My decision to go to laddered Treasuries in August is looking better every day.

https://www.antiquesnavigator.com/ar...0668995996.jpg

CD yields have been even higher ;). This ain't about the fed exclusively imo...Trumparrifs ....what an idiot :(. I'll watch this train wreck from the sidelines....100% out as of a few hours ago...

He always had some mighty fine wine.

and

a straight shootin' son of a gun

Why do you insist on posting stuff like that when everyone knows better?

that a tax cut for corporations when the Market has been going gangbusters for several years is the ABSOLUTE MOST ASININE TIME

As I said before, they had to get while the gettin's good - there's no way they will be able to get a tax break for the 1% passed during the middle of the Trump Depression. Kinda like your wife buys a new pair of shoes before she tells you she wrecked the car.

I think there is confusion as to what is going on...the axiom of the past 6 years of the FED being there to catch a falling economy has worn thin..the Equities guyz are thinking how many times can the same trick work (of piling back in on any dip) ..maybe I will sit this one out...

worry is seeping back in over Trumps effect on the global economy and effect of higher interest rates on the economy..the FED raising rates means that the soft hands to catch a falling economy are not so certain now.

So far Choppiness is the word of the day...

I have been thinking that Equities have to make another run for the old highs in a "head and shoulders top" ...before the fat lady sings. That has been the usual pattern.

But I do not like a 90 point drop in the SP 500 today..Maybe the rallies are going to be short and sweet....the WS boyz will all pile in make some money and not stick around to wait and see beofre bailing out..taking their profits as they run.

The Dow history doesn't seem to bear out your statement. On November 4, 2016, the Dow was at 17,888. Today it's at almost 25,000 even. That's off the post-election high of 26,7XX as recently as September of this year. The big uptick in the market starting in 2009 was nothing more than a rebound from the huge drop in 08 and earlier in 09. It took until about February of 2013 for the Down to get back to it's 2008 high in the 13,500 range. So Obama's entire administration saw the Down go up a net of around 4,000 points. Trump's net is almost twice that.

Your perceptional narrative does not run much like a FIAT...you are missing parts to the story that would make it coherent.

In spite of a 1.6% economy Equities have been climbing steadily since at least 2012...when the FED announced QE3...the Equity rise has not been economically determined...but guaranteed by the FED's adult in the room activism. Institutions need to make a 8% ROI...and Equities became the only game in town.

TAX reform was an effort to jump start a moribund 1.6% economy..I have said it is aTrickle Down 2.0 GAMBLE...adding government debt in the hopes that Corporations reinvest their tax savings in the US economy. My take was AGAINST it success as corps since 2009 have NOT REINVESTED THEIR PROFITS IN THE ECONOMY..largely because there is little to no demand for the product that they are making now.... why invest in a new factory if you can not sell what it makes...As an economic driver the American consumer is tapped out...saturated with product, lower paying jobs, no savings and debt to the eyeballs while facing an old age reliance on a a tottering on the brink entitlement system.

So Tax Reform was not implemented to boost Equities...

You have heard this before but you never seem to get it straight in yur head. You persist with your incoherent narrative..what part don't you understand?

As stated the post rebound rise in Equities started the day the FED announced QE3. It stalled out a bit after the FED finally stopped juicing the system in 12/14.

It bounced after Trump because of a friendlier business environment which would give breathing room to a being regulatorily strangled economy under the Socialists.

A better economy would warrant higher Equity prices.

So now you gots the better economy and here comes the FED saying we have to tone down the PARTAY with higher interest rates, cause we don't want inflation to get outa control . Equity traders are confused...

Are you saying that the Dow increase was a rebound until Trump became president, but the increase since 2017 has been because of Trump? I don't think so.
I'm with Tabs on this one. In spite of his arrogance and insults I must admit that Tabs is on rare occasion correct.
The Trump miracle is that even with all his blunders and theatrics he has not managed to get in the way of a well established economic boom.

Im sure the markets and economy would be much better right now if Hillary had won.:rolleyes:

^^^This should have need in green, correct ?

After listening to you Boyz talk I realize just how smart I am and how little you all know. I am usually aghast by the disparity. So is that an insult or just stating an obvious truth.

T has helped with his removal of BO regulatory executive orders.

I have made a mistake. Not the first one btw.
I have basically figured out what is going on and it's process. What I don't realize is that you all are still trying to figure it out ...are in.process. That is partially the reason why there is so much bashing and thrashing going on. You are trying to make sense of it all.

No one can make you see and or understand something that you are not ready to see. You will never really get it.

Then there are the Lemmings who think that they are doing the right thing by running to the cliff. They don't see that their behavior is leading them inexorably to oblivion.

Call it the smart mans burden.

When all is said and done...who knows? I endured more market "huge corrections" under R sdministrations (that I voted for) over the past few decades, than under Ds....by far :(. For the first time in nearly 4 decades....I'll watch the tracks fom "relative safety".... cruise control ;).

Uncertainty....investors love it...tariffs :(. Gimme a freakin' break. NC has already been hammered, hard....unintended consequences...funded by more debt.

...and the band played on.

If we get a sober driver....I'll climb back in for the ride ;)


.....

Yep, and it's going to be all the longer and uglier recession/depression because of the sugar feed economy, it's going to crash hard like six year old at a birthday party that's had too many treats.

People who let their EMOTIONS make all their decisions for them should not be investing in the stock market.

Once again, list the regulations and their economic impact, first as a drag on economic growth under Obama and then acting as economic growth catalyst under Trump. If you can't, stop saying it. Should be easy for you. You have until the end of the day. Don't make this another USD will lose world currency status thing.

Here's what I want to see:
Regulation
Date signed into law
Date repealed
Negative impact
Positive impact

Honestly, I know you won't do it because you can't because it's a talking point fairy tale that only stupid people believe.

Again, EVERY regulation comes with a cost to the economy or to the businesses effected by the regulation. That cost can be direct to a business through the cost to comply or indirect through loss of business due to the regulation itself. Every regulation comes with an associated cost. Stupid people can't figure out that regulations aren't scored like a tax bill or a health insurance bill which is why it's hard to find a solid cost for each regulation and why estimates of cost by outside sources (many that stupid people will deny because they don't like the source) can vary.
But again, the very real truth of the matter is that regulations come with economic cost. To say or believe otherwise is stupid.

Every regulation? Jesus Christ that is so ******* stupid I can't believe it. No, not every regulation. Some regulations impact business and the economy negatively and some regulations impact business and the economy positively.

I swear, when someone swipes at your face and shows you their thumb in between their fingers, you reach up to check your nose.

Here's what I want to see:
Regulation
Date signed into law
Date repealed
Negative impact
Positive impact

What is stupid, is being a business owner you of all people should get it... but you clearly don't.
If regulations for new construction make putting up a new building cost prohibitive, you don't put up that new building. Not putting up that new building comes at a cost to the economy.
Seriously man, I thought you were more on the ball than this.

Another good example: If you as a business owner are told you must provide health insurance for every full time employee, You'll hire part time people or use temps to fill your need when the need arises rather than hire more full time people.
But naturally you'll deny that too because you really don't understand business or how more regulations affect business and economic output.

To be brutally honest: the stock market isn't about investing, it's just institutionalized gambling.

The sooner we accept this fact, the better.

I don't think anyone would would argue that there is not an economic cost to business regulation but the idea of regulation is to create a tangential benefit to society. The auto industry *****ed and moaned about safety regulations but countless people have been spared death and injury from the government forcing the manufacturers to make their vehicles safer. The economic benefit to those laws were less people in hospital, off work, etc. Having had one of my kids in a serious car accident I am grateful that her car was forced to be safe. He driving decision that day is another matter...

Though it is getting much better, China was/is a great example of an unregulated industrial nation. Air quality is awful. Industrial injuries are commonplace. Dangerous products abound. Food quality frightening. When I started working in Asia in the 90s I left I was in a Dickens novel.

With everything there is a balance and the over regulation of an industry can be a death warrant (witness the private plane industry) but under regulation can be dangerous not just to your stock portfolio but your health.

What widebody said.. 100% spot on.

forgot to add in, many regulations have no economic impact at all or it's so small it doesn't enter into the discussion. Food service workers wearing hairnets or caps. Repealing that would probably add $20 trillion to the GDP.

Nick, construction regulation is a good example of regulations that may both positively and negatively impact the economy.

Show all the construction regulations that Obama signed into law that Trump repealed.

Then you clearly haven't seen the back and forth between Shaun and I. Yes, regulation is supposed to benefit society in general but regulations still have costs associated with them. A regulation can have environmental impact but an economic output cost. How one weighs against the other is up for interpretation.

That hairnet has a cost associated with it and that cost is added into the cost of the good or service provided by the business. The money spent on that hairnet could have been spent increasing economic output.

I'm going to shout, sorry.

THE TOPIC ISN'T WHETHER REGULATION IS GOOD OR BAD, CLEARLY IT'S BOTH.

THE TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME SET CLAIMS THAT TRUMP'S DEREGULATION HAS BALLOONED THE ECONOMY.

THEY NEED TO SHOW WHICH REGULATIONS OBAMA SIGNED INTO LAW AND WHICH ONES TRUMP REPEALED AND THE NET ECONOMIC IMPACT.

THAT'S IT.

Negligible. :rolleyes:

Your argument is massive economic growth due to deregulation.

Show it. SmileWavy

Am I safer or better off because your hair didn't end up in food? Probably not.
Am I less grossed out because I didn't find your hair in my food? Absolutely

My argument has never been "massive economic growth due to deregulation" Not once.
My argument has been that combined with the tax cuts and deregulation we're experiencing higher economic output. And again, because regulations don't get officially scored for cost/benefit and more specifically Executive Orders that add new regulations, you will never find a solid cost estimate for a given regulation.

I used to be the business manager of a composite fabrication company that did a lot of DoD work. My job was to bill the military for all of the projects we were working on, one of which was the Stealth bomber. When I took Managerial Accounting at Harvard, the professor told a story on the first day. A product manager in a cereal company reduced the size of the box and reduced the quality of the ingredients. His P&L was fantastic in the next quarter and he was promoted to VP. New product manager's numbers were horrible the next quarter and he was let go. New PM and next quarter was bad too.

Company did some research and found that customers had abandoned the lower quality and smaller package size cereal. The changes were great in the short term, just ask the new VP, but were completely unsustainable.

That's the corporate tax cut.

The corporate tax cuts make the USA a competitive market for business growth. Lower taxes along with less restrictive regulations make us more competitive globally. We can't do much about wages short of hire lower paid temps, but we can reduce cost by lowering the taxes on businesses that provide jobs for workers. IMO no business that employs people should pay tax. A sole member LLC such as myself should pay taxes and I do. But a business that employs full time workers should not pay tax.

No the tax cuts increase the national debt which weakens the country and the economy. Hey, I've been a government cost accountant. I know how this stuff works, I've done it for a living.

Regulations have both positive and negative impacts on the economy.

The problem with the Trump Derangement Syndrome set is the constantly moving goal posts. Long held Conservative principles like reducing the national debt have been thrown aside for the next installment of their own personal reality TV show.

Or perhaps you can show the economic benefits of a ballooning national debt?

There will be a sweet spot for tax rates based on economic growth.

We can all agree that a 100% tax rate won't lead to future higher tax revenue. We can all agree that a 0% tax rate won't be good for increased tax revenue moving forward.

Somewhere between 0 and 100% is the point where we get max revenue and economic growth. That point will be a moving target based on economic growth.

The sweet spot is slow and steady growth with a focus on reducing the national debt, not the artificial short term bubble with ballooning national debt we are in now.

Most of the corporate tax cut went to stock buy backs given the more buyers than sellers in the stock market we see today.

Toss it back in your lap.

What is the current best sweet spot for tax rates.

Give me the date of the specific cut. Give me the specific amount the tax cut cost in revenue.

Hell, we all know my questions are foolish to ask since there are far too many variables to give an accurate answer.

I too am concerned about debt moving forward. I also doubt that the lower rates will help the situation. Though they might. I do know I would support higher payroll tax rates (along with a higher age limit) so we can get SS back in the black..If our leadership can't get SS under control (limited action items available) I have doubts that either party can actually lead us out of the mess.

No, spending increased the national debt. With or without the tax cuts, the spending was higher than the revenue. That national debt would have gone up regardless of the tax cuts. And revenue is higher after the tax cuts than before so technically the tax cuts didn't increase the debt, spending did.
Anyone who wants to get serious about spending cuts and then creating a larger taxpayer base, meaning getting more people paying federal income tax, has my ear. But everyone wants higher taxes on someone else. Screw that! I pay my share and that of at several others who don't currently pay federal income tax. We aren't going to balance any budgets or pay down any debt by creating fewer taxpayers.