And really? USMCA? You mean NAFTA 2.0? Imagine acting like “passing” USMCA has any meaning. It’s just NAFTA. Tell me when we pass the TPP. Oh wait, we messed up and now that ship has sailed without us.
This is news whether you like it or not. Sorry, there is no “spin” here. Reuters reports news. They report the stock market being up, they report yield curve inversions, they report it all. There’s no hidden agenda, get over it.
The TPP had serious flaws and I am glad it was never passed. It was far too secretive, with the most powerful existing interests dictating policy and regular citizens being completely cut of of even viewing what was in the actual agreement for far too long, until the thing was nearly finished.
It was horrible for privacy and stifled innovation by entrenching IP protections for existing powerful interests over (again) common citizens.
The EFF has a good writeup on the most pertinent sections for those interested in technology: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
You mean like almost every treaty ever negotiated pretty much as far back as we have recorded history?
A treaty negotiation is a give and take. Each side goes in wanting to gain certain things, and being willing to concede certain things to get those things it wants. The purpose of the negotiation is to find a set of gains and concessions for each party such that the party will agree to the treaty for those gains at the cost of those concessions.
During negotiation, what is on the table changes as each party gives up on certain wants, or accepts certain concessions, to further its overall goals.
It would be nearly impossible to do this in public. Every time you go from draft N to draft N+1, anyone who had gains in N that are no longer in N+1, or who is part of concessions in N+1 but not in N, would be putting political pressure on the negotiators to go back. Everyone who got gains in N+1 that weren't in N, or had concessions in N but not in N+1, would be putting political pressure on negotiators to not cave to the pressure to revert.
The only known way to make it work is for each party to send negotiators who know that party's big picture goals, work out a near final draft, and then present that more widely for a yes/no decision on ratification.
Which is a good thing. The TPP was a horrible giveaway to the IP industries. A trans-pacific trade deal like that is a good idea in theory, but not after US politicians kowtow to Hollywood and Disney and work that crap into the treaty.
The remaining countries forging their own trade deal are better off without the US screwing it up.
They do keep the spin to a minimum, I’ll give them that.
My parents have literally been radicalized from normal moderate folks to "crazy conspiracy people" by watching Fox News and, I suspect, this is a broadly true statement amongst a very large swath of the elderly population.
There's definitely information asymmetry involved, but a history or US in wars makes this nostalgia bias at best.
Examples;
- US Involvement in Vietnam
- Remember the Lusitania, The Zimmerman Telegram WWII
- USS Maine
- US annexation of Mexico
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/24/bloomberg-news-will-not-inve...
Though better yet is to not watch the news at all. Really, it's just entertainment and a major source of stress with little upside. They're not informing so much as misinforming.
If you don't believe that, well... neither does the side you think is wrong. If you think you're more intelligent than they are, well, again, they think the same of you.
Try going without the news for a couple weeks and see how you feel. Take note of your stress levels and day to day life. Another experiment you can do is to watch the news (objectively as possible) from 2 months or 2 years ago and see how much actually ended up being relevant.
(note: using "crazy libtard" here not as a personal insult, but because it is the right's version of "crazy consipiracy people").
anyways, take the speck out of your own eye before complaining about the beams in your parents eyes.
How would one even go about defining what center is? And when we say "left of center," how far to the left are we talking about?
the other thing is, in the us, people say “left” a lot which they really mean is “liberal” (which itself is a very blunt word to be sure)
if put in that context, then saying the media is slanted liberal (market oriented, individualistic, capitalist etc) is probably true (at least from a layman’s eyes)
when reframed in that way, there are very few “left” media in the us; it’s either conservative (socially, right-wing) and liberal corporate media
Another analysis: https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi.... Reporters and news media are close to entertainment workers in donation patterns. They lean left more than mining and agricultural workers lean right.
We say this as though Democrats and Republicans fall neatly on a straight line.
Also, more meta-analysis studies like this need to be created and reported _to everyone_.
[1] https://www.mrc.org/special-reports/liberal-mediaevery-poll-...
[1] https://www.calstrs.com/investments-overview
[0] https://www.pionline.com/article/20170904/INTERACTIVE/170839...
A booming stock market is irrelevant to most Americans.
[0]: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/the-average-401...
That article also says that the average isn't a useful measure, but I feel it likely is more useful than stated as everyone has a capped contribution amount. There are some outlying scenarios where you can contribute more, but those are far from typical.
It seems there are a bunch of ways to fudge these numbers- I have a roth and a standard 401k- these are likely counted as 2 separate accounts, thus painting a much bleaker picture of my overall financial health.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/22/opinion/bull-stock-market...
The people working 60 hour weeks comprised of 3 part time jobs that refuse to pay out full time hours and benefits just to share a bedroom in south LA while accumulating zero savings? These people are about to experience real pain, and news coverage and forums like HN generally have no concept of the working class.
This is absolutely not true. Most pension plans are at least partially invested in stocks.
Source: https://news.northwesternmutual.com/planning-and-progress-20...
Expensive habits are terrible for your personal finances. I like to look at habits like that in a weekly, monthly, and yearly cost. Seeing that a $40/week habit is $2,080/year really helps me put my spending choices in perspective.
When I was a teen, being poor meant that even if you put that $12 away for another day, it'll just be used the next day to fill your tank. It's not really saving money if you're just putting off buying gas for your car.
It's easy to google median wealth by age and see how people add wealth over a lifetime.
And the pension market is ~140% of GDP. So that's a lot of cash in stocks. Too much if you ask me, but I'm just an engineer.
Please tell me you're just parroting something you heard and you don't actually think that.
> People are finally starting to notice and point out.
Incorrectly.
Every person in America with a pension or a retirement account has significant exposure to the stock market. Universities and their endowments, which make institutionally awarded need based financial aid possible directly benefit from the stock market. Casualty (and other) insurance companies directly benefit from the stock market which affects their profitability and thus their ability to write policies at reasonable rates; it also affects the reinsurance market which can mean the difference between a large housing development being built or not, or a new industrial plant opening or not.
This “only benefits the top 10%” talking point is so ridiculous as to not be worthy of comment, but since it keeps popping up from people who have a political interest in talking down the economy, it should be addressed before more people actually start to believe that tripe.
The origin of that “10%” number was from a CNBC report that said “the richest 10% own 85% of individually traded stocks.” However that statistic conveniently excludes mutual funds — which generally consist of a basket of individually traded stocks packaged together. So if I own $1 million in a Fidelity mutual fund, I am not considered as owning “individually traded stocks.” So, to use that “only benefits the top 10%” number, then that would say that the stock market doesn’t benefit me because I only own shares in a mutual fund. Which is complete baloney.
When Trump calls out fake news, this is exactly the kind of thing he’s referring to: a statement that a rising market only benefits the top 10% because they own 85% of individually traded stocks — while that is completely false because everyone that owns shares of a mutual fund (the majority of American families in fact,) doesn’t benefit.
And your statement “the vast majority” don’t own stocks, that’s also a lie, according to Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-own...
Even if Gallup was off by 10%, which would be a huge margin or error, that’s still nowhere close to a “vast” majority. Now to be fair, you did stick in a qualifier there “little” but that is meaningless. How much is “little?” And how do you know how prevalent “little” vs. “none” is? It’s just a meaningless distraction to protect against the fact that the majority of Americans own stock and even those that don’t own stock benefit from a good economy. Very low unemployment means tighter labor market which means wage competition.
It would seem that the economy could be absolutely perfect but those of different political stripes would be wishing its downfall just to win an election. Didn’t Bill Maher or one of those hosts actually wish for a recession so it would make it easier to beat Trump? Some sick people that would wish for people to lose their jobs and homes in order to beat Republicans.
We can have honest policy debates. But let’s not trade in misrepresentations to win political points.
However, the context of the discussion is over what term.
The markets are subject to boom and bust cycles. Over the 40 or so year term of retirement plans, there's not a whole lot that a 20 or 30-something can do to benefit from a clearly bull market.
I know that day-to-day, I'm not wealthier or better off because the stock market is doing well. My paycheck doesn't change. I can't sell any stocks to cash in.
And that is the context of the discussion: not that over the long term stocks go up and when you retire you reap the benefits, but rather that over the short term, 90% of the people don't suddenly get enhanced quality of life because the stock market is doing well.
[0]https://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/how-man...
N.B. I believe 'pension' ≡ 'defined benefit' is an American English thing, which may the source of the confusion. I, my employer, and my provider refer to my private, defined-contribution plan as a pension.
That seems to be a lot less common now.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/whats-differ...
By contrast, a 401(K) is a defined contribution plan. You put however much money in, maybe get matching, and you can take money out after a certain age based on how much you put in and how much it grew.
Defined benefit used to be a lot more common but it's become less so for a variety of reasons including tax law changes. Today you see them mostly in government jobs like teachers.
Sounds like you're biased in your media assessment.
The House didn't sit on it. It has been undergoing the normal process. USMCA is replacing NAFTA. NAFTA took six years to negotiate and ratify.
So far, USMCA has taken about two.
The final negotiations weren't even finished until mid-December.
Mexico ratified the final version of USMCA last month after negotiations had ended, and Canada has yet to vote on it.
If anyone has been telling you that the House has been holding things up, they are either wrong or deliberately lying to you.
I’d recommend just setting all that aside and try looking at all the data.
Consumer confidence is often pretty high before a sudden crash, for example. It doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Using selection bias (only looking at the good things that confirm your beliefs) is a bad formula.
Sooner or later we’ll have recession.
It may or may not be the fault of whichever administration is in office.
Jimmy Carter, for example, took a lot of heat for the economy. The high interest rates from the Fed slowed everything but it eventually fixed the economy. Reagan got all the credit.
George Bush lost because of Fed decisions. The economy went into a brief recession. Bush was extremely popular after the first Iraq War. Unfortunately, rates went up...
Paul Volcker was appointed by Carter. He really cranked up rates: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/2019/12/09/c...
Among actual signs of weakness: low GDP growth, three rate cuts in 2019, an annual deficit higher than annual GDP growth, an S&P 500 earnings recession [1], a manufacturing recession [2], corporate debt at a record 47% of economy [3]. Even the fact that companies are using cash to buy-back stock instead of investing in growth shows that they don't believe there is enough economic demand to grow EPS through business expansion. Instead they re-purchase stock to reduce the denominator [4].
[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sp-500-is-in-its-first...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-09/despite-tr...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/corporate-de...
[4] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/stock-buybac...
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2020/01/bls-job-openings-...
By someone who has been following the jolts numbers for years.
https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2019/05/still-not-on-rece...
For an example.
Click on the business section of Reuters, this isn't even a headline.
It's not even at a 1-year high [1,2,3].
Reuters also reported on consumer confidence, stock index prices, and the USMCA, so maybe they're only reporting the news.
[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confiden...
[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-sentiment-index-t...
[3] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4315169-weekly-economic-rel...
You mean worked on. Its not like it was ignored.
Stock markets often don't reflect the actual state of the economy
But alright, so we can borrow. Can we pay for healthcare and schools now?
Fundamentally there is no difference is the debt at .01% or 15%, if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble. If the holder of the debt cannot collect, they're in trouble.
> if one cannot make the payment, they are in trouble.
That's a function of cost of borrowing, not the amount borrowed.
We will monetize our debt forever, just like Japan, until there are currency consequences. The MMT people argue there will never be said currency consequences. We shall see.
Debt requires a payment to the holder. Regardless of the interest rate, if the debtor cannot make the payment, the rate of interest is fully irrelevant.
If the holder cannot collect, the value of the debt and the borrowed assets value decrease.
That's your quote. If you understood debt even at the level of a freshman in an econ 101 course or hell, if you've ever taken out a loan, you wouldn't have written it.
My assertion is as basic as saying the sky is blue. Want a citation for that?
Hint. Debt is used to purchase assets. Assets have utility. Depreciation is a thing. If utility is more than the cost of borrowing and depreciation over the timeframe of the loan, it's worthwhile.
And that's not even considering that governments can print money, so the consideration isn't can they pay it back, more like what's the cost to pay it back in inflation.
This is true for corporate loans, but in case of federal budget most of the money borrowed are spent on things like healthcare, pensions, food stamps, etc. which aren't exactly profit-bringing assets.
1. It's larger than ever 2. It's growing faster than ever 3. T-Bill rates are at record lows
If 1. and 2. were false because 3. is true, you'd have a cogent point. But they aren't false. The debt situation is getting dramatically worse despite low rates, and those low rates on the perpetually recycled US debt are unlikely to hold. So when the $5T of debt Trump added is resold at 5%, and the sugar rush of his economic priming is over...yeah, it's not going to look so great.
Reuters just salivating over finding something they can spin as negative about the current economy.