The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Investor Alley => Topic started by: Omy on January 29, 2020, 07:08:21 AM
-
What are your thoughts on this? Obviously none of us have crystal balls and none of us are market timers, but I'm curious about how you think the markets might react to the news.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
+ a million
People give the POTUS, regardless of who it is, too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things don't go well. Besides, most of their decisions take years or even decades to fully know the outcome.
-
Based on history it will either go up, go down, or stay the same.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
+ a million
People give the POTUS, regardless of who it is, too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things don't go well. Besides, most of their decisions take years or even decades to fully know the outcome.
Agree with the bolded with regard to the economy, however with regard to the markets, reality follows perception. If people believe the president will be bad for business, markets may reflect that belief.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
-
The reality is likely nothing. We may see a short term swing down, as we did a short term swing up with Trump, but overall the President doesn't have that much influence on the markets.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
Okay, and if they're perceived as being "bad for business" what impact do you actually think that could possibly have in the long run?
Do you really think a single president can appreciably and permanently alter the overall value of the markets?
With every progressive policy that's "bad for business" there's also a business opportunity there. Progressive governments tend to favour program and infrastructure spending, so someone benefits.
My industry is taking an absolute beating right now thanks to an ostensibly progressive government policy from about a decade ago. It is permanently shafting an entire massive industry. However, it is creating AMAZING opportunities for niche market businesses and for larger corporations. With more competition, suppliers are seeing a run on technology sales that will make individual owners more competitive. Consultants and financial service professionals are in insanely high demand, and overall, the money moving through the industry is bigger than ever, despite individual business owners taking home a much lower percentage of that cash.
The overall market of my world is humming despite the policy being "bad for business".
When a progressive leader is seen as "bad for business", what they really mean is that they are bad for the status quo of business, but if you are broad investor, it doesn't matter which businesses fall and which rise, as long as the overall market rises over a long time span.
A progressive president won't fundamentally destroy the US economy, and whatever happens, the economy will likely adapt and flourish like it always does, even when there are brutal and devastating recessions. There's opportunity in everything, the US market isn't some delicate little flower that can't handle shit getting fucked up. It's more like ecosystems that tend to thrive after forest fires.
You simply cannot generalize the short term market reactions to the overall performance of the markets over a long period of time.
Is a recession coming?
Of course.
Could it be triggered by a president?
Of course.
Does it matter in terms of the capacity of your investments to support your retirement?
Of course not.
Not if you've accounted for SORR in your plans, which you should no matter what the political climate is.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
I am more concerned about the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars they are promising to spend (borrow). Their irresponsible pandering is just as awful as anything Trump has done, in my opinion. I wish we could throw them all out and start over again.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
I am more concerned about the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars they are promising to spend (borrow). Their irresponsible pandering is just as awful as anything Trump has done, in my opinion. I wish we could throw them all out and start over again.
It is interesting that you think spending money is worse than killing humans.
-
How so?
-
Plenty of room for that discussion in the Off Topic section.
Let's keep this thread about the markets.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
I am more concerned about the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars they are promising to spend (borrow). Their irresponsible pandering is just as awful as anything Trump has done, in my opinion. I wish we could throw them all out and start over again.
As opposed to what your current administration is doing with increasing the deficit and debt??????? Seem to recall Trump promised to pay off the National Debt entirely.
-
I agree. The spending has been out of control. And it will only get worse with the goodies being promised on the campaign trail every day. Much worse.
-
Hey! Fortunately you can objectively measure the deficit and the debt. Here is a chart of the federal debt to GDP under different administrations. Look at the evidence over the last 40 years and tell me if you think a democratic or republican administration is more likely to raise deficits.
-
Also, look at the history of federal debt/deficits and the history of market returns and tell me how correlated the two are.
-
People felt the same way back in 2016. Don't let it bother you and stay the course unless you are positive you can predict right. :>) I wonder if she followed her own advice?
Does anyone have thoughts they'd like to share on how they think the stock market will perform after the US presidential election is over? I generally have nothing to care about the timing of the market, but in this unusual case, I do. I began a somewhat-planned-somewhat-unplanned sabbatical earlier this year and will probably need to start selling some of my Vanguard funds later this year to cover my ongoing expenses. It's a bummer to see the market down lately right as I'm heading into a selling period.
I think the immediate reaction will be:
If Clinton wins: stock market surges.
If Trump wins: stock market plummets.
-
Short term, markets will tank. Longer term, probably not much difference. Eventually businesses figure out that a change to “progressive” or “conservative” or “populist” just means a different shake-down. Influence is peddled, egos are stroked, and the spice flows.
-
Do you remember how much the tax cut goosed stocks? That's because stocks are basically priced as a multiple of future after tax profits. A big corporate tax increase would absolutely hit the stock market hard.
So I guess the real question is, do you think that a progressive president would have a big dent in after tax corporate profits? I'm a Warren/Sanders/Yang voter, but I'm pretty sure that none of them would be "good" for the stock market in the short term.*
* - EDITed to add - not that they could get anything done if the republicans keep the Senate.
-
I'm a Warren/Sanders/Yang voter, but I'm pretty sure that none of them would be "good" for the stock market in the short term.*
The best thing for the market is when there is a stable basis on which to do business. An increase in money flowing to infrastructure isn't necessarily a bad thing. Business might get hurt in the short term but they adjust very quickly to stay ahead of any changes in regulation. Seems to me its more likely to suffer under the swings in regulations under the current administration. And overall , whilst there have been some short term downturns, the longer term indicates that its still doing fine now.
If the democrats were to have a big swing in the senate and take all branches of government then i'd suggest not investing in companies tied to the military for a while. but thats stock picking and market timing so generally not advised.
-
EOTWAWKI
-
The market is stable when the political stage is stable. I would expect that anyone with an IQ over 70 and a maturity level over 12 would calm things down, regardless of their ideology. Bush the 2nd wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, but even this C student managed to not burn the whole thing down. Well....there are the wars to spread good cheer and the war to find WMDs, I guess. Maybe an IQ over 85?
-
The market is stable when the political stage is stable. I would expect that anyone with an IQ over 70 and a maturity level over 12 would calm things down, regardless of their ideology. Bush the 2nd wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, but even this C student managed to not burn the whole thing down. Well....there are the wars to spread good cheer and the war to find WMDs, I guess. Maybe an IQ over 85?
The guy did graduate from Yale, which I assume is not an easy task, regardless of who his dad was. A study estimated that he was among the "dumber" presidents with a paltry IQ of about 124.8. (https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office)
But let's attack his intelligence.
-
The market is stable when the political stage is stable. I would expect that anyone with an IQ over 70 and a maturity level over 12 would calm things down, regardless of their ideology. Bush the 2nd wasn't the brightest bulb in the bunch, but even this C student managed to not burn the whole thing down. Well....there are the wars to spread good cheer and the war to find WMDs, I guess. Maybe an IQ over 85?
The guy did graduate from Yale, which I assume is not an easy task, regardless of who his dad was. A study estimated that he was among the "dumber" presidents with a paltry IQ of about 124.8. (https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/05/27/poindexter-in-chief-presidential-iqs-and-success-in-the-oval-office)
But let's attack his intelligence.
He was also a fighter pilot, which requires a mastery of aeronautics/aerodynamics. But many can't help themselves and must attack those personally that they differ with. And we are told Trump has coarsened our discourse...
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
OMG, add in refugees and people will start thinking we are Scandinavian!!
Careful, you might end up with higher happiness scales!!
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
I hosted a financial event two years ago with speakers like corporate accountants and a certain very aggressive conservative shadow minister, all to talk about the Liberal changes to the corporate tax laws.
It was the biggest fucking eye roll bullshit party ever.
Now, granted, 80% of the policy had to be rolled back because it was about the worst policy packet I've ever seen in my life with horrific unintended consequences to small business owners, which is why I hosted the event.
However, the criticisms weren't so much of a rational nature, attacking the bloated and ineffectual policy on its obvious and blatant failures, the criticisms were largely fear mongering about how "the big money is going to flee Canada".
Um...K
Well, that didn't happen, at all.
They walked back the more fucking stupid aspects of the policy, and still fucked a lot of small businesses pretty hard, but big money stuck around like they always do, and got a nice little shave off of the corporate tax rate to boot.
The markets did some whacky shit for a brief period, and the conservatives hooted and hollared about the sky fucking falling, and then everything went back to normal except that, yeah, a certain cohort of upper middle class professional business owners got rammed pretty badly on their estate planning based on the old laws.
Still, at that meeting it was all fire and fucking brimstone with respect to trickle down economics.
Meanwhile, no one called out the hypocrisy of a policy that specifically injures middle class business owners, from a government who got elected on helping the middle class.
Nope. Fire and brimstone!!!
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
OMG, add in refugees and people will start thinking we are Scandinavian!!
Careful, you might end up with higher happiness scales!!
Doesn't this all boil down to a feeling of security? People are happier in those places because they can trust that their needs will be met no matter what, kind of like a child living under their parent's care.
I find it interesting that so many people on this forum debate the validity of paying off one's mortgage for a sense of security, and then many of those same people suggest that paying more in taxes for the government to provide more of a sense of security for it's citizens is ok.
If paying off your mortgage is an unadvisable choice based on a weak emotional need for a feeling of security, then how does that jive with the belief that the government should be doing more to support everybody? They're both cases of people sacrificing some financial gain for a feeling of increased security right? Is paying more, so that the government can make you feel more secure badassity?
-
Doesn't this all boil down to a feeling of security? People are happier in those places because they can trust that their needs will be met no matter what, kind of like a child living under their parent's care.
I find it interesting that so many people on this forum debate the validity of paying off one's mortgage for a sense of security, and then many of those same people suggest that paying more in taxes for the government to provide more of a sense of security for it's citizens is ok.
If paying off your mortgage is an unadvisable choice based on a weak emotional need for a feeling of security, then how does that jive with the belief that the government should be doing more to support everybody? They're both cases of people sacrificing some financial gain for a feeling of increased security right? Is paying more, so that the government can make you feel more secure badassity?
Nope.
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
sound horrible, you'll be wanting people to have equal rights or something next.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
OMG, add in refugees and people will start thinking we are Scandinavian!!
Careful, you might end up with higher happiness scales!!
Doesn't this all boil down to a feeling of security? People are happier in those places because they can trust that their needs will be met no matter what, kind of like a child living under their parent's care.
I find it interesting that so many people on this forum debate the validity of paying off one's mortgage for a sense of security, and then many of those same people suggest that paying more in taxes for the government to provide more of a sense of security for it's citizens is ok.
If paying off your mortgage is an unadvisable choice based on a weak emotional need for a feeling of security, then how does that jive with the belief that the government should be doing more to support everybody? They're both cases of people sacrificing some financial gain for a feeling of increased security right? Is paying more, so that the government can make you feel more secure badassity?
You are confusing debating a "sense" of security, that may actually be mathematically less secure, with actual reassurance of security from starving to death or being homeless.
-
Doesn't this all boil down to a feeling of security? People are happier in those places because they can trust that their needs will be met no matter what, kind of like a child living under their parent's care.
I find it interesting that so many people on this forum debate the validity of paying off one's mortgage for a sense of security, and then many of those same people suggest that paying more in taxes for the government to provide more of a sense of security for it's citizens is ok.
If paying off your mortgage is an unadvisable choice based on a weak emotional need for a feeling of security, then how does that jive with the belief that the government should be doing more to support everybody? They're both cases of people sacrificing some financial gain for a feeling of increased security right? Is paying more, so that the government can make you feel more secure badassity?
Nope.
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
I don't think it's possible to live in a society like that and be completely unaffected by a backdrop of a ton of social safety nets. So I'll say that your feeling of security is probably less impacted by this sort of thing now, because you're wealthy. It would very much be impacted by this sort of thing in your younger days no? You would've really appreciated that sense of security at some point right? So is seeking out that feeling of security really worthy of such derision?
I don't really care which side of the mortgage argument or the social safety net argument a person falls on. All I'm saying is that it seems there's a bit of a dichotomy in thinking among some posters here that sacrificing financial gain to achieve an emotional sense of security is a sign of weakness that's worthy of facepunches, but only sometimes. And then in other cases it's totally worthwhile, and anybody who questions that is a heartless monster.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
Here is a history of the corporate tax rate over time.
From here I got a history of real total returns by decade. http://www.simplestockinvesting.com/SP500-historical-real-total-returns.htm
1950’s: 16.7%
1960’s: 5.2%
1970’s: -1.4%
1980’s: 11.6%
1990’s: 14.7%
2000’s: -3.4%
Do you see a strong correlation between the corporate tax rate and real total returns?
If you are going to start speculating about impacts on the market due to some policy or law that may or may not come into effect, you really should back it up with some evidence.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
Here is a history of the corporate tax rate over time.
From here I got a history of real total returns by decade. http://www.simplestockinvesting.com/SP500-historical-real-total-returns.htm
1950’s: 16.7%
1960’s: 5.2%
1970’s: -1.4%
1980’s: 11.6%
1990’s: 14.7%
2000’s: -3.4%
Do you see a strong correlation between the corporate tax rate and real total returns?
If you are going to start speculating about impacts on the market due to some policy or law that may or may not come into effect, you really should back it up with some evidence.
PSSt, I am on your side, but if you are going to make claims about evidence, you should offer the evidence suggested. You posted corporate tax as a % of GDP, which is not the same as actual tax rates, although there is a high correlation.
-
Doesn't this all boil down to a feeling of security? People are happier in those places because they can trust that their needs will be met no matter what, kind of like a child living under their parent's care.
I find it interesting that so many people on this forum debate the validity of paying off one's mortgage for a sense of security, and then many of those same people suggest that paying more in taxes for the government to provide more of a sense of security for it's citizens is ok.
If paying off your mortgage is an unadvisable choice based on a weak emotional need for a feeling of security, then how does that jive with the belief that the government should be doing more to support everybody? They're both cases of people sacrificing some financial gain for a feeling of increased security right? Is paying more, so that the government can make you feel more secure badassity?
Nope.
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
I don't think it's possible to live in a society like that and be completely unaffected by a backdrop of a ton of social safety nets. So I'll say that your feeling of security is probably less impacted by this sort of thing now, because you're wealthy. It would very much be impacted by this sort of thing in your younger days no?
Of course it would have impacted me in my younger days. As far as personal sense of security today though, no . . . increasing social security nets doesn't really do anything to make me feel more secure.
You would've really appreciated that sense of security at some point right?
Yes, in the past it would have been amazing.
So is seeking out that feeling of security really worthy of such derision?
What derision are we talking about? I believe that people should have a safety net, and am willing to pay to support one . . . even though I don't ever expect to have to use it.
My argument wasn't that giving people a sense of security is bad . . . but that needing a sense of security is certainly not the only driver for people to support social programs.
I don't really care which side of the mortgage argument or the social safety net argument a person falls on. All I'm saying is that it seems there's a bit of a dichotomy in thinking among some posters here that sacrificing financial gain to achieve an emotional sense of security is a sign of weakness that's worthy of facepunches, but only sometimes. And then in other cases it's totally worthwhile, and anybody who questions that is a heartless monster.
FWIW, I paid off my mortgage years ago . . . doing that did increase my sense of security I suppose.
:P
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
I don't think anyone has said that it would have no short term impact on the market.
But for your long range investor, who gives a fuck about the short term market?
-
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY...
. . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Just think if we managed to push up wages while lowering the cost of health care. It would be amazing for my kids and for the country in the medium to long term. It would also be a huge squeeze to corporate profits in the short term. I would vote for it in a second with the understanding that my portfolio would take a beating.
This includes bond portfolios if we manage to push up wages and it pushes up inflation, which again, would be good for the country in the medium to long term.
-
But for your long range investor, who gives a fuck about the short term market?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say people who are approaching their FIRE date?
Also, if we are talking about increasing interest rates because of wages going up people with leveraged real estate could end up underwater.
-
But for your long range investor, who gives a fuck about the short term market?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say people who are approaching their FIRE date?
Also, if we are talking about increasing interest rates because of wages going up people with leveraged real estate could end up underwater.
People who are approaching their FIRE date should already have a plan in place for SORR risk.
People who are heavily leveraged in real estate who can't afford changes in interest rates are putting themselves at enormous risk, and should probably reconsider their strategy.
Basically, people should have plans that account for normal market reactions to the one of two political parties that could be elected in the US.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
Gosh, could they be perceived as bad for business because they ARE bad for businesS?
I agree somewhat with the sentiment that too much credit is given to whoever sits in the White House as well as the implied dis of the stock market as irrational (just look at the lunatic).
But I also think this lunatic has convinced business that he likes business because he has cut regulations and put a freeze on them as well. Someone who is buying stocks likes that regulatory environment.
The Brookings Institute is tracking Trump actions vis a vis regulations here:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/18/explaining-the-brookings-deregulatory-tracker/
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
I don't think anyone has said that it would have no short term impact on the market.
But for your long range investor, who gives a fuck about the short term market?
The OP seems to be about the near-term market reaction. I personally won't be making any moves based on this, but there are plenty of people on this board that like to discuss short-term market issues.
Why should their threads constantly be highjacked?
-
Basically, people should have plans that account for normal market reactions to the one of two political parties that could be elected in the US.
We haven't seen a truly progressive president since, when FDR? I'm not at all convinced that a truly progressive administration that was able to accomplish its agenda is priced into the market, or on anybody's mind. Right now Sanders is the leading progressive candidate (who doesn't even officially align with one of the two parties). Just go read his political positions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Bernie_Sanders) and wonder what those protectionist tendencies and 90% tax rates would do.
To put it another way, the last time we had a New Deal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal) was in the middle of the great depression. It would be literally unprecedented to have one during the longest economic expansion in history. Which isn't to say that I don't support it, but I support full on French Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution) style democracy - that doesn't make it good for your portfolio.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
I don't think anyone has said that it would have no short term impact on the market.
But for your long range investor, who gives a fuck about the short term market?
The OP seems to be about the near-term market reaction. I personally won't be making any moves based on this, but there are plenty of people on this board that like to discuss short-term market issues.
Why should their threads constantly be highjacked?
OP asked how the markets will react.
They did not specify how they will react only in the short term, and contemplating the long range affects is very relevant to investing. So how is anyone hijacking?
Also, if people see a relevant way in which short term affects are relevant to investing strategies, then great! disagree with me! That's the point of this place.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
Here is a history of the corporate tax rate over time.
From here I got a history of real total returns by decade. http://www.simplestockinvesting.com/SP500-historical-real-total-returns.htm
1950’s: 16.7%
1960’s: 5.2%
1970’s: -1.4%
1980’s: 11.6%
1990’s: 14.7%
2000’s: -3.4%
Do you see a strong correlation between the corporate tax rate and real total returns?
If you are going to start speculating about impacts on the market due to some policy or law that may or may not come into effect, you really should back it up with some evidence.
Sure:
The corp tax cut went into effect for 2018. SP500 earnings per share increased from 114.54 in 2017 to 135.42 in 2018, a change of 18% (https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-earnings/table/by-year). The SP500 index rose by a similar amount around the time the cuts were announced.
If the tax cuts are reversed, the next year's earnings will be reduced by a similar amount.
Do we really need to get in a long debate to agree that the price of the SP500 is likely to fall considerably?
Also: I'm making no comment on whether we should or should not roll back the tax cuts. I'm simply saying that the OPs question is a valid one.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
I don't think anyone has said that it would have no short term impact on the market.
But for your long range investor, who gives a fuck about the short term market?
The OP seems to be about the near-term market reaction. I personally won't be making any moves based on this, but there are plenty of people on this board that like to discuss short-term market issues.
Why should their threads constantly be highjacked?
OP asked how the markets will react.
They did not specify how they will react only in the short term, and contemplating the long range affects is very relevant to investing. So how is anyone hijacking?
Also, if people see a relevant way in which short term affects are relevant to investing strategies, then great! disagree with me! That's the point of this place.
Go reread my first post. Nowhere in it did I specify a timeframe. You're the one who made that assumption.
-
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
Of course it would have impacted me in my younger days. As far as personal sense of security today though, no . . . increasing social security nets doesn't really do anything to make me feel more secure.
Yes, in the past it would have been amazing.
What derision are we talking about? I believe that people should have a safety net, and am willing to pay to support one . . . even though I don't ever expect to have to use it.
My argument wasn't that giving people a sense of security is bad . . . but that needing a sense of security is certainly not the only driver for people to support social programs
FWIW, I paid off my mortgage years ago . . . doing that did increase my sense of security I suppose.
:P
The derision I was referring to was a mindset among some posters here (in general, not necessarily you) that champion security when it comes in the form of social safety nets, while deriding security when it comes in the form of paying down a mortgage. That seems at least a bit hypocritical to me. If you want others to have security through social safety nets, then it seems consistent to also support those who seek security through mortgage payoff. If you see mortgage payoff as a foolish and wasteful use of resources based on emotional desire for security, then wouldn't social safety nets also be wasting resources to satisfy an emotional need for security?
There's a strong theme of independence and DIY in the FIRE community. The "I" in FIRE literally stands for Independence. We invest for ourselves and avoid brokers. We fix our own stuff instead of throwing it away and buying new. We cook for ourselves, do our own taxes, etc, etc. We do this to attain freedom from social norms like debt slavery or working our lives away in a consumeristic lifestyle. How does that current of independence, self sufficiency and bucking social constructs coincide with a desire to give other people a sense of security through the largest social construct that we have (the Government)? These two outlooks seem to run counter to each other to a degree.
-
I have my opinions and political favorites, but as an agnostic investor, I stand eager and willing to buy up the stocks of whichever side ends up dumping them in a panic.
Assuming we ever have a president again.
-
What are your thoughts on this? Obviously none of us have crystal balls and none of us are market timers, but I'm curious about how you think the markets might react to the news.
Hard to say. It really depends on whether or not the Democrats can get their sh*t together 'til 2024 or if they continue to slide more and more to the left 'til they hit the wall. For the next 5 years, there will be no Liberal President -- thanks to the Russia, Stormy Daniels, Ukraine, Stormy Daniels, Russia, Impeachment nonsense -- so there's no need to speculate now. Time will tell.
-
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
Of course it would have impacted me in my younger days. As far as personal sense of security today though, no . . . increasing social security nets doesn't really do anything to make me feel more secure.
Yes, in the past it would have been amazing.
What derision are we talking about? I believe that people should have a safety net, and am willing to pay to support one . . . even though I don't ever expect to have to use it.
My argument wasn't that giving people a sense of security is bad . . . but that needing a sense of security is certainly not the only driver for people to support social programs
FWIW, I paid off my mortgage years ago . . . doing that did increase my sense of security I suppose.
:P
The derision I was referring to was a mindset among some posters here (in general, not necessarily you) that champion security when it comes in the form of social safety nets, while deriding security when it comes in the form of paying down a mortgage. That seems at least a bit hypocritical to me. If you want others to have security through social safety nets, then it seems consistent to also support those who seek security through mortgage payoff. If you see mortgage payoff as a foolish and wasteful use of resources based on emotional desire for security, then wouldn't social safety nets also be wasting resources to satisfy an emotional need for security?
There's a strong theme of independence and DIY in the FIRE community. The "I" in FIRE literally stands for Independence. We invest for ourselves and avoid brokers. We fix our own stuff instead of throwing it away and buying new. We cook for ourselves, do our own taxes, etc, etc. We do this to attain freedom from social norms like debt slavery or working our lives away in a consumeristic lifestyle. How does that current of independence, self sufficiency and bucking social constructs coincide with a desire to give other people a sense of security through the largest social construct that we have (the Government)? These two outlooks seem to run counter to each other to a degree.
I don’t see these as opposed views. I’m working towards FIRE, and love to DIY stuff and believe in personal responsibility etc. That doesn’t mean I think sick people should just die because they can’t afford healthcare. Just because I won’t fall for scammy business practices from money lenders, or financial advisors or MLMs etc doesn’t mean I’d rather sit back and laugh at people that fall for them rather than actually have some regulations and protections in place for those who don’t know better. It won’t provide me a sense of security, but it would be a nicer world to be in.
-
Also, @Paper Chaser, the biggest debate right now in progressive circles is around healthcare. National healthcare (in whatever form) is about lowering individual costs, often by creating a larger group. Every mustachian should be interested in that.
-
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
Of course it would have impacted me in my younger days. As far as personal sense of security today though, no . . . increasing social security nets doesn't really do anything to make me feel more secure.
Yes, in the past it would have been amazing.
What derision are we talking about? I believe that people should have a safety net, and am willing to pay to support one . . . even though I don't ever expect to have to use it.
My argument wasn't that giving people a sense of security is bad . . . but that needing a sense of security is certainly not the only driver for people to support social programs
FWIW, I paid off my mortgage years ago . . . doing that did increase my sense of security I suppose.
:P
The derision I was referring to was a mindset among some posters here (in general, not necessarily you) that champion security when it comes in the form of social safety nets, while deriding security when it comes in the form of paying down a mortgage. That seems at least a bit hypocritical to me. If you want others to have security through social safety nets, then it seems consistent to also support those who seek security through mortgage payoff. If you see mortgage payoff as a foolish and wasteful use of resources based on emotional desire for security, then wouldn't social safety nets also be wasting resources to satisfy an emotional need for security?
There's a strong theme of independence and DIY in the FIRE community. The "I" in FIRE literally stands for Independence. We invest for ourselves and avoid brokers. We fix our own stuff instead of throwing it away and buying new. We cook for ourselves, do our own taxes, etc, etc. We do this to attain freedom from social norms like debt slavery or working our lives away in a consumeristic lifestyle. How does that current of independence, self sufficiency and bucking social constructs coincide with a desire to give other people a sense of security through the largest social construct that we have (the Government)? These two outlooks seem to run counter to each other to a degree.
I don’t see these as opposed views. I’m working towards FIRE, and love to DIY stuff and believe in personal responsibility etc. That doesn’t mean I think sick people should just die because they can’t afford healthcare. Just because I won’t fall for scammy business practices from money lenders, or financial advisors or MLMs etc doesn’t mean I’d rather sit back and laugh at people that fall for them rather than actually have some regulations and protections in place for those who don’t know better. It won’t provide me a sense of security, but it would be a nicer world to be in.
Let me be clear that I don't think it should be an "every man for himself" free for all. Regulation can be a very good thing. But regulating an industry to protect citizens and avoid practices that are abusive to consumers and/or the environment is different than just giving stuff out to everybody. I think there's a point where government goes from protecting consumers from predatory practices, to just creating a welfare state. I'd prefer a structure with government oversight/regulation of relatively free markets over simply handing out cash/free stuff. Attack the problem at it's source, rather than treating the symptoms of the problem.
This is currently done with utilities, where utilities are allowed to operate on their own, and make reasonable profits while acting in their own best interests. The regulators generally ensure that the utilities are not allowed to abuse their position and harm consumers in an unfair manner, and that they're meeting environmental standards in the process.
I'm sure there are tons of smarter people than me that have thought of something similar, and a hundred reasons why it's stupid but I haven't heard anybody actually suggest treating something like the healthcare industry as a utility. I think you could get 90% of the gains of a "medicare for all" type program at significantly lower costs by just regulating and letting free market forces go to work within that regulated frame work.
-
My feeling of security isn't impacted by this sort of thing. At best, it's probably mildly reduced . . . I'm a wealthy man, I'll be paying slightly more money to help others. This has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with trying to provide slightly more for others . . . because I'm lucky enough to have had enough stuff work out in my life that I've got more than I need now.
I grew up in a very poor place, and saw first hand how hard it can be for folks to scrape by. Is it possible to succeed on your own? Sure. But it's harder than it needs to be. Just because I've got mine doesn't mean I stop giving a crap about others.
Of course it would have impacted me in my younger days. As far as personal sense of security today though, no . . . increasing social security nets doesn't really do anything to make me feel more secure.
Yes, in the past it would have been amazing.
What derision are we talking about? I believe that people should have a safety net, and am willing to pay to support one . . . even though I don't ever expect to have to use it.
My argument wasn't that giving people a sense of security is bad . . . but that needing a sense of security is certainly not the only driver for people to support social programs
FWIW, I paid off my mortgage years ago . . . doing that did increase my sense of security I suppose.
:P
The derision I was referring to was a mindset among some posters here (in general, not necessarily you) that champion security when it comes in the form of social safety nets, while deriding security when it comes in the form of paying down a mortgage. That seems at least a bit hypocritical to me. If you want others to have security through social safety nets, then it seems consistent to also support those who seek security through mortgage payoff. If you see mortgage payoff as a foolish and wasteful use of resources based on emotional desire for security, then wouldn't social safety nets also be wasting resources to satisfy an emotional need for security?
There's a strong theme of independence and DIY in the FIRE community. The "I" in FIRE literally stands for Independence. We invest for ourselves and avoid brokers. We fix our own stuff instead of throwing it away and buying new. We cook for ourselves, do our own taxes, etc, etc. We do this to attain freedom from social norms like debt slavery or working our lives away in a consumeristic lifestyle. How does that current of independence, self sufficiency and bucking social constructs coincide with a desire to give other people a sense of security through the largest social construct that we have (the Government)? These two outlooks seem to run counter to each other to a degree.
I don’t see these as opposed views. I’m working towards FIRE, and love to DIY stuff and believe in personal responsibility etc. That doesn’t mean I think sick people should just die because they can’t afford healthcare. Just because I won’t fall for scammy business practices from money lenders, or financial advisors or MLMs etc doesn’t mean I’d rather sit back and laugh at people that fall for them rather than actually have some regulations and protections in place for those who don’t know better. It won’t provide me a sense of security, but it would be a nicer world to be in.
Let me be clear that I don't think it should be an "every man for himself" free for all. Regulation can be a very good thing. But regulating an industry to protect citizens and avoid practices that are abusive to consumers and/or the environment is different than just giving stuff out to everybody. I think there's a point where government goes from protecting consumers from predatory practices, to just creating a welfare state. I'd prefer a structure with government oversight/regulation of relatively free markets over simply handing out cash/free stuff. Attack the problem at it's source, rather than treating the symptoms of the problem.
This is currently done with utilities, where utilities are allowed to operate on their own, and make reasonable profits while acting in their own best interests. The regulators generally ensure that the utilities are not allowed to abuse their position and harm consumers in an unfair manner, and that they're meeting environmental standards in the process.
I'm sure there are tons of smarter people than me that have thought of something similar, and a hundred reasons why it's stupid but I haven't heard anybody actually suggest treating something like the healthcare industry as a utility. I think you could get 90% of the gains of a "medicare for all" type program at significantly lower costs by just regulating and letting free market forces go to work within that regulated frame work.
I definitely agree with you on most of that, I’m against handing out cash, of course a welfare state isn’t good for anyone, it isn’t good for those that pay for it, and it isn’t even good for those that use(abuse) it. There are lots of industries that could (and some that do) run fairly when well regulated, but I don’t think that healthcare can be a free market (even a well regulated one) and still look out for people’s best interests enough of the time.
-
I don’t think that healthcare can be a free market (even a well regulated one) and still look out for people’s best interests enough of the time.
Of course it can't. Neither can utilities, and that's my point. Utilities are regulated in the manner that they are because they provide an essential service for modern life, but really can't be a free market (just like healthcare). Consumers can't really choose not to buy utilities, and when they do pay for utilities, there's often only a single provider (just like healthcare). There's a high cost of entry in the industry that acts as a barrier to natural competition (again, just like healthcare). So, since they more or less have consumers over a barrel, they're regulated to ensure that consumers aren't taken advantage of. They do this by controlling costs on the front end and making prices clear to consumers, not by pooling everybody's money together and trying to negotiate costs down after the fact. Instead of focusing on how we can pay for people's healthcare, lets focus on controlling costs first to make it more affordable in the first place.
-
END OF DAYS . . .
Imagine the horrors of . . . HELPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY. Or the terror of . . . ALLOWING WOMEN TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES. The unspeakable shame of . . . EXTREMELY MILD AND GENERALLY INEFFECTIVE GUN CONTROL. And of course, the disgusting practice of . . . ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO ALL.
Markets will definitely tank. You should pull all your money out the second it seems likely.
Lol. I am pro all of those things but this is all completely irrelevant to the topic.
The potential impact on markets:
- Increasing corporate taxes
- Increasing capital gains taxes
- Taxing assets annually using mark-to-market methods
I'm not going to comment on whether those are positive or negative things, or recommend any specific action, but to laugh off the potential market impact is kind of ridiculous.
Some of you are missing the fact that progressive programs will allow lower to middle income families to spend more. How much is student debt and healthcare holding back spending? Sure, this is wealth redistribution, but from an economic perspective redistribution puts more money in the hands of those likely to spend it not just hoard it like us. I’m no economist, but I don’t think you can be so sure the long term effects are bad for the market. The money has to go somewhere (same with infrastructure/green spending).
Short term... i would guess a market temper tantrum but we also like buying opportunities right?
-
I don’t think that healthcare can be a free market (even a well regulated one) and still look out for people’s best interests enough of the time.
Of course it can't. Neither can utilities, and that's my point. Utilities are regulated in the manner that they are because they provide an essential service for modern life, but really can't be a free market (just like healthcare). Consumers can't really choose not to buy utilities, and when they do pay for utilities, there's often only a single provider (just like healthcare). There's a high cost of entry in the industry that acts as a barrier to natural competition (again, just like healthcare). So, since they more or less have consumers over a barrel, they're regulated to ensure that consumers aren't taken advantage of. They do this by controlling costs on the front end and making prices clear to consumers, not by pooling everybody's money together and trying to negotiate costs down after the fact. Instead of focusing on how we can pay for people's healthcare, lets focus on controlling costs first to make it more affordable in the first place.
Texas has government-operated utilities but also allows for private utility companies. It results in competition but also a certain degree of indirect regulation. And Texas has some of the best utility prices in the country.
I like that analogy, and it makes me think that there could be a similar system with healthcare.
-
???
Who knows.
No one could have predicted what the markets would do in response to a complete lunatic, so there's that.
This cracked me up. While I'm concerned that President Warren or Sanders could be perceived as "bad for business", I would be willing to give up some returns if it meant having a rational adult at the helm again.
the "rational adult" who praised a collectivized food distribution system that killed millions? Or the rational adult who pretended to be native american for 30 years for personal gain?
+ 1
-
What are your thoughts on this? Obviously none of us have crystal balls and none of us are market timers, but I'm curious about how you think the markets might react to the news.
Depends on Congress. Retaking the senate is probably a heavier lift for democrats than winning the White House. If Republicans hold the senate, you won't see any progressive legislation, even with President Bernie.
In practice, a rollback of the corporate tax cuts in the 2017 tax bill would depress stock prices, assuming investors behave rationally. So would an increase in cap gains taxes. That is, if either of those factors is taken in isolation - which they never truly are.
-
If you're truly interested, there is historical precedent on this. History mimics, it doesn't exactly repeat, and there is no way to say how the market will react. But, historical precedent is there if you want to view it. I suggest listening to Ray Dalio's commentary on where we are economically and that might give you an idea of where we are and where we might be headed.
-
I don’t think that healthcare can be a free market (even a well regulated one) and still look out for people’s best interests enough of the time.
Of course it can't. Neither can utilities, and that's my point. Utilities are regulated in the manner that they are because they provide an essential service for modern life, but really can't be a free market (just like healthcare). Consumers can't really choose not to buy utilities, and when they do pay for utilities, there's often only a single provider (just like healthcare). There's a high cost of entry in the industry that acts as a barrier to natural competition (again, just like healthcare). So, since they more or less have consumers over a barrel, they're regulated to ensure that consumers aren't taken advantage of. They do this by controlling costs on the front end and making prices clear to consumers, not by pooling everybody's money together and trying to negotiate costs down after the fact. Instead of focusing on how we can pay for people's healthcare, lets focus on controlling costs first to make it more affordable in the first place.
Texas has government-operated utilities but also allows for private utility companies. It results in competition but also a certain degree of indirect regulation. And Texas has some of the best utility prices in the country.
I like that analogy, and it makes me think that there could be a similar system with healthcare.
It will be a bad idea for the "Single Payer" model to not look more hybrid - like the utility ISO. A central body 'negotiates', allocates budget and effectively sets prices, and then private entities handle cash flows.
That's how several working "single payer" systems operate, and do rather well in all metrics you can measure.
The word "single payer" is more of an euphemism. I sense that most rational people use that s-word as a ramrod against the irrational government-phobia that exists in a large section of US populace.
In practice, US *does* tend to come up with very efficient systems of public-private partnerships - e.g. Utility ISO's, or even Medicare Advantage. If history is any guide, there is zero reason why US can't come up with a much better "single payer" model for it's entire population than the other working examples in other OECD countries.
-
It will be a bad idea for the "Single Payer" model to not look more hybrid - like the utility ISO. A central body 'negotiates', allocates budget and effectively sets prices, and then private entities handle cash flows.
That's how several working "single payer" systems operate, and do rather well in all metrics you can measure.
No, that's how France and Germany operate. True single payer systems include Canada, Taiwan, and to a lesser extent the (Beveridge Model) UK.
I do agree though that France is frequently touted as having the best bang for buck of any healthcare system on the planet and that if we were going to copy any system it should be theirs. As a US/UK dual national, I'm not sure I understand the political obsession over single payer by the progressives in the USA. Perhaps they believe that it is the only politically tenable option.
-
I'm not sure I understand the political obsession over single payer by the progressives in the USA. Perhaps they believe that it is the only politically tenable option.
IMO, it is a counter-reaction to the reaction from right the last time progressives tried to genuinely compromise.
Obamacare was basically a cut-and-paste-and-then-modify version of RomneyCare. It lacked even a public option for insurance. It is very similar to what the right-wing used to advocate before Obama's name got attached to it.
-
It is very dangerous to think a president has anything to do with stock returns. Imagine if on November 8, 2016 you sold your VTSAX and put your whole portfolio in coal producers.
https://www.newsweek.com/eight-coal-companies-have-filed-bankruptcy-since-trump-took-office-1468734 (https://www.newsweek.com/eight-coal-companies-have-filed-bankruptcy-since-trump-took-office-1468734)
Now imagine if at the beginning of the Obama administration you invested in clean energy ETFs such as ICLN, TAN, or FAN. Ironically, some of these are doing better during the Trump administration than under the Obama administration. Still, you'd have severely f*'d up your portfolio either way.
Presidents are essentially comedic actors who entertain us and cause the deaths of thousands of people in one way or another. They have little to do with technological or economic trends.
-
It is very dangerous to think a president has anything to do with stock returns. Imagine if on November 8, 2016 you sold your VTSAX and put your whole portfolio in coal producers.
https://www.newsweek.com/eight-coal-companies-have-filed-bankruptcy-since-trump-took-office-1468734 (https://www.newsweek.com/eight-coal-companies-have-filed-bankruptcy-since-trump-took-office-1468734)
Now imagine if at the beginning of the Obama administration you invested in clean energy ETFs such as ICLN, TAN, or FAN. Ironically, some of these are doing better during the Trump administration than under the Obama administration. Still, you'd have severely f*'d up your portfolio either way.
Presidents are essentially comedic actors who entertain us and cause the deaths of thousands of people in one way or another. They have little to do with technological or economic trends.
I’ve had this tweet saved for 4 years. I often look at it when I need a pick-me-up.
-
Bernie? Warren? CRASH!
Butti-man, Biden? Dip-dip, some recovery.
Bloomberg? Fizzle, fizzle. Maybe some gains overtime.
What will they all say when the market tanks? The important thing is not the market, it's that we are growing as a community. You can't measure that in dollars. The market only benefits the rich, trust me. I can't point the way forward in stocks, but I can point you towards the breadline.
*****Just some random guy's opinion on the internet.
-
Bernie? Warren? CRASH!
Butti-man, Biden? Dip-dip, some recovery.
Bloomberg? Fizzle, fizzle. Maybe some gains overtime.
What will they all say when the market tanks? The important thing is not the market, it's that we are growing as a community. You can't measure that in dollars. The market only benefits the rich, trust me. I can't point the way forward in stocks, but I can point you towards the breadline.
*****Just some random guy's opinion on the internet.
I can see small-to-mid caps doing OK under Warren. Sure the top companies would suffer, likely bringing down a large part of the market with them, but it might not be terrible for the fundamentals of other companies. Warren seems to be a capitalist deep down.
-
I predict an historic economic boom if a progressive becomes president, with huge growth in the renewable energy sector and tech stocks.
-
Even if a crazed lunatic like Bernie Sanders becomes president, congress still has to approve his crazed budget. I think there would be a stock market correction if a democrat got elected, especially a socialist. Wall Street is not stupid. When it comes to people and their money, political propaganda (ex- OrangeManBad) takes a back seat. The smart money knows that Trump is great for business.
Just look at what he's done: Rolling back regulations, getting the corporate tax down from 35% to 21%, and just plain improving company willingness to invest, expand, etc because Trump is business-friendly. Stocks will go up after Trump wins, much like stocks went up after the 2016 election.
-
Trump is super business friendly. Ask all the farmers about their record profits on the government dole. Or all the industries impacted by his random implementation of tariffs and breaking of trade agreements.
-
Trump is super business friendly. Ask all the farmers about their record profits on the government dole. Or all the industries impacted by his random implementation of tariffs and breaking of trade agreements.
and coal. thats great!!
-
Trump is super business friendly. Ask all the farmers about their record profits on the government dole. Or all the industries impacted by his random implementation of tariffs and breaking of trade agreements.
and coal. thats great!!
Definately better than clean, renewable sources of energy. Those are definitely not the future . . . that's why it's so important to keep clinging on to the old way of doing things and prevent change as much as possible. If there's anything history has shown us, it's that if you never change to meet the future you'll be just fine.
-
I’ be been thinking about this more. LBJ was basically a giant socialist. Under his administration we got:
1. Medicare
2. Medicaid
3. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4. The department of housing and urban development
5. Food Stamps
6. Head Start
7. Job Corps (which became Americorps)
8. More funding for public schools
Now, to be fair to him, he did cut taxes. All the way down to a top rate of 70% on income and 48% on businesses. During his 62 months in office the SP500 went up by 40%, which works out to a little under 8% per year.
So, based on all that I think we would do okay if someone came into office and enacted a bunch of programs to help people who are struggling.
-
What are your thoughts on this? Obviously none of us have crystal balls and none of us are market timers, but I'm curious about how you think the markets might react to the news.
We're running up huge deficits right now... while the economy is good, to goose benefits that accrue the most to a relatively small portion of society. Whoever is in office, I wonder how that plays out during the next recession.
IDK, none of this is normal and I'm worried. I've seen presidents come and go since Reagan and this is not 'politics as usual'.
-
It is very dangerous to think a president has anything to do with stock returns. Imagine if on November 8, 2016 you sold your VTSAX and put your whole portfolio in coal producers.
https://www.newsweek.com/eight-coal-companies-have-filed-bankruptcy-since-trump-took-office-1468734 (https://www.newsweek.com/eight-coal-companies-have-filed-bankruptcy-since-trump-took-office-1468734)
Now imagine if at the beginning of the Obama administration you invested in clean energy ETFs such as ICLN, TAN, or FAN. Ironically, some of these are doing better during the Trump administration than under the Obama administration. Still, you'd have severely f*'d up your portfolio either way.
Presidents are essentially comedic actors who entertain us and cause the deaths of thousands of people in one way or another. They have little to do with technological or economic trends.
I’ve had this tweet saved for 4 years. I often look at it when I need a pick-me-up.
That's fantastic. I love it!
-
I'm most concerned with the hundreds of billions of wasted dollars spent by both "sides" on warfare, corporate welfare, giant farm subsidies etc. The pentagon alone has lost trillions of dollars in the last 20 years. The US is the richest country in the history of the world, a large portion of its citizens live like kings compared to our ancestors, and we squabble over whether our fellow citizens should be allowed to live healthy lives full of meaning and productive, dignified work.
I'm not worried about where President Bernie will take us, because catastrophic climate change is basically inevitable within just a few decades. 200 species a day go extinct. 90% of fish stocks are threatened, ocean acidification will likely cause collapse of most fisheries. Invertebrates are in deep trouble. My 2.5 year old won't know the abundance I experienced in my youth hunting frogs and chasing insects.
Keep that in mind before you lament the loss of value in your stock portfolio.
-fixie
-
Bernie? Warren? CRASH!
Butti-man, Biden? Dip-dip, some recovery.
Bloomberg? Fizzle, fizzle. Maybe some gains overtime.
What will they all say when the market tanks? The important thing is not the market, it's that we are growing as a community. You can't measure that in dollars. The market only benefits the rich, trust me. I can't point the way forward in stocks, but I can point you towards the breadline.
*****Just some random guy's opinion on the internet.
I think you're right if they were to get some democratic majorities in Congress as well. But I think it's more likely that they won't be able push through much, if any, of their most "progressive" ideas through the Congress they're dealt with.
-
My 2.5 year old won't know the abundance I experienced in my youth hunting frogs and chasing insects.
Keep that in mind before you lament the loss of value in your stock portfolio.
-fixie
Just wondering where you live? My cat brings frogs into the house. I can assure you there is no shortage of frogs.
-
My 2.5 year old won't know the abundance I experienced in my youth hunting frogs and chasing insects.
Keep that in mind before you lament the loss of value in your stock portfolio.
-fixie
Just wondering where you live? My cat brings frogs into the house. I can assure you there is no shortage of frogs.
Yeah but they’re all gay
-
This doesn't include 2018 or 2019 but... historically, Democrat presidents are better for the market than Republican presidents - https://www.cxoadvisory.com/political-indicators/revisiting-party-in-power-and-stock-returns/
Also interesting on that list is the correlations with the various party control of the house/senate. Lots of limited data but triple R beat out triple D meaningful.
Yes, causation vs correlation, limited data, not inflation adjusted, ignores global events, etc. This isn't really enough information to make predictive statements but it's interesting data in light of the conversation here nonetheless.
-
I'm most concerned with the hundreds of billions of wasted dollars spent by both "sides" on warfare, corporate welfare, giant farm subsidies etc. The pentagon alone has lost trillions of dollars in the last 20 years. The US is the richest country in the history of the world, a large portion of its citizens live like kings compared to our ancestors, and we squabble over whether our fellow citizens should be allowed to live healthy lives full of meaning and productive, dignified work.
I'm not worried about where President Bernie will take us, because catastrophic climate change is basically inevitable within just a few decades. 200 species a day go extinct. 90% of fish stocks are threatened, ocean acidification will likely cause collapse of most fisheries. Invertebrates are in deep trouble. My 2.5 year old won't know the abundance I experienced in my youth hunting frogs and chasing insects.
Keep that in mind before you lament the loss of value in your stock portfolio.
-fixie
-
This scenario is impossible since there aren't any progressive candidates running for office.
-
This scenario is impossible since there aren't any progressive candidates running for office.
Thanks for bumping a 6 month old thread to remind us that we need to chose between Biden and Trump.
-
This scenario is impossible since there aren't any progressive candidates running for office.
Thanks for bumping a 6 month old thread to remind us that we need to chose between Biden and Trump.
If you don't believe that these guys have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
-
This scenario is impossible since there aren't any progressive candidates running for office.
Thanks for bumping a 6 month old thread to remind us that we need to chose between Biden and Trump.
If you don't believe that these guys have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
It’s a very easy choice: skip voting for these twits and their godawful political factions and do something useful on November 3rd.
I think I’ll do laundry. Or bake some cookies.
-
This scenario is impossible since there aren't any progressive candidates running for office.
Thanks for bumping a 6 month old thread to remind us that we need to chose between Biden and Trump.
If you don't believe that these guys have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
It’s a very easy choice: skip voting for these twits and their godawful political factions and do something useful on November 3rd.
I think I’ll do laundry. Or bake some cookies.
As a local comedian once said, "I'll go to the nail salon and talk with the Vietnamese women about what erection day means to them."
-
Some economists were discussing this very issue and the conclusion is incredibly simple: Trump is only the 45th President, so there is way too little data to reach any statistically reliable conclusion on whether a party has any measurable effect on the economy, let alone the stock market. But, given the reality of the world we live in, pundits will posit a sh't ton of theories depending on who they want to win. It's a loaded question with loaded answers.
-
This scenario is impossible since there aren't any progressive candidates running for office.
Thanks for bumping a 6 month old thread to remind us that we need to chose between Biden and Trump.
If you don't believe that these guys have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
It’s a very easy choice: skip voting for these twits and their godawful political factions and do something useful on November 3rd.
I think I’ll do laundry. Or bake some cookies.
Username checks out
-
It’s a very easy choice: skip voting for these twits and their godawful political factions and do something useful on November 3rd.
I think I’ll do laundry. Or bake some cookies.
Wow, you can't be serious.
-
It’s a very easy choice: skip voting for these twits and their godawful political factions and do something useful on November 3rd.
I think I’ll do laundry. Or bake some cookies.
Wow, you can't be serious.
Serious as a heart attack. And my name isn’t wow.*
There is an interesting and pervasive myth in American culture that voting matters even at the individual level. I don’t buy it at all. So when it comes down to it, I’d rather have clean clothes and cookies than waste time trying to choose the lesser twit.
*(Sorry. Couldn’t resist.)
-
Voting takes less time than laundry or baking cookies.
-
There is an interesting and pervasive myth in American culture that voting matters even at the individual level. I don’t buy it at all. So when it comes down to it, I’d rather have clean clothes and cookies than waste time trying to choose the lesser twit.
I wonder why people think that you are a Russian bot?
EDITed to add: you don't have any local elections that matter? I vote every time, in large part to change things locally.
-
All around the world people have died in the streets for the chance to be able to pick their own leaders. In this country over 40% of the people can't be bothered to show up and most of those who do are woefully uninformed and either blindly voting for whoever their parents voted for, or whoever [insert highly paid, highly biased pundit] told them to vote for. It's a mess and we as a country no longer deserve to have a functioning government. And what do you know, we no longer do. At least one thing make sense.
Anyway, to the OP's question (loosely, since there is no actual progressive in the race), I recently read in the WSJ that across US businesses the current tax cuts have increased share prices by 5-7%. So putting aside all the usual "nobody knows any anything and we're all just playing roulette here" notions, I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar drop in the market if Biden rolled back all the corporate cuts immediately. But there's no way it should crash the markets. I do think a President Sanders or Warren would have shaken the markets much harder than a Biden one will. The Dow more than doubled last time Biden was in the white house, so would seem a bit silly for them to freak out on round two.
-
There is an interesting and pervasive myth in American culture that voting matters even at the individual level. I don’t buy it at all. So when it comes down to it, I’d rather have clean clothes and cookies than waste time trying to choose the lesser twit.
I wonder why people think that you are a Russian bot?
EDITed to add: you don't have any local elections that matter? I vote every time, in large part to change things locally.
I disagree with Buffaloski Boris being a bot, Russian or otherwise. Sure, it's 2 months before the election and people should be wary of those convincing them not to vote. But visit user post history, and you'll see this view is consistent with Boris' other posts.
I find the media annoying when they talk about "national polls" and "that's not democratic" when talking about the Presidential election. It's not democratic! A majority vote does not determine the President (as seen in 2016) - it's all about the electoral college math. That math favors sparsely populated swing states.
---
Although Biden isn't considered Progressive, he might appoint progressives to positions of power. For the stock market, the most interesting speculation might be the odds Senator Elizabeth Warren gets selected to run the Treasury Department. Transitioning from a hedge fund manager and Goldman Sachs CIO to a critic of Wall Street would be a dramatic shift. But that assumes Biden wins, doesn't need Warren's vote in the Senate, and decides to make her part of the administration.
-
Voting takes little time and can be done by mail. I vote in every election -- local, state, and federal. In my view, it's a right no one should piss away. It's easy to discount anyone's significance on a whole host of matters, but that isn't the point.
Again, whatever theories anyone propounds for the effect any president can have the markets is not supported by statistically reliable data.
Besides, Trump is a joke. Worse, a dangerous joke. I'd rather see markets drop every year during Biden's presidency than have Trump for another 4.
-
I disagree with Buffaloski Boris being a bot, Russian or otherwise.
Me too, I was joking. I actually quite like his contributions, I just don't get the voting thing.
-
I disagree with Buffaloski Boris being a bot, Russian or otherwise.
Me too, I was joking. I actually quite like his contributions, I just don't get the voting thing.
For the record I was joking too. But the talking points are the same. He may READ a lot of bots.
-
I disagree with Buffaloski Boris being a bot, Russian or otherwise.
Me too, I was joking. I actually quite like his contributions, I just don't get the voting thing.
For the record I was joking too. But the talking points are the same. He may READ a lot of bots.
Interestingly, that's sort of where the name came from. It was politely suggested that another poster (not Buffalo) should take a moment to consider that their talking points matched those of known Russian bots. No one was called a Russian bot or even told they were wrong, just that they should think about where their talking points come from.
Buffalo quickly jumped in front of the bot bullet and turned it into an attack on himself. Thus the sarcastic handle was born... in case anyone was wondering:)
-
Glad to hear it - and I didn't know that was actually his nickname.
---
Although there wasn't a specific prediction when I searched for "538 senate forecast 2020", the article I found suggests it's possible Democrats take control of the senate. If Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren left her position, the Republican governor could pick her replacement. Similarly, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is in a state with a Republican governor - so same situation there. That situation makes it less likely a progressive becomes part of the administration, since their votes may be needed in the Senate.
-
The problem is that way too many people think voting is about selecting the best person. It’s absolutely not. Voting is about expressing your values. To truly have a value is to be motivated enough to do your part to support it. You demonstrate that you actually have values by voting for the people who will enact your values - or against those who would work against your values. The politician is only your employee and you don’t have to like or even know them as an individual. In fact, you will never truly know them so drop the whole personality pageant mentality.
It is no surprise that the millions of people who think their job is to vote for the best person in the world get a little bit disillusioned and think they’re all awful after many months and millions of dollars are spent in a mudslinging campaign. And then - irony of all ironies - after being influenced not to vote by special interests spending on advertising, they throw up their arms and declare that the whole system is corrupt so therefore they won’t vote. This is exactly what the big campaign donors wanted you to believe all along!! Their plan is to neutralize the voters who support different values. It works because too many people think voting is about supporting someone else, when in fact voting is about supporting your own values.
In a sense, many people have a consumerist attitude toward their democracy. If they see too many negative reviews or ads, they think they can hold out for a better deal. But actually somebody gets elected every time, and the same game of voter discouragement occurs every time, and the people who let themselves get influenced watch the world drift farther and farther from their interests and values. You and I are accountable to ourselves for supporting our values, if we truly have values. Frame it that way and a lot of things become more clear.
-
Here's a compilation of recent, existing data:
https://tonyisola.com/2020/09/repeat-after-me-the-president-isnt-the-stock-market/
-
Here's a compilation of recent, existing data:
https://tonyisola.com/2020/09/repeat-after-me-the-president-isnt-the-stock-market/
So Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were better for the stock market than Trump or either of the Bushes?
-
@Full_Beard , I must admit, I am pretty impressed with the Tony Isola article you shared.
-
Lol, well the stock market has absolutely crushed it since the election. I would categorize Biden as a moderate rather than a progressive, though.
-
Stocks will go thru a lost decade or two. I will be able to buy a private island with no property taxes with my bitcoin.
-
Long term its wonderful to have President who is looking forward and not backwards, taking us forward in changing world. Improving all people lives step by step.
As toxic as T**** was during his presidency its great for someone like me in accumulating phase. He got handed over a stable economy and he managed to monkey around so much, creating lots of opportunities for investing in the volatility.
But long term? its wasted opportunity and so much compounding effect with it into the future.
-
I think less about the stock market than the people in the stock market, i.e. investors. Fewer people are investing due to multiple recessions, and the stock market needs more investors to be strong. That's why Money Mustache and other online resources are key to bringing more people to understand this matter and participate in it -- more important than what the president does. One disappointing thing about Trump was that he made next to no effort in educating the masses about the importance of saving for retirement via investment. He was elected mainly due to his strength in economy, and I expected more emphasis from him in making financial literacy a top priority in education. One big reason for the widening wealth gap is that more and more money is going to the investors, especially during bull markets, instead of to people who don't invest or invest little. It is a bittersweet feeling for me when I buy stocks at low prices, knowing that I essentially take money from poor folk (thus widening the wealth gap some more) who just sold the same stocks I buy in order to make ends meet.
-
^If it makes you feel better, the truly poor never had any stocks to sell you.
-
I don't think it's poor, unemployed folks who are selling right now. I think it's older, retired folks, who are living a plan of periodic selling to sustain themselves in retirement.