On the other hand, what’s in the stars…? 
{The stage has been set for Trump, he is likely to win!
The Fed well economy keeps the American dream alive, and it is strength, not weakness which will determine the outcome.}
'America is in turmoil and stocks are booming. Is the market broken?
Analysis by Matt Egan, CNN Business
Updated 6:49 AM EDT, Wed June 03, 2020

New York(CNN Business)The stock market is not the economy. But rarely has the gap between Wall Street and Main Street felt so wide.
The United States is going through its worst race crisis since 1968 following the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis. Riots have hit cities across the nation. Looting is rampant. And President Donald Trump is threatening to send in the military to stop the violence.
The civil unrest could exacerbate the coronavirus pandemic that has already killed more than 100,000 Americans. That in turn could deepen the economic collapse that has forced more than 40 million people to file for unemployment. Meanwhile US-China relations are imploding, imperiling the trade war ceasefire reached between the world’s two largest economies.
And yet, the stock market is downright booming.
The S&P 500 closed Tuesday at the highest level in nearly three months. The Nasdaq has spiked 40% since March 23, fueled by the resilience of Big Tech, and is now within striking distance of all-time highs.
There are two major reasons for this: unprecedented stimulus from the Federal Reserve, and investors not wanting to miss out on monster returns once the economy recovers.
Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM International, said he can’t recall a time when the disconnect between Wall Street and the real economy was this great. He blamed in part the sharp decline in the number of public companies in the United States.
“The market is broken. It no longer reflects a forward outlook that is truly aligned in the real economy,” he said. "That’s a problem because at some point, the public will say these markets are rigged.
Robert Shiller, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, told CNN Business that this backdrop of rising risks and surging stock prices leaves the equity market “vulnerable” to a setback.
“This is like a fire bell in the night. This moment. Suddenly seeing rioting in cities all over the country,” Shiller said, quoting Thomas Jefferson’s famous 1820 description of the extension of slavery in the Missouri Compromise as something that filled the founding father with “terror.”
“I don’t think standard economic models are much good at forecasting right now,” Shiller said.
Ferocious Fed response masks economic turmoil
One reason Wall Street continues to celebrate, despite the turmoil taking place in its city and others, is the forceful economic rescue mounted by the federal government.
Most notably, coronavirus spurred the Federal Reserve to take steps that make its 2008 response look tame by comparison. The Fed slashed interest rates to zero, promised to buy an unlimited amount of bonds, rolled out a series of emergency programs and is directing the purchase of junk bonds.
Greed returns to Wall Street as stock market rebounds
The Fed response, led by Chairman Jerome Powell, has worked wonders at revitalizing financial markets that seized up just three months ago. And Powell has vowed to do more, if necessary.
“There is a very, very significant Powell Put under stocks right now,” said Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco.
That means that while Main Street is still grappling with coronavirus, racial crisis and the impacts of both, Wall Street is doing just fine. Fed policy has allowed markets to decouple from economic reality.
The FOMO factor
It’s also normal for markets to sniff out recoveries long before average Americans feel them. That’s what happened when US stocks bottomed in March 2009, even though the economy was still in shambles. That began the longest bull market in American history.
There are some faint signs that the current economy is bottoming. For instance, the number of unemployment claims has gradually declined, and mortgage applications are rising. Airline passenger activity is climbing as well.
Shiller, the author of “Irrational Exuberance,” said many investors have FOMO, or fear of missing out, because they didn’t participate in the last bull market: “They remember not catching it last time.”
And then there’s the impact of Trump’s public confidence in the economy’s ability to rebound rapidly.
“Donald Trump encourages a sort of self-confidence. You don’t have to believe Trump – you only have to believe that other people believe Trump,” said Shiller.
How will the economy be affected?
Yet there are concerns that the recovery could be delayed or derailed by the race crisis, depending upon how long it lasts. Already-weak consumer and business confidence could fall further, leading to additional cuts to the spending that drives the economy.
“It’s going to be a depressant. It will slow the trajectory of the reopening in the short term,” said Danielle DiMartino Booth, CEO and chief strategist at Quill Intelligence. “If this persists, it will add a whole new level of uncertainty.”
It’s too early to know whether the unrest will worsen the pandemic. Although some protesters are wearing masks, many others are not.
US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams told Politico on Monday there is “every reason that we will see new clusters and potentially new outbreaks” following the protests. That could force some states to unwind their plans to reopen businesses.
“We have to worry about the potential for a resurgence in infections. Any one of these protests could be a super-spreader event,” said Hooper.
‘People are angry’
Although the unrest was initially sparked by the killing of George Floyd, the continued broader economic discontent is an undercurrent. The United States has long suffered from stark inequality, particularly across race and gender divides, and the lack of reckoning has fueled a sense that the American dream is not alive and well.
The economy is in shambles but Big Tech stocks are on fire
The top 1% of households controlled $36.8 trillion at the end of last year, according to the Federal Reserve – up an eye-popping 651% from the $4.9 trillion they held in 1989. The bottom 50% of families held only $1.7 trillion at the end of last year, up a far more modest 112%.
The divide between rich and poor was worsened by the Great Recession and its aftermath. The US government’s response relied heavily on easy money from the Fed, rather than the kind of fiscal stimulus that can help lower-income Americans.
“The policies used to get out of the great financial crisis exacerbated wealth inequality,” said Invesco’s Hooper.
Extreme inequality isn’t just a social issue. It could become a problem for Wall Street.
That’s because it can lead to periods of instability that make businesses and consumers reluctant to spend, hurting corporate profits. And inequality will increase the popularity of proposals to make sweeping changes to a system that some voters see as rigged such as Elizabeth Warren’s push for a wealth tax.
Unrest could amplify the divide even further
A similar story is playing out today.
First, the coronavirus pandemic disproportionately hit poorer Americans, many of whom work in the hospitality and service sectors rocked by the pandemic. Nearly 40% of low-income workers lost their jobs in March alone, according to the Fed.
Secondly, the decoupling of the stock market from the real economy is amplifying inequality because many poorer Americans have little to no exposure to stocks.
“They’re not benefiting from the rise of Amazon and Microsoft. They live in a completely different world,” said Brusuelas.
And then there’s the civil unrest, which doesn’t just reflect inequality. In an economic sense, it could have the unfortunate side effect of making the divide even worse.
Lower-income communities have been hit hard by riots, looting and vandalism. It can take years for less affluent neighborhoods and small businesses, many of which were already hurting from the pandemic, to recover from the damage.
“This will exacerbate the divide,” said Booth. “Two weeks of delayed reopening won’t affect Target or Walmart. But for small businesses barely holding on, it could make the difference between life and death.” ’
K: Thank you Meno for the points you brought up…it says what I was trying to
say, but far better…the disconnect between the market and the main street,
just another example of the disconnect between the upper class and the
“common” folk…
but it also brings up another point… which is the fallacy that the welfare of
a people is economic… because people have jobs, doesn’t make it a state worth
having…we are not our jobs and we are not our economic situation……
the “greatness” of a people isn’t defined by its economic prowess nor is
it defined by it military spending…and not even by a mix of the two,
economic and military…the greatness of a people is found, first of
all in our civilization… which is infrastructure Rome was the greatest
country on earth because of its infrastructure…it build roads and aqueducts
and baths and temples… the greatness of a civilization is found in its
infrastructure… we are the greatest country when we have a infrastructure
that takes care of its people…… when the people are fed and their basic
needs are taken care of… food, water, shelter, health care, education…
the basics needs of every single living human being…
and those are the physical needs, we must also meet the emotional,
psychological needs of human beings… their need for love,
and safety/security and esteem and belonging……
the goal of existence is not to make money or to have a job…
the goal of existence is to meet our physical and emotional needs
and then go on to rise above our needs by reaching the next level
of self achievement… where we create our own goals and act upon them…
where we reach our full possibilities and potentials…
in any action, you must keep in mind what is the final goal…
and what is our final goal?
why do we struggle and fight and shed our blood, sweat and tears?
it certainly isn’t about our job or our 401K plan…
we struggle for something deeper and more meaningful then just
a higher dow average and a job that pays slightly less then nothing…
what do you fight for and struggle for?
why are we protesting? over the death of one man?
perhaps, but more likely we are protesting because
we in the depths of our soul understand, that we are
not reaching any meaningful or honest goals that is worth
our blood, sweat and tears……
individually and collectively, we are not near any goals or
achievements worth having……. if the dow reaches 25,000 points,
so the fuck what?
it doesn’t impact or affect my life… if I hold a job, I hold a crappy
job that doesn’t hold any interest or allows me to achieve my own
personal goals of becoming something more…….
ask yourself, the why question?
why does life seem so miserable?
because we are not engaged in anything worth our individual or
collective effort…
we have no goals, no possibilities, nothing to reach for…
and so we march… in hopes of finding what we so desperately need
and want…
a purpose in life…both individually and collectively…
Kropotkin
It’s a trade off, Asian Americans are more law abiding, but less individualistic.
Something tells me that’s never going to make headlines in MSM.
Nor is the fact that Polynesians are less likely to be killed by police than whites going to make headlines.
If the criminal justice system was largely biased, what would we expect to find?
Perhaps we would expect to find nonwhites incarcerated and killed at a much higher rate than whites, which’s not at all like what we find (altho it’s not outside the realm of possibility for all minorities of a country to commit far more violent crimes than the majority of the same country).
If the criminal justice system was largely unbiased, what would we expect to find?
We would expect to find nonwhites incarcerated and killed at about the same rate as whites, or some nonwhites incarcerated and killed less, some about equally and some more, which’s what we find.
Statistics help prove the criminal justice system is largely unbiased.
So law abiding citizens likely have little or nothing to fear from it, irrespective of ethnicity or race.
If law abiding African Americans do have more to fear from it than other law abiding races, it’s because African Americans are several times more likely to commit violent crimes than Asian, Hispanic and white Americans, presumably against police officers too.
Naturally police officers are going to be more on edge when dealing with African Americans.
Okay, why is this the case? Is there literally a biological gene that makes black people [black men in particular] more likely to commit violent crimes? If so, then that would be perfectly natural behavior. Or, instead, are there rather complex social, political and economic variables that configure down through the ages that make it more likely black people [black men in particular] will commit violent crimes.
White racism being one of them.
Now, what counts for the objectivists among us, is that there is only one way in which to intertwine genes and memes here so as to come up with the only rational manner in which to view the relationship between race and crime. The way that they do.
Same with the tinderbox. They will tell you why there is a tinderbox and if you refuse to think about it in exactly the same way that they do then you are necessarily, inherently wrong.
Black men commit violent crimes – looting for example – because that’s just the way they are. And even though that’s just the way they are they must still be held responsible for what they do. Hated even.
And to the extent that goes further – to fascism or eugenics or final solutions – depends on which flavor of objectivism one subscribes to.
Before we proceed any further, I just want to get this out of the way: the vast majority of African Americans are decent, law abiding automatons who rarely, if ever question authority just like the rest of us.
We’re talking about a minority of African Americans here, that just so happens to be larger and more violent than the minority of Asians, Hispanics, Whites and other historically oppressed peoples (Natives, Polynesians) who also commit violent crimes.
The statistics are straight forward:
Blacks are 13% of the population in the US but! they commit 52% of the homicides in the US!
That a white person killed a black person, a shame upon all whites. The blacks have no shame. The whites hate this asshole! He brings them down. I hope he sucks dick in prison and swallows for the rest of his life!
Biology can be every bit as complex and varied as sociology, politics and economics.
Insofar as it’s genetic, in all likelihood it’s not a single gene, but a multitude of genes.
Some of these genes may be found in other races, just they may not be as prevalent.
Some of these genes may be beneficial alone or under certain conditions, like say in the boxing ring or on the battlefield, but together under the wrong conditions, lead to a greater potential for counterproductive violence.
For the liberal objectivist, as you would say, it’s white privilege/supremacy and/or their environment.
For the conservative objectivist, it’s their culture.
For the Social Darwinist objectivist, it’s their biology.
For postmodern intersubjectivists such as yourself, unless the equation is as simple as 2 & 2 = 4, they’ll either suspend judgment, or just go with whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be, but feel fragmented about it.
For me, it’s probably all of the above, but with the emphasis on their environment (poverty), culture (gangsterism, victim complex/mentality) and biology (more testosterone, lower impulse control, etcetera), not on white privilege/supremacy, for the reasons already provided and others.
Hell some Sri Lankans are as black as coal, yet they’re incarcerated and killed by police far less than whites.
Of course the majority of cops are white, and people do tend to be biased in favor of their own race, however culture has greatly repressed this urge, these days if anything many liberals are biased against their own race.
I just don’t think privilege/racism is a major factor, it’s certainly not the (only) factor.
I sympathize with conservatives, libertarians and nationalists on some issues, and socialists on others.
I think both sides, left, right and everything in between could greatly benefit from focusing far more on the economy (‘it’s the economy stupid’) and less on issues that divide us like race, sex and gender.
Our issue is not each other, it’s corrupt banks, megacorps and government, and both left/right have done an excellent job of dividing and ruling us.
Of course while socialists and capitalists markedly disagree on how to run the economy, one thing I think we can all agree on is there should be lower taxes for the working and middle classes.
The megacorps should (be broken up) receive far less, if any corporate welfare, and start actually paying their taxes.
The federal reserve should be nationalized and much, if not all the (national) debt cancelled (for conservatives: see the year of Jubilee).
I think we can all agree regime change wars and the war on terror was a terrible idea.
It’s time to bring all the troops home.
As far as common ground goes, we could start with that.
Which party will actually address those issues?
In my estimation, neither mainline republicans nor democrats (or liberals and conservatives in Canada) will, perhaps a Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul would.
We need to turn more to 3rd parties and independents, and if that doesn’t work, perhaps more drastic measures will be necessary.
Gloominary, I actually read your post and agreed with some of it. One thing I saw that was false is that the FED should eradicate national debt … umm… that’s not the FEDS choice!!! All that money is owed to China … which tells me that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
You can put more quotes on and I’ll read them!
The US economy is worth 40 trillion.
That means that half our economy is in debt.
The problem with paying back the debt is that if we do that; all the extra influx for all our countries that we are in debt to, will now have enough money to defeat the US economically … so, we never pay it!
It’s considered a national security interest to not repay our debts.
It would be self defeating for the U.S.'s major debtor -China- to do that, since if the US would go belly up, the Chinese holding of debt would go puff, the magic dragon, alongside all the trade and real estate that would follow.
The DEBT is only a down payment on huge futures everyone is counting on.
That is if I am not wrong, as Biggie would say.
Factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/freewill.
There’s no such thing as identical in nature.
It’s impossible for two entities to be exactly the same in every way or share the exact same outcome.
This is especially true of something as complex as a pair of human beings, let alone a pair of population groups.
Even identical twins aren’t genetically identical, let alone the same in every meaningful way, nor are they guaranteed a similar outcome.
Episcopalians are wealthier than Evangelicals.
Does that mean Episcopalianism is fitter than Evangelicalism?
Does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it’s random, meaningless, luck of the draw or, there are reasons, but they’re far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain or alternatively, it’s down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could surpass Episcopalianism, these things ebb and flow.
And what, if anything, constitutes fit today may not constitute fit decades, centuries or millennia from now.
Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it’s an impossibility.
Not an impossibility, but near impossible.
The archaic derivation devolves more toward-into increasingly identifiable perceptions, and the negation of that-the decreasing interpretative apology.
The pro-position that lack of absolute identity dissolves the interlocatory at either the smallest or the largest neural junction does not sever any relative apprehension.
Call it myth or magic, it does go both ways’ and creates a virtual bridge which some generate, some degrade.
Free will is the conditional to evolve a seemingly unfair program, and that proposition can not be bisected into two separate realms-one good , one bad. Only the in the realm of the ideal: the ugly and the beauty matter in the realm of genetic balancing.
It’s an impossibility.
Two pop groups are never going to make the exact same amount of money every year for however long they and civilization as we know it exists, but even if they miraculously did, they wouldn’t be able to benefit from it absolutely equally.
The question is, how much variation is acceptable and why, not can we eliminate all variation.
I’ve never heard a liberal ask let alone answer this question.
I’m not saying it can’t be meaningfully asked and answered.
If we got the African American incarceration rate down to just 10% more than White Americans would that be enough?
How bout just 1% more?
Or does it have to be lower than White Americans, and if so by how much?
Again it’s never going to be absolutely the same, year after year, decade after decade, unless you start fudging the numbers.
Yes play along with the numbers long enough and you could come up with some answered, but that is only avoiding the more far reaching questions.
It is the gravity of being there, that avoids the reality of unequal treatment and perception of differing realities. The laws are not applicable equally, because of where it comes from splits into various destinations.
The economics, the politics, and the opportunities don’t fit into nationalist and socially stratified brackets.
Gloominary wrote:
"Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it’s an impossibility.
[/quote]
"
{But the can share nearly similar outcomes, for being human can overcome any particular differences.} which may occur prima facie. After all, why did most settlers come here in the first place? To avoid the economic hardships, the social prejudices that
befell them in their places of origin
I’m not against any and all redistribution, but to me, the idea that we should get as close to achieving absolute parity between the races and sexes as possible is every bit as absurd as the idea that we should get as close to achieving absolute parity between individuals as possible.
And I think that, among other things, is what’s turning a lot of people off from the left these days.
When it comes to race and sex: ‘only absolute parity will do’ (well unless nonwhites and women are doing better than whites and men in many or most ways, that’s okay), but when it comes to class: ‘maybe we need a bit more parity’ shrugs.
Their new motto: ‘it’s race, sex and gender, stupid’.
Well they can take their oppressive race and gender communism and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Blacks, whites, men and women are not in any way shape or form the same (other than the fact that they’re human), and I can believe that without also believing blacks and women are subhuman.
We can talk about degrees of difference and redistribution between the races and sexes, but this idea that any and all socioeconomic and political variation between the races and sexes is solely the product of a rich white male conspiracy to oppress the other, the aftermath of said conspiracy or a social construct, is asinine, it’s not even remotely close to common sense or scientific thinking, it’s a cult, I’m asinine for even entertaining it.