|
Post by Slinxter on Jan 28, 2021 10:55:16 GMT -5
"The latest available government data, via the Federal Reserve from 2016, shows a relatively small share of American families (14%) are directly invested in individual stocks but a majority (52%) have some market investment mostly from owning retirement accounts such as 401(k)s. The Federal Reserve study found that only about one-third of families in the lower half of the income scale had stock holdings. In the next 40% of the income scale, about 70% of households held stocks, while households in the top 10% of the income scale had stock ownership rates above 90%." www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2020/08/31/most-americans-dont-have-a-real-stake-in-the-stock-market/?sh=2f24a5591154This proves my point yes? Literally, yes, but IMO the gist of infinatedreams comment is that the govt. is all about the money, not helping the people that need help the most. You are definitely reinforcing that that is true, stock market makes people with money to begin with more money, people who can't afford it bedamned.
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Jan 28, 2021 11:41:28 GMT -5
This proves my point yes? Literally, yes, but IMO the gist of infinatedreams comment is that the govt. is all about the money, not helping the people that need help the most. You are definitely reinforcing that that is true, stock market makes people with money to begin with more money, people who can't afford it bedamned. Couple things: 1. He didn’t say anything about money, except that political allies were given favorable contracts. I don’t know the details, but agree it sounds sketch. 2. There is not like a magic button the president can hit that makes “stocks go up”. The closest any country has to that are various types of liquidity injections that the central bank can perform, which is separate from the president and apolitical in almost all countries. This president will always try and make it look like they are behind these actions but it’s political theater. And in the few cases where the president does get involved with the central banks affairs, it’s a huge scandal (see: Turkey) 3. Healthy capital markets are necessary for any economy. If you want poor and middle class people to have jobs it’s a necessity. Most businesses have very little room for error because debt is a normal part of doing business. They have to be supported if they will survive
|
|
|
Post by myrrh on Jan 28, 2021 16:10:34 GMT -5
That's all very fascinating commentary, but isn't the point that people who aren't in positions of privilege haven't been prioritized by the right and honorable Mr. Johnson?
The stock market isn't a good indicator of prosperity for people who aren't already decently situated- in the example given (America), the bottom half of income earners aren't reaping any of that unless you want to count Joe CEO giving a fat tip his Uber driver. Then Joe gets a nice charity boner, and the guy driving Uber gets to maybe buy name brand Pop Tarts instead of the store brand frosted cardboard. Anyway, touting the stock market when unemployment and covid are looming is... Not helpful.
|
|
|
Post by infinatedreams on Jan 28, 2021 16:16:55 GMT -5
Literally, yes, but IMO the gist of infinatedreams comment is that the govt. is all about the money, not helping the people that need help the most. Kinda .... more that 'this' govmnt is all about looking after its 'friends and donors' but then which govmnt doesnt eh! Its tried to help the neediest but by giving contracts (without tender or due dilligance) to 'associates', so yes the neediest are helped but at overpriced prices and questionable suppliers. And of course, the debt built up during this crisis will be paid for by those who can least afford it. For example: Manufacturing firm PPE Medpro Ltd won two contracts worth £203m seven weeks after it was set up by Anthony Page – a former secretary of the firm that provides branding services to Tory peer Baroness Mone’s company. www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-tory-donor-lord-ashcrofts-outsourcing-firm-given-350m-vaccination-contract/Not bad eh .... think i need to set up a new company
|
|
|
Post by infinatedreams on Jan 28, 2021 16:23:46 GMT -5
That's all very fascinating commentary, but isn't the point that people who aren't in positions of privilege haven't been prioritized by the right and honorable Mr. Johnson? The priority has been to keep things running as long as possible and bugger everyone else. Which hasnt worked and is now why we are in such a sad n sorry state. Yes the vaccination programme seems to be going well (signs the wheels are starting to come off) but then it had to run well because the virus was running wild due to lack of inacction by the Right Honourable My Johnson. Were still fucked, just slightly less fucked than before. So i had the Pfizer vaccing, meant to have the 2nd shot after 3 weeks, this has now been delayed to 12 weeks so they can vaccinate more people with the 1st dose quicker, smacks of blind panic to me. We are told that this is safe to delay the 2nd shot, that the govmnt scientists have seen the papers from Pfizer that say its safe, but they wont release to the public domain due to 'confidentiality'. Something aint right with that.
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Jan 28, 2021 18:51:33 GMT -5
That's all very fascinating commentary, but isn't the point that people who aren't in positions of privilege haven't been prioritized by the right and honorable Mr. Johnson? The two are not mutually exclusive. The people who are making decisions that end up elevating asset prices have very few tools in their toolbox. They can change interest rates, they can offer overnight lending, they can buy bonds. That’s it. It’s unfortunate that none of these directly help the poor, but that is just not in the central banks mandate. Depending on the central bank, lowering unemployment may be in the mandate, and that’s why they do it. Again it’s unfortunate the immediate effect benefits the wealthy, but the long term effect and primary purpose of these policies is to stabilize the economy and lower unemployment It is absolutely wrong and factually inaccurate to say that this was done just to help the rich and does nothing to help the poor. It is also wrong to say it was done instead of helping the poor. No one is choosing between helping the poor and not (at least not as far as the central banks are concerned). The choice is between having a banking system, and not. Again it is unfortunate side effect the wealthy get the immediate benefit, but it’s ignorant to say we should just let stocks fall. Well what’s keeping them elevated is also keeping banks open, companies open, credit rolling. You need these things to have an economy. What I find so interesting is no one seemed to care from 2009-2016 when the Fed was causing unprecedented wealth creation for the top 1%. But now that we are actually in a crisis and the Fed does need to do something suddenly everyone turned into Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by someonerandom on Jan 28, 2021 20:33:46 GMT -5
Sounds like we have a closeted Trump supporter getting #TRIGGERED cause we were mean to their precious stock market.
|
|
|
Post by darthoso on Jan 28, 2021 22:26:55 GMT -5
That's all very fascinating commentary, but isn't the point that people who aren't in positions of privilege haven't been prioritized by the right and honorable Mr. Johnson? The two are not mutually exclusive. The people who are making decisions that end up elevating asset prices have very few tools in their toolbox. They can change interest rates, they can offer overnight lending, they can buy bonds. That’s it. It’s unfortunate that none of these directly help the poor, but that is just not in the central banks mandate. Depending on the central bank, lowering unemployment may be in the mandate, and that’s why they do it. Again it’s unfortunate the immediate effect benefits the wealthy, but the long term effect and primary purpose of these policies is to stabilize the economy and lower unemployment It is absolutely wrong and factually inaccurate to say that this was done just to help the rich and does nothing to help the poor. It is also wrong to say it was done instead of helping the poor. No one is choosing between helping the poor and not (at least not as far as the central banks are concerned). The choice is between having a banking system, and not. Again it is unfortunate side effect the wealthy get the immediate benefit, but it’s ignorant to say we should just let stocks fall. Well what’s keeping them elevated is also keeping banks open, companies open, credit rolling. You need these things to have an economy. What I find so interesting is no one seemed to care from 2009-2016 when the Fed was causing unprecedented wealth creation for the top 1%. But now that we are actually in a crisis and the Fed does need to do something suddenly everyone turned into Ron Paul. That's how populist movements build, and if you don't guard against perceptions, you eventually get pitchforks and heads on spikes. People did care about that wealth creation going to the 1%, if they didn't Sanders, Trump, and Freedom Checks Yang wouldn't have been a thing. The Federal Reserve takes orders from Congress, the Congress is funded by wall street, wall street benefits from Federal Reserve policy. That's a problem regardless of how academically well you justify the Fed's and Congress's actions.
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Jan 28, 2021 22:56:49 GMT -5
Gamestop: Tear it all down
|
|
|
Post by wonk on Jan 28, 2021 23:03:11 GMT -5
So i had the Pfizer vaccing, meant to have the 2nd shot after 3 weeks, this has now been delayed to 12 weeks so they can vaccinate more people with the 1st dose quicker, smacks of blind panic to me. We are told that this is safe to delay the 2nd shot, that the govmnt scientists have seen the papers from Pfizer that say its safe, but they wont release to the public domain due to 'confidentiality'. Something aint right with that. I can see the logic behind the decision. Is it right or wrong? Only time will tell. I am glad to see the MRNA didn't suddenly turn into DNA and invade the nucleus of your cell, turning you into a tadpole. I wonder if your tail would work though, hmm that may keep me up at night. Where you 1a or 1b? I think you guys are using the same categories as us
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Jan 28, 2021 23:46:29 GMT -5
Sounds like we have a closeted Trump supporter getting #TRIGGERED cause we were mean to their precious stock market. You know I didnt vote Trump. And I dont mean to generalize but is a day-trading Trump voter a thing? Why are you acting like the typical Trump lover is an investor? Tell me SOR, do they sit down and discuss bond market volatility before or after the QAnon meetings? Theres one more misconception you have I want to address. You seem to think lower stock prices in a crisis hurt the rich. They do not. They may have lost wealth on paper but it will never be realized because they have no need for cash and thus no need to sell. In fact, at low prices they are buyers, and in a crisis they are the only ones with any cash lying around to buy anything. This, as you might imagine, only makes them richer and the wealth gap worse. But who does need to sell in a crisis? Middle class people who have lost their job, and small and mid size businesses that have no way to make ends meet and no cash flow. Lower stock prices hurt them the most. So your brilliant plan of punishing the rich would actually backfire, the rich would become richer, the poor would become poorer. Like a pokemon, you would hurt yourself in your confusion
|
|
|
Post by Corey on Jan 28, 2021 23:57:36 GMT -5
The Federal Reserve takes orders from Congress, the Congress is funded by wall street, wall street benefits from Federal Reserve policy. That's a problem regardless of how academically well you justify the Fed's and Congress's actions. Thats not even remotely true. You mean because they are confirmed? That is a big stretch. I wish it were true. But its not. Or are you talking about the regional banks? Who cares about them, Im talking about the Grand Poobah, the FOMC. Decisions are made, behind close doors, by the Board of Governors. And not even all the members get a vote! So if not even all the members of this elite group of economists get a say, congress certainly doesnt.
|
|
|
Post by darthoso on Jan 29, 2021 0:11:54 GMT -5
The Federal Reserve takes orders from Congress, the Congress is funded by wall street, wall street benefits from Federal Reserve policy. That's a problem regardless of how academically well you justify the Fed's and Congress's actions. Thats not even remotely true. You mean because they are confirmed? That is a big stretch. I wish it were true. But its not. Or are you talking about the regional banks? Who cares about them, Im talking about the Grand Poobah, the FOMC. Decisions are made, behind close doors, by the Board of Governors. And not even all the members get a vote! So if not even all the members of this elite group of economists get a say, congress certainly doesnt. The Federal Reserve's mandate is set by Congress, as are the regulations governing it.
|
|
|
Post by someonerandom on Jan 29, 2021 0:46:33 GMT -5
Hey now, don’t underestimate the value of Christmas. Also, what about the stock market? That’s important too. I’ve quoted myself, @corey so you can see what you’re arguing against. That’s what I said about stocks. You might be happier if you just go twirl your mustache and count your money piles somewhere else, because being in here seems pretty triggering for you. Also, there’s nothing wrong with being a Trump supporter. Just lean into it.
|
|
|
Post by myrrh on Jan 29, 2021 0:50:59 GMT -5
It is absolutely wrong and factually inaccurate to say that this was done just to help the rich and does nothing to help the poor. It is also wrong to say it was done instead of helping the poor. Thanks for mansplaining economics to me, bro, but I have no idea what you're on about. Nobody said that a weak market hurting the rich is good for the poor. The statement was that a strong market does not necessarily benefit people who aren't already wealthy. The fact stands. The figures Slinxter posted are the end of it- the wealth of the stock market is radically skewed toward wealthy investors. It's not even a controversial statement, income inequality is a huge problem the world over.
|
|