changed to "wealth inequality"

[Script]

That's what millions of people have done, and they've lost everything in the 2008 krach.

For my part, I usually spend quite some time trying to understand the business model of a company before buying their stocks. And I never buy what I don't really understand, such as any kind of fund for instance. Then I spend time to stay up-to-date about the developments and the many other risks along the way to be able to react ,if necessary.  I know people, both family and friends, who simply didn't do that before 2008 and they still just wouldn't do it today. Or they ended up throwing it all out for good -- or worse. And that, I tend to believe, probably pleases the nasty-spirited among those very rich in a particularly subversive, clandestine way.

So, you propose being thrifty as an alternative to being well paid? Thank you!

No, I don't. And I'm not sure I fully understand where you feel I did.

Personally, I think that the low-wage employment culture that we have honed and refined over years, even decades, purely in the name of 'margin optimization' is a disgrace to many if not all countries that are democratic, highly developed and the richest on average in the world. And a lot of that has to do with the politics that we allow to reign over us.

I know very well what it means to live on a budget of roughly $500 a month without health insurance etc etc etc etc etc -- not to mention the prospect of ever enjoying a pension in old age, no matter how small. Found myself doing that probably for too many years. Pretty shitty times and I'm happy they are past.

----------
Anyway, I'm really interested now in what Elisabeth Warren has to say

 

[abbey road d enfer]

For my part, I usually spend quite some time trying to understand the business model of a company before buying their stocks. And I never buy what I don't really understand, such as any kind of fund for instance. Then I spend time to stay up-to-date about the developments and the many other risks along the way to be able to react ,if necessary.

It's not the first time I hear this. But the system is rigged. That works for some time and eventually you get swindled. The stock market is like a casino, in the end only the house wins. You've probably been lucky, until ...

And I'm not sure I fully understand where you feel I did. (answering: "So, you propose being thrifty as an alternative to being well paid? "

Your words: "why not skip on the obvious luxury item of an iPhone, for example (really just an example!). Why not go buy a cheaper model by a different maker instead?"

 

[living sounds]

I find it insulting to everyones intelligence how these relentlessly repeated talking points by well-paid shills like the one about the "wealth creators" at the top keep being parroted around.

Take a close look how an economy in general and how the current economoy actually work. It's very different from the well-crafted lies that are spun to disproportionally favour a tiny minority of those at the very top. 

 

[Winetree]

It's not the first time I hear this. But the system is rigged. That works for some time and eventually you get swindled. The stock market is like a casino, in the end only the house wins. You've probably been lucky, until ...
Your words: "why not skip on the obvious luxury item of an iPhone, for example (really just an example!). Why not go buy a cheaper model by a different maker instead?"

The stock market is a Zero Sum Game. Someone sells, someone buys, If someone wins, someone loses. There is no House.
The stock market was based on a formula of Stock price vs dividends vs. interest rates. There are no rules to play by now.
The Market goes up and down based on hearsay, rumors, and fears. Nothing based on the value of the company. When the rules changed,
I didn't know how to play anymore. I got out. I found real estate was the only real investment.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

The stock market is a Zero Sum Game. Someone sells, someone buys, If someone wins, someone loses. There is no House.

Isn't there? How come it's always the same that win and the same others that lose.

The Market goes up and down based on hearsay, rumors, and fears. Nothing based on the value of the company.

Agreed. People who think they understand the system and make it work for them live in illusion; it's like believing someone can make a roulette work for them. One has to be on the right side of the handle.

 

[Script]

Your words: "why not skip on the obvious luxury item of an iPhone, for example (really just an example!). Why not go buy a cheaper model by a different maker instead?"

Yes, I said that. And I live by that: Thrifty where it really counts, not so much when and where it really doesn't. But I made no connection whatsoever to low wages there. But I got your point.

[...] the system is rigged [...] The stock market is like a casino

I'm not the gambling type. Tried it very briefly, but didn't like it. Rules in casino games are plain and  primitive as rock and there is no information to deduce anything from.

Stock markets are not casinos. That's a sweeping statement that doesn't really help anyone understand how to approach it, if at all, or understand how it works, or should work, and what's going wrong in and around parts of it today. Sorry.

Look at or even approach the stock market like a gambler and it sure will be nothing more than gambling. Pretty much like buying a product at a store completely blindfolded and at random. Chances then are high it will be of no use to you. Make it a financial product (stock, fund, mortgage, life insurance, private health insurance, car lease etc) and it can easily get ugly.

Markets have always been driven by irrational human behaviour. That hasn't changed much. And the price of a stock has hardly ever coincided with the real basic value of a company. That hasn't changed either.  What has changed is the amount of artificially created QE money pumped into it. That QE 'mission' is the opposite of what had been done in 1929.

Anyway, there sure are forces at work that try to make more water flow into their harbours than that of their neighbours. That's what they are all fighting for. Few of the methods being used are clearly illegal and need to be prosecuted. Other methods are legal, as of today, but they may be morally dubious. And they need to be addressed too. And yet other practices have been fine for a long time, but have become destructive against a backdrop of large-scale quantitative easing -- the money is there but it only does to small extent what it was supposed to do.

 

[dmp]

Stocks in there best sense let an individual invest in the economy. So as the economy grows, the investment grows. The growth of stocks, however, have far outpaced the growth of the economy. Even if you say GDP growth + inflation, you are much lower than the stock returns. But the stock market in the past 30 years has oscillated dramatically (and it isn't done yet...)
But to stay on the simple fundamental explanation first, for a moment.

They are a zero sum game as individuals buy and sell them, but if they are tracking the growth of the company, and dividends are paying out to the holder, a person could invest,  hold for 20 yrs, sell to someone younger at a higher price, and a beneficial cycle could continue indefinitely.  Dividends historically pay out 1/2 of earnings I think.

The difference between investing and gambling is the expected growth rate. Gambling is negative. Take roulette: you bet on one of 38 numbers (1 - 36 and 0, 00) but when you win you only get paid 36:1. So over time your pot will decline, just based on statistics.
Stocks, however, will grow over time if they track the growth of the economy.
The economy grows both as the population increases and more workers participate, and technology improvements increase the productivity of individual worker's contributions. 
Now, this has been a fundamental analysis, and I haven't touched on short and long term debt cycles, money printing, inflation/deflation, etc...
But I will say if you look at the last 200 yrs, there was ALWAYS something to be really bearish about. Is this time different? hard to know.

Finally, the 'value' of stocks has always been affected by speculation. Ideally, a diversified basket of stocks would track the growth of the economy in  stable, long term, reliable way. That would be a great investment for everyone. Unfortunately they do not.  The effect of speculation on valuations was written about 100 years ago by the economist Keynes in his book General Theory. He talked about 1st personal value (how much is this asset worth to me) versus the 3rd person speculative value (how much is this asset worth to some other generic person. Read about his beauty pageant analogy for more details.
It becomes a game of common knowledge and can be analyzed in game theory.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The stock market is a Zero Sum Game. Someone sells, someone buys, If someone wins, someone loses. There is no House.

in the short term less than zero sum, as there is a house,,,large trading (market making) firms get a (very small) taste of every trade.

I worry that high speed traders can skim some wealth from less responsive slow traders, and of course trading on inside information is pretty much fraud against honest investors, but it is harder and harder to get away with that (some congressman just got busted for sharing inside information with his relatives).

The stock market was based on a formula of Stock price vs dividends vs. interest rates.

huh.... ? Aggregate stock market price is based on a multiple times earning (aka P/E). There other important metrics like earning growth (PEG). Stock prices are not based on current conditions but expectations of future conditions . 

There are no rules to play by now.

there are always rules, but multiple levers that influence market levels. The extraordinary quantitative easing after the housing bubble collapse put a bid under all assets (like houses, and stocks). The US central bank has been slowly unwinding this historic amount of QE and so far so good, but the rest of world economies are not all as strong as the US so as this (fungible) liquidity is withdrawn, a cold here causes pneumonia to weaker economies. I expect more volatility to come as the liquidity tide goes out and we can see who isn't wearing a suit (like Turkey? but they have more issues going on than just that).

The Market goes up and down based on hearsay, rumors, and fears.

true in the short term... some classic trading quotes "buy the rumor, sell the news", "the market can remain irrational longer than a given trader can remain solvent" and "bull markets climb a wall of worry". When everybody is bullish, head for the exits (I'm saying that, but we aren't there yet)).  I am reducing my exposure to the stock market right now because I am too old to hold this much common stock.

Nothing based on the value of the company.

Long term stock price is all about the earnings and value created by a given company, in the short term the market multiple (average P/E) can get distorted. In the short term there can be significant reversals/retracement. Some old technology companies are only now revisiting dot com bubble highs, but now their P/E are based on much more realistic (lower) ratios. This is why the stock market is a long term game, and why I am reducing my exposure because I won't have enough time to ride out the next significant reversal (they always happen).

When the rules changed,

as noted the massive QE made everything go up...  I find it amusing to see younger stock analysts on TV talk about the market with barely a decade of experience under these unusual conditions. These kids don't remember 15%+ mortgage rates, etc. Remember nothing, they are still living in their parents basement (sorry about the ageist slight.)

I didn't know how to play anymore. I got out.

you are apparently not alone. I took a longer view and stayed long. I am well up from my previous (before dot com run up) levels.

I found real estate was the only real investment.

Another classic quote "they stopped making land, so it will always keep appreciating", but you still need buy and sell smart ("location, location, location"). Ask all the people who bought real estate at the height of the housing bubble how they feel about real estate as an investment. 

If I was a younger man, I would probably have bought a bigger house several years ago , but nah I already have rooms I barely use, and an acre of grass to mow every weekend. If I was much younger I'd be buying instead of selling stocks, but I was and I did.  8)

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I started this thread with tongue firmly in cheek. When a politician says something they often do something else.  Ignoring the 2020 campaign as we will have plenty of time to talk about that between now and then. The engineer in me likes to think about remedies for the big problems.
======
I invite some thoughtful discussion about wealth inequality, without the shop worn talking points from both sides (I'll try).

This is hugely difficult with unintended consequences from too simple solutions (is that a talking point, or a truth?).

JR

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Stocks in there best sense let an individual invest in the economy. So as the economy grows, the investment grows.

That's the bait.

The difference between investing and gambling is the expected growth rate. Gambling is negative. Take roulette: you bet on one of 38 numbers (1 - 36 and 0, 00) but when you win you only get paid 36:1. So over time your pot will decline, just based on statistics.

However, statistics don't apply to stock market, at least not in the random way of roulette. Roulette is biased, stock market is rigged. When the market is up, the big players win, when it's down Joe Public loses.

 

[dmp]

That's the bait.
However, statistics don't apply to stock market, at least not in the random way of roulette. Roulette is biased, stock market is rigged. When the market is up, the big players win, when it's down Joe Public loses.

Yes, Joe Public is known for buying high and then selling low - the opposite of what you want to do. Human nature pushes individuals to respond in exactly the wrong way. The big players have this figured out and apply discipline to play the game to win.  Not to mention how much they shred Joe Public who tries to beat the market and trades frequently.
The best thing Joe Public could do if he/she wants to invest in the stock market is buy a little bit at a time in a diversified fund and not even look at it for most of his/her life.  you look at a the SP500 over the past 100 years and in most cases this would be a good choice.

But right now the US and world is at the end of a long term debt cycle and I don't know how that is going to play out. There haven't been many soft landings in history (if any). The long term debt cycle is ~100 yrs, the end of which is signified by bottomed out interest rates, money printing, and sometimes currency collapse. We are also at the end of the short term debt cycle (~10 yrs).  That's why, even though I am pretty far from retirement, I am a little more cautious about investments right now.

 

[dmp]

I invite some thoughtful discussion about wealth inequality, without the shop worn talking points from both sides (I'll try).
This is hugely difficult with unintended consequences from too simple solutions (is that a talking point, or a truth?).
JR

The most important question to answer in my opinion is can wages rise in a laissez faire Capitalist economy to maintain a wealth distribution? Or is the balance of power between Capital and Labor tilted

 

[JohnRoberts]

That's the bait.
However, statistics don't apply to stock market, at least not in the random way of roulette. Roulette is biased, stock market is rigged. When the market is up, the big players win, when it's down Joe Public loses.

In fact statistical analysis is used to predict expected future price moves based on historical data. This is a very old discipline dating back to commodity markets in ancient china. However in the very short term the market can move unpredictably making even the best chartist prediction wrong. 

The other form of stock analysis is fundamentals, simply earnings projections and expectations based on recent past history (of earning growth).

Smart investing involves using both statistical and fundamental analysis.

A fool will be separated from money in the stock market, just like a Hifi store (don't be the fool).

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

The most important question to answer in my opinion is can wages rise in a laissez faire Capitalist economy to maintain a wealth distribution?

wages are rising (slowly). Too fast would accelerate inflation, but could rise a little faster. (If Warren's hypothetical legislation forces corporations to transfer more wealth to their workers, that will be yet another negative incentive against having employees.)

I am unsure how to thoughtfully respond to "in a laissez faire Capitalist economy to maintain a wealth distribution? " that seems loaded with multiple buzzwords and talking points. 

Or is the balance of power between Capital and Labor tilted

And what should that balance be?  What exactly is the "power" of capital and labor?. 

Individual labor is generally valued by how much wealth that individual can and will create with individual work effort.  Collectively labor in large organizations can apply that collective force (threat of strike) in wage and benefits negotiations. We can study europe for evidence about how well (or poorly) labor participation at board level works inside large companies. 

Wealth is passive, but people can use wealth to create more value. In fact if we don't actively pursue positive return, inflation will shrink that wealth right before our eyes. (i recently bought some CDs and while the less than 3% interest is less than we used to routinely get in saving accounts, it is better than nothing (just barely beating current inflation rate of 2%). 

The entire limited liability corporate structure is set up to allow wealth to be put to productive use, creating jobs, and hopefully a positive return, without exposing the investor to the entire liability of the corporation. If this was so easy we wouldn't so many businesses going bankrupt.  Capital seem painted as an evil pejorative in modern political discourse. Like anything else wealth can be used to do good, or bad.

JR

 

[dmp]

These are the definitions of those terms so we're on the same page.

laissez faire: abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.
Capitalist economy: an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
distribution of wealth: is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society.

i.e. what I was asking is - DOES a laissez faire Capitalist have a natural balance between Capital and Wages that creates a long term stable situation? Or is it like a game of Monopoly where everyone starts out equal but the dynamics of the game lead to one person WINNING (acquiring all the wealth). Or the other players flipping over the board in frustration  ;D

____________________________

I'll try to answer your questions with my view - but they are very hard questions to answer.

And what should that balance be?

 

I would say a good balance between labor and Capital would be such that the country is politically stable AND business investment is encouraged. 
When Capital has too much power, wealth inequality increases. As wealth inequality increases there is more and more class warfare and several times in history it has led to revolution (Après moi, le déluge).
But on the other hand, there should be a balance such that the risk of investing Capital & starting businesses is sufficiently rewarded, i.e. so someone working in a field for a competitive salary might make the risk of starting off on their own for a greater reward.

What exactly is the "power" of capital and labor?.

The price of labor is determined by supply and demand in the absence of collective bargaining (i.e. unions) or regulations (i.e min wage). Capital has more power if they tend not to be squeezed by tight supply or higher demand. For instance, if there is increased supply made available to counter rising wages (H1-b visas for example) or demand can be reduced in the face of higher wage demands (automation, etc...), then Capital increases power.

Individual labor is generally valued by how much wealth that individual can and will create with individual work effort. 

No, it's valued at the price it can be obtained for through supply and demand. For example, if you wanted to hire someone to renovate your house, which would require 100 hours of labor, and the value of the renovations would increase your homes value  by $30k, would you hire someone at $300 an hour? (100 hrs*$300/hr=$30k)  I don't think so -  if the going rate for carpenters was $50 / hr, you would hire someone at the going rate $50.
Business works the same way.  A business employs people that create value that the business realizes for a profit. The lower the cost of labor, the more the business & Capital profits.
Attached chart shows how capital has become more profitable while worker's share of $$ has declined.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

For example, if you wanted to hire someone to renovate your house, which would require 100 hours of labor, and the value of the renovations would increase your homes value  by $30k

The question is why does adding works that cost 5k increase the value of the house by 30k?
Part of the answer is because we're used to overpay everything. We buy a meal at a restaurant for $30, but it would have cost only $6 if we had it at home.

 

[dmp]

The question is why does adding works that cost 5k increase the value of the house by 30k?
Part of the answer is because we're used to overpay everything. We buy a meal at a restaurant for $30, but it would have cost only $6 if we had it at home.

That is a good question. Although I think consumers are pretty adapt at being frugal. They are less adapt at being out smarted by corporations. Market capture  is part of the answer (the appearance of competition via a lot of brands, when in reality a handful of companies own all the brands)
Another part of the answer is constrained supply (in housing)

 

[JohnRoberts]

That is a good question. Although I think consumers are pretty adapt at being frugal. They are less adapt at being out smarted by corporations. Market capture  is part of the answer (the appearance of competition via a lot of brands, when in reality a handful of companies own all the brands)
Another part of the answer is constrained supply (in housing)

Last first(easier). I am seeing another cultural shift away from premium brands toward generic or house brands when shopping. This is eroding profits for some consumer products companies invested in branding as a means of wealth generation (like P&G).

Maybe it's because I am so cheap but I have questioned the value of name brands for decades. For one glaring example what is the difference between different gas stations (cleaner rest rooms)? The gas pretty much comes from the same refinery.

This culture shift in shopping is making less noise than than the headline #metoo stuff... 

JR

PS: it looks like Elon Musk is living out his Tony Stark (ironman) impersonation, following only his personal set of rules. He is a brilliant guy and so lets hope he gets himself under control, he has more contributions to make.

 

[Scodiddly]

It's easy to say something like "the stock market is where you can make money, so why doesn't everybody just do that?" is that it assumes that everybody has the time, education, intelligence, and access to benefit from investing in stocks.  Basically it's really no different than saying "shoes are too expensive, why doesn't everybody just make their own shoes?" while ignoring that very few people have real access to the necessary equipment.  And it it also ignores that one of the huge benefits of society is specialization - we can all afford better shoes than we can make ourselves, and in return the shoemaker doesn't have to farm their own food or build their own car.

And beyond that, the whole frugality argument. Sure, it's good to be careful of finances, but where does that end?  When we're all back on our own little farms, raising everything ourselves and sewing dresses out of flour sacks?  This completely ignores the real history that most everybody used to be able to afford the name brands, back in the days when CEO's weren't quite as lavishly rewarded as they are now.

 

[JohnRoberts]

These are the definitions of those terms so we're on the same page.

laissez faire: abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market.
Capitalist economy: an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
distribution of wealth: is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society.

i.e. what I was asking is - DOES a laissez faire Capitalist have a natural balance between Capital and Wages that creates a long term stable situation? Or is it like a game of Monopoly where everyone starts out equal but the dynamics of the game lead to one person WINNING (acquiring all the wealth). Or the other players flipping over the board in frustration  ;D

____________________________

I'll try to answer your questions with my view - but they are very hard questions to answer.
 

I would say a good balance between labor and Capital would be such that the country is politically stable AND business investment is encouraged. 
When Capital has too much power, wealth inequality increases. As wealth inequality increases there is more and more class warfare and several times in history it has led to revolution (Après moi, le déluge).
But on the other hand, there should be a balance such that the risk of investing Capital & starting businesses is sufficiently rewarded, i.e. so someone working in a field for a competitive salary might make the risk of starting off on their own for a greater reward.
The price of labor is determined by supply and demand in the absence of collective bargaining (i.e. unions) or regulations (i.e min wage). Capital has more power if they tend not to be squeezed by tight supply or higher demand. For instance, if there is increased supply made available to counter rising wages (H1-b visas for example) or demand can be reduced in the face of higher wage demands (automation, etc...), then Capital increases power.
No, it's valued at the price it can be obtained for through supply and demand. For example, if you wanted to hire someone to renovate your house, which would require 100 hours of labor, and the value of the renovations would increase your homes value  by $30k, would you hire someone at $300 an hour? (100 hrs*$300/hr=$30k)  I don't think so -  if the going rate for carpenters was $50 / hr, you would hire someone at the going rate $50.
Business works the same way.  A business employs people that create value that the business realizes for a profit. The lower the cost of labor, the more the business & Capital profits.
Attached chart shows how capital has become more profitable while worker's share of $$ has declined.

thanks for the thoughtful exchange... I wrote a long detailed answer and my DSL crashed eating it... I may revisit this later, there are some good points worthy of inspection.

JR