I have been a “value” long term investor for decades. Now I’m picking and choosing. I picked up some a few weeks ago at near the bottom but I’m not at all comfortable with this... The responsible thing to do has been to spend less than your income and save up... side line a reserve and not go above your risk level based on your age. I don’t know how that now work. Is risking it now a necessary thing? Don’t like that at all and I’m not so sold but tbh. Negative interest rate is terrible for saver and I have to read up on it - guess I’ll go read up on Japan economy and market. Sad we are here after just a few weeks.
On the news they are reporting that as of last week there have been 22 million unemployment claims from this crisis.
Not content with destroying the government in order to undo Obama's legacy Trump's regime has now erased all job gains dating back to 2009. MAGA in action. Who's tired of all this winning?
The unemployment rate is close to 20%. Why did the government give these loans if everyone was going to get laid off. Would have been better off giving more money to just people.
It's too slow to have an impact for the past week and earlier. It's probably too slow to have an impact for the next month.
WTH people on here are actually blaming unemployment figures on Trump? I can understand hating on the man, but isn't that going a bit far? I think it has more to do with the virus wreaking havoc. Just ask the UK, Germany, France, or Italy.
Interesting that you are getting upset that he is getting blamed for the high unemployment figures which he had nothing to do with... But what about him taking credit for the low unemployment figures that he had nothing to do with... You want to take the credit, then be prepared to take the blame... T_Man
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...osponsored-by-us-rep-ryan-of-ohio/ar-BB12FrCo I don't know what the answer is, but this is insanity. The proposal now is to give every adult over 16 $2000 per month for up to six months. There .are some exceptions, like those on social security. At a minimum cost of $500 Billion per month for up to 6 months, that's $3 trillion. There's also a proposal on the table to raise Social Security $200 per month. Where in the heck are we going to get this money? It's not like we're sitting on a huge pile of reserve cash. We're already spending $2.39 Trillion more per year than we tax in via taxes. And remember while this is happening the government also won't be taking in tax revenues so we'll also end up printing missed tax revenue. So we're going to print $5+ trillion? This has eventual hyperinflation written all over it. I don't understand why more people aren't worried.
Agreed - it's the scientists that have (rightfully) told us to shut everything down and stop going to work. If we're going to say "listen to the science", then we shouldn't complain about that having the expected (and intended) outcomes. The President should be critiqued on how what he missed/ignored, and how he responds to the crisis and what he does to get things back on track - but even with early testing, it's unlikely we were going to be able to avoid mass shutdowns and layoffs. As you said, almost every country outside of a few Asian ones that had experience from SARS are going through the same shutdowns.
Ahhh. But the key is that we don't know what the outcome could have been if we would have kept the panel in place... if we did as much testing as possible... if we did a lot of things... It may have been worst, it may have been the same or maybe.. just maybe it would have been better.. T_Man
it has inflation written on it in the future ... not hyper inflation I think that if the govt is gonna spend trillions it should be on people and not bailing out big business . we already gave 2 tril to the big boys so their stock could recover . I think all of these plans are more political posturing than sound economics , but what do I know I’m only in my second year of my Econ phd . we’re gonna have an insane debt to gdp ratio and we’re gonna hope (and prolly be right ) that it won’t impact our ability to borrow because we are #1 (this logic would still hold if we were a big player but not number 1) the best way to lower it in the future is with inflation ... and frankly it’s harder to get inflation than one might think. The fed tried in 18 (i think) to reduce the balance sheet and there was a mini slump in the stock market ... that was with a great economy . we are just gonna have to hope the inflation is like 2-5% and not 25% .... I’m pretty optimistic. think about it this way ... the fed has been pushing hard on the gas since , essentially 07/08. How much inflation have we had ? the amount of money in people’s hands matters (as far as prices and inflation go ) but it isn’t the only factor . An old school Econ theory is quantity of money theory . Money x velocity = price x quantity . we are increasing money supply to up arrow on the M . But , if consumer confidence is shaken or things are partially closed then V should be down . Quantity we will see . no one really knows what’s gonna happen . With or without a stimulus . But , hyperinflation is pretty low on the worry list . Inflation is expected and will be needed
It's certainly possible that we'd have less cases and be in a better situation - no question about that. Those are all valid criticisms of the administration. But we'd still likely have all the shutdowns, which means we'd still have the same 20% unemployment. We're seeing that in countries all across the world, including those with aggressive testing, earlier intervention, etc. It seems almost all roads leads to intentional shutdown. The hope - and the big uncertainty - is that once we feel more comfortable, the vast majority of those 20% can quickly get re-employed. I think that will be far more complex than intended because of the trainwreck of the various business aid programs and lack of national coordination with landlord rents and things like that. I think it's going to be a total mess, and those are areas Trump can get legitimate criticism. I'm just not sure why we'd criticize him for 20% unemployment when that was the short-term goal of the science-driven policies.
If you don't provide support to businesses, then you're going to have to keep bailing individuals out for much longer and with much more money since there will be no jobs to return to when the businesses go under. Unlike 2008, where the banks created their own failures, businesses (big or small) did not bring this on themselves - the government simply told them all to shut down.
