Anonymous wrote:We didn’t have 30 trillion in debt in 2008. This recession will be without a doubt worse than 2008

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you know what it means and it’s already happening in France

“Stagflation can be defined as a prolonged period in which an economy experiences persistently high inflation, high unemployment rates, and stagnant aggregate demand. It is a period where central banks experience a situation in which monetary tools meant to control rising inflation lead to higher unemployment and lower economic production.“ Forbes

Businesses closing, people losing their jobs etc

We don’t have high unemployment though.

Yeah this is what I don’t get. Where I work (nonprofit) we have solid funding for the next three years, so much so we need to make several hires and even then we could get zero funding for the next three years and be absolutely fine including annual COLAs and benefits

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recession seems likely. But people are forgetting how bad 2008 was. Without intervention, there was a serious risk of a global banking collapse in 2008-2009. We are no where near that level of risk.

Yep, all people can say is how bad it is we bailed out the banks. They have no idea of how truly bad things would have gotten not just in the US but worldwide if we hadn't.

I would argue many of those interventions have not only prolonged things, but made it worse. Turns out interest rates significantly below the historical norm for over a decade isn't a great idea and has led to wild speculation and excess risk taking in other assets.

Do you think banks are doing this? They are constrained by Volcker. Look at hedge funds and asset managers, which pretty much are unregulated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recession seems likely. But people are forgetting how bad 2008 was. Without intervention, there was a serious risk of a global banking collapse in 2008-2009. We are no where near that level of risk.

Yep, all people can say is how bad it is we bailed out the banks. They have no idea of how truly bad things would have gotten not just in the US but worldwide if we hadn't.

I would argue many of those interventions have not only prolonged things, but made it worse. Turns out interest rates significantly below the historical norm for over a decade isn't a great idea and has led to wild speculation and excess risk taking in other assets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recession seems likely. But people are forgetting how bad 2008 was. Without intervention, there was a serious risk of a global banking collapse in 2008-2009. We are no where near that level of risk.

Yep, all people can say is how bad it is we bailed out the banks. They have no idea of how truly bad things would have gotten not just in the US but worldwide if we hadn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recession seems likely. But people are forgetting how bad 2008 was. Without intervention, there was a serious risk of a global banking collapse in 2008-2009. We are no where near that level of risk.

Yep, all people can say is how bad it is we bailed out the banks. They have no idea of how truly bad things would have gotten not just in the US but worldwide if we hadn't.

Anonymous wrote:A recession seems likely. But people are forgetting how bad 2008 was. Without intervention, there was a serious risk of a global banking collapse in 2008-2009. We are no where near that level of risk.

Anonymous wrote:A recession seems likely. But people are forgetting how bad 2008 was. Without intervention, there was a serious risk of a global banking collapse in 2008-2009. We are no where near that level of risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you know what it means and it’s already happening in France

“Stagflation can be defined as a prolonged period in which an economy experiences persistently high inflation, high unemployment rates, and stagnant aggregate demand. It is a period where central banks experience a situation in which monetary tools meant to control rising inflation lead to higher unemployment and lower economic production.“ Forbes

Businesses closing, people losing their jobs etc

We don’t have high unemployment though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:01 wasn’t bad at all, unless you were all tech invested and/or worked in tech.

08 was terrible, unemployment and investments, we were close to a total financial collapse due to the housing bubble and leverage

22 ?? What is collapsing? Stocks are down 10%, this is just regular market moves, happens every few years. Where is the meltdown coming from. No collapse in housing, may decline a bit due to mortgage rates but there is no foreclosure crisis based on better lending standards. Company profits look solid. Maybe there is some mystery bubble in finance but nobody can predict that one.

Nasdaq is down 20% from its peak last year. That is actually quite a bit.

It's not. Normal stuff.

Down 20% in 3 months is not normal. It shows that the market was (and still is) very inflated. Big banks are warning of a recession, not that it’s a big surprise.

That is utter noise. We are up 300% since 2016. There is no way we are dropping anywhere near that; Nasdeq companies are taking over the world

DP- Nasdaq on track for it's worse month since October 2008. Take that as you will.

The worst month since the longest bull market ever started... again, nothing burger.

Dude, shut up. This is not a nothing burger. The market is looking very sick and there has been a lot of pain already. You are only looking at indexes propped up by mega caps, but many companies have already gotten haircuts by like 50%. There's no depth to the market at all.

Dude? Get your big boy pants on. It's going to be OK. We may drop 30% from the high, but thus is NORMAL. Maybe not since you've been in the market, but if you take the long view as all the smarter (than you) folks are suggesting you'll make money in the end. Just don't pull your money out and keep drip feeding. Or just stop putting money in because you don't really have the balls to be in.

Name the number of times the market has had experience with quantitative tightening. And tightening to roll off multiple trillions. I'll wait. Then tell me.again 'this is normal' with a straight face.

Sorry, you're not worth the response. Just do it your way.

Ahhhhh. The 'financial professional' is too scared to tell everyone the truth - and that's the fact that the market has virtually ZERO experience with quantitative tightening (except for only about one other time), especially with QT requiring trillions in roll off. What the financial professional doesn't tell you is that no financial models exist for QT, unlike how rate hikes can be priced into DCF models they finance clowns like to use for attempting to value companies and stocks. QT is basically going to be an unprecedented shock.

Except... QT is a controlled proven government strategy. Other than that...

"Proven?" Six trillion dollars worth of bonds? No. No one knows how this is going to work. The Fed chickened out the last time they tried to do it in a meaningful way.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/quantitative-tightening-could-set-off-a-lengthy-tantrum-11649277856

The ultimate impact of quantitative tightening on either financial markets or the economy is hard to gauge, since the U.S. experience of it is limited to the 2017-to-2019 round. That wasn’t particularly disturbing for investors, largely because the Fed had spent so much time preparing them for its eventuality. In contrast, when in May 2013 then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress that the central bank later that year might begin tapering its asset purchases, investors weren’t ready, and it set off the so-called taper tantrum that drove Treasury yields sharply higher. That ended up weighing on the economy—particularly the housing market—and eventually led the Fed to postpone its plans to stop expanding its asset portfolio.

This time, the Fed’s move toward quantitative tightening looks to have more in common with the taper-tantrum episode. Investors certainly knew that tightening was on the way, but it is coming a bit more quickly than they might have guessed just a couple of weeks ago, and the speed with which the Fed plans to shrink its portfolio might be faster, as well.

When the taper tantrum struck, the Fed was still trying to nurse the U.S. economy back to health while now it is deeply worried that high inflation is becoming ingrained in people’s expectations. This suggests the Fed won’t be so easily pushed off its plans this time. The quantitative-tightening tantrum could go on a lot longer than the taper tantrum did.

Eye roll
You do realize they make money when you read their articles? Look at the data...and no, I can tell it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

In other words, you don’t have any data that proves this wrong.

And you make money by keeping people in the market. I’m also guessing you’re quite long in stocks and have a lot to lose if the downturn snowballs. By your own reckoning, your biases are much more apparent than the WSJ (which is going to get clicks with good news or bad news)

+1000

These financial advisors and fund managers know as much about the market as the guy on the street, except they earn their keep by soaking their 'clients' (i.e. sheeple) for huge fees for barely doing better than a 0.01% cost fund. They even barely beat many robo advisors.

Keep staying the course, the market always goes up they say.....well duh. It takes 2 seconds to know that by looking at the history of the charts. Did I really need to pay a fund manager for that obvious advice? If a manager was worth their lick of salt, they'd know when clouds are coming and position to prevent massive swings in volatility in their clients' portfolio. Any schmo with Robin hood can buy dips and hold for forever with no trade fees. Big whoop.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you know what it means and it’s already happening in France

“Stagflation can be defined as a prolonged period in which an economy experiences persistently high inflation, high unemployment rates, and stagnant aggregate demand. It is a period where central banks experience a situation in which monetary tools meant to control rising inflation lead to higher unemployment and lower economic production.“ Forbes

Businesses closing, people losing their jobs etc

We don’t have high unemployment though.