The Curious Case of Missing the Market Boom
- This topic has 7 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Rembrandt Old man with a beard 1630 “The Cost of Missing the Market Boom is Skyrocketing”, says a Bloomberg headline today. That must be the sc
[See the full post at: The Curious Case of Missing the Market Boom]“Yes, stocks are up. But 80 percent of the value is held by the richest 10 percent.
less than half — 46 percent — of households owned stocks, either directly or through their holdings in some sort of fund (e.g., a retirement account). Contrast that with the 94 percent ownership rate of the top 1 percent.
Look, it’s great that the market is hitting new highs. That’s much better than the alternative. But let’s keep it real in terms of who benefits.”
Full disclosure: I don’t own any stocks
Note: Rembrandt painted the portrait above when he was just 23-24 years old.
Yeah, I had to pause on that painting for a bit. I can’t imagine the difficulty in painting hair so bloody realistically…
I seem to recall Rembrandt was considered a master of light; evident in this painting.I can’t but help to feel a stranger in a strange land; watching and reading the financial shenanigans of the mob.
We’ve been fed so much utter bullshit and lies for generations; reality is completely lost on most, IMO.
Lost in translation, no?Sometimes you just find a humdinger, eh? But mostly near the end.
Macroeconomic conditions are stable and favorable in Japan, 500 miles from Pyongyang? There may have been something in the paper about that recently. This journalist may need to read more.
Such triumphalist articles are, if they are getting more prevalent , are a classic sign of a top but that’s hard to quantify.. All you need to know is that by this time next year the Fed says it is going to be selling $50bn of Treasury bonds a month, and not buying the current appox. $25bn a month of MBS they have been buying lately and up to $50bn a month in recent years. Throw in that the US deficit is guaranteed to grow thus adding to supply and the ‘market’ is going to have to come up with nearly $100bn a month more to absorb the supply. by this time next year. It that happens then financial asset prices are going to fall. Period.
The question is will that come to pass, that near $100bn/mo in new Treasury supply and reduced MBS demand? I don’t think it will but that’s just me. I don’t think the Fed will ever reach $50bn/mo in sales. They are starting with $10bn/mo and ramp up from there. They don’t have the balls. I could be wrong, on the timing. Eventually there will be a sharp downturn in stocks and the Fed will be back by halting sales and then new rounds of QE is my bet. I fully expect that in 10 years the Feds balance sheet will be somewhere around $50tn to $100tn, to pick some crazy numbers out of my hat.
Who’s right?/who’s wrong?=competition=exchange-think.
The urge for self justification is evidently quite strong at this juncture. Lots of fingers crossed behind the backs and silent “please please please…”s, blinders back in fashion (if they ever went out), etc.
Cue the blame-placing any day now. Will it be Tesla/Musk? The Fed? (Too easy.) Kobe? Trump? … Weinstein???
The global economy is driven by the conversion of energy into new goods In this case money is usually used as a convenience to avoid the need for barter.
Money does not physically exist and so can be [and is] created in any quantity. This money is often used for pre-existing items such as shares, houses, land and art. In effect it just inflates the prices of these items without helping the global economy in the slightest. It may create a ‘wealth effect’ but these are paper profits. They only become profits when they are sold, when the prices may be very different.
Alternatively money can be used for other money products such as bonds [debt], again doing little for the economy. Debt is borrowing from the future. If it is national debt then it may help the current economy but leaves the bills for the young to pay in the future. If it is companies borrowing to buy their own shares it does nothing for the economy and puts the companise at risk if they can not service their debts. If it is personal debt then it simply means they will not be able to buy as many goods in the future.
Also :
The US spends quite a few resources harming the economies of other countries through war, sanctions and ‘other’ means.
The financial system is alse used to harm economies, usually though debt.
Finally for many emerging markets any person who gets rich is strongly encouraged to move their cash to the West, removing investment potential. For example I read that 10 trillion dollars had been transferred from Africa to the West.
So why should the Global economy grow?
anticlimactic,
“the need for barter”? There is no need for barter, because there is no need for exchange [sic–because it’s a belief that only exists in our minds, it doesn’t exist at all]. Need proof? Just look at all the millions of species other than humans (and their near-global, exchange-based culture) and note that they actually exist! They live! No exchange belief! Never! Not ever, and yet they’re alive.
If you can get past that fallacious belief, you might be able to see the solution and that money and economy aren’t something to understand better but to abandon as demonstrably failed concepts.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.