Why have Republicans stopped bragging about the stock market?

[Adre]

Bullshit.

"According to Bankrate, the average MMA interest rate has sunk from 0.52% at the beginning of 2012 to 0.12% in early 2018."

The highest loss'leader I can find is 1.7% :
https://www.thesimpledollar.com/best-money-market-account/

So you’re too stupid to be an investor.

 

[Que]

I can admit when I'm wrong. I grabbed data from over a year ago. As it turns out anyone can get your "Adre is a fucking douchebag ." Rate.

The larger point remains though that the 24-month return-on-investment is still rather impressive even with the easily predictable Market correction that occurred.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Challenge made.
Challenge accepted.
Que squeals.
Que is why we can't have nice things, folks.

You can get a paltry 2% return on your investment in a good money market fund.

Getting a 2% return on an index fund (with significantly higher risk involved) is, quite simply, pathetic.

By the way, when was the last time you actually had any money in a money market fund? Currently it's running about 0.12% don't fret about your fail though, you are only off by a factor of anot 16.

Oh really? My MMF is paying 2.47 per annum today.

Bullshit.

"According to Bankrate, the average MMA interest rate has sunk from 0.52% at the beginning of 2012 to 0.12% in early 2018."

The highest loss'leader I can find is 1.7% :
https://www.thesimpledollar.com/best-money-market-account/

Vanguard Prime Money Market you fucking douchebag.

Oh.

That explains it.

You're getting the "you fucking douchebag" rate.

 

[BotanyBoy]

He just took away a billion dollars from California and tied it in a tweet specifically to California's idiotic suit disputing the very power that Congress gave the president.

No California can spend millions and millions of dollars that they don't have trying to keep the three billion dollars that Obama gave them for their idiotic Rail Project. Sounds to me like lots and lots of lazy union pukes who were getting paid davis-bacon wages are going to be out of work for years while they litigate that.

More homeless for California progressives to take care of.

Will they open their doors or hire more armed security to patrol the walls around their rich communities?

I'm betting on more armed security.

It's been lots 'o fun watching the Deplorables conflate the stock market with economic success, watching them swing up and down with the fluctuations in the volatile market.

Stay with it. Many more pages of fun ahead!

Volatility is opportunity.

Most of them have no idea how to make money in it.

Clearly coati doesn't....he seems to think volatility is BAD! And that's just not true for all investor strategies.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Today's score: Downsouth 1, Queerbait 0

I can admit when I'm wrong. I grabbed data from over a year ago. As it turns out anyone can get your "Adre is a fucking douchebag ." Rate.

The larger point remains though that the 24-month return-on-investment is still rather impressive even with the easily predictable Market correction that occurred.

So I was right, and you were wrong.

And by the way, a year-to-year comparison is an industry standard.
I recognize that a 24 month cherry-pick supports your position better, but it's simply not a generally accepted industry comparison.

#MathsIsHard
#HeTriesSoooHard
#SelfProclaimedSmartestGuyOnTehGeneralBoard

 

[RobDownSouth]

Volatility is opportunity.

My point exactly.

2% return on a low-beta (low volatility) fund: Good
2% return on a high-beta (high volality) fund: Bad

Higher risk should result in higher rewards. Nothing is ever guaranteed of course (with the exception of any of Que's kids ever cracking the 80 IQ barrier).

 

[Que]

I'd say investors having a return of 32% INCLUDING the correction is pretty healthy. You and Adre go ahead and park it in an MMA if you wish.

"Industry standard?"

Actually ...advertised rates of returns on the industry are generally tracked on a 5-year basis to see how anyone is doing. Year-to-year is pretty meaningless.

5 years in this point would make any sense because of course the ROI would be drug down by the Obama economy.

 

[Que]

But fine if you want to disregard all of the gains of the Trump economy and only focus on the short-term Market correction?...challenge made challenge accepted.

Let's go ahead and revisit this one year to the date of Rory's latest crowing about a downturn and let's just see whether the rate of return is 2% or whether it is perhaps a bit higher than that.

 

[Que]

Rory was orgasmic in December when the DJIA dipped below 22,000.

Let's see if the market out-performs BobsDownSouth's prediction of 2% growth by December of 2019.

 

[coati]

Clearly coati doesn't....he seems to think volatility is BAD! And that's just not true for all investor strategies.

Actually, I was not speaking from the investor point of view. I've done fine in that department.

I was talking about the foolishness of focusing on the stock market index as an indicator of the economic health of a nation. It is relatively easy to cause market upswings that are based on building bubbles or ripping off our children and grandchildren in one way or another.

 

[bbx56]

Actually, I was not speaking from the investor point of view. I've done fine in that department.

I was talking about the foolishness of focusing on the stock market index as an indicator of the economic health of a nation. It is relatively easy to cause market upswings that are based on building bubbles or ripping off our children and grandchildren in one way or another.

Asshole, vote AOC

 

[Que]

Actually, I was not speaking from the investor point of view. I've done fine in that department.

I was talking about the foolishness of focusing on the stock market index as an indicator of the economic health of a nation. It is relatively easy to cause market upswings that are based on building bubbles or ripping off our children and grandchildren in one way or another.

That's funny. The one slightly bright spot during the entire Obama economy was the stock market which was mostly the direct result of bad monetary policy that resulted in negative interest rates so that people could invest in the stock market for free.

Can you point to a post of yours during the Obama stock market bubble that you were complaining about how those monetary policies were a theft from our children and grandchildren?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rory was orgasmic in December when the DJIA dipped below 22,000.

Let's see if the market out-performs BobsDownSouth's prediction of 2% growth by December of 2019.

I made no such "prediction".

I simply said a 2% ROI was pathetic.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Actually, I was not speaking from the investor point of view. I've done fine in that department.

I was talking about the foolishness of focusing on the stock market index as an indicator of the economic health of a nation. It is relatively easy to cause market upswings that are based on building bubbles or ripping off our children and grandchildren in one way or another.

BotanyBoy has made something of a career of misrepresenting people's comments and redefining the generally accepted meaning of words.

"We've always been at war with Eastasia"

 

[Que]

I forget...were you still hiding from your ignominious hame about Hillary as of February 2018? Can you point to the post that you made at that time about how you would characterize the stock market growth from February 2017 to February 2018?

Bonus question which of the trumps current energy policies are resulting in the low price I'm paying at the pump?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Queef seems a tad manic today in his attempts to get me to "play defense".

#DeflectorsGonnaDeflect

 

[Que]

I agree. Your positions are indefensibly inconsistent.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My point exactly.

2% return on a low-beta (low volatility) fund: Good
2% return on a high-beta (high volality) fund: Bad

Higher risk should result in higher rewards. Nothing is ever guaranteed of course (with the exception of any of Que's kids ever cracking the 80 IQ barrier).

I agree with you 100% sans the shit talk.

Actually, I was not speaking from the investor point of view. I've done fine in that department.

If that's the case then why are you so supportive of the left that wants to shut that all down and keep you from making your money?

I was talking about the foolishness of focusing on the stock market index as an indicator of the economic health of a nation. It is relatively easy to cause market upswings that are based on building bubbles or ripping off our children and grandchildren in one way or another.

It is pretty myopic to only use the stock market, but it's a rare thing to see that.

But it's equally myopic to ignore it as one too, also rare.

All markets are bubbles...some deflate, others go BOOM! But they are all bubbles.

And the only people I see with an open and proud desire to rip the kids/grandkids off is this radical left faction that's broken off from the socially liberal Democrats who are now being called DINO's at best but far more commonly alt-right Nazi sympathizers for not wanting to Soviet the USA like the "true" progressives.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I agree. Your positions are indefensibly inconsistent.

Yes yes, "I know you are but what am I?"

Go outside and play with your little friends while it's still light out.

 

[coati]

Stock market is not the only game...

If that's the case then why are you so supportive of the left that wants to shut that all down and keep you from making your money?

You tend to generalize about the leftist boogey man. I made just as much or more money during the Clinton and Obama administrations as I did during the Bush and Trump administrations. I actually took a hit toward the end of the GW Bush administration (2008 crash), but recovered and have been investing less in equity markets since then.

The stock market is not the only game. Under Trump it is too volatile for my comfort level. I got started in business investments and some food commodities early in life because of my agricultural profession. They are becoming even more important to my investment portfolio now.

I don't want to be solely invested in the stock market-- it's an under-regulated house of cards under this president (even more than it was under GW Bush). Plus, I don't believe in investing in fossil fuel dependent markets at a time when we should be transitioning to energy conservation and greater use of renewable energy resources.

Also, I focused on reducing monthly costs rather than playing in markets I don't support for ethical or stability reasons. So, about 10 years ago, I finished building an extremely well insulated home that is powered with photovoltaics and solar heating systems. My average energy bill (grid electricity from the local utility to run my refrigerator, well, and shop equipment) is less than $25 per month. That includes pumping water for the house and garden.

The solar powered house and the garden were excellent investments that save me over $600 per month in utility and food costs on a 40-acre property. The land also yields mesquite flour that I sell wholesale. The house and solar systems did not cost more to build than a conventional house with active heating and cooling systems. I just spent more on insulation and solar collectors than I would have on gas heating, AC, and window dressing type crap.

The house is very temperature stable and comfortable, but not fancy. The concrete floors are heated in the winter with solar heated water, and cooled in the summer with water that is pumped out of my well on its way to the drip system in the garden. I also have an evap cooling system that operates on rainwater collected from the roof, so I don't get salt build-up on the cooling pads.

I don't think this is a good time to depend upon the stock market for a sustainable income. I'm mostly investing in local businesses and real goods. I think the house of cards will probably crash again, and next time, due to the growing national debt, there will be less resources available to prevent a run on the banks by bailing them out.

 

[doowdniw]

Everyone is a genius in a bull market.

 

[Que]

Everyone is a genius in a bull market.

Not everybody. Look at the Chicken Little impression that Paul Krugman and Rory engage in every time there's a hiccup.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You tend to generalize about the leftist boogey man. I made just as much or more money during the Clinton and Obama administrations as I did during the Bush and Trump administrations.

No I don't think I do, I think your conflating left ideology and party again.

Clinton and Obama were both semi social liberal but mostly neo-liberal right wingers.

They were NOT left wing.

I'm talking about all these new actual leftist, legitimate socialist (D)arling children of the democrats who openly advocate nationalizing huge chunks of if not all of our economy and have centralized control over the distribution of goods and services.

People like K. Harris, E. Warren, C. Booker, B. Sandazzzzizz, AOC, M. Watters....and the 70 other (D)'s that backed that insane new green deal another highly praised WONDERFUL shot at the stars from a brilliant, brave, and beautiful young Latina woman who beat a white man...are all well to the left of even Obama.

That chunk of the DNC went from social liberals (which are just right of center), to as far left as you can go without taking up arms, Democratic Socialism.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to support these ideas with your fervent defense and praise of these Democratic Socialist and the socialistic ideals they advocate....wealth redistribution, centralized economic controls, government control over who you're allowed to interact with, how you're allowed to interact with them, what you're allowed to say, social justice, economic equity etc.

You realize the ideals being promoted by those people are directly opposed to the very notion of profiting from private capital investment... right?

I don't think this is a good time to depend upon the stock market for a sustainable income. I'm mostly investing in local businesses and real goods.

*edited just to keep length under control*

I agree with you in staying diverse with your investments, always wise.

I think the house of cards will probably crash again, and next time, due to the growing national debt, there will be less resources available to prevent a run on the banks by bailing them out.

You're right it will shit the bed again, not even a doubt, it's just a matter of when.

3 years? 5? 10?

If we don't eat some austerity and do some serious budget clean up and investment prioritization in a deliberate/controlled manner, I think we are going on the shorter and harsher side of things and eat terrible austerity in an uncontrolled manner.

And you're right about not being able to do "too big to fail" again...that was fucking scandalous barely managed to fly bullshit the first time.

 

[Rightguide]

Rory was orgasmic in December when the DJIA dipped below 22,000.

Let's see if the market out-performs BobsDownSouth's prediction of 2% growth by December of 2019.

Poor Rory, it's been a bad couple of weeks.

 

[coati]

That chunk of the DNC went from social liberals (which are just right of center), to as far left as you can go without taking up arms, Democratic Socialism.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to support these ideas with your fervent defense and praise of these Democratic Socialist and the socialistic ideals they advocate....wealth redistribution, centralized economic controls, government control over who you're allowed to interact with, how you're allowed to interact with them, what you're allowed to say, social justice, economic equity etc.

You realize the ideals being promoted by those people are directly opposed to the very notion of profiting from private capital investment... right?

I think you are reading too much into Democratic primary election politics that will have little or no relevance to the general election or to actual governing after the election.

At this early stage, candidates always play to the base. Many of the Democratic candidates are having to compensate for the fact that things have swung so far to the right under Trump/McConnell, resulting in the deconstruction of the ACA, the abandonment of critical environmental protections, the gutting of consumer protection regulations, the destruction of international alliances, and increasing income disparity.

Playing to the base increases enthusiasm-- something Hillary could not do effectively because she was so conservative. So the new crop of candidates will run to the left, and then the one who gets nominated will moderate.

While I do think we will end up with a less conservative candidate this time, I am hoping it will be someone like Klobuchar, who seems to have a better understanding about what can actually be accomplished. For example, she supports adding Medicare as a public option in the insurance exchanges, not Medicare for all. She knows free college for all is not a realistic campaign promise, and she is being honest about that. She knows that international alliances are important to resolving international crises and won't flip between isolationism and sword rattling. She understands that anthropogenic climate change is real, but also understands that incentives will be the key to switching over to a 21st century energy economy. She appears to be much more of a grown-up than some of the other Democratic candidates, and certainly more than our current president.

There may be other candidates like her that are not as evident yet.