agip wrote:
gente great stuff.
maybe give us a thumbnail description of what you found and what you think it means?
You can also check out this from Ed Yardeni.
http://blog.yardeni.com/2020/11/income-wealth-in-america-who-owns.html
Down goes the Dow
Non-Running
Finance/Jobs
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
You can also check out this from Ed Yardeni.
http://blog.yardeni.com/2020/11/income-wealth-in-america-who-owns.html -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Stew wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
If I wanted to purchase my current house, which has doubled in value in the seven and half years since I purchased it, I could not afford it.
Of course you could afford it. You should be able to afford anything equal to the net value of your home. Of course, I am assuming you do not have a mortgage, or much of one.
I could not afford it based on my risk tolerance. I had a friend move to the Bay Area, and undertook a huge mortgage. He feels with five years to retirement, he can sell it down the road and be ahead of renting. I suppose if the next five years were like the last he will be ahead. Nothing I would bet on, however.
What risk? Presumably you have equity in your house. -
Stew wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Stew wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
If I wanted to purchase my current house, which has doubled in value in the seven and half years since I purchased it, I could not afford it.
Of course you could afford it. You should be able to afford anything equal to the net value of your home. Of course, I am assuming you do not have a mortgage, or much of one.
I could not afford it based on my risk tolerance. I had a friend move to the Bay Area, and undertook a huge mortgage. He feels with five years to retirement, he can sell it down the road and be ahead of renting. I suppose if the next five years were like the last he will be ahead. Nothing I would bet on, however.
What risk? Presumably you have equity in your house.
Millions of home owners had equity in 2007 that was erased by 2009. -
Racket wrote:
agip wrote:
The Tesla brand is worth trillions or at least hundreds of billions of dollars. People know it, trust it and are fanatical about it. That alone will ensure the survival of the company in some form. Maybe not independent, but as a brand, it is set for a generation or two.
People are just as fanatatical about GM, VW (or Audi), BMW, or Ford.
Really, it lines up best with Porsche. Cheap fanatics looking to buy into a name yuppie name brand to impress their friends. Is Porsche worth 350 billion? No, it isn't
From Consumer Reports via Russia 🇷🇺:
https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/CR.png?itok=Kz6yOF2D -
23% btc and equities... 77% cash.
What should I go in at this point? Made some solid gainz on classic industries like boeing and ua. -
Swaglord_the_real_one_1_1 wrote:
23% btc and equities... 77% cash.
What should I go in at this point? Made some solid gainz on classic industries like boeing and ua.
Review the posts here by “Ghost of Igloi”, then do the opposite. Nine times out of ten you will make money. -
la gente esta muy loca wrote:
agip wrote:
gente great stuff.
maybe give us a thumbnail description of what you found and what you think it means?
You can also check out this from Ed Yardeni.
http://blog.yardeni.com/2020/11/income-wealth-in-america-who-owns.html
Very interesting.
Breaks down what part of the demographic owns how much of the publically traded stocks.
Their summary: "Since the early 1960s, the household sector (including nonprofit organizations) has directly and indirectly held 65% of equities in America. Of the equities held by households (excluding nonprofit organizations), the “1%” hold around 50% of this asset class. Older people with college educations tend to own more equities than younger ones with less education."
It also points out that the myth that the top 1% of the wealthiest households own 80% of the equities is false. They own 50%. The group ranging from 90% to 99% of wealthiest households has held fairly constant over the last few decades at about 36% of the market. -
[quote]seattle prattle wrote:
It also points out that the myth that the top 1% of the wealthiest households own 80% of the equities is false. They own 50%.
Only 50%? 1% of Americans own half of all equities and you see this as not a problem? -
Great day for my Chinese car cos.
Xpeng up 14%; NIO 7.5%.
Tsla flat.
Bitcoin started great, ended up 2.3%. -
Contrarian Indicator alert wrote:
Swaglord_the_real_one_1_1 wrote:
23% btc and equities... 77% cash.
What should I go in at this point? Made some solid gainz on classic industries like boeing and ua.
Review the posts here by “Ghost of Igloi”, then do the opposite. Nine times out of ten you will make money.
You sure F-upped on XLE and HSGFX.
🤡🧑🏻🦲🖕😹 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Contrarian Indicator alert wrote:
Swaglord_the_real_one_1_1 wrote:
23% btc and equities... 77% cash.
What should I go in at this point? Made some solid gainz on classic industries like boeing and ua.
Review the posts here by “Ghost of Igloi”, then do the opposite. Nine times out of ten you will make money.
You sure F-upped on XLE and HSGFX.
🤡🧑🏻🦲🖕😹
No, I didn’t. -
seattle prattle wrote:
Racket wrote:
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
Racket wrote:Not really. Electors are generally chosen by the party. There's a few technicalities but anyone who thinks the "faithless elector" scenario is legitimate is overreacting.
I admit complete lack of expertise and understanding in your system, and am prepared to be found completely wrong. Some may be interested to listen to the following Radiolab podcast:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-if
I would put the actual chances at .01%-.05%.
If it somehow does happen (and I don't even know how it could) then you'll likely see quite an uprising.
Okay, I heard a segment on PBS radio, can't remember exactly which show, but this guy wrote a book on the subject and the take away is this: Electors were historically and by law appointed by the state legislators and an election was their means of gauging public preference. But the public a long time ago was rather put off by this and pressured the legislature so that the system be more direct in that the voters chose the electors, and in practice, that has been how it is in practice and has been for along time. But this is the important part- the legislature still has the right to appoint electors. And they may be called in to do so in cases of apparent crisis.
So, the fear is that enough confusion and question would be raised for the Trump administration to petition state legislators to intervene and appoint a set of electors simply because of the voting results being called into question. Again, the legislature does absolutely have the right to appoint a different set of electors to the electoral college for their state. And the fear is that Republican controlled state legislatures would appoint electors who would vote Republican (for Trump).
Going one step further, if that state were run by a Democratic Governor, the Governor might dispatch the electors that were voted on by the voters in the general election. At that point, two sets of electors would show up to the electoral college convention and Congress would be asked to intervene to settle which are the legitimate electors. But if the Governor were Republican and there wasn't the original set of electors dispatched, the state appointed electors would be free to vote as instructed by their Republican state legislature.
When the book's author was asked how likely he thought this was (and this was just slightly before the election), he said essentially that he thought Trump would do it if it came down to it, but he was skeptical if it would get traction at the state level. But he didn't rule it out and made that clear.
Well, here we go. Posted this a week ago and guess what - Trump is desperately giving it a try. Sad. -
seattle prattle wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
Racket wrote:
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
Racket wrote:Not really. Electors are generally chosen by the party. There's a few technicalities but anyone who thinks the "faithless elector" scenario is legitimate is overreacting.
I admit complete lack of expertise and understanding in your system, and am prepared to be found completely wrong. Some may be interested to listen to the following Radiolab podcast:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-if
I would put the actual chances at .01%-.05%.
If it somehow does happen (and I don't even know how it could) then you'll likely see quite an uprising.
Okay, I heard a segment on PBS radio, can't remember exactly which show, but this guy wrote a book on the subject and the take away is this: Electors were historically and by law appointed by the state legislators and an election was their means of gauging public preference. But the public a long time ago was rather put off by this and pressured the legislature so that the system be more direct in that the voters chose the electors, and in practice, that has been how it is in practice and has been for along time. But this is the important part- the legislature still has the right to appoint electors. And they may be called in to do so in cases of apparent crisis.
So, the fear is that enough confusion and question would be raised for the Trump administration to petition state legislators to intervene and appoint a set of electors simply because of the voting results being called into question. Again, the legislature does absolutely have the right to appoint a different set of electors to the electoral college for their state. And the fear is that Republican controlled state legislatures would appoint electors who would vote Republican (for Trump).
Going one step further, if that state were run by a Democratic Governor, the Governor might dispatch the electors that were voted on by the voters in the general election. At that point, two sets of electors would show up to the electoral college convention and Congress would be asked to intervene to settle which are the legitimate electors. But if the Governor were Republican and there wasn't the original set of electors dispatched, the state appointed electors would be free to vote as instructed by their Republican state legislature.
When the book's author was asked how likely he thought this was (and this was just slightly before the election), he said essentially that he thought Trump would do it if it came down to it, but he was skeptical if it would get traction at the state level. But he didn't rule it out and made that clear.
Well, here we go. Posted this a week ago and guess what - Trump is desperately giving it a try. Sad.
The Oligarchs stole this outright -
Earnings Scorecard: For Q3 2020 (with 95% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results), 84% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 78% have reported a positive revenue surprise. If 84% is the final percentage, it will tie the mark for the highest percentage of S&P 500 companies reporting a positive EPS surprise.
-
The Unkle wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
Racket wrote:
VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:
Racket wrote:Not really. Electors are generally chosen by the party. There's a few technicalities but anyone who thinks the "faithless elector" scenario is legitimate is overreacting.
I admit complete lack of expertise and understanding in your system, and am prepared to be found completely wrong. Some may be interested to listen to the following Radiolab podcast:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-if
I would put the actual chances at .01%-.05%.
If it somehow does happen (and I don't even know how it could) then you'll likely see quite an uprising.
Okay, I heard a segment on PBS radio, can't remember exactly which show, but this guy wrote a book on the subject and the take away is this: Electors were historically and by law appointed by the state legislators and an election was their means of gauging public preference. But the public a long time ago was rather put off by this and pressured the legislature so that the system be more direct in that the voters chose the electors, and in practice, that has been how it is in practice and has been for along time. But this is the important part- the legislature still has the right to appoint electors. And they may be called in to do so in cases of apparent crisis.
So, the fear is that enough confusion and question would be raised for the Trump administration to petition state legislators to intervene and appoint a set of electors simply because of the voting results being called into question. Again, the legislature does absolutely have the right to appoint a different set of electors to the electoral college for their state. And the fear is that Republican controlled state legislatures would appoint electors who would vote Republican (for Trump).
Going one step further, if that state were run by a Democratic Governor, the Governor might dispatch the electors that were voted on by the voters in the general election. At that point, two sets of electors would show up to the electoral college convention and Congress would be asked to intervene to settle which are the legitimate electors. But if the Governor were Republican and there wasn't the original set of electors dispatched, the state appointed electors would be free to vote as instructed by their Republican state legislature.
When the book's author was asked how likely he thought this was (and this was just slightly before the election), he said essentially that he thought Trump would do it if it came down to it, but he was skeptical if it would get traction at the state level. But he didn't rule it out and made that clear.
Well, here we go. Posted this a week ago and guess what - Trump is desperately giving it a try. Sad.
The Oligarchs stole this outright
Joe is perhaps even dirtier than Trump. Anyway, the divisions in this country will continue regardless of who is in the White House.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-11-18%20HSGAC%20-%20Finance%20Joint%20Report%20Supplemental.pdf -
LOL
-
LOL is your dozen handles and years of demented posts.
🧑🏻🦲🖕🤡j -
Why are you even responding to me? Stay in your lane.
-
^You’re in the crazy person lane. I’m headed the other direction.
-
I’m not the one defending K5.
