is conceptually in the real of a sin tax, like we put on cigs and drinks. Except financial transactions arent sins. They're overwhelmingly good for the economy. And we'll just chase them off shore, to the UK where those people can then have the good jobs that follow.
It's a bad idea from "my" side. It's not even a bad idea attempting to address a good concern. It's just bad.
Why would a minuscule financial transactions that sought to limit high frequency trading be a bad thing? And it seems the EU is likely to implement one so I don't see us losing jobs to them if we did implement one.
the problem with the sassy never ending tit for tat between lefty hipsters and old fashioned east coast mainstream rightists over tax policy is sort of avoiding a whole pile of other issues that could be really fun to explore, funny humor notwithstanding, they are changing the subject conveniently
RE: I think what we need is a revision in the tax code... Â
...so that higher income households get to keep more of their hard earned dollars. We should also abolish taxes on Capital Gains and Ordinary Dividends. That way, with the wealthy keeping more of their money, it will generate the sort of economic multiplier this nation has been missing since the Reagan years.
Add to that the amazingly wasteful spending in Congress... what we need to do is slash Washington spending to the bone and let the private sector take over most of the much needed tasks that lay ahead for our country.
In a phrase, we need to return to "Trickle Down Economics" where everyone in society benfits when the wealthy acumulate a certain threshold of wealth and then begin to invest that wealth in the private and public sectors.
It's that simple. We need to inscentivize and enrich the rich... that will (in the long run) close the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else.
We can still turn this ship around as soon as we return to Reaganomics.
Of course, this is has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but rather an idiotic rant by one of the least informed posters (across multiple topics).
your partisanship is clouding your abilty to reason. You can't waste billions of dollars during an economic recovery and claim that it wasn't impactful. I understand you have an opinion... unfortunately, the stimulus didn't solve the economic recession, it has perpetuated the malaise.
RE: I think what we need is a revision in the tax code... Â
...so that higher income households get to keep more of their hard earned dollars. We should also abolish taxes on Capital Gains and Ordinary Dividends. That way, with the wealthy keeping more of their money, it will generate the sort of economic multiplier this nation has been missing since the Reagan years.
Add to that the amazingly wasteful spending in Congress... what we need to do is slash Washington spending to the bone and let the private sector take over most of the much needed tasks that lay ahead for our country.
In a phrase, we need to return to "Trickle Down Economics" where everyone in society benfits when the wealthy acumulate a certain threshold of wealth and then begin to invest that wealth in the private and public sectors.
It's that simple. We need to inscentivize and enrich the rich... that will (in the long run) close the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else.
We can still turn this ship around as soon as we return to Reaganomics.
I don't know who first said it, but the only thing that trickles down is the rich pissing on the poor.
because HFT shouldnt be limited. Brokerages should be allowed to sell info letting others front run their clients, but otherwise there is no good reason to sin tax HFT. I tink HFT is not particularly productive to society. I dont buy the liquidity argument for it, on the whole. But nor do I think it is particularly destructive. I just dont think it qualified for a sin tax.
I think tax rates should go up when we're doing a bit better because I care about deficits. But Im not for funding government by just picking on a line of business here or there and saying they have a particular duty to contribute to the fisc. The people kvetching about the complexity of the tax code are not all mouth breathers -- there is something real to the charge.
your partisanship is clouding your abilty to reason. You can't waste billions of dollars during an economic recovery and claim that it wasn't impactful. I understand you have an opinion... unfortunately, the stimulus didn't solve the economic recession, it has perpetuated the malaise.
I think the person blaming the economy on overinvestment in green energy should not be cavalierly throwing around accusations of clouded ability to reason.
your partisanship is clouding your abilty to reason. You can't waste billions of dollars during an economic recovery and claim that it wasn't impactful. I understand you have an opinion... unfortunately, the stimulus didn't solve the economic recession, it has perpetuated the malaise.
1) Billions of "wasted"stimulus dollars actually can stimulate an economy - this is pretty basic economics. Not that I agree that investments in solar energy were wasted.
2) Pretty much all non-partisan objective analysis of the stimulus concoudes that it did create millions of jobs (if you think about it, how could spending billions of dollars not create jobs???). See below.
Maybe it's not ME who's being willfully ignorant because of partisan politics, but someone else? Just a thought.
Quote:
As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."
“Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better.”
¯ Edsger W. Dijkstra
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
¯ Ernst F. Schumacher
Tesla, charts indicate those jobs did not last very long Â
is conceptually in the real of a sin tax, like we put on cigs and drinks. Except financial transactions arent sins. They're overwhelmingly good for the economy. And we'll just chase them off shore, to the UK where those people can then have the good jobs that follow.
It's a bad idea from "my" side. It's not even a bad idea attempting to address a good concern. It's just bad.
Why would a minuscule financial transactions that sought to limit high frequency trading be a bad thing? And it seems the EU is likely to implement one so I don't see us losing jobs to them if we did implement one.
I'm far from an expert on this but it seem like a good deal to me. The Case for a Financial Transactions Tax - ( New Window )
The tax proposed in that op ed would raise $185 billion over 10 years. What Acid is advocating is a tax that would raise roughly $400 billion EVERY year.
I think the difference is material.
RE: Tesla, charts indicate those jobs did not last very long Â
Thanks. The reference to the factcheck.org site told me all I needed to know. Only from a site like that could you believe wasting billions of taxpayer dollars was a stimulus to job creation.
Thanks. The reference to the factcheck.org site told me all I needed to know. Only from a site like that could you believe wasting billions of taxpayer dollars was a stimulus to job creation.
It was based on a CBO report.
But it wasn't Fox News so it doesn't matter to you. Wallow on in your ignorance my good friend! Remember, everyone who shows you facts contrary to your beliefs is merely being partisan!
Because of Obamacare, the facility she works for cut everyone back to 30 hours and hired a few more nurses to cover the shortage; all so that they wouldn't have to pay for Obamacare. My daughter graduated HS school at the beginning of the summer. While looking for summer work, she could not find an entry level job that would work her more than 30 hours a week; none want to pay for Obamacare. This is the kind of crap that happens when a 2000+ page bill is passed without anyone having read or analyzed it.
is conceptually in the real of a sin tax, like we put on cigs and drinks. Except financial transactions arent sins. They're overwhelmingly good for the economy. And we'll just chase them off shore, to the UK where those people can then have the good jobs that follow.
It's a bad idea from "my" side. It's not even a bad idea attempting to address a good concern. It's just bad.
A financial transactions tax is not a sin tax. It's a sales tax. Aside from the money it would generate, it would also limit market volatility, and crush the thieving cockroaches in the high frequency trading industry. That is the industry that spent $300 million to gain three milliseconds so they could "front run" trades. Link
Here are some other articles, including one written by the CBO supporting a FTT:
The last article addresses your argument that a FTT would just chase trades off shore:
"The reason why this tax works and others, like the 0.5% transactions tax introduced in Sweden in 1984, did not, is that it is a stamp duty on the transfer of ownership and not based on tax residence. If the transfer has not been ‘stamped’ and taxes paid, the transfer is not legally enforceable. Institutional investors who hold most assets around the world do not take risks with legal enforceability. Forty percent of the UK Stamp Duty Reserve Tax receipts are paid by foreign residents. Far from sending taxpayers abroad, this tax gets foreigners to pay."
It is true that a FTT doesn't appear likely in Europe next year. But it is being discussed, and would be much more likely if it was first implemented by the U.S. Wall Street of course will claim that they oppose the tax not because it will hurt them, but because it will hurt the "middle class."But remember that it was Steven Schwarzman who compared any attempt to reclassify carried interest from capital gains to ordinary income to Hitler's invasion of Poland.
This country has a $19T national debt, and also needs trillions of dollars for other projects. Many of the infrastructure jobs financed by a FTT would pay good wages, money that would increase consumer spending, and therefore improve the economy. That would help us get off zero interest rates, which at this point is very unhealthy.
a sales tax on one particular product, in part because of a belief that the product is harmful (and even with the intent to suppress usages) = sin tax.
there is any sizable multiplier to investment projects from government stimulus or from "trickle down" economics. Both are based on theoretical concerns that manifest themselves in neat little mathematical models, but haven't been shown to yield any considerable empirical support.
Government spending is impactful when there is a dearth of private spending, or in areas that won't be feasible for capital investment (such as sizable start-up costs) for years.
There are very few of those large scale opportunities at this moment.
By the way, the decline in the labor force participation rate, as "nefarious" as people make it seem, is partially cyclical in nature. The rise was always from an influx of women into the workforce, as they were largely unshackled from being tied to the home. Women have started to leave the labor force, so part of the reason that we see a downturn is for this very reason. Basic demographics.
a sales tax on one particular product, in part because of a belief that the product is harmful (and even with the intent to suppress usages) = sin tax.
Right now that product is exempt from taxation. Some states have tax holidays, or exempt certain products (medical supplies) from sales tax, but a sales tax is imposed when you buy almost anything else. Tennis shoes, computers, cars, clothes, food, real estate, etc. Of course, people who buy online rarely pay the sales tax, and that is another issue that should be corrected. A national sales tax of say 4% should be imposed on all online purchases, although how that money would be collected and divided is admittedly a contentious problem.
I would impose a FTT for the same reason that these other products are taxed, namely to raise revenue. I do agree that a secondary motivation for the FTT would be to limit market volatility, especially by discouraging high frequency trades. So the FTT might therefore be a sales and sin tax. But all of this is just semantics. The label is irrelevant. Just do it.
Unless you limit the financial transactions tax to HFT, for which there certainly is at least a case, you end up with more volatility, not less, as markets become less liquid.
And what do you do for a transaction tax with 6 month Treasuries yielding .08%, make the net yield negative?
While we've wasted valuable time dismissing the transaction tax Â
This is because the Republicans remain unanimously committed to their Grover Norquist tax pledge.
So even if a reasonably high transaction tax were to raise, say $100 billion, it could only be enacted if other taxes were cut by the same amount. This is true now, and it will be true even if Hillary or another Democrat wins the presidency.
It's the reason we don't have a bill to fund the Federal Highway Trust Fund more than a month or two at at time. Can't raise the gasoline tax unless you cut elsewhere by at least the same amount.
Unless you limit the financial transactions tax to HFT, for which there certainly is at least a case, you end up with more volatility, not less, as markets become less liquid.
And what do you do for a transaction tax with 6 month Treasuries yielding .08%, make the net yield negative?
As far as the possibility of net negative yields and liquidity issues, I'm sure the very bright economists on that list have already considered those problems.
I do agree with your claim that Norquist and his pledge make this impossible. I never said it was going to happen. I only said it should happen.
This country needs $10 to $15T over the next ten to fifteen years. A FTT seems like the only way to even make a dent in that amount, but I am open to other solutions.
It would also be interesting to know how many people who oppose a FTT support spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to put a man on Mars, a lifeless rock in space.
RE: While we've wasted valuable time dismissing the transaction tax Â
so the list doesn't really support Acid Test's view. In other words, his view still fails the acid test. Pulling a huge amount of return out of the markets via an ultra-high FTT would kill liquidity AND hurt valuations. A modest FTT would not.
And there is a very large proportion of left-leaning individuals on the list--even among the rich ones, and certainly among the economists.
Btw, I could live with a very modest FTT combines with tax disincentives for ultra-short holding periods. The latter get at the problem better than the former. I cannot see a policy case for supporting hedge funds (much more than banks) that turn over holdings 20 times in every blink of an eye.
How many of them support an FTT to the tune of $400 billion per year? I believe the answer is none.
In all fairness, that's probably true. I found a paper that estimates what a FTT would raise annually assuming no reduction in trading ($353B), a twenty-five percent reduction ($265B), and a fifty percent reduction ($176B). The proposed tax rates vary from 0.01 to 0.5 percent depending on the asset. The paper is admittedly from 2009, and therefore uses 2008 trading volumes.
Even the low number of $176B might work if it was combined with a reduction in tax rates to generate growth and therefore more tax revenue, the elimination of most deductions, the reclassification of carried interest from a capital gain to ordinary income, and some reform to stepped up basis.
All of that might get us an extra $300B a year, more if the FTT raised $265B a year. But the point is to understand that we have major financial problems that can only be addressed by generating more revenue from a variety of sources. I believe some type of FTT should be one of those sources.
I value your input and opinions. This has been an excellent discussion.
under-employment. People who lost their higher paying jobs and had to settle for a lower paying job just because there was nothing else. They are now barely paying the bills if at all.
Millions of others never lost their job but had their pay significantly cut. I know people who lost 30% of their income at their current job and were told to walk if they didnt like it. Supply and demand is in favor of employers right now
So, neither of the scenarios above are factored into the unemployment rates and yet have had a negative impact on the economy
From my corner of manufacturing (rail industry) murmurs of a soon to be slow down over the past few months have turned into official "get ready to tighten your belts and slash your budgets" statements from our COO last week.
I don't have access to rail traffic anymore, but word is that everything is trending down, including new car builds. That's always been a leading indicator of economic slow down.
From my corner of manufacturing (rail industry) murmurs of a soon to be slow down over the past few months have turned into official "get ready to tighten your belts and slash your budgets" statements from our COO last week.
I don't have access to rail traffic anymore, but word is that everything is trending down, including new car builds. That's always been a leading indicator of economic slow down.
Probably related to the bottoming out of oil prices and decrease in rig counts.
This last boom we've been on was due to the need for new tanker cars for the natural gas boom.
When we boom it is generally due to new car builds. Most of our business is actually in repair (we make freight car wheels)- which is really replacing old wheels.
Downturns like what we've been informed is coming within the next few months is due to a decline in repair, which means lower rail traffic which means economic slowdown.
I could be wrong, but in my 21yrs making wheels, when we get word of a slowdown in repair business, the economy begins to tank a few months later.
on security transactions has to be changed.
I see too many companies that have from 5-30% of their stock shorted.
Some of this is officers of the companies hedging their stock options the rest
are HEDGE positions.
Unless you limit the financial transactions tax to HFT, for which there certainly is at least a case, you end up with more volatility, not less, as markets become less liquid.
And what do you do for a transaction tax with 6 month Treasuries yielding .08%, make the net yield negative?
Are you arguing HFT adds liquidity?
In theory it should, in practice has it actually done that?
This last boom we've been on was due to the need for new tanker cars for the natural gas boom.
When we boom it is generally due to new car builds. Most of our business is actually in repair (we make freight car wheels)- which is really replacing old wheels.
Downturns like what we've been informed is coming within the next few months is due to a decline in repair, which means lower rail traffic which means economic slowdown.
I could be wrong, but in my 21yrs making wheels, when we get word of a slowdown in repair business, the economy begins to tank a few months later.
What's happened to Trinity Industries stock over the last month would suggest the same.
It's a bad idea from "my" side. It's not even a bad idea attempting to address a good concern. It's just bad.
Why would a minuscule financial transactions that sought to limit high frequency trading be a bad thing? And it seems the EU is likely to implement one so I don't see us losing jobs to them if we did implement one.
I'm far from an expert on this but it seem like a good deal to me.
The Case for a Financial Transactions Tax - ( New Window )
Add to that the amazingly wasteful spending in Congress... what we need to do is slash Washington spending to the bone and let the private sector take over most of the much needed tasks that lay ahead for our country.
In a phrase, we need to return to "Trickle Down Economics" where everyone in society benfits when the wealthy acumulate a certain threshold of wealth and then begin to invest that wealth in the private and public sectors.
It's that simple. We need to inscentivize and enrich the rich... that will (in the long run) close the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else.
We can still turn this ship around as soon as we return to Reaganomics.
Of course, this is has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but rather an idiotic rant by one of the least informed posters (across multiple topics).
Add to that the amazingly wasteful spending in Congress... what we need to do is slash Washington spending to the bone and let the private sector take over most of the much needed tasks that lay ahead for our country.
In a phrase, we need to return to "Trickle Down Economics" where everyone in society benfits when the wealthy acumulate a certain threshold of wealth and then begin to invest that wealth in the private and public sectors.
It's that simple. We need to inscentivize and enrich the rich... that will (in the long run) close the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else.
We can still turn this ship around as soon as we return to Reaganomics.
I don't know who first said it, but the only thing that trickles down is the rich pissing on the poor.
...so nice to hear from you.
Hope you are doing well.
...so nice to hear from you.
Hope you are doing well.
Likewise - let's keep your posting focused on the topic at hand, shall we?
I think tax rates should go up when we're doing a bit better because I care about deficits. But Im not for funding government by just picking on a line of business here or there and saying they have a particular duty to contribute to the fisc. The people kvetching about the complexity of the tax code are not all mouth breathers -- there is something real to the charge.
I think the person blaming the economy on overinvestment in green energy should not be cavalierly throwing around accusations of clouded ability to reason.
1) Billions of "wasted"stimulus dollars actually can stimulate an economy - this is pretty basic economics. Not that I agree that investments in solar energy were wasted.
2) Pretty much all non-partisan objective analysis of the stimulus concoudes that it did create millions of jobs (if you think about it, how could spending billions of dollars not create jobs???). See below.
Maybe it's not ME who's being willfully ignorant because of partisan politics, but someone else? Just a thought.
Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? - ( New Window )
¯ Edsger W. Dijkstra
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
¯ Ernst F. Schumacher
Quote:
is conceptually in the real of a sin tax, like we put on cigs and drinks. Except financial transactions arent sins. They're overwhelmingly good for the economy. And we'll just chase them off shore, to the UK where those people can then have the good jobs that follow.
It's a bad idea from "my" side. It's not even a bad idea attempting to address a good concern. It's just bad.
Why would a minuscule financial transactions that sought to limit high frequency trading be a bad thing? And it seems the EU is likely to implement one so I don't see us losing jobs to them if we did implement one.
I'm far from an expert on this but it seem like a good deal to me. The Case for a Financial Transactions Tax - ( New Window )
The tax proposed in that op ed would raise $185 billion over 10 years. What Acid is advocating is a tax that would raise roughly $400 billion EVERY year.
I think the difference is material.
Of course not - nor were they intended to. Which does mean it was a mistake to create those jobs in the first place.
Do you know what the purpose of stimulus spending in a depressed economy is?
It was based on a CBO report.
But it wasn't Fox News so it doesn't matter to you. Wallow on in your ignorance my good friend! Remember, everyone who shows you facts contrary to your beliefs is merely being partisan!
It's a bad idea from "my" side. It's not even a bad idea attempting to address a good concern. It's just bad.
A financial transactions tax is not a sin tax. It's a sales tax. Aside from the money it would generate, it would also limit market volatility, and crush the thieving cockroaches in the high frequency trading industry. That is the industry that spent $300 million to gain three milliseconds so they could "front run" trades. Link
Here are some other articles, including one written by the CBO supporting a FTT:
Link
Link
Link
The last article addresses your argument that a FTT would just chase trades off shore:
"The reason why this tax works and others, like the 0.5% transactions tax introduced in Sweden in 1984, did not, is that it is a stamp duty on the transfer of ownership and not based on tax residence. If the transfer has not been ‘stamped’ and taxes paid, the transfer is not legally enforceable. Institutional investors who hold most assets around the world do not take risks with legal enforceability. Forty percent of the UK Stamp Duty Reserve Tax receipts are paid by foreign residents. Far from sending taxpayers abroad, this tax gets foreigners to pay."
It is true that a FTT doesn't appear likely in Europe next year. But it is being discussed, and would be much more likely if it was first implemented by the U.S. Wall Street of course will claim that they oppose the tax not because it will hurt them, but because it will hurt the "middle class."But remember that it was Steven Schwarzman who compared any attempt to reclassify carried interest from capital gains to ordinary income to Hitler's invasion of Poland.
This country has a $19T national debt, and also needs trillions of dollars for other projects. Many of the infrastructure jobs financed by a FTT would pay good wages, money that would increase consumer spending, and therefore improve the economy. That would help us get off zero interest rates, which at this point is very unhealthy.
Government spending is impactful when there is a dearth of private spending, or in areas that won't be feasible for capital investment (such as sizable start-up costs) for years.
There are very few of those large scale opportunities at this moment.
By the way, the decline in the labor force participation rate, as "nefarious" as people make it seem, is partially cyclical in nature. The rise was always from an influx of women into the workforce, as they were largely unshackled from being tied to the home. Women have started to leave the labor force, so part of the reason that we see a downturn is for this very reason. Basic demographics.
2) Not my area, so I won;t discuss in detail, but the Michael Lewis book is generally considered the worst he ever wrote, with massive inaccuracies.
Right now that product is exempt from taxation. Some states have tax holidays, or exempt certain products (medical supplies) from sales tax, but a sales tax is imposed when you buy almost anything else. Tennis shoes, computers, cars, clothes, food, real estate, etc. Of course, people who buy online rarely pay the sales tax, and that is another issue that should be corrected. A national sales tax of say 4% should be imposed on all online purchases, although how that money would be collected and divided is admittedly a contentious problem.
I would impose a FTT for the same reason that these other products are taxed, namely to raise revenue. I do agree that a secondary motivation for the FTT would be to limit market volatility, especially by discouraging high frequency trades. So the FTT might therefore be a sales and sin tax. But all of this is just semantics. The label is irrelevant. Just do it.
The UK model - $30 billion per year
DeFasio proposal - $100 billion per year
Acid's proposal - $400 billion per year
I'd say the difference is material.
And what do you do for a transaction tax with 6 month Treasuries yielding .08%, make the net yield negative?
I'm pretty sure the market doesn't care about our jobs as much as we think it does.
This is because the Republicans remain unanimously committed to their Grover Norquist tax pledge.
So even if a reasonably high transaction tax were to raise, say $100 billion, it could only be enacted if other taxes were cut by the same amount. This is true now, and it will be true even if Hillary or another Democrat wins the presidency.
It's the reason we don't have a bill to fund the Federal Highway Trust Fund more than a month or two at at time. Can't raise the gasoline tax unless you cut elsewhere by at least the same amount.
It could be decades before this gets worked out.
And what do you do for a transaction tax with 6 month Treasuries yielding .08%, make the net yield negative?
Here is a list of supporters of a FTT. Link
As far as the possibility of net negative yields and liquidity issues, I'm sure the very bright economists on that list have already considered those problems.
I do agree with your claim that Norquist and his pledge make this impossible. I never said it was going to happen. I only said it should happen.
This country needs $10 to $15T over the next ten to fifteen years. A FTT seems like the only way to even make a dent in that amount, but I am open to other solutions.
It would also be interesting to know how many people who oppose a FTT support spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to put a man on Mars, a lifeless rock in space.
I'm pretty sure the market doesn't care about our jobs as much as we think it does.
Or they feel the negative report decreases the likelihood of a rate increase this year, so more "free" money for WS to spend...
Here is a list of supporters of a FTT. Link
How many of them support an FTT to the tune of $400 billion per year? I believe the answer is none.
And there is a very large proportion of left-leaning individuals on the list--even among the rich ones, and certainly among the economists.
Btw, I could live with a very modest FTT combines with tax disincentives for ultra-short holding periods. The latter get at the problem better than the former. I cannot see a policy case for supporting hedge funds (much more than banks) that turn over holdings 20 times in every blink of an eye.
Quote:
Here is a list of supporters of a FTT. Link
How many of them support an FTT to the tune of $400 billion per year? I believe the answer is none.
In all fairness, that's probably true. I found a paper that estimates what a FTT would raise annually assuming no reduction in trading ($353B), a twenty-five percent reduction ($265B), and a fifty percent reduction ($176B). The proposed tax rates vary from 0.01 to 0.5 percent depending on the asset. The paper is admittedly from 2009, and therefore uses 2008 trading volumes.
Even the low number of $176B might work if it was combined with a reduction in tax rates to generate growth and therefore more tax revenue, the elimination of most deductions, the reclassification of carried interest from a capital gain to ordinary income, and some reform to stepped up basis.
All of that might get us an extra $300B a year, more if the FTT raised $265B a year. But the point is to understand that we have major financial problems that can only be addressed by generating more revenue from a variety of sources. I believe some type of FTT should be one of those sources.
I value your input and opinions. This has been an excellent discussion.
Link
like it or not, we got a lot old retired people now
Millions of others never lost their job but had their pay significantly cut. I know people who lost 30% of their income at their current job and were told to walk if they didnt like it. Supply and demand is in favor of employers right now
So, neither of the scenarios above are factored into the unemployment rates and yet have had a negative impact on the economy
I don't have access to rail traffic anymore, but word is that everything is trending down, including new car builds. That's always been a leading indicator of economic slow down.
36 to 1 in survey by U of Chicago
Link - ( New Window )
I don't have access to rail traffic anymore, but word is that everything is trending down, including new car builds. That's always been a leading indicator of economic slow down.
Probably related to the bottoming out of oil prices and decrease in rig counts.
When we boom it is generally due to new car builds. Most of our business is actually in repair (we make freight car wheels)- which is really replacing old wheels.
Downturns like what we've been informed is coming within the next few months is due to a decline in repair, which means lower rail traffic which means economic slowdown.
I could be wrong, but in my 21yrs making wheels, when we get word of a slowdown in repair business, the economy begins to tank a few months later.
I see too many companies that have from 5-30% of their stock shorted.
Some of this is officers of the companies hedging their stock options the rest
are HEDGE positions.
This is entirely true!!
the Republican party's over riding strategy is following the advice of a 12 years old !
And what do you do for a transaction tax with 6 month Treasuries yielding .08%, make the net yield negative?
Are you arguing HFT adds liquidity?
In theory it should, in practice has it actually done that?
When we boom it is generally due to new car builds. Most of our business is actually in repair (we make freight car wheels)- which is really replacing old wheels.
Downturns like what we've been informed is coming within the next few months is due to a decline in repair, which means lower rail traffic which means economic slowdown.
I could be wrong, but in my 21yrs making wheels, when we get word of a slowdown in repair business, the economy begins to tank a few months later.
What's happened to Trinity Industries stock over the last month would suggest the same.