Black Swan Event Under Way

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by blutoski

I was trying to steer toward, "Those kids aren't suckers, you'll have to pay a fair price," and away from a "Those kids are lazy welfare bums and I want them to work at a loss so I can pay less at the till," kind of conversation.

Except that's bollocks - they would not be working at a loss, and the exact opposite is true. They would be earning (net after all costs) two or three times what they're earning for doing nothing.

Originally Posted by blutoski

To reiterate, up here in BC, the labour shortage is due to barriers to international temporary workers (who don't know their rights and end up getting underpaid) being able to migrate into the area at critical harvest periods, not because kids are suddenly lazy with the Cov.

Yes, that was the point of both of the links I posted - the need has arisen because migrant workers can't get here, hence the call for locals to do the jobs.

Unfortunately, I know for certain it's a case of Kiwis being too lazy, because I even had free accommodation arranged through a friend if I could get a group to go down there, but there were no takers. I was going to lead a bunch of youngsters along with my own, but every person I talked to - all aged 17-21 - thought it didn't look like much fun and they were happy to have less money and no work.

And this isn't some derelict part of NZ, it's a very nice area, with excellent weather and great beaches - the ideal Kiwi getaway, and you don't work all the time. Most of the workers start early and finish about 3, getting 6 hours of daylight to play in.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Unfortunately, I know for certain it's a case of Kiwis being too lazy, because I even had free accommodation arranged through a friend if I could get a group to go down there, but there were no takers. I was going to lead a bunch of youngsters along with my own, but every person I talked to - all aged 17-21 - thought it didn't look like much fun and they were happy to have less money and no work.

Prioritizing happiness over financial gain isn't "lazy", it's just placing different values on things than you do.

I could change jobs to one that pays more but is more stressful. To me, that isn't worth it because I prefer my current level of contentedness to a higher salary.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by blutoski

Yes.

Originally Posted by blutoski

Having said that... I *have* been contributing biweekly, so maybe all of that 51% is new contributions for all anybody here knows.

"On the Internet nobody knows if you're a dog beginning investor."

Contributing so your portfolio grows by that much in a year still might be good.

Originally Posted by blutoski

I can't speak to that example, but we had something similar here in the Fraser Valley. "Come pick our cranberries for less than minimum wage, and also we charge more in room and board than we're offering in salary. We'll accept a cheque."

The Grapes of Wrath comes to mind.

[The Atheist]

Speaks for itself: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/15/u...rus/index.html

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Speaks for itself: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/15/u...rus/index.html

Quote:

North Texas Food Bank (NTFB) distributed more than 600,000 pounds of food for about 25,000 people on Saturday, according to spokeswoman Anna Kurian...

Photos provided by NTFB show thousands of cars lined up for NTFB's Drive-Thru Mobile Pantry at Fair Park. Kurian said the need for food "has certainly increased" with the pandemic, with Texas last week becoming the first US state to report 1 million cases of coronavirus.

"Forty percent of the folks coming through our partners doors are doing so for the first time," she said.

But hey, this was totally predictable - and certainly not unexpected. No black swans here!

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Prioritizing happiness over financial gain isn't "lazy", it's just placing different values on things than you do.

I could change jobs to one that pays more but is more stressful. To me, that isn't worth it because I prefer my current level of contentedness to a higher salary.

This is pretty much a description of my career trajectory. I'm probably at half my potential income in exchange for being able to spend my limited hours on this planet with an appropriate quality of life.

The loss of migrant workers may not be exposing laziness of the current potential workforce - it could be revealing their relative informed-ness, well-rounded-ness, and perhaps wisdom.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

The Grapes of Wrath comes to mind.

I have a relative who owns a tourist attraction and uses seasonal workers from May-Aug. The location is remote, so they set up a bunkhouse situation.

It's essentially a company town, in the style of Tom Vu. Bait and switch stuff.

For those who don't know the scam, Vu offered a cheap real estate investing seminar in a hotel in the Caribbean. It was a good deal on paper, the students just had to arrange for transportation, accommodation, meals on their own. And of course, his family owned *everything* down there, so the seminar was a loss leader into the family business, which was... transportation, accommodation, and food.

So, here's my relative who offers a competitive salary. But accommodations are kinda pricey. And food... there's a food canteen that his wife runs, where you can buy a $5 coke. And a fridge rental fee if you actually do your own shopping and want to store produce. About that shopping... how are you getting to town? $50 for a ride to town and back.

Oh, and accommodation doesn't include weekends, since those aren't work days. So $100/day for Sat and Sun, or of course you could get a ride to town and back for $50. And you need a walkie-talkie... don't have one? No problem, $25/day rental. It goes on and on and I'm personally embarrassed for him, but somehow he gets suckers every summer.

[Samson]

I am forecasting the following.
1. Sharemarkets have peaked, the vaccines look good, so sell the news.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am forecasting the following.
1. Sharemarkets have peaked, the vaccines look good, so sell the news.

I won't be able to tell if your prediction is accurate because I can't parse it.

"Sharemarkets have peaked" - there are peaks and troughs all the time. Can you be more specific? A specific index, figure, and a length of time in which it won't be reached again, say?

"vaccines look good" - a statement, not a prediction.

"sell the news"- I have absolutely no idea what that means.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I won't be able to tell if your prediction is accurate because I can't parse it.

"Sharemarkets have peaked" - there are peaks and troughs all the time. Can you be more specific? A specific index, figure, and a length of time in which it won't be reached again, say?

"vaccines look good" - a statement, not a prediction.

"sell the news"- I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Sell the news is a simple adage.

In this case everyone buys the shares because they are oh so smart knowing the vaccine is around the corner.
Who will be a fresh buyer now the vaccine is a cogent “thing”?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Samson

Sell the news is a simple adage.

In this case everyone buys the shares because they are oh so smart knowing the vaccine is around the corner.
Who will be a fresh buyer now the vaccine is a cogent “thing”?

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by lionking

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

I thought it was just me.

[Meadmaker]

I've heard "sell the news" before.

It basically means that if a stock goes up based on a favorable news report, that is a good time to sell. The theory behind it is that the market tends to overreact to news stories, so a positive news story results in an overpriced stock, which means it's a good time to sell.

All of that depends on market timing, though, which is pretty questionable all by itself.

[Samson]

'Buy the rumour, sell the fact"

is commonly said.

ETA

SP500 peaked at 3674 on the Pfizer announcement day. This remains the high and closed for the weekend at 3556.4, looking weak. Early days, but it makes sense for people to start watching interest rates and so on.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Samson

I am forecasting the following.
1. Sharemarkets have peaked, the vaccines look good, so sell the news.

Originally Posted by Samson

Sell the news is a simple adage.

In this case everyone buys the shares because they are oh so smart knowing the vaccine is around the corner.
Who will be a fresh buyer now the vaccine is a cogent “thing”?

In that case, that's already happened.

I've seen the share prices jump and jump for the vaccine companies I've looked at when they have news.

Even every time when there's an announcement and it's not even significant news on the vaccine.

[The Atheist]

Bali - official unemployment rate 7.5%; real unemployment rate, up to 80%.

Quote:

Yoga, who has been running the Yayasan Team Action Amed charity foundation since 2017, said mothers were feeding their babies water because they couldn’t pay for formula.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/3...dreds-starving

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/3...dreds-starving

Who cares about a few starving brown people? The stock market's doing great!

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I've seen the share prices jump and jump for the vaccine companies I've looked at when they have news.

Even every time when there's an announcement and it's not even significant news on the vaccine.

Yep, Capitalism is a wonderful thing. You would think a worldwide pandemic would crash the markets and leave investors starving in the streets, but in fact it's doing the opposite. Drug companies are making a 'killing' out of it, and a rising market floats all boats. The other great thing is the virus is killing off old and poor people who were just a drag on the economy.

Some say that in the long run the virus will have damaged the economy, but there is no reason to believe this is true. Earlier in the year it was faltering, but Covid-19 has re-energized it. All those new money making opportunities!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Who cares about a few starving brown people? The stock market's doing great!

Yep, Capitalism is a wonderful thing. You would think a worldwide pandemic would crash the markets and leave investors starving in the streets, but in fact it's doing the opposite. Drug companies are making a 'killing' out of it, and a rising market floats all boats. The other great thing is the virus is killing off old and poor people who were just a drag on the economy.

Some say that in the long run the virus will have damaged the economy, but there is no reason to believe this is true. Earlier in the year it was faltering, but Covid-19 has re-energized it. All those new money making opportunities!

Who are you mad at here? What do you want them to do about it? Would it fix an unemployment problem if everyone dumped all their investments right now?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Who cares about a few starving brown people? The stock market's doing great!

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Some say that in the long run the virus will have damaged the economy, but there is no reason to believe this is true. Earlier in the year it was faltering, but Covid-19 has re-energized it. All those new money making opportunities!

You're incorrectly conflating the economy and the sharemarket. The economy is still crap, and what's happening in Bali will be reflected everywhere in good time to some degree.

The problem is - and I said this way back at the start of the thread - governments have limited means of helping the economy, and as it turns out, they took the worst possible option of printing an almost infinite amount of money. Billionaires are truly grateful, because the trillions of dollars tipped into the economy has flowed directly upwards, and the brunt of the pandemic, like the disease itself, will be borne by the bottom half of asset owners.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're incorrectly conflating the economy and the sharemarket. The economy is still crap

Yes, but we will never know it because the measures we use for economic 'health' don't count people dying of disease or starvation. Economics is supposed to be about the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, but in practice it's all about money. If GDP and investments increase in 'value' then it's purportedly all good - never mind what's happening in reality. You could have 80% of the population starving and it wouldn't hurt the economy provided plenty of 'goods' and 'services' were being traded. And we have Bitcoin now, so we don't even need real products anymore.

Of course it will all coming crashing down eventually, but then we will just blame it on poor people like we did last time.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

governments have limited means of helping the economy, and as it turns out, they took the worst possible option of printing an almost infinite amount of money.

Not infinite, just enough to stop the economy from collapsing.

Quote:

Billionaires are truly grateful, because the trillions of dollars tipped into the economy has flowed directly upwards, and the brunt of the pandemic, like the disease itself, will be borne by the bottom half of asset owners.

But that is what always happens in a capitalist economy. The only way to prevent it is go communist socialist, which is impossible in today's political environment. And we all know that communism socialism has failed everywhere it was tried - just look at Venezuela!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Yes, but we will never know it because the measures we use for economic 'health' don't count people dying of disease or starvation.

Unemployment is definitely a factor, and those numbers are bad right now.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Not infinite, just enough to stop the economy from collapsing.

I dispute that. I think far more easing has taken place than necessary, and the increase in asset values tends to confirm that.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

But that is what always happens in a capitalist economy. The only way to prevent it is go communist socialist, which is impossible in today's political environment. And we all know that communism socialism has failed everywhere it was tried - just look at Venezuela!

Nicely put.

[lionking]

I just moved my superannuation savings out of cash into a balanced fund. With the virus virtually eliminate in Australia and vaccines around the corner I believe this is a safe pathway. I expect to soon be earning 7-8%.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by lionking

I just moved my superannuation savings out of cash into a balanced fund. With the virus virtually eliminate in Australia and vaccines around the corner I believe this is a safe pathway. I expect to soon be earning 7-8%.

Smart plan - as long as central banks keeps interest rates close to zero, the sharemarket will keep burning.

Rather a lot of ordinary people, however, are being ****** over.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden...b6636e09256b28

We have the perfect two-speed economy now, the rich keep getting richer, at the expense of the poor, who keep getting poorer. Milton Friedman will be chortling in his grave.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Smart plan - as long as central banks keeps interest rates close to zero, the sharemarket will keep burning.

Rather a lot of ordinary people, however, are being ****** over.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden...b6636e09256b28

We have the perfect two-speed economy now, the rich keep getting richer, at the expense of the poor, who keep getting poorer. Milton Friedman will be chortling in his grave.

Oh yes, poor people in the US will be hard hit. Not so much in Australia. Welfare payments went up sharply during lockdown and will stay higher I think. And there are billions being invested into social housing.

All in all, our welfare and pension systems are holding out well. The main losers are those who retire while paying rent (they get rental assistance) and not owning homes.

I’m hardly rich, bringing up 7 kids on one income, but comfortable.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

We have the perfect two-speed economy now, the rich keep getting richer, at the expense of the poor, who keep getting poorer. Milton Friedman will be chortling in his grave.

Slight clarification here. Rich means anyone whose income comes mainly from owning shares. The poor are anyone else without a good education. I also suggest that the number of people who do not fall into either group will go down over time.

The reason is that capital growth and share income will increase faster than wages, which probably will not go up much. This has some very bad consequences.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Slight clarification here. Rich means anyone whose income comes mainly from owning shares. The poor are anyone else without a good education.

Oh wow - only the uneducated are poor.

You should let people know that.

(and "rich" is asset rich, shares are only relevant in being one class of asset, but certainly not the only reason people are asset-rich)

[The Atheist]

Looks like at least 60% of Americans must be uneducated, then. 60% of them currently living pay to pay: https://www.studyfinds.org/two-third...-during-covid/

Merry ******* Christmas

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

We have the perfect two-speed economy now, the rich keep getting richer, at the expense of the poor, who keep getting poorer. Milton Friedman will be chortling in his grave.

But what good is their wealth if they don't use it? Do they hide it in a tin box under the the bed? No. They invest it. Without that investment banks wouldn't be able to make loans, business confidence would nosedive and the economy would stall. Markets would not have the flexibility required to adapt to the virus, unemployment would stay high, goods would not be produced and inflation would skyrocket. Bad news all round.

Compared to that, letting a few rich people get even richer is no big deal, and easily corrected for by simply raising their taxes. But even if we don't it's still better than if we cut them out. You only have to look at Venezuela to see what happens when you do that.

Is there another way? Sure - but the political backlash from implementing full-on socialism would be catastrophic. Like it not, we need to let the rich get richer right now. We can hit them later when the pandemic is over!

[The Great Zaganza]

Investment isn't an end in itself.

We have too much investment capital and not enough investment in health, education, infrastructure.

Supply-side economics makes no sense unless you also assist with the demand.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

But what good is their wealth if they don't use it? Do they hide it in a tin box under the the bed? No. They invest it. Without that investment banks wouldn't be able to make loans, business confidence would nosedive and the economy would stall. Markets would not have the flexibility required to adapt to the virus, unemployment would stay high, goods would not be produced and inflation would skyrocket. Bad news all round.

Compared to that, letting a few rich people get even richer is no big deal, and easily corrected for by simply raising their taxes. But even if we don't it's still better than if we cut them out. You only have to look at Venezuela to see what happens when you do that.

Is there another way? Sure - but the political backlash from implementing full-on socialism would be catastrophic. Like it not, we need to let the rich get richer right now. We can hit them later when the pandemic is over!

This is actually an old topic, and the research is pretty clear and looks bad for theories like trickle down economics. The active phenomenon is what's called a 'marginal propensity to save' which is progressive with income. And that makes sense, since wealthier people have more breathing space in their disposable income, having cleared the baseline human needs.

So, the effect is that if the government wants to improve peoples' lives, the money is best spent with things like stimulus cheques for everybody rather than a tax cut for the wealthy.

This is because of the mechanics: $1B in stimulus cheques helps 100MM people pay their rent. $1B in tax cuts for the 1% helps 500 people hoover up real estate and consolidate local markets, so they can raise rents, making 100MM people's rent higher.

The Atheist and I don't agree on everything but I 100% agree that there's a surge in the 1%'s asset accumulation right now, at the cost for the other 99%.

The expression is "K shaped recovery" where the prospect for individual households is either rising or falling in a bimodal pattern right now. I believe it's a problem brewing.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

But what good is their wealth if they don't use it? Do they hide it in a tin box under the the bed? No. They invest it. Without that investment banks wouldn't be able to make loans, business confidence would nosedive and the economy would stall.

Sorry, but that's a load of horse hooey.

The richest people don't have billions in the bank, or billions in investments outside of their own companies, and the ability of banks to lend has nothing to do with it.

There are so many errors in that thinking I'd fall asleep listing them all.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Compared to that, letting a few rich people get even richer is no big deal, and easily corrected for by simply raising their taxes. But even if we don't it's still better than if we cut them out. You only have to look at Venezuela to see what happens when you do that.

Venezuela's situation has everything to do with corruption and nothing to do with taking money off the rich.

Your post is so out of touch I'm wondering if it's a deliberate Poe.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Is there another way? Sure - but the political backlash from implementing full-on socialism would be catastrophic. Like it not, we need to let the rich get richer right now. We can hit them later when the pandemic is over!

Yeah, and that's really going to happen.

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Venezuela's situation has everything to do with corruption and nothing to do with taking money off the rich.

I've seen some people specifically point out Venezuela's new wealth tax, which is a 2% of certain asset valuations above a multimillion dollar threshold as an example of kleptocracy, but I point out it affects something like 200 Venezuelans, most of whom looted public assets during a previous administration and IMO is pretty reasonable.

If that's the worst case scenario, I'm actually all for it.

[Samson]

A land tax is the perfect solution. It will pay the covid debt and remedy the inequity.

[The Atheist]

If you think Cinderella would even think about the idea in her wildest nightmares, you're kidding yourself.

Will not happen.

But you're right.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Venezuela's situation has everything to do with corruption and nothing to do with taking money off the rich.

Not true.

How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela

Quote:

Many in the media have blamed Venezuela’s worsening humanitarian crisis on corruption, mismanagement, falling oil prices, or U.S sanctions—anything but the rise of socialism in what was once the wealthiest country in South America.

Yet corruption and mismanagement were the direct result of increased government control of the economy—socialism—and in reality, lower oil prices and U.S. sanctions have little to do with the crisis. Instead, the mass starvation and exodus faced by Venezuelans are the natural consequence of the socialist policies implemented by dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro...

There are three main policies implemented by Chavez since 1999 that produced the current crisis: Widespread nationalization of private industry, currency and price controls, and the fiscally irresponsible expansion of welfare programs.

One of Chavez’s first actions was to start nationalizing the agriculture sector, supposedly reducing poverty and inequality by taking from rich landowners to give to poor workers. From 1999 to 2016, his regime robbed more than 6 million hectares of land from its rightful owners.

...as state control of the agricultural industry increased, Venezuela’s food production fell 75% in two decades while the country’s population increased by 33%. This was a recipe for shortages and economic disaster. After agriculture, the regime nationalized electricity, water, oil, banks, supermarkets, construction, and other crucial sectors. And in all these sectors, the government increased payrolls and gave away products at low cost, resulting in days-long countrywide blackouts, frequent water service interruptions, falling oil production, and bankrupt government enterprises.

The socialist regime also implemented price ceilings on hundreds of basic products such as beef, milk and toilet paper. At artificially low prices, more people were willing to buy these products but the few private factories left—not nationalized—could not profit at the government-capped price, so they reduced or halted their production. Instead of benefiting the poor, price ceilings predictably resulted in shortages...

In this way, socialism run rampant—not cronyism, corruption, falling oil prices, or U.S. sanctions—caused the crisis in Venezuela. Welfare programs that were supposed to help the poor actually increased the cost of living. A foreign currency control that aimed to reduce inflation only increased it and allowed for massive corruption. And nationalizations that should have given “power” to workers only left them unemployed and hungry.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by blutoski

So, the effect is that if the government wants to improve peoples' lives, the money is best spent with things like stimulus cheques for everybody rather than a tax cut for the wealthy.

Who was talking about a tax cut for the wealthy? Not me.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela

Or... How it's not Socialism x 4.

https://psmag.com/ideas/corruption-n...down-venezuela
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...my/3323566001/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...isnt-socialism
https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories...out-oil/92669/

Plenty more where they came from.

Anyway, the thread's not about them, so we'll agree to disagree on that one, ok?

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by lionking

I just moved my superannuation savings out of cash into a balanced fund. With the virus virtually eliminate in Australia and vaccines around the corner I believe this is a safe pathway. I expect to soon be earning 7-8%.

You know that your investments are making rich people richer, right? And if you have significant investments making 7-8% then you are getting richer too. IOW, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Everyone here who decries 'the rich getting richer' yet is making any amount of money on investments in today's economy is actually making the situation worse. Poor people don't have money to invest, they are ground into an endless cycle of poverty while rich people insist they aren't actually rich and point fingers at a few at the top, while bragging about how much their investments are making.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Anyway, the thread's not about them,

No, but it's relevant because it shows that simplistic solutions like robbing the rich and handing out money to the poor don't work in the long run.

Quote:

The richest people don't have billions in the bank, or billions in investments outside of their own companies, and the ability of banks to lend has nothing to do with it.

The richest people aren't the problem, and while they do have most of their wealth tied up in their businesses that doesn't mean banks have nothing to do with it.

Take Elon Musk for example, who today Passed Bernard Arnault To Become The World’s Second Richest Person. Most of his wealth is tied up in company stock, and few bad decisions or even just bad luck could easily bankrupt him (as it almost did a few years ago). Tesla is worth a lot, but also has a lot of loans to service, payroll to make etc.

If Musk's business goes under then so do the livelihoods of thousands of Tesla employees and other companies they do business with. Imagine Tesla failing because they can't get loans to expand and so can't make new car models, which rich people buy (and so spread their wealth around). You say big deal, Musk's rich so he can afford it - but the effect on the economy of many big businesses going under would be catastrophic. Musk may be staggeringly rich, buts that's no reason to let Tesla fail.

The government could just keep handing out 'stimulus' checks to poor people so they don't need a job, but that wouldn't help in the long run. The economy doesn't work unless businesses are producing goods and services for those unemployed people to buy. That's what happened in Venezuela. Not enough food was being produced, and factory efficiency dropped when they nationalized, resulting in shortages and hyperinflation. 'Printing money' to keep the financial system going works, doing it to prevent shortages due to too few people working doesn't.