The future of the Forex industry - page 155
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
About your activity is clear. You're already making up all kinds of nonsense to cash in on a new deposit for your forum posts.)
I'm jealous of you, a dreamer, smart but without money, unemployed, it's the last thing))))
I've seen a few smart guys like you on this forum. And you drop, the rottenness on the market with great force.
For him, not so much the bonuses are important, as the need to work off the money they receive from NGOs for pushing Western ideas among the Russian-speaking audience).
Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, the Fed has received a lot of praise for moves that have helped stabilize the economy, kept house prices from falling and propped up the stock market. But these successes have obscured another effect: the unintended impact of the Fed's ultra-low interest rates and spikes in bond purchases on economic inequality.
Long-standing inequalities in the US are exacerbated by the Fed's role in starting a multibillion-dollar stock market boom, and equity ownership is heavily skewed towards wealthier Americans.
Vina Tan, 59, precariously at the bottom of the American working class, makes about $25,000 a year as a special needs adult employment coach near Irvine, California. She is a single mother and grandmother and can only afford food, rent and medical care through federal welfare programs.
Her savings account is about $11,000, most of which came from recent tax refunds and stimulus payments. She is reluctant to risk that money in stocks, so the bull market is likely to continue to pass her by. Meanwhile, thanks to the Fed's near-zero interest rates, the best rate its credit union could offer was 0.5% on a long-term CD. That would mean making less than $60 a year from her savings, tying up the money for five years.
The situation is far from unique. According to Teresa Gilarducci, a New York School pension economist, Social Security is the main source of wealth for most low-income families whose workers are nearing retirement. If the Social Security guaranteed income stream is viewed as an asset, she estimates it represents 58% of net worth for near-retirees in the bottom half of the US wealth distribution. Other pension savings make up only about 11% of their net worth, and stocks only 1%. (Equity accounts for most of the remainder.)
A sizable group of less well off Americans have essentially missed out on any direct wealth growth due to the market nearly doubling since its bottom 13 months ago. Most likely, the top beneficiaries were the top 10% of Americans, who owned 89% of stocks and mutual fund shares owned by US households at the end of the year, according to Fed statistics. More than half of them - 53% - belong to the top 1%.
The Fed's policies helped create jobs and reduce unemployment, which was their goal. However, in the process, the Fed has accelerated a decade-long rise in economic inequality , helping to increase the wealth of the people at the very top far more than it has increased the wealth of working-class Americans.
“High-wealth households perform much better in a low-rate environment than low-wealth households,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. “A low interest rate environment increases inequality by increasing the wealth of people who are in abundance.” Zandi, however, noted that the less affluent do not lose money because of low rates; they just don't earn as well as richer people.
Home prices have also benefited from the Fed's easy money policy, and home ownership is much more evenly distributed than stock ownership. According to the Fed, the richest 10% own only 45% of real estate owned by American households. The rest is held mostly by middle-class households, for whom home equity is often the biggest source of wealth.
But stocks are what have made really huge profits. It's also where there was a lot of panic last year before the Fed and the CARES Act came to the rescue. COVID-19 caused unemployment to skyrocket and stocks to plunge as the market fell 35% from February 19 to March 23, 2020.
The growth of the market since then makes the increase in homeowners' net worth negligible. From last year's market bottom to mid-April this year, equities are up about $22.4 trillion, as measured by the overall Wilshire 5000 market index.
By contrast, the nation's total home equity - the value of homes minus their debt - rose by just $1.3 trillion from the end of the first quarter of last year (eight days after the market low) to December 31, according to Fed. Even if you adjust housing numbers to reflect this year's earnings, or measure stock market earnings before the February drop, the difference between stock market capitalization and home equity capitalization is huge.
“ Inequality is a cumulative process ,” says Karen Petru, author of Drive Inequality: The Fed and the Future of Wealth in America and managing partner at Washington-based consulting firm Federal Financial Analytics. “ The richer you are, the richer you get, and the poorer you get, the poorer you get, unless something puts that engine in reverse ,” she said. “This engine is driven not by fate or untouchables like demographics, but most importantly by political decisions.”
[...]
It further discusses, in rather loose style, that the giant stimulus packages purported to be aid to the downtrodden are essentially lending, increasing Treasury debt, and a significant portion of that monetary stimulus is going to support the market and not just support the poor, and when the Fed buys securities, it makes it lending. money that they seem to create out of thin air [actually it's just deferred debt - dreamer's note].
Much of the current and future deficits will be indirectly financed by the Fed, which is increasing its holdings of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities by at least $120 billion a month and has directed its trade bureau to increase purchases “as needed” to keep financial markets running smoothly. markets.
Pumping more money into the financial system increases the money supply, and some of that money inevitably ends up in the stock market, raising prices.
[...]
So the poor lost again.
[...]
In addition, tax increases are planned as part of the "infrastructural step"... 😀
[...]
During the financial crisis of 2008-09, the Fed initiated “quantitative easing,” a policy in which the central bank buys massive amounts of Treasury bills and other securities to inject money into the markets and stimulate the economy. Then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke championed this approach, which complemented the Treasury's aggressive moves and helped keep giant banks and the global financial system from cratering. (Many people are still losing their homes to foreclosures, another example of how bailing out the financial system may not help ordinary people. But that story has already been told.)
Quantitative easing helps stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates, which hurts savers. An illustrative indicator is money market mutual funds, where depositors traditionally hide free cash in the hope of earning more interest than bank deposits pay. Money market funds used to be much more profitable than stock market index funds. But this ratio began to decline in 2008 and continues to decline. At the end of 2007, the Vanguard federal money market fund returned 4.46%, while Admiral's share dividend from the general stock market index fund returned 1.78%. (The dividend yield is the fund's annual dividend divided by its share price.) At the end of 2008, the yield was 1.74% for a money market fund and 2.82% for an equity index fund. Current figures: 0.01% and 1.28%.
These low rates have forced average savers to either make do with less interest income or invest more money in stocks than they otherwise would. This extra demand was one of the factors that helped push stock prices higher.
Economists are beginning to see the interaction between the Fed's actions and inequality in a new light. Central banks tend to think that "we don't have to worry about inequality when we're doing monetary policy," said Olivier Blanchard, former director of research at the International Monetary Fund, during a December virtual forum sponsored by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Blanchard said he has since come to believe that monetary policy does affect economic inequality because changing interest rates has “serious, serious distributional implications between borrowers and lenders, between asset holders and not.”
Fed, Treasury and White House officials declined to discuss the impact of the ultra-low interest rate spike on stock prices on economic inequality. So we've taken a look at what some of the key people involved in the Fed bailout in 2008-09 and 2020 have publicly stated.
Fed Chairman Jerome Powell did not directly address the role of the central bank in exacerbating inequality, although he expressed sympathy for the people left behind during the economic recovery. (“There’s still a lot of suffering out there,” he told 60 Minutes in an interview that aired on April 11. “And I think it’s important that we, as a country, stay and help these people.”) At the hearing in Congress in February, Powell said, “ We can't change wealth inequality. ... We can influence income inequality indirectly by doing everything we can to support job creation at the bottom of the market.” When Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) demanded to discuss issues of wealth inequality, he told her that “these are really issues of fiscal policy.”
Bernanke, now a Fellow of the Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a 2017 Brookings paper that “ ceteris paribus, higher stock prices mean greater inequality in wealth. But he argued that “whatever impact monetary policy has on inequality is likely to be transitory, in contrast to the secular forces of technology and globalization that have fueled years of rising inequality in the United States and some other advanced countries.” economy.” Like Powell, Bernanke argued that inequality was the province of fiscal politicians (Congress and the White House), not the Fed.
Janet Yellen, who was Fed Vice Chair under Bernank and is now Treasury Secretary, asked in a 2014 speech whether income inequality is compatible “with values rooted in our nation’s history.” But she largely defended ultra-low rates during a Q&A session at the 2013 business journalists conference. Elderly depositors “suffered from low returns on their CDs [ certificate of deposit - dreamer's note],” she said, but “they have children and they have grandchildren” who would benefit from a stronger economy.
However, the economic effects of quantitative easing eventually fade, according to researchers at the Bank for International Settlements, a Swiss institution that acts as a central bank for central banks. In a 2017 study, the BIS concluded that quantitative easing was more successful in boosting stock prices than in spurring economic growth. Over time, the economic impact tended to vanish, while stocks showed a “significant and persistent positive impact,” the researchers found.
Jason Fuhrman, former chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers and now a professor of economics at Harvard, summed up the trade-off with inequality in an interview: "I don't want to have a lower stock market and higher unemployment." In other words, increasing wealth for the rich is an inevitable side effect of keeping interest rates low to support the economy and create jobs.
The latest round of stimulus checks will help close that gap a bit by putting money in the pockets of low-income people like Vina Tan. But near-zero interest rates will make it harder for them to save money for the future, Tan hopes. She would like to put $1,000 to $2,000 into savings accounts for her 16-year-old son and three-year-old grandson, in addition to savings for retirement and a rainy day fund.
And as the Fed pumps more money into the financial system by buying Treasury securities and indirectly supporting federal stimulus programs, stock markets are likely to continue to rally - and leave those low-income people even further behind than they already were.
[ In short, you can escape from the ashes only if you start doing something yourself - a dreamer's comment. ]
It's a bit cramped in here, isn't it? )))) You don't have enough opponents, so why don't you go on tour if you have the time and inclination? :)))) I'd like to put your rhetoric to good use. There is a bunch here - the remnants of the elite on the forex market are floundering in the Sandbox. They are bored there without Ostap. And they are bored to read, they will be stewing in their own juice from the lack of healthy competition. They all look like a match - komsa, neosovoks and socialists.
After a while the presence of the Drimmer here will diminish for capitalist reasons.
I'm just having fun and exercising my rhetoric but I try to do it in a way that's interesting to read 😀
Rigid characters and socialists like Ulad, Automat, Khorosh, Renat and the like - for all their primitiveness - are most interesting as test targets/objects for puncturing rhetoric.
After all, it is often necessary to affect not only the mind but emotions as well.
It is clear that the mind of the rigid characters is bad, so you can follow the subversion through emotion.
And it seems to work effectively: they can not get out of the subject and continue to rip and bomb 😁
The vampiric art is to destroy your opponent's values and make them feel inferior.
Normal swearing will be forgotten in half an hour, but the scar of psycho-attack and gaslighting can remain for years, and you don't even have to use obscene language.
Showing the victim and the public why he is a failure, discrediting his ideas, associating his behaviour with stupidity and degradation is what really makes you suffer...
A successful psycho-attack is when the victim feels that his/her self-esteem is severely out of line with reality, find his/her pain points and press on them...
Ideally, the victim should excuses himself painfully, constantly going back to what happened, trying to replay the situation ...
Exactly - as we can see - that's what the aforementioned rigid characters here do every day 🤣
😈
About your activity is clear. You're already making up all kinds of nonsense to cash in on a new deposit for your forum posts.)
I'm jealous of you, a dreamer, smart but without money, unemployed, it's the last thing))))
I've seen a few smart guys like you on this forum. And you drop, the rottenness on the market with a lot of force.
Good tear... and a resentful whimper...
Here is also a vivid example of how the victim is trying to painfully replay the situation but wishes it in a hopelessly stupid way (by talking nonsense to the good drimmer) 😁
Of course he is - where will the skills come from a low skilled worker on the level of a cleaner (as he identified himself)
And obviously Ulad is wildly jealous and angry - if only by how strenuously he tries to deny it... 😁😂🤣
He can't get out of this trap and get rid of the shame.
The fact is that low-intellectual hairy hippy creatures in adidas will always lose to the intellectual elite.
Ulad, realise you can't get off the subject and will forever be bombarded with envy of the highly cultured capitalist Drimmer 😀
It is not so much the bonuses that are important to him as the need to work off the money he receives from NGOs for pushing Western ideas among the Russian-speaking audience).
You're posting crazy again, aren't you?
Has the State Department checked under the bed? and in the wardrobe?
😁😂🤣
What a primitive character with binary politicised thinking!
Now would suspect the noble Drimmer of being a westernist...
I have said many times that I am for space and for logos.
Realise Mr Khorosh that you are just torn with envy and anger and have no real argument against Drimer.
Oh, and one more thing: poor socialists must suffer - such is the constant of history and geography.
The future of the forex industry lies in hallucinogens and euphoretics
cacti and mushrooms should not be forgotten
Original article, in case anyone is wondering about the poor working class and inequality:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/04/26/federal-reserve-interest-rates-inequality/
We need more inequality! 🤣
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/video-wealth-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-worse-than-you-think/?agreed=1
here the author argues that the real distribution of income is actually even more unequal than commonly thought.
yes there is much more than a ratio of 100 - socialists must suffer wildly (again)
Apparently, if one reads this entire thread, the way to the True Grail will be revealed to those who are suffering. There is no doubt about that.
However, when I start reading it, I realise that I don't understand a single word. That's a shame.
Another study/opinion that social inequality will increase as the economy recovers from the Corona crisis:
https://www.santander.com/en/press-room/insights/economic-recovery-and-inequality-in-2021
https://www.bruegel.org/2020/12/happy-new-year/