Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't  matter who you are. People try to say the say market isn't being utilized by a majority of the population, its a rich mans play thing. It's being used by at least half the work force, and probably a bit higher than that.  We saw that in a post above, 54% at least.

at a minuscule utilization rate. If the top 10% of US asset holders hold 84% of all US stocks, then only the other 16% of the stock market is accessible to us non-elites.

Presuming that it subtracts cleanly from your "54% of US citizens own stock" talking point, then the relative benefit to the rest of the 44% of stock owners is at least twenty times less beneficial compared to the wealthy. It's hilariously out of whack and inequitable. But since a slim majority of americans hold stock, then what's good for the macroeconomic goose must be good for the microeconomic gander, right?

.... what's that? Wages are increasing at a hilariously tiny rate comparative to the increase in value and productivity to the shareholders? And the wealthy are the near-exclusive owners of those shares?

Doesn't sound like the economy being better makes much of a difference for regular joes, it really only affects people when it's bad. 

I said it earlier: privatized benefits, socialized costs and penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It doesn't  matter who you are. People try to say the say market isn't being utilized by a majority of the population, its a rich mans play thing. It's being used by at least half the work force, and probably a bit higher than that.  We saw that in a post above, 54% at least.

I am addressing how applicable the health of the stock market is to those who only have stock via retirement accounts. Yes, the market is utilized by a majority of the population but the majority have to take a journey down the cyclical road of ups and downs before they finally are able to retire. The current status of the stock market doesn't have a direct impact on most people's investment since it is a very long term investment.  The people with a 401K, IRA, etc... only will not materialize wealth in the short term. That is a different game for a smaller portion of the population. It just seems like a strange thing for people in the middle class and below to latch onto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thrillhammer said:

if you really believe china is bending the knee then you don't know china very well.

lol, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Ownership of stock" is such a red herring.  What does 20% annual growth mean to a guy who has $10K in his 401K?  You can't argue that it means much.  Sure, 20% is great, but that $2K is gonna last him maybe another month.

The vast majority of people are closer to $10K than $1M when it comes to retirement accounts or other stock holdings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

at a minuscule utilization rate. If the top 10% of US asset holders hold 84% of all US stocks, then only the other 16% of the stock market is accessible to us non-elites.

Presuming that it subtracts cleanly from your "54% of US citizens own stock" talking point, then the relative benefit to the rest of the 44% of stock owners is at least twenty times less beneficial compared to the wealthy. It's hilariously out of whack and inequitable. But since a slim majority of americans hold stock, then what's good for the macroeconomic goose must be good for the microeconomic gander, right?

.... what's that? Wages are increasing at a hilariously tiny rate comparative to the increase in value and productivity to the shareholders? And the wealthy are the near-exclusive owners of those shares?

Doesn't sound like the economy being better makes much of a difference for regular joes, it really only affects people when it's bad. 

I said it earlier: privatized benefits, socialized costs and penalties.

Stop, you hate people who have money,or stocks.

 

my 54% stat came from Bamachicks post.  A healthy stock market  is good for an American economy/ end thread .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F250 said:

I am addressing how applicable the health of the stock market is to those who only have stock via retirement accounts. Yes, the market is utilized by a majority of the population but the majority have to take a journey down the cyclical road of ups and downs before they finally are able to retire. The current status of the stock market doesn't have a direct impact on most people's investment since it is a very long term investment.  The people with a 401K, IRA, etc... only will not materialize wealth in the short term. That is a different game for a smaller portion of the population. It just seems like a strange thing for people in the middle class and below to latch onto.

Gotcha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are different degrees of stock as well.  It is not like the poors get in the front of the line when the company is sold or goes belly up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Well that could be considered unimaginable.

 

I mean who would have imagined slower than targeted pace?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They hate Congress, but they love their own representatives.

Well they did until they got gerrymandered into a district that openly doesn't give a shit. Now they hate errybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

SAD!
 

 

To be fair, "The Curse of Oak Island" was on. If you're going to believe in some bullshit treasure, go all in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...