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)...
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.
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.
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.