Possible that Stock Market Panic Starting Now

Nittany Ned2

Well-Known Member
Dec 16, 2005
8,083
5,922
1
When sailing into a storm you should be prepared for some rough water and batten down all hatches. Do not be casual when warning signs are all about.
Actually, for young people, volatility is their friend. If I were younger I would be applauding. Stay employed and keep buying. Of course, it took me 30 years to figure this out but this nugget of wisdom has been passed down to my children.
 
Last edited:

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,230
5,037
1
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.​
and, like I said, bet that little amount of money the little guy has invested is a big deal to them.
Look, I understand your position and it's impossible to argue against the fact the the upper 1% in America have a lot of wealth that they will never ever spend. So what do you propose to do about it, that is really doable?
I don't believe that making the wealthy poorer somehow makes the poor wealthier. You want to tax the rich's income at a higher rate, fine, I'm ok with that. But using that money to create new entitlements is not the way to go in my opinion. I know you disagree but that's ok. I'd use it to pay down the debt or with interest rates rising, maybe pay the increased service that comes with higher interest in the debt. Want to tax wealth? Good luck with that. I don't think there is sufficient political will to ever get that done on a long term basis.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
Could it be that since you own a lot stock you are biased?
Yes, but my bias is based in fact.

Do you think I was born with $millions in stock? Or do you think I was only able to buy stock because I had a boatload of disposable income?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
and, like I said, bet that little amount of money the little guy has invested is a big deal to them.
Look, I understand your position and it's impossible to argue against the fact the the upper 1% in America have a lot of wealth that they will never ever spend. So what do you propose to do about it, that is really doable?
I don't believe that making the wealthy poorer somehow makes the poor wealthier. You want to tax the rich's income at a higher rate, fine, I'm ok with that. But using that money to create new entitlements is not the way to go in my opinion. I know you disagree but that's ok. I'd use it to pay down the debt or with interest rates rising, maybe pay the increased service that comes with higher interest in the debt. Want to tax wealth? Good luck with that. I don't think there is sufficient political will to ever get that done on a long term basis.

I never said anything about taxing wealth. Or raising taxes to create new social programs.

All I'm saying is that for most people in country the stock gyrations don't really mean anything.

Also anytime you support policies that encourage companies to pump their stock price up like stock buybacks you are supporting policies that predominantly benefit the wealthy.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Yes, but my bias is based in fact.

Do you think I was born with $millions in stock? Or do you think I was only able to buy stock because I had a boatload of disposable income?

You didn't buy stock with your income? Do tell.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,728
1
I watched Powell this afternoon. I watched the stock market go nuts. The bond market sold off, raising yields late in the day extremely fast as Powell mentioned that inflation was actually worsening. And yet, he once again said nothing substantive on policy -- more wait and see. He did lament the hardship for people on fixed incomes, and those who spend most of their income on food, energy, and housing.

Powell has an impossible choice to make. He can pretend that mounting inflation will just go away through some kind of miracle increase in productivity, while those people suffer further. Or he can do the bidding of the wealthy and his handlers in government, offering little but lip service and token rate increases on inflation.

Let's not kid ourselves. Restoring the supply chain is not a productivity increase relative to the pre-pandemic era, which also saw a more sane energy policy/prices. Even if supply issues could be resolved quickly how could this stop inflation with such a mammoth increase in the money supply? You'd think Biden might back track on his bad energy policies amid what is becoming an emergency for marginal people. But no. He just made the Fed in charge for inflation control, while blaming a lack of competition as the root cause.

With either choice Powell and members of Congress have to live with themselves. They are making people on fixed incomes pay for this by creating hyperinflation. Pensions will be evaporated. Even the CPI will not cover adjusted incomes.

Powell was asked if he and government went too far. He defended government and said he will wait to see how history views this period.

To me the math simply does not add up, even if Russia and China behave themselves. History will see it the same way it currently sees the 1970s, at best.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
You didn't buy stock with your income? Do tell.
I first purchased stock when I was 16 years old. I used paper route money. I had a modest income during the early part of my career but I always lived below my means and saved/invested a minimum of 10%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dailybuck777

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
I watched Powell this afternoon. I watched the stock market go nuts. The bond market sold off, raising yields late in the day extremely fast as Powell mentioned that inflation was actually worsening. And yet, he once again said nothing substantive on policy -- more wait and see. He did lament the hardship for people on fixed incomes, and those who spend most of their income on food, energy, and housing.

Powell has an impossible choice to make. He can pretend that mounting inflation will just go away through some kind of miracle increase in productivity, while those people suffer further. Or he can do the bidding of the wealthy and his handlers in government, offering little but lip service and token rate increases on inflation.

Let's not kid ourselves. Restoring the supply chain is not a productivity increase relative to the pre-pandemic era, which also saw a more sane energy policy/prices. Even if supply issues could be resolved quickly how could this stop inflation with such a mammoth increase in the money supply? You'd think Biden might back track on his bad energy policies amid what is becoming an emergency for marginal people. But no. He just made the Fed in charge for inflation control, while blaming a lack of competition as the root cause.

With either choice Powell and members of Congress have to live with themselves. They are making people on fixed incomes pay for this by creating hyperinflation. Pensions will be evaporated. Even the CPI will not cover adjusted incomes.

Powell was asked if he and government went too far. He defended government and said he will wait to see how history views this period.

To me the math simply does not add up, even if Russia and China behave themselves. History will see it the same way it currently sees the 1970s, at best.
It's amazing that Biden blames big companies/lack of competition for inflation. The size of the companies and level of competition was exactly the same when inflation was < 2%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and Ski

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
I never said anything about taxing wealth. Or raising taxes to create new social programs.

All I'm saying is that for most people in country the stock gyrations don't really mean anything.

Also anytime you support policies that encourage companies to pump their stock price up like stock buybacks you are supporting policies that predominantly benefit the wealthy.
What policies encourage companies to buyback their own shares?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
I watched Powell this afternoon. I watched the stock market go nuts. The bond market sold off, raising yields late in the day extremely fast as Powell mentioned that inflation was actually worsening. And yet, he once again said nothing substantive on policy -- more wait and see. He did lament the hardship for people on fixed incomes, and those who spend most of their income on food, energy, and housing.

Powell has an impossible choice to make. He can pretend that mounting inflation will just go away through some kind of miracle increase in productivity, while those people suffer further. Or he can do the bidding of the wealthy and his handlers in government, offering little but lip service and token rate increases on inflation.

Let's not kid ourselves. Restoring the supply chain is not a productivity increase relative to the pre-pandemic era, which also saw a more sane energy policy/prices. Even if supply issues could be resolved quickly how could this stop inflation with such a mammoth increase in the money supply? You'd think Biden might back track on his bad energy policies amid what is becoming an emergency for marginal people. But no. He just made the Fed in charge for inflation control, while blaming a lack of competition as the root cause.

With either choice Powell and members of Congress have to live with themselves. They are making people on fixed incomes pay for this by creating hyperinflation. Pensions will be evaporated. Even the CPI will not cover adjusted incomes.

Powell was asked if he and government went too far. He defended government and said he will wait to see how history views this period.

To me the math simply does not add up, even if Russia and China behave themselves. History will see it the same way it currently sees the 1970s, at best.
So when stock crashes is that considered inflation?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
I first purchased stock when I was 16 years old. I used paper route money. I had a modest income during the early part of my career but I always lived below my means and saved/invested a minimum of 10%.

So now you are in the wealthiest 10% with your stock holdings?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
What policies encourage companies to buyback their own shares?

Buybacks were illegal throughout most of the 20th century because they were considered a form of stock market manipulation. But in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed rule 10b-18, which created a legal process for buybacks and opened the floodgates for companies to start repurchasing their stock en masse.
The SEC's decision to make this shift came against the backdrop of President Ronald Reagan's era of deregulation and coincided with the rise of 'free market' economists preaching a new type of social responsibility for business: increasing profits.
 

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,273
30,909
1
Lewisville, NC
All I'm saying is that for most people in country the stock gyrations don't really mean anything.

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.

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.​

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.

Stocks matter to far more than 10 per cent of the population.

Many, many people (well over 100 million and I've seen 145 million mentioned here) participate in the stock market, many through employer plans such as the 401-k.

And regular contributions to such plans can have a major long-term economic benefits to the millions who participate. So market changes are very important to far more than you acknowledge.

@rumble_lion , I (and many others) get tired of the way you twist language, fail to acknowledge basic facts, demean the opinions of others, and lie.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Stocks matter to far more than 10 per cent of the population.

Many, many people (well over 100 million and I've seen 145 million mentioned here) participate in the stock market, many through employer plans such as the 401-k.

And regular contributions to such plans can have a major long-term economic benefits to the millions who participate. So market changes are very important to far more than you acknowledge.

@rumble_lion , I (and many others) get tired of the way you twist language, fail to acknowledge basic facts, demean the opinions of others, and lie.

Uh oh, someone has hurt feelings!
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
The SEC's decision to make this shift came against the backdrop of President Ronald Reagan's era of deregulation and coincided with the rise of 'free market' economists preaching a new type of social responsibility for business: increasing profits.
Stop deflecting
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and psuted

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,230
5,037
1
A $1 million net worth gets you into the top 10% of net worth. That's not a high bar. A lot of people have that in just real estate
I'd bet that quite a few posters on here fall into that 10% category. Maybe even some of those who rail against the wealthy in this country
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
I'd bet that quite a few posters on here fall into that 10% category. Maybe even some of those who rail against the wealthy in this country
I would certainly hope so. I assume that most are college graduates middle age and higher.

In fact, anybody making ~$75k who puts 10% into their 401k for 30 years should retire with a $million nest egg.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Also known as insider trading, which is supposed to be illegal.

Not for congress critters. They made an exception for themselves. All they have to do is report their stock buying/selling and I think they have 30 day window to do that. Oh and if they fail to report their trades then I think it's a 200 dollar fine.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,230
5,037
1
I would certainly hope so. I assume that most are college graduates middle age and higher.

In fact, anybody making ~$75k who puts 10% into their 401k for 30 years should retire with a $million nest egg.
according to data, 11.8% of american households had a net worth of $1,00,000 or more in 2020 (about 15.3 million households)
To be in the 1%, you only need a net worth of a little more than $11 million.
Median household net worth is $121,411
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13 and bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
according to data, 11.8% of american households had a net worth of $1,00,000 or more in 2020 (about 15.3 million households)
To be in the 1%, you only need a net worth of a little more than $11 million.
Median household net worth is $121,411
Also, I wouldn't expect too many 25 year olds just starting their careers to be millionaires. They should care about the market because that's how many are going to become millionaires. I would definitely expect a lot more "investment" millionaires as they approach retirement.
 
Last edited:

HartfordLlion

Well-Known Member
Sep 28, 2001
21,858
14,737
1
I would certainly hope so. I assume that most are college graduates middle age and higher.

In fact, anybody making ~$75k who puts 10% into their 401k for 30 years should retire with a $million nest egg.

Just don't get divorced. I've know multiple enginners who were well on their way to be a high net worth couples only to get knocked back significantly due to divorce. When the bitch gets half, that's hard to bounce back from and god forbid you are in a state that requires alimony.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: diggerpup and Ski

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
59,478
34,710
1
Just don't get divorced. I've know multiple enginners who were well on their way to be a high net worth couples only to get knocked back significantly due to divorce. When the bitch gets half, that's hard to bounce back from and god forbid you are in a state that requires alimony.
Sometimes it's the husband that was a jerk. But yes, alimony & child support can be a killer.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,728
1
It's 1 PM Eastern Time on Friday.

I think the behavior of the market toward the close will provide a key indication of market sentiment. Apple gave everything a boost early on. Let's see if people are selling the rallies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bison13

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,728
1
Markets way up at the close. I read this as a sign that the market believes Powell will give inflation lip service. It was a Friday afternoon with Russia likely to invade the Ukraine at any time. Apparently the markets believe The West will be passive. I am not surprised. Just a group of weak socialists, now to include the USA.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
Markets way up at the close. I read this as a sign that the market believes Powell will give inflation lip service. It was a Friday afternoon with Russia likely to invade the Ukraine at any time. Apparently the markets believe The West will be passive. I am not surprised. Just a group of weak socialists, now to include the USA.

I would think the vast majority of Americans would not want to sacrifice any US soldiers lives for Ukraine.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,030
5,444
1
Bitcoin is correlation to the market is remarkable

? Did you really just say that out loud?

Let me give you a quick education on investments. Cheap money (low interests rates) increases speculation, while more expensive money reduces speculation. It’s that simple.
 

TFBaum

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2020
1,836
1,904
1
? Did you really just say that out loud?

Let me give you a quick education on investments. Cheap money (low interests rates) increases speculation, while more expensive money reduces speculation. It’s that simple.
You have no idea what I do for a living
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
8,176
7,728
1
I would think the vast majority of Americans would not want to sacrifice any US soldiers lives for Ukraine.

That's true, but this isn't really about sacrificing American life. It's about what the USA and Europe (NATO) will do about blatant aggression from Russia.

It's the perfect time for people like Putin to act. The problem is that it could start WW3.

I had written a long explanation as to why this is so dangerous, and likely, but decided not to share it. Books will surely be written if my fears ring true, and some form of a free humanity survives.

WW1 started over a political assassination. In relative terms, at the time, one would have thought it insignificant with respect to global stability.

WW2 was started over the unresolved problems left over from WW1.

Same with WW3. There have been residual problems left over from WW2.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,421
9,319
1
I would think the vast majority of Americans would not want to sacrifice any US soldiers lives for Ukraine.

Quite true, but you may be laboring under the comfortable but outdated opinion that our country is still a functional democracy where the views of the vast majority of the population have some bearing on the policy of the government. That's not the case.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
21,671
5,066
1
That's true, but this isn't really about sacrificing American life. It's about what the USA and Europe (NATO) will do about blatant aggression from Russia.

It's the perfect time for people like Putin to act. The problem is that it could start WW3.

I had written a long explanation as to why this is so dangerous, and likely, but decided not to share it. Books will surely be written if my fears ring true, and some form of a free humanity survives.

WW1 started over a political assassination. In relative terms, at the time, one would have thought it insignificant with respect to global stability.

WW2 was started over the unresolved problems left over from WW1.

Same with WW3. There have been residual problems left over from WW2.

That's true, but this isn't really about sacrificing American life. It's about what the USA and Europe (NATO) will do about blatant aggression from Russia.

At the very least I assume they deliver a very strongly worded letter to Putin.

There have been residual problems left over from WW2.

The problems have been around since 1945?
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,932
6,025
1
Markets way up at the close. I read this as a sign that the market believes Powell will give inflation lip service.
The markets are trying to decide if the correction is over, and even if it is not, where inflation will take it. It is going to swing wildly over the next few months.