Spyke

U.S. stocks see biggest 2-day wipeout in history as market loses $11 trillion since Inauguration Day

Roughly $11.1 trillion has been wiped away from the U.S. stock market since Jan. 17, the Friday before President Donald Trump took the oath of office and began his second term, according to data from Dow Jones Market Data.

Some $6.6 trillion of that figure was lost on Thursday and Friday alone — the largest two-day wipeout of shareholder value on record, Dow Jones data showed.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u-s-stocks-poised-for-biggest-two-day-wipeout-in-history-as-marketloses-9-6-trillion-since-inauguration-day-430919f6Open linkView original on lemmy.world

The US stock market has been liberated of 11 trillion dollars and counting.

What a party, what a party.

56

Trump is golfing while a man he admits is innocent is in an El Salvador prison

75
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Wow, $11 trillion is a lot. Really puts the $36 trillion sitting liquid in offshore tax havens into perspective (yet seems to be missing from every conversation about money.)

73
ttrpg.network

The problem is that it is legal (in a gray legal sort of way), and the people in power only lose if they fix it. So we can only talk about it.

15

Take a guess, surely your imagination isn't limited to just "talking about it". Perhaps maybe fighting for it? Like we did with women's rights, slavery, racial discrimination, workers having weekends, they all changed from people talking about it AND fighting for it.

2

But bitcoin is going to...oh.

Oh well, at least gold is.... Oh.

GME to the moon!

48
errerreply
lemmy.world

Not exactly sure how one is supposed to transfer one’s 401k to government securities on such a short timescale…

27
Mearuureply
kbin.melroy.org

Trump was elected in November. I had every cent moved out of US stocks by mid December. My tax burden is already less than what I would have lost if I kept them money where it was.

There was plenty of time if you were paying attention. If you didn’t move your money, unfortunately, that’s on you.

Edit: SPY puts with 20%. The 40% bonds. 30% forex. 10% cash. But what the fuck do I know. I didn’t make any money and you all know exactly what you’re talking about and I’m full of shit.

-9
errerreply
lemmy.world

It’s a 401k. I can’t move my money out of it without taking a tax penalty.

20

Bro he literally said the tax penalty is less than his loss

L2Read.

-5
Mearuureply
kbin.melroy.org

Yes there is a tax penalty. as I said in the original comment.

However, that tax is less than the amount lost since December. As I said in the original comment.

-8
feddit.uk

I'm not familiar with 401K as I'm not from the US but do you really lose anything when the market dips? Because I don't think you do unless you start selling at a loss. If you're not planning on retiring in few years this shouldn't affect you in any way.

15
vithigarreply
lemmy.ca

It's the same as any other non-liquid asset. Sure, you could argue that the value dropping is only a loss if you sell during the dip, but you're still better off if you can sell before it happens.

2

I don't really see how you're "better off" unless you then go and buy the dip too. If your retirement is decades ahead then simply holding and buying is what will very likely be the best bet on a long term. Historically speaking so far this has been the case. Reacting to short term events is how people lose their savings on the stock market.

8
errerreply
lemmy.world

No it is not. Tax rate is ~20-30%. Market has dropped 10% since November. What is this batshit advice?

10

especially if you are not qualified to retire for 2 more decades

3
AlecSadlerreply
sh.itjust.works

I don't understand then, are they just bilking each other?

If the billionaires are buying en masse to profit off this, someone is selling. If billionaires own the majority...they're...selling to each other and losing?

6

A potential explanation is this is the Russian fall of communism / transition to oligarchy moment, where regular people will get rid of the "worthless" stocks fearing no bottom, and the top 1% will buy them for pennies on the dollar.

14

What if you short the market?

Putting a lot of money into shorts (money you can barrow mind you), is essentially massively selling stocks you don’t have with the promise of buying them back later.

If a lot of rich people do this, it will trigger a panic sell, get the price low, they buy back the “barrows stocks” at cheaper rate and now they have profit and some people have sold, so the stock is lower.

They can now buy more stocks and we’re back to the first step but with the rich having a higher share than before cause of the panic sellers.

1
lemmy.world

At least there’s no genocide in Palestine, right?

Right?

66
kreskinreply
lemmy.world

I mean, to be fair, most of the genocide already happened before election day under Biden, but yes, there will definitely be more as long as the AIPAC bribes keep flowing-- and no one is talking about shutting those down. I believe the last person (JFK) to try to deal with this by relisting AIPAC as a foreign agency was assassinated shortly afterward. RFK also tried and he was also killed.

Which is nothing but a coincidence I'm sure, the zionists would never do something like that. And christians in the US are close friends and allies of Israelis, right.

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-761490

-71
finderreply
lemmy.world

already happened

Watching the 'genocide Joe' crowd cope with the fact they supported the turbo genocide candidate will never not be funny to me (In the grim irony kind of way).

58
5in1kreply
lemm.ee

Yeah, god they’re so full of shit.

23
5in1kreply
lemm.ee

Come do it fucko. I think you will find it difficult.

1

The genocide Joe crowd think the Israel/Palestine war started October 2023. They aren't very smart.

19
Grimyreply
lemmy.world

I'm not sure why you refuse to hold him and his administration accountable. Genocide Joe is an apt name for someone that chose to give more importance to genocide then he did to representing his voters and this country in general.

They sabotaged their own election so Israel can break child death records. He could have simply told Israel to fuck off. I'd rather blame them then normal people that felt conflicted about genocide of all things.

Holding them accountable is also the only way we get real change.

-5

Holding them accountable is also the only way we get real change

Helping to elect the opponent who even more enthusiastically supports genocide does less than nothing to hold anyone accountable.

2

I'm always a bit fascinated that theres so few of us that see it this way. The killings definitely happened, the US definitely helped. Seems pretty factual. And yet the pushback on these facts with the US crowd is extreme and seemingly very emotional for the pro zionist crowd-- which is not in line with what the rest of the world thinks.

-8
lemmy.ml

I mean no disrespect, because we are writing sentences that we never intended to write, but Jesus Christ, "most of the genocide already happened (...) under Biden". It's utterly depressing. I'm really disappointed that American citizens worked very hard for this to happen, but it feels also like a consequence of something bigger, as if there was a bipartisan dictatorship or something even deeper, in which parties are just knights or bishops.

14

Israeli secret service soft-couping the US by straight up killing any official that does not match their views?

1
Rhoerireply
lemmy.world

So… “to be fair” what you’re claiming, is that there’s little genocide left for Trump to commit, and then- a bunch of conspiracy theories.

It’s a damn good thing you people argue so diligently on the side of reality. It really helps drive that batshit insane ideology of yours home.

7

Trump could open the doors of hell and it would still be no excuse for having voted for evil.

Do you view "evil" as a binary value or a numerical value that can be counted?

4
kreskinreply
lemmy.world

So… “to be fair” what you’re claiming, is that there’s little genocide left for Trump to commit

Thats a good demonstration of strawmanning. Putting up a contrived BS argument then knocking it down. Come on, can't you do better than that?
Thats just lazy.

-10
Rhoerireply
lemmy.world

I’m not the one that said it. The onus is on you to state your point in a way that makes sense. And what you said, is that:

“most of the genocide already happened before election day under Biden.”

If you want to make a straw man by accusing me of making a straw man, be my guest. But that won’t change the original argument, nor will it change the fact that it seems others agree with me on this.

1
kreskinreply
lemmy.world

I literally quoted you, and you did not quote me. So now you're just lying. Time for a username block.

-4

Literal quote….

“I mean, most of the genocide already happened before election day under Biden.”

  • you literally said this. But if it helps to use a more direct and unequivocal approach:

If you are confused by what you’re seeing, that is a screenshot of your actual words.

And- blocked or not, I think this needed to be said so that anyone unfortunate enough to have to interact with you, might come across this conversion in an attempt to make sense of… you,

…and it helps illustrate to them exactly what they’re dealing with.

3
lemm.ee

I’m 41 years old, I’ll be 42 in a few weeks, I’m getting really tired of living through these “once in a lifetime events” every 24-48hrs.

55
grrgylereply
slrpnk.net

Total sidebar: You should re-read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when you turn 42!

That's what I did. Now I'll never forget the last time I read the series.

16
grrgylereply
slrpnk.net

Yeppp. Also makes me really distrust mainstream economists, because somehow these crashes always come as a surprise.

Like what we're doing is not working. We need to try something else

-1

You assume that educated people are making the final decision, when that has not been the case in at least 60 years.

Economists can scream from the roof-tops that the wealth-gap is harmful (they have), that ignoring science is regressive (they have), and that tariffs are fucking stupid (they have). But if the people in power (i.e CEO, Lobbyists, President) simply ignore them and do stupid shit anyway, it's all pointless.

Moral of the story, this is not on the economists. This is on the stupid being in positions of power and the ignorant masses not holding them accountable.

12
9thDragonreply
lemmy.world

Mainstream economists have been predicting this for nearly a year. It's a surprise to almost no one.

7
grrgylereply
slrpnk.net

Oh i guess that's true. I'm not sure what my point was. I guess political/party economists? But maybe they're not informed by actual economists.

It seems like there is a disconnect between what I hear politicians talking about vis what the journals say

2

Trump doesn't have a team of reputable economists guiding his policies.

He's just making decisions based on the vibe.

2
AreaKodereply
lemmy.world

What tells you that this isn't working? Seems to be working as intended. You mis-assumed that this administration gives a flying fuck about anyone worth less than $1 billion.

4
sh.itjust.works

What does this have to do with any economist? Are they supposed to be able to predict a cheeto imposing absurd global tarriffs? "Once in a lifetime" is just an expression the media likes to use.

3

Sorry I topic drifted a bit. I wasn't actually thinking of that. I was under the impression that things were going very poorly even before tariffs.

3
lemmy.ml

Curious how does that stack up historically with the largest drops in history percentage-wise?

I checked out the investopedia article:

  • The Dow had its sixth-worst week of the 21st century; it fell 7.9% over the week and 9.3% in the last two days.
  • The Dow shed 2,231 points on Friday, its third-largest one-day point decline on record. 
  • The Nasdaq Composite has dropped 11.4% since Trump’s tariff announcement, also its worst 2-day stretch since March 2020.
54
lemmy.world

Of some note is that the market was only allowed to tumble for two of those five days following the announcement of the tariffs. That almost assuredly makes a difference here.

35

Absolute numbers like bullet 2 aren't super useful. The DJIA wasn't even at 2000 until sometime in the 80s.

6
Snowclonereply
lemmy.world

I know your right in saying people vote like Trump was the conservative, but Harris was really the conservative. Trump was the populist autocratic. thinking the GOP is the conservative party is crazy to me. They haven't been in a long ass time. You want status quo and security for your money and livelyhood? Don't vote for the populist who has ''ideas'' about how the country should REALLY be ran.

That's how you get Pol Pot shutting down food imports because he wanted higher domestic food production, you know BEFORE they could make enough food to feed everyone without the imports. All the other autocrat or populist that instantly rammed a country into the ground also had a cult that made them entirely delusional.

24

That's how you get Pol Pot shutting down food imports because he wanted higher domestic food production, you know BEFORE they could make enough food to feed everyone without the imports.

This really is exactly what trump is doing. He’s slinging tariffs around like that will spur US industries (and as a petty attempt at being a strongman) and farming but giving those industries zero lead time, and on top of that, the tariffs he imposed are going to affect all of the materials and machinery those industries would need to ramp up their production. And on true insulated tyrant fashion he just makes a declaration and then it’s everyone else’s problem to deal with.

Dude’s a fucking idiot.

19

Amen you right. America is so far right wing, thats why any small help for the common worker or man they all scream socialism or communism.

2

It was projection once again. It turns out being anti-woke is indeed the path to poverty

18
Trilobitereply
lemm.ee

Come on now a couple billionaires are going to make tons of money

10
lemm.ee

Which billionaire is making money? Look at the stock market and look how much these big companies lost.

0

Lose 75 out of a 100 billion? Still plenty of money to consolidate failing businesses and buy real estate for cheap.

Can't afford it? Too big to fail, government loans and bailouts.

This has happened before and the wealthy just get more in the end.

4

the stock market is funny money, when they start to gobble up real assets and the market recovers it'll be obvious, just like the covid crash to recovery transfer of wealth to the rich

1

Now I know why Trump, during his rally, said people would ask him to stop winning.

45
lemm.ee

We're entering Once in a Lifetime Recession #5. Buckle up folks. The feds up shits creek and has been since COVID, so no cash bailouts are coming anytime soon. This should be a fun one!

42
5in1kreply

That’s a lot of words to say Americans should expect a rapid decline in their standards of living so we can drive down the price of our own labor due to people being desperate.

18

🤡🤡🤡

This dude is convinced Trump has a grand plan and is a master negotiator.

4

Let's see if he can make that number $111 Trillion lost by the end of May 2025.

23
lemmy.world

Liberating the fuck out of our wealth. <teamAmericaTheme.wav>

21

Into the hands of billionaires, who will be the only ones left able to buy up whatever they deem still has value.

6
lemmy.world

Gasp! However, zero sympathy for the MAGA voters losing their asses in the stock market.

18
lemmy.world

Unfortunately I sincerely doubt a lot of them have retirement savings of any significance. There’s a reason Red States are a bigger draw on federal money than Blue States. But if there’s any consolation, once the food prices start hitting again they’ll take notice.

20
Melatoninreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

My MAGA friends on Facebook are yelling about "buying opportunities".

Where is that buying money coming from? I got none myself.

7

Just as well as this sure as hell isn't a buying opportunity, some indexes are only at 6 month lows. We've barely begun loses wise - 12% off all time highs on the S&P if I recall right, 50% is realistic in my mind

6
lemmy.ca

28 September 2007 S&P 500 was $1526 per share

27 February 2009 it was $735

31 January 2025 it was $6040

Today it is $5074

24
dryfterreply
lemm.ee

Ok, so 2008 was a 52% loss in almost a year and a half.

Right now it's only a 16% loss in a little over 2 months.

Someone far smarter than I am could maybe figure out the monthly decline percentage and compare 2008 losses vs now. Don't get me wrong, it's a shitload of money, but it doesn't look like the stock market is anywhere close to reaching 2008 levels of loss.....yet.

22
lemmy.ca

Roughly

3.05% per month in 2008

7.75% per month today but the time period is much smaller

27

Ahhh so this is even worse than I thought because we haven’t even seen the effects of the tariffs yet and probably won’t for a while.

Too. Much. Winning.

7
lemmy.dbzer0.com

What were the first few months like in 08? I was only 13 and already in poverty so I honestly never noticed

4

In my experience I was in the middle of a transition at work. A company was buying the contract of all the other contract companies and the way they did it was shady as hell. We had to sign new contract agreements and had I not signed the agreement I most likely wouldn’t have been able to file unemployment and finding a job would have been impossible.

I stayed in that job way too long because of fear and the devil you know vs the devil you don’t. I worked at that job and company for almost 10 more years because I liked my immediate boss but despised the bullshit the company was doing. It was not good for my mental health.

Had 2008 not happened, there was no way I was signing that new contract. Many people didn’t and struggled for a bit finding new jobs. My mental health most likely would have been better. But hindsight is 20/20

5
lemmy.world

You can't really use past market events as a reference for anything happening now. The global system is completely different and changing very fast. The longer term implications here are that the U.S. Govt has been out of money for a while and there is a ton of upcoming debt to issue. Part of the response to this is to fund the Govt using tariffs, and begin shrinking the deficit by using the economic problems and the total debt to justify it. They are trying to avoid a debt crisis where there is more debt being issued than buyers. The problem is that this time, with other options existing for capital than Treasuries, which given the circumstances, the old idea that people run to Govt debt when the markets crash for safety just might not hold up this time. The end result is that they haven't solved anything, and in fact made the upcoming debt crisis much worse. What's more is that the old reserve currency dollar system being replaced will accelerate now as trade is forced to route around the U.S. There are so many second order effects here too, all of this will kick off a justification to privatize everything and have the private sector jump in to save and replace Govt functions. What they have wanted to do all along anyway, and given the current political climate will mirror the oligarchs taking over Govt functions after the collapse of the USSR. This is just more of a controlled demolition.

Sorry for the wall of text. Also, a bretton woods style agreement will be necessary, it's just that there is no single world power strong enough to enforce one. The futures for Monday look pretty bad too, and there are so many unresolved problems since 2008 that could blow up one after another once all the liquidity is removed and there is no one willing to purchase all the upcoming debt.

16

The debt issue is greatly over exaggerated. The US as a whole owns over 300 trillion in assets and trillions more in untouched resources. The US isn't broke and it isn't poor. It only feels poor because

  1. our capitalist system is nearly the worst possible system for distributing resources where they actually need to go and
  2. Capitalists use their resources to corrupt and bend our government to their will which results in car centric urban sprawl that is 5x less resource efficient.

For example, if we built public transit and walkable cities we could make transit completely free and it would cost far less than subsidizing car dependency. But we can't do that nation wide because it would devalue the car industry, the asphalt industry, rubber industry, and the oil industry. Under capitalism, the profits of the 0.1% always take priority over what benefits the 99%

18
lemmy.world

Oh no, billionaires losing unrealized gains, what a shame

Let's flip the fuck out about it

13
pharreply
lemmy.ml

Or regular people all losing money they had invested

54
the_qreply
lemm.ee

There's more people who don't have investments than there are that do. That includes 401k. Welcome to the poor people's club.

12
lemmy.world

Source that's not so heavily "invested" in the answer perhaps? I can't read this ad-ridden garage.

Is it enough to stay that most Americans stocks are the smallest of their saving vehicles? Most people have the bulk of value in their home not their 401k.

-2
lemmy.world

Correct. Which makes sense when you consider home prices have gone up alot in the last 20 years, and an unaware investors portfolio is probably being slowly bled off by covering the mortgage of that house every time we go into a recession which is basically on a 2 year cycle now.

So yes you are right, and you are so smart and a very good boi. But you are missing the bigger picture of American wealth distribution. Missing out on how jobs are tied to the market, income is needed for investment and selling investments when you lose your job and they are down 50% just shoots most of the country into poverty.

Surprise its the great depression!

4
lemmy.world

I'm not good and not a boi/boy/guy/whatever, but thanks I guess.

I was more interested in getting to the fact that everyday American don't rely on the stock market directly. If you are hurting directly in this downturn, you needed to have less volatile investments to begin with. Americans do have some small direct market investments but they are dwarfed compared to their other stores of value and to the quantity of money in the market from non-consumer level individuals.

-1

When you say 'don't rely on the stock market directly' you're aware of the second and third order effects from a market crash right?

The president just crashed the market harder than Covid for no reason, and you're telling me i need less volatile investments? What investment would that be out of curiosity?

3
kikutworeply
lemmy.world

Even the union worker who doesn't have a Schwab account has their pension invested in the market.

1

Not everyone is a union worker. Almost no one has a pension anymore. I don't know a single person under 45 with either.

1
lemmy.world

50% of the country has a 401k and like 40% has an IRA.. They are not worth much, that is the point the poor people can't afford to get more poor, the rich people can. they've realized theres nothing else their money can buy so their happy to destroy the world out of boredom. And you cheer them on.

6
the_qreply

My info was outdated, but where an I cheering it on? Is there some invisible message my reply had that I'm not seeing?

0
pharreply
lemmy.ml

Even if this were true, are you pretty much saying everyone that had a 401k can f off? Like, what exactly is your point? It's okay for everyone to suffer?

2
the_qreply
lemm.ee

Where did I say any of that?

0
pharreply

My apologies I thought you were the same person from the beginning of the thread, which would have changed the meaning behind what you said.

1

I have parents who are near retirement who voted for trump. Only my dad works and has to support my mom. This upcoming weekend, I'm gonna ask him how his portfolio is looking. If his vote is paying off.

11
lemmy.world

Dude how many of the 49% of USA citizens who can't even handle a 1k USD emergency spend have stocks or options

How many of the 120 million people who have feared for years that they won't get to enjoy their social security have stocks or options

Because that's the regular people

Are you even reading yourself

-12

401ks are invested. People losing their retirement funds. I personally don't have any because I had to use mine up last time I was between jobs for a year, but many innocent people who aren't rich and voted against Trump are being hurt as well.

16
pharreply

Millions of people have 401k plans through their employers and have had them for years and are counting on them to live when they retire.

14

I'm sorry to tell you but everyone is screwed except the billionairs who will just buy everything for pennies on the dollar. What do you think companies will do when their stocks are crashing? They will lay off more people until they inevitably go belly up and then all of those people are out of jobs. Shit is about to get real.

12
lemmy.blahaj.zone

Well over 49% of usa Americans make enough to save a thousand dollars . Many are just that bad at managing money. Part of why pensions are important over 401ks.

1
lemmy.world

buddy 401k contributions come out of your paycheck. you can't equate one with the other. Most people usually check the box to take taxes and contributions out of their paycheck and don't consider their retirement account emergency savings.

the point your missing is it often is. and it usually equates to to stock market losses. So stock market crashes are when the rich make the poor poorer.

Yet here you poors go cheering on everyones grandma to starve to death. Far left and far right horseshoe death cult assemble.

4

the deep irony of slashing pensions for 401k claiming that americans could invest better for their own retirement. They are not cheering crashing 401ks and rushing to cut social security like they also have a concept of a plan for retirement.

2
boolyreply
sh.itjust.works

It's a rule hard baked into the NYSE that trading is paused for at least 15 minutes if it drops 7% in a single day. It is paused again for at least 15 minutes if it drops 13%, and then trading is ended for the day if it drops 20%.

7

Nah dude, there's more to it.

Step 1: already have a fortune put away in the US stock market.

Step 2: promise a business friendly environment after the election

Step 3: get elected

Step 4: sell off your stocks while confidence is high and market is on the up

Step 5a: put all your money on shorting index funds with the highest possible leverage

Step 5b: impose tarrifs

Step 6: use aggressive foreign policy to prevent foreign buyers from acquiring a share of the now discounted US economy.

Step 7a: settle short positions get infinite money (Trump will have leverage that us plebs cannot comprehend)

Step 7b: stabilise economy

Step 8: use infinite money to buy significant chunks of the US economy

Once all steps are complete trump is king in all but name even after he leaves office.

As much as if hate to admit it, the orange clown has pulled a massive big brain play. It's terrifying what he could be planning next.

2

Amazing how every time the Republicans get majority control of things the markets go to shit. The faster they work to dismantle what democratic control of something exists the faster it falls apart.

9
lemmy.today

I expect Musk to become the first trillionaire from all of this. Thing is, that trillion will be worth $100 Euros or any other form of currency that isn't attached to America.

May the money pit that Musk stands on, suck him in like a bog.

7
lemmy.world

so weird to be cheering for our own demise, but is it really our own demise? i don't own stocks. do you? and where does 11 trillion actually go? to another country's market? fiat currency is so weird. it's almost as if it's all just smoke and mirrors that don't actually reflect reality. did anything physically change since dumptwat announced tariffs? capitalism just seems like a giant lie divorced from reality. let's burn it all down.

7

Turns out the thing about people not having 500 USD in their accounts was real after all

People are just realizing that they were not cooked, just merely marinating

2

No actually. My job doesn't offer one. Many people either are in the same position where their job doesn't offer retirement benefits or they're not paying into it because they need every last cent they can spare.

2

Never fear, those will be worthless once he finishes crashing it all.

6
ttrpg.network

The value went away, not actual money. Say you own a pair of Jordan’s original shoes worn playing for the bulls, and he shows up drunk on a tv show and spends an hour crapping all over the bulls. You still own the shoes, but they will be worth less if you try to sell them.

12
lemmy.world

but they're still shoes, and if you bought them for anything more than being shoes, doesn't that seem divorced from reality?

-2
feddit.org

In terms of where the money foes its quite easily. The majority will just evaporate. A lot of people and company's may shift their invested money to European (or somewhere else) companys whichay rise a bit in value, but the majority of the money is just gone. The value of a company is a mix of how profitable they are and a lot of how much people think a company will be profitable in the future and therefore are investing into it (its like the typical production and demand thing. If more people want to buy something it rises in value).

10
lemmy.world

where the money foes its quite easily. The majority will just evaporate.

the thing that didn't exist in the first place evaporated. that doesn't sound weird to you?

also "how much people think a company will be profitable"... you just described a confidence game and gambling.

-1

It is like you said. Its artificial value. Its value generated, by how much people are willing to pay for a share of it. And as you rightfully realised, its basically gambling. You can make predictions based on the current trend (what ever trend it may be),but its still gambling.

6
europe.pub

Companies are going to lay off loads of people and close any department that costs too much just to increase the stock price again. For investors stock price is everything and they don't care much about consequences.

USA stock market crashing means the dollar is getting less worth compared to other currencies, so anything imported gets more expensive in the USA, what is most items. Things getting more expensive means less people buying stuff, less economic activity so more layoffs.

All those layoffs means people can't pay back there debt. Trump doesn't care about people in debt and somehow makes it worse. Banks get in trouble. Trump cares about banks and big businesses so they get bailed out. Taxes on everybody else increases to pay for bailouts.

To distract from all this, Trump starts challenging China and it leads to war. Marshall law is called and Trump starts funneling more money to the military making things even worse.

14

Marshall law is called

And he's already stated that running for a 3rd term isn't off the table.

2
lemmy.world

You say that as if it won't likely affect you as well. Even if you're not American, the next decade will be worse financialy than the last. There are probably some exceptions, but not many.

4

I'd be fine with that if it was for some grand project, like reversing climate change or wiping out global poverty, but it's not.

8
kiagamreply
lemmy.world

Wait for the orange to be almost out the door and buy stock

0

To be selfish at this time, if I had 40k sitting in cash, do I have a chance to make good on this? Or are things too unstable to invest as just a dumb guy with some cash?

1
entwine413reply
lemm.ee

The thing is that in the past our government wasn't intentionally doing irreparable harm to our economy by giving nearly every trading partner we have the middle finger.

Maybe the markets will recover, but we might be looking at a situation similar to the great depression, especially if people start making bank runs.

41
Zronreply
lemmy.world

I don’t know if people will hit the banks.

Back on black Tuesday, most things were bought with cash.

Now everyone either uses debit or credit. I don’t think there will be the big of a demand for cash unless one of the big banks says it has run out.

I do think that the credit market might implode within 6 months, as many Americans will probably forgo paying their debt to buy food for the week, and the credit companies will not have the capacity to squeeze blood from that many stones at once.

If consumer credit crashes, then the consumer economy essentially collapses, as a huge chunk of the population essentially lives on a knife edge between their bank balance and credit limits.

I give it at least a month before this all really starts to go tits up.

Anyway, I’m gonna go buy some waterproof storage bins and about 500 pounds of rice and beans tomorrow, just because that’s my new hobby.

11
lemm.ee

Soak the beans, separate them into meal portions, and freeze them. Kills any pests that would eat your beans, and they will be ready to cook.

8
alvvaysonreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

TIL 2000 and 2008 were just fluctuations due to big changes.

Stock market peaked 19 feb, 1.5 months ago. It has lost 17% since then.

That's an awfully long and persistent fluctuation.

26
feddit.uk

Annual average growth of the stock market is around 7%. That means some years it might be +21% and the next year -5%. Now we're about 2% on the negative from a year ago. That's not great but it's not catastrophic either. I bet that in few years this particular dip is just one of the many and it'll barely even register on the graph.

-3

Your prediction is based on this being a drop based on normal market fluctuations, but that's not what this is. This drop is based on just the NEWS of tariffs that ALL economists recognize will be disastrous. Wait until the tariffs are actually in place, prices rise steeply, spending plunges, and the ripple effect moves across the entire global economy. That 17% drop won't be some random sawtooth on a chart, it will be the first dip in a steady long-term downward trend.

14

Yeah, it's hard to notice a 17% dip on a graph. It'll buff right out.

3

Ask the economists if restricting trade will lower gdp or not. I have a tiny suspicion this isn’t a “fluctuation”.

15

We do have evidence of the way this is almost guaranteed to go, however. There have been 2 other times in US history where the government has enacted massive tariffs on international trade: in 1828 and in 1930. The results of both times were the worst economic depressions the country has ever faced, and the world in the second case. The economy only recovered the second time thanks to the planned wartime economy, lend-lease program, and post-war rebuilding which cemented the dollar as the international currency, and the consequences of the tariffs were that the party responsible for them didn't hold power again for 60 years.

6