[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1608680398363.jpg (62.28 KB, 775x514, DOWn.jpg)

 No.213072[View All]

💰️DOW/Market Watch Thread💰️
monitoring the market, trends, fluctuations, etc.
450 posts and 110 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>The interviewer even asked something like: "why can't wage increases come from corporate profits instead of causing inflation" and the response was something muddled about… the need to reduce inflation.

He could have said that high wages make economy uncompetitive, jeez. What's so controversial about this so that they need to evade answering


>What's so controversial about this so that they need to evade answering
The answer is simple. Modern politics is not about solving problems with policy. Modern politics exists solely as a controlled system in order to prevent change. Saying that "low wages makes the economy uncompetitive" implies that "the economy being competitive is a priority for us" which would set precedent (which is extremely important in liberalism) for future policy decisions. For example making the economy competitive might mean making 4 day work weeks standard, because shorter work weeks might invite skilled labor immigrants to the country for better working conditions. The united snakes does not currently rely on having a "competitive economy" because, in fact, the united snakes has a global trade monopoly via the petrodollar world reserve currency. Having a competitive economy is not current policy and is not precedented.


This is PragerU-tier conjecturing

Would capitalists really not want a 4-day week? Many around the world, even in the most developed places, are trialing it, and it's becoming an increasingly popular idea. If it really doesn't hurt their bottom line then the proles might just be allowed to work 4 days after all as a measure to alleviate their build-up rage a bit.


>Would capitalists really not want a 4-day week?

USA is facing a manufacturing giant that outproduces USA in every category. Imagine whatever you will, but the trajectory of Western capitalism has been "good conditions for tech employees, employ low wage migrants or outsource for other labor", and 4-day week seems possible from it - but let's not forget that all it took to make tech migrants start leaving USA was racism against Chinese


Like i said, it's precedent that liberals look at alongside narratives. Normalizing a 4 day work week might be allowed in europe, but in america it sets a narrative that workers can have better quality of life without disturbing productivity. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy thoughever, because it gives workers the idea that their quality of life can be improved. This is why capitalists have also been regretting covid concessions, and shitting/farting about work from home, because while it didnt damage productivity, it also allowed people to work without boss breathing down their necks, and this led to "quiet quitting", and people quitting for better jobs, and expecting more for their work, and higher wages…



File: 1669973237751.png (165.81 KB, 1118x553, ClipboardImage.png)


This kinda reads like listening to a dying child deliriously rambling about how they’re gonna be a famous movie star when they’re gonna grow up


File: 1669981620492-0.jpg (218.39 KB, 1920x1080, mpv-shot0022.jpg)

File: 1669981620492-1.jpg (221.85 KB, 1920x1080, mpv-shot0023.jpg)

File: 1669981620492-2.jpg (226.79 KB, 1920x1080, mpv-shot0024.jpg)


File: 1669984118827.png (25.1 KB, 459x409, comfused.png)

>Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.
For like the past two years I assumed that quote was just a metaphor for invigoration.


>>1284603 fascinating how they seem to be reinventing marxist analysis from scratch over there.
funny how that happens.


Midwit question here: but how would socialism fix an inflation crisis?


This is basicially what most post-keynesians advocate for. I think especially MMT is HUGE on this concept.


>h.g. wells' comments on electrification 'utopianism'
Reminds me of that "CHINA IS DYING IN 2 WEEKS" guy who says something similar about fast rail beyond the initial few lines.


this is `combat liberalism` means `combatative and agressive kind of liberalism` tier of understanding stuff.


File: 1669987450006.png (128.7 KB, 1811x496, ClipboardImage.png)

You might be interested in book "why china has no inflation" which responds precisely to that in second section called "How the Consequences of the Inflation Were Eliminated".

In short, they just did huge currency reform
>On May 28, 1949, the day after the liberation of Shanghai, a proclamation was posted throughout the city: “In all liberated areas, as from today, Renminbi issued by the People’s Bank of China shall be the only legal tender. It shall be the sole medium for all tax payments, private and public transactions and price quotations…. The use of Kuomintang gold certificates, gold, silver, or foreign currencies for accounting and clearing is henceforth prohibited….”
Established a central bank, centralised tax collection, etc (To be 100% honest renminbi was pegged to a dollar). And after all that, since they used central planing, just centraly planned all spending, credits, tried to produce in line with demand.

I am not sure 100%, but given the fact that text boasts about no income tax, I am sure Maoist China had some kind of VAT in place, where govt revenue was (price - cost of production). And this is important to remember, because taxes reduce amount of money in circulation.


File: 1670269065192.png (34 KB, 459x287, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1670269836851-0.png (68.81 KB, 623x502, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1670269836851-1.png (42.07 KB, 612x591, ClipboardImage.png)

Shitting the bed is just a thing the economy does now. New feature unlocked, thanks marx.


Wast there like MASSIVE demand destruction? Like a 40% collapse?


File: 1670274373067-0.png (48.58 KB, 652x324, Habbening_Man.png)

File: 1670274373067-1.png (122.54 KB, 1508x792, SPY_2008.png)

File: 1670274373067-2.jpg (68 KB, 750x765, 80_Trillies.jpg)

Thanks dudes.
Anyways here's another tweet that Burry tweeted and deleted. Honestly, take it with a grain of salt because it's so fucking vague. If I were to speculate as to why he might be tweeting "It's Happening", well… here's the current SPY overlaid with 2008 (the grey line) and the Volkswagen Squeeze.
Also I'm seeing some (admittedly Bourgeois) sources on social media saying that Pension funds may be fugged. $80 Trillion in off-balance sheet debts. Looks like Wallstreet had a little whoopsie-doo.
See, there is a reason for the economy shitting the bed. Problem is we'll never really learn it until it's already shat itself. It was the same in '08 (and it's why I give Burry a bit of leeway when he keeps predicting a crash) where the underlying risks were still there, people still noticed them, but because this is some horribly ungainly machine with so many parts dependent on each other that no one gets a full picture and everyone's interest is in covering it up.

>The big finance papers don't want to report on it, because it's almost always the fault of Wall Street Greed and calling them out on such causes them to lose access to interviews and the like.

>Regulators don't want to regulate because they've got a lucrative career in the industries they're regulating and they don't want to step on any toes.
>And Wall Street institutions don't want it getting out because retail investors are the sacrificial lamb they can use to save themselves.


Oh, and in more financial news (and jumping off what I said that we won't know the reasons for the crash 'till after it) it looks like retirees might be the bagholders for the next recession. Don't think I can explain it well, but here's some Autist going through a Fed and FDIC proposal.



File: 1670362938173-0.jpg (309.85 KB, 3886x2096, 10Y_3M_Inversion.jpg)

File: 1670362938173-1.png (1.15 MB, 2000x2177, 881.png)

New economy update: We've broken through the ATL on 10Y-3M yield inversion.


Allegedly this is another sure sign of a recession. "One of the most accurate" supposedly. If the 3 month yield is higher than the 10 year one for 10 days, supposedly, you've got a sure sign you're about to enter a recession.
So far it's been 21 days.
Additionally, people are saying this is the exact signal that predicted the ‘55, ‘59, ‘69, ‘74, ‘80, ‘81, ‘89, ‘99, ‘07, and ‘19 crashes.
>"We've never had a recession without this inverse."
What does it mean? Who knows! If I've learned anything recently, it's that Wall Street can see a skyscraper on fire and think "THIS IS GREAT FOR BUSINESS!" So Stonks pump. We'll see what happens.


Yes, I'll concede that, but the original quote is… kinda dumb.

>communism is when stronk and huge electricity network

It's like saying socialism is when you have high-speed rail.


you're forgetting the part about soviet power
just remember these simple equations anon:
soviet power + electrification = communism
communism - electrification = soviet power
communism - soviet power = electrification


economy still has growth from last quarter and unemployment barely budging. All these superstructure metrics are just that an indication of how much changes to credit the fed is making.

I remain bullish on the idea of a recession through first quarter of '23 right now.


His point about electrification of the country was that electricity is a universal labor multiplier. Electricity is capable of being both a type of raw energy as well as an intelligent mover that can act selectively. Universal labor needs a universal tool.


just look up happyroadkill


it would be a bad idea to invest in gamestop


can double on that. just grab an s&p like index fund (such as fxaix) you aren't warren buffet, nor do you want to be analyzing company valuations into the future is extremely time consuming and boring. You may consider waiting until it drops 15% or so.

Also some index funds in energy or other raw materials will be probably doing pretty well.



which broker?


I’ll be honest, you shouldn’t try to invest in “short term squeeze plays”; namely because they’re rare market events that, to be frank, you’d usually stumble onto by accident or FOMO in on the way up. Namely because companies don’t go out of their way to advertise their short positions, when these hedge funds do legitimately open short positions, it’s because they legitimately believe that the company’s financials are shit, or their performance is poor, or they just got a round of rotten luck.

It also requires a degree of illiquidity in the stock itself. You have to have a huge short position + not many sellers to cause a short squeeze.

If you see major finance outlets advertising a stock, it probably won’t squeeze.

That said I still think the GME squeeze is will happen for reasons I outlined before. But it’d probably be best for a “normal” investor to wait for the market to crash before investing.


Roberts keeps arguing exactly that: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/12/05/powells-pivot-and-the-impending-slump/

> One of the most reliable indicators of an oncoming recession is the so-called inverted bond yield curve. That’s where the rate of interest on long-term bonds (ten-years) falls below the rate of interest on short-term loans (3 months or 2 years). That should not happen if an economy is growing ‘normally’. Then the interest charged on long term bonds would be higher because you get the loan for a longer time. The yield curve inverts only when central banks raise short-term interest rates and investors rush to buy long term bonds because they fear a recession coming.

It makes sense, insofar as bourgeois shit makes any sense. Normally you'd be rewarded for holding a bond for a long time, which would mean a lower bond price and thus a higher yield. If porky is buying long it's because they want a surefire way to park their cash without the bond maturing beforehand. (i.e. they'll only get their cash back when shit is a bit calmer, or they'll wait until the market is better to sell those bonds). The extremely strong inversion indicates then that no one actually believes in the stock market, and they're just waiting for it to crash. Problem is it won't crash until the fed stops pumping cash. I find that Peruvian Bull is way too neoclassical in his approach (he cites the phillips curve as if it were relevant, which it obviously isn't >>1286981) and by not being a marxist conflates the current inflation not as a lack of supply issue, namely production insufficiencies (which it is), but as an excess of printing money. There is a serious crisis of value production going on, tapered over by debt spending (both in the household and government sense), and a crisis of profit.

That being said it seems they are right in pointing out that the longer the fed pumps the worse it's gonna be when it crashes. For all the heterodox MMT fellas say, it is very upsetting to find out that the interest on the US debt is higher than all the US tax revenues combined (not to mention the principal, obviously).

It might take a catastrophic moment to actually crash the economy, as in a 2020 (when it did effectively crash, those were some good times when the price of oil went negative). If I had to bet I'd wager on the conflict which China finally becoming "hot" (in the economic sense, though maybe in the military as well) , by them dumping all their treasury holdings and maybe stopping exporting shit to the US. It's hard to predict, though.


God I wish I was smart enough to fully grasp what you just took the effort to write :(


Nice post. China is already dumping US bonds, no? Maybe not en-masse but significantly? The US could simply not recognize Chinese owned bonds at some point. With the way US sanctions are going, I wouldn't put it off the table.


NTA, but here is my tl;dr:
>Bonds used to be a safe haven to park cash, but arent anymore
>which indicates a recession is incoming
>one reason the (stock) market hasn't crashed yet is the FED's printers going BRRR
>this just delays the crash…
>…and when it comes, it will be even worse
>if it wasnt for the dollar being the world's reserve currency and thus the US were not able to print away their debt, the US would have defaulted on it's debt for a long time


>porky about to cream himself over line go down


>a sure sign you're about to enter a recession
didn't we already have 3 consecutive negative quarters?


This dude makes my blood boil.


File: 1670546244210.png (101.88 KB, 978x599, ClipboardImage.png)

>China is already dumping US bonds, no? Maybe not en-masse but significantly?
Chinas holdings of american treasury bonds is at a 12 year low
Another thing, notice the top three holders of american debt in picrel. The japanese and UK economies got fucked hard this year, imagine if they were forced to dump it all right before china does. 👀


File: 1670546614947.jpg (25.86 KB, 958x340, yield.jpg)

Sorry, I wrote it in a bit of a hurry and it ended up not too terribly clear. It isn't exactly that bonds aren't safe, it's more that there are two kinds of bonds: bonds that will expire soon (1-4 years) and bonds which will take longer to expire (think 10, 20, 30 years). Bonds have a price when they're issued by the government (or by a private company): say, $1000. People buy those bonds, which then have to be repaid at the expiration date, when the bond "matures". This, essentially, is a loan: government (or a private company) gives you a piece of paper promising to pay you back, and you give government money.

Bonds, as most loans, have interest rates. These rates are fixed as to the value of the bond when it was issued. Say our bond had a 10% interest rate; this means every year the government would have to pay you back (in installments, over the course of the year) $100. This is nice. You don't have to do anything and you'll get money. Obviously interest rates are typically shit, which means bonds are a shit investment, because gambling on Tesla will probably give you better immediate returns (or, more realistically, an index fund, which is nothing but a collection of different investments bundled together).

Bonds, once issued, become property; they can be resold to someone else. Their "yield" is based on this. Say a bond is close to expiring: this means it'll pay back its value soon. This makes it a more desirable bond, since it probably will be repaid and this you'll get your money back. This typically make short-term bonds worth more, say $1100, on the market. Thing is, the bond still pays only $100 every year. This means its yield has (relatively) gotten lower: to 9.09% (since you paid more). The higher the bond price, the lower the yield; it's a simple relation. As such, long term bonds are usually cheaper, since there is a bigger chance something will happen before the bond matures which could make it fail (i.e. not pay its value back). They are, as such, "riskier".

Thing is, some porkies aren't dumb; they can see the writing on the wall (maybe they read a bit of marx when they were young…) This means they know the stock market is looking a bit shaky; maybe parking a bunch of cash on Tesla right now is a bad idea. They look for a safer place to put their money, even if it means smaller returns, just to insulate themselves from the crisis. Short-term bonds are nice, but maybe the crisis will last longer than the bond has before expiring, which would leave you with a bunch of cash which is gonna need to look for an investment, which may be more difficult or more expensive. Long-term bonds guarantee you'll have a nice, solid thing for a while, which you can then resell if you feel like things are better, or just wait for it to mature and get your money back.

You can now see the usual framework: on a direct relation, short-term bonds are usually more expensive than long-term bonds; their yield is lower, therefore, that that of the long-term bonds. But before every single recession, apparently, something happens: the yield on short-term bonds goes higher than that of the long-term bonds, or, as they call it, "the curve inverts" (which is based on the yield curve graph, as can be seen annexed to this post). This is, essentially, porky's own measure of confidence on the near-future of the market: they think it'll go bad soon, so they're parking their money so that papa government will guarantee it no matter what. For marxists this is essentially a good enough indicator that it isn't just crazy communists that think shit's gonna hit the fan soon: porky also thinks that as well. And if porky thinks shit's gonna hit the fan, they you better bet it will.

As a side note, the Fed keeps doing Quantitative Easing (QE), which essentially amounts to buying (technically swapping) a bunch of assets (usually shit assets in the balance sheets of banks and companies) with money they can technically print by doing this. This has caused enormous hyperinflation in the stock market (and also bitcoin, most notably), since porky just takes this money, makes some stock buybacks and gives itself in dividends, which is a tidy little business. Problem is the Fed is getting enormously swamped with shit assets (i.e. debt), and the stock market has gotten so crazy that any crash is gonna be so volatile as to devastate the economy (since a great deal of companies that should have died in 2008 are still alive as "zombies"). Until the Fed stops doing this, a crash is unlikely; the question is when will their hand be forced (since they cannot decide to crash the market, for obvious reasons).

As for China dumping bonds, they probably are, but as Peruvian Bull noted on the posts shared by GME Anon, they have massive dollar surpluses since the US buys their shit (and all other shit) in dollars. They have to do something with those dollars, otherwise their currency will devalue (from having too many dollar holdings, because the dollar is the de facto reserve currency of the world) which would fuck their export economy up. So they usually just give them back to the US and get shitty bonds in return, which is better than holding dollars. It seems like they're buying gold from Russia https://thedeepdive.ca/the-de-dollarization-frenzy-china-covertly-buying-gold-to-reduce-us-dollar-exposure/, but it's hard to say how relevant it is right now. It's tough to de-dollarize. (Yves Smith has a great article about this: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/12/dethroning-the-dollar-why-the-alternatives-are-not-ready-for-prime-time.html). The moment will come, but it's probably not too soon just quite yet, unless some crisis (cough cough Taiwan) forces their hand, like the Ukraine crisis forced Russia's hand).


Sorry, about the China currency, I mean "appreciate" (it'll be worth more) instead of "devalue". This would make it stronger and thus their goods more expensive, which is bad if you want to export them.


I've been using him as barometer for how porky is feeling about the bond market.


Is this financial anarchy?
Like, just don't pay taxes and use the debt to fund local orgs?


File: 1670559917333.png (799.33 KB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

>Is this financial anarchy?
Like, just don't pay taxes and use the debt to fund local orgs?
No that's based Enric Duran



The third quarter was positive, though the state of the market is still not good.
It could be a dead cat bounce.


…we have also had you people preaching about "sure signs of recession" for days/months/years here now. Any day, comrades!


What's your opinion on Saudis, as well as Iran and Israel, switching sides to China?


All in my pocket since forever


File: 1670608597915.jpg (101.38 KB, 962x801, Lenin & Stalin.jpg)

>Your question might at first sight appear to be correct. Actually, it will not stand the slightest criticism. It should be easy to understand that when Lenin says that "Soviet power plus electrification is communism," he does not mean by this that there will be any kind of political power under communism, nor does he mean that if we have seriously set about electrifying the country we have thereby already achieved communism.

>What did Lenin mean to say when making this statement? In my opinion, all he meant to say was that Soviet power alone is not enough for the advance towards communism, that in order to advance towards communism the Soviet power must electrify the country and transfer the entire national economy to large-scale production, and that the Soviet power is prepared to take this course in order to arrive at communism. Lenin's dictum implies nothing more than the readiness of the Soviet power to advance towards communism through electrification.

>We often say that our republic is a socialist one. Does this mean that we have already achieved socialism, done away with classes and abolished the state (for the achievement of socialism implies the withering away of the state)? Or does it mean that classes, the state, and so on, will still exist under socialism? Obviously not. Are we entitled in that case to call our republic a socialist one? Of course, we are. From what standpoint? From the standpoint of our determination and our readiness to achieve socialism, to do away with classes, etc.

>Perhaps, Comrade Kushtysev, you would agree to listen to Lenin's opinion on this point? If so, then listen:

>"No one, I think, in considering the question of the economy of Russia has ever denied its transitional character. Nor, I think has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic signifies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not at all that the new economic order is a socialist order" (Vol. XXII, p. 513).

- Joseph Stalin

Unique IPs: 34

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]