• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Are we in another bubble about to burst?

The stock market is doing well but people really have no viable alternative to invest money when the banks pay .10% interest.

I believe a correction will happen also, but maybe not right away as businesses are doing well.

But without a crystal ball, nobody can say for sure when the "bubble" will burst.

The stock market, IMO is sort of like gambling at the moment.
 
Yes, we will have a full scale depression when the tax cuts take effect. This is because with the tax cuts, comes more deregulation. All the wealth is going to the top, from the bottom, which creates less money from consumers. The wealthy will continue to do well, though.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, we will have a full scale depression when the tax cuts take effect. This is because with the tax cuts, comes more deregulation. All the wealth is going to the top, from the bottom, which creates less money from consumers. The wealthy will continue to do well, though.
Click to expand...

Well, the tax cuts are going to extract wealth from seniors primarily, so it'll take the form of people eating more Ramen instead of more expensive grocery store items, people being unable to afford medications and maybe dying sooner* (a trend that's probably already started), weeks without electricity when people can't pay the light bill, and things of that nature. I'm not sure how much that suffering will bleed over into "the economy" (or the stock market) in the traditional sense, the way trillions of dollars in home values sort of evaporating overnight did a decade ago.

There's a chance overall "consumer demand" will stay about the same if the ultra rich start really taking advantage of those nifty tax breaks for more private jets or whatever, I think.

*come to think of it, what would be the economic effect of all the economically unproductive elderly just being neglected into death even more quickly, really? Like, what if we just went ahead and replaced SS and Medicare with buses to send them off into the Ozarks to forage for nuts and berries? I honestly don't know what Mr Market would think of that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no opinion on that subject. My interest stops at the meaning of "cause." Specifically non-normative conversation about it.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? You're not interested in conversation about the subject where the conversation doesn't conform to some "norm" that you haven't established? Well aren't you a special snowflake.
 
Travis said:
Is this all irrational investing? Is this a bubble about to pop?
Click to expand...

No.

The market crashed in 2008. Investors felt uncertain about the economy
from 2009 to 2016. Essentially, no one invested in the stock market,
preferring bonds instead and overseas investments, leaving only stock
buybacks and dividend reinvestment as the drivers of growth.

Just after the start of November last year, in investors realized a positive
change in the economy and started putting money back into the market.
The sudden 25% rise over a year looks impressive but it will probably drop
back to 20% the next year, followed by a 16.67% gain, then a 14.28% gain,
and so on. Eventually, it will fall back to the market average for a century
of 5.5% per year.

So no bubble. Outflows from bond funds and overseas funds into the market
for the next eight years. In other words, just a rebalancing that no one will
find interesting.

P. S. BobTheCoward meet Tippit, Tippit meet BobTheCoward. :D
 
Tippit said:
What does that mean? You're not interested in conversation about the subject where the conversation doesn't conform to some "norm" that you haven't established? Well aren't you a special snowflake.
Click to expand...

Disinterest is the exact opposite of "snowflake."

Normative (as used in economics) and norm are not the same thing.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Disinterest is the exact opposite of "snowflake."

Normative (as used in economics) and norm are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

You should be interested, since you posted on this thread which is about bubbles. You see, bubbles are defined by excesses in nominal prices, which are a function not only of the supply and demand of the asset or other bubbles in question, but of the supply and demand of the thing that they are denominated in - money!

Since the supply of and demand for assets is more or less stable compared to the supply of fiat money, which can be and is infinitely issued and reproduced by the Federal Reserve, it stands to (very simple) reason that it is the creation of excesses of money and credit which is the primary cause of price bubbles no matter what form they take, and since it is the Federal Reserve with the exclusive power to create money, it is the Federal Reserve which is the primary culprit.

If the supply of money were static, then any peak in one price must be offset by a trough in another price, or combination of prices, somewhere else. I defy you to identify an asset or group of assets which has declined sufficiently to provide a supply of money capable of creating asset bubbles elsewhere. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can reach, is that the supply of money has increased dramatically, and once again, we know who the culprit is.
 
Tippit said:
You should be interested, since you posted on this thread which is about bubbles. You see, bubbles are defined by excesses in nominal prices, which are a function not only of the supply and demand of the asset or other bubbles in question, but of the supply and demand of the thing that they are denominated in - money!

Since the supply of and demand for assets is more or less stable compared to the supply of fiat money, which can be and is infinitely issued and reproduced by the Federal Reserve, it stands to (very simple) reason that it is the creation of excesses of money and credit which is the primary cause of price bubbles no matter what form they take, and since it is the Federal Reserve with the exclusive power to create money, it is the Federal Reserve which is the primary culprit.

If the supply of money were static, then any peak in one price must be offset by a trough in another price, or combination of prices, somewhere else. I defy you to identify an asset or group of assets which has declined sufficiently to provide a supply of money capable of creating asset bubbles elsewhere. Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can reach, is that the supply of money has increased dramatically, and once again, we know who the culprit is.
Click to expand...

Tl;dr
 
psionl0 said:
One of these posts is not like the others.

Click to expand...

They are all the same. I'm only interested in the use of the term "make" as a matter of coercion and free will, cause and effect. It doesn't matter on what subject make is being used.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are all the same. I'm only interested in the use of the term "make" as a matter of coercion and free will, cause and effect. It doesn't matter on what subject make is being used.
Click to expand...
Your apparent disinterest only manifested itself when your comment about the Fed "making" people buy houses was shown to be silly and irrelevant.
 
psionl0 said:
Your apparent disinterest only manifested itself when your comment about the Fed "making" people buy houses was shown to be silly and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You would think if I had an interest in the federal reserve I would have made a comment on one of the 12th other posts in the thread. It's as if I only focused on the specific part that interested me and had nothing to do with the federal reserve.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You would think if I had an interest in the federal reserve I would have made a comment on one of the 12th other posts in the thread. It's as if I only focused on the specific part that interested me and had nothing to do with the federal reserve.
Click to expand...
R-i-i-i-i-ght. A comment about the federal reserve has nothing to do with the federal reserve. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
 
psionl0 said:
R-i-i-i-i-ght. A comment about the federal reserve has nothing to do with the federal reserve. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is correct. This is another extension of my usual advocacy of personal autonomy. It wasn't even a comment about the federal reserve. It was about saying some group "makes" someone take an action. It doesn't really matter who the parties are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom