It bums me out that a single press release can cause so much of the world's wealth to evaporate. Worldwide capital was something like $80T iirc, 2% of that would have solved every budget crisis in the world.
I would guess it's mostly the evolving European situation that's throwing us headlong into the abyss, with a hefty serving of realizing the USA is run by clowns who are utterly incapable of addressing any important problems. Note that this is beyond simple "politicians are teh stupid," which applies in any country, but in the USA particularly. Europe's facing serious problems, but that's because they're burdened with very tough choices as a result of badly thought out institutions from the 1990s. The USA faces very easy choices, but we're facing serious problems because... well, we want to? Because we have a dysfunctional government? Who knows. Regardless, it's an unforced error.
http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-has-got-margin...
Was money lost? Sure -- but not last week or today -- rather, on the day the individual investor bought into these markets.
Anecdotically, I made a few nice profits with Bitcoins back in May/June when they were all the rage -- but I never ever confused them with physical wealth, I knew the nature of my gamble and I timed my exit -- not perfectly, but good enough to convert this "digital profit" or "paper profit" back into "physical goods". I'm not a full-time trader or gambler and I believe in investing my time more productively, but at the same time, sometimes it's fun to play money games. Too bad so many people on a world-wide scale believe it's a smart idea for their retirement estate to "take on debt to 'invest' in others' debts". This has been going on for a long time but it's not especially sustainable or otherwise inspiring -- especially since the debts are now backed by the children of your children. Think I'm off-topic by now? Think again!
That said, by "physical wealth" indeed I didn't really mean paper currency or receipts for commerce and I mentioned this mistakenly to "soften my message" for those purely and fully entangled in the paper world of yesteryear.
Agreed!
"purchase gold, " -- disagree:
You're right on all counts but you're simply expressing my point more "extremely" than even I did myself... certainly, every trade of physical or digital goods is a subjective value judgment of both parties involved. In fact, stocks are a lot more "solid" as an "investment" in my book than pure debt and bonds and "financial vehicles" etc. But then, another question is how many of "working peoples' savings" should be entrusted to the ever-swinging daily judgments of full-time traders and speculators, 'wealth advisors', 'funds and trusts' that always chase yesterday's bubble and collect their commissions one way or the other. If capital goes into real estate, surely enough new condos spring up in Florida and Bangkok. If capital chases dot.coms, new dot.coms get created left and right. Tulips can be grown at will, too! Certainly, paper wealth can be multiplied indefinitely in nominal terms, but not in "real terms". The question then is, what are "real" terms? Well what happens when capital, tired of all the bubbles, runs into Bitcoins? They cannot be duplicated easily but boy can they be hacked. Bonds? Safe to bondage the tax-payers of 2030, today, is it? Ultimately, savings and holdings that are not "for-play money" will have to return to seeking protection in stuff that cannot be hacked by smart script kids or replicated and duplicated at will or by 'economic emergency laws' -- savings will at some point no longer be entrusted to better-dressed Madoffs -- they will have to seek assets with a long history book of storing wealth generated by productive past work well into the future for reference. That could be Mona Lisas but there's only one of them. Or that could be any other tangible, non-hackable, fungible, liquid physical good that has no competing industrial use, most importantly cannot be produced or increased in quantity at will and has been valued consistently by the kings and millions of "normal people" around the world for millenia well into the present. Sure, the "currency prices" of such assets may well fluctuate but the mere storage of savings function might well out-perform today's vehicles and instruments over the long term. Plus, as you already noted, currency does not reflect "intrinsic" value either so these nominal fluctuations are a laughing matter at best :)
But wait, couldn't this be said of stocks either? Exactly! Long-term savers will know this and not panic much. But those who talk about "wealth that evaporated" -- they were likely trading and speculating for a paper profit next week or month, not for "value-investing" or "storing savings". So both you and me shrug at them and say, "look again, no real wealth did evaporate! No factory collapsed, no car or house mysteriously disappeared..."
Do you believe that gold has tripled its intrinsic value over the past 5 years? Or that virtually all other assets have lost 2/3 of their intrinsic value during that same time frame? Gold has very little intrinsic value (to my mind, at least), especially before the electronics revolution, and it is as subject to the whims of investors as any other asset. If you buy gold at $1700 today and it drops back to $500 in five years, you'll see the same loss as if you bought $1700 of Google and it dropped to $500. While I agree that gold cannot be multiplied indefinitely, the same applies to many (indeed most) other assets. The price of homes has no fixed limit, but neither does the price of gold. This is especially true when the market sells gold futures and such that are not necessarily backed by physical gold.
> But wait, couldn't this be said of stocks either? Exactly! Long-term savers will know this and not panic much. But those who talk about "wealth that evaporated" -- they were likely trading and speculating for a paper profit next week or month, not for "value-investing" or "storing savings". So both you and me shrug at them and say, "look again, no real wealth did evaporate! No factory collapsed, no car or house mysteriously disappeared..."
On this part, I agree. True wealth doesn't evaporate when the market drops. (That's not to say that a drop in the market can't hurt long-term wealth production; i.e. economic growth vs recession.) As you said, houses didn't fall down. Nothing changed except some paper values.
But then, anyone who understands how markets work should understand that wealth is not truly created or destroyed by trading in the markets. It's just exchanges of wealth. If you've got a share of stock and sell it to me for $100, the same wealth exists after the trade. If I turn around and sell that stock to someone else for $50, the same wealth still exists. The paper value of that stock might change, but no actual dollars disappeared as a result of the transactions. I lost money, but the economy did not. (I do believe that stock and commodities exchanges can themselves be real wealth, though, in the same way a village market is wealth.)
Also, in many ways, Europe and Japan are in even worse shape, and the recent sell-off is probably more driven by European events.
Of course, S&P is really just a bunch of corrupt idiots, so either way you shouldn't pay much attention to them.
It seems to me that reducing the deficit by 50% is damn good idea.
Slightly increasing revenue in an environment where increasing revenue is simply seen as a reason to spend 117% of the revenue increase won't prevent debt downgrades.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562...
It's not a revenue problem, it's a spending-more-than-we-have-revenue problem. And I don't mean that it must be fixed with cuts only, but the idea that we can tax our way out of this problem is basically purely theoretical. With the real politicians we have, it won't work, unless after we fix the root spending problem.
it's a spending-more-than-we-have-revenue problem
Which can be fixed either by increasing revenue or decreasing spending.
Raising taxes increases revenue. Pair Clinton-era tax rates with some very modest reforms to Social Security and some much more significant ones to Medicare, and we'd honestly be sitting pretty well.
And even if we did nothing, even now the biggest economic issue by far is jobs, not projected deficits in 2040.
Edited: upvoted you, because I can't conceive of why others should have downvoted you...
That's actually not quite true. A truer statement would be that for a given constant level of spending deficit, it can be closed by either increasing revenue or decreasing spending. But you can't assume a constant level of deficit, because time progresses and politicians adjust based on their income and outflows. (Not necessarily in a good way, but they are looking.)
Try to put yourself more in a physics frame of mind than a political one. It's the difference between statics and dynamics. Solving the budget problem with a static snapshot of a dynamic process isn't going to work. With the track record that our politicians have, just handing them more money isn't going to solve the problem if they're just going to spend even more of it. A static-forces model of the political appropriations process fails to predict reality, the model where politicians dynamically increase their spending even more than revenue does historically fares better.
(... yes, I know it is odd to approach politics from the point of view of building models to predict reality and seeing which ones successfully, no sarcasm at all, I see hardly anyone take this approach. But there are in fact enough hard facts out there to have some success with this approach, if you can learn to take your science-trained sensibilities and look at the political world. Political science need not be an oxymoron, though I suspect an actual study of political science wouldn't look much like what is currently called that.)
It is fair to ask whether that's sustainable, as in the 2000s we saw our politicians take those projected surpluses and spend them on tax subsidies for the well-off. Which, indeed, is just what that model predicts. But that just speaks to the need to elect better politicians and create better institutions to act as an endogenous curb on unjustified spending.
Part of the secret to my happiness is this: I permit myself to feel happy on days when my stock portfolio goes up, but not to feel sad on days when my stock portfolio goes down. In this particular case I'd much rather be happy than consistent.
Wealth is owning things that can make money, not things that are money or that were bought with money.
A lot of people live farther than walking distance away from work.
Wealth consists of all things that have value. Shares in a company are wealth. Dollars in your pocket are wealth. A house is wealth. A coal mine is wealth.
No, that's an asset. A car is wealth, and could be either an asset or a liability, depending on the car and what you do with it, but it's still wealth.
A magnifying glass and a $1B Bond is worth more than a $1B Bond, depending on the perceived stability of the economy's other banking institutions. When things get a bit less stable reserve ratios tighten up.