Stocks likely to have their worst December since the Great Depression.

[aerius]

You need to break the medical industry monopolies & exemptions to anti-trust law and no one in US politics has ever proposed doing that. And unless you do it, single payer solves nothing, it just explodes the federal budget and puts the country in even more shit.

I'd argue that single payer plus a major increase to the federal budget would be an improvement to the current situation. Except that it's not going to stay there. The increased cost will be seen as a problem, leading to a fight between people trying to solve it by tackling the root causes and people trying to solve it by repealing single payer. I'm not sure who would win that fight.

Still, probably worth a try.

Yep. And there's going to be severe time pressure to come up with a solution with the massive hole it's just blown in the federal budget so the decisions will be less than rational. The screeching on both sides will be inconceivable, we're talking about an sector that's worth 1/5 of the total economy, they ain't going down easy. It's almost guaranteed that they'll fuck something up badly (gotta love those 2nd order effects) and we end up with an equally shitty or worse situation when it's all over.

[K. A. Pital]

Considering that the horrible end might entail the torment and destruction of millions or conceivably billions of sapient lives, I find that quite appalling. Also, if you meant to insinuate that my goal is to save capitalism, then you are wilfully misrepresenting my position. I'm certain you know perfectly well that I am an advocate for democratic socialism.

Millions of lives will be destroyed with certainity if we continue on the path of destruction laid out by global capitalism. Climate change is real and environmental destruction is real. The status-quo is not bloodless and it does not promise a good outcome. But you can't be constantly outraged about it. Instead, you choose to be outraged about my reaction to a crisis, for which the fault lies entirely with the rulers and architects of the present-day economic system.

But there is a question of how we best achieve reform. My goal is not to save capitalism- it is to destroy it with the minimum of collateral damage. You seem to believe, as fanatics tend to do, that maximum destruction will somehow guarantee a better world. All of the evil will be purged and the new utopia will spring from the ashes. It's called an appocalypse myth, and you can find a variation on the same theme in most major religions' texts. You even use words like "inevitable" to justify your wish to purge humanity with fire and blood, just as a prophet might speak of the inevitability of Judgement Day. It is easy to accept the destruction of millions when it is "inevitable". You may substitute "Marxist theory" or whatever for "God", but it comes to much the same thing in the end.

"Minimum collateral damage", you say? The longer this train keeps on going, the more grave are the consequences for us all. As said above, the status-quo is neither damage-free nor victimless.

What you "Burn it all" folks never seem to understand is that as flawed as our world is, it is very much not the worst of all possible worlds- and it seems to me that only someone very sheltered (or privileged, to use the contemporary lingo), or someone who is wilfully blind to inconvenient facts, could fail to understand that there are much worse possibilities

Are you implying I am privileged or sheltered? That's laughable.

Like global fascist dictatorship, for example, or global nuclear fire.

Both could result from allowing the status-quo to persist just as much as they can result from human action to upheave it.

And because this is the real world, not an apocalypse myth, there is no guarantee that a better society will magically spring from the ashes of the old. On the contrary, it is very difficult to build something stable on top of rubble. You have also have to consider the very real possibility, when faced with the twin crises of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and the increasingly interconnected nature of society, that a collapse might be sufficiently devastating that there is no better world after.

Climate change is a unique and devastating danger that is actively made worse by more successful, more robust industrial capitalism. The better a society is at producing - and polluting - the worse are the consequences for us all, but of course, first and foremost for the most vulnerable.

In any case, I have no wish to see humanity scarified on the alter of your ideology.

What part of humanity must be sacrificed to the status-quo? Is that the part you've never seen, so that you can pretend you're blameless?

[The Romulan Republic]

You continue to frame the issue as an either-or choice between "millions murdered by capitalism" and "millions murdered to destroy capitalism". This then allows you to frame me as an advocate of murder who is indifferent to the suffering of capitalism's victims.

In fact, (and I know that this may be too radical a concept for you) I support a position that doesn't involve the murder of millions at all. Or at least (since I recognize that even the best of intentions may have unforeseen side-effects and that fascists may succeed in initiating a war whether we want one or not) I support a position does not include the destruction of millions as a goal, and in which any conflict that occurs is initiated by the fascists and not by progressives. You may think that is naive, but do not pretend that I am an advocate for the status quo, or oblivious to its faults. It is not the worst of all possible worlds, and I will unapologetically take the status quo over Neo-fascism, but that does not mean that I am content with it either.

You may not be privileged or sheltered, and I apologize for that implication. I fear, though, that your ideology prevents you from recognizing any position other than "communist revolutionary" or "capitalist apologist", and since I am not the former, you insist on framing me as the latter. This will make any productive discussion difficult.

[Starglider]

The major revelation from the previous financial crash was that Western governments were surprisingly capable at adjusting the legal and financial systems in order to maintain the status quo. Most observers including me didn't think they would have the necessary understanding, ability to move fast enough and, in the longer term, ability to sell the changes to the voters. This put an unexpected cap on the severity of the fallout from purely financial crashes, i.e. damage stemming from asset revaluations and a large-scale inability to settle financial instruments. Ironically while the result of this state meddling was a decade of financial markets more decoupled than ever before from business and sovereign financial fundaments, it also implies that we should be primarily concerned about underlying physical problems (e.g. demographics, supply chain fragility, localised deindustrialisation, environmental damage) rather than the financial situation. Of course on an individual level recessions can still be devestating to quality of life, but it looks like the financial system as a category of existential risk to civilisation is not as high up the list as it appeared in 2009. Even sovereign debt must ultimately be reduced to the state's essential outgoings, authority to tax, local production and labour base, and international trade and investment position; not the details of intragovernmental accounts and transfers or accrued balances in one or another class of debt instrument. This is particularly pertinent for the EU as a whole as it would still be viable as a nation state but not as a non-sovereign common currency area, and it is up to the Germans to decide if it is going to act like the former.

[The Romulan Republic]

To an extent, I suppose you are right. But given that the rise of neo-fascism is in part a consequence of the 2008 crash, I'm not sure its such a resounding endorsement of the resilience of Western governments or their ability to maintain the status quo.

[Aether]

This too shall pass.

The Dow is up 1000 points today.

If anyone truly believes we are heading into an unparalleled economic collapse, then please tell us all what you are doing with the money you are saving and why. Else, you are just an alarmist writing word salads.

[K. A. Pital]

This too shall pass.

The Dow is up 1000 points today.

If anyone truly believes we are heading into an unparalleled economic collapse, then please tell us all what you are doing with the money you are saving and why. Else, you are just an alarmist writing word salads.

There are people who can save under the current economy, but they are few and far between. The savings rate in the general population is too low for this discussion to be meaningful.

Of course we are heading towards an utter disaster, but I al afraid you have not been following closely - this disaster will originate due to the efficiency and resilience of industrial production and corresponding pollution and destruction, not the other way round.

Stocks may experience extreme volatility in the meantime, or revert to the mean - would not change the underlying issues.

[bilateralrope]

All I know is that several podcasts I listen to have started running ads for stock trading programs. Ads which mention things like searching by things like female CEOs, but no mention of performance metrics. Which I can't help but compare to the surge of crypto currency trading advertising I heard shortly before they crashed this year.

Someone seems to want to draw people into the stock market so that he/she/they can get out easier.

[madd0ct0r]

With fast trading, the stock market gas very little to do with reality anymore.

Just a hothouse jungle of growpramed logarithms trying to prey on each other.

[Aether]

This too shall pass.

The Dow is up 1000 points today.

If anyone truly believes we are heading into an unparalleled economic collapse, then please tell us all what you are doing with the money you are saving and why. Else, you are just an alarmist writing word salads.

There are people who can save under the current economy, but they are few and far between. The savings rate in the general population is too low for this discussion to be meaningful.

Certainly a steep correction or even a recession will hurt those who are at, near, or below the poverty line; however, let's not forget the policies the government that can put in place to relieve the pain; e.g., The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (along with a slew of others) during 2008-09. In no means were they perfect; nor I am not saying we ignore signs that economists and policy makers highlight and enact policy changes to adjust. But threads like this and a whole slew of articles like it sound like the ravings of your street corner Schizophrenic bleating that the end is nigh. You can replace things like "economic collapse" with "rapture", "depression" with "apocalypse", and "stock market" with "The Beast, 666."

To say that it doesn't matter to discuss market trends, fundamentals, and policy just because people don't save does a disservice to them. "Hey, don't worry, you can't save so fuck it."

And more specifically, it matters to me. This is why I push people who claim the end is nigh with markets. Tell me what *I* should do then. I save close to 40% of my income in taxable, tax-deferred, and tax free vehicles with only a mortgage as debt. If you (no you specifically, but you get my point), are so damn sure then please tell me how I need to adjust. Never an answer is given. No one knows, because they can't. Historically, the stock market *over time* guarantees a ROI.

Trump, in his moronic wisdom, has certainly rocked the boat. But I am staying the course. That doesn't mean I ignore the markets or will not be on top of my finances and not talk to my wealth manager. Like I said, this too shall pass.

Of course we are heading towards an utter disaster, but I al afraid you have not been following closely - this disaster will originate due to the efficiency and resilience of industrial production and corresponding pollution and destruction, not the other way round.

I don't disagree that these are important issues to discuss, but a tad bit off topic given the title of the thread. Maybe it can be split.

[aerius]

The major revelation from the previous financial crash was that Western governments were surprisingly capable at adjusting the legal and financial systems in order to maintain the status quo. Most observers including me didn't think they would have the necessary understanding, ability to move fast enough and, in the longer term, ability to sell the changes to the voters. This put an unexpected cap on the severity of the fallout from purely financial crashes, i.e. damage stemming from asset revaluations and a large-scale inability to settle financial instruments. Ironically while the result of this state meddling was a decade of financial markets more decoupled than ever before from business and sovereign financial fundaments, it also implies that we should be primarily concerned about underlying physical problems (e.g. demographics, supply chain fragility, localised deindustrialisation, environmental damage) rather than the financial situation.

Yeah, that's the part that surprised me, historically, when the markets were at something resembling 2008 and the governments try to intervene in some way, something, somewhere gets critically broken and crashes everything hard. And even when that doesn't happen immediately, the bond market or some other sector will eventually force a change and break something. This time everyone went along with the interventions and there was a remarkable amount of co-ordination and co-operation among various nations & markets. The Plunge Protection Team is real. Who knew?

[K. A. Pital]

To say that it doesn't matter to discuss market trends, fundamentals, and policy just because people don't save does a disservice to them. "Hey, don't worry, you can't save so fuck it."

And more specifically, it matters to me. This is why I push people who claim the end is nigh with markets. Tell me what *I* should do then. I save close to 40% of my income in taxable, tax-deferred, and tax free vehicles with only a mortgage as debt. If you (no you specifically, but you get my point), are so damn sure then please tell me how I need to adjust. Never an answer is given. No one knows, because they can't. Historically, the stock market *over time* guarantees a ROI.

Does the stock market have a good ROI now for people who invested last year? People who invested in 2007-2008 would spend a large share of their adult, capable life waiting to break even. You do not need to explain the math to me, I have made my own profits on it, but it takes losers to have winners, and passive investment needs to have an extremely long-time horizon to be a good strategy for the average person, with a very early start.

[FaxModem1]

CNN

2018 was the worst for stocks in 10 years
By Chris Isidore, CNN Business

Updated 4:28 PM ET, Mon December 31, 2018
Markets look for fresh start in 2019

Workers can be hurt when companies buy back stock
The closing numbers are displayed after the closing bell of the Dow Industrial Average at the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street on February 8, 2018 in New York.
Wall Street tumbled back into sell-off mode Thursday, with the Dow plunging more than 1,000 points as worries over interest rate hikes continued to drag the market down. At the closing bell, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 23,858.90, down 4.2 percent.
/ AFP PHOTO / Bryan R. Smith (Photo credit should read BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/Getty Images)

New York (CNN Business)2018 was a record-setting year for stocks, but it's one investors would rather forget.

The Dow fell 5.6%. The S&P 500 was down 6.2% and the Nasdaq fell 4%. It was the worst year for stocks since 2008 and only the second year the Dow and S&P 500 fell in the past decade. (The S&P 500 and Dow were down slightly in 2015, but the Nasdaq was higher that year.)
A WILD TIME FOR STOCKS
The best stocks of 2018 ... and the worst
Stocks just about everywhere fell
Why Washington is making Wall Street nervous
A head-spinning, jaw-dropping 10 days on the market
December was a particularly dreadful month: The S&P 500 was down 9% and the Dow was down 8.7% — the worst December since 1931. In one seven-day stretch, the Dow fell by 350 points or more six times. This year's Christmas Eve was the worst ever for the index.
The S&P 500 was up or down more than 1% nine times in December alone, compared to eight times in all of 2017. It moved that much 64 times during the year.
2018 wasn't all bad. The S&P 500 set an all-time record on September 20, and the Dow closed at its record on October 3. The Dow also closed more than 1,000 points higher on December 26 — the first time it ever accomplished that feat.
But 2018 will be remembered for its extreme volatility. The VIX volatility index spiked, and CNN Business' Fear & Greed Index has been stuck in "Extreme Fear" throughout much of the year. The Dow has swung 1,000 points in a single session only eight times in its history, and five of those took place in 2018.
Volatility was been driven by signs of a global economic slowdown, concerns about monetary policy, political dysfunction, inflation fears and worries about increased regulation of the technology sector.
A quiet Friday.
On Friday, the Dow rose 265 points for the day. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq each rose about 0.8%.
The market moved higher after President Donald Trump expressed optimism Saturday that the United States could strike a trade deal with China. He tweeted a deal is "moving along very well," calling negotiations "very comprehensive."
Fear of an economic slowdown, as well as a supply glut, spooked the oil market this year. US crude closed up slightly Monday but ended the year down 24.9% at $45.41 a barrel. It had closed as high as $77.41 a barrel in late June, falling 41.3% from that peak.
Stock shock is felt worldwide
Brexit's impact on the United Kingdom and Europe also worried investors, as did a slowdown in the Chinese economy.
The FTSE All-World index, which tracks thousands of stocks across a range of markets, plummeted 12% this year. It's the index's worst performance since the global financial crisis, and a sharp reversal from a gain of nearly 25% in 2017.
The market damage this year was most pronounced in China, where the world's second largest economy is feeling the effects of a darkening trade outlook and government attempts to rein in risky lending after a rapid rise in debt levels.
The Shanghai Composite entered a bear market in June and has now declined nearly 25% since the start of the year. The Shenzhen Composite, which includes many of the country's tech firms, dropped by more than 33% over the same period. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng is down 14%.

So, despite the upward rise in December, we've had the worst year stock-wise in over a decade.

[The Romulan Republic]

Making America Great Again. But remember, its all the fault of the immigrants, and we need a strong man to save the economy.