Bump when these numbers move

Trapper Gus wrote:

Everything I read say the bonds v stocks are the reason, which technically are interest rates which are indirectly inflation.

Try that one again after the morning Bloody Mary's have worn off.

Too bad the Fed can't just step in and fine corporations for greedfation instead, it would be more direct control.

Great idea Trapper! Wage and price controls have such a great track record.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Everything I read say the bonds v stocks are the reason, which technically are interest rates which are indirectly inflation.

Try that one again after the morning Bloody Mary's have worn off.

Too bad the Fed can't just step in and fine corporations for greedfation instead, it would be more direct control.

Great idea Trapper! Wage and price controls have such a great track record.

Have you ever heard how well the economy did during World War 2?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Power post? No, of course not. But the biggest one day drop in almost a year due to (still more) inflation fears? Worth noting.

Or like Trapper said, maybe it's Trump's fault.

dude, you're back.

I assume you've been working hard?

Not at all. I don't do that anymore.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: dude, you're back.

I assume you've been working hard?

Not at all. I don't do that anymore.

I hear ya, man... I've never done it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy grew at a robust 3.2% annual pace from October through December, propelled by healthy consumer spending, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday in a slight downgrade from its initial estimate.

The expansion in the nation’s gross domestic product — the economy’s total output of goods and services — slipped from a red-hot 4.9% from July through September. The fourth-quarter GDP numbers were revised down from the 3.3% pace Commerce initially reported last month. U.S. growth has now topped 2% for six straight quarters, defying fears that high interest rates would tip the world’s largest economy into a recession.

Far from stumbling, the economy grew 2.5% for all of 2023, topping the 1.9% growth in 2022.

https://apnews.com/article/economy-inflation-federal-reserve-gdp-unemployment-22f096fe881d4a48314c67d6f4cc67ba

Treasury yields edged a bit lower in the bond market after a report said the U.S. economy likely grew a touch slower at the end of 2023 than earlier estimated.

https://apnews.com/article/stock-markets-rates-china-12e42181ba7afbd457b8fa065a822f0e

Bump

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks climbed to more all-time highs Thursday as Wall Street closed its latest winning month.

The S&P 500 rose 26.51 points, or 0.5%, to 5,096.27 to top its record set last week. The Nasdaq composite led the market with a gain of 144.18, or 0.9%, to 38,996.39 and surpassed its all-time high that had stood since 2021. The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished just below its record set last week after rising 47.37 points, or 0.1%, to 38,996.39.

In the bond market, yields eased after a closely followed inflation report showed prices across the country rose pretty much as expected last month. That calmed worries that had built on Wall Street that the inflation data could show a discomforting reacceleration. Earlier reports had shown prices rose more than expected in January at both the consumer and wholesale levels.

BUMP

Let's Go Brandon!

Bump

Leftists now say the stock market going up is a good thing?   I was told that only helped millionaires and billionaires.

Zurn wrote:

Leftists now say the stock market going up is a good thing?   I was told that only helped millionaires and billionaires.

No value judgement implied dude.  The thread is about how the stock markets move, though we put a bunch of other numbers in here.

However, since you want to be an asshole about it, in general only the top 20% get much direct benefit from stock markets and really much of the stock is owned by the top 1%, so yes, markets muchly are directly good for those that you mention.

Markets can indirectly affect the other 80% due to the fact that when the top 20% feel good they spend more money which helps the overall economy.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Markets can indirectly affect the other 80% due to the fact that when the top 20% feel good they spend more money which helps the overall economy.

So now you favor trickle down economics?

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Markets can indirectly affect the other 80% due to the fact that when the top 20% feel good they spend more money which helps the overall economy.

So now you favor trickle down (trickle up - fixed it to what it really is - TG) economics?

Come on man, enough with the malarky,

You totally know that trickle up economics had created the greatest inequality in our country since the slave owners existed, yet you post this shit.

No, trickle up didn't work, will not work, and is just a way to give the top 1% total political power so they can whip your ass, and everyone else's as long as they like.  It has taken most of your personal earnings and given it the Elon Musk et al.  No one supports that shit, not even you.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

So now you favor trickle down (trickle up - fixed it to what it really is - TG) economics?

Come on man, enough with the malarky,

I just looking for clarity.   Not long ago you said you favored the most basic tenet of communism, the prohibition of private ownership of property.    Now you just said it's good that millionaires and billionaires make big bucks in the stock market because some of that money will trickle down to the little fella.   I guess allowing him to eat at fancy steakhouses in Ann Arbor with his fellow communits.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Come on man, enough with the malarky,

I just looking for clarity.   Not long ago you said you favored the most basic tenet of communism, the prohibition of private ownership of property.    Now you just said it's good that millionaires and billionaires make big bucks in the stock market because some of that money will trickle down to the little fella.   I guess allowing him to eat at fancy steakhouses in Ann Arbor with his fellow communits.

The next time you actually understand what I post instead of making incorrect shit up about it will probably be the first.

To your first incorrect statement about what I believe, I will ask you a simple question.

If you must pay the government to be able to live in your house and keep it, aka property taxes, and they will toss you out on the street if you don't pay taxes, do you own your house & property absolutely?

My answer to that question, as every economist would also answer it, is that no, you are renting that property from the government, on pretty generous terms, BTW, as for (mostly) as long as you pay the taxes (rent) they will let you stay. (Well at least until they want to build a shopping center there, at which point they will take the property, anyway).

You may have a different answer, but good luck with defending it in an argument.

In any case it is not a philosophical position on my part, just a statement of the truth.

As for people feeling good about stock prices, it is pretty much everyone who picks up on that vibe, as amplified by the corporate media. Poor people are also more likely to spend (borrow via credit cards) money when they feel better about the economy.

What many people who are ignorant about the nuances of economics don't understand, and I find you as a shining example of this, is that it isn't just about the money. Alan Greenspan's famous "animal spirits" also drive spending. It isn't trickle up stuff, it is the emotional side of the economy that is muchly driven by how people feel, and the stock market being higher is a big factor, along with gas and food prices as emotional factors, are.

Before you pooh-pooh this with your typical ignorance, there is an entire field of economics study, Behavioral economics, which studies these effects.

I do find it amusing, and sad, that you don't know which side of the economic divide I am in, after all these years of posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

Trapper Gus wrote:

Zurn wrote:

I just looking for clarity.   Not long ago you said you favored the most basic tenet of communism, the prohibition of private ownership of property.    Now you just said it's good that millionaires and billionaires make big bucks in the stock market because some of that money will trickle down to the little fella.   I guess allowing him to eat at fancy steakhouses in Ann Arbor with his fellow communits.

The next time you actually understand what I post instead of making incorrect shit up about it will probably be the first.

To your first incorrect statement about what I believe, I will ask you a simple question.

If you must pay the government to be able to live in your house and keep it, aka property taxes, and they will toss you out on the street if you don't pay taxes, do you own your house & property absolutely?

My answer to that question, as every economist would also answer it, is that no, you are renting that property from the government, on pretty generous terms, BTW, as for (mostly) as long as you pay the taxes (rent) they will let you stay. (Well at least until they want to build a shopping center there, at which point they will take the property, anyway).

You may have a different answer, but good luck with defending it in an argument.

In any case it is not a philosophical position on my part, just a statement of the truth.

As for people feeling good about stock prices, it is pretty much everyone who picks up on that vibe, as amplified by the corporate media. Poor people are also more likely to spend (borrow via credit cards) money when they feel better about the economy.

What many people who are ignorant about the nuances of economics don't understand, and I find you as a shining example of this, is that it isn't just about the money. Alan Greenspan's famous "animal spirits" also drive spending. It isn't trickle up stuff, it is the emotional side of the economy that is muchly driven by how people feel, and the stock market being higher is a big factor, along with gas and food prices as emotional factors, are.

Before you pooh-pooh this with your typical ignorance, there is an entire field of economics study, Behavioral economics, which studies these effects.

I do find it amusing, and sad, that you don't know which side of the economic divide I am in, after all these years of posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

I thought the taxes went towards roads and sewers, not rent? /s

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The next time you actually understand what I post instead of making incorrect shit up about it will probably be the first.

To your first incorrect statement about what I believe, I will ask you a simple question.

If you must pay the government to be able to live in your house and keep it, aka property taxes, and they will toss you out on the street if you don't pay taxes, do you own your house & property absolutely?

My answer to that question, as every economist would also answer it, is that no, you are renting that property from the government, on pretty generous terms, BTW, as for (mostly) as long as you pay the taxes (rent) they will let you stay. (Well at least until they want to build a shopping center there, at which point they will take the property, anyway).

You may have a different answer, but good luck with defending it in an argument.

In any case it is not a philosophical position on my part, just a statement of the truth.

As for people feeling good about stock prices, it is pretty much everyone who picks up on that vibe, as amplified by the corporate media. Poor people are also more likely to spend (borrow via credit cards) money when they feel better about the economy.

What many people who are ignorant about the nuances of economics don't understand, and I find you as a shining example of this, is that it isn't just about the money. Alan Greenspan's famous "animal spirits" also drive spending. It isn't trickle up stuff, it is the emotional side of the economy that is muchly driven by how people feel, and the stock market being higher is a big factor, along with gas and food prices as emotional factors, are.

Before you pooh-pooh this with your typical ignorance, there is an entire field of economics study, Behavioral economics, which studies these effects.

I do find it amusing, and sad, that you don't know which side of the economic divide I am in, after all these years of posting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

I thought the taxes went towards roads and sewers, not rent? /s

In these back & forth discussions I sometimes am misunderstood because I use terms, like rents, which have specific meanings in economics, where rents are what excess profits, that is profits which are higher than what is necessary to protect for risk, are called.

This is not one of those times, exactly, as the prior sentence was just me showing off, but it is partly one of those times, since I am using the term rents for property taxes to emphasize that in the US no individual has absolute ownership of land but instead has been granted limited rights to the land we "own" and the demonstration that it is not absolute ownship is that the government can take ownership if we don't pay our property taxes, and thus the property taxes can be similar to a rent, like we would pay a landlord, for the use of the land.

That the wealth tax, that is the property tax based on the value of the land plus improvements, is used for various improvements to "the commons" which we all gain benefit from collectively, is just a by-product of the situation I am describing regarding absolute verses limited ownership.

Trapper Gus wrote:


In these back & forth discussions I sometimes am misunderstood because I use terms, like rents, which have specific meanings in economics ....

Like the time you used the term "nominal GDP" and explained that it is indexed to inflation?

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:


In these back & forth discussions I sometimes am misunderstood because I use terms, like rents, which have specific meanings in economics ....

Like the time you used the term "nominal GDP" and explained that it is indexed to inflation?

Which you corrected and with your correction I posted the chart of Real GDP, which showed the same general performance as the Nominal GDP. There as a slight dip in July of 2022 which was the only noticeable difference. Funny but you have never acknowledged that fact.

Back to the market numbers, I guess I would consider the following hopeful, but I know nothing about stock markets technical stuff...

Lower volatility comes amid improving market breadth. For example, 76% of S&P 500 stocks are now trading above their respective 50-day moving averages and 79% are above their 200-day moving averages.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Lower volatility comes amid improving market breadth. For example, 76% of S&P 500 stocks are now trading above their respective 50-day moving averages and 79% are above their 200-day moving averages.

Imagine that. The stock market is at all time highs and Trapper finds most stocks above their 3-6 month averages!

Trapper: YDKSAE

tNYT wakes up to the casue of inflation - hint, the Fed had it wrong...

Trapper Gus wrote:tNYT wakes up to the casue of inflation - hint, the Fed had it wrong...

Gee, the government prints up trillion of dollars in money and actually mail some of it out to people. The dollar becomes devalued, hence prices go up. Everything goes up. GDP, prices, wages, profits, revenues. Why? Because there are trillions more dollars floating around. The rich get better off. The poor and middle class? Not so much.

If by "the Fed" you mean the Federal Reserve, they almost always get it wrong. People act as though there is some lever the Fed can pull to control inflation and there is, the printing press.

Trapper, YDKSAE

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:tNYT wakes up to the casue of inflation - hint, the Fed had it wrong...

Gee, the government prints up trillion of dollars in money and actually mail some of it out to people.  The dollar becomes devalued, hence prices go up.  Everything goes up.  GDP, prices, wages, profits, revenues.   Why?  Because there are trillions more dollars floating around.  The rich get better off.  The poor and middle class?  Not so much.  

If by "the Fed" you mean the Federal Reserve, they almost always get it wrong.   People act as though there is some lever the Fed can pull to control inflation and there is, the printing press.

Trapper, YDKSAE

https://thehill.com/business/economy/4057722-greedflation-is-the-new-inflation-as-corporate-profits-balloon-report/

Corporations raised their prices to reap record profits because they could.  Market capitalism does not create the best results when corporations are allowed to grow to the point they control market pricing with little competition.

One of the pricing theory's that corporations follow is to gain the highest profits by limited supply.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Corporations raised their prices to reap record profits because they could.

Funny how that just happened after Biden's election.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Corporations raised their prices to reap record profits because they could.

Funny how that just happened after Biden's election.  

Sure, had nothing to do with Biden, however.

Anyone who looks at it seriously knows that the covid disruption of the supply chains caused a cascading greedflation event, starting with global shipping first cutting shipping back as a reaction to expected shipping due to the expectations that covid would cut the economy back and then when the US reacted by replacing wage incomes with tax rebates and the shipping demand increased the shipping industry, instead of bringing ships back on line, just raised shipping prices by several hundred percent.

Retailers passed that price gouging along to consumers, who had no choice but to pay, which opened the corporate eyes up to the idea they could raise prices much more than their costs and blame it on covid, which they did, causing significant inflation for consumers & record profits in many industries for the corporations.

As for Biden, he did what he could, driving fuel prices down via releasing oil from the strategic reserve & working with ports & ground shippers to alleviate the excuse the corporations were using for price gouging.  Sadly, due the 40 years of corporate mergers there is no real competition in many markets and thus the "ideal" of free market where enough suppliers will lower prices when their costs drop doesn't happen quickly, thus once the prices went up, they stayed up as there was no competition to cause corporations to stop price gouging. to be fair, in the service industries, which is a significant part of the US economy, we are seeing 40 years of wage suppression at the lower levels suddenly being released as the demographics, and Trump's policy of keeping lower wage workers out of the county, causing higher costs there, even though wages are at most 25% (and usually more like 10% to 15%) of the costs in the service industries.

Trump rode the economy the Obama Administration created for 3 years, until covid, Biden had to deal with the disaster that Trump's year of covid policies created during his time as president, and he has done a dam good job by the numbers.

[tw]1773492275777032530[/tw]

Trapper Gus wrote:Biden had to deal with the disaster that Trump's year of covid policies created during his time as president, and he has done a dam good job by the numbers.

Glad to hear that you realize the Trump era COVID policies of economic and social shutdown were a disaster.

Biden has done a good job if you are an investor in the stock market. If you want a job with wages that keep up with inflation, or are trying to buy a house or need to buy a new car, or need to ride the subway to work or were killed or raped by an illegal immigrant, well then, Biden hasn't done too well by you.

Zurn wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Biden had to deal with the disaster that Trump's year of covid policies created during his time as president, and he has done a dam good job by the numbers.

Glad to hear that you realize the Trump era COVID policies of economic and social shutdown were a disaster.

Biden has done a good job if you are an investor in the stock market.   If you want a job with wages that keep up with inflation, or are trying to buy a house or need to buy a new car, or need to ride the subway to work or were killed or raped by an illegal immigrant, well then, Biden hasn't done too well by you.

Covid shut down the global economy, not Trump, though he supported the idea for about 3 weeks, before he realized that more minorities were dying and went all in on killing black people.

Funding relief for the population during covid was good policy and has made the US recovery the envy of the rest of the globe.

Wages for the lower income workers outpaced inflation so that the top 20% wages slipped slightly and have recovered now is weak sauce.

Greedflation caused by the corporations needs much higher, and a graduated tax system to control.

Housing prices are due to Bush driving the housing market into the ditch in 2006 - 08.

Vehicle prices skyrocketd due to covid chip supply issues but have been falling recently.

More people are killed by people like you & me, both in absolute terms & per capita than by immigrants who are in this country either legally, as the one who killed that nursing student, or otherwise.

Subways?  WTF are you talking about?

U.S. economy unexpectedly grew by more than previously estimated in the fourth quarter of 2023, the Commerce Department revealed in a report released on Thursday.

Revised data showed real gross domestic product surged by 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter compared to the previously reported 3.2 percent jump. Economists had expected the pace of GDP growth to be unrevised.

Going to put this as a marker to see how they do at predictions...

Friday's jobs report is expected to show payroll growth receded to about 200,000 in March following a higher-than-expected 275,000 in February, according to a consensus estimate on Briefing.com. Unemployment is expected to drop to 3.8% from 3.9% the previous month.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 303,000 in March, and the unemployment rate changed little at 3.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, government, and construction.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised up by 27,000, from +229,000 to +256,000, and the change for February was revised down by 5,000, from +275,000 to +270,000. With these revisions, employment in January and February combined is 22,000 higher than previously reported.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So will the stock market see this as glass half full or glass half empty?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 303,000 in March, and the unemployment rate changed little at 3.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, government, and construction.

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for January was revised up by 27,000, from +229,000 to +256,000, and the change for February was revised down by 5,000, from +275,000 to +270,000. With these revisions, employment in January and February combined is 22,000 higher than previously reported.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

So will the stock market see this as glass half full or glass half empty?

The stock market will likely view this as a glass.

AP wrote:Stocks ended solidly higher and bond yields rose Friday as Wall Street welcomed a surprisingly strong U.S. jobs report.

The S&P 500 rose 1.1%, making up most of the loss from the previous day and moving closer to its record high set last week. The benchmark index still posted its first weekly loss in three weeks.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.8% and the Nasdaq composite gained 1.2%.

Technology companies accounted for a big share of the rally. Chipmaking giant Nvidia rose 2.4% and Google’s parent company, Alphabet, rose 1.3%.

The gains were broad, with every sector in the S&P 500 finishing in the green.

U.S. employers added a surprisingly strong 303,000 workers to their payrolls in March, according to a government report on Friday. The strong job market has helped fuel consumer spending and earnings growth for businesses, amounting to strong economic growth overall.

https://apnews.com/article/stock-markets-inflation-cdeea722367b960f1a87b0b3d287fedd

Bump (for Biden)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/markets/markets-fall-cpi-inflation-report/index.html

Bump for whomever we're blaming for this.

reminder that Joe Biden is a great American.

TravelinMan wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/markets/markets-fall-cpi-inflation-report/index.html

Bump for whomever we're blaming for this.

At this point, pure corporate greed and they can thank themselves if they never get rate cuts this year.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

So, what's up?

- Medical care and commodities  (0.6 m-m / 2.5 y-y) Blame Nixon for allowing privatized health care & Reagan for eliminating anti-trust enforcement & lowering taxes on the wealthy
- Shelter (house prices & rent)  (0.4 m-m / 5.7 y-y) Blame Reagan for eliminating anti-trust enforcement & lowering taxes on the wealthy
- Transportations Services (Car Repairs)  (1.5 m-m / 10.7 y-y) ?
- Energy (Fuel & Electricity)  (1,1 m-m / 2.1 y-y) Blame Reagan for eliminating anti-trust enforcement & lowering taxes on the wealthy
- Clothes (0.7 m-m / 0.4 y-y) ?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Consumer inflation remained persistently high last month, boosted by gas, rents, auto insurance and other items, the government said Wednesday in a report that will likely give pause to the Federal Reserve as it considers how many — or even whether — to cut interest rates this year.

Prices outside the volatile food and energy categories rose 0.4% from February to March, the same accelerated pace as in the previous month. Measured from a year earlier, these core prices were up 3.8%, unchanged from the year-over-year rise in February. The Fed closely tracks core prices because they tend to provide a good read of where inflation is headed.

https://apnews.com/article/inflation-prices-rates-economy-federal-reserve-biden-f02b969d1b44a7ccb0385be03f766de0

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. producer prices rose rose in March from a year earlier at the fastest pace in nearly a year, but the gain was less than economists expected. And wholesale inflation eased on a month to month basis.

https://apnews.com/article/inflation-federal-reserve-costs-producers-c221495c1ccd5fa301a3447a73b4f440

Bump

Bidenomics has lead to 18.8% inflation during his 3 years as president (for those that are math challenged that is 6% annually). When he was inaugurated inflation was at 1.4%. It has been above the Fed's target of 2% since March 2021.

Zurn wrote:
Bidenomics has lead to 18.8% inflation during his 3 years as president (for those that are math challenged that is 6% annually).   When he was inaugurated inflation was at 1.4%.   It has been above the Fed's target of 2% since March 2021.

Greedflation with huge profits for the wealthy will do that, of course.

Never mind that wage gains for the bottom 80% of income earners at 24% means they are factually better off now than during the Trump administration or that the huge job losses during the Trump administration has been forced into a 180 degree turn into the longest period below 4% UE since the 1960's.

Zurn is talking about the inflation caused by Trump's total fuckup in handling the pandemic because that is all he has...

Zurn's selective Alzheimers is a hoot.

Literally weeks after the GOP Congress passed the 2017 Tax Act that cut taxes, especially significant cuts for corporations and the wealthiest 5% the effects were already apparent.

Secretary of The Treasury, Trump appointee Steven Mnuchin, went to back to Congress telling them they needed to raise the debt ceiling again weeks after The 2017 Tax Act was signed by President Trump. Mnuchin warned Congress it needed to be done at his confirmation hearing.

More hand wringing from Trump's 5th column warrior Zurn on the Swill. During Trumps term the Federal Debt went up $7 Trillion and he's back to the same BS promises to eliminate it. Maybe he thinks more tax cuts for "job creators" will do it.

All goes back to the GOP and "conservatives" love to talk about the Federal Debt when Democrats are in The White House.