reflect what is likely to happen.

Having said that, this thread is about the market being about as high as it can go. Just last month AAPL reached a valuation of over $1 trillion dollars and that has never happened before in the history of the market. In addition, AMZN has a PE ratio of over 325 and considering that what is normal are PE ratios of about 15, it can be considered hugely overpriced.

The NASDAQ and the Tech Sector have been leading the way, much like the Dot.com era did in 1999. The NAZ has gone up from 1265 to this week's high at 8119, much like it did between 1987 and 2000 when it went from 228 to 5132.

The economy is doing well and the tax cuts and deregulation that occurred under Trump has made the market continue higher.

Today, I checked on what was the reason that the NAZ collapsed in the year 2000, having gone from 5132 to 3042 in just 8 weeks and I was surprised to find that it was not bad news that caused the drop but the opposite......good news. Here is the explanation I got from a Google search regarding the fall in the year 2000:

"The Nasdaq fell more than 25 percent this week, trouncing the 19 percent fall that began Oct. 21, 1987, Black Monday. Friday's plunge came after the government said prices at the consumer level showed surprising strength last month, triggering fears that the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates more aggressively".

This doesn't seem to be a potential problem right now given that inflation is where the Fed wants it to be and it is unlikely they will be aggressive in raising rates. So what could be the trigger for a fall now? It is without a doubt the Trade War. Trade Wars are never positive for the market but right now the traders have been ignoring it given that it started only 2 months ago and no official feedback of the negatives have come out. Nonetheless, next week the ISM Index and Jobs reports come out and it is said the Tariffs have been causing job loss and if that starts to be reflected in the numbers, it could be the trigger for profit taking and a domino-like down move.

Comments welcome

I was talking to a few friends about the market over a couple of beers a few days ago. One guy offered the idea that just as in November 2016 the market surged upward the day after Trump won maybe this is the markets defensive reaction to the possibility of the Dems taking one or more Houses in the mid-terms. The idea of the Dems dismantling much of what Trump has done so far AND attaching an anchor to future actions is a bucket of ice water in the face of the market. In addition the Dems have been very clear that they intend to launch a full-court press on Trump from a legal angle: impeachment, tax hikes, loading budget with prog poo poo pork, subpoenas and investigations up the ying-yang, etc. We all laughed, took a swig of beer and said . . , "yeah, that makes sense.

And of course, there's always the idea that after months at this level a correction was probably needed.

ETA: I'm primarily an investor v trader and mostly a fundamentals kind of guy. I may look at charts in basic technical terms, but I like good companies making good earnings that are leaders in their sector.

ludin · Oct 23, 2018

James972 said:
don't really follow. If person 5 hoards all the money what good is it? He would have to clean his own pool, built his own house etc etc. Capitalism naturally distributes money. Further, people don't hoard money they want to earn interest so they want to loan it to others to start businesses etc etc.

in a closed money system with limited supply person 5 will usually come back to maintaining 90% as he probably owns all the method of production etc ...
while he might buy some things the money will find it's way back.

if you need to expand that money supply it makes it almost impossible unless you borrow it from someone else.
it is the exact issue that the gold standard had.

These people think that our banking system works like monopoly.
that there is only 1 set of money and once you are out of it that is it.

James972 · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
while he might buy some things the money will find it's way back.

.

might???? the whole idea of getting rich is to definitely buy lots and lots of things, to give to charity when you die or before, and to loan to others to earn interest. Moreover, you get rich when others have the wealth to buy your products and their wealth is increased by buying your products.

James972 · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
if you need to expand that money supply it makes it almost impossible unless you borrow it from someone else.
it is the exact issue that the gold standard had.
.

I don't follow. if you borrow money you don't expand the money supply you just transfer it from person A to person B. Not sure about the gold standard. They say gold has expanded exactly in proportion to population growth for the last 1000 years so it is in that sense anyway a good source of money

Lafayette · Oct 23, 2018

ludin said:
I am not confusing anything. YOu simply do not understand how our system works and why income disparity isn't an issue so i will explain it to you.
i will use smaller number so that you understand it better.

So lets so i have a max of 10k dollars and i have 5 people.
Also i can't expand my money supply. I am fixed at 10k.

Once that 10k is distributed i have no way of adding more.

the only way to add more would be to borrow it.

in any even i distribute all 10k dollars and it makes it way to person 5.
then end up with 90% of the money. I need heavy taxes and heavy redistribution
in order to keep person 5 from hoarding all of that money.
This is what we call a zero sum game.

Now you have that same 10k dollars, but now as business grows and people need more
i can add more money into the system.

so now i need 12k instead of 10k. I can simply expand it.
now i need 20k instead of 12k. i can expand it as needed.

it doesn't matter if person 5 has 90% of the money as i can expand
how much money that is there as it is required. it is no longer a zero sum game.
person 1 makes 1500 instead of 500. i can simply add that into the pool and i don't
have to worry about redistributing it from somewhere else.

this is about as basic as i can get. not that you will understand it anymore than you have in the past.

Childish nonsense unfitting for an Economics Forum.

Moving right along ...

Mach · Oct 23, 2018

Lafayette said:
So, if we want to blame anybody, let's blame Ronald Reagan (and before him both LBJ and JFK). These are the real culprits as regards Income Disparity in America today, directly attributable to the lack of sufficient upper-income taxation.!

I think you make a good point. And America liberals should be wary of demonizing capitalism, both in playing into the hand of Republican propaganda, and because as you point out, it's misguided.

To function well, the more you remove the restraints on capitalism (which is not necessarily good or bad), the more you need progressive taxation. They go hand in hand, and if done properly.
This frees up business dramatically (capitalism)
This creates a sort of class division between those that pay the bulk of the taxes, and those that don't

But if government taxes sufficiently the high end of that capitalistic wealth, and re-invests it reasonable well back in the general population (which is primarily lower/middle class), then it can function well (despite the class warfare). This offsets the wild disparity you have in terms of who gains from corporate activity (the wealthiest individuals/shareholders).

When Republicans are successful in pushing that progressivity down, as we saw in the recent Trump tax cuts, it's just gong to get further out of balance.

Luckyone · Oct 23, 2018

James972 said:
Obama was anti business socialist with worst record in American History. Only president to never get one year of 3% growth, and that was even after he took over at end of huge recession which would have resulted in a huge V shaped recover had it not been for his anti business, "you didn't build that", socialist policy and attitude.

One day I will sit down and talk about Obama. Right now I am more interested in the disaster that Trump is going to bring than in talking about the past.

Luckyone · Oct 23, 2018

Bullseye said:
I was talking to a few friends about the market over a couple of beers a few days ago. One guy offered the idea that just as in November 2016 the market surged upward the day after Trump won maybe this is the markets defensive reaction to the possibility of the Dems taking one or more Houses in the mid-terms. The idea of the Dems dismantling much of what Trump has done so far AND attaching an anchor to future actions is a bucket of ice water in the face of the market. In addition the Dems have been very clear that they intend to launch a full-court press on Trump from a legal angle: impeachment, tax hikes, loading budget with prog poo poo pork, subpoenas and investigations up the ying-yang, etc. We all laughed, took a swig of beer and said . . , "yeah, that makes sense.

And of course, there's always the idea that after months at this level a correction was probably needed.

ETA: I'm primarily an investor v trader and mostly a fundamentals kind of guy. I may look at charts in basic technical terms, but I like good companies making good earnings that are leaders in their sector.

There is no doubt that the Democrats winning will be a bucket of cold water on the market. Nonetheless, you evidently can't visualize how Trump is building a bubble that in the long run will cause more problems to the market than what the Democrats will do.

This market is severely inflated because Trump has allowed companies to bring their money home and do whatever they want with it. The key phrase is "whatever they want". In the past, when they have had that opportunity, they have used in a greedy way and that is NOT going to change. Greed in the long run causes bubbles that burst. Nonetheless, enjoy the ride for the "short term".

Bullseye · Oct 23, 2018

Luckyone said:
There is no doubt that the Democrats winning will be a bucket of cold water on the market. Nonetheless, you evidently can't visualize how Trump is building a bubble that in the long run will cause more problems to the market than what the Democrats will do.

somehow, I think if Obama had been as successful in growing the economy you'd be spewing orgiastic praise.

Luckyone said:
This market is severely inflated because Trump has allowed companies to bring their money home and do whatever they want with it. The key phrase is "whatever they want". In the past, when they have had that opportunity, they have used in a greedy way and that is NOT going to change. Greed in the long run causes bubbles that burst. Nonetheless, enjoy the ride for the "short term".

Greedy way? As in use to grow the business, expand their markets or get employees raises, bonuses and improved benefits, as the have so far?

Luckyone · Oct 23, 2018

Bullseye said:
somehow, I think if Obama had been as successful in growing the economy you'd be spewing orgiastic praise.

No, I am a realist and deal with facts and truths, unlike Trump and his supporters that deal with lies and untruths.

I have to look at reality because when you are investing in the stock market, if you fool yourself the market makes you pay immediately. Trump and his supporters like the fake world they have built but ultimately like everything that is fake, if falls apart. I see pain in your future.

Greedy way? As in use to grow the business, expand their markets or get employees raises, bonuses and improved benefits, as the have so far?

Of course you don't see greed because you are blind. Greed works beneficially at the beginning as that is what is meant to do but greed becomes excess naturally and when that happens it topples over, as all excess does in the long run.

Bullseye · Oct 24, 2018

Luckyone said:
No, I am a realist and deal with facts and truths, unlike Trump and his supporters that deal with lies and untruths.

I have to look at reality because when you are investing in the stock market, if you fool yourself the market makes you pay immediately. Trump and his supporters like the fake world they have built but ultimately like everything that is fake, if falls apart. I see pain in your future.

Of course you don't see greed because you are blind. Greed works beneficially at the beginning as that is what is meant to do but greed becomes excess naturally and when that happens it topples over, as all excess does in the long run.

Dude, you're becoming a one trick pony. Yadda, yadda, Trump, yadda, yadda, Trump. Your entire world view is strained through a Trump filter.

The Stock Market

Lafayette

Lafayette

Lafayette

ludin

ludin

ludin

Luckyone

ludin

Luckyone

ludin

Lafayette

James972

ludin

James972

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter

ludin

James972

James972

Lafayette

Mach

Luckyone

Luckyone

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter

Luckyone

Bullseye

All Lives Matter or No Lives Matter