Bull Market officially over!! Year heading negative.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That didn't answer the question. If a basketball team is shooting 50% from the free throw line and one guy brings the average up to 75% by shooting 85% by himself and another guy comes in after and brings the team average up another 10 points by shooting 90%, who is the better free throw shooter?

Think of it this way. A new coach is hired onto a basketball team. At the time the coach is hired on, the basketball team is shooting 75%. Years later, under the same coach, after extensive practice and coaching, the team now shoots 88%. That coach leaves, and a new coach comes on. During the first couple of months following the first coach's routine, the team improves from 88% to 90%, and the new coach just sits on the bench going "Yeah team, go! Do what you were doing, I'm going to sit here and be a fatass and do nothing." Sure, the team is shooting 90%, but who actually did the work, the first coach who brought that average up, or the second one who took credit for it while not actually contributing anything?

It doesn't take a genius to understand that just because unemployment is low under Trump, doesn't mean that he actually did anything to cause it to be like that.

[Breccia]

Yo Breccia, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish

Did you just interrupt my meme with another meme? That's like...sixteen memes!

I have no idea how good creditcards.com is, but they say the average rate is 21.36%. The Federal Reserve says Americans owe $1 trillion in credit card debt. Moving everyone from the average, to the cap, would therefore save Americans about $70 billion a year -- of course, costing the banks that much. If everything else was held constant. This would probably force a few over-leveraged banks to crash. So, yeah, King of Debt and Biggest Loser for possibly three decades Trump, who's so overleveraged himself that there's a crowbar up his ass, would fight this tooth and bone spurs.

[Elegiac]

Did you just interrupt my meme with another meme? That's like...sixteen memes!

I have no idea how good creditcards.com is, but they say the average rate is 21.36%. The Federal Reserve says Americans owe $1 trillion in credit card debt. Moving everyone from the average, to the cap, would therefore save Americans about $70 billion a year -- of course, costing the banks that much. If everything else was held constant. This would probably force a few over-leveraged banks to crash. So, yeah, King of Debt and Biggest Loser for possibly three decades Trump, who's so overleveraged himself that there's a crowbar up his ass, would fight this tooth and bone spurs.

It also reflects badly on McConnell. This isn't the Green New Deal, after all - if there's one thing that the Republican base hates as much as certain demographic groups, it's big banks.

But yeah, good on the Democrats for not doing what the Republicans did and actually trying to advance a legislative agenda rather than bitching about Obama.

[Zan15]

Yo Breccia, I'm really happy for you, I'ma let you finish...

But while the Trumpster Fire continues to rage, looks like the radical left (by which I mean Bernie and AOC) have started up again with such outrageous proposals as...*reads smudged writing on hand*...capping interest rates on credit cards at 15% in order to reduce consumer debt and stimulate economic activity...Huh...

Wow it sure is great that the White House is focusing on the important things. Like picking fights with Mao Zedong's mortal remains.

The horror of applying limits to "loan sharks" charging 15-30% interest, more than 6-15 times the rate they get to borrow the money.

These companies used to actually try to peg their interest rate to the base rate +, but now even though rates are 5-8% lower than they were 10-20 years ago, credit card rates have gone up up up.
On top of that the rate of non payment has not even budged enough to substantiate the large interest rate to cover losses. Oh but their profit margins are huge.

Odd how they can borrow money on the cheap from the feds but taxpayers cant.


Its strange too the "outrageous" feeling on this proposal when most states already have usury laws that are on par with the 15%. Half the states limit this to half of that 15%

Banks/CC get a pass as long as they get a license but if you try to charge interest at a much higher rate or if you own a small business and try to, you will get smacked down. in 1980 congress and the president passed a law that allowed banks/cc/financials to basically ignore state Usury laws and it was all down hill from there.

https://www.corporatedebtadvisors.co...laws-by-state/


So why is something that has been on the books in every state for many years all of a sudden so outrageous?

Could it be because it was proposed by your opposition party and you oppose anything they throw out there regardless of actually knowing what you are talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Did you just interrupt my meme with another meme? That's like...sixteen memes!

I have no idea how good creditcards.com is, but they say the average rate is 21.36%. The Federal Reserve says Americans owe $1 trillion in credit card debt. Moving everyone from the average, to the cap, would therefore save Americans about $70 billion a year -- of course, costing the banks that much. If everything else was held constant. This would probably force a few over-leveraged banks to crash. So, yeah, King of Debt and Biggest Loser for possibly three decades Trump, who's so overleveraged himself that there's a crowbar up his ass, would fight this tooth and bone spurs.

LOL you kidding right? 70 billion that's it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...2018-fdic-says

I mean they only made 237 billion last year in profits
59 billion in the last Q 2018


They have been overleveraged for the last 100 years, another 70 billion is a drop in the bucket. Besides they easily make that 70 billion in the first 4 years of the tax cut.

Giving consumers back more money would do more for the economy then letting the bank take the 70 billion and buy back stocks and give bigger bonuses/options to the few.

[Elegiac]

Could it be because it was proposed by your opposition party and you oppose anything they throw out there regardless of actually knowing what you are talking about?

Uh...what?

[Zan15]

Uh...what?

I.e : Because AOC/Bernie said it, it must then be inherently bad and outrageous??? ....even though you have no idea what said proposal means or how it would impact the economy.


You never explained why its "outrageous".

You just said

radical left
Bernie
AOC.

[Elegiac]

I.e : Because AOC/Bernie said it, it must then be inherently bad and outrageous??? ....even though you have no idea what said proposal means or how it would impact the economy.

You never explained why its "outrageous".

You just said

radical left
Bernie
AOC.

Yes.

That was sarcasm. I'm a visceral socialist.

[Zan15]

Yes.

That was sarcasm. I'm a visceral socialist.

well then I apologize for missing the sarcasm with your post. must be my first ever pair of glasses messing me up

my bad.

[Breccia]

Had not been a good week for the market.

UPDIGGITY-DOG-DATE: While the stock market's week continues to be anemic, let's talk about US-China trade issues.

They're fucked.

The FCC just blocked China Mobile's application to enter the states on the grounds of "national security lol". And, you know, they might be right. It is possible China wants a 5G network to help them spy on America. I would not put it past them. But, again, this will not help trade talks at all, especially considering Huawei is also blocked.

"Wow. Why the hell would China Mobile wait until now to submit an application for operating in the states? That sounds like poor timing."

Actually, the application was sent in 2011. Obama and until recently Trump just sat on it, rather than outright deny it. It's possible Trump was using it as a bargaining chip -- he does like to take hostages (cough cough Trump Shutdown cough asbestos). This denial ends such a use, while also sending a clear signal to China to fuck off.

Not great for trade talks.

Related: this breakdown of Trump's 25% tariffs on Chinese goods show a shifting of burden from "materials used to make things" to "things". The next round will affect a shitload of electronics, clothing and shoes, toys, and sports equipment. China, as I've posted multiple times, is already planning their retaliatory tariffs.

"What's the most likely target?"

Well, last time, they went after specific states, namely McConnell's and Ryan's. I imagine they'll expand that list to include more swing states heading towards 2020. So my guesses:

1) Airplanes and parts of airplanes

Besides Trump loving Boeing so much he put a Boeing exec with no military experience in the motherfucking Pentagon, aircraft making/repairing is a pretty big US business. Airbus, Boeing and Gulfstream seem to like working in the South -- Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina.

2) Cotton, wheat and corn

While China gets most of their wheat from Russia, they do import a fair amount of ours as well. Recently, the US scored a rare WTO victory by a finding that China overused their quota system to block the US's goods unfairly. Problem is, the WTO doesn't really have a lot to say about retaliatory tariffs -- especially considering China's main suit against the US is still ongoing. Legally, China could just put all their corn and wheat tariffs right back into place, negating the victory and then some. Cotton, of course, will also hit the South.

3) Coal

This one will be trivial to do. China's already cutting their coal use massively, but they still bring in some. Meanwhile, the US coal industry, even having been thrown multiple lifelines by Trump, is sinking into the sludge. They're on the wrong side of the supply/demand curve, and while China isn't our biggest export market, it's still a substantial loss if it vanishes entirely.

These goods, combined, outnumber soybean exports pre-Trump -- which was China's #1 purchase from the US. If, somehow, a magical "OFF" switch was hit and China imported zero of all of these, GDP growth would tank at least 0.6%. Probably more, but again, that's assuming zero items sold. 0.2-0.3% is far more realistic.

- - - Updated - - -

you kidding right? 70 billion that's it?

Based purely on the numbers of 21.36%->15% on a little over a trillion dollars, yes. That was just napkin math of course. In reality, a federally applied cap would move more people up towards that cap, because banks aren't stupid, and won't just sit there and lose money and shrug.

Simply put, throwing a cap on everything isn't enough. But it does prevent gouging, which NYState has already taken steps to do, and it's at least a start.

[Felya]

According to the loud mouth Cramer, market is too volatile to invest or withdraw. It’s not anemic, as much as we are a tweet away from major losses. Like Trump’s am tweet about meeting with China, spiked market futures out of the red briefly. If he wakes up at 5 am and Fox is talking evil China, for Trump to bitch, and cause a major drop.

[Edge-]

According to the loud mouth Cramer, market is too volatile to invest or withdraw.

It still blows my mind people take this guy who screams and rants and runs around his set hitting buttons that make cartoon noises seriously.

[jeezusisacasual]

It still blows my mind people take this guy who screams and rants and runs around his set hitting buttons that make cartoon noises seriously.

In our office we always equated him to being the Emril of the finance industry, remember those buttons you could buy at staples? The big red ones we used to make it a joke to hit them and scream SELL SELL SELL. Jim " Bear Stearns " Cramer is such a cartoon. I honestly think he was drunk or high for an extended period of time and woke up on the set of a CNBC set and was like alright i dont know what happened over 15 years but sure lets run with it.

[D Luniz]

Its funny
some Trumper necroed this thread to gloat, and less than a week into it, Trump screams "MOAR TARIFFS!!" just like what happens to start the thread and the markets start sliding, thus making the thread's orginal point salient again, and the Trumper's nerco gloating looking like trollish crap

[Zan15]

Its funny
some Trumper necroed this thread to gloat, and less than a week into it, Trump screams "MOAR TARIFFS!!" just like what happens to start the thread and the markets start sliding, thus making the thread's orginal point salient again, and the Trumper's nerco gloating looking like trollish crap

Because they don't actually check facts. they just run with a trump twitter troll as fact.

sure the market is up good since December bottom......but flat for 14 months. Trump does not tell you that last part that the "record" he's bragging about is the same record as before

[Breccia]

So Trump tweeted, because of course he did, to clarify his earlier tweets.

I've been advised not to give him the satisfaction of links, but here's the text:

Tariffs will bring in FAR MORE wealth to our Country than even a phenomenal deal of the traditional kind. Also, much easier & quicker to do. Our Farmers will do better, faster, and starving nations can now be helped. Waivers on some products will be granted, or go to new source!

If we bought 15 Billion Dollars of Agriculture from our Farmers, far more than China buys now, we would have more than 85 Billion Dollars left over for new Infrastructure, Healthcare, or anything else. China would greatly slow down, and we would automatically speed up!

We have lost 500 Billion Dollars a year, for many years, on Crazy Trade with China. NO MORE!

*cracks knuckles*

First of all, I once again invite our very own @lockedout to comment. No dares, no timeline, no "if you don't XXX then you hate puppies". I just honestly want his opinion.

Back to it!

Trump is still saying the tariffs will bring wealth to the country. Since, as everyone knows, tariffs are paid for by people already in the country, this is a blatant lie. What it will do is

$200 billion in taxes amirite.

Something like that, yes. It might actually be $50 billion (25% on $200 billion) though. Or, Trump comes up with $100 billion...I don't know how, but whatever.

Next, Trump is now advocating using US taxpayer money to directly bail out farmers by buying their crops and giving them to starving countries. See, this is why I want @lockedout in on this. Government handouts? Feeding starving people in other countries? Those are Democrat policies. What happened to your bootstraps? What happened to America First? Trump is suggesting $15billion in a new sales tax for feeding African children. Did someone have 'Arms of the Angels' in their playlist this morning?

"Whoa whoa whoa. He said it one time, surely Trump isn't really saying -- "

Whoops, forgot one, hold on

....agricultural products from our Great Farmers, in larger amounts than China ever did, and ship it to poor & starving countries in the form of humanitarian assistance. In the meantime we will continue to negotiate with China in the hopes that they do not again try to redo deal!

"Oh."

Now, it's possible the explanation is simple: Trump is thinking of a way the trade war he started with these tariffs wouldn't hurt the farmers hit by retaliation. Then, he has to figure out what to do with all those crops Americans proven they won't eat by virtue of them being exported normally. Then, he has to figure out what to do with them since, well, the price sucks soyballs due to other countries growing soybeans. "Give them away" is pretty much his only option. I've said, in previous posts, when talking about some of Trump's other policies -- namely, buying overstocked crops and giving them out instead of SNAP benefits, yes, he said that -- "hope you like soybeans". Well...nobody does. So he can't even give them away at home. That leaves, yep, shipping them overseas.

He's taking $15 billion in a new sales tax, and -- from the standpoint of his own voters -- throwing them away.

Also, considering how the flooded Midwest farms feel right now, and soybean farmers in general feel about the previous round of govt bailouts, I'll believe "Our Farmers will do better, faster" when I see it. Because right now, I believe Trump's actions will help farmers "Faster" like I believe he will climb a small hill.

Now let's revisit the idea of Trump using a new sales tax to buy more crops than China did. Trump is likely using the same numbers I did last night, publicly available govt numbers that say China bought the most US soybeans, $15 billion, in 2016. I actually can't find a higher number, so Trump is actually suggesting doing the same as China did. The tariffs hadn't hit in 2016, of course, and the price of US soybeans was much higher then. To match that, Trump will have to pay US farmers more than the current market value. That doesn't sound like the world's best negotiator to me. That sounds like an overpriced govt handout to me. Or, Trump will pay fair market value, and farmers won't get the $15 billion they were promised. Trump personally crashed the market, so it has to be one or the other.

Also, how do you guys feel about $85 billion in new sales taxes to pay for healthcare? Funny story: health care spending jumped 4.4% to $3.65 trillion in 2018 and is due to raise 5.5% over the next ten years. Yes, this is more than during the ACA, where it was closer to 4%. Anyhow, if Trump decides to put a new sales tax to put $85 billion more into the system, that growth rate rises to 6.8% -- and the American taxpayer is paying for it. Yep, despite railing against the ACA, Trump is asking people to pay for other people's medical care anyhow, and causing the rates to go up even further.

But all of that is secondary. Re-read those tweets. What message is Trump saying?

No, really, actually read them. Even you, rabid fanbase, it's Trump's words so you should be okay with it.

Tariffs will bring in FAR MORE wealth to our Country than even a phenomenal deal of the traditional kind. Also, much easier & quicker to do.

Because, to me, it looks like "Trump knows he isn't getting a trade deal with China and is spinning it as a good thing."

Actually, if tariffs are so much better, why not just give up on a deal with China right now? No, really. Just, right now. That does appear to be the message, right? Why not just do it? Right now? It does sound like he's saying that even a great deal would be worse than tariffs, right? So, why even try for a good/great/bigly deal? Why not just give up on the process, right now? Just come out and admit it's not in the country's best interest and he's not going to do it?

Let's hear what you have to say about that $100 billion in new sales taxes -- that's about $500 per taxpayer, by the way -- for soybeans for African children and health care for people who aren't you.

"Hey wait! Didn't Trump say this could fund Infrastructure Week 5: A Wizard Did It?"

Well, sort of. But bear in mind, Mulvaney is fighting that deal. Also more importantly, the stated deal was $2 trillion over 10 years. $85 billion a year would put a dent in that, but not pay for the whole thing. But, yes, I suppose this could be part of the payment plan. So, yes, $500 per person to feed African children and also fix other people's bridges.

"And hold on. I thought you librul elite commie AOC-humping Democrats liked taxed for that sort of thing?"

Yes, but not on poor people. Sales taxes are regressive. I'd have done all this by not having the tax cut for the rich, rather than putting a sales tax on shoes. Or, is Trump suggesting all the rich people will buy these Chinese goods? Because I don't think a millionaire is going to get an extra 9 iPhones.

[rda]

The critique of Trump on tariffs and trade wars at least makes sense.

The increase in the ACA spending is cured by removing the ACA, the system is inherently prone to uncontrolled increases in spending without proportional increases in output, this happens in all forced monopolistic systems over time.

But tariffs / trade wars, yes - that's a much more valid critique of Trump than the usual BS (like the loss of 1 billion which was in the news recently, a useless rehash of non-news with pretty little in the way of the actual point).

[Dontrike]

So Trump tweeted

I'm not even sure how to tackle that tweet, it is filled with such insanity that it might be critical he gets a breathalyzer and a drug test just to make sure he's okay.

But tariffs / trade wars, yes - that's a much more valid critique of Trump than the usual BS (like the loss of 1 billion which was in the news recently, a useless rehash of non-news with pretty little in the way of the actual point).

No, that was an appropriate critique as some voted for him due to him being a "successful businessman" that could "run the country like a business", when in reality Trump barely qualifies as a business man and he runs things like a Trump business, which means crashing and burning with a healthy does of legal battles. That and losing 1% of all losses and him being the biggest loser in a decade of winning for business in the area he is supposed to know about shows just how fucking stupid some people are for voting in that orange retard.

[rda]

No, that was an appropriate critique as some voted for him due to him being a "successful businessman" that could "run the country like a business", when in reality Trump barely qualifies as a business man and he runs things like a Trump business, which means crashing and burning. That and losing 1% of all losses and him being the biggest loser in a decade of winning for business in the area he is supposed to know about shows just how fucking stupid some people are for voting in that orange retard.

It was a rehash of an already known loss of ~1 billion for ~10 years that was already shown by Trump years before. The loss was not catastrophic, although, of course, very serious. Trump recovered from it and was valued at least 3.5 billion in 2017 (he was personally saying he is worth 3x that, but he was definitely worth at least that). Report of "new documents" regarding that loss was a rehash of largely a non-story. Trump *was* a successful businessman. This is in his worth.

[Felya]

It was a rehash of an already known loss of ~1 billion for ~10 years that was already shown by Trump years before. The loss was not catastrophic, although, of course, very serious. Trump recovered from it and was valued at least 3.5 billion in 2017 (he was personally saying he is worth 3x that, but he was definitely worth at least that). Report of "new documents" regarding that loss was a rehash of largely a non-story. Trump *was* a successful businessman. This is in his worth.

The tax payer covered his billions in losses, from defaulting on debt to then not paying taxes for a decade. You know why taxes are so high on common folks? Because people like Trump get to use our tax money to cover their losses, while complaining about people on welfare. The welfare queen is a figment of one’s imagination, while Trump receiving billions from the tax payer, while being driven around in something more expensive than a Cadillac.

Did the people who did his value in 2017, get to see his taxes despite how complicated they are and him being under audit? Or did it go off the usual misrepresentation of his worth, while hiding evidence, like his taxes?

[Dontrike]

It was a rehash of an already known loss of ~1 billion for ~10 years that was already shown by Trump years before. The loss was not catastrophic, although, of course, very serious. Trump recovered from it and was valued at least 3.5 billion in 2017 (he was personally saying he is worth 3x that, but he was definitely worth at least that). Report of "new documents" regarding that loss was a rehash of largely a non-story. Trump *was* a successful businessman. This is in his worth.

That 3.5 billion has been suspect and certainly debateable, there are even reports he's not even worth that much. It wouldn't surprise me if he had as much money as I do.