Jobs report

#202
#202
Vol737 said:
I'm not in the 1% by any stretch and had much of my 401k in S&P 500 Index ETF's last year and UPRO which is 3X the daily performance of the S&P. I earned 30% + and better than that in UPRO. Google the returns on VOOG, IVOG, IWS and UPRO for the past year. You might want to understand some math too LG. If someone scrapes and saves their way to $100k, $250K or $500K or even $1M principal over a period of time....even a 10% return is a huge boost to their bottom line. What should they do? Quit saving and quit investing to make you happy?? This "income inequality" BS is nothing more than a precursor to foment an effort to confiscate wealth on a massive scale. Hmmm, where have we heard these same themes and mantras before? :question: Oh yeah, the Bolshevik Revolution that ushered in communism to the Soviet Union, the revolution in Cuba, China, North Korea and on down the line. How has that worked out for those people? Great for the elitist politicians and bureacrats, not so much for ANYONE else. At age 24 with $1000 saved up, I bought my first mutual fund. It's out there for the taking if people want to educate themselves about the markets or hire somone to help them. But ignorance, apathy and false arguments are NOT an excuse to blame others for lack of ambition or inaction to secure your financial future. Damn dude, get a clue.
Click to expand...



You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here, Holy Cow!!

My point is simply that the point of QE is to spur investment in the stock market, which has happened and resulted in massive build up of wealth to the very top. The theory that it will trickle down to the middle class has simply been false. And as a consequence the key main driver of our economy continues to suck, which is middle class consumer demand.

If we want sustained, predictable, job generating, top to bottom and bottom to top growth, we need to re-focus our economic stimulus policy to the middle class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#203
#203
lawgator1 said:
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions here, Holy Cow!!

My point is simply that the point of QE is to spur investment in the stock market, which has happened and resulted in massive build up of wealth to the very top. The theory that it will trickle down to the middle class has simply been false. And as a consequence the key main driver of our economy continues to suck, which is middle class consumer demand.

If we want sustained, predictable, job generating, top to bottom and bottom to top growth, we need to re-focus our economic stimulus policy to the middle class.
Click to expand...

Uncertainty!!!

That is why the gains at the top have not matriculated down the ladder. Uncertainty with ACA, the EPA and Obama's policies in general have all led to the hoarding of wealth and not reinvesting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#204
#204
hog88 said:
Uncertainty!!!

That is why the gains at the top have not matriculated down the ladder. Uncertainty with ACA, the EPA and Obama's policies in general have all led to the hoarding of wealth and not reinvesting it.
Click to expand...

You left out the 35% corporate tax rate as well.
 
#205
#205
FLVOL69 said:
You left out the 35% corporate tax rate as well.
Click to expand...

Even that doesn't prohibit reinvestment as much as uncertainty. You can't plan for expansion/growth/hiring when the rules keep changing.

LG wants to lament the growing wealth gap, all he needs to do is look in his mirror and thank himself for his vote!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#206
#206
FLVOL69 said:
You left out the 35% corporate tax rate as well.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Uncertainty!!!

That is why the gains at the top have not matriculated down the ladder. Uncertainty with ACA, the EPA and Obama's policies in general have all led to the hoarding of wealth and not reinvesting it.
Click to expand...

And BO's regulatory agenda..the list goes on. LG and the rest of the socialists still think trying to engineer the economy to guarantee outcomes versus opportunities is the holy grail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#207
#207
lawgator1 said:
My point is simply that the point of QE is to spur investment in the stock market, which has happened and resulted in massive build up of wealth to the very top.
Click to expand...

Not the point of QE.

The point is to expand the money supply when lowering interest rates can no longer do so. It is pumping money into the economy via banks with hopes it will stimulate the economy (making lending easier and more frequent)
 
Last edited:
#208
#208
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#209
#209
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#210
#210
hog88 said:
This happens during almost every Dem administration, why is that? Aren't they the party of the working man?
Click to expand...

Obama is good at spewing the the populist rhetoric out of one side of his mouth while rewarding them for their loyalty out the other.

Populist Rhetoric: Fat Cats in Washington, Private Jet owners, greedy bankers, etc.

Rewards on the Sly: QE, bank bailouts, the revolving jobs doors from Washington to Wall Street

Fools, however, do still believe that Obama is fighting for the lower class. He's certainly helped make a lot more of them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#211
#211
volinbham said:
Not the point of QE.

The point is to expand the money supply when lowering interest rates can no longer do so. It is pumping money into the economy via banks with hopes it will stimulate the economy (making lending easier and more frequent)
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that it doesn't stimulate the economy; it stimulates debt,-- more specifically interest debt. The top 1% own the banks, take those interest payments out of the economy, grow the wealth of the 1% and take $ out of the economy.

If you want to stimulate the economy, make it easier for businesses to produce, make profits, expand, employ, and add money to the economy through paychecks. In other words, help businesses hire more people.
 
#212
#212
hog88 said:
Uncertainty!!!

That is why the gains at the top have not matriculated down the ladder. Uncertainty with ACA, the EPA and Obama's policies in general have all led to the hoarding of wealth and not reinvesting it.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I think the reason the money is not being invested in companies that create jobs is that there is so much to be made in buying and selling in milliseconds, basically churning and cashing out on small upticks of no real moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#213
#213
lawgator1 said:
I disagree. I think the reason the money is not being invested in companies that create jobs is that there is so much to be made in buying and selling in milliseconds, basically churning and cashing out on small upticks of no real moment.
Click to expand...

Please tell me that you said this in jest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
volinbham said:
Not the point of QE.

The point is to expand the money supply when lowering interest rates can no longer do so. It is pumping money into the economy via banks with hopes it will stimulate the economy (making lending easier and more frequent)
Click to expand...


Ok, but the money is not translating into consumer demand. Don't you think we'd be better off at this point finding a way to spur that? Make it more attractive to invest long term, in companies that will expand and hire to fill increasing demand?

The companies that make the most now seem like artifices, they just invest and cycle up with no real notion of developing anything real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#215
#215
Orange_Crush said:
The problem with that is that it doesn't stimulate the economy; it stimulates debt,-- more specifically interest debt. The top 1% own the banks, take those interest payments out of the economy, grow the wealth of the 1% and take $ out of the economy.

If you want to stimulate the economy, make it easier for businesses to produce, make profits, expand, employ, and add money to the economy through paychecks. In other words, help businesses hire more people.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree about it vis a vis stimulating the economy. The point of it though is not to stimulate investment in the stock market. It is to expand the money supply when you can no longer lower interest rates (more traditional monetary policy)
 
#216
#216
lawgator1 said:
Ok, but the money is not translating into consumer demand. Don't you think we'd be better off at this point finding a way to spur that? Make it more attractive to invest long term, in companies that will expand and hire to fill increasing demand?

The companies that make the most now seem like artifices, they just invest and cycle up with no real notion of developing anything real.
Click to expand...


That's the environment your guy has created.
 
#219
#219
lawgator1 said:
Ok, but the money is not translating into consumer demand. Don't you think we'd be better off at this point finding a way to spur that? Make it more attractive to invest long term, in companies that will expand and hire to fill increasing demand?

The companies that make the most now seem like artifices, they just invest and cycle up with no real notion of developing anything real.
Click to expand...

There's less consumer demand b/c:

1) There's less disposable income. Despite the rosy jobs reports you like to point to, we are trading full time jobs for part time jobs while shrinking the overall work force. Do the math. There's less disposable dollars to spend.

2) 95% of the wealth being generated is going to the Top 1%. They may buy a new house, new toys, take some nice vacations, but that doesn't equate to strong middle class spending.

It really has nothing to do with company dollars. They are sitting on their cash in an uncertain regulatory environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#220
#220
lawgator1 said:
Well, I exaggerate somewhat. My main point is that the money is not being parked anywhere in companies that will expand and hire, build, work on infrastructure.
Click to expand...

When the Feds soak the producers, everyone gets wet.
 
#222
#222
lawgator1 said:
Ok, but the money is not translating into consumer demand. Don't you think we'd be better off at this point finding a way to spur that? Make it more attractive to invest long term, in companies that will expand and hire to fill increasing demand?

The companies that make the most now seem like artifices, they just invest and cycle up with no real notion of developing anything real.
Click to expand...

I wasn't supporting QE as a stimulative tool; I was correcting the intent of QE.

As hinted at a few posts up, a one time tax holiday on US companies foreign held earnings directed at expansion or R&D could help as could a lowering of the corporate tax rate

The best thing to stimulate consumer demand is jobs and good jobs at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#223
#223
Let me ask you more knowledgeable market guys -- is there any sort of mechanism out there that measures how long a given investment dollar is staying in a stock? I am getting at more than volatility of prices. I mean, can we gauge how long investments are lingering in one place or another?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#224
#224
lawgator1 said:
I disagree. I think the reason the money is not being invested in companies that create jobs is that there is so much to be made in buying and selling in milliseconds, basically churning and cashing out on small upticks of no real moment.
Click to expand...

Then as usual you would be wrong.

Look at all the delays and changes in ACA, companies spent millions on consultants in preparation then poof, delay. Companies are not going to continue to spend money on planning when with the flick of a pen it's wasted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#225
#225
lawgator1 said:
Well, I exaggerate somewhat. My main point is that the money is not being parked anywhere in companies that will expand and hire, build, work on infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Why? Obama's policies. The people at the top are not going to take the risk when rules are changed so often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top