PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
No, there was a dispute about whether a stock portfolio can be equated to real money.
No, there was a dispute about whether a stock portfolio can be equated to real money.
Why Is The Stock Market Doing So Well In A Bad Recession?
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Micawber,
It really has gotten off onto a tangent.
The discussion is supposed to be about how the stock market can be booming while the economy is in a bad recession.
I think it is a time lag effect. This recession began when special segments of the workforce lost their income, coupled with most of the consumer public becoming extremely wary about the social contact part of consumerism.
The pandemic has shut down or severely limited sports games, concerts, celebrations, conventions, bars, tourism, restaurants, cruise ships, stores, shops, school events, school classes, airlines, theaters, hotels.
Consumers are hesitant to participate in gatherings or close contact with others, causing a drop in consumer spending.
We have to wonder how the big corporations which depend on any of these can continue to make money, and how investors have reacted to the changes. Apparently they have shifted portfolios to the still-profitable holdings and driven the prices of those stocks up, causing the market to remain strong.
When mortgage, rent and loan defaults rise, will it cause the market to reflect the economy?
It really has gotten off onto a tangent.
The discussion is supposed to be about how the stock market can be booming while the economy is in a bad recession.
I think it is a time lag effect. This recession began when special segments of the workforce lost their income, coupled with most of the consumer public becoming extremely wary about the social contact part of consumerism.
The pandemic has shut down or severely limited sports games, concerts, celebrations, conventions, bars, tourism, restaurants, cruise ships, stores, shops, school events, school classes, airlines, theaters, hotels.
Consumers are hesitant to participate in gatherings or close contact with others, causing a drop in consumer spending.
We have to wonder how the big corporations which depend on any of these can continue to make money, and how investors have reacted to the changes. Apparently they have shifted portfolios to the still-profitable holdings and driven the prices of those stocks up, causing the market to remain strong.
When mortgage, rent and loan defaults rise, will it cause the market to reflect the economy?
This is what you posted when the stock market went down due to the virus from China that China failed to contain?
PoliTalker:
"Dive, market, DIVE!
Take DT down with you.
02-28-2020, 06:47 AM #5 | Top
PoliTalker
"Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.
We're going down.
BZZZZZT! BZZZZZT! BZZZZZT!
Dive! Dive! Dive!"
Why do you hate millions of Americans and their families?
Sounds like you are mad about it.
What's going on is they know Trump is POTUS and has cut taxes and regs freeing up the markets. They are also speculating that once the Covid shutdowns are ended we will be back to a booming economy.
That is unless Joe/Hoe wins and they tank it with massive tax increases and regulations.
Concart is Domer76. A known troll that I have on ignore/thread bans.
Domer76 is a transfemale. He got rid of all his man parts and it has engaged her.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Trump has argued that he prevailed over a great economy. But we all know a thriving economy was handed to him on a silver platter.
What Trump doesn't talk about at all is the federal debt. When was the last time Trump even mentioned the debt? He never talks about the debt. He used to talk about how he could wipe out the debt, but that was before he got elected. After he got elected the debt is the furthest thing from his mind. He has a history of running up debt and then defaulting.
It's easy to improve an economy by injecting money into it. Cutting taxes for the rich is an easy way to do that. But it is extremely irresponsible to cut taxes so much that the government doesn't have enough money to run on. That makes economic uplifts false because it is not sustainable to underfund the government.
It's like getting more power to your car engine by cutting the alternator belt off.
The engine no longer has to run the alternator or replace electricity into the battery, so it runs stronger.
The only problem is the battery is not getting charged.
The federal budget is like the car battery.
If you don't put enough juice into it then it will run down and the car will fail to operate.
Trump stole the funds that run the government and handed them to the rich, himself included.
That's all fine and well for a while but it can't last like that.
The economy he takes credit for is a false one. Fake. Can't last.
He is stealing from the American people, and handing it to the rich.
What Trump doesn't talk about at all is the federal debt. When was the last time Trump even mentioned the debt? He never talks about the debt. He used to talk about how he could wipe out the debt, but that was before he got elected. After he got elected the debt is the furthest thing from his mind. He has a history of running up debt and then defaulting.
It's easy to improve an economy by injecting money into it. Cutting taxes for the rich is an easy way to do that. But it is extremely irresponsible to cut taxes so much that the government doesn't have enough money to run on. That makes economic uplifts false because it is not sustainable to underfund the government.
It's like getting more power to your car engine by cutting the alternator belt off.
The engine no longer has to run the alternator or replace electricity into the battery, so it runs stronger.
The only problem is the battery is not getting charged.
The federal budget is like the car battery.
If you don't put enough juice into it then it will run down and the car will fail to operate.
Trump stole the funds that run the government and handed them to the rich, himself included.
That's all fine and well for a while but it can't last like that.
The economy he takes credit for is a false one. Fake. Can't last.
He is stealing from the American people, and handing it to the rich.
Not true. Nobody has to lose money because I gained. If there is an initial public offering and a person buys the stock for $50 and then sells it for $100 he gained $50. I bought it for $100 and sold it for $150. I made $50. Somebody only loses if they sold for a price below what they paid.
I understand what you are saying about the value of the stock, but nobody had to lose when I gained. You are aware companies issue new stocks, right? If I buy some of those new issues and they increase in value, nobody lost.
What if all my investments are in government treasuries that pay interest? I am accumulating more wealth every year but nobody is losing anything because of my increased wealth. Same applies to dividend paying stocks.
cawacko
Well-known member
Is that fact or conjecture?
Everybody understands that. But over 50% of Americans hold stocks and many of us live of that stock's value in retirement. We may have to sell that stock to get our yearly income, but we are paid in real money. And nobody is losing anything because my stock value increases. Or, I can choose to use interest from bonds or dividends from stocks for my income. Those are all real money. I don't have to sell any stocks or bonds to get my interest or dividends.
Nobody is calling those eggs chickens before they hatch and go peep.
Since those eggs are not "real money" before they hatch, does that mean schemes to tax wealth would not include a person's $100 million in his investment account?
cawacko
Well-known member
I was just thinking of your last sentence as well. I don't quite imagine supporters of a wealth tax will argue rich people shouldn't pay a tax on their equities holdings because they haven't hatched and gone peep.
See post #138 and #142.
I said if the top 20% increase their income from stock gains it does not take money away from the bottom 80%. Concart said the supply of money is fixed and anything gained by the top 20% means somebody on the bottom is losing.
That led to the discussion of whether I sell a stock for a gain means somebody else is losing.
Does that make you sad? I know, you're hoping for more misery and job losses in order to get dementia Joe elected. How pathetic.
US economy added 1.8 million jobs in July [/size]
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Nobody is losing anything?
Wrong.
People lose money in the stock market every day.
One stock goes up, another goes down.
People lose money in the stock market when they buy in hopes that a stock will continue to rise but instead it drops. IF they sell when the price is lower than whet they paid, they lose money. If someone buys a stock and the company goes out of business they lose all their money. People lose money in the stock market.
As far as wealth taxes go, I cannot comment on any specifics because those are proposals, not law.
One proposal is to tax trades. If you can afford to be buying and trading stocks then you can afford to pay a small percentage of the value to support the country which makes those stocks possible.
Nobody is losing anything?
Wrong.
People lose money in the stock market every day.
One stock goes up, another goes down.
People lose money in the stock market when they buy in hopes that a stock will continue to rise but instead it drops. IF they sell when the price is lower than whet they paid, they lose money. If someone buys a stock and the company goes out of business they lose all their money. People lose money in the stock market.
As far as wealth taxes go, I cannot comment on any specifics because those are proposals, not law.
One proposal is to tax trades. If you can afford to be buying and trading stocks then you can afford to pay a small percentage of the value to support the country which makes those stocks possible.
Last edited:
Companies can only issue new stock in two ways. First, they can announce a stock split, in which case they issue shares to everyone that already holds them and they become worth half of what they were. 2. They can make a preferred stock issuance for a specific purpose. They can't just magically issue new stock for the heck of it. As for treasuries, they pay interest, and inflation devalues every dollar out there. The money supply is increased by the velocity of money, it isn't produced out of thin air. And again, if a company eventually liquidates, your share are worth what the company was worth, regardless of how much you paid for it. Seriously, this is a silly semantics argument. I stated that the supply of dollars is fixed, and for all intents and purposes it is. If you print more, it becomes worth less. If you give someone a tax break, you can't print money to make up the difference, you have to tax someone else more.
The genesis of this discussion was whether taxation policy can distribute wealth in an efficient manner. The fact is that a dollar taken from the upper 20% and transferred to the bottom 20%, that will increase consumer spending. It's simple math.
But cawacko, it is not "real" money. How can you tax it?
Of course they want those those funds included. Warren's wealth tax:
"All assets are included in the net worth calculation, which will produce more revenue and reduce opportunities for avoidance and evasion:
All household assets held anywhere in the world will be included in the net worth measurement, including residences, closely held businesses, assets held in trust, retirement assets, assets held by minor children, and personal property with a value of $50,000 or more."
If a guy has an investment account of $50 million and no other assets or income, would that mean he would owe no wealth tax because it is not "real money"?
I just bought a house and my IRA account was certainly included to determine my eligibility for the loan because my Social Security income did not qualify me.
I did not say people do not lose money in the market. I said if I buy a stock for $100 and sell it for $150, I made $50 but nobody lost because of my profit.
The original point was that if the top 20% make 10% gain on their stocks, it does not take any money away from the bottom 80%. The erroneous assumption was that there is only X amount of money and if I gain somebody else lost.
If people choose to buy more bicycles for the pandemic that increases the profits for bike manufacturers and their stockholders. Those consumers voluntarily chose to exchange their money for bikes which transferred some of their money to bike stockholders. Nobody lost anything.
Do not bother with liberals on this board and anything financial. They are illiterate. It is quite apparent they are all broke as fuck and have nothing to invest for the future for if they did, they would know these things.