Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

---

unemployment is a benefit of being a tax payer.

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

---

unemployment is a benefit of being a tax payer.

---

Just wanted to be clear on what benefits of tax payers you are for.

jj9000 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

hedge said:

---

this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out

---

who acted stupid?

---

He's saying that the bailouts and imminent FED intervention will change corporate behavior. Think sub-prime in 2007 where people were buying $800K homes on $25k/yr salaries.

Same concept, just on a broader scale and scope.

---

So the outcome in 2007 was people learned they could get rich off risky investments so they quadrupled down in 2020 and they are going to get even richer?

Should've just given every household $30,000. Then no missed rent payments, no missed credit card payments, people can still buy things. Most importantly nobody could ever complain about not getting a chance to succeed in this country and bailouts for the rich only.

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

---

unemployment is a benefit of being a tax payer.

---

Just wanted to be clear on what benefits of tax payers you are for.

---

being for something is a completely different conversation. My entire working career has been paying into a system I may not be for but will utilize if needed. Would I have rather had the money to fund myself, absolutely.

claym711 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

Unemployment won't retire my debt allow me to lever up again.

---

file bankruptcy

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

---

unemployment is a benefit of being a tax payer.

---

Just wanted to be clear on what benefits of tax payers you are for.

---

being for something is a completely different conversation. My entire working career has been paying into a system I may not be for but will utilize if needed. Would I have rather had the money to fund myself, absolutely.

---

The best idea I saw was to refund everyone's 2019 taxes. That would've been the best option to save the economy.

gig em 02 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

---

unemployment is a benefit of being a tax payer.

---

Just wanted to be clear on what benefits of tax payers you are for.

---

being for something is a completely different conversation. My entire working career has been paying into a system I may not be for but will utilize if needed. Would I have rather had the money to fund myself, absolutely.

---

The best idea I saw was to refund everyone's 2019 taxes. That would've been the best option to save the economy.

---

Considering 2019 was the best year of my life so far in terms of real job and trading, I would've been a huge fan of this plan!

Ragoo said:

---

hedge said:

---

taxpayer

---

the same tax payer that enjoyed the "benefit" of a rising stock market because corporations were taking on cheap debt and buying back shares with their free cash flow?

---

Nope. A different taxpayer. The taxpayers in the future. How far in the future is debatable.

When the Fed first started this in late 2008 everyone was predicting what would happen and most agreed that it would lead to massive inflation and a substantial drop in the dollar. And of course, a crash in the economy and the market.

As I remember everyone, except one poster, said it would happen within ten years and most predicted that we would see massive inflation during Obama's first term. They were even sounding their alarm bells as precious metals continued to soar in 2010-11 as the canary in the coal mine.

Turns out everyone was wrong. Maybe the one guy gets it right with his 2027 prediction. We'll see.

I think we can agree that this massive expansion of the Fed balance sheet is a potential problem. Also that shrinking that seems unlikely given past taper tantrums by the market. So I see the question to be at what size does the balance sheet need to be to trigger this inflation we all expect??????

Because that should put the Fed between a rock and a hard place. Rising inflation demands raising interest rates, but doing so crashes the economy. So what happens then?


Edit - fuzzy memory but it seems like the 2027 guy said that time was with when the size of the Fed BS equals GDP or the size of the BS of the central banks of the world equals the size of their combined GDP minus something that doesn't allow double counting of the same GDP by more than one country. I'm not sure. That was 11 years ago. He kept saying it was true that the USA titanic had hit the proverbial iceberg when the Fed started doing this, but it would take a lot longer to sink the ship because the rest of us were underestimating the size of the ship and overestimating how fast it was taking on water.

Ragoo said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

GarlandAg2012 said:

---

hedge said:

---

this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out

---

It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.

---

winner

---

Interesting take here.

While you're right, I don't like that it is true. "Too big to fail" supported by government action eliminates opportunity for others who could/would acquire the failing business and then run it more efficiently. It keeps otherwise efficient market forces at bay.

---

what if I told you the government is in part the reason why they are failing? Would you think the government has responsibility then to make them whole?

---

That's a fair point of discussion. Even so, I still think corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders not to live paycheck to paycheck so to speak. Said another way, having an operating fund that is sized to get you through three to six months of turbulence/unforeseen circumstance is what we're asked to do as responsible individuals (our savings plans, right? "save for a rainy day") so why should the expectation be different for a business/large corporation - especially in light of their recent buy back activity. They had the money for a rainy day fund. They put it into an investment rather than keeping it liquid and accessible.

Was that the JeffHamilton guy? I do recall years ago someone posting on this.

If you do a search for 'digital dollar' you'll see they've been working on moving us to digital held by the Fed for some time.

If we get hyperinflation this time, other digital currencies become viable, along with whatever the government moves to when the dollar crashes. That's going to be a massive shake up, and one that seems inevitable.

But how does the dollar crash as all other govt backed fiat systems are doing the same with their currency?

I was literally just having the same exact discussion with my wife. It's completely hypocritical and rewards bad behavior

Ragoo said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

GarlandAg2012 said:

---

hedge said:

---

this basically opens the floodgates for Big Corp to act stupid and irresponsible because they know they will get bailed out

---

It would be stupider for a corporation to have enough cash in hand to survive 3-6 months with no revenue than it is for them to falter because of this.

---

winner

---

Interesting take here.

While you're right, I don't like that it is true. "Too big to fail" supported by government action eliminates opportunity for others who could/would acquire the failing business and then run it more efficiently. It keeps otherwise efficient market forces at bay.

---

what if I told you the government is in part the reason why they are failing? Would you think the government has responsibility then to make them whole?

---

Nope. If the government is partially responsible then they should make them partially whole. The first question is determining what would have happened if the government had not acted.

I assume everyone would agree that the percentage of people flying would start dropping and continue to drop as the confirmed cases and deaths climbed. Airlines, hotels, and other industries were going to take a massive hit from this virus whether the government intervened or not. The intervention is a bigger short term hit. Not intervening would have been a longer, more drawn out hit until either a vaccine was found or herd immunity was reached.

And we won't know the long term health problems from those who catch the virus and live until years and maybe even decades from now. So this virus was going to be a big problem for Wall Street no matter what the government did. And keep in mind that a lot of Wall Street executives are in the at risk group. As our the politicians. How does the market reacts when these guys start dying? Trump dies?

I don't think some people have given serious thought to this virus. It's like it's a hoax similar to the way some people view the moon landing.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

khaos288 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

claym711 said:

---

The arguments you're using to to justify bail outs can be used the same way to justify bailing out the debt-riddled consumer of his credit card, mortgage, personal, student, medical, etc debt....

Why shouldn't the consumer get a bail out?

---

they do, it's called unemployment benefits.

---

So you like unemployment and want to make sure everyone gets it?

---

unemployment is a benefit of being a tax payer.

---

Just wanted to be clear on what benefits of tax payers you are for.

---

being for something is a completely different conversation. My entire working career has been paying into a system I may not be for but will utilize if needed. Would I have rather had the money to fund myself, absolutely.

---

The best idea I saw was to refund everyone's 2019 taxes. That would've been the best option to save the economy.

---

Considering 2019 was the best year of my life so far in terms of real job and trading, I would've been a huge fan of this plan!

---

Same. Would have loved that as a DINK.

Back to the market and stocks:

Can one of the regulars please take a minute and explain 'Model T' that is so often referred to in this thread?

Thanks in advance.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Back to the market and stocks:

Can one of the regulars please take a minute and explain 'Model T' that is so often referred to in this thread?

Thanks in advance.

---

Easy explanation, a stock will retrace 50% of its trend between the high and low.

If a stock was at 100 high, then ranked to a low of 20, you should expect a gradual increase back to 60 before it heads lower again.

Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess

Exsurge Domine said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Back to the market and stocks:

Can one of the regulars please take a minute and explain 'Model T' that is so often referred to in this thread?

Thanks in advance.

---

Easy explanation, a stock will retrace 50% of its trend between the high and low.

If a stock was at 100 high, then ranked to a low of 20, you should expect a gradual increase back to 60 before it heads lower again.

---

Thank you Exsurge.

OverSeas AG said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Back to the market and stocks:

Can one of the regulars please take a minute and explain 'Model T' that is so often referred to in this thread?

Thanks in advance.

---

La Bamba posted this earlier.

https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/2721405/replies/56268656



Maybe that will help.

---

Excellent video explanation. Model T is very similar to Fibonacci re-tracement. Thanks OverSeas Ag & La Bamba.

IrishTxAggie said:

---

PPAag06 said:

---

FYI, the CDC modifies and extends the Cruise Ship no sail order:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0409-modifications-extension-no-sail-ships.html

---

It's kind of good for Trump. Cruises liners will need a bailout and Trump will get them one if they agree to flag their ships out of the US. If they don't, their country of registration can bail them out. No money until they move. No reason to give a corporate bailout to a foreign company. If they go under, someone else will fill the void

---

This is exactly what I've been thinking would be a phenomenal strategy. I've seen the meme about these companies flying foreign flags and then wanting a bailout. Use this opportunity to say here's your bailout if you choose the United States and start paying taxes. It's really a win-win. If they choose not to, that's their problem and let them file or struggle... it's also company specific. Disney and Carnival May say ok but Princess says no. Let them determine their own fate and we try to generate future tax revenue

Exsurge Domine said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Exsurge Domine said:

---

CSTXAg92 said:

---

Back to the market and stocks:

Can one of the regulars please take a minute and explain 'Model T' that is so often referred to in this thread?

Thanks in advance.

---

Easy explanation, a stock will retrace 50% of its trend between the high and low.

If a stock was at 100 high, then ranked to a low of 20, you should expect a gradual increase back to 60 before it heads lower again.

---

Thank you Exsurge.

---

No problem buddy, this will help you visualize

[url=https://ibb.co/s6TqYCf][/url]

You can see that the S&P 500 started a downward trend at 339.38, and bottomed out at $217.75. You can see it has no worked its way back to the 50% line.

You can also see how crazy accurate the fib lines of resistance and support have been for Spy during the time

---

That's a really good chart. Crazy how it followed all the levels pretty much perfectly. Only question I would have is the line at 78.6%. Should that line be 76.4% instead? 76.4% is $310.2 and looks to match up almost perfectly with the larger support level. Plus that is as equidistant from 100% as 23.6% is from 0%.