Posted on 10/23/2019 7:05:55 AM PDT by Vigilanteman
Key Points
(Excerpt) Read more at schwab.com ...
There is no safe earthy harbour in the coming storm. Have thought long and hard on this.
Is this like when obummer was President and they kept trying to predict when the economy would suddenly bloom? Except, of course, now they’re trying to predict (and push) a “coming collapse” (just in time for the elections)...
You are right, I need to clarify. There is a storm coming, it will affect all. But that does not mean there won’t be survivors.
We woke up one morning and USSR was kaput, but life went on.
I agree. But will the storm hit before or after November, 2020?
I guess I have an overly-simplistic view, but I can’t see how there can be any significant stock market decline as long as interest rates are low. After all, where else can you put your money?
Now, once the Fed gets rates back to over 5%, then yeah, I can see stocks getting hammered. But here’s the thing. The government can’t afford to borrow when rates are high. So I think we’ll be in a low interest rate environment until things collapse completely. And that could be 25+ years from now.
I might be all mixed up here. So I invite corrections.
Let me guess all the results were unexpected. Financial reporting is a sham.
The problem is less with financial reporting than with expectations of the future.
Charles Schwab says blah blah blah blah.
And brokers still cannot outperform a monkey choosing stocks by throwing his caca at a dart board.
My money is on the monkey.
Unfortunately, you are correct.
Does anybody remember a stock market technique where by following interest rates, that determined whether one was currently invested in stocks, bonds or money market??
Those “Key Points” are written like horoscopes. Vague, with non-sequiturs, and undefined terminology that the reader can interpret any way he wants.
What does it mean: “It’s late”? Kinda early here.
One thing is for sure: if any democrat is elected president, we suffer economically.
A few months ago the media was full of the word “Recession,” which we were told to blame on Trump.
Sometimes recessions are necessary. When they are not the result of some “financial crisis” as in 2008, they help clear out some of the dead wood, bloated zombies, too weak to continue chaff that needs to be cleared out.
The public’s problem, our problem, and it is a big problem, is that unlike the economic reality, which is that very large and now often global macro economic forces are the major causes of a recession, the sheeple have been led by the media to blame the U.S. president, just because they happen to be the occupant of the White House at the time of a recession.
It is the same on the opposite side of the ledger, presidents are often given credit, or just too much credit, for a growing economy when they have not so very much, or nothing to do with it. Clinton was one of those. The markets and the GDP grew when Clinton was in office because of (1) technology advancements that he had nothing to do with were starting the technological revolution of business and telecommunications and (2) those things were being aided by tax changes instituted under Reagan. Yet, the media did its Democratic Party loyalty best convincing the sheeple it was all do to Clinton.
And now, yes Trump has made some good tax changes (not perfect, just good), and they have helped. BUT if you look at the recent market and GDP history, the years 2017 to now have actually been a continuation of business revenue growth, and GDP improvement that began while Obama was in office, and began in spite of the things Obama did that made financial recovery slower than it could have been.
I think the macro economic truth is that the sheeple need to be reeducated away from the mistaken belief that U.S. presidents are the Wizard of Oz over the economy and all credit and all blame is due them.
Just to name one example, illegitimate birth rates among blacks was not so different before LBJ came along and workforce participation rates were actually higher, partly as a result of businesses which were able to find blacks willing to do the same work for lower pay than whites. The "Great Society" and the entitlement mentality which it fostered changed all of that big time.
“Just to name one example, illegitimate birth rates among blacks was not so different before LBJ came along and workforce participation rates were actually higher, partly as a result of businesses which were able to find blacks willing to do the same work for lower pay than whites. The “Great Society” and the entitlement mentality which it fostered changed all of that big time.”
Yes, and it is an example of my point.
The effects of many of Johnson’s programs was not felt much at all until after Johnson was out of office. So he was not the occupant of the White House at the time the sheeple were seeking the occupant of the White House to “do something” about any bad conditions, and then those White House occupants got the blame when whatever they did had no affect - maybe just not until THEY were out of office. Meanwhile other macro economic forces were at play, contributing to circumstances and affects.
I think IF a presidents actions (or desired policies that Congress approves and helps institute) have any great affect, it is not while they sit in the White House, it is over time later on.
Trump with his trade war presents a different case.
Immediate, and almost unilaterally, changing of tariff structures, and as large as those changes are, is producing immediate economic, financial and trade changes, and not limited to just the U.S. and China. Those immediate impacts are resonating immediately across many economies, and even once the tariffs come back down, some trade relationships will not jump back to where they were before (because alternate arrangements are being made and there may be no good economic reason to change them back).
Trump breaks the mold. Other presidents may have pursued MAJOR trade relationship changes with China, and kept those negotiations going for quite some time, with no immediate resolution and no immediate tariff changes, and maybe no tariff changes in the end. Trump put the stick out there first and then China had to negotiate for the carrot.
That you would not have seen Clinton, Bush or Obama do, even if they thought seriously that major changes in our trade relationship with China had to occur.
The one thing that Trump is not is a fan of the status quo. There are a number of good things about that, because so much of the status quo had become a settled and stale orthodoxy that refused to be challenged, as if that thinking had become the only legitimate view of things. The orthodoxy kept sweeping problems under the rug, because addressing them meant a challenge to the orthodox views.
And the swamp doesn't want to be drained.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.