Toggle sidebar

The stock market thread Part II

Incubajerks said:
The fact is that I have little availability as the bulk is locked until spring 2026. Obviously if the initial value is outrageous I will sell immediately, alternatively I was thinking of buying. We will see. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Oh ok, i didnt look into it too much, thought it was all available to sell starting todsy. So who cam sell and who’s is still locked up for another year?
 
The Crypto Guy said:

@Incubajerks
Click to expand...
The Crypto Guy said:

@Incubajerks
Click to expand...

Hi Crypto! I'm following, there are many things to say, but for what was supposed to be a scam it doesn't seem that bad to me, just as the detractors said 0.000001.

I wouldn't have been able to cash in anyway because the unblocked PI are few, the bulk will be unlocked in January, I have all the time in the world to see what it will be and considering that it is not yet listed on the major exchanges and I'm pretty sure that those who sold come mainly from the so-called third world countries I have every interest in waiting.

What do you think? I'm interested in your opinion...
 
Anyone ever dabble in forex? I've always been interested in the idea and finished the babypips course and started trading on a demo account a few days ago. It's been mostly sideways so far, I'm up maybe one percent on it. I've been about 50/50 on trades but using a 2:1 Risk to reward ratio it's left me ahead. But I need to learn more about identifying entry points and strategies as well as best lot sizes to trade so that you get a return that's worth it on a winning trade without blowing the account getting margin called on leverage.

I'll watch some YouTube videos and keep the demo account going for a month or so and reevaluate before I ever put any real money on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Racki
Yeah, forex is fun. Every time Orange Daddy says anything the USD goes bananas in relation to other currencies in either direction. It's basically just following trends and making your take profit target 2x higher than your stop loss and even if you guess 50/50 you're making money. Rode the EUR/USD bull run for 9% gain.

But I'm not dumb and know that 90% of forex traders blow their accounts soon, so I'm controlling by only risking 1-2% per trade at most, and still going to demo for a few more weeks before putting any real money down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Racki
Just when you thought questrade commercials couldn’t be worse, they got old ass Harvey Spector outchea ranting about zeroes like he’s on a street corner
 
The market has been dropping like a Rock lately. So I am going to pull all my money out of the market and put it into Gold. When Time`s are tough, u can alway`s count on Gold. Think of the Wild Wild West, gold was the Name of the game. Or during the Great Depression they would actually barter using Gold piece`s and that was how they stayed afloat when everyone lost there job`s. If u were caught flat footed without any Gold u were most likely going to perish. And now we are in a Recession. They can keep printing money, they print print print until it is all worthless. But gold keep`s it`s value, it is locked away Safe & Secure in Fort knox. My Great GranPappy never trusted paper money, the bank`s will alway`s find a way to rip u off. Whereas gold is the Real Deal. :clap:
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Price
The fundamentals are shakier and the level of uncertainty much higher than at previous times when the market crashed. In other words we have more than enough going wrong to cause a severe market crash. Is it impending or is there a new dynamic at play here? Is there just so much footloose capital right now that you always feel like you can sell and not get stuck holding the bag? Why are people still confident in their holdings?
 
toddkaz said:
So you provided no links, facts or evidence to back up anything you say. Do you have proof the revenue will shrink? Do you have proof of anything you write here? Please tell me you have actual evidence to back up all of your claims and hyperbole?

If you are such an expert that knows more than economists who predict 2 trillion in tariff revenue what are you doing posting here? You should be advising multinational companies but then again like I said you provided no proof of anything you write where I do provide proof. Reading your post the only thing I see is hurt feelings.
Click to expand...
Each of my points are rooted in basic economic principles and facts. If you want, I can elaborate a little further and walk you through it.

1) When prices increase, demand decreases. The tariffs are being used to decrease reliance on foreign imports and bolster domestic production. If you decrease imports, it logically follows that the revenues from those imports will also decrease. You can't implement policy that is designed to have widespread effects and then ignore those effects.

2) It takes time and knowledge to build new supply chains for products. A recent example is how various global supply chains were thrown out of whack by the pandemic and numerous industries had to scramble to find alternative solutions or get them back on track. That was for supply chains that were already established. Now the expectation is to bring up brand new domestic supply chains, which is complex and requires specialized knowledge that is not available. Meanwhile, people still need to make purchases so they source from the limited domestic options, which are more expensive than the foreign sources, or buy tariffed foreign goods. Either way, they get less for their money so they buy less.

3) Again, basic economics states that companies won't invest if there is no benefit to them. They can pledge all they want, and start exploring investments to minimize the effect of the tariffs on their bottom line. However, once the motivation disappears so will those promised investments.

Great example of promising big and under delivering is Foxconn in 2017, who received massive corporate welfare btw. Wisconn Valley Science and Technology Park - Wikipedia

I'm not claiming to be an expert, I am simply bringing up points that are ignored by lots of the people in support of this policy and being critical of their decisions. I don't attribute any value to blindly following what politicians proclaim no matter where they are on the spectrum. It should be noted that there has been more push back by economic experts on this matter than those in agreement and that the economic consensus has been against them for the past 95 years.
toddkaz said:
The previous administration caused 23% inflation over 4 years costing the American tax payers over 5,000 dollars a household. You want to talk about money wasted? The last administration was forgiving student loans, paying for foreigners in hotels, food, clothes, phones, cars.....but now you are upset about costs?
Click to expand...
The majority of that inflation was caused by the stimulus the government (both previous administrations by the way) had to inject into the economy to avoid entering a recession caused by the pandemic. This action, which was also undertaken by several other countries around the world, if it had not been taken likely leads to a global economic crash. Would you have preferred post 2008 conditions?
toddkaz said:
If baffling people just now are concerned about costs while mortgages doubled, homeless hit record levels, housing costs doubled, credit card debt hit record high over the last 4 years but NOW you are upset over costs. I remember when gas was 2.50 a liter and the government and left told us go by an EV if you don't like the price of gas and now the left are firebombing them.

We wouldn't be here if the last administration but America first instead of everyone else

I have no sympathy for democrat/liberal voters complaining about the cost when I go to the grocery store and many prices have doubled because of the way the last administration handled things.
Click to expand...
Ok so you've thrown out a lot of different points in this last bit, and I will try my best to address them however I do not feel like going off on tangents.

  • Yes, mortgage rates increased to counter inflation. The cost of housing also increased, has it has been for several decades. There are more efficient measures at addressing these issues, such has implementing policies that will increase the supply of new housing.
  • Homelessness is a byproduct of the point above, and treating housing more like a commodity rather than an appreciative asset, would help decrease the rates.
  • High credit debt and spending signifies that the population is spending more.
  • Not all EVs are being firebombed, only some from a company owned by a fairly divisive public figure. To borrow a term, maybe he should "shut up and dribble".
  • Championing a policy that will further increase prices and make your country poorer in the long term is not an appropriate solution to the problem.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: SirJW, I am not exposed, WeDislikeEich and 5 others
Lurked4Yearz said:
Each of my points are rooted in basic economic principles and facts. If you want, I can elaborate a little further and walk you through it.

1) When prices increase, demand decreases. The tariffs are being used to decrease reliance on foreign imports and bolster domestic production. If you decrease imports, it logically follows that the revenues from those imports will also decrease. You can't implement policy that is designed to have widespread effects and then ignore those effects.

2) It takes time and knowledge to build new supply chains for products. A recent example is how various global supply chains were thrown out of whack by the pandemic and numerous industries had to scramble to find alternative solutions or get them back on track. That was for supply chains that were already established. Now the expectation is to bring up brand new domestic supply chains, which is complex and requires specialized knowledge that is not available. Meanwhile, people still need to make purchases so they source from the limited domestic options, which are more expensive than the foreign sources, or buy tariffed foreign goods. Either way, they get less for their money so they buy less.

3) Again, basic economics states that companies won't invest if there is no benefit to them. They can pledge all they want, and start exploring investments to minimize the effect of the tariffs on their bottom line. However, once the motivation disappears so will those promised investments.

Great example of promising big and under delivering is Foxconn in 2017, who received massive corporate welfare btw. Wisconn Valley Science and Technology Park - Wikipedia

I'm not claiming to be an expert, I am simply bringing up points that are ignored by lots of the people in support of this policy and being critical of their decisions. I don't attribute any value to blindly following what politicians proclaim no matter where they are on the spectrum. It should be noted that there has been more push back by economic experts on this matter than those in agreement and that the economic consensus has been against them for the past 95 years.

The majority of that inflation was caused by the stimulus the government (both previous administrations by the way) had to inject into the economy to avoid entering a recession caused by the pandemic. This action, which was also undertaken by several other countries around the world, if it had not been taken likely leads to a global economic crash. Would you have preferred post 2008 conditions?

Ok so you've thrown out a lot of different points in this last bit, and I will try my best to address them however I do not feel like going off on tangents.

  • Yes, mortgage rates increased to counter inflation. The cost of housing also increased, has it has been for several decades. There are more efficient measures at addressing these issues, such has implementing policies that will increase the supply of new housing.
  • Homelessness is a byproduct of the point above, and treating housing more like a commodity rather than an appreciative asset, would help decrease the rates.
  • High credit debt and spending signifies that the population is spending more.
  • Not all EVs are being firebombed, only some from a company owned by a fairly divisive public figure. To borrow a term, maybe he should "shut up and dribble".
  • Championing a policy that will further increase prices and make your country poorer in the long term is not an appropriate solution to the problem.
Click to expand...
I applaud you for explaining all of this so clearly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirJW, WeDislikeEich, EXTRAS and 3 others
Lurked4Yearz said:
Each of my points are rooted in basic economic principles and facts. If you want, I can elaborate a little further and walk you through it.

1) When prices increase, demand decreases. The tariffs are being used to decrease reliance on foreign imports and bolster domestic production. If you decrease imports, it logically follows that the revenues from those imports will also decrease. You can't implement policy that is designed to have widespread effects and then ignore those effects.

2) It takes time and knowledge to build new supply chains for products. A recent example is how various global supply chains were thrown out of whack by the pandemic and numerous industries had to scramble to find alternative solutions or get them back on track. That was for supply chains that were already established. Now the expectation is to bring up brand new domestic supply chains, which is complex and requires specialized knowledge that is not available. Meanwhile, people still need to make purchases so they source from the limited domestic options, which are more expensive than the foreign sources, or buy tariffed foreign goods. Either way, they get less for their money so they buy less.

3) Again, basic economics states that companies won't invest if there is no benefit to them. They can pledge all they want, and start exploring investments to minimize the effect of the tariffs on their bottom line. However, once the motivation disappears so will those promised investments.

Great example of promising big and under delivering is Foxconn in 2017, who received massive corporate welfare btw. Wisconn Valley Science and Technology Park - Wikipedia

I'm not claiming to be an expert, I am simply bringing up points that are ignored by lots of the people in support of this policy and being critical of their decisions. I don't attribute any value to blindly following what politicians proclaim no matter where they are on the spectrum. It should be noted that there has been more push back by economic experts on this matter than those in agreement and that the economic consensus has been against them for the past 95 years.

The majority of that inflation was caused by the stimulus the government (both previous administrations by the way) had to inject into the economy to avoid entering a recession caused by the pandemic. This action, which was also undertaken by several other countries around the world, if it had not been taken likely leads to a global economic crash. Would you have preferred post 2008 conditions?

Ok so you've thrown out a lot of different points in this last bit, and I will try my best to address them however I do not feel like going off on tangents.

  • Yes, mortgage rates increased to counter inflation. The cost of housing also increased, has it has been for several decades. There are more efficient measures at addressing these issues, such has implementing policies that will increase the supply of new housing.
  • Homelessness is a byproduct of the point above, and treating housing more like a commodity rather than an appreciative asset, would help decrease the rates.
  • High credit debt and spending signifies that the population is spending more.
  • Not all EVs are being firebombed, only some from a company owned by a fairly divisive public figure. To borrow a term, maybe he should "shut up and dribble".
  • Championing a policy that will further increase prices and make your country poorer in the long term is not an appropriate solution to the problem.
Click to expand...
Still no links provided, no proof or evidence of anything you write.

If you cant prove what you write there is no point in taking it seriously.

You said pledges by corporations and publicly traded companies to spend trillions means nothing.

No, it doesn't mean nothing. It means they pledged to spend money in the economy. Thats not nothing thats a pledge. So you claim that nvidia is defrauding shareholders because they are making misleading statements,. That it doesn't actually mean they will spend the money they are just kissing Trump's ass? You actually think publicly traded companies are lying to shareholders. Did you provide proof of your claim? That they have no intention of spending the money? No you don't.

Thats why you cant be taken seriously.

Source - Trust me bro.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Bocephus86
toddkaz said:
Still no links provided, no proof or evidence of anything you write.

If you cant prove what you write there is no point in taking it seriously.

You said pledges by corporations and publicly traded companies to spend trillions means nothing.

No, it doesn't mean nothing. It means they pledged to spend money in the economy. Thats not nothing thats a pledge. So you claim that nvidia is defrauding shareholders because they are making misleading statements,. That it doesn't actually mean they will spend the money they are just kissing Trump's ass? You actually think publicly traded companies are lying to shareholders. Did you provide proof of your claim? That they have no intention of spending the money? No you don't.

Thats why you cant be taken seriously.

Source - Trust me bro.
Click to expand...
Ok
 
  • Like
Reactions: Primary Assist and Beau Knows
Lurked4Yearz said:
Ok
Click to expand...
Did you not claim that pledges mean nothing because no one is forcing them spend the money?

So you claim CEO's of publicly traded companies are what? Lying? Kissing the president's ass? Committing fraud by misleading the shareholders?

It was you I think that claimed these CEOs are committing fraud and provided no evidence that they are doing this. Basically calling them all liars.
 
toddkaz said:
Did you not claim that pledges mean nothing because no one is forcing them spend the money?

So you claim CEO's of publicly traded companies are what? Lying? Kissing the president's ass? Committing fraud by misleading the shareholders?

It was you I think that claimed these CEOs are committing fraud and provided no evidence that they are doing this. Basically calling them all liars.
Click to expand...
He literally provided you an example of this happening before.

Wisconn Valley Science and Technology Park - Wikipedia

In case you missed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurked4Yearz
toddkaz said:
Did you not claim that pledges mean nothing because no one is forcing them spend the money?
Click to expand...
Yes, a pledge is different from an actual investment. It means at this point in time you are promising to spend money in the future. The companies involved could and probably will end up spending less than they pledged. Less than 100% of the money that has ever been pledged by corporations, politicians and philanthropists in the past has ended up being actually invested.
toddkaz said:
So you claim CEO's of publicly traded companies are what? Lying? Kissing the president's ass? Committing fraud by misleading the shareholders?

It was you I think that claimed these CEOs are committing fraud and provided no evidence that they are doing this. Basically calling them all liars.
Click to expand...
No, pledging money and then not spending the full amount later on is not fraud. There are many valid reasons a company may not want to follow through afterwards:
  • Sales forecasts fall short leading to decreased revenue and profits.
  • Lack of external funding by local, state or federal government.
  • Project delays that extend past a point where the ROI is no longer worth it.
  • Having to pivot to another technology after being beaten to market by a competitor.
  • External factors that affect the market (global pandemic, foreign conflicts, tariffs, etc.)
Any one of these reasons would be appropriate excuse to not follow through on a pledge while having the shareholders' best interests in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Primary Assist, I am not exposed, WeDislikeEich and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom