I really hope these past eight months cement the idea in more peoples head that the stock market has little correlation to reality.
It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers. Political policies may drive the market to react in a certain way from time to time but the only real 'direct' effects come from whichever Fed Chair is appointed at the time.
Of course stocks have real tangible value or else we wouldn’t be able to buy and sell them. They’re not something that you barter with.
However, the majority of Americans do not associate stocks with voting rights. Only a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with!
Most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.
The value of the stock market, like you said, is based on the buyers expectations. Which is what I said: the market is controlled by institutions and money managers. Those are the majority of your buyers.
Barely half have some sort of 401k program and the average holding amount is only $40,000. Nothing to really gloat about.
Earners of $100,000/year or more have 5x the amount in holdings as compared to those earning $99,000 or below.
Only 14% of Americans are invested in individual stocks outside of a 401k program.
401k assets only amount to 17% of the total US retirement.
None of these numbers tell a great story because Americans are not saving for retirement. If they are, they’re barely saving a years worth of their salary.
I agree it’s sad how far this world is from perfection, and that so many don’t know about the benefits of owning capital.
I wish I could convince people to spend only half of what they spend on weed and alcohol on buying stocks - it would be of great benefit to the masses. How can we show them the benefits?
You're talking past the point under discussion, to wit:
>the stock market has little correlation to reality... It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers
>a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with...
>most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.
And therefore an improved stock market does not equate to an improved 'economy', and therefore it is incorrect to credit Donald Trump with an improved economy purely because tax cuts to the rich may have bumped the stock market. What on Earth does your comment have to do with that?
At best, we're assigning a ton of credit to him based on a vague "probably." Lots of non-Trump factors influenced the stock market over the last four years.
I'm nowhere close to rich or a Trump voter, but I'm glad my 401k) went up when the stocks went up. The Dem's economic policies in recent years are stinkers. I don't like the idea of raising taxes and creating new money-pit departments and thinking the government can fix stuff like education at the federal level. The idea of mandating people to purchase a healthcare product was also abhorrent. I'd much sooner get behind something like a single payer/universal coverage and kill off the useless insurance industry.
It takes a certain level of complete ignorance to not know that for the past 30+ years the economy and stock market has grown more under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.
> I'd much sooner get behind something like a single payer/universal coverage and kill off the useless insurance industry.
At least in Germany most people still have a private care insurance option because the free stuff doesn’t cover everything and it’s just as expensive as the USAs insurance so I don’t think the insurance industry will go away just because their is a single payer system.
Universal access to healthcare is a human right, and insurance as a product by its very nature - is non-universal - as it relies on denying access to make profit.
The pre-existing conditions loophole in the current system means that you can purchase insurance one day before you get sick or need a major medical procedure and a private company is mandated by the government to pay up. The whole Obamacare plan is a clusterF*.
Well, they can't deny emergency care to a human being who is about to die/in critical condition, can they? So lets start on that common ground - They do already have unequivocal obligations in the current system. Now from that end of the spectrum to the other end, say perhaps an elective purely cosmetic surgery that is non-essential (agreed, this is subjective) we can find some middle ground, can we not?
As a practical matter of policy, the government can incrementally build the path towards universal coverage. By identifying problems in the outcomes of the existing system, and using various common-sense priorities to draft legislation, this can be done in a slow and sustainable manner. There are various proposals out there drafted by people far smarter than I. Its not that I think any particular one is a silver-bullet, but the current system where people go bankrupt due to medical costs is very alarming. We need to start somewhere if we are to tackle this problem.
I totally get the fear of creating yet another entitlement program, and how hospitals will possibly milk the government, but the current system isn't working, people are quite literally dying and/or having their lives be destroyed due to medical costs, so it about time we did something. I've seen some of this damage first hand and its terrifying to think it could happen to people I care about or even myself.
>> Well, they can't deny emergency care to a human being who is about to die/in critical condition, can they? So lets start on that common ground
Let’s first find our common ground. If you are a doctor and a patient comes to you, and the doctor refuses on the grounds he will not be paid enough, you think you have the right to compel this doctor to perform the service anyway?
The emergency care example you give is an extreme and shouldnt be used as the basis for all other policy. I would say a doctor who chose the job as an emergency care provider acknowledges your stance when he took the job, to provide service to matter what, not because it is a right but a contractual obligation.
I think the "what right do you have" or "can you force someone" phrasing is adversarial and can't drive a conversation.
Lets instead look at distilling the universal access idea to its essence, we need
1) A capital pool to fund the program
2) A legislative framework that
2.1) Lays out the products and services and the pricing of those
2.2) Allows for price negotiation based on geography and other market driven criteria
2.3) Drafts fines for inappropriate behavior - excessive billing, using unapproved medication, etc
2.4) Defines licensing terms for a provider to bill the government
Now #1 is no different from any other regular insurance, you collect individual payments at the federal level. #2 would also be federal legislation. #2.4 would be similar to how medicare-certified hospitals operate.
Now the question really becomes - why would any provider not take this deal? Certainly, there could be several reasons, and those can be addressed on a case by case basis. But the point I want to make is, we can start small, maybe we only tackle preventative care at first.
