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

[Micawber]

I didn't say anything about Republicans. So you are projecting. I said conservatives, and specifically those that believe in supply side economics. If the shoe fits, wear it. Supply side does not work. QE tends to be inflationary, because eventually, the excess reserves have to enter the money supply. That happens gradually in an environment where overnight lending between banks is slow and the central bank is paying interest on excess reserves. Also, QE increases demand for treasuries, and therefore lowers interest rates on those treasuries. So in that respect, QE could apply pressure to push interest rates downward, but it isn't a driving factor of interest rates. What I'm saying is that QE is one of many factors that can impact inflation and interest rates, but it has been the cudgel that the right wing has used (and used poorly) to make a partisan attack on the Fed.

I've heard what has been done with rates has emptied the monetary policy tool-kit. What happens when the impetus for lowering rates still exists and there is not room to lower them?
Could the government set an interest rate by law higher up, untethered to the overnight rate then fuck with that to regain some torque? Trying to think outside the box when interest rates are zero.

[PoliTalker]

Goodbye anonymoose,

PoliSquaker is a she? I thought it was an effeminate old guy.

It's been nice, sometimes, but that crossed the line. And there is no going back.

Do have a nice life.

As far as my forum participation goes, you no longer exist. Erased.

And on the way out, you just became the latest example that I mean exactly what I say in my PIP, and I stand behind my word.

Poof!

[anonymoose]

Hello anonymoose,



I don't see the Taiwanese economy crashed. If we had handled things differently we could have been doing a lot better right now. The deaths per million in the whole world is 96. The deaths per million in the USA is 511. We are 5 times worse.

2 months of denials and failure to take proactive action made this far worse than it needed to be. That caused severe and longer shut downs. Trump owns the crash. And if the bottom falls out of the stock market before the election don't be surprised.

The new administration, if elected, is going to have to get serious about putting the house into order, and that is going to mean taxing the rich more. That is going to hurt the stock market. If all those big wheeler dealer investors see the writing on the wall and pull out before the election there could be an October surprise... The bears are getting restless.

Re: first paragraph - yada yada, the Obama recovery was the slowest ever , Trump crashed the economy, blah blah.
I really don't care who wins in November they will have a mess to deal with.
Let's say Biden wins and dems get control of the house and senate. It will be damn interesting to see them print more money and give it out freely making it *still* more profitable in the short run to stay home and not work.

[Micawber]

False. The greater the income, the less of that income by percentage goes to consumer spending. That's why the increasing wealth gap is so destructive. It is anti growth.

Lots of evidence of this, but here is one that is easily illustrated. The bottom 20% spend 100% of their income, the top 20% spend 53.3% of their income.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how...e-spend-money/

The wage/wealth gap is slowly eroding growth. It is unsustainable.

The equation seems pretty straight forward. If you want to increase spending of X amount using monetary policy
give to those who spend. If you want the population to save money, give it to the rich. If you don't want to fuck with it, then don't.
The merit of trickle down depends on whether the "job creators" are anxious or are feeling bullish. When you need to "fix" the economy
then those people are probably anxious and will just save the money, say thank you and sleep better while most people don't get any relief.

[anonymoose]

Goodbye anonymoose,



It's been nice, sometimes, but that crossed the line. And there is no going back.

Do have a nice life.

As far as my forum participation goes, you no longer exist. Erased.

And on the way out, you just became the latest example that I mean exactly what I say in my PIP, and I stand behind my word.

Poof!

All good with me. I'll still respond to your posts for the benefit of others to see.

[Micawber]

Goodbye anonymoose,



It's been nice, sometimes, but that crossed the line. And there is no going back.

Do have a nice life.

As far as my forum participation goes, you no longer exist. Erased.

And on the way out, you just became the latest example that I mean exactly what I say in my PIP, and I stand behind my word.

Poof!

Yep

[Sailor]

All good with me. I'll still respond to your posts for the benefit of others to see.

Gender confused people are a bit sensitive. All that confusion going on.

[Concart]

The equation seems pretty straight forward. If you want to increase spending of X amount using monetary policy
give to those who spend. If you want the population to save money, give it to the rich. If you don't want to fuck with it, then don't.
The merit of trickle down depends on whether the "job creators" are anxious or are feeling bullish. When you need to "fix" the economy
then those people are probably anxious and will just save the money, say thank you and sleep better while most people don't get any relief.

Yep. If trickle down actually worked, you would not have seen a change in the percentage of wealth held by each quintile. But that isn't the case. This is like one of those fountains that circulates water from the bottom to the top and it flows back down. If it doesn't flow back down as fast as it's pumped up, eventually the bottom becomes dry. Since the bottom in this case drives consumer spending, if it's dry, everyone is screwed. The answer if you are on the top? Pour more water in the bottom via consumer debt. But that eventually runs (ran) out too. The outcome is completely predictable. The only way to fix it is to adjust the flow AND take a bunch of water from the top and move it to the bottom in a one time correction. Pretty simple analogy.

[T. A. Gardner]

Because it's really not a bad recession? It's a temporary halting of the economy in part due to government fiat. Once that is lifted, the economy will return to what it was previously doing most likely with a roar.

On a political note, the Democrats definitely would not want that to happen until after the election as they would perceive keeping things clamped down will aid Biden in getting elected.

[anonymoose]

Gender confused people are a bit sensitive. All that confusion going on.

Really sensitive. Nothing wrong with being effeminate. Lots of guys are. Many are even aware of it.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Concart,

Yep. If trickle down actually worked, you would not have seen a change in the percentage of wealth held by each quintile. But that isn't the case. This is like one of those fountains that circulates water from the bottom to the top and it flows back down. If it doesn't flow back down as fast as it's pumped up, eventually the bottom becomes dry. Since the bottom in this case drives consumer spending, if it's dry, everyone is screwed. The answer if you are on the top? Pour more water in the bottom via consumer debt. But that eventually runs (ran) out too. The outcome is completely predictable. The only way to fix it is to adjust the flow AND take a bunch of water from the top and move it to the bottom in a one time correction. Pretty simple analogy.

That is an excellent analogy.

And a multi-level fountain in which all the water accumulates at the top becomes quite top-heavy and is likely to collapse.

[Flash]

False. The greater the income, the less of that income by percentage goes to consumer spending. That's why the increasing wealth gap is so destructive. It is anti growth.

Lots of evidence of this, but here is one that is easily illustrated. The bottom 20% spend 100% of their income, the top 20% spend 53.3% of their income.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how...e-spend-money/

The wage/wealth gap is slowly eroding growth. It is unsustainable.

You are not reading clearly. I said nothing about the percentage of a persons' wages that go to consumer spending. I said 60% of all consumer spending in the U. S. is spent by the top 20%. Since consumer spending drives the economy that means the top 20% are driving the economy--so the claim they are "hoarding" their money is erroneous.

Others claimed the wealthy were not investing their money and then claimed they are making all the gains in the stock market.

As long as people simplistically blame economic problems on "the wealthy" will never understand how the system works. Wealthy account for most consumer spending, most of the stock market investments, and pay almost all federal income taxes.

[Concart]

You are not reading clearly. I said nothing about the percentage of a persons' wages that go to consumer spending. I said 60% of all consumer spending in the U. S. is spent by the top 20%. Since consumer spending drives the economy that means the top 20% are driving the economy--so the claim they are "hoarding" their money is erroneous.

Others claimed the wealthy were not investing their money and then claimed they are making all the gains in the stock market.

As long as people simplistically blame economic problems on "the wealthy" will never understand how the system works. Wealthy account for most consumer spending, most of the stock market investments, and pay almost all federal income taxes.

Your statistic is meaningless. I don't care. Of course they spend more, but the percentage is the important factor. If you have a million dollars, and half of it went to the top 20% and half to the bottom 20%, consumer spending would be 770,000 dollars. If 90% went to the bottom 20% and 10% went to the top 20%, consumer spending would be around 950,000 dollars. That's a huge difference. If you want to stimulate the economy, you don't give money to rich guys or corporations, because they will not use it in a manner that stimulates the economy. Give it to the poor, and they will spend it all. That's why unemployment is the best stimulus dollar out there.

I don't place any blame here at all, except on those that set the tax policies. When those policies give more money to people who are less likely to spend it, growth will slow. It's that simple.

[Concart]

You are not reading clearly. I said nothing about the percentage of a persons' wages that go to consumer spending. I said 60% of all consumer spending in the U. S. is spent by the top 20%. Since consumer spending drives the economy that means the top 20% are driving the economy--so the claim they are "hoarding" their money is erroneous.

Others claimed the wealthy were not investing their money and then claimed they are making all the gains in the stock market.

As long as people simplistically blame economic problems on "the wealthy" will never understand how the system works. Wealthy account for most consumer spending, most of the stock market investments, and pay almost all federal income taxes.

Second point, investing in the stock market does nothing for growth. It's just moving money from one party to another. It creates no jobs. It builds no factories. It's just gambling.

[Sailor]

Second point, investing in the stock market does nothing for growth. It's just moving money from one party to another. It creates no jobs. It builds no factories. It's just gambling.

And you are supposed to be an economist? LMAO! Holy shit what a dumb fuck.