Possible that Stock Market Panic Starting Now

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,729
1
And democrat policy is 100% to make the 1% wealthier.

One day perhaps you will see it.

LdN

That's tax and spend (with the support of central bank money-printing) policies. Central banks can corrupt the ideas I presented in my last post by debasing the currency. Then the fiscal side (Congress) can write rules to funnel money into their own coffers.

This is exactly what the elites in the Democratic Party are doing. Jerome Powell is said to be a Republican but you can tell from everything he has done, and everything he says, that he is catering to a Democratic Congress. What central banker starts out each speech by pointing out differences associated with skin color? What central banker says the market is rising too fast before the election and then allows it to take off without a word after the election?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Yes. Maybe you missed M.knox post about middle class boon the 1000 times he posted it?

Republican policy is to make everyone wealthier.

LdN

So let me get this straight. You believe the dem policies only help the wealthiest people get wealthier but the gop is fighting for the working guy? Now that is hilariously funny.

What happened to Biden being a socialist? Is he only helping he wealthy or is he a far left wing communist/socialist?
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
44,620
18,316
1
DFW, TX
So let me get this straight. You believe the dem policies only help the wealthiest people get wealthier but the gop is fighting for the working guy? Now that is hilariously funny.

What happened to Biden being a socialist? Is he only helping he wealthy or is he a far left wing communist/socialist?

I never said anything of the sort of your first paragraph. Perhaps you should read more? Your comprehension is terrible.

You understand that under socialism you create an elite class and a working class right? Ever lived in a socialost country? Kids are hand picked to be truck drivers or scientists around age 10 based on their parents.

Ldn
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,230
5,037
1
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/18/the...-own-a-record-89percent-of-all-us-stocks.html

The wealthiest 10% of Americans now own 89% of all U.S. stocks held by households, a record high that highlights the stock market’s role in increasing wealth inequality.​
The top 1% gained more than $6.5 trillion in corporate equities and mutual fund wealth during the Covid-19 pandemic, while the bottom 90% added $1.2 trillion, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve. The share of corporate equities and mutual funds owned by the top 10% reached the record high in the second quarter, while the bottom 90% of Americans held about 11% of individually held stocks, down from 12% before the pandemic.​
The stock market, which has nearly doubled since the March 2020 drop and is up nearly 40% since January 2020, was the main source of wealth creation in America during the pandemic — as well as the main driver of inequality. The total wealth of the top 1% now tops 32%, a record, according to the Fed data. Nearly 70% of their wealth gains over the past year and a half — one of the fastest wealth booms in recent history — came from stocks.​
“The top 1% own a lot of stock, the rest of us own a little,” said Steven Rosenthal, senior fellow, Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.​
Boy, you like to deflect. In life there are always those who have more than others...will be that way forever.
If i 'm an average American making $70k A year with no defined benefit plan and about 200k in my 401/ira, then I'm probably more interested in a stock market reduction of 10-20% than is somebody with $100 million in the market under the same condition.
The problem, imho, with your thinking is that you seem to be more upset about the guy in the 1% who will never spend all the money he has as opposed to the average guy who will need every cent that he has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Boy, you like to deflect. In life there are always those who have more than others...will be that way forever.
If i 'm an average American making $70k A year with no defined benefit plan and about 200k in my 401/ira, then I'm probably more interested in a stock market reduction of 10-20% than is somebody with $100 million in the market under the same condition.
The problem, imho, with your thinking is that you seem to be more upset about the guy in the 1% who will never spend all the money he has as opposed to the average guy who will need every cent that he has.

All I'm saying is the stock market is not that big deal for the average person. The bulk of all stocks are owned by the wealthiest people. That is just the facts.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,729
1
All I'm saying is the stock market is not that big deal for the average person. The bulk of all stocks are owned by the wealthiest people. That is just the facts.

If you believe that this mentality is OK then you have a problem. You are saying that the average person doesn't have a stake in business. Maybe true, but ... in a healthy society he/she should have a stake. We should move in a direction to make this true, not in the opposite direction.

You care about what you own. If you own nothing you tend to care about nothing. That includes your home, your business, and even your employer.

This is why productivity is poor in socialist countries. The people do not have an adequate stake in ownership. The socialist elites, whom your party tends to support, love this idea. They want to own and control everything while enslaving an ignorant population, who then get dependent on money funneled through the control of the elites.

The modern Democratic Party is all about power and control, beneath everything they tend to say. Usually, if they claim something negative about their opponents, that tends to be exactly what they are doing themselves. It is the art of deflection. We see it continuously on this board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and Sullivan

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
If you believe that this mentality is OK then you have a problem. You are saying that the average person doesn't have a stake in business. Maybe true, but ... in a healthy society he/she should have a stake. We should move in a direction to make this true, not in the opposite direction.

You care about what you own. If you own nothing you tend to care about nothing. That includes your home, your business, and even your employer.

This is why productivity is poor in socialist countries. The people do not have an adequate stake in ownership. The socialist elites, whom your party tends to support, love this idea. They want to own and control everything while enslaving an ignorant population, who then get dependent on money funneled through the control of the elites.

The modern Democratic Party is all about power and control, beneath everything they tend to say. Usually, if they claim something negative about their opponents, that tends to be exactly what they are doing themselves. It is the art of deflection. We see it continuously on this board.

This is why productivity is poor in socialist countries. The people do not have an adequate stake in ownership.

Our "stake in ownership" is pretty bad but our productively has been pretty good.

The socialist elites, whom your party tends to support, love this idea.

I don't belong to the democrat or republican party. If don't think the gop is owned lock stock and barrel by wealthy people then I don't know what to say.

So you want corporations set up like Mondragon in Spain?
 

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,083
5,922
1
You are wrong. The stock market does track the condition of the economy. What you fail to mention is the impact of real interest rates and the size of the money supply. Had those been left alone the stock market would be well below where it was at the start of the pandemic.

Biden's team is so bad we might wind up there anyway, should the Fed do what it is supposed to do and control inflation. It's clear that no one in the White House learned anything from the 1970s. It's that or they are deliberately trying to wreck the country. Given their "protection" of the border it would seem that the latter is true.
Use your Econ wizardry and tell us how the rest of the world is fairing? Is that Biden’s issue too?

The entire global economy is reeling from the pandemic. Energy, inflation, supply chains problems are Global problems. One country’s policies are not the sole determiner of its own economic state. You know that. You are either too dishonest to admit it or you aren’t as much of an expert as you have advertised.
 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
145 million Americans own stocks.

Yeah, just not very much. If every person in the the US owned 1 share of stock except one person that owned the remaining 30 billion shares would anyone care that "everyone in the US owns stock!"?

What the stock market does has an very outsized impact on just 10% of the population. For most people it just doesn't affect them. Oh and that 10% also just happens to own all the media. So we certainly do get to hear about what the stock market is doing.

The wealthiest 10% of Americans now own 89% of all U.S. stocks held by households, a record high that highlights the stock market’s role in increasing wealth inequality.​
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
24,859
40,268
1
Yeah, just not very much. If every person in the the US owned 1 share of stock except one person that owned the remaining 30 billion shares would anyone care that "everyone in the US owns stock!"?

What the stock market does has an very outsized impact on just 10% of the population. For most people it just doesn't affect them. Oh and that 10% also just happens to own all the media. So we certainly do get to hear about what the stock market is doing.

The wealthiest 10% of Americans now own 89% of all U.S. stocks held by households, a record high that highlights the stock market’s role in increasing wealth inequality.​
You had 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, and now Biden. And??? They did nothing. Fact is, market investments matter for every American that participates. It's about the scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski and Sullivan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,711
1
All I'm saying is the stock market is not that big deal for the average person. The bulk of all stocks are owned by the wealthiest people. That is just the facts.
It depends on what you call the average person. It doesn't matter to people who don't work and save. It also doesn't matter much to people with defined benefit plans. But if you work and save responsibly in a 401k plan it matters a lot.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,711
1
Yeah, just not very much. If every person in the the US owned 1 share of stock except one person that owned the remaining 30 billion shares would anyone care that "everyone in the US owns stock!"?

What the stock market does has an very outsized impact on just 10% of the population. For most people it just doesn't affect them. Oh and that 10% also just happens to own all the media. So we certainly do get to hear about what the stock market is doing.

The wealthiest 10% of Americans now own 89% of all U.S. stocks held by households, a record high that highlights the stock market’s role in increasing wealth inequality.​
So what? My net worth is only a small fraction of what Elon Musk has but that doesn't mean I don't care about the market. I've probably earned more on my equity investments than my salary. By your logic I shouldn't have cared about my salary.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
You had 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Obama, and now Biden. And??? They did nothing. Fact is, market investments matter for every American that participates. It's about the scale.


Fact is, market investments matter for every American that participates.


Yeah, the for 10% that own almost all stocks it matters a lot. And since they own all the media boy do we get hear about it. As far a participation well you don't just sign up right? If you want to be in the 10% then you need millions of dollars to purchase the stocks to "participate". Most people can't afford to participate.

It's about the scale.

That's what I said.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
So what? My net worth is only a small fraction of what Elon Musk has but that doesn't mean I don't care about the market. I've probably earned more on my equity investments than my salary. Those investments started at zero when I was 16 years old but I still cared.
Well great. I also own stock but I know I'm not in the 10% percent that own most of it. And I also realize that my stock ownership does not hold true for every other person in the country.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,711
1
Fact is, market investments matter for every American that participates.

Yeah, the for 10% that own almost all stocks it matters a lot. And since they own all the media boy do we get hear about it. As far a participation well you don't just sign up right? If you want to be in the 10% then you need millions of dollars to purchase the stocks to "participate". Most people can't afford to participate.

It's about the scale.

That's what I said.
That's just dishonest.
 

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,083
5,922
1
Well great. I also own stock but I know I'm not in the 10% percent that own most of it. And I also realize that my stock ownership does not hold true for every other person in the country.
This is a great article from the Atlantic. It’s old but it’s still relevant.

IMO, our wealth problem is not with the top 10% or even the top 5% or even the top 1%. The wealth in the US is disproportionately skewed to the top 0.1% and higher. It’s crazy.

To illustrate: if you can make it to the top 2%, ($6.5mil) you are almost as equidistant to the bottom, 0% ($0.00) as you are to the next rung up the ladder, 1% ($11.1mil). Insane.
Look it up.

it gets even more drastic if you compare the top 1% to the top 0.1% or the top 0.01%
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,711
1
IMO, it’s not the top 10% or even the top 5% or even the top 1%. The wealth in the US is disproportionately skewed to the top 0.1%. It’s crazy.

FWIW, if you can make it to the top 2%, you are almost as equidistant to the bottom (0%) as you are to the next rung up the ladder, 1%. Insane.
Look it up.
The top 1% in household income is just slightly over $200k per year. The top 1% in net worth is just over $11 million. My point is you don't have to be anywhere near Elon Musk territory to be a 1%er.

The ultra wealthy are at extreme levels. Heck, I think it's ridiculous that a college football coach earns $10 million per year. That said, how would you be better off if these people were worse off?

I took some teens on a mission trip a few years ago. Each evening we discussed what we experienced that day. One girl said she wanted a sweater but now she feels bad because she already has so much. I told her that it's good to count your blessings and to be charitable, but that poor people wouldn't be better off if she didn't buy the sweater.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,424
14,336
1
IMO, our wealth problem is not with the top 10% or even the top 5% or even the top 1%. The wealth in the US is disproportionately skewed to the top 0.1%. It’s crazy.
Yes, and who do the very wealthy support -- the woke dems. The Dems collude with the very wealthy to create nominal programs that claim to help the poor (and don't). These fake programs employ the Lefties but do nothing. A prime example is the various sustainability initiatives all over the country that employ Lefties and do nothing. Also, Dems at behest of very wealthy support open borders to lower the cost of labor for people like Bezos.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
The top 1% in household income is just slightly over $200k per year. The top 1% in net worth is just over $11 million. My point is you don't have to be anywhere near Elon Musk territory to be a 1%er.

The ultra wealthy are at extreme levels. Heck, I think it's ridiculous that a college football coach earns $10 million per year. That said, how would you be better off if these people were worse off?

I took some teens on a mission trip a few years ago. Each evening we discussed what we experienced that day. One girl said she wanted a sweater but now she feels bad because she already has so much. I told her that it's good to count your blessings and to be charitable, but that poor people wouldn't be better off if she didn't buy the sweater.

That said, how would you be better off if these people were worse off?

We would all be better off if these people didn't have the funds necessary to purchase politicians.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Yes, and who do the very wealthy support -- the woke dems. The Dems collude with the very wealthy to create nominal programs that claim to help the poor (and don't). These fake programs employ the Lefties but do nothing. A prime example is the various sustainability initiatives all over the country that employ Lefties and do nothing. Also, Dems at behest of very wealthy support open borders to lower the cost of labor for people like Bezos.

No wealthy people are donating money to republicans? Are you serious?

It's not a dem - gop thing. It's a wealth thing.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Yes, and who do the very wealthy support -- the woke dems. The Dems collude with the very wealthy to create nominal programs that claim to help the poor (and don't). These fake programs employ the Lefties but do nothing. A prime example is the various sustainability initiatives all over the country that employ Lefties and do nothing. Also, Dems at behest of very wealthy support open borders to lower the cost of labor for people like Bezos.

A prime example is the various sustainability initiatives all over the country that employ Lefties and do nothing

Wow, that's pretty bad. What are the examples?
 

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,083
5,922
1
Yes, and who do the very wealthy support -- the woke dems. The Dems collude with the very wealthy to create nominal programs that claim to help the poor (and don't). These fake programs employ the Lefties but do nothing. A prime example is the various sustainability initiatives all over the country that employ Lefties and do nothing. Also, Dems at behest of very wealthy support open borders to lower the cost of labor for people like Bezos.
So Peter Thiel is a woke lefty? The Koch Bros are woke lefties? Zuckerberg is a woke lefty? Rupert and Lachlan are woke lefties. The Mercer’s are woke lefties. Sigg is a woke lefty? Etc etc etc…

Are you high? Maybe strung out on opioids?

do you have a store front practice or work for a firm? Or maybe you don’t even practice law anymore.

You love playing the angry victim card. It suits you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,230
5,037
1
All I'm saying is the stock market is not that big deal for the average person. The bulk of all stocks are owned by the wealthiest people. That is just the facts.
the latter part of your statement is fact.
I do think you give short shrift to the "little guy" who is close to or in retirement who has a 401/ira and is dependent on withdrawals from those accounts for their financial survival. To those, the stock market is much more important in real terms than to the multi gazillionaire who will never need any of the money in his/her account.
The most recent numbers I have seen indicate that about 50% of those age 55 or higher have less than $50,000 saved for retirement., and they have little or no defined benefit pensions. I don't know factually how many of these people have money in stocks, I've never seen a number on that. But I do
suspect that $50,000 is very, very important to them.
Short of some kind of wealth tax those 1% of wage earners/asset holders will see their wealth grow over time as long as the economy continues to grow. And, I would submit that they have money in many more financial vehicles than only the stock market, be it real estate, structured investment vehicles, precious metals , crypto etc. Look at your favorite person - Trump. Only he knows his net worth, and, according to his statements, he doesn't have money in the stock market. Personally, I don't see the political will in either party to enact a wealth tax. So what are we going to do about folks like Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc? just continue to bitch because they have more money than most third world countries? If it makes you feel good fine, but a couple of repitiions of the serenity prayer might be equally beneficial.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
10,424
14,336
1
Zuckerberg is a woke lefty?
Yes. He censors conservatives and buys into false Leftie narratives. Apple, Amazon and Google conspired to kill Parler. Facebook and Twitter conspired to lie and hide the Hunter Biden story. Salesforce had a project to turn the country blue. Not even debatable for anyone who is not living in a bubble. Here is a link to the lying Facebook censorship. https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/1...ng-the-new-york-posts-hunter-biden-bombshell/

Vast majority of very high level tech companies are led by woke people.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,230
5,037
1
That said, how would you be better off if these people were worse off?

We would all be better off if these people didn't have the funds necessary to purchase politicians.
boo! to quote a truly great american (yourself) have any specific examples of politicians that have been bought by an individual making $200 k a year? By the way, I don't think that $200k figure is accurate. Last I saw it takes $504k a year to be in 1% of wage earners (not that I'd fall on my sword for that number)
 

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,083
5,922
1
The top 1% in household income is just slightly over $200k per year. The top 1% in net worth is just over $11 million. My point is you don't have to be anywhere near Elon Musk territory to be a 1%er.

The ultra wealthy are at extreme levels. Heck, I think it's ridiculous that a college football coach earns $10 million per year. That said, how would you be better off if these people were worse off?

I took some teens on a mission trip a few years ago. Each evening we discussed what we experienced that day. One girl said she wanted a sweater but now she feels bad because she already has so much. I told her that it's good to count your blessings and to be charitable, but that poor people wouldn't be better off if she didn't buy the sweater.
I was with you right up to your last sentence. I would have addressed it slightly differently. Self sacrifice and helping the less fortunate is always a good thing no matter how small the contribution.

Would our country be in a better position if Elon was only worth $24.4Billion as opposed to $244.4Billion? Yes. We could reduce the deficit, rebuild the power grid, address the higher-ed problem, early childhood development problem. The list conservative or liberal could be extensive.

Elon or Jeff or Bill or Rupert etc etc are not going to be any less motivated or successful. At their level of wealth, money/wealth stops being a means to sustain a good life, a better life or running a successful business. It becomes merely a means of keeping score. And IMO, that is repugnant.
 
Last edited:

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,711
1
That said, how would you be better off if these people were worse off?

We would all be better off if these people didn't have the funds necessary to purchase politicians.
They're overwhelmingly purchasing democrats so you might have a point there.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
the latter part of your statement is fact.
I do think you give short shrift to the "little guy" who is close to or in retirement who has a 401/ira and is dependent on withdrawals from those accounts for their financial survival. To those, the stock market is much more important in real terms than to the multi gazillionaire who will never need any of the money in his/her account.
The most recent numbers I have seen indicate that about 50% of those age 55 or higher have less than $50,000 saved for retirement., and they have little or no defined benefit pensions. I don't know factually how many of these people have money in stocks, I've never seen a number on that. But I do
suspect that $50,000 is very, very important to them.
Short of some kind of wealth tax those 1% of wage earners/asset holders will see their wealth grow over time as long as the economy continues to grow. And, I would submit that they have money in many more financial vehicles than only the stock market, be it real estate, structured investment vehicles, precious metals , crypto etc. Look at your favorite person - Trump. Only he knows his net worth, and, according to his statements, he doesn't have money in the stock market. Personally, I don't see the political will in either party to enact a wealth tax. So what are we going to do about folks like Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc? just continue to bitch because they have more money than most third world countries? If it makes you feel good fine, but a couple of repitiions of the serenity prayer might be equally beneficial.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresa...al-stake-in-the-stock-market/?sh=5cf3c2411154


But the majority of Americans are not significantly affected by jumps in the stock market. The stock market bounce is passing most Americans by. Just a modest majority of Americans, some 55%, own stocks, according to an April 2020 poll by Gallup, which asks whether households owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund​
Older white people with high incomes are much more likely to own stock. The Pew Research Center finds 88% of those in households earning $100,000 or more own stocks compared to 19% of those in households earning less than $35,000. Families headed by white adults are more likely than those headed by Black or Hispanic adults to be invested in the stock market. A majority (61%) of non-Hispanic white households own some stock, compared with 31% of non-Hispanic Black and 28% of Hispanic households.​
Not only does mere ownership vary by income, so does the amount and significance. Among those who do own stock and have income less than $35,000, the typical household held just $8,400. For those at the higher end of the income scale, the median amount is about $139,000. Among whites the median is approximately $51,000; for Black families, $12,000; for Hispanic families, just under $11,000.​
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,711
1
I was with you right up to your last sentence. I would have addressed it slightly differently. Self sacrifice and helping the less fortunate is always a good thing no matter how small the contribution.

A family member just told my wife and I how she and her retired friends have joined together to combine their small annual charitable donations $2k each and they target small local charities. This way they have a much bigger impact together.

Would our country be in a better position if Elon was only worth $24.4Billion as opposed to $244.4Billion? Yes. Elon or Jeff or Bill or Rupert etc etc wouldn’t be any less motivated or successful. At that level, money/wealth stops being a means to sustain a good life or a better life. It becomes merely a means of keeping score. And IMO, that is repugnant.
So Musk should have had all of his wealth confiscated after his net worth exceeded $10 million or so? Do you really think Tesla would have continued to grow like it did? SpaceX?

Is Obama's $20 million house repugnant? IMO the only thing repugnant about it is that he made it in politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ski

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
15,640
5,069
1
Huge market volatility is a sign of a market getting ready for a major change in direction. Too many stocks and other investments determined by computerized algorithms.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,729
1
Use your Econ wizardry and tell us how the rest of the world is fairing? Is that Biden’s issue too?

The entire global economy is reeling from the pandemic, (Energy, inflation, supply chains). One country’s policies are not the sole determiner of its own economic state. You know that. You are either too dishonest to admit it or you aren’t as much of an expert as you have advertised.

I never said I was an expert. In fact if you read some of my posts I've used the phrase "people smarter than me" a number of times.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Huge market volatility is a sign of a market getting ready for a major change in direction. Too many stocks and other investments determined by computerized algorithms.

The way to make money in the stock market is to buy when everyone else is selling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,083
5,922
1
Huge market volatility is a sign of a market getting ready for a major change in direction. Too many stocks and other investments determined by computerized algorithms.
It usually gets volatile before it blows up. I read this cool book several years ago. “The History of the Stock Market in Five Crashes”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2lion70