does this factor in the definition / math changes?
idk its squiggly lines on government paper its all made up anywaydoes this factor in the definition / math changes?
In before Biden and the press all tell us we aren't actually in a recession, that the definition of 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth isn't the "official" definition.US GDP -0.9%
prices up 8.7%
stagflation
You can't have "stagflation" with >two open job positions for every applicant.US GDP -0.9%
prices up 8.7%
stagflation
Could be if the market thinks the Fed will pivot.This is bullish for stocks?
Yeah in that range. LAZR has held up "better". Trading around $6 or so.I just looked when I saw your post. Oooff.jpg
We bailed at what, 12.00?
If this year has taught me anything, its that no matter what happens in the world or the market, there is a bigass group of people who think its bullish for stocks. And will probably chime in right after my post explaining why yes this is bullish and today is obviously the day to buy.This is bullish for stocks?
Demand is up, potentially (and probably likely), because the cost of borrowing is significantly lower than inflation.You can't have "stagflation" with >two open job positions for every applicant.
There may not be a historical context for what we've done or what we're going into. The supply constraints and the 2 years of rampant M2 money printing combined make for a terrible situation, and yet the economy is still basically functioning "fine", in that people have jobs and demand for basically everything, from goods to services to labor, remains significantly higher than supply.
It's gotta go in the Money Hole:I'm in the camp of there's a lot of money that has filtered in after being poured into the economy trillions at a time, it has to go somewhere.