DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

And for some strange reason, we have a "subpar" economy due to the fault of people that worked hard and took on RISK.

Never mind that the demographics of this country (as I posted above) are heavily skewed to the 60+ crowd that no longer need to spend money like they did when they were younger and as a result, drive economic growth. For some reason, demographics and a declining birth rate dont play into your "tidy" narrative as to why our economy is stuck in low growth. Nope, it's the rich people's fault.

So, we will "reward" the entrepreneurs who took on RISK and created jobs and products that improved our quality of life and liberty - - - by taxing them more than they already are so that we can "redistribute" their money to the poor and the middle class. Because you know, the Govt knows how to spend money far better than you or I do. We should really trust Government on the ability to redistribute people's wealth.

What could go wrong???
Anyone for an $80 BILLION DOLLAR BULLET TRAIN?

I strongly suggest that you take a look at one of the most liberal City Council's in America and what their policies" have done for their citizens (of whom 57% are black) in Flint, Michigan. We're talking about a city with a poverty rate of 41%. That's 2.5x the rate across the state of Michigan.

One out of every 2.4 residents of Flint lives in poverty.
How have all of the social welfare policies "benefitted" the residents of Flint?

Think that's a liberal success story?
Think again.

---

Cities aren't really equipped to handle this sort of thing. Part of our federalist system is figuring which among the various federal, state, county, city and other overlapping municipal entities is the right one to address any given problem.

Similarly, a number of the points that Dajo brings up either raise federalism questions. How are the feds going to pay for community colleges and state colleges?

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

Hey Mr. Deflection, you demand that I answer your questions so why don't you answer my questions? I asked you what economic signal the bond market is sending you when the 10-2 spread is negative?

DiabloWags said:

---

The Effect of Population Aging on Economic Growth, the Labor Force and Productivity (nber.org)

---

There are a couple of problems with this paper. First, it is only talking about one side of the equation of what I am talking about. It is talking about demographics and low economic growth. It says nothing about high asset prices. Second, it makes some assumptions about productivity that are problematic.

I'll cover asset prices first. What you are talking about (but is not referenced in the paper you linked) is the Life Cycle Theory of asset prices (asset price predictions based on demographics). Young people borrow and spend (assets down), middle aged people save (assets up), and old people spend down their savings (assets up again). The Baby Boom is, of course, the perfect test case for this theory, which may be true in particulars but, in my opinion, can be dwarfed by things like wealth inequality. The Baby Boomers are in the old age spending down of savings part of their life. Therefore, asset prices should be down based on conventional wisdom. Here is a great Credit Suisse analysis dated 2012. In this analysis, they argue the Life Cycle Theory of asset prices would predict a P/E ratio of about 5 here in 2022 (down from about 35 in 2000). They argue the 10 year yield should be about 5% in 2022. Few analyses have ever been as spectacularly wrong as this Credit Suisse analysis from 2012 of asset prices based on conventional thinking on demographics.
https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&format=PDF&source=em&document_id=946215251&serialid=jQpgCRBd%2FS1%2BAajHhl5pC%2Bk8V8KiJY0UwRXv8DX1sRo%3D&cspId=null

In regards to the NBER paper on demographics and economic growth, they argue about 1/3 of the impact to economic growth is from a smaller labor market when it ages (ok, that's fair) and about 2/3 of the impact is from lower productivity from the workforce when a population ages. They argue even the younger workforce is less productive when a workforce is aged (what???). What do they base that on? Lower incomes. That is because according to economic orthodoxy, income is a reflection of productivity. I rejected this notion outright when I was taught it at Berkeley in Econ 1. It may be true in a perfectly competitive industry with a perfectly competitive labor market, but how often is that the case? If the supply of labor is high, then productivity is merely a ceiling for labor pay. Anybody who worked minimum wage for $4.25 in the 1990's knows their pay had nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with minimum wage laws. I could have been replaced by somebody at lower pay if the law allowed it. But how could the business survive if we were all being paid above our productivity? The reality is, we were being paid below our productivity because the supply of unskilled labor allowed employers to do so. If we were being paid above our productivity, the fast food business could not have been thriving as it was during that time.

So, the NBER paper is making assumptions about lower productivity based on lower wages on a study which shares the same timeframe in which we know that median pay was much lower than productivity. NBER ignores the mismatch between worker pay and productivity nationally, and just declares that workers were less productive because their pay decreased.

Furthermore, there is a massive causation and correlation problem in the study, which uses results from different states to make its argument. Is West Virginia less productive than New York because it is older or is West Virginia older than New York because it is less productive? Young, educated people in West Virginia move to New York to seek opportunity. The NBER paper would have you believe that West Virginia just happens to be older than New York and therefore just happens to have lost productivity relative to New York. No. Talented young people seek out opportunity. They don't just sit there and languish. The NBER paper tries to resolve this issue in the paper, but you can tell, they can't.

I'm not saying there is zero impact on demographics and economic growth, I'm just saying that these kinds of studies grossly exaggerate them. My theory ties together economic growth and asset prices in a way that has actually happened in the real world. The theories you are putting forward (which are just conventional wisdom that have been wrong in the real world for a long time now) do not tie these outcomes (low economic growth and high asset prices) together and exaggerate what is partially correct and ignores what has been shown to be wrong by real world results.

Fed Funds futures pointing to a 66% chance of 6 rate hikes in 2022. Was only 13% one month ago.

dajo9 said:

---

Hey Mr. Deflection, you demand that I answer your questions so why don't you answer my questions? I asked you what economic signal the bond market is sending you when the 10-2 spread is negative?

---

Looks like I ruffled someone's feathers.

It means that Banks wont be financing any economic growth since they make money by borrowing short and lending long. But maybe thats an opportunity for liberals to make Govt even bigger and send out some more stimulus checks.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

And for some strange reason, we have a "subpar" economy due to the fault of people that worked hard and took on RISK.

Never mind that the demographics of this country (as I posted above) are heavily skewed to the 60+ crowd that no longer need to spend money like they did when they were younger and as a result, drive economic growth. For some reason, demographics and a declining birth rate dont play into your "tidy" narrative as to why our economy is stuck in low growth. Nope, it's the rich people's fault.

So, we will "reward" the entrepreneurs who took on RISK and created jobs and products that improved our quality of life and liberty - - - by taxing them more than they already are so that we can "redistribute" their money to the poor and the middle class. Because you know, the Govt knows how to spend money far better than you or I do. We should really trust Government on the ability to redistribute people's wealth.

What could go wrong???
Anyone for an $80 BILLION DOLLAR BULLET TRAIN?

I strongly suggest that you take a look at one of the most liberal City Council's in America and what their policies" have done for their citizens (of whom 57% are black) in Flint, Michigan. We're talking about a city with a poverty rate of 41%. That's 2.5x the rate across the state of Michigan.

One out of every 2.4 residents of Flint lives in poverty.
How have all of the social welfare policies "benefitted" the residents of Flint?

Think that's a liberal success story?
Think again.

---

How about Alabama and Mississippi? Are those conservative success stories?

BTW, I really feel sorry for the poor "entrepreneurs" that live off the corporate welfare. I am sure they appreciate your support!

Is it a bear market or just a correction?

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Hey Mr. Deflection, you demand that I answer your questions so why don't you answer my questions? I asked you what economic signal the bond market is sending you when the 10-2 spread is negative?

---

Looks like I ruffled someone's feathers.

It means that Banks wont be financing any economic growth since they make money by borrowing short and lending long. But maybe thats an opportunity for liberals to make Govt even bigger and send out some more stimulus checks.

---

That answer would get you about a D. You are smarter than that but are deflecting over the obviousness of Krugman's correct analysis of the bond market.

oski003 said:

---

Is it a bear market or just a correction?

---

Depends on what sector you are talking about or which index.
There are several growth stock sectors that have been in a Bear Market since February of last year.
Primarily medical diagnostics and genomics/biotech.

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Hey Mr. Deflection, you demand that I answer your questions so why don't you answer my questions? I asked you what economic signal the bond market is sending you when the 10-2 spread is negative?

---

Looks like I ruffled someone's feathers.

It means that Banks wont be financing any economic growth since they make money by borrowing short and lending long. But maybe thats an opportunity for liberals to make Govt even bigger and send out some more stimulus checks.

---

That answer would get you about a D. You are smarter than that but are deflecting over the obviousness of Krugman's correct analysis of the bond market.

---

It was a stereotypical Dajo9 answer.
I'm shocked you werent able to recognize it.

Do you have a poster of Paul Krugman on your bedroom wall or something???
The fact that you obsessively defend him is pretty telling.
He's a clown when it comes to the financial markets.
I repeat... he has no "skin" in the game.
He's a book writer. An academian.

calpoly said:

---

BTW, I really feel sorry for the poor "entrepreneuers" that live off the corporate welfare. I am sure they appreciate your support!"

---

You dont sound very happy in the United States of America.

Perhaps you should move overseas to a socialist country where there is no creativity, zero innovation, no risk-taking, and no incentives to do great things. You can just sit around drinking beer and doing drugs all day and living at home with your parents well into your 30's.

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is it a bear market or just a correction?

---

Depends on what sector you are talking about or which index.
There are several growth stock sectors that have been in a Bear Market since February of last year.
Primarily medical diagnostics and genomics/biotech.

---

Broadly...

1) overall market?
2) s&p500?
3) Dow?
4) NASDAQ?

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Is it a bear market or just a correction?

---

Depends on what sector you are talking about or which index.
There are several growth stock sectors that have been in a Bear Market since February of last year.
Primarily medical diagnostics and genomics/biotech.

---

Broadly...

1) overall market?
2) s&p500?
3) Dow?
4) NASDAQ?

---

Most market analysts would consider a 20% decline in the Dow or S&P to be a good rule of thumb.

But it's not a terribly valuable metric in my opinion if you are more stock-specific. We clearly arent there (yet), but it's a distinct possibility given how "hawkish" the Federal Reserve currently is. In the past, the Fed has come in to "save" the markets whenever asset prices have fallen by 20%. This happened after the market fell from Dec-2019 into the March-2020 Covid low as well as in December of 2019 when the SPX had dropped 16% during the month of December, from a high of 2800 on 12/3 to 2346 on 12/26. By the time early January came around, Chairman Powell walked back "hawkish" comments that he had made about their balance sheet being on "auto-pilot" at the Fed's December Meeting, and indicated that they would be "flexible" with their tools (balance sheet) and sensitive to downside risks. - - - This move essentially took away the risk that the Fed would hike too far and risk putting the economy into a recession and the markets rallied strongly off that news.

The S&P is currently trading at a P/E of 22x.
The 10 year average is just a tad above 19x.

Earnings estimates are for roughly $200 in earnings in the S&P this year.

So if you subtract 3x from the earnings multiple you are 600 points lower from Friday's close of 4431, just to get back to the 10 year average. That would put the SPX at roughly 3800 which would be another 14% lower from here. - - - Interestingly enough, the 3827 area would be a 38.2% (fibonacci) retracement of the entire rally up from the March 2020 low.

Please keep in mind that many growth stocks are down already 50 - 60%, especially in the Medical DX sector.

For example, 10x Genomics (TXG) out of Pleasanton is down 60% off the $209 high that it made back in February of last year with the rest of the DX group. Illumina (ILMN) is down 42%. And the household name of TSLA is down 36% from its high of $1243 made in early November.

Since most growth stocks dont have any earnings, they are valued by their price to sales ratio.
Your Polestar (GGPI) is a perfect example of this.

So one has to always keep that in mind as to what may be considered "cheap" and not just how far the share price has dropped. - - - Since November, the growth sector has obviously been hammered by the Fed's hawkish tone on interest rates. And companies with high P/S ratio's that are burning lots of cash have been whacked.... given that higher interest rates negatively impact their future cash flows.

Thank you for your post.
It's nice to see this thread get back to discussing the STOCK MARKET.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

---

Quality of life

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

---

Quality of life

---

COVID is reducing life expectancy by a few years which will help with Social Security solvency.

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

---

Quality of life

---

How does not working improve quality of life? What's your definition?

DiabloWags said:

---

calpoly said:

---

BTW, I really feel sorry for the poor "entrepreneuers" that live off the corporate welfare. I am sure they appreciate your support!"

---

You dont sound very happy in the United States of America.

Perhaps you should move overseas to a socialist country where there is no creativity, zero innovation, no risk-taking, and no incentives to do great things. You can just sit around drinking beer and doing drugs all day and living at home with your parents well into your 30's.

---

Project much! After reading all the crap you write it is easy to tell that you don't know the first thing about being an entrepreneur and you get upset when some challenges your world view.

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

---

Quality of life

---

How does not working improve quality of life? What's your definition?

---

At 60 years old I think retirement is a fine choice if that is preferred

calpoly said:

---

roject much! After reading all the crap you write it is easy to tell that you don't know the first thing about being an entrepreneur and you get upset when some challenges your world view.

---

Cool story kid.

Doesnt sound like a Cal Poly education is worth much these days. Ive been successfully self-employed risking my own capital for 95% of my adult life and retired at age 57. Let me know when you make your first Million.

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

---

Quality of life

---

How does not working improve quality of life? What's your definition?

---

At 60 years old I think retirement is a fine choice if that is preferred

---

And I agree it's a fine choice if that's what you prefer... and can afford to do so. Advocating for universal early retirement, and having others pay for it, is a different matter. Why should you or I be taxed to pay for someone else's early retirement?

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.

---

And once again you deflect.

You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.

---

The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.

---

Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?

Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.

Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.

---

Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.

In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

---

Lowering the retirement age?

Why? People are now living decades in retirement. Curious, what's to be gained by extending it even more?

---

Quality of life

---

How does not working improve quality of life? What's your definition?

---

At 60 years old I think retirement is a fine choice if that is preferred

---

And I agree it's a fine choice if that's what you prefer... and can afford to do so. Advocating for universal early retirement, and having others pay for it, is a different matter. Why should you or I be taxed to pay for someone else's early retirement?

---

Do you have over $50 million? If not, then I'm not talking about taxing you more.

Besides, my list was a laundry list of nice-to-haves. Unit2 asked what we would do with tax money from the wealthy. It seemed like a silly question as there is so much that could be done to improve our society. But apparently Unit2 is unaware of all the needs we have in this country.

For the record, I think we can find a way to get a retirement age of 60 considering so many people in the service sector work on their feet and have physically demanding jobs. Universal Healthcare should come first though - and that's a big expense for the 60+ crowd already.

56% of Americans have direct investments in the stock market. But you'd never know it by this thread.

Unfortunately, this thread cant stay on TOPIC and repeatedly falls prey to posts about socio-political policies regarding wealth and how people wish to spend other people's money.

There's already a thread for that.
It's called the "Wealth Gap Inequality" thread.

The stock market is at a terribly fascinating juncture. But instead of discussing the Bulls and Bears, this thread just resorts to people promoting their political bias.

Yawn.

The smartest guy Ive ever met is a Cal alum from the Class of 2000 that immigrated from the Ukraine. He manages other people's money, seeks out game-changing, disruptive, technological innovation and has zero interest in talking about politics, because its full of hypocrisy and a waste of time.

Kind of like the Bearinsider OT forum.
Good luck everyone!

Facebook is getting popped right now. I wonder what is in store for Amazon tomorrow.

oski003 said:

---

Facebook is getting popped right now. I wonder what is in store for Amazon tomorrow.

---

When I came out of the theater after seeing Social Network 10 years ago, I proclaimed:

"If even a quarter of the stuff in that movie is true, then Zuckerberg is a major D bag."

As we have since learned, it was all true, and worse.



Meta's shares fell 22.6% to $249.90 in after-hours trading. If the drop holds until the market opens Thursday, the company's market capitalization - its overall value - is on track to drop by nearly $200 billion.

https://abc7news.com/technology/meta-shares-plunge-more-than-20%25-/11533268/

I wonder if his avatar in the Metaverse will jump off a building or self immolate?

calpoly said:

---

Made it many years ago but life is not defined by how much money I make, it is what I can do to help others. I know you love putting down people that do not agree with you definition of a good life...what a pitiful life you live.

---

Sorry, but you dont strike me as anything other than a "clown" with your ridiculous personal attacks and a strong inability to actually post about the topic at hand in a thread, which in this case is about THE STOCK MARKET.

I happen to be President of a 501c3 non-profit, but of course that doesnt fit your stereotype of me.

But go right ahead and keep projecting and yapping about things that you know nothing about.

Keep attacking people that have worked hard in life, taken risk, and pay a ton of taxes.

So says the guy that keeps claiming that the "remedy" is to vote for liberals because the U.S. Constitution sucks.

How about some more Govt handouts?

That will "fix" everything.

Apparently, you've never been to Flint, Michigan.

In other news, FB - 23% in after hours on a bad miss.

Same story with NFLX, SNAP, and SPOT.

Bearinsider Liberals will claim this is good!
The wealth gap is "shrinking".

Zuck will wake up $30 BILLION POORER.

Good for America!

calpoly said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

So says the guy that keeps claiming that the "remedy" is to vote for liberals because the U.S. Constitution sucks.

How about some more Govt handouts?

That will "fix" everything.

Apparently, you've never been to Flint, Michigan.

---

Rich coming from someone that made a living on gambling other peoples money.

---

Another clueless statement.
I've never made a living with "other people's money".

It really doesnt sound like a Cal Poly education is worth much these days.
Financially illiteracy is truly an epidemic in this country.
Sad really.

Facebook just lost $177 Billion in value.


I guess that's good for all of the Bearinsider liberals and socialists who want to see the Wealth Gap decline.
Because you know, the "pie of wealth" is finite, and the less fortunate will now see their "piece" mysteriously become LARGER.

I guess the 56% of Americans that own stock in the equity market, dont own any Facebook shares either.