Economy books, macro-economic outlook for amateur investors?

[longandshort]

In the current market? Easy. Fed prints another 2 trillion dollars, gives tendies to everyone, tendies are given to robinhood and stonk go up. More tendies are given to companies which use said tendies to buyback their stock, artificially raising the price, and stonk go up. Blackrock uses tendies to buy up massive swaths of property, driving lumber futures to record highs, and lumber stonks go up. By the transitive property I can conclude that stonk always go up.

I was illustrating the fact that if you did not know basic macro, you would arrive at that view you posted.

Macro/graham/actually_knowing_anything investing is dead until this bubble pops. The guys controlling the market are the guys picking their nose on the construction site trading their piker account on whatever WSB is shilling today. How else can you explain companies with absolutely no sign of profit trading at massive multiples. Easier to just head back to momentum trading and ride the wave of retards.

Ok dude.

Sample of Macro favorites vs. Reddit/WSB favorites on a pct basis for the last 6 months: (these are all at the index level -- the white line is an index of Reddit/Twitter favorites)

- 6 months because macro moves with Fed policy (so trades are different vs. what they were in the prior 6 months); and we are shifting in the regime as well, so much of this trade will be replaced by other industries over the subsequent 6 months

 

[MKTrader]

That link is not about his Nobel, which he won in 2008. You sound like you see yourself as a victim.

Reading comp isn't your forte, eh? I'd stay out of trading if you're too lazy to see this:
"This is not by any means the first time that the Economics Nobel prize has courted controversy.

The award to Paul Krugman in 2008, which bypassed a whole generation of international trade economists preceding him, was widely seen, fairly or not, as politically motivated. Awarded on the eve of the election of Barack Obama to the US presidency, Krugman was well known as a staunch Democrat and critic of the incumbent president, George W. Bush."

I simply spoke the inconvenient truth. Your response is a typical programmed response.

 

[longandshort]

Reading comp isn't your forte, eh? I'd stay out of trading if you're too lazy to see this:
"This is not by any means the first time that the Economics Nobel prize has courted controversy.

The award to Paul Krugman in 2008, which bypassed a whole generation of international trade economists preceding him, was widely seen, fairly or not, as politically motivated. Awarded on the eve of the election of Barack Obama to the US presidency, Krugman was well known as a staunch Democrat and critic of the incumbent president, George W. Bush."

I simply spoke the inconvenient truth. Your response is a typical programmed response.

No, it’s bullshit, though you probably don’t know enough to know it, considering your source and previous citations. FYI Krugman also won the John Bates award in ‘91 and his papers and early books are widely regarded in both the academic and business communities.

 

[MKTrader]

No, it’s bullshit, though you probably don’t know enough to know it, considering your source and previous citations. FYI Krugman also won the John Bates award in ‘91 and his papers and early books are widely regarded in both the academic and business communities.

No, you just missed the quote and don't want to admit it....so you go back to ad hominem argument, projecting and continually demonstrating the emotional IQ of a 13-year girl and an actual IQ corresponding to a comfortable room temperature level. Bye, and get over yourself, cupcake.

 

[longandshort]

No, you just missed the quote and don't want to admit it....so you go back to ad hominem argument, projecting and continually demonstrating the emotional IQ of a 13-year girl and an actual IQ corresponding to a comfortable room temperature level. Bye, and get over yourself, cupcake.

It's funny that you bring up ad hominem when you are skirting my contention, which isn't about the article you posted, but your argument against Krugman.

If I wanted to attack you I'd just call you an incel, but I don't need to use that to explain why I disagree with your assertion.

 

[cobco]

It's not women, it's not horses, it's economics. What a bunch of degenerates!

 

[piezoe]

Ludwig von mises

von Mises was a sociologist and liberal thinker (classical liberalism, not libertarian thinking.) He contributed to what is now referred to as the Austrian School of economics which has been discredited many times over. His work has some value in an historical context but has little relevance to today's economics.

 

[SunTrader]

... referred to as the Austrian School of economics which has been discredited many times over...

No it hasn't.

Only by other Dismal Scientists who have a different opinion, which is all this stuff is about.

No definitive way to work out what would have happened in the past if Y had been chosen instead of X.

 

[piezoe]

No it hasn't.

Only by other Dismal Scientists who have a different opinion, which is all this stuff is about.

No definitive way to work out what would have happened in the past if Y had been chosen instead of X.

It's undeniably true that there are still adherents to "Austrian Economics" . In my view it is, nevertheless, mistaken policy.

Even Hayek, to his great credit, acknowledged Keynes contributions. Keynes, who invented Macroeconomics, recognized the flaws in Austrian School thinking, believing, as they did, that the way to extract an economy from a serious recession was for everyone , including the government, to tighten their belts. Later in life, Hayek, who outlived Keynes by decades, recognized that he had been wrong about this.

 

[SunTrader]

It's undeniably true that there are still adherents to "Austrian Economics" . In my view it is, nevertheless, mistaken policy.

Even Hayek, to his great credit, acknowledged Keynes contributions. Keynes, who invented Macroeconomics, recognized the flaws in Austrian School thinking, believing, as they did, that the way to extract an economy from a serious recession was for everyone , including the government, to tighten their belts. Later in life, Hayek, who outlived Keynes by decades, recognized that he had been wrong about this.

IYO yes - nothing wrong with that. Except history says otherwise.

I, on the other hand, do not believe in a "free lunch".

Keynes v Hayek: Two economic giants go head to head

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-14366054

.......

Keynes's magnetism made a deep impression on Hayek, but he never stopped believing that his influence on economics was "both miraculous and tragic".

.......