Hillary Clinton win = what for the economy?

[piezoe]

Agree on the direction, too, though I stand by my stance that she has little to nothing to offer the middle class. It's scary to hear the US lower middle class has to concern itself with minimum wage.

As you know we have to have a very long term view. It took us more than thirty five years to get to or present macro economic state. It will take the right kind of leadership and another 35 years to restore the middle class. I say this being more or less a member of the middle class, but at the upper end, well nowadays at the very upper end. And having really nothing in common with the vast majority of U.S. citizens. Yet I know how important a strong middle class is to the nation and my own well being. I am happy to give up some money in exchange for a strong and vibrant middle class. The lifeblood of any advanced nation. I don't want to sound as though I am rich. I'm not. I have way more than I need however. And I enjoy a wonderful life. And certainly by the living standards in much of the world I am wealthy, as are most Americans. We are almost all rich by that standard, and we should be, indeed, thankful.

The most important thing for me to wrap my arms around now in my old age is that the world as it is in 2016 is not the world I grew up in. I welcome the technological advances and globalization. It is inevitable; just as the Sun coming up in the East and Setting in the West. We must learn to adapt and embrace change. It is wonderful, and we just need to always, because we are a eusocial species, be our brothers, and sisters, keeper. We can do it, and we will! In the meantime I reserve the right to bitch plenty.

 

[i960]

My underlying fear in all of this is that everything has been effectively captured and any attempts to restore a healthy and vibrant middle class (let's be real - that's the only healthy path to go down) will be met with strategically engineered resistance to prevent the current inequality from reversing.

At the risk of exposing my tin foil hat, I can't help but think this didn't just all happen by chance or the mere combination of multiple flawed policies.

 

[Zzzz1]

Agree though I was only focusing on a US domestic redistribution

People in Africa and South America and the Middle East would have greater buying power, while people in North America Europe and Asia would have less buying power. Prices for raw materials would be more expensive such as food and metals and energy, because everyone would want to consume quality food, use lots of metals in construction of their homes, and use energy for transportation, heating and cooling, and chemicals. Unlike now where this consumption isn't available to much of the population. So your wrong that people's quality of life would remain the same while getting cheaper. And like you said the balance of the money supply wouldn't last long as individuals monetize their value. The point is you cannot create lasting monetary equality with turning the world upside down and creating a lot of unhappy people in the process, and its results are only temporary.

 

[Zzzz1]

Agree fully in that it will be a long term process. But a rethink has to take place and if that is what the Trump phenomenon brought about then that shall be his greatest achievement. Though I find it still hard to credit him for anything.

But when you see those get rich quick schemes a la snap chat and Co, when you see the ridiculous compensations paid at Verizon, AT&T and many other corporates while infrastructure, most housing, the quality of kindergartens even pales in comparison with Greece then something is wrong. I am currently looking to buy a house near NYC and looked at properties in Connecticut and North of NYC and I have to say the quality 600k to 800k buys you is appalling and shocking (rotten, run down wood only constructs, old non insulating windows, crappie neighborhoods,...) . The better places I found around Princeton, NJ, but that's a 1 hour train ride into the city. When you look at the prices ISPs charge and the slow speeds and throughput caps you have to endure in exchange then that is something at the far low end of all other developed nations. When you look at how public schools look like and how run down they are compared with kindergartens or high schools in Spain or Greece then you know what I am talking about. The rich get richer by the hour (quite literally) while the middle class endures a horrible infrastructure and quality of services. What's with all those holes in streets all over Manhattan? Is this one of the world's most advanced cities or Aleppo? Something is not right and so far everyone shuts up about it because the establishment who lives in their nice multi million dollar mansions taught the rest that speaking up and criticizing and looking for improvements is UnAmerican when the opposite is actually true.

Just because something takes long time does not mean it should not be started to be tackled today. Under Clinton very little to nothing will change for the better for the middle class.

As you know we have to have a very long term view. It took us more than thirty five years to get to or present macro economic state. It will take the right kind of leadership and another 35 years to restore the middle class. I say this being more or less a member of the middle class, but at the upper end, well nowadays at the very upper end. And having really nothing in common with the vast majority of U.S. citizens. Yet I know how important a strong middle class is to the nation and my own well being. I am happy to give up some money in exchange for a strong and vibrant middle class. The lifeblood of any advanced nation. I don't want to sound as though I am rich. I'm not. I have way more than I need however. And I enjoy a wonderful life. And certainly by the living standards in much of the world I am wealthy, as are most Americans. We are almost all rich by that standard, and we should be, indeed, thankful.

The most important thing for me to wrap my arms around now in my old age is that the world as it is in 2016 is not the world I grew up in. I welcome the technological advances and globalization. It is inevitable; just as the Sun coming up in the East and Setting in the West. We must learn to adapt and embrace change. It is wonderful, and we just need to always, because we are a eusocial species, be our brothers, and sisters, keeper. We can do it, and we will! In the meantime I reserve the right to bitch plenty.

 

[piezoe]

Agree fully in that it will be a long term process. But a rethink has to take place and if that is what the Trump phenomenon brought about then that shall be his greatest achievement. Though I find it still hard to credit him for anything.

But when you see those get rich quick schemes a la snap chat and Co, when you see the ridiculous compensations paid at Verizon, AT&T and many other corporates while infrastructure, most housing, the quality of kindergartens even pales in comparison with Greece then something is wrong. I am currently looking to buy a house near NYC and looked at properties in Connecticut and North of NYC and I have to say the quality 600k to 800k buys you is appalling and shocking (rotten, run down wood only constructs, old non insulating windows, crappie neighborhoods,...) . The better places I found around Princeton, NJ, but that's a 1 hour train ride into the city. When you look at the prices ISPs charge and the slow speeds and throughput caps you have to endure in exchange then that is something at the far low end of all other developed nations. When you look at how public schools look like and how run down they are compared with kindergartens or high schools in Spain or Greece then you know what I am talking about. The rich get richer by the hour (quite literally) while the middle class endures a horrible infrastructure and quality of services. What's with all those holes in streets all over Manhattan? Is this one of the world's most advanced cities or Aleppo? Something is not right and so far everyone shuts up about it because the establishment who lives in their nice multi million dollar mansions taught the rest that speaking up and criticizing and looking for improvements is UnAmerican when the opposite is actually true.

Just because something takes long time does not mean it should not be started to be tackled today. Under Clinton very little to nothing will change for the better for the middle class.

Your observations are mine. We are entirely on the same wavelength. I am just a little more encouraged than you by prospects with Clinton in the White House. We will have to wait and see. If see doesn't get at least a cooperative Senate than I think we can forget any meaningful progress. If she gets both a house and a Senate, unlikely it seems, then we should see some real changes. We just have to be patient and see how things turn out.

 

[gkishot]

I am happy to give up some money in exchange for a strong and vibrant middle class. The lifeblood of any advanced nation.

Not sure what you mean exactly but if you mean to give up some money to the govt then could you please expound upon how you see the govt expanding the middle class?

 

[mpdxc]

I was under the impression Hillaryperon would tax wall st. , ie. passed to the retail traders from the exchanges and brokers. It's the end of the middle class and things are just going to get worse. The only "good" thing will be a temporary small median poverty level rise due to artificial wealth transfers.

 

[fordewind]

ALL I WAS SAYING was LOOK at the WORLD NOW. HEAD OF IMF=WOMAN, HEAD OF FED=WOMAN, AND NOW FROM THE LOOKS OF IT, HEAD OF AMERICA= WOMAN.

Isn't it odd that just recently, women are starting to take over leadership? And no I am not sexist....

I am.Women should cook borscht in the kitchen,and regularily be punished,lightly.

 

[zdreg]

Absolutely, maybe someone closer to 65. Imagine near retirees were invested to the degree of 50% in equities. A single longer recession would wipe out a whole generation of retirees. And where do the cash flows come from, you would have to continuously sell equities. Which ones? Then you would sell low at the worst time during a financial crisis, which almost guaranteed occurs within 20 years.

Mate, you can keep on accusing me left and right, but fact remains that as a general advice and rule most retirees are strongly advised to hold hardly any investments in stocks bbut bonds and money market instruments. Disagreeing with this does not disagree with Mr but makes you disagree with a whole industry.

you have proven nothing. you offer no links.
here is a more typical allocation adjusted for increased life span
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_basics.moneymag/index7.htm
What's the best asset allocation for my age?
I
The old rule of thumb used to be that you should subtract your age from 100 - and that's the percentage of your portfolio that you should keep in stocks. For example, if you're 30, you should keep 70% of your portfolio in stocks. If you're 70, you should keep 30% of your portfolio in stocks.

However, with Americans living longer and longer, many financial planners are now recommending that the rule should be closer to 110 or 120 minus your age. That's because if you need to make your money last longer, you'll need the extra growth that stocks can provide.

To find the right asset allocation for you, go to our asset allocation calculator.
__________
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...allocation-to-follow-at-any-age/#5291912bf6f7

etc. etc.

 

[birzos]

It just money flow, it's nothing complicated.

Aristocracy - Elite - Wealthy - Mass Populace - Bipolar - Schizophrenic - Psychopath

It goes from middle to right to left to middle. Only the right are trying to block any backflow to origin and any flow to the left, thereby producing the illusion of being on center left while actually being on the right living life on the flow from the surviving middle.

15 pages of posts and no one understands the simplicity of the process on the #1 trading forum.