Der USA Bären-Thread

seine steuerpläne verkünden, unternehmen sollen weiter entlastet werden. man sollte meinen das wäre seit einem jahr permanet hausse in den kursen enthalten aber scheinbar freuen sich alle schon wie blöd auf noch mehr was man nicht zahlen muß.

...(peep) immer auf den größten haufen...

www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/...d-die-Reichsten-article20055182.html

im durchschnitt 177.000,- $ auf der kante

kein wunder bei den aktienkursen !

www.handelsblatt.com/finanzen/maerkte/...mmerung/20379044.html

die so Auto fährt...

www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/...ahren-need-for-speed-a-1170082.html

...wegen grober Fahrlässigkeit (starke Beschneidung des Sichtbereichs; Gefahr, dass bei Windstößen die Augen bedeckt werden) der Führerschein entzogen.

passen hier aber auch nur symbolisch ;-)

yellen und trump sind am anheizen, zinsen und steuern (und schulden) treibstoff für die kurse...

grenzwertig die Mauerbildchen. Sollte aber ein unüberwindbares Modell gewählt werden (und nicht das mit den Solarzellen), könnte aufgrund des daraus resultierenden Rückbaus der industriellen Reservearmee der USA bzw. des Wegfalls von präkarisierten Billigsarbeitskräften, die Wirkung auf die Märkte durchaus bärisch sein. Somit ist die Thematik nicht ganz OT. :-)

gäähhnn

gelernt.

realinvestmentadvice.com/...gly-learned-nothing-from-history/

In dem Artikel zitiert Doug Kass den hier recht zynischen Alt-Bären und Rohstoff-Trader Jim Rogers:

“When things are going right, we all need a 26-year-old. There’s nothing better than a 26-year-old in a great bull market especially in a bubble. They’re fearless. They don’t know. It will never end. They will tell you why it will never end. They know that it cannot end and will never end. So in the bull market, you’ve got to have a 26-year-old. But when they end you don’t want the 26-year-old around… they make a lot of money. They don’t know why they made money. So they don’t know why they lose money. They don’t know what happened.“ -Jim Rogers on Realvision

wolfstreet.com/2017/09/28/...etail-properties-landlords-view/

Shopping-Mall-Mogul John E. McNellis plaudert aus dem Nähkästchen: Selbst in vormals gut laufenden Shopping-Malls an strategisch geplanten Locations häufen sich die Pleiten, sie kommen inzwischen im Wochen-Takt. Schuld ist der steile Anstieg des Online-Handels.

“We are faced with weekly tenant bankruptcies, defaults, and requests for rent or space reductions.”

...even the biggest liars you ever met will admit to challenges facing their portfolios.

...When the first few raindrops splash you after a long drought, you don’t necessarily think monsoon. When one package a month arrives at your door, and it’s a pair of shoes that are being returned the next day, you’re unlikely to worry about the future of traditional retail. But when that occasional delivery becomes a reliable year-round stream, it’s time to scope the bricks and mortar. If half a dozen friends confirm that they too receive a daily box, you might – if you’re a retail developer – begin to consider your business in a new light, possibly wondering what the ratio is between doorstep deliveries and skipped trips to your mall.

We have been in the retail development business for thirty-five years, developing a couple projects a year. Through more luck than strategy, we focused on smaller, supermarket-anchored, service-oriented neighborhood centers in towns with high barriers to entry.

That is, we just happened to pick the most internet-resistant strain of retail long before the net began its march to the sea. And because our best properties are in smug towns that encourage new development about as much as high school smoking, we have a bulwark against retail’s far greater problem, its staggering over-building from coast to coast. But even with this tight portfolio, we are faced with weekly tenant bankruptcies, defaults, and requests for rent or space reductions. In short, our retail is no fun.....

oder: Warum neue Staatsschulden keine "Einkünfte" (im Sinne von Gewinnen) sind.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-28/...on-if-borrowing-money-not-income

Do you consider debt as income? Before you answer that, let’s perform a thought experiment. Imagine that you had taken a long cruise last fall and charged $10,000 to an American Express card. When you did your taxes this year, would have told the IRS that you had $10,000 income from American Express? Of course you wouldn’t. Suppose a major oil company issues $800 million worth of bonds to develop a new old field. Would the company report that as income to the stockholders or the IRS? Of course they wouldn’t. I am sure those sound like silly questions as the answer is a self evident “NO!” We do not consider borrowed money as income. It is a liability that must be paid back..  Then why do we count Federal Government debt when measuring national income? I will leave speculation as to the “why” to the readers and focus on the fact that we do count new Treasury Debt as income.

The modern concept of GDP was first developed by the Department of Commerce in 1934. Commerce commissioned Nobel Laureate Simon Kuznets...

(Anmerkung: GDP = BIP)

... the government takes a portion of National Income and spends it. So they decided to add Government spending into the GDP calculations. While each component of this basic formula for GDP breaks down into hundreds or thousands of sub-components, the final calculation is:

GDP= PI + BT + GS

Where PI is private income (measured as consumption or investment)

Where BT is balance of trade

Where GS is government spending

So the final formula for GDP includes Government Spending. Notice that the government spending component does not take into account whether or not the government spent money taken out of private income (taxes) or borrowed it. When measuring National Income, we are giving equal weight to spending taxes on actual Private Income and money the Treasury borrows...

----------------------------------

A.L. Das Ganze verdichtet sich im folgenden Chart. Er zeigt das US-BIP abzüglich der Staatsverschuldung. Wie man sieht, befindet sich die US-Wirtschaft faktisch bereits in einer Depression.

das ist also von den wahlmanipulationsvorwürfen übrig geblieben; ein paar hundert anzeigen, bzw tweets, auf twitter, die, ich zitiere, "die zur Beeinflussung der US-Wahl gedacht gewesen sein könnten".

oder wie man früher gerne sagte; und der berg gebar eine maus....

wie stark die Russen den Wahlkampf in USA beeinflusst haben.

Die Krypto-Szene treibt seltsame Blüten:

t3n.de/news/whoppercoin-burger-king-852750/

www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2017-09/...-fuer-amerikas-mittelschicht

Per Q2/2017 lagen laut FRED die Steuereinnahmen des Bundes bei 2,16 Bio. $ und die Gesamtausgaben bei 6,4 Bio. $.  

dailyreckoning.com/trumps-1500-word-airball/

ist, dass es keinen triftigen Grund dafür gibt.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-29/...ish-isthere-no-reason-be-bearish

Vor 18 Monaten galt das Gegenteil: "[The] monster rally in credit and equity markets began 18 months ago when best reason to be bullish was there was no reason to be bullish"

anhalten, als der gemeine Bär liquide bleibt ;-)

Die Kosten liegen bei 2,4 Billionen Dollar (engl: trillion), die überwiegend aus Neuverschuldung bezahlt werden sollen. Größter Profiteur der Steuersenkungen ist die 1 % Elite, während im Gegenzug die Mittelschicht vermehrt abkassiert wird.

Wie üblich exakt das Gegenteil von dem, was Trump seinen Wählern im Wahlkampf versprochen hatte.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-29/...-1-middle-class-pay-higher-taxes

Trump Tax Plan To Benefit "Top 1%" Most, Cost $2.4 Trillion, Middle Class To Pay More Taxes

...The proposal would reduce federal revenues by $2.4 trillion over the first ten years and $3.2 in the second decade. This means that absent a matched deduction in spending, US deficit and debt will increase by a similar amount. This is a problem as a Senate GOP budget resolution unveiled on Friday only allows for adding $1.5 trillion to the debt, implying a revenue shortfall of just under $1 trillion.

Wo bleibt die klare Linie bei der US-Notenbank? Diese ewige Hin und Her kostet sie noch vollends ihren Ruf.

www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-29/fed-afraid

Yellen: “My colleagues and I may have misjudged the strength of the labor market,” Yellen announced on Tuesday, adding that they'd also misjudged "the degree to which longer-run inflation expectations are consistent with our inflation objective, or even the fundamental forces driving inflation."

Yellen also "noted that the labor market, which historically has been closely linked to inflation, may not be as tight as the low unemployment rate suggests."

In other words, Fed economists are concerned by the fact they've been unable to achieve their arbitrary 2% price-inflation objective, which they believe indicates a healthy level of economic activity.

Moreover, they're concerned the low unemployment rate — which can be deceptive since it can show a "tight" market even in the presence of unemployed discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers — is not telling the whole story.

The end result is that the Fed is not at all sure that it can continue with its promised path of raising the target interest rate as has been the "plan" for the past several years.

As we've noted here at mises.org before, the Fed has a habit of announcing big plans to scale back quantitative easing, and increasing the target rate — only to later backtrack or downplay the extent to which it will "normalize" monetary policy.

Since 2009, the target rate has been at rock-bottom rates. Over the past year, the Fed has raised the target rate from 0.5 percent to 1.25 percent, but this has only gotten the rate back up to where it was when it was attempting to stimulate the economy in the wake of the dot-come bust in 2001. On other words, the Fed is still deep into "stimulative monetary policy" territory....

money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/