sell! sell! sell!

[tiznow]

[h=2]Carrier to ultimately cut some of jobs Trump saved[/h]By Chris Isidore December 09, 2016 08:16AM EST


It sounded like great news when Carrier said last week that it would invest millions in the Indiana plant it decided to keep in the U.S.
The company's deal with President-elect Donald Trump to keep a furnace plant from moving to Mexico also calls for a $16 million investment in the facility.
But that has a big down side for some of the workers in Indianapolis.

​

Most of that money will be invested in automation said to Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies, Carrier's corporate parent. And that automation will replace some of the jobs that were just saved.
"We're going to...automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive," he said on an interview on CNBC earlier this week. "Is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there. But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs."
The decision to keep Carrier's furnace manufacturing operations in the U.S. instead of moving them to Mexico will save about 800 jobs out of the 1,400 at the plant, at least in the near term. The company declined to say how many of the plants 800 remaining jobs could be lost to automation, or when.
Related: Robots threaten these 8 jobs
The threat that automation poses to jobs a big concern for Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers union Local 1999, which represents the Carrier workers.
"Automation means less people," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day" on Thursday. "I think we'll have a reduction of workforce at some point in time once they get all the automation in and up and running."
Still, automation is the only way that a plant in Indiana that pays about $20 an hour can compete with Mexican plants where workers earn $3 an hour.
Related: Carrier to raise prices on furnaces and air conditioners
The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has declined sharply thanks in large part to more efficient factories.
"You can't just blame cheap labor [outside the U.S.]," said Dan Miklovic, principal analyst with LNS research. "Certainly many of the jobs that we've lost, especially in more sophisticated industries, it's not so much that they've been offshored, but it has been automation that replaced them. We use a lot more robots to build cars."
Related: The manufacturing boom Donald Trump ignores
All together, U.S. factories are actually producing more products today than they did in the post-World War II era, according to the Federal Reserve's reading on manufacturing output. Output at U.S. factories is up 150% in last 40 years. But U.S. manufacturing jobs have plunged by more than 30% in that same period. And automation is a big reason why.
And it's not a trend that's going to end with Carrier or even with manufacturers.
A recent study by McKinsey & Co. said that 45% of the tasks that U.S. workers are currently paid to perform can be automated by existing technology. That represents about $2 trillion in annual wages.

 

[CHOPTALK]

No question we in for at least a 25% correction soon.
Im still pissed though .

 

[PatsFan1283]

The automation will unfold slowly. That's a big problem I see.

If it all hit at once then the political solution would be pretty easy but chances are that it will take 1-2% of jobs a year for 25-40 years rather than a singularity AI explosion effect.

Ultimaely it is a great problem to have, but GL telling the public that.

 

[tiznow]

People need to learn to evolve with the time rather than hoping trump is gonna save you from a Mexican doing the same job you doing for way less...

part of issue is productivity as we don't have qualified people to do jobs that require more skill...

but just like the young screwed naive liberals did with obama the rust belt that hasn't evolved with the times is banking on trump being their savior ...false prophets..

 

[Hitman26]

Chop, why are you pissed? Because you feel like you missed out?

 

[tiznow]

If trump rally has legs (really overbought near term regardless) and we are going to move to mega bubble territory the next few years before the next bust.. think this explains well why it's not a necessarily a good thing for the "economy" or the average joe.. since it will be more of the same crony capitalism.. Goldman guys filing up his economic team pretty much tells you everything you need to know..

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

Don't Be Fooled. The Trump Rally Is Not A Sign Of Economic Health

Submitted by Steven Horowtiz via The Foundation for Economic Education,
The headlines tell us that the Dow Jones is up around 1,000 points since Donald Trump won the election on November 8th. The conventional wisdom is that this shows how much confidence people have in Trump’s ability to generate a healthy American economy. The argument is that if people are willing to buy stock in American firms, this indicates their belief that those firms will see improving profits over the next few years. They then draw the conclusion that more profitable firms indicate a healthier American economy.
Although this argument is correct about stock prices reflecting an increasing belief in the profitability of US firms, it makes a major error in assuming that profitable firms necessarily mean a better economy.
The Economy Isn't A Thing

First, it’s important to understand that phrases like “a healthier economy” are themselves problematic. The “economy” is not the thing we should be concerned about. In fact, in some fundamental sense there’s no such thing as “the economy.” As Russ Roberts and John Papola memorably put it in the music video “Fight of the Century:”

The economy’s not a car.
There’s no engine to stall.
No experts can fix it.
There’s no “it” at all.
The economy is us
​

Things are not “good/bad for the economy.” They are good or bad for the people who comprise the market process, specifically in our capacity as consumers. All the economy amounts to is people engaging exchanges in order to better satisfy their wants. What we should care about is whether or not people are able to better satisfy those wants.
And “better satisfy” here means not just more and better goods and services, but at cheaper prices too. Lower prices mean that consumers have income left over to purchase goods they otherwise couldn’t, enabling them to better satisfy their wants by satisfying more of them.
Distorted Signals

In a genuinely free market, the profitability of firms is a good reflection of their ability to better satisfy the wants of consumers. Our willingness to pay for their goods and services reflects the fact that we receive value from those products, so their profits are at least a general signal of having created that value and satisfied consumer wants.
Trump’s policies may well enrich many firms, but they will impoverish the average American.
In fact, consumers get much more value out of most innovations than is reflected in the profits of firms. A famous study by economist William Nordhaus estimated that profits made up only about 2.2% of the total benefits created by innovations. If you doubt this, ask yourself how much it would take for you to give up your smartphone and its connectivity. Then multiply that by all of the smartphone users in the world. Then compare that to the profits made off smartphones. The total value to consumers will dwarf the profits of smartphone producers.
However, when markets aren’t free, profits do not necessarily reflect value creation. Firms who profit through privileges, protections, and subsidies from governments demonstrate that they are able to please political actors, not that they can deliver value to consumers by better satisfying their wants. The profits of cab companies with monopoly licenses reflect their ability to foreclose competition, not the quality of the services they provide.
In a world of this sort of crony capitalism, profits are de-linked from a connection with consumers and we cannot say with confidence that any given firm’s profits reflect value creation.
Notice though that such firms might still be profitable! In a world of cronyism, many firms will do very well, especially to the extent that they have connections with those in power, or are willing to do what they are told in order to curry such favor. To the extent that cronyism will make many firms profitable, that would be reflected in rising stock prices and stock indexes.
That, I would argue, is precisely what we’re seeing today as Trump takes power.
The Trump Effect

Trump’s economic nationalism and cronyism will surely enrich a number of American firms. Tariffs on imported cars, for example, might well improve the profitability of US car manufacturers. The same would go for steel or agricultural products. Firms like Carrier that are willing to exercise political clout, or roll over in the face of demands or threats from various levels of government, could see their profits rise as a result of new government-granted privileges. The record-setting Dow Jones sure could be right that the profit stream for many US firms will increase under Trump.
But don’t confuse that profitability with improved economic well-being.Trump’s policies may well enrich many firms, but they will impoverish the average American. We are not better off having to pay more for domestically produced goods thanks to a 35% tariff on imports. We are not better off when firms are given tax breaks or direct subsidies to keep their production in the US where labor or other inputs are more expensive, raising the costs of those goods and increasing our $20 trillion dollar national debt.
Profits will be seen as the reward for knowing the right people, not innovation and efficiency.
We are not better off when firms have to meet the conditions set by a strongman before he will “allow” them to operate in the US, which only serves to reorient the economy away from pleasing consumers to pleasing Trump.
This sort of cronyism and discretionary use of power turns the positive sum social cooperation of the market into a negative sum battle among firms to curry favoritism and power from the state. Entrepreneurial energy that could have brought forth innovative technologies and cheaper, better goods and services is diverted to seeking profits through what Ayn Rand so memorably called the “aristocracy of pull.”
This diversion of entrepreneurship will have profound long-term effects, as it severs the link between profit-seeking and satisfying consumer wants. Profits will be seen as the reward for knowing the right people and how best to curry favor from them, not from innovation and efficiency.
And when profits become about favoritism not value-creation, the moral case for the market, or what’s left of it anyway, disappears as well. Profits can at least in principle be justified in terms of their link with consumer want satisfaction and the creation of value. As profits become increasingly arbitrary, even those firms who continue to create value will have a harder time justifying their profits. This loss of confidence in the ethical basis of the market will erode support for truly competitive markets even more, even as profits for many might increase.
Don’t be fooled. The Trump rally is not a sign of economic health, but of what quite likely will be harm to all Americans through higher prices, fewer choices, and a reduction in entrepreneurial innovation.
Profits and rising stock prices in truly free markets reflect real value creation and want satisfaction. Profits and rising stock prices in a system of economic nationalism and cronyism reflect the satisfaction of the desires of those with political power. Firms and political actors might win more power and influence, but average Americans, many of whom voted Trump and his crew into office, will be the big losers.

 

[tiznow]

Relative Strength Index (RSI) Analysis The relative strength index (RSI) is a momentum osciallator that is able to measure the velocity and magnitude of stock price changes. Momentum is calculated as the ratio of positive price changes to negative price changes. The RSI analysis compares the current RSI against neutral(50), oversold (30) and overbought (70) conditions. Alerts will inform you when stocks recede from oversold/overbought levels or breakthrough neutral (50).

Speaking of near term overbought..

Pull up dow daily over at stockcharts.com and RSI currently at 85.47

went back to 1999 and looked.. this is highest.. few spikes close to it before we topped in 2000 and 2007...

anyway a lot of the indicator stuff voodoo science to me but... fact is that DOW daily currently sitting at the highest RSI looking at 1999-today for what it's worth..

 

[CHOPTALK]

Chop, why are you pissed? Because you feel like you missed out?

Yes

 

[Hitman26]

Chop: You seem to have done very well jumping in and out over the years (from your posts). I think you will be better off in the long run sticking with and following your gut.

 

[tiznow]

http://hussman.net/wmc/wmc161212.htm

Economic Fancies and Basic Arithmetic
John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
Reprint Policy
The single most extreme syndrome of “overvalued, overbought, overbullish” conditions we identify (see Speculative Extremes and Historically Informed Optimism) was restored last week; a secondary signal at a level on the S&P 500 that’s 4% higher than the syndrome we observed in July. Recall that with one exception, that most extreme variant has only emerged at the market peaks preceding the worst collapses in the past century. Prior to the advance of recent years, the list of these instances was: August 1929, the week of the bull market peak; August 1972, after which the S&P 500 would advance about 7% by year-end, and then drop by half; August 1987, the week of the bull market peak; July 1999, just before an abrupt 12% market correction, with a secondary signal in March 2000, the week of the final market peak; and July 2007, within a few points of the final peak in the S&P 500, with a secondary signal in October 2007, the week of that bull final market peak.
The single exception was a set of signals between late-2013 and early-2014. While we’ve learned not to fight “overvalued, overbought, overbullish” extremes in zero-interest rate environments where market internals are uniformly favorable, we presently observe a situation much like the final peaks of the 1929, 1972, 1987, 2000 and 2007 bull markets, when those mitigating factors were not in place.

 

[tiznow]

Donnie the crybaby at it again..

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can't get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!

 

[tiznow]

Trump needs shut down all media and start his own network where everything is positive trump news in full agreement so he can be the dictator it seems like he wants to be...

 

[eek.]

I think we just need a couple of channels which are not a pile of liberal propaganda bullshit but we don't even have that much nowadays
Even the BBC succumbed to it all in the early 2000s

Now the best and sole alternative news site is RT, and they aren't exactly great

The libs have a media monopoly which Trump really needs to break up as a matter of urgency for the sake of democracy

 

[Willie99]

hey guys, how have you been?

are y'all still selling selling selling?









hope all is well, just playing around

 

[Willie99]

Donnie the crybaby at it again..

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can't get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!

Trump needs shut down all media and start his own network where everything is positive trump news in full agreement so he can be the dictator it seems like he wants to be...

damn tizdoom, sounds like that market surge is killing you old friend (I only looked at page 1,135)

chill man, give real change a chance



PS: he's never going to stop saying some stupid things, I'm OK with that as long as he changes all the stupid things in DC

 

[tiznow]

Damn hitman and Willie sighting outta nowhere gotta be a near market top signal right??

how you been.. long time no see..

10 year bond up to 2.5%.. 5 year up to 1.9% .. good luck team trump and his economic liberals .. who are hoping to debt like crazy and spend federal funds wastefully...

 

[tiznow]

[h=1]Rising Mortgage Rates Could Threaten Housing Demand in 2017[/h][h=2]Sustained increases could lead to ‘rate lock,’ leaving some homeowners reluctant to trade up or down[/h]By Laura Kusisto

Dec. 11, 2016 7:00 a.m. ET

ENLARGE
A worker measures the exterior of a house under construction in Fremont, Calif., June 20, 2016. Homeowners in pricey coastal markets could feel the pinch of rising interest rates sooner than those in other places. Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg



Rising interest rates pose a dilemma for people who love their mortgage more than they hate their house.
A sustained period of rising rates could freeze homeowners with rock-bottom mortgages who otherwise might want to trade up for bigger or better properties.
Such situations, which economists call “rate lock,” could weigh on housing demand in 2017, economists said.
A seven-year run of historically low mortgage rates has encouraged home buying, helping increase prices sharply after the housing crash. The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index reached a record in September.

ENLARGE



But mortgage rates have jumped more than half a percentage point since the election, and economists are bracing for higher rates in 2017.
Rising rates make mortgage payments more expensive. That gives homeowners incentive to remain in place rather than trade up, said Nela Richardson, chief economist at real-estate brokerage firm Redfin.
“It doesn’t take much to turn off the faucet in this market because inventory is so low and prices have gone up so quickly,” she said.
The average rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rose to 4.13% last Thursday, according to mortgage company Freddie Mac, up from 3.54% before the election. That was the highest level since October 2014.
The latest bump boosts the monthly cost of owning the typical U.S. home by more than $70 a month, or about $26,000 over the life of a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, according to Black Knight Financial Services, a mortgage and real estate technology and data provider.
“I suspect it’s already having an impact at the margin. Another half a percent and the impact will be substantial,” said Lou Barnes, a capital markets analyst at Boulder-based Premier Mortgage Group.
Homeowners in pricey coastal markets, where affordability is already strained, could feel the pinch sooner. In California, where the median-priced home is closer to $500,000, homeowners already are looking at paying about $170 more a month based on the recent rate rise.
According to Zillow, a typical household in Los Angeles already spends 38% of its income on mortgage payments—greater than the recommended 30%. In the Bay Area, about 5% fewer households will fall under the recommended 33% debt-to-income ratio to afford a $1 million mortgage if interest rates rise from 4% to 5%, according to Selma Hepp, chief economist at Pacific Union International, a real-estate firm.
In all, about 66% of U.S. homeowners with mortgages have rates of less than 4.5%, according to real estate analytics firm CoreLogic Inc. Economists said rates would likely need to rise above 5% for a large number of homeowners across the U.S. to face the rate lock dilemma.
As the economy strengthens, the U.S. Federal Reserve is expected to raise short-term interest rates when it meets this month. Mortgage rates are tied more closely to Treasury bond yields, which also tend to rise during periods of inflation.
Many economists expect mortgage rates to continue rising gradually from here, though such predictions have been wrong before.
Rates have risen because the economy is strengthening and investors are betting that tax cuts and increased government spending on infrastructure will spur more growth. Higher wage growth could offset the effect of higher mortgage rates.
But the fact that so many homeowners enjoy such low rates could also prove an economic brake, creating a disincentive for homeowners to move to a new city in pursuit of a new job if it means their mortgage might be more expensive, said David Berson, chief economist at Nationwide Insurance.
Recent history suggests the impact of rising rates can be swift and substantial. In 2013 mortgage rates surged to 4.5% from 3.6% as investors anticipated the Federal Reserve would pull back from its bond-buying program. The pace of sales of previously owned homes declined 8% from July to December of that year, according to the National Association of Realtors.
The rate of home-price increases around that time was cut essentially in half, to 5% from 9%, according to Black Knight.
“If 2013 is any guide, we could expect to see a slowdown in [price] appreciation,” said Ben Graboske, vice president of Black Knight’s data and analytics division. “We still think house prices will grow, just more meekly.”
Jeanette Mateo, a 41-year-old health-care project coordinator in Sacramento, Calif., said if rates rise it could affect her decision to sell. She and her partner already agreed once to sell their house but pulled out of the deal “10 or 15 minutes later” because they were nervous about being able to find another one they could afford.
They pay about $900 a month on their mortgage, which they refinanced in 2009 when rates were around 5%. Now they are eyeing a home in a new development, which would give them a bigger kitchen and an extra garage.
Ms. Mateo said if rates rise significantly they might not be able to afford to trade up, and they worry that it would be more difficult to sell if some buyers are scared off.

 

[tiznow]

damn tizdoom, sounds like that market surge is killing you old friend (I only looked at page 1,135)

chill man, give real change a chance



PS: he's never going to stop saying some stupid things, I'm OK with that as long as he changes all the stupid things in DC

Willie since you are a card carrying member of the red team

please explain to me how trumps economic plans to debt like crazy and spend federal infrastructure is conservative.. weren't the republicans shouting about debt and the dangers throughout the obama administration?

also the carrier deal.. how is "saving" job so via government intervention conservative.. if obama did it conservatives would be screaming bailout..

the hypocracy always gets me...

just like when bush was in office debt don't matter when we got control.. although this time I think the bond markets and economic factors gonna hinder what the "conservative" liberals can do this time..

 

[eek.]

Hiya Wullie.:howdy:

 

[CHOPTALK]

Chop: You seem to have done very well jumping in and out over the years (from your posts). I think you will be better off in the long run sticking with and following your gut.

If I would have just stayed in a little longer .
No question in my mind we about to go on a long ride down and I'm more of an optimist then just about everyone in this thread.
But I got out too soon.
I guess too soon is better then too late.

Im much better at timing bottoms then I am tops .