ADVERTISEMENT

Stock Market: Worst December Since the Great Depression

strummingram

strummingram

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2010
46,132
19,942
113
https://www.ft.com/content/b10717e0-04f1-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1

Temper-tantrum Trump wants the wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

It's dropped about 4,000 points since @Louigi jumped the OOTB ship.

The trade war that will continue to create unnecessary volatility. Unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, yet again.

Why do Republican administrations ALWAYS usher-in recessions? ... and they get worse all the time.



What a sage... maybe, in a not-so-sure kinda way!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SorryNotSorry and uncboy10
The ironic part is they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, then **** up the economy every time they have enough power to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SorryNotSorry
uncboy10 said:
The ironic part is they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility, then **** up the economy every time they have enough power to do so.
Click to expand...
They have to get those tax cuts in there for the ultra-wealthy no matter what condition the economy is already in at the time. They must get those tax cuts in even if it means changing it and putting it in a recession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncboy10
strummingram said:
They have to get those tax cuts in there for the ultra-wealthy no matter what condition the economy is already in at the time. They must get those tax cuts in even if it means changing it and putting it in a recession.
Click to expand...

They were corporate tax cuts, not personal tax cuts. It sounds like you're trying to make them out to be something they aren't.
 
I just wonder how deep in the ditch it will be when they get him out of here in two years.
 
I think the last Republican administration that didn't leave it in a mess was Eisenhower... 60 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels Noir
strummingram said:
The Fed, like Twitter and Facebook and the media, are all biased against the stable genius.
Click to expand...

The Fed raises interest rates in order to slow down the economy, just like they lower interest rates to breath life into the economy. The issue isn't that they're raising interest rates, it's the rate at which they're being risen. It looks intentional, whether it is or isn't.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
The Fed raises interest rates in order to slow down the economy, just like they lower interest rates to breath life into the economy. The issue isn't that they're raising interest rates, it's the rate at which they're being risen. It looks intentional, whether it is or isn't.
Click to expand...
Once again you are talking about something you know little about. The Fed controls the flow of money by raising or lowering the interest rate. If money is too cheap the economy will do OK for a while but causes inflation. if It's too expensive it slows the economy. The point is (and this is the part you don't understand) is that it is done to control inflation not to slow down or speed up the economy
 
  • Like
Reactions: gteeitup
prlyles said:
Once again you are talking about something you know little about. The Fed controls the flow of money by raising or lowering the interest rate. If money is too cheap the economy will do OK for a while but causes inflation. if It's too expensive it slows the economy. The point is (and this is the part you don't understand) is that it is done to control inflation not to slow down or speed up the economy
Click to expand...

That is exactly right. If the economy is doing well and money is at the equilibrium price then the fed will keep interest rates where they are at. If the economy appears to be doing well because money is too cheap, then the fed needs to raise the interest rates or there will be serious inflation problems. This is basic macroeconomic theory. But you’re talking to the guy who thinks he knows more about economics than people who actually study the field, so he’ll probably just quote some nonsense he read on brietbart like usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gteeitup and SorryNotSorry
strummingram said:
I think the last Republican administration that didn't leave it in a mess was Eisenhower... 60 years ago.
Click to expand...
Barry O “0-1% economic growth, neagative real wage growth, more fed debt than ALL predecessors” says hi.

Jimmuh “ misery index” Carter (20+% inflation+unemployment + interest rates) says “hold my beer.”

Only thing that saved WJ Clinton’s economy was tax cuts the Republican Congress pushed, but he hated, but knew he needed to pass to get re-elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00 and Terror Beard
strummingram said:
I just wonder how deep in the ditch it will be when they get him out of here in two years.
Click to expand...
You do realize that - regarding elected govt officials - state and federal legislators have basically nearly ALL elected govt office holder power to influence / impact economy, right? I’m Not talking fed reserve or court rulings. But Congress passes all tax and spending, subsidy, trade agreements, budgets and spending etc. President can do tariffs I guess but that seems unconstitutional. Other than those President can’t do jack except try to influence Congress. How many in Congress want to work across the aisle? Almost zero from either party.

The economy is most screwed up now due to irresponsible insane spending like drunk sailors by both parties within congress to appease lobbyists and special interests . The waste and lack of accountability is obscene.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
Heelicious said:
You do realize that - regarding elected govt officials - state and federal legislators have basically nearly ALL elected govt office holder power to influence / impact economy, right? I’m Not talking fed reserve or court rulings. But Congress passes all tax and spending, subsidy, trade agreements, budgets and spending etc. President can do tariffs I guess but that seems unconstitutional. Other than those President can’t do jack except try to influence Congress. How many in Congress want to work across the aisle? Almost zero from either party.

The economy is most screwed up now due to irresponsible insane spending like drunk sailors by both parties within congress to appease lobbyists and special interests . The waste and lack of accountability is obscene.
Click to expand...
Whenever someone responds to me (or anyone else), and they begin with "You do realize...", I basically wipe my ass with it. I don't read beyond that condescending opening line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gteeitup and SorryNotSorry
Heelicious said:
Barry O “0-1% economic growth, neagative real wage growth, more fed debt than ALL predecessors” says hi.
Click to expand...
Obama was horrible because of his shitty foreign policy, his continuing of the NDAA, and other liberty-smashing policies.

However, it's really difficult to argue that the economy wasn't complete shit when he started and it was shining (albeit propped-up like all of our "good" economies since the Fed took over). Republicans have to suck-off their owners and give them those tax cuts and deregulate the financial institutions so they can rob everyone, legally. Tit for tat.

Jimmy Carter showed-up just in time for the recession from Nixon-Ford and the Vietnam guns-n-butter. He got no help from Congress, or his party, or the other variables (like OPEC). He was too peaceful and prudent to be a US President.

I don't think that Republican administrations do it alone. But, they always do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
uncboy10 said:
That is exactly right. If the economy is doing well and money is at the equilibrium price then the fed will keep interest rates where they are at. If the economy appears to be doing well because money is too cheap, then the fed needs to raise the interest rates or there will be serious inflation problems. This is basic macroeconomic theory. But you’re talking to the guy who thinks he knows more about economics than people who actually study the field, so he’ll probably just quote some nonsense he read on brietbart like usual.
Click to expand...
NS4U doesn't like the Fed's interference. I don't either.

However... the Fed is here and here to stay. They could fvck-up a cup of coffee. Well-intentioned, of course!
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
strummingram said:
NS4U doesn't like the Fed's interference. I don't either.

However... the Fed is here and here to stay. They could fvck-up a cup of coffee. Well-intentioned, of course!
Click to expand...
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
 
strummingram said:
NS4U doesn't like the Fed's interference. I don't either.

However... the Fed is here and here to stay. They could fvck-up a cup of coffee. Well-intentioned, of course!
Click to expand...

Whether he likes it or not, he should know how it operates if he’s going to criticize it. I’m not a fan of the fed either but claiming they raise the interest rates to slow down the economy is just plain ignorant.
 
prlyles said:
Once again you are talking about something you know little about. The Fed controls the flow of money by raising or lowering the interest rate. If money is too cheap the economy will do OK for a while but causes inflation. if It's too expensive it slows the economy. The point is (and this is the part you don't understand) is that it is done to control inflation not to slow down or speed up the economy
Click to expand...

this
 
uncboy10 said:
That is exactly right. If the economy is doing well and money is at the equilibrium price then the fed will keep interest rates where they are at. If the economy appears to be doing well because money is too cheap, then the fed needs to raise the interest rates or there will be serious inflation problems. This is basic macroeconomic theory. But you’re talking to the guy who thinks he knows more about economics than people who actually study the field, so he’ll probably just quote some nonsense he read on brietbart like usual.
Click to expand...

If this were true, they would have jacked up rates during the Obama presidency, but they didn't.

Let's face it, inflation isn't a big deal anymore, not because of interest rates, but because we're targetting inflation over employment and wages. That's why you have graphs like this:
iu
 
prlyles said:
Once again you are talking about something you know little about. The Fed controls the flow of money by raising or lowering the interest rate. If money is too cheap the economy will do OK for a while but causes inflation. if It's too expensive it slows the economy. The point is (and this is the part you don't understand) is that it is done to control inflation not to slow down or speed up the economy
Click to expand...

I just wanted to complement you on actually responding to the debate as opposed to just broad based strokes. Our little guy is growing up, OOTB!
 
NoleSoup4U said:
If this were true, they would have jacked up rates during the Obama presidency, but they didn't.

Let's face it, inflation isn't a big deal anymore, not because of interest rates, but because we're targetting inflation over employment and wages. That's why you have graphs like this:
iu
Click to expand...

Wrong again. That is actually explained by the skill bias of technological advancement.
 
uncboy10 said:
Wrong again. That is actually explained by the skill bias of technological advancement.
Click to expand...

That plays a part as well, but you realize that people like you destroy your own argument when you complain that killing bills like NAFTA and implementing tariffs will cause a massive price increase, right?
 
uncboy10 said:
Whether he likes it or not, he should know how it operates if he’s going to criticize it. I’m not a fan of the fed either but claiming they raise the interest rates to slow down the economy is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...
Well... why "they" do whatever they do is, at best, subjective.

The Fed really does more harm than good. And, that's being polite. I listen to financial analysts and they talk about it like it's oxygen in our atmosphere... it's there and always has been there and how could one ever consider it not being there. That's just being intentionally ignorant.

Regardless, it doesn't look good going forward. Supposedly, "the economy" is strong. I hope so, because it's going to take some more heavy licks and hits in 2019.
 
strummingram said:
Well... why "they" do whatever they do is, at best, subjective.

The Fed really does more harm than good. And, that's being polite. I listen to financial analysts and they talk about it like it's oxygen in our atmosphere... it's there and always has been there and how could one ever consider it not being there. That's just being intentionally ignorant.

Regardless, it doesn't look good going forward. Supposedly, "the economy" is strong. I hope so, because it's going to take some more heavy licks and hits in 2019.
Click to expand...

The economy is strong, relatively speaking, but it's not like we don't still suffer from the same fundamental flaws.
 
prlyles said:
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
Click to expand...
The Federal Reserve is the most insidious entity ever shat into creation. I'm exaggerating slightly, of course.

Read "the Creature From Jekyll Island" some time.

The Fed is not a true part of our government or even monetary system. It's a "political creation" indirectly. But, they're not a part of the actual government. Its origin and creation was intentional.

Steve Forbes talks about it here:

 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
strummingram said:
The Federal Reserve is the most insidious entity ever shat into creation. I'm exaggerating slightly, of course.

Read "the Creature From Jekyll Island" some time.

The Fed is not a true part of our government or even monetary system. It's a "political creation" indirectly. But, they're not a part of the actual government. Its origin and creation was intentional.

Steve Forbes talks about it here:

View embedded media
Click to expand...

Great book and I don't think you're exaggerating at all.
 
Now, MANY financial "minds" will insist that a Central Bank, and Credit and Interest, are necessary to create a thriving, flourishing economy... quickly. If you prefer Alexander Hamilton's method. Thomas Jefferson was much more conservative and preferred a more agrarian method. That's so far in the rear-view that it's never even remembered, let alone considered.

The problem with Keynesian and Hamilton-style economics is that when it fails... it wipes the system OUT! The presence of credit can make the economy grow at a rapid rate, but, if it jumps-the-track and is suddenly gone (which it will eventually because the currency is not sound), then it can just wipe out the whole thing, like dominoes. And, most importantly, the Fed artificially affects the whole thing at its whim. The US Treasury doesn't own its own currency, it doesn't even print or manufacture its own currency. The Fed holds the purse strings. The Fed is in charge and has been in charge for over 100 years.
 
strummingram said:
Now, MANY financial "minds" will insist that a Central Bank, and Credit and Interest, are necessary to create a thriving, flourishing economy... quickly. If you prefer Alexander Hamilton's method. Thomas Jefferson was much more conservative and preferred a more agrarian method. That's so far in the rear-view that it's never even remembered, let alone considered.

The problem with Keynesian and Hamilton-style economics is that when it fails... it wipes the system OUT! The presence of credit can make the economy grow at a rapid rate, but, if it jumps-the-track and is suddenly gone (which it will eventually because the currency is not sound), then it can just wipe out the whole thing, like dominoes. And, most importantly, the Fed artificially affects the whole thing at its whim. The US Treasury doesn't own its own currency, it doesn't even print or manufacture its own currency. The Fed holds the purse strings. The Fed is in charge and has been in charge for over 100 years.
Click to expand...

And you know who is in charge of the Fed, right? It's the banks. So, essentially you have the banks policing themselves.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
Great book and I don't think you're exaggerating at all.
Click to expand...
Well, it's been directly and indirectly linked to just about every tragedy the country has experienced since its inception. That's obvious because it's the financial "source" now.

I've always said that it was a genius move to get it put into place. But, genius, as in Simon Bar-Sinister genius.

Woodrow Wilson was THE WORST president in history. Not only was he a full-blown racist, but he jailed people during WWI, took away liberties during WWI, lied about our involvement and... signed the Federal Reserve Act into law and allowed the 16th Amendment. That guy should be seen as a complete stain on our history.
 
strummingram said:
Well, it's been directly and indirectly linked to just about every tragedy the country has experienced since its inception. That's obvious because it's the financial "source" now.

I've always said that it was a genius move to get it put into place. But, genius, as in Simon Bar-Sinister genius.

Woodrow Wilson was THE WORST president in history. Not only was he a full-blown racist, but he jailed people during WWI, took away liberties during WWI, lied about our involvement and... signed the Federal Reserve Act into law and allowed the 16th Amendment. That guy should be seen as a complete stain on our history.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve Act was the price for him becoming president. He sold out his country to win the presidency.
 
NoleSoup4U said:
The Federal Reserve Act was the price for him becoming president. He sold out his country to win the presidency.
Click to expand...
I've heard stories about how he complied and Taft wouldn't do it, and they even had a contingency plan for Roosevelt forming the Bull Moose party and making sure Wilson was elected.

But, regarding Wilson, I recently watched a 3-part series about WWI, it was narrated by Oliver Platt. Woodrow Wilson was the first "southern" president since the Civil War. I dunno how intentional his actions were. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing... I guess. And, I know he endured a lot of personal tragedy. But, the guy was awful in many ways. It's amazing how much damage they can do so quickly and for so long!
 
strummingram said:
I've heard stories about how he complied and Taft wouldn't do it, and they even had a contingency plan for Roosevelt forming the Bull Moose party and making sure Wilson was elected.

But, regarding Wilson, I recently watched a 3-part series about WWI, it was narrated by Oliver Platt. Woodrow Wilson was the first "southern" president since the Civil War. I dunno how intentional his actions were. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing... I guess. And, I know he endured a lot of personal tragedy. But, the guy was awful in many ways. It's amazing how much damage they can do so quickly and for so long!
Click to expand...

I'm guessing he didn't know what he was actually doing. I'm sure they didn't just approach him with, "hey, if you help us control the nation, we'll help you win the presidency." He probably either thought that he was doing a good thing, or was ignorant to the destruction he was about to cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back