Why Is The Stock Market Doing So Well In A Bad Recession?

[cawacko]

Hello Flash,



A $5000 TV purchase generates no more jobs than a $500 TV purchase. The man-hours to build each is approx equal. Further, those man-hours are probably not US jobs.

The US labor to stock and sell a $5000 TV is exactly the same as the US labor to stock and sell a $200 TV. If the rich are contributing more to the economy, it is primarily only benefiting the rich. If 25 struggling people buy $200 TV's, that generates 25 times as much US worker income as one rich person buying a single $5000 TV. It is similar with most products.

The rich person buys one expensive item, that translates into a little bit of income for a US worker. That worker then spends their income for a secondary beneficial effect on the economy.

If many poor people spend all of their income that translates into multitudes more ripple-effect economic activity than one rich person spending an equal amount on one expensive item.

If many poor people spend all their income then they are still poor with no money. Is that the goal?

[Flash]

Hello Flash,



You are responding to things I never said. Somebody else said if someone gains another must lose, not me. Unlike the president, I believe in win/win philosophy.

My view of the wealthy is no different than my view of anybody else. There are good people and there are bad. It is greed that I hold a low view of, not wealth. Greed exists across the wealth spectrum.

See post #186. You told me if some were gaining others were losing and it was myopic of me to suggest otherwise. I responded that I know people lose in the market, but not because I make a gain on my stock.

[Sailor]

Fact he/she admitted in a post awhile back.

It makes sense. Domer and Concart are both bullshitters and dumb as fuck. Plausible.

[Micawber]

This went about three (3) miles over his head. He's squirming now.

I hope so, I like it when stupid bombs miss me, not sure about you.

His own post conceded Concart's point. Let me know when you figure it out.
Oh I can't wait that long. If the poor spend all their money and the rich spend half, arguendo, that is checkmate.
We aren't talking about what amount total is being spent now, we are talking about public finance to arrange
how new/additional/more money would be used going forward.

So if we have a trillion to plop somewhere, all of it would be spent if we plop it on the poor and 1/2 of it if we dumped it on the rich.

Fuck you people are stupid.

[Sailor]

I hope so, I like it when stupid bombs miss me, not sure about you.

His own post conceded Concart's point. Let me know when you figure it out.
Oh I can't wait that long. If the poor spend all their money and the rich spend half, arguendo, that is checkmate.
We aren't talking about what amount total is being spent now, we are talking about public finance to arrange
how new/additional/more money would be used going forward.

So if we have a trillion to plop somewhere, all of it would be spent if we plop it on the poor and 1/2 of it if we dumped it on the rich.

Fuck you people are stupid.

You are a fiscal illiterate. You and Concart. Two libs talking out your ass about something you know nothing about.

[Micawber]

If many poor people spend all their income then they are still poor with no money. Is that the goal?

LOL. For a guy who has prided himself on his econ acumen in this thread you sure lose sight of the ball quickly.
Our goal, I think, was enhancing consumer spending as a stimulus. We weren't determining whose spending had virtue.
It was a chuckle though, that you think when the poor spend on their needs it's futile and when a rich guy buys a third yacht
its like a bank vault. A true conservative.

[Loving91390]

Op ... because people who invest in the stock market .... haven’t been out of work .

[Concart]

I hope so, I like it when stupid bombs miss me, not sure about you.

His own post conceded Concart's point. Let me know when you figure it out.
Oh I can't wait that long. If the poor spend all their money and the rich spend half, arguendo, that is checkmate.
We aren't talking about what amount total is being spent now, we are talking about public finance to arrange
how new/additional/more money would be used going forward.

So if we have a trillion to plop somewhere, all of it would be spent if we plop it on the poor and 1/2 of it if we dumped it on the rich.

Fuck you people are stupid.

It's a third grade math problem and they can't solve it. It's sublime.

[Sailor]

It's a third grade math problem and they can't solve it. It's sublime.

Says the drooling retard to himself. STFU.

[archives]

Back and forth, it is all the same, not difficult, there is a lot of money out there, we have just went thru stimulus valuing over three trillion dollars, plus the Fed, some have to spend it putting it back into circulation, the goal, others, and it is largely those with money, invest in the Market, not all that difficult

[Micawber]

It's a third grade math problem and they can't solve it. It's sublime.

"But rich people have 50 trillion to spend and the poor don't have any so the rich spend more so we should give them even more still...."

Hilarious Earl strapped on his spurs and rode that red herring into the sunset? LMAO

[cawacko]

LOL. For a guy who has prided himself on his econ acumen in this thread you sure lose sight of the ball quickly.
Our goal, I think, was enhancing consumer spending as a stimulus. We weren't determining whose spending had virtue.
It was a chuckle though, that you think when the poor spend on their needs it's futile and when a rich guy buys a third yacht
its like a bank vault. A true conservative.

I haven't followed all the posts ITT plus it's gone in multiple directions. I mean sure, if you want ultimate stimulus everyone go out and spend everything you have. And when you've spent that, borrow and spend some more. "Saving for a rainy day" is our enemy right?

As for your projection in your last sentence I have no idea where that is coming from. Here's my belief on money. 1) you've earned do what you want with it and 2) 'saving for a rainy day' and for the future is sage advice.

And in honor of consumerism and spending what we don't have here's a great song celebrating it from the early 2000's.

[archives]

I haven't followed all the posts ITT plus it's gone in multiple directions. I mean sure, if you want ultimate stimulus everyone go out and spend everything you have. And when you've spent that, borrow and spend some more. "Saving for a rainy day" is our enemy right?

As for your projection in your last sentence I have no idea where that is coming from. Here's my belief on money. 1) you've earned do what you want with it and 2) 'saving for a rainy day' and for the future is sage advice.

And in honor of consumerism and spending what we don't have here's a great song celebrating it from the early 2000's.

You are correct regarding "gone in multiple directions," as would be expect on this forum 237 posts in, but again, to address the question in the topic post, why is the market doing well, simple fact, there is a hell'va of money out there in circulation, three trillion plus the Fed's efforts, how that currency is circulated and the best way is debatable, but you got to admit, that is what has kept the Market humming

[ThatOwlWoman]

A large number of employees with 401(k)s or 403(b)s cannot in those accounts unless the quit or retire. Therefore, many teachers and others stay in those accounts and contribute to them over many years of employment. They replace the traditional pension. They may go up and down, but over they long term they grow at the average rate of 10% per year. When they retire it is not unusual to have over 1$ million.

Yes, I know that. Teachers and other state public employees do not have 401(k)s; they have different plans.

Facts are that those who are currently in a laid-off status and not receiving a paycheck are not contributing to their 401(k)s and neither are their employees. I already stated that. Facts also state that those who are in dire straits CAN cash out their 401(k)s even though they will take a 10% tax bite. Isn't choice just so great?

So why do YOU think that the markets are recovering to near-preCOVID levels, while the rest of the economy circles the drain?

[ThatOwlWoman]

It makes sense. Domer and Concart are both bullshitters and dumb as fuck. Plausible.

I agree with them for the most part. Want to call me dumb as fuck too?