I heard the Steelers won today, and my 401K is up over 30% so far this year, so I'm good,
While No One Was Looking, Congress Took A Huge Step Toward Fixing The Economy
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
Hopefully ESPN, CNN, and the MSNBC.
California is run by liberals. What the **** did you expect?
That's new for me. What party do these companies belong to? (Apple, GM, Ford, HP, Facebook......)
"This Is Most Worrying": In One Year, Central Bank Liquidity Will Collapse From $2 Trillion To Zero Today at 12:25 pm
Is it complacency, or simply trader paralysis?
A question we first asked three months ago is getting a second wind this morning, when in a report by Deutsche Bank's Alan Ruskin - "Vol: freeze or flight?" - the macro strategist points out that "the new 2017 Nobel laureate for Economics is not the only one at a loss to explain low stock market volatility, and thinks investors are in ‘freeze mode’ in the midst of global uncertainties."
According to Ruskin, however, it's all about to change.
But why? And what is "the most likely causes of a shift to ‘flight mode’ and a rise in volatility? Here’s one possibility: by the end of next year, the combined expansion of all the major Central Bank balance sheets will have collapsed from a 12 month growth rate of $2 trillion per annum to zero."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-bank-liquidity-will-collapse-2-trillion-zero
That sounds like a personal problem. California is poor because it is poorly run.
Companies don't belong to parties because they are not people. That said, most large corporations (like the five you mentioned) are run by Liberals and donate most of their political money to Democrats.
The political money didn't help Democrats to win the 2016 election.
912. In U.S. terror power overrules the money (7/11/2016)
U.S. is a money dominated country. The principle is broken in this campaign. It was found by a Trump supporter.
What message has Trump brought to us? Nothing constructive but a lot of abuse.
This "Money is king" rule will be broken in this president election. Because the Feds want to have their own candidate- Donald Trump to get that seat. So whatever happens - short of campaign money, it doesn't matter. You see what happens -Clinton has to buy ads with money, Trump gets it free. Because the media is controlled by the Feds.
This country is ruled by the Feds. They rule the country by controlled intelligence and media. They select politicians through rigged election and justify the election result through the fake poll done by media.
Peter Schiff Warns Of "Calm Before The Storm"
by Tyler Durden
Oct 20, 2017
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...303/imageroot/2017/10/17/20171020_schiff1.jpg
But interest rates are now at just 1.25%. If the stock market were again to drop in such a manner, the Fed has far less fire power to bring to bear. It could cut rates to zero and then re-launch another round of QE bond buying to flood the financial sector with liquidity. But that may not be nearly as effective as it was in 2008. Given that the big problem at that point was bad mortgage debt, the QE program’s purchase of mortgage bonds was a fairly effective solution (although we believe a misguided one). But propping up overvalued stocks, many of which have nothing to do with the financial sector, is a far more difficult challenge. The Fed may have to buy stocks on the open market, a tactic that has been used by the Bank of Japan.
It should be clear to anyone that since the 1990s the Fed has inflated three stock market bubbles. As each of the prior two popped, the Fed inflated larger ones to mitigate the damage. The tendency to cushion the downside and to then provide enough extra liquidity to send stock prices back to new highs seems to have emboldened investors to downplay the risks and focus on the potential gains. This has been particularly true given that the Fed’s low interest rate policies have caused traditionally conservative bond investors to seek higher returns in stocks. Without the Fed’s safety net, many of these investors perhaps would not be willing to walk this high wire.
But investors may be over-estimating the Fed's ability to blow up another bubble if the current one pops. Since this one is so large, the amount of stimulus required to inflate a larger one may produce the monetary equivalent of an overdose. It may be impossible to revive the markets without killing the dollar in the process. The currency crisis the Fed might unleash might prove more destructive to the economy than the repeat financial crisis it's hoping to avoid.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/peter-schiff-warns-calm-storm
by Tyler Durden
Oct 20, 2017
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...303/imageroot/2017/10/17/20171020_schiff1.jpg
But interest rates are now at just 1.25%. If the stock market were again to drop in such a manner, the Fed has far less fire power to bring to bear. It could cut rates to zero and then re-launch another round of QE bond buying to flood the financial sector with liquidity. But that may not be nearly as effective as it was in 2008. Given that the big problem at that point was bad mortgage debt, the QE program’s purchase of mortgage bonds was a fairly effective solution (although we believe a misguided one). But propping up overvalued stocks, many of which have nothing to do with the financial sector, is a far more difficult challenge. The Fed may have to buy stocks on the open market, a tactic that has been used by the Bank of Japan.
It should be clear to anyone that since the 1990s the Fed has inflated three stock market bubbles. As each of the prior two popped, the Fed inflated larger ones to mitigate the damage. The tendency to cushion the downside and to then provide enough extra liquidity to send stock prices back to new highs seems to have emboldened investors to downplay the risks and focus on the potential gains. This has been particularly true given that the Fed’s low interest rate policies have caused traditionally conservative bond investors to seek higher returns in stocks. Without the Fed’s safety net, many of these investors perhaps would not be willing to walk this high wire.
But investors may be over-estimating the Fed's ability to blow up another bubble if the current one pops. Since this one is so large, the amount of stimulus required to inflate a larger one may produce the monetary equivalent of an overdose. It may be impossible to revive the markets without killing the dollar in the process. The currency crisis the Fed might unleash might prove more destructive to the economy than the repeat financial crisis it's hoping to avoid.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/peter-schiff-warns-calm-storm
GOP Tax Bill Mostly Benefits The Wealthy, Tax Policy Center Finds
Arthur Delaney,HuffPost• November 6, 2017
WASHINGTON ? The richest 1 percent of Americans would reap 48 percent of the benefits of Republican tax reform legislation, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-tax-bill-mostly-benefits-203734303.html
Arthur Delaney,HuffPost• November 6, 2017
WASHINGTON ? The richest 1 percent of Americans would reap 48 percent of the benefits of Republican tax reform legislation, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-tax-bill-mostly-benefits-203734303.html
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,559
- Reaction score
- 22,387
- Points
- 113
And the bottom 50 percent still pay zero for the ride. The problem is the government spends too much. It's just a money sucking black hole. I've never been given a good job by a poor man yet.
China-Like Wages Now Part Of U.S. Employment Boom
AUG 4, 2017 Kenneth Rapoza ,
Starting pay at the Amazon warehouse, carved out of a large lot with a new road called Innovation Way designed for Amazon-bound trucks, is at $12.75, no degree required. For junior inventory clerks with warehousing experience, the pay is $14.70 an hour and requires a bachelor's degree. Operations managers are full time salaried positions that can pay upwards of six figures, a huge salary in southern Massachusetts.
Here's the math: a 30 hour work week at $15 an hour is $450 per week gross, or $1,800 a month. That comes out to less than $22,000 a year. At 40 hours, Amazon warehouse full timers, outside of management level employees, are earning $28,800 before taxes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...now-part-of-u-s-employment-boom/#14aee229128a
AUG 4, 2017 Kenneth Rapoza ,
Starting pay at the Amazon warehouse, carved out of a large lot with a new road called Innovation Way designed for Amazon-bound trucks, is at $12.75, no degree required. For junior inventory clerks with warehousing experience, the pay is $14.70 an hour and requires a bachelor's degree. Operations managers are full time salaried positions that can pay upwards of six figures, a huge salary in southern Massachusetts.
Here's the math: a 30 hour work week at $15 an hour is $450 per week gross, or $1,800 a month. That comes out to less than $22,000 a year. At 40 hours, Amazon warehouse full timers, outside of management level employees, are earning $28,800 before taxes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrap...now-part-of-u-s-employment-boom/#14aee229128a
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,559
- Reaction score
- 22,387
- Points
- 113
China like wages...hahahaha... Those folks send thousand into the mines to die every year. Mine floods out ,just send more in. You got a billion to spare.They could give two ***** about the common man. Its that commie collective whole crap. Just watch out for kid toys from China. Your kid may glow in the dark or ingest a **** ton of lead. The quality control is lacking seriously.
If China ever ditches that communist bullshit it could be something great. Until then you're all just slaves to the state.
If China ever ditches that communist bullshit it could be something great. Until then you're all just slaves to the state.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 2,916
- Points
- 113
Trading with China to the extent we do has destroyed worker earnings power in the US, without a doubt.
All those relatively cheap electronics, clothes, and auto parts have been made possible by millions of people basically working under near slave conditions, as well as total neglect toward toxins being emitted into the air and water of Asia.
Some world we live in.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,559
- Reaction score
- 22,387
- Points
- 113
Yeah we have certainly screwed ourselves being too free with countries who employ slave labor. That I hope gets fixed soon.
I remember when the Dems hated trade with China... you know, back before all the kickbacks... after the tanks in the square they were livid about us being so open with them and their human rights abuses... but then their dear leaders told them everything was ok, and they could get jeans at wal mart for 5 bucks less this way and voila.... China is cool... nothing to see here....
... um this is idiotic... minimum wage in mexico is 4 dollars a day... and in china many jobs only pay a few pennies.... 22 grand would make a worker among the richer people in many areas of both those countries....
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Very hard to fight low wages without good trade agreements. I mean, the process of poor nations exploiting mass population labor markets has been around since the dawn of the assembly line. Europe did it. We did it. Japan did it. Korea after that. China, Mexico and SE Asia now. India is right around the corner. It takes decades before a poor labor market is fully exploited and they finally rise into middle classes.
Good trade agreements that understand this part of the equation is the only way to proceed.
Now you can do that two ways: you negotiate to let YOUR big business exploit that same labor market. We did that with Mexico. We did that with SE Asia. We didn't do that with Japan, Korea and China.
Or you can tariff items. That is much harder (but doable) because they will tariff back and often block out some markets to American companies. American companies make less. The cost of good rises. But people still have jobs. You also need to strongly encourage EVERYONE to tariff against slave labor (but that is hard because Europe and Russia and Japan want cheap goods). You have to somehow try to negotiate your "cut" of slave labor and not let all that money just go into Big Business and find a way for it to trickle down in America's working class. Sometimes it's sharing production and manufacturing (thus some grunt work is done overseas but the final assembly process is done here).
I'm really not an expert of "trade" to comment too much. Macroeconomics at this level with multiple countries is way above my education. But all consensus is that our trade agreements to date with countries in the process of exploiting cheap, poor labor is that we negotiate exclusively for the benefit of American (global) corporations and not enough to protect our manufacturing sectors.
Truthfully, I just look at the prices of good. And we shouldn't be paying $3.33 for T-shirts in this country. Ever. That's too cheap and that means something is wrong with our tariff system.
Good trade agreements that understand this part of the equation is the only way to proceed.
Now you can do that two ways: you negotiate to let YOUR big business exploit that same labor market. We did that with Mexico. We did that with SE Asia. We didn't do that with Japan, Korea and China.
Or you can tariff items. That is much harder (but doable) because they will tariff back and often block out some markets to American companies. American companies make less. The cost of good rises. But people still have jobs. You also need to strongly encourage EVERYONE to tariff against slave labor (but that is hard because Europe and Russia and Japan want cheap goods). You have to somehow try to negotiate your "cut" of slave labor and not let all that money just go into Big Business and find a way for it to trickle down in America's working class. Sometimes it's sharing production and manufacturing (thus some grunt work is done overseas but the final assembly process is done here).
I'm really not an expert of "trade" to comment too much. Macroeconomics at this level with multiple countries is way above my education. But all consensus is that our trade agreements to date with countries in the process of exploiting cheap, poor labor is that we negotiate exclusively for the benefit of American (global) corporations and not enough to protect our manufacturing sectors.
Truthfully, I just look at the prices of good. And we shouldn't be paying $3.33 for T-shirts in this country. Ever. That's too cheap and that means something is wrong with our tariff system.
Well, and donating lots of money to the Clintons. Don't forget John Huang, Charlie Trie, the Lippo Group, and the Riady family, who for some reason decided to come all the way from Indonesia and China to buy a bank in Little Rock, AR in the 80's.
You pretty much got the macroeconomic idea. Cheaper goods are also good for consumers although if you carry it too far then you are putting your customers out of work, which is about where we are now.
I buy American when I can but I can't afford $250 for a pair of boat shoes or $129 for a pair of Bill's Khakis.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I agree. There's a middle ground. You can find boat shoes and khakis at Cosco (albeit cheap and ****** made) for $20 and $10 respectively and that is outrageously too low.
I love me some Costco, but there is a point when superstores like Walmart and Costco and Target are putting so much downward force on prices that it completely destroys manufacturing in all but the most hell-hole and abusive of labor practices.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
One of the things I always point out to my pure libertarian friends is that for free trade to work it must be FAIR and reciprocal. They rail against "protectionism" but yet when I point out China and other countries in the pacific rim paying slave wages with no environmental laws and dumping goods on our markets while denying us access to theirs and ask what they think we should do about it they have no answers.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 2,916
- Points
- 113
Good post.
I'll add by saying that Americans and Europeans ultimately get what they pay for.
If one continually buys cheap, largely poorly made **** from China and Mexico via Walmart and Amazon, one shouldn't whine about the wage depression in the western world.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
It's hard to argue good trade policy should be left up to the consumer to make the right decision. The government does spend millions in ad campaigns to encourage "buy America" but that is about all that can be done. Consumers will move toward cheaper prices almost all the time and the quality issue isn't as big a deal as some make it out to be. And even the supposedly better made, name brand stuff is just made in Bangladesh as well. Hell, name brand items are abusing the system as much as Walmart and Amazon and Costco with their cheaper brands.
That all goes back to who our trade "negotiators" are looking out for. Name brands like Ecko, Nike, Polo, Tommy HIlfinger, Izod, et. al. That stuff is made in the same places the $3 T-shirts are made. They just charge you for the brand on the shirt. I'm not even sure there are any textiles made in the U.S. anymore (I think Duluth Trading Co. stuff is all USA made). Some smaller sellers.
The role of government is to gently push the scales one way or the other. Problem is government never does anything "gently". They are like bulls in a china shop and will push the scales way to far time and time again. I think Trump understands this better than most and I think his negotiators are going to end up doing a better job on NAFTA and a new TPP (or something similar in scope).
Similar threads
