Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Russell: trading, investor, cash)

[Steephill2]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

The moment the fed bought high yield "junk" bonds, they indicated to the markets that not only were corporations too big to fail, but everything was.

The cherry on top is that the next generation will be dealing with all these massive debts. If memory serves me correctly do you all remember a sign counting the debt that was across from the old Boston Garden on route 93 on the Charlestown side back in like the late 80’s? if it existed and was still around today it might have surpassed the number of digits allocated to it.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by Steephill2

Drive through? Really? That’s pretty weak. I’d like to know what Starbucks’ drive through revenues are compared to their face to face numbers. Also you are still interacting with someone unless they developed a robot arm to give you your coffee( I’m not aware of this?) It’s a company with a market cap of what $100b?

In the near future McDonalds, Starbucks, Dunkin's etc. will all be fully automated. Customers will pay for the food, coffee, whatever. The companies will not have to pay labor costs and that money will instead go to dividend payments for stockholders. I don't know about anyone else but my long term goal is to invest in enough stock assets to live off the passive income streams and not have to work a W-2 job.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/in-a...rands-ceo.html

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

In the near future McDonalds, Starbucks, Dunkin's etc. will all be fully automated. Customers will pay for the food, coffee, whatever. The companies will not have to pay labor costs and that money will instead go to dividend payments for stockholders. I don't know about anyone else but my long term goal is to invest in enough stock assets to live off the passive income streams and not have to work a W-2 job.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/in-a...rands-ceo.html

Okay, now explain why entities like Wynn are up nearly 80% off lows despite a bleak travel and consumer spending outlook? Equity markets are entirely detached from the economy.

[Steephill2]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

In the near future McDonalds, Starbucks, Dunkin's etc. will all be fully automated. Customers will pay for the food, coffee, whatever. The companies will not have to pay labor costs and that money will instead go to dividend payments for stockholders. I don't know about anyone else but my long term goal is to invest in enough stock assets to live off the passive income streams and not have to work a W-2 job.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/in-a...rands-ceo.html

Your capital gains tax could prob be at 50% at that time to subsidize the people who aren’t working because of this automation for new job training, etc.

[BostonMike7]

With the recent gains in the stock market, my 401K just went back into positive territory.

Guess the market doesn't care about ~15% unemployment?

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Steephill2

Stock market getting close to pre crisis levels. Yet like 30 million ppl out of work. makes a lot of sense to me.

Remember - the stock market is not the economy.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by justyouraveragetenant

We could argue about whether its legal or not but suppressing speech is censorship. There was a case Cherry sisters vs Iowa that set a precedent that speech can not be suppressed by anyone.

If free speech is not absolute then free speech does not exist at all.

That case was a precedent affirmed the the press' right to publish a bad review.

Originally Posted by Iowa Supreme Court

...the editor of a newspaper has the right, if not the duty, of publishing, for the information of the public, fair and reasonable comments, however severe in terms, upon anything which is made by its owner a subject of public exhibition, as upon any other matter of public interest; of privileged communications, for which no action will lie without proof of actual malice...Surely, if one makes himself ridiculous in his public performances, he may be ridiculed by those whose duty or right it is to inform the public regarding the character of the performance.

In PragerU vs. Youtube, the ruling noted the YouTube has the right to restrict speech on it's platform:

Originally Posted by businessinsider

The judge's ruling was not a shock, as the First Amendment applies largely to government censorship of public speech, rather than private companies. 'Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment,' Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote about the ruling.

The Bro Docs have the absolute right to say what they want but they don't have the absolute right to force a private company to distribute it. Websites are cheap - they can put it on theirs.

[justyouraveragetenant]

Originally Posted by robr2

That case was a precedent affirmed the the press' right to publish a bad review.




In PragerU vs. Youtube, the ruling noted the YouTube has the right to restrict speech on it's platform:



The Bro Docs have the absolute right to say what they want but they don't have the absolute right to force a private company to distribute it. Websites are cheap - they can put it on theirs.

Youtube gets funding from the goverment and could be seen as a monopoly. Just because judges rule one way does not mean its right. The supreme court has ruled unconsititionally and then reversed its decision.


Some believe that people who post videos on youtube are the press and some are independent reporters who do there own research.

Companies online restrict speech way more then the goverment and something must be done. these compaines could also be considered monopolies. These big companies online like google and facebook get goverment funding. Restricting speech could effect elections. Ted cruz destroys scum Mark Zuckerberg.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VJeD3zbZZI

Senator Cruz was also a lawyer and knows laws the average person does not. He asks if facebook is a first amendent site with its individual views or a neutral public forum.

He asks this because Cruz thinks that if you are a first amendment site with individual views then you can be held accountable for what is said on facebook. However if facebook considers its self a neutral public forum it can not censor speech. If they are considered a neutral forum then they are not responsible for what is said on their site .If they consider themselves a first amendment site then they are responsible .They can not have it both ways.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by robr2

Remember - the stock market is not the economy.

Thanks for the reminder, dad.

To some degree, equity markets are supposed to price in current and future economic data. Currently, the equity markets are particularly detached from economic realities.

The Russell index and HYG index maintain a loose correlation, so when the Fed injects itself into bond markets it causes a very direct ‘pop’ on the Russell and, to a lesser degree the larger cap indexes. Add ridiculous pumps on severely overstated Gilead “trials” and now, even Wall St. pundits, are asking traders to slow their roll.

[Steephill2]

Originally Posted by robr2

Remember - the stock market is not the economy.

If it’s not why is so much effort put into propping it up and not more effort or $$ to help the actual economy? How in the world did they not have enough money for the small business loans and had to add more money to it? the Federal reserve’s dual mandate is maximizing employment and stable prices. Not doing very well with #1 and unsure what the plans are to limit the job losses out there. Over 30 m now.