http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historica...

http://www.multpl.com/inflation-adjusted-s-p-500

Even accounting for an overall growth trend (e.g. real GDP) the market is looking quite overbought and prepared for a major crash. Signs of weakness like this are significant. It certainly doesn't guarantee a crash, but it's newsworthy IMO. Especially in the context of a decade of QE and the fed raising rates.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect losing days to be evenly distributed (in the short to medium term at least) but rather clumped together.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42942921

>...It is the largest fall in percentage terms since August 2011, when markets dropped in the aftermath of "Black Monday" when Standard & Poor's downgraded its credit rating of the US.

>US investors are reacting to small but significant changes in the outlook for the American economy, and what that might mean for the cost of borrowing.

>The stock market sell-off accelerated on Friday when the US Labour Department released employment numbers which showed stronger growth in wages than was anticipated.

>If salaries rise, the expectation is that people will spend more and push inflation higher.

>To keep that under control, America's central bank will need to raise interest rates, which is what has spooked investors who were expecting the US Federal Reserve to increase rates only two or three times this year.

>They now predict there may be a few more interest rate rises on the horizon.

>Monday's sell-off was driven by firms moving to sell stocks to put more money into assets such as bonds which benefit from higher rates, says Erin Gibbs, portfolio manager for S&P Global Market Intelligence. ...

Sure sucks to be a worker. When your salary rises your real gains will be inflated away.

The only way workers can win is:

1. Productivity gains make goods easier to make.

2. A bigger share of investor profits get redistributed to workers, be it through taxes, pension fund investments, co-ops.

#2 will not be happening anytime soon.

2. Many consumer goods have become cheaper as a result. The biggest ones, though (Rent, education, healthcare) have not. Incidentally, none of them can benefit from 'productivity gains.' Well, healthcare can, but...

>#2 will not be happening anytime soon.

That sound you hear in the distance is a recital of the Internationale.

In other words, another way that workers can win is by becoming investors/owners.

At the end of the day, someone has to 'waste' money, in order for companies to earn money. A quarter saved is a quarter that doesn't end up on a revenue sheet.

I also used to feel this way, but I no longer think its accurate. This is most obvious in digital business-consumer goods today. Imagine I make a game. And it cost me about $100 to make this game. And you really want this game and would pay $5 just to get to play it. But I'm nice and sell it to you for $1. You certainly haven't wasted any money. And the fact I then sell it to 10,000 other people also doesn't mean you've wasted any money, nor they. Yet I've somehow made an immense amount of profit.

Even in the more difficult scenario of business to business material goods trades, it doesn't hold true. Imagine I sell iron and you need iron to make your widgets. It costs me $4 to produce a single unit of iron, but that's largely because I have an extensively refined and stream lined operation, and am able to benefit from an immense economy of scale. I sell it to you for $10. Well it seems that you must be wasting money, but the reality is that even if you bought the iron mine yourself and started producing your own iron you'd end up spending far more than $10 to create the volume of iron you need. So even though I'm again making immense profit, you're also not 'wasting' money in buying my iron.

This is why even huge companies are not entirely vertically integrated or producing their own supplies in other words. It's because buying from somebody else, even when that person is profiting immensely from the exchange, is not going to be inherently more expensive than if you did it yourself. And this is even true for simple no-skill goods like semi-raw materials. Get into skilled products, like semiconductors, and this all becomes even more true.

If everyone's income rises by 5% (and most of most people's income is spent rather than saved), I would expect prices to rise by about 5% and find that entirely logical.

Generally everyone's income would be rising 5% either from inflation, which amounts to a transfer from creditors to debtors, or from growth, in which case the total basket of goods and services available has grown 5% and there's no need for prices to go up.

Humans tend to eat always roughly the same amount of food (except if they can't afford it). So food prices generally inflate with wage increases. Growth leads to bigger televisions, safer cars, faster internet being available at roughly the same price.

Quite the opposite. Over the long term, food prices have deflated, and the variety has dramatically increased of foods available at a given price and a given distance from the point of production.

Unfortunately this is the kind of reporting I've come to expect from everyone. I can't necessarily blame them - their job is getting more views than the other guy and "Dow Has Bad Day" doesn't attract as many viewers as "DOW HAS WORST DAY EVER". At the end of the day it wasn't a lie, it was just going with the more interesting stat without regard for whether or not it was the most informative for readers. I wish it wasn't so, but we can't expect better without changing the incentives.

You can quibble that news stories were "less" sensationalist in the past, but that's very debatable. It's not as if anyone in this thread from 2018 can rattle off the ten headlines from 1918 or pretty much any year they didn't live through. So I would take any appraisal's of today's news compared to the past without some hard data to back it up with a few grains of salt. I'm of the mind the more things change, the more they stay the same as far as this subject goes.

One of the great feats of social engineering that Wall Street has done in the several decades is convincing regular people that they should have their money in the stock market. That lets them make billions of dollars "taking care of" their money without any personal risk themselves.

Interesting perspective on why central bankers have seemed so complacent about high stock valuations.

I've also heard commentaries that the wealth effect was one of the tactics used to drag the US out of the Great Recession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_effect

Ironically you could call this “owning the means of production”

I think this movement is very interesting, but only because I expect more of the same and/or a distinct lack of recovery. If a 5% one-day move is really it then I don't care. I've never paid any special interest when the market rises by 5%. Markets go up and down.

Not to mention that the significance of a variance injection is usually a function of its timescale.

I want to point out that market mechanics are vastly different when individual daily moves are higher, even if weekly moves are identical. In other words, there is a path dependency. Stop orders get triggered as a result of price action. The price of option products tends to increase in high-volatility moments. Day traders and market makers have intraday losses that alter the way they trade, both psychologically and according to the rules of their firms. Price discovery becomes more difficult, which makes market access more expensive.

The fundamentals of companies may not change directly, but the cost of doing business changes for financial companies, and that can affect other companies on a larger timescale. For example, a media company that does stock buybacks via accelerated share repurchase agreements will have a fundamentally different deal profile if it expects volatility to be higher, because these agreements often include terms for cancellation if the stock dips beyond a particular price.

Highly volatile markets can also affect companies' ability to access money by borrowing from banks or selling financial assets. So, even on a longer-term horizon, higher daily volatility makes the financial regime inherently different, even if weekly volatility remains unchanged.

If you relegate big daily moves to the realm of "I don't care," you prevent yourself from perceiving some of those differences, and ultimately only harm yourself -- the rest of the market, by and large, understands that big daily moves have an impact on the market even if they are reversed shortly thereafter.

You have to take a look at percentage market moves. The markets have been moving up for a long time. A 1000 point drop when the market is at 26,000 is not the same as a 1000 point drop when the market is at 16,000.

Edit: although apparently I'm remembering a slightly later era than I thought.