The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: Holyoak on January 15, 2016, 09:56:41 AM
-
Is the title of a post I just read on a non-financial forum, with this in the body:
Maybe I am stupid, maybe it was knee-jerk, but I am fucking sick of the monetary policy of this administration. Wasn't a huge sum, but a whole more than I was willing to lose based upon the market state this year.
If oil stabilizes, or we get a new president next year, maybe I will jump back in.
But for now, fuck you Fed, fuck you Wall Street.
Fuck you BHO.
Anyone else seeing the same buy high, sell low (lock in your loss) postings being thrown around? Thanks.
-
If... we get a new president next year, maybe I will jump back in.
...is there some chance we wouldn't get a new president that I was unaware of?
-
No, but my 401k and Vanguard accounts thank them for doing their part to help redistribute capital.
-
Oh man, I thought YOU had done the liquidation. Phew.
What's BHO?
-
I think BHO is the President (initials).
Buy high, sell low like you said. Sad.
-
Ah, should have gotten BHO on my own. Is that a thing? People abbreviate his initials like that?
-
I did, I did! I liquidated my entire portfolio in August 2015 (yes, right in the low) for house downpayment. What can I say? 50k in gave me 80k out in 8 years. Now waiting for fuckin' 1099-DIV papers to pay Uncle Sam some 5k in taxes
-
Yikes, not me who cashed (crashed) in, sorry if that was not made clear enough... I'm long term, and probably have "lost" more on paper during this last drop, than this dudes check is made out for. BHO is indeed Barack Hussein Obama.
-
Ah, should have gotten BHO on my own. Is that a thing?
Sure is... Butane Hash Oil... If you are into that sorta thing :)
-
...
But for now, fuck you Fed, fuck you Wall Street.
Fuck you BHO.
The poster isn't really isn't 'f-ing' any of the people he mentioned, at least not in any measurable way. He/she is certainly 'f-ing' him/herself though. "f-you... me!"
what's the phrase... cutting off your nose to spite your face?
-
Ah, should have gotten BHO on my own. Is that a thing? People abbreviate his initials like that?
It's a way of reminding people that his middle name is Hussein.
Another example of the way that people on a certain side of the political spectrum need to speak in code.
-
(http://)
-
Maybe I am stupid, maybe it was knee-jerk, but I am fucking sick of the monetary policy of this administration. Wasn't a huge sum, but a whole more than I was willing to lose based upon the market state this year.
Just to be nitpicky I have to point out that the administration doesn't have a monetary policy. The administration doesn't even have a fiscal policy. Congress sets fiscal policy and the president can or cannot veto. So Republicans and Democrats had to work together(or lack of) to get the current fiscal policy.
Monetary policy is set by the federal reserve. Bernanke was appointed by Bush. Obama did appoint Yellen, but the Senate had to ok it and she has basically just continued what Bernanke had already started. So blaming monetary policy on Obama is like blaming him for the financial crisis in 08.
Recent markets have also been impacted by China. Are we blaming Obama for China now?
-
Recent markets have also been impacted by China. Are we blaming Obama for China now?
Of course. Why wouldn't you? ;-)
-
Ah, should have gotten BHO on my own. Is that a thing? People abbreviate his initials like that?
It's a way of reminding people that his middle name is Hussein.
Another example of the way that people on a certain side of the political spectrum need to speak in code.
I mean, this person seems like an idiot, so that's possible, but plenty of people wrote GWB.
Sometimes when you hear a dog whistle, you're the dog.
-
plenty of people wrote GWB.
I was thinking about that, too. It seems like FDR, LBJ, JFK, and GWB were all used. I suspect GWB may be more for differentiation purposes, while the others just seem like very influential presidents (or presidents who presided over interesting points in our history, at any rate).
But no one says WJC or RR or RN...
-
Recent markets have also been impacted by China. Are we blaming Obama for China now?
Well, his middle name is Hussein y'know...
Just sayin'
-
The thing I always wonder reading things like this... what policies, specifically, is he referring to? What has "BHO" done that he thinks has f'ed up the market, that he thinks, I'm guessing, "DJT", will undo as the new president and make everything better?
-
Too bad. I will be taking advantage of today's sale later in the day.
-
The thing I always wonder reading things like this... what policies, specifically, is he referring to? What has "BHO" done that he thinks has f'ed up the market, that he thinks, I'm guessing, "DJT", will undo as the new president and make everything better?
We have the Presidents themselves to blame for this attitude. During campaigns they all claim to have a plan to somehow manipulate the economy into being better than it is now. If it improves they'll take credit, and if it doesn't it is someone else's fault. Back in August all the candidates were quick to blame China for that two week blip in the market (but blaming years of Chinese cheating), and the Republicans blame President Obama as well even though they should all understand the market is a fairly independent machine with lots of inputs, but few of them coming directly from the Oval Office. Even the ones that do take years to manifest.
-
Ah, should have gotten BHO on my own. Is that a thing? People abbreviate his initials like that?
It's a way of reminding people that his middle name is Hussein.
Another example of the way that people on a certain side of the political spectrum need to speak in code.
I mean, this person seems like an idiot, so that's possible, but plenty of people wrote GWB.
Sometimes when you hear a dog whistle, you're the dog.
Maybe it's a carry over tradition, but I was under the impression that the reason people used the middle name of George Bush was because there was another president with the exact same name not too long before him. So it was a clarification thing. Unless there's another Barack Obama out there, it seems a bit unecessary, and as mentioned, code. But as usual, context is everything.
-
A coworker (who liquidated much of his portfolio in early 2009) came by today ranting about how his "bet on oil" isn't paying off like he hoped.
It would be funny if it wasn't reality and someone's financial well-being at stake.
-
BHO or whoever has ZERO business in the market if this is his/her understanding. Presidents have little to do with the economy; they are adept at the credit/blame game, depending on the ticker.
-
Presidents do have an effect on the economy. For instance I believe that Obama has helped Wall Street over his term by pressuring the Fed into keeping interest rates artificially low and monetary easing. He also did the trillion dollar stimulus with a democrat congress and has continued to balk at any spending cuts accept the military.
I do feel however that we could do better in the future by greatly easing corporate taxes, being more pro business and less regulatory.
-
Thanks Obama!
-
And here I am all upset because I missed a prime buying opportunity today. Had a bunch of stuff come up, by the time I checked the markets they were already closed :( And I have a bunch of cash on hand too...... I feel like I missed out on a giant sale.
-
And here I am all upset because I missed a prime buying opportunity today. Had a bunch of stuff come up, by the time I checked the markets they were already closed :( And I have a bunch of cash on hand too...... I feel like I missed out on a giant sale.
If your current assets are large enough, I'd be more "worried" about them losing 2% than adding extra money that are say 3% of your total assets on a low day
-
And here I am all upset because I missed a prime buying opportunity today. Had a bunch of stuff come up, by the time I checked the markets they were already closed :( And I have a bunch of cash on hand too...... I feel like I missed out on a giant sale.
If your current assets are large enough, I'd be more "worried" about them losing 2% than adding extra money that are say 3% of your total assets on a low day
Our current assets are significant, but we're not planning to retire for another 5 to 10 years, so why should I be concerned about my portfolio losing value?
-
Exactly you should not be worried! Just as you should not be upset about "loosing" any money due to not putting it in today
-
Ah, should have gotten BHO on my own. Is that a thing? People abbreviate his initials like that?
It's a way of reminding people that his middle name is Hussein.
Another example of the way that people on a certain side of the political spectrum need to speak in code.
I mean, this person seems like an idiot, so that's possible, but plenty of people wrote GWB.
Sometimes when you hear a dog whistle, you're the dog.
Maybe it's a carry over tradition, but I was under the impression that the reason people used the middle name of George Bush was because there was another president with the exact same name not too long before him. So it was a clarification thing. Unless there's another Barack Obama out there, it seems a bit unecessary, and as mentioned, code. But as usual, context is everything.
The same code given to him by his parents? Are you saying that since Hussein is an Arab name, that you think Arabs are inherently evil people? In my youth people used to talk about Richard Millhouse Nixon, there was a 1971 documentary titled "Millhouse" that Congresswoman Bella Abzug praised. Millhouse was the maiden name of Nixon's mother, in case some people don't know
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067431/
When things go well, the president in office and his supporters will claim credit. When they don't, his detractors will pin the blame on him. I think more highly of some Presidents in my life than others, but none of them come within a light year of truly bad or evil (Stalin, Caligula)
-
Stupid people with stupid opinions do stupid things. Creates great opportunity for the rest of us.
-
And here I am all upset because I missed a prime buying opportunity today. Had a bunch of stuff come up, by the time I checked the markets they were already closed :( And I have a bunch of cash on hand too...... I feel like I missed out on a giant sale.
Set limit orders so you don't need to be checking for when there's a giant sale?
-
Is the title of a post I just read on a non-financial forum, with this in the body:
Maybe I am stupid, maybe it was knee-jerk, but I am fucking sick of the monetary policy of this administration. Wasn't a huge sum, but a whole more than I was willing to lose based upon the market state this year.
If oil stabilizes, or we get a new president next year, maybe I will jump back in.
But for now, fuck you Fed, fuck you Wall Street.
Fuck you BHO.
Anyone else seeing the same buy high, sell low (lock in your loss) postings being thrown around? Thanks.
Getting out is the easy part. Wait until he tries to get back in. Long term he will fail as an investor.
-
Presidents do have an effect on the economy. For instance I believe that Obama has helped Wall Street over his term by pressuring the Fed into keeping interest rates artificially low and monetary easing. He also did the trillion dollar stimulus with a democrat congress and has continued to balk at any spending cuts accept the military.
I do feel however that we could do better in the future by greatly easing corporate taxes, being more pro business and less regulatory.
There are so many assumptions and suggestive langauge ("pressure," "balk," etc) I hardly know where to start.
How did the President "pressure" the Fed? - a group of individuals who's decisions do not have to be approved by the president (or anyone else) and who's stated objectives were set by congress decades ago (i.e. employment and inflation). Specifically, how did Obama influence their actions any more than the speaker of the house (the branch that controls monetary policy) or any number of outspoken financial 'experts' in the media?
Why are rates "artificially" low? Artificial implies fake, or produced by humans instead of occurring naturally. This phrase gets bounced around so much but no one ever explains it. Rates are historically low to be sure, but what is artificially about that? How is that any more 'artificially' than when they wre between 12-18% from the late 70's to the early 80s?
I agree with you that we could do better in the future by having a more streamlined tax code, particularly for businesses, but again how is this related to the president? If we want to reform the tax code, it is congress that must make these changes.
I do agree that the president does have some effect on the economy, but it's all indirect. He can champion specific causes in the SOTU address and decide whether to sign or veto laws passed by congress, but it is always Congress who writes the laws, passes a budget (or not) and set taxes. He cannot force Congress to take up a specific spending bill nor can he force them to pass a specific budget.
-
if interest rates for mortgages, etc in the US are based off the rate that the Fed sets, aren't they all "artificial" anyway? It has nothing to do with our current president. On the other hand, there's no law forcing banks to charge really low rates: If there was a market for higher interest rate loans, then they would exist.
-
We have far more efficient politicians in Canada.
We elected a (=democrat) PM in November following 8 years of a drill-baby-drill republican and the drop in our oil dominated currency is already his fault.
-
Pretty happy with the purchases I made yesterday. Fire sale!
-
We have far more efficient politicians in Canada.
We elected a (=democrat) PM in November following 8 years of a drill-baby-drill republican and the drop in our oil dominated currency is already his fault.
Harper was prime minster for 9 years 9 months, and leader of the opposition several years before that.
It's a bit of an oversimplicitation to call the NDP equivalent to democrats or the Conservative party "republicans". In some ways they are, in some ways they aren't.
-
Debts of despair, what did you buy?
I am mostly in Vti but use a smaller percent of my account for stocks... bought Swks and Amba this week
-
The thread referred to in post 1 is an interesting read on the other side of the investing public. Now I understand why markets go up and down. Google it.
-
Debts of despair, what did you buy?
I am mostly in Vti but use a smaller percent of my account for stocks... bought Swks and Amba this week
Target date retirement fund. The only thing I own.
-
It's a bit of an oversimplicitation to call the NDP equivalent to democrats or the Conservative party "republicans". In some ways they are, in some ways they aren't.
Yes but if you say we have a liberal government the US will either mount a Bay of pigs style invasion of Victoria or assume that we have a militia running things
-
The thread referred to in post 1 is an interesting read on the other side of the investing public. Now I understand why markets go up and down. Google it.
Just the image on the front page of the site (http://sigforum.com/) is enough to suggest that they perhaps aren't fans of Keynesian stimulus
-
It's a bit of an oversimplicitation to call the NDP equivalent to democrats or the Conservative party "republicans". In some ways they are, in some ways they aren't.
Yes but if you say we have a liberal government the US will either mount a Bay of pigs style invasion of Victoria or assume that we have a militia running things
lol, that might be true. It always shocks me how little people from the United States know about their #1 trading partner - especially since share the worlds largest border.
-
Hah. Did you know that the Republicans used to be the left wing party and the Democrats the right wing party? Apparently the GOP were the abolitionists and the Democrats were in support of slavery.
-
I cashed out several lots of VTI at 105 and VXUS at 48 to bring my cash and bond holdings up to about two thirds of a million. So far it's been a good choice. I don't blame BHO or the Fed or anyone else, in fact the Fed's easy money policy is what made me so wealthy these last six years.
Fuck the Saudis though. I mean I'm going to pick up some VDE when I buy back in, and I'll make money off it eventually, but seriously those guys are dicks.
-
Hah. Did you know that the Republicans used to be the left wing party and the Democrats the right wing party? Apparently the GOP were the abolitionists and the Democrats were in support of slavery.
All changed thanks to two words: "Southern Strategy".
-
Hah. Did you know that the Republicans used to be the left wing party and the Democrats the right wing party? Apparently the GOP were the abolitionists and the Democrats were in support of slavery.
All changed thanks to two words: "Southern Strategy".
The 'Southern Strategy', Dixiecrats, Tea-Partiers... that's all noise, and none of it was new at the time.
The easiest way to describe it is that we've been split even before Day One along a Northern and Southern mentality.
The names never mattered. Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party; they're both the Grand Old Party in that sense. 'Dem' and 'Rep' are ideologically fairly generic and effectively identical.
Even their unofficial/official colors are reversed, with the world considering red leftist. And I think that happened in 1980 when the Reps were blatantly right-wing.
"Lincoln was a Republican!"
Yeah, but he was a lawyer who went to Congress representing Illinois, same as Obama. It's no surprise the 2008/12 election maps closely match 1860's Union/Confederacy versions ('cept for more states).
"~Half of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act! ~Half of Democrats voted against it!"
Yeah, but again... the actual vote matches the same North/South divide present 50 years later and 100/200 years earlier.
The parties always change, but it's usually been a pretty clear choice between North vs. South. Or ideologically -Progressive vs. Regressive.
Or (if a bit simplistically) morally better or worse.
Or the common, but less accurate -Liberal vs. Conservative.
I say less accurate 'cuz those are both basically neutral terms in themselves.
A liberal being too open-minded can be highly regressive by excusing obvious immoral practices with the flawed logic of 'cultural differences', while certain conservation measures -like action on climate change- can be highly progressive).
-
Presidents do have an effect on the economy. For instance I believe that Obama has helped Wall Street over his term by pressuring the Fed into keeping interest rates artificially low and monetary easing. He also did the trillion dollar stimulus with a democrat congress and has continued to balk at any spending cuts accept the military.
I do feel however that we could do better in the future by greatly easing corporate taxes, being more pro business and less regulatory.
There are so many assumptions and suggestive langauge ("pressure," "balk," etc) I hardly know where to start.
How did the President "pressure" the Fed? - a group of individuals who's decisions do not have to be approved by the president (or anyone else) and who's stated objectives were set by congress decades ago (i.e. employment and inflation). Specifically, how did Obama influence their actions any more than the speaker of the house (the branch that controls monetary policy) or any number of outspoken financial 'experts' in the media?
Why are rates "artificially" low? Artificial implies fake, or produced by humans instead of occurring naturally. This phrase gets bounced around so much but no one ever explains it. Rates are historically low to be sure, but what is artificially about that? How is that any more 'artificially' than when they wre between 12-18% from the late 70's to the early 80s?
I agree with you that we could do better in the future by having a more streamlined tax code, particularly for businesses, but again how is this related to the president? If we want to reform the tax code, it is congress that must make these changes.
I do agree that the president does have some effect on the economy, but it's all indirect. He can champion specific causes in the SOTU address and decide whether to sign or veto laws passed by congress, but it is always Congress who writes the laws, passes a budget (or not) and set taxes. He cannot force Congress to take up a specific spending bill nor can he force them to pass a specific budget.
I think the "artificially" part refers to the idea that interest rates normally reflect some equilibrium between supply and demand for credit that the Fed historically maintained - an equilibrium presumably designed to maximize long term economic growth. Periodically the Fed has taken explicit pains to make its efforts in this regard appear consistent and reliable, which established market participants' perception of the Fed's normal policies as the "natural" state of the market (this happened during the Fed's remarkable period of breaking inflation's back, among other times). "Artificially" in this context implies that the Fed has taken unusual measures, called "artificial", beyond what it would normally do to maintain that equilibrium.
Since the Fed did in fact take extraordinary measures to keep interest rates low after the financial crisis (zero! wow! plus quantitative easing - a whole new credit spigot invented on the spot!) calling the recent rates artificially low at least recognizes that unusual measures were taken.
I'm not trying to side with one view or the other, just expressing my thought as to what was meant. Will accept clarification from the original commenter. Cheers to all.
-
Hah. Did you know that the Republicans used to be the left wing party and the Democrats the right wing party? Apparently the GOP were the abolitionists and the Democrats were in support of slavery.
All changed thanks to two words: "Southern Strategy".
The 'Southern Strategy', Dixiecrats, Tea-Partiers... that's all noise, and none of it was new at the time.
The easiest way to describe it is that we've been split even before Day One along a Northern and Southern mentality.
The names never mattered. Jefferson formed the Democratic-Republican Party; they're both the Grand Old Party in that sense. 'Dem' and 'Rep' are ideologically fairly generic and effectively identical.
Even their unofficial/official colors are reversed, with the world considering red leftist. And I think that happened in 1980 when the Reps were blatantly right-wing.
"Lincoln was a Republican!"
Yeah, but he was a lawyer who went to Congress representing Illinois, same as Obama. It's no surprise the 2008/12 election maps closely match 1860's Union/Confederacy versions ('cept for more states).
"~Half of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act! ~Half of Democrats voted against it!"
Yeah, but again... the actual vote matches the same North/South divide present 50 years later and 100/200 years earlier.
The parties always change, but it's usually been a pretty clear choice between North vs. South. Or ideologically -Progressive vs. Regressive.
Or (if a bit simplistically) morally better or worse.
Or the common, but less accurate -Liberal vs. Conservative.
I say less accurate 'cuz those are both basically neutral terms in themselves.
A liberal being too open-minded can be highly regressive by excusing obvious immoral practices with the flawed logic of 'cultural differences', while certain conservation measures -like action on climate change- can be highly progressive).
More or less I agree with that. Even during Washington's Presidency we had Jefferson and Hamilton representing South and North views, respectively. The Democrat-Republican flip was probably happening slowly (Teddy was relatively progressive as a Republican; FDR was as a Democrat; both were from the same rich NY extended family) but seemed to really speed up during the times of the Civil Rights Act and Southern Democrats' hostility toward it, such as when Goldwater only won "The South" when he ran against LBJ.
-
The first mistake is allowing overlap between political opinions and investment philosophy. That's a recipe for disaster. Dogmatism hasn't ever made anyone a good investor.