calbear93 said:

---

Nothing of any significance. Ever.

---

What year at Harvard Law do they teach keyboard chest thumping? Does acting tough and superior make you feel better about your pathetic waste of life? It must be difficult, being such a meaningless man in life that you come here to bluster and puff and pretend you are superior.

You also pretend to be Christian. Jesus would be proud of your behavior.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

People love to attack me with straw men. Even more fun when they then run away and say things like, I'm not worth it. Really? Because it wasn't me that called you out by name from nowhere. That was you who called me out with a false statement and then ran away because you couldn't defend it.
Here is something I never said:

Quote:

---

Biden is in charge of monetary policy at the FED and that's why the stock market has been so spectacular.

---

But most finance professionals I have come across only have a superficial understanding of economics so I can understand why a finance professional might think I said that. They typically think understanding finance means understanding economics. They typically think saying thing like, taxes just take money out of people's pockets, is a profound economic statement rather than just a profit maximizing dogma for themselves.

So let me explain a few things about interest rates. There are a ton of them. The Fed controls the overnight rate banks charge each other (Fed Funds Rate). The finance world is obsessed with the Fed (more so than is deserved even with the very strong effect the Fed has on the finance world). Partly a phenomenon of 24 hour news and partly a phenomenon of needing somebody to blame for the myriad things out of their control in their, admittedly, difficult job. So some finance professionals think the Fed controls all interest rates (influence is not control). Go ahead ask some of them around you. You'll hear a lot of crazy stuff.

When I say something like, Biden has normalized rates, I am talking about the economics based theoretical neutral rate. This is the theoretical rate which supports full employment and is not inflationary. But finance people are Fed obsessed and sometimes think any mention of interest rates is a commentary on rates controlled by the Fed (some finance people have the crazy notion that the Fed controls all rates). In reality the Fed isn't so much setting a Feds Funds Rate (that sounds easy) - they are setting a Fed Funds Rate relative to the theoretical neutral rate that will deliver the desired result they are looking for. In other words, they are adjusting to a target they can't see because it is an economic theory.

So what drives the theoretical neutral rate (R*)? Below is a link from the CFA Institute (I'm pretty sure I have mentioned I used to be a CFA. But I stopped paying dues, so no more).

Quote:

---

R* is widely believed to be determined by real forces that structurally affect the balance between savings and investment in an economy. This includes potential economic growth, demographics, risk aversion, and fiscal policy, among others.

---

Fiscal policy? You don't say. Let's say the Fed sets their rate at 2% in 2012 - that is contractionary because the neutral rate is way below 2%. Let's say the Fed sets their rate at 2% in 2022 - that is expansionary because the neutral rate is way above 2%. In both cases the neutral rate was abnormal so the Fed, in order to get the result they desire, had to respond to reality with abnormal rates. That is what I mean when I say the Fed is the tail, not the dog. The neutral rate is the rate that Biden has normalized (if the Fed doesn't mess it up by leaving their rate too high for too long).

Here is a hypothetical. Let's say the economy is fine. GDP is 2%, inflation is 2%, unemployment is 2%, the Fed Funds rate is 2%, and the theoretical neutral rate is 2%. The Feds monetary policy is neither contractionary nor expansionary. The Fed says, don't touch a thing. The President disagrees and convinces Congress that now is the time for across the board 80% tax rates. The economy crashes. The Fed says, I told you not to touch a thing, this is your problem, I'm not changing anything and leaves their rate at 2%. The Fed hasn't done anything but their policy has gone from neutral to contractionary. What changed? Fiscal policy and the economics based theoretical neutral rate of interest.

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2024/07/10/in-search-of-the-elusive-neutral-interest-rate/

---

You take some abstract and unproven theory and then even get wrong who is responsible for fiscal policy. Maybe get back to studying the constitution on who controls the purse, including tax.

But you cling on to these theories that resulted in you submitting the wrong predictions over and over again.

Here is the thing. The Fed is the biggest factor in balancing inflation with employment rate. No wonder since that it their actual purpose for existence. They were created by CONGRESS to help create a stable monetary and fiscal system

The difficulty that Fed in the past has had is the lag time between their action and impact. They use their monetary tools to find equilibrium between unemployment and inflation based on recent results, but it is an inexact science on timing on the right action based on past results. Do they lower interest rate now before recession becomes inevitable or is lowering interest rate now too early that may spike up inflation again? Whatever they decide, it won't be clear whether it was the right decision until after the election.

At a certain point, results matter. Whatever tools you are using has led you to completely miss the trend and the subsequent results. You have made the wrong prediction on the economy and the markets almost every single time. And yet you still bring out the same theory that has failed you as if they are some infallible law.

---

Thank You Calbear93.
At least someone on this thread actually understands what's going on.

By the way, lost on most here is the fact that the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ( VTI) is weighted fairly heavily in tech. In fact, 31.3% of its Top 10 Holdings are in things like MSFT, AAPL, NVDA, etc.
Those last 3 names make up 17.7% of the index.

Funny how the VTI goes +40% from 200 to 280 in 8.5 months and people get their panties all twisted about it being down 4.3% from its most recent high.

PS. Some people still need to figure out what pushed the U.S. equity market down into the Monday, Aug. 5th low.

Hint: Reversing the Yen Carry Trade.

I'd be a seller here with the SPX at 5455.
This "bounce" won't last.

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

People love to attack me with straw men. Even more fun when they then run away and say things like, I'm not worth it. Really? Because it wasn't me that called you out by name from nowhere. That was you who called me out with a false statement and then ran away because you couldn't defend it.
Here is something I never said:

Quote:

---

Biden is in charge of monetary policy at the FED and that's why the stock market has been so spectacular.

---

But most finance professionals I have come across only have a superficial understanding of economics so I can understand why a finance professional might think I said that. They typically think understanding finance means understanding economics. They typically think saying thing like, taxes just take money out of people's pockets, is a profound economic statement rather than just a profit maximizing dogma for themselves.

So let me explain a few things about interest rates. There are a ton of them. The Fed controls the overnight rate banks charge each other (Fed Funds Rate). The finance world is obsessed with the Fed (more so than is deserved even with the very strong effect the Fed has on the finance world). Partly a phenomenon of 24 hour news and partly a phenomenon of needing somebody to blame for the myriad things out of their control in their, admittedly, difficult job. So some finance professionals think the Fed controls all interest rates (influence is not control). Go ahead ask some of them around you. You'll hear a lot of crazy stuff.

When I say something like, Biden has normalized rates, I am talking about the economics based theoretical neutral rate. This is the theoretical rate which supports full employment and is not inflationary. But finance people are Fed obsessed and sometimes think any mention of interest rates is a commentary on rates controlled by the Fed (some finance people have the crazy notion that the Fed controls all rates). In reality the Fed isn't so much setting a Feds Funds Rate (that sounds easy) - they are setting a Fed Funds Rate relative to the theoretical neutral rate that will deliver the desired result they are looking for. In other words, they are adjusting to a target they can't see because it is an economic theory.

So what drives the theoretical neutral rate (R*)? Below is a link from the CFA Institute (I'm pretty sure I have mentioned I used to be a CFA. But I stopped paying dues, so no more).

Quote:

---

R* is widely believed to be determined by real forces that structurally affect the balance between savings and investment in an economy. This includes potential economic growth, demographics, risk aversion, and fiscal policy, among others.

---

Fiscal policy? You don't say. Let's say the Fed sets their rate at 2% in 2012 - that is contractionary because the neutral rate is way below 2%. Let's say the Fed sets their rate at 2% in 2022 - that is expansionary because the neutral rate is way above 2%. In both cases the neutral rate was abnormal so the Fed, in order to get the result they desire, had to respond to reality with abnormal rates. That is what I mean when I say the Fed is the tail, not the dog. The neutral rate is the rate that Biden has normalized (if the Fed doesn't mess it up by leaving their rate too high for too long).

Here is a hypothetical. Let's say the economy is fine. GDP is 2%, inflation is 2%, unemployment is 2%, the Fed Funds rate is 2%, and the theoretical neutral rate is 2%. The Feds monetary policy is neither contractionary nor expansionary. The Fed says, don't touch a thing. The President disagrees and convinces Congress that now is the time for across the board 80% tax rates. The economy crashes. The Fed says, I told you not to touch a thing, this is your problem, I'm not changing anything and leaves their rate at 2%. The Fed hasn't done anything but their policy has gone from neutral to contractionary. What changed? Fiscal policy and the economics based theoretical neutral rate of interest.

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2024/07/10/in-search-of-the-elusive-neutral-interest-rate/

---

You take some abstract and unproven theory and then even get wrong who is responsible for fiscal policy. Maybe get back to studying the constitution on who controls the purse, including tax.

But you cling on to these theories that resulted in you submitting the wrong predictions over and over again.

Here is the thing. The Fed is the biggest factor in balancing inflation with employment rate. No wonder since that it their actual purpose for existence. They were created by CONGRESS to help create a stable monetary and fiscal system

The difficulty that Fed in the past has had is the lag time between their action and impact. They use their monetary tools to find equilibrium between unemployment and inflation based on recent results, but it is an inexact science on timing on the right action based on past results. Do they lower interest rate now before recession becomes inevitable or is lowering interest rate now too early that may spike up inflation again? Whatever they decide, it won't be clear whether it was the right decision until after the election.

At a certain point, results matter. Whatever tools you are using has led you to completely miss the trend and the subsequent results. You have made the wrong prediction on the economy and the markets almost every single time. And yet you still bring out the same theory that has failed you as if they are some infallible law.

---

Thank You Calbear93.
At least someone on this thread actually understands what's going on.

---

Exactly. And we didn't even have to read the CNBC headline to figure this out.

dajo9 said:

---

Inflation continues to come down getting a 2-handle for July with year-over-year inflation at 2.9%. Most of that is from the shagging index, which is lagged and a big portion of it isn't even real - as homeowners aren't actually paying more for the homes they already own.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/14/july-consumer-price-index.html

---

I never even knew there was a shagging index. They keep track of everything! This must have been inspiring all the genital talk today.

< insert Austin Powers image here>

Donold's Great Depression of 2024 Watch:

Retail sales in July were up 1.0%, the most since January 2023. If you bought into the market at the low of the day of Donold's declaration, you are now up 6%. For some, Donold's declaration is justified because the market is currently lower than it's all time high by 3%.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-15/us-retail-sales-pick-up-by-more-than-forecast-in-broad-advance?srnd=homepage-americas

I was hoping I'd wake up and this was just a nightmare but it seems it's reality...

Price controls on food has literally been the beginning of the end for economies in the communist playbook https://t.co/Ia8Zh3CWEW pic.twitter.com/j1BNvi9yGv

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) August 15, 2024

Omg Kamala just said "price-gauging" pic.twitter.com/FkQLLwLnG2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 16, 2024

Kamalanomics - Price gage-ing.

Kamala finally released an actual policy proposal, and the honeymoon came to an abrupt end.

Exhibit A: CNN pic.twitter.com/wXB6OX8n8s

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 16, 2024

Where did Kamala come up with the idea proposing price control on food? Someone or some group is whispering this in her ear?

Here is a really good article about how Reagan and the neoliberal establishment conservatives completely re-wrote enforcement of an important anti-trust law in the 1980's called the Robinson-Patman Act. The Robinson-Patman Act was signed into law in 1936 after neoliberal Republican courts refused to support the anti-trust laws already on the books. Robinson-Patman is still the law of the land but Reagan had his anti-trust people stop pursuing it and that became the norm. There has been rumblings of more enforcement under Biden's FTC but nothing very substantive yet. The courts have become so enured to Robinson-Patman not being used that it is hard to imagine our current Republican judiciary letting the law be used as intended. While Dementia Don has no idea what the Robinson-Patman Act is, everyone around him and the justices he has nominated are full neoliberals who support its non-use.

Current idiotic establishment conservatives, whose policies have so failed the American people and hollowed out the middle class still align with Donold on issues like this, despite the harm it has done. These stupid establishment conservatives have lost all support from the American people because of policies like this (plus war) and now have no political party to call their own. While the cult of Donold completely supports the same neoliberal policies that make the rich, richer, they focus on the culture wars and full on fascism to gain support. I do give credit to establishment conservatives for not going down that path despite how failed their economic agenda is.

https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/14/the-price-is-wright/#enforcement-priorities

Wow. You are so smart because seems like have the answers to EVERYTHING! You should do something important with your big brain, rather than strutting around a stupid sports message board, insulting everyone, and being a jackass.

AunBear89 said:

---

Wow. You are so smart because seems like have the answers to EVERYTHING! You should do something important with your big brain, rather than strutting around a stupid sports message board, insulting everyone, and being a jackass.

---

Wow. You are so smart because IT seems like YOU have the answers to EVERYTHING! You should do something important with your big brain, rather than strutting around a stupid sports message board, insulting everyone, and being a jackass.

oski003 said:

---

---

AunBear89 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

---

---

In fairness, I corrected your crappy grammar. It is a value add.

AunBear89 said:

---

Wow. You are so smart because seems like have the answers to EVERYTHING! You should do something important with your big brain, rather than strutting around a stupid sports message board, insulting everyone, and being a jackass.

---

We graduated from the same undergrad but I leveraged that to become a partner at top NY law firm, a GC at a large market cap public company and a COO at a hedge fund before retiring at around 50. I actually lived with these regulations instead of reading a google searched article. I now serve on the board of a mega cap public company and as a trustee in various nonprofits. You leveraged the same undergraduate education to stay at a holiday inn at Kitsap. So of course you are justified in coming to this board and mocking others' intelligence. Makes sense.

But you are right. This is a stupid football board and yet it is the highlight of your life.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Kamala finally released an actual policy proposal, and the honeymoon came to an abrupt end.

Exhibit A: CNN pic.twitter.com/wXB6OX8n8s

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 16, 2024

Where did Kamala come up with the idea proposing price control on food? Someone or some group is whispering this in her ear?

---

Would love to understand when more government regulation on price has improved quality and options.

---

Health care for senior citizens, water, and electricity to name a few big ones.

---

Medicare suppresses healthcare prices for all? Who knew.No wonder prices are so low for healthcare.

Electricity and water price regulation are as a result of government mandated monopoly in a municipality because of the cost of the building the infrastructure. Are you suggesting we create and mandate food producer monopoly by the government like Russia in the 80s and Cuba?

You seem well informed.

---

I'm suggesting the capitalist tendency to consolidate has already created something approaching water and electricity market distortions and government action is appropriate.

You seem well informed

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Kamala finally released an actual policy proposal, and the honeymoon came to an abrupt end.

Exhibit A: CNN pic.twitter.com/wXB6OX8n8s

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 16, 2024

Where did Kamala come up with the idea proposing price control on food? Someone or some group is whispering this in her ear?

---

Would love to understand when more government regulation on price has improved quality and options.

---

Health care for senior citizens, water, and electricity to name a few big ones.

---

Medicare suppresses healthcare prices for all? Who knew.No wonder prices are so low for healthcare.

Electricity and water price regulation are as a result of government mandated monopoly in a municipality because of the cost of the building the infrastructure. Are you suggesting we create and mandate food producer monopoly by the government like Russia in the 80s and Cuba?

You seem well informed.

---

I'm suggesting the capitalist tendency to consolidate has already created something approaching water and electricity market distortions and government action is appropriate.

You seem well informed

---

I see. So, the justification and exception for price regulation of basic utility - creating and mandating monopoly with government prohibition on competition - is your justification for price regulation of food in a competitive market? The rationale for incentivizing utility companies to make an investment in infrastructure by granting a monopoly while regulating prices applies to why food price regulation will work? That is your example of relevancy to my point and why food price regulation in a highly competitive and non-monopolistic environment will work?

Your MBA at work. You are well informed. Tell us more about price discrimination laws.

---

You are very skilled at ignoring actual arguments and creating straw men. Is that what they teach at Harvard?

Jesus would be proud. You are a fine example of a Christian hypocrite.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Kamala finally released an actual policy proposal, and the honeymoon came to an abrupt end.

Exhibit A: CNN pic.twitter.com/wXB6OX8n8s

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 16, 2024

Where did Kamala come up with the idea proposing price control on food? Someone or some group is whispering this in her ear?

---

Would love to understand when more government regulation on price has improved quality and options.

---

Health care for senior citizens, water, and electricity to name a few big ones.

---

Medicare suppresses healthcare prices for all? Who knew.No wonder prices are so low for healthcare.

Electricity and water price regulation are as a result of government mandated monopoly in a municipality because of the cost of the building the infrastructure. Are you suggesting we create and mandate food producer monopoly by the government like Russia in the 80s and Cuba?

You seem well informed.

---

I'm suggesting the capitalist tendency to consolidate has already created something approaching water and electricity market distortions and government action is appropriate.

You seem well informed

---

I see. So, the justification and exception for price regulation of basic utility - creating and mandating monopoly with government prohibition on competition - is your justification for price regulation of food in a competitive market? The rationale for incentivizing utility companies to make an investment in infrastructure by granting a monopoly while regulating prices applies to why food price regulation will work? That is your example of relevancy to my point and why food price regulation in a highly competitive and non-monopolistic environment will work?

Your MBA at work. You are well informed. Tell us more about price discrimination laws.

---

You are very skilled at ignoring actual arguments and creating straw men. Is that what they teach at Harvard?

---

You are very skilled at throwing around straw man accusation when you are out of counter argument and have run out of room to deflect Is that what they taught at your business school?

---

I'm happy to engage with you if you engage with what I write

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Kamala finally released an actual policy proposal, and the honeymoon came to an abrupt end.

Exhibit A: CNN pic.twitter.com/wXB6OX8n8s

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 16, 2024

Where did Kamala come up with the idea proposing price control on food? Someone or some group is whispering this in her ear?

---

Would love to understand when more government regulation on price has improved quality and options.

---

Health care for senior citizens, water, and electricity to name a few big ones.

---

Medicare suppresses healthcare prices for all? Who knew.No wonder prices are so low for healthcare.

Electricity and water price regulation are as a result of government mandated monopoly in a municipality because of the cost of the building the infrastructure. Are you suggesting we create and mandate food producer monopoly by the government like Russia in the 80s and Cuba?

You seem well informed.

---

I'm suggesting the capitalist tendency to consolidate has already created something approaching water and electricity market distortions and government action is appropriate.

You seem well informed

---

This is a great podcast on the consolidation of the food industry, which is far from competitive. Idiotic neoliberal establishment conservatives think this is all fine.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-03-27/odd-lots-how-big-ag-controls-what-americans-eat-podcast