The stock markets aren't happy with the election results.

Are you aware that the richer you are, the more income you have to invest?

Let's take a hypothetical example: I make $1M / year. You make $40k / year. After taxes, gas, food, utilities, mortgage, kids' tuition, car payments, daycare, insurance, etc, I have $600k to invest. You have perhaps none or $2k. The market rises 10%. I've just make $60k, you've made $200. I've made 6% on my yearly income. You've made 0.5% on your yearly income. That is going to keep increasing the gap between the rich and the poor / middle class.

You have some of this right and some of it wrong. I sold a lot of equities that were going to be taxed at long-term capital gains rates before the end of the year when the new capital gains rates would affect me. That was indeed the right call as capital gains tax rates have gone up for me since then.

I sold other short term equities in October. I re-bought SSO on December 12, which is now up about 20%.

It appears we have much different approaches to the stock market. I am in and out a few times a year. So I actually welcome a significant drop. People who buy-and-hold or have their 401k in the market will feel the next deep drop much more.

Don't worry about me, I'm doing alright.

 

Good to know. I was worried a little. When I see a post:

I pulled everything out of the market before the election, except for my company stock options. I'm glad I did.

Those are the words of someone making a rash decision, IMO. Sounds like you were just embellishing a little due to being upset about the election results. Understandable.

Glad to hear you are making money on the market . . . Obama ain't so bad after all for the rich. Why they complain about a slight increase of personal income tax doesn't make sene if they get the advantage right back in the stock market.

 

Yeah, weird that people would actually want a non-artificial, free market and the ability to make their own decisions with the money they've worked hard to earn. It isn't really that shocking, IMHO.

 

Well I don't get it. As I understand from you, Obama is actually more favorable to the rich and yet they still bitch about increased personal income tax. I think they are just always looking for a reason to bitch.

 

Haha. I laugh.

But it's true.

 

That's cool if you won't want to have an intelligent discussion about it. Carry on.

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks edged up on Wednesday, with the Dow rising for the ninth straight session to another record, buoyed by surprisingly strong retail sales that suggested the economy is gaining momentum.

My thoughts . . . sell, sell sell

 

Poor people rape, murder, and steal more. And donate less to charity. Fall back, lol.

Also governments cannot manage the most basic of operations, like the post-office,

 

UPS and Fedex are makings billions of dollars, you failed. And stop saying "we the people", when the majority of people force their opinions on others and want free shit.

The point is something like that shouldn't exist, for precisely the reasons FDR articulated when he criticized public postal employees.

 

You are crazy, you're not entitled to anything, or any service at a stupid cost. Postal employees are overpaid and their are too many of them in the same radius.

Your ridiculous premise that government employees are paid a fair price, and that you deserve cheap mail at gunpoint, is stupid as well.

Incorrect, natural rights are given to me by my existence on this planet, the majority can never take away what never belonged to them. Populism is nonsense that is economically illiterate.

I can score in the post or out on the perimeter, bruh. I'll pwn you as I see fit. ;]

 

Then stop telling me how well the USPS runs, because your definition of the word "well" is very weird.

Sorry but you're not that slick. Let's quote what you previously said:

"Seems to me the post office works pretty well (within the constraints imposed on it by we, the people). You can give them 40-odd cents and they'll hand-deliver a message anywhere in the US, they handle millions of them, and rarely lose them. I don't see a problem in postal management, myself. There are some problems, like snail mail is kind of old-fashioned and so volumes are dropping. But that's not the fault of the post office, or the government (except to the extent that the government invented the Internet, and thus killed the post office)."

Seems like you don't want to take your medicine. You made a stupid post, mostly in praise of the USPS.

The USPS failed for a variety of reasons that have exactly to do with "postal management". Thinking a business that is completely bankrupt but runs "pretty well" according to you, is a pretty radical position. Employees are overpaid , and the way they collect their union benefits is disgusting enough mismanagement as it is. This didn't start happening recently, this is an accumulation of incompetence over the years.

 

Your explicit retort was stupid, I'll provide statistical information this time.

The fact that you like cheap mail but forget at what cost is disturbing.

It is a disgusting to point a gun at someone and force them to do what you want. Populism is an uneducated economic philosophy, and this is what you support.

You support a bankrupt institution, I support the world champs of their field. Yeah your position looks pretty stupid.

The USPS makes it illegal to compete against it, thereby killing real BUSINESSES that could do much better. Local private wagon riders used to haul mail to remote areas. Bruh.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/07/postal-service-stuck-in-the-middle



"Largely as a response to the exorbitant cost of postage in the early 1800s, Congress standardized stamp prices in 1845 at 5 cents for a local letter and 10 cents for one addressed more than 300 miles away.

If we had allowed prices to increase with inflation, it would cost $1.19 to send a first-class letter; $2.38 if it were traveling more than 300 miles. Instead, it costs 46 cents flat.

Congress also mandates that the USPS service all areas of the country once per day—even the rural counties that are a perennially money-losing proposition.

The federal government faces a choice: relinquish control of the USPS and allow it to function as other, less dysfunctional companies do, or just admit that this is a money-losing pet project and start shoveling taxpayer cash directly into the Post Office's coffers."

'"Costs, losses, and debts rose as the volume of mail continued a decline that began in the middle of the last decade. Now the USPS is warning that without help from Congress, it will run out of money by the end of October.


In reason’s May 1991 issue, Carolyn Lochhead explored the postal service’s rising prices, its spiraling labor costs, and delivery trends that were threatening the system’s monopoly. In “The Superior Mail,” Lochhead wrote, “Labor costs at the Postal Service have spun out of control. Postal employees, with salaries averaging $42,000 a year with benefits, are among the world’s best-paid semiskilled workers.…By some estimates, labor represents an astonishing 87 percent of Postal Service costs.”

Twenty years later, postal employees make an average of $83,000 in salary and benefits. They still rank among the highest-paid government employees. But the volume of first-class mail delivered by the USPS has dropped 30 percent since its peak in 2001. The volume of all mail handled has dropped 22 percent since 2006.'

Open up and swallow it whole. I love the way you do me.

 

What decreases his popularity is his conservative policies about spying on Americans, not his economic policies of preserving jobs. Also, he had many pro-gun people on his side until recently.

But the thread title says the stock market is down, when the Dow is at its all-time high over 14,000.

 

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/15/dead-letters