I really liked what the OP had to say... very relevant in so many ways... The current market is "bifurcated" in one important way. U.S. markets are nearing all time highs, and the bond market is nearing all time highs (meaning very low yields).
It ain't supposed to happen like this , and there is Sh$t beneath the surface. Yes, bond markets are telling us that there this sh%t on the horizon. This is important, likely more important than what the stock market and its near all time highs are telling us. I personally have been raising cash the last several quarters .
The bifurcation will soon come to an end.. This will not last.
I really liked what the OP had to say... very relevant in so many ways... The current market is "bifurcated" in one important way. U.S. markets are nearing all time highs, and the bond market is nearing all time highs (meaning very low yields).
It ain't supposed to happen like this , and there is Sh$t beneath the surface. Yes, bond markets are telling us that there this sh%t on the horizon. This is important, likely more important than what the stock market and its near all time highs are telling us. I personally have been raising cash the last several quarters .
The bifurcation will soon come to an end.. This will not last.
Wall, what you mentioned there is what really concerns me.. An amazing 1/3 of all developed economies now have negative interest rates. This experiment is not working for those economies, and I fear far too many have relied on the central bank action to get us out this global mess . Central banks have been tinkering with money supply all across the globe ever since the financial crisis.
I'm old school, and feel the central banks are doing far more than they should, and risk doing great harm to the global economy with these unprecedented decisions and actions (i.e. negative rates) .
Elected officials of each country should be the ones finding solutions to economic problems, not central banks.
Even in U.S. I feel the central bank is looked at for the silver bullet of solutions to increase economic growth. Elected officials are the ones responsible, and are cheating the American people with its dysfunctional govt, and is hurting us here.
The central bank has a dual mandate to keep interest rates low (which has been under its 2% target for years), and keeping employment rate low. They really are where they need to be... The economy needs to pick-up with the help of policy makers, to spur growth.. then Fed can increase rates as it wants to. I would suggest lower corporate tax rate, bring that money home, and reduce a lot of these regulations that constrict growth.
That's my opinion for the prescription..
this is what really concerns me
Wall, what you mentioned there is what really concerns me.. An amazing 1/3 of all developed economies now have negative interest rates. This experiment is not working for those economies, and I fear far too many have relied on the central bank action to get us out this global mess . Central banks have been tinkering with money supply all across the globe ever since the financial crisis.
I'm old school, and feel the central banks are doing far more than they should, and risk doing great harm to the global economy with these unprecedented decisions and actions (i.e. negative rates) .
Elected officials of each country should be the ones finding solutions to economic problems, not central banks.
Even in U.S. I feel the central bank is looked at for the silver bullet of solutions to increase economic growth. Elected officials are the ones responsible, and are cheating the American people with its dysfunctional govt, and is hurting us here.
The central bank has a dual mandate to keep interest rates low (which has been under its 2% target for years), and keeping employment rate low. They really are where they need to be... The economy needs to pick-up with the help of policy makers, to spur growth.. then Fed can increase rates as it wants to. I would suggest lower corporate tax rate, bring that money home, and reduce a lot of these regulations that constrict growth.
That's my opinion for the prescription..
this is what really concerns me
Wall, it's funny you mention the Big Short movie.. I just bought it on Blue Ray few weeks ago ; Just a great movie about the financial collapse, and I agree with what you have to say. Those guys were right for a long period of time, those stupid rating agencies propped up that junk at AAA rated for far too long (and for unethical reasons). Well , lots of folks were unethical come to think of it.
What concerns me mostly going forward is this.. We had a tech bubble years ago, bailed out by the fed and a low interest rate response. This was closely followed by a financial crisis of the banks , bailed out by the fed using taxpayer money.. Who is going to bail out the Central Banks after their unconventional policies crash. This really concerns me , and the stock market at record levels is a fix, as you say Wall. To me, the Bond markets are correctly telling us things are not OK, and institutions are clamoring for safety. They will accept the negative yield. Yet individuals will not, and they are searching for yield anywhere they can find.. and this is pushing up stock prices. IMO, these are the unintended consequences that the central banks have spoken about. It is getting worse, particularly since Brexit.
It is crazy to think that the S&P 500 has had four straight quarters of declining earnings. How in the hell is the market at all time highs ?!?! Just nuts. Economists are forecasting a fifth straight contracting quarter.
Lastly , you raise a good point and I have absolutely no idea why folks look at Japan as a safe-haven either .. It makes absolutely no sense , Wall... There are lots of head scratching moments this market has to offer.
Wall, it's funny you mention the Big Short movie.. I just bought it on Blue Ray few weeks ago ; Just a great movie about the financial collapse, and I agree with what you have to say. Those guys were right for a long period of time, those stupid rating agencies propped up that junk at AAA rated for far too long (and for unethical reasons). Well , lots of folks were unethical come to think of it.
What concerns me mostly going forward is this.. We had a tech bubble years ago, bailed out by the fed and a low interest rate response. This was closely followed by a financial crisis of the banks , bailed out by the fed using taxpayer money.. Who is going to bail out the Central Banks after their unconventional policies crash. This really concerns me , and the stock market at record levels is a fix, as you say Wall. To me, the Bond markets are correctly telling us things are not OK, and institutions are clamoring for safety. They will accept the negative yield. Yet individuals will not, and they are searching for yield anywhere they can find.. and this is pushing up stock prices. IMO, these are the unintended consequences that the central banks have spoken about. It is getting worse, particularly since Brexit.
It is crazy to think that the S&P 500 has had four straight quarters of declining earnings. How in the hell is the market at all time highs ?!?! Just nuts. Economists are forecasting a fifth straight contracting quarter.
Lastly , you raise a good point and I have absolutely no idea why folks look at Japan as a safe-haven either .. It makes absolutely no sense , Wall... There are lots of head scratching moments this market has to offer.
Wall, what you mentioned there is what really concerns me.. An amazing 1/3 of all developed economies now have negative interest rates. This experiment is not working for those economies, and I fear far too many have relied on the central bank action to get us out this global mess . Central banks have been tinkering with money supply all across the globe ever since the financial crisis.
I'm old school, and feel the central banks are doing far more than they should, and risk doing great harm to the global economy with these unprecedented decisions and actions (i.e. negative rates) .
Elected officials of each country should be the ones finding solutions to economic problems, not central banks.
Even in U.S. I feel the central bank is looked at for the silver bullet of solutions to increase economic growth. Elected officials are the ones responsible, and are cheating the American people with its dysfunctional govt, and is hurting us here.
The central bank has a dual mandate to keep interest rates low (which has been under its 2% target for years), and keeping employment rate low. They really are where they need to be... The economy needs to pick-up with the help of policy makers, to spur growth.. then Fed can increase rates as it wants to. I would suggest lower corporate tax rate, bring that money home, and reduce a lot of these regulations that constrict growth.
That's my opinion for the prescription..
this is what really concerns me
Wall, what you mentioned there is what really concerns me.. An amazing 1/3 of all developed economies now have negative interest rates. This experiment is not working for those economies, and I fear far too many have relied on the central bank action to get us out this global mess . Central banks have been tinkering with money supply all across the globe ever since the financial crisis.
I'm old school, and feel the central banks are doing far more than they should, and risk doing great harm to the global economy with these unprecedented decisions and actions (i.e. negative rates) .
Elected officials of each country should be the ones finding solutions to economic problems, not central banks.
Even in U.S. I feel the central bank is looked at for the silver bullet of solutions to increase economic growth. Elected officials are the ones responsible, and are cheating the American people with its dysfunctional govt, and is hurting us here.
The central bank has a dual mandate to keep interest rates low (which has been under its 2% target for years), and keeping employment rate low. They really are where they need to be... The economy needs to pick-up with the help of policy makers, to spur growth.. then Fed can increase rates as it wants to. I would suggest lower corporate tax rate, bring that money home, and reduce a lot of these regulations that constrict growth.
That's my opinion for the prescription..
this is what really concerns me
I tend to believe, for instance, that government should be fiscally conservative, should encourage working rather than welfare, should radically reduce spending and debt (by sacrificing sacred cows including the military and Social Security) so that the economy can breathe again, should keep tax rates at modest levels for business (we're the third-highest in the world today, behind only the United Arab Emirates and the Central African nation of Chad) and should stay the hell away from education as well as social issues including abortion, happy marriage and anything to do with religion (as per the Constitution).
Though you would never know it by the squeakiness of the ultra-left and ultra-right that suck up all the political oxygen in America today, the fact is I'm not alone in my particular views of what America should be. Gallup polls routinely show that America, on the whole, is socially liberal and fiscally conservative — and growing more so by the year.
And yet...
Neither the donkey nor the elephant represents that view of America today.
The elephant has fallen under the command of an über-religious, über-militaristic fringe group — the so-called Neocons who exploited Ronald Reagan's avuncular likability to gain power in the ‘80s — while the donkey has lost its historical focus to a band of über-socialists more European in their beliefs and actions than most modern Europeans.
The result is that American politics, as defined by the big two parties, increasingly reflects not the beliefs of the average American, but, rather, the agenda of a very narrow group of extremists in both parties who are destroying what America is supposed to be. And that's not fair to the rest of us.
But given the fact that just two parties dominate political life, is there any other option?
Yes, there is. And that's where we come back to the brussels sprouts.
cojones to support it.
Oh, wait — one does!
The Libertarian Party — a party which, for most Americans, is the political equivalent of brussels sprouts. Few people like it, though they’ve never even tried it. They’re basing their decisions on a name — Libertarian — which has too often been associated with political Froot Loops. If the Libertarians had anyone who was switched on in their media camp, they’d be working on a new party name, such as, maybe, the New American Party, so that they might shed all those historical revulsions that people associate with the name “Libertarian.”
But consider this: The elephant candidate has precisely zero experience running government and has made numerous comments that indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about how government, trade and foreign policy work in the real world.
The donkey candidate has precisely zero experience in elected office, and is little more than a bureaucratic functionary who, like a chameleon, morphs into whatever the moment demands and who promises to be as divisive as the current donkey.
On the other hand, the Libertarian Party fields a ticket with two former state governors — presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who successfully guided New Mexico as a well-liked and highly effective governor, and vice-presidential candidate Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, a liberal Democrat stronghold, who did such a good job that he was re-elected with a massive 71% of the vote.
Think about this on November 8.
America is in deep doo-doo these days. The elephants and the donkeys do not have a solution; in fact, what each has offered up will actually push America farther toward financial ruin, as shown by the nonpartisan organizations that analyze such stuff.
But the modern Libertarians do have real solutions.
So don’t go into the voting booth hating brussels sprouts just because of the way they smell. Go in and think to yourself, “Let’s try something different this time.”
You might actually like it.
Until next time, good trading…
I tend to believe, for instance, that government should be fiscally conservative, should encourage working rather than welfare, should radically reduce spending and debt (by sacrificing sacred cows including the military and Social Security) so that the economy can breathe again, should keep tax rates at modest levels for business (we're the third-highest in the world today, behind only the United Arab Emirates and the Central African nation of Chad) and should stay the hell away from education as well as social issues including abortion, happy marriage and anything to do with religion (as per the Constitution).
Though you would never know it by the squeakiness of the ultra-left and ultra-right that suck up all the political oxygen in America today, the fact is I'm not alone in my particular views of what America should be. Gallup polls routinely show that America, on the whole, is socially liberal and fiscally conservative — and growing more so by the year.
And yet...
Neither the donkey nor the elephant represents that view of America today.
The elephant has fallen under the command of an über-religious, über-militaristic fringe group — the so-called Neocons who exploited Ronald Reagan's avuncular likability to gain power in the ‘80s — while the donkey has lost its historical focus to a band of über-socialists more European in their beliefs and actions than most modern Europeans.
The result is that American politics, as defined by the big two parties, increasingly reflects not the beliefs of the average American, but, rather, the agenda of a very narrow group of extremists in both parties who are destroying what America is supposed to be. And that's not fair to the rest of us.
But given the fact that just two parties dominate political life, is there any other option?
Yes, there is. And that's where we come back to the brussels sprouts.
cojones to support it.
Oh, wait — one does!
The Libertarian Party — a party which, for most Americans, is the political equivalent of brussels sprouts. Few people like it, though they’ve never even tried it. They’re basing their decisions on a name — Libertarian — which has too often been associated with political Froot Loops. If the Libertarians had anyone who was switched on in their media camp, they’d be working on a new party name, such as, maybe, the New American Party, so that they might shed all those historical revulsions that people associate with the name “Libertarian.”
But consider this: The elephant candidate has precisely zero experience running government and has made numerous comments that indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about how government, trade and foreign policy work in the real world.
The donkey candidate has precisely zero experience in elected office, and is little more than a bureaucratic functionary who, like a chameleon, morphs into whatever the moment demands and who promises to be as divisive as the current donkey.
On the other hand, the Libertarian Party fields a ticket with two former state governors — presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who successfully guided New Mexico as a well-liked and highly effective governor, and vice-presidential candidate Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts, a liberal Democrat stronghold, who did such a good job that he was re-elected with a massive 71% of the vote.
Think about this on November 8.
America is in deep doo-doo these days. The elephants and the donkeys do not have a solution; in fact, what each has offered up will actually push America farther toward financial ruin, as shown by the nonpartisan organizations that analyze such stuff.
But the modern Libertarians do have real solutions.
So don’t go into the voting booth hating brussels sprouts just because of the way they smell. Go in and think to yourself, “Let’s try something different this time.”
You might actually like it.
Until next time, good trading…
very relevant in so many ways...
very relevant in so many ways...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.