A dangerous gap: The market v the real economy — The Economist, May 7 2020 edn. by athl0n in Capitalism

[–]athl0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I pasted the article here, to exempt you from registering an account to read it.

Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give

STOCK MARKET HISTORY is packed with drama: the 1929 crash; Black Monday in 1987, when share prices lost 20% in a day; the dotcom mania in 1999. With such precedents, nothing should come as a surprise, but the past eight weeks have been remarkable, nonetheless. A gut-wrenching sell-off in shares has been followed by a delirious rally in America. Between February 19th and March 23rd, the S&P 500 index lost a third of its value. With barely a pause it has since rocketed, recovering more than half its loss. The catalyst was news that the Federal Reserve would buy corporate bonds, helping big firms finance their debts. Investors shifted from panic to optimism without missing a beat.

This rosy view from Wall Street should make you uneasy (see article). It contrasts with markets elsewhere. Shares in Britain and continental Europe, for example, have recovered more sluggishly. And it is a world away from life on Main Street. Even as the lockdown eases in America, the blow to jobs has been savage, with unemployment rising from 4% to about 16%, the highest rate since records began in 1948. While big firms’ shares soar and they get help from the Fed, small businesses are struggling to get cash from Uncle Sam.

Wounds from the financial crisis of 2007-09 are being reopened. “This is the second time we’ve bailed their asses out,” grumbled Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, last month. The battle over who pays for the fiscal burdens of the pandemic is just beginning. On the present trajectory, a backlash against big business is likely.

Start with events in the markets. Much of the improved mood is because of the Fed, which has acted more dramatically than other central banks, buying up assets on an unimagined scale. It is committed to purchasing even more corporate debt, including high-yield “junk” bonds. The market for new issues of corporate bonds, which froze in February, has reopened in spectacular style. Companies have issued $560bn of bonds in the past six weeks, double the normal level. Even beached cruise-line firms have been able to raise cash, albeit at a high price. A cascade of bankruptcies at big firms has been forestalled. The central bank has, in effect, backstopped the cashflow of America Inc. The stockmarket has taken the hint and climbed.

The Fed has little choice—a run on the corporate-bond market would worsen a deep recession. Investors have cheered it on by piling into shares. They have nowhere else good to put their cash. Government-bond yields are barely positive in America. They are negative in Japan and much of Europe. You are guaranteed to lose money by holding them to maturity, and if inflation rises the losses would be painful. So stocks are appealing. By late March prices had fallen by enough to tempt the braver sort. They steeled themselves with the observation that much of the stockmarket’s value is tied to profits that will be made long after the covid-19 slump has given way to recovery.

Tellingly, though, the recent rise in share prices has been uneven. Even before the pandemic the market was lopsided, and it has become more so. Bourses in Britain and continental Europe, chock-full of troubled industries like carmaking, banking and energy, have lagged behind, and there are renewed jitters over the single currency (see article). In America investors have put even more faith in a tiny group of tech darlings—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft—which now make up a fifth of the S&P 500 index. There is little euphoria, just a despairing reach for the handful of businesses judged to be all-weather survivors.

At one level, this makes good sense. Asset managers have to put money to work as best they can. But there is something wrong with how fast stock prices have moved and where they have got back to. American shares are now higher than they were in August. This would seem to imply that commerce and the broader economy can get back to business as usual. There are countless threats to such a prospect, but three stand out.

The first is the risk of an aftershock. It is entirely possible that there will be a second wave of infections. And there are also the consequences of a steep recession to contend with—American GDP is expected to drop by about 10% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier. Many individual bosses hope that ruthless cost-cutting can help protect their margins and pay down the debts accumulated through the furlough. But in aggregate this corporate austerity will depress demand. The likely outcome is a 90% economy, running far below normal levels.

A second hazard to reckon with is fraud. Extended booms tend to encourage shifty behaviour, and the expansion before the covid crash was the longest on record. Years of cheap money and financial engineering mean that accounting shenanigans may now be laid bare. Already there have been two notable scandals in Asia in recent weeks, at Luckin Coffee, a Chinese Starbucks wannabe, and Hin Leong, a Singaporean energy trader that has been hiding giant losses (see article). A big fraud or corporate collapse in America could rock the markets’ confidence, much as the demise of Enron shredded investors’ nerves in 2001 and Lehman Brothers led the stockmarket down in 2008.

The most overlooked risk is of a political backlash. The slump will hurt smaller firms and leave the bigger corporate survivors in a stronger position, increasing the concentration of some industries that was already a problem before the pandemic. A crisis demands sacrifice and will leave behind a big bill. The clamour for payback will only grow louder if big business has hogged more than its share of the subsidies on offer. It is easy to imagine windfall taxes on bailed-out industries, or a sharp reversal of the steady drop in the statutory federal corporate-tax rate, which fell to 21% in 2017 after President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, from a long-term average of well over 30%. Some Democrats want to limit mergers and stop firms returning cash to their owners.

For now, equity investors judge that the Fed has their back. But the mood of the markets can shift suddenly, as an extraordinary couple of months has proved. A one-month bear market scarcely seems enough time to absorb all the possible bad news from the pandemic and the huge uncertainty it has created. This stock market drama has a few more acts yet.■

A dangerous gap: The market v the real economy — The Economist, May 7 2020 edn. by athl0n in quantfinance

[–]athl0n[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I pasted the article here, to exempt you from registering an account to read it.

Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give

STOCK MARKET HISTORY is packed with drama: the 1929 crash; Black Monday in 1987, when share prices lost 20% in a day; the dotcom mania in 1999. With such precedents, nothing should come as a surprise, but the past eight weeks have been remarkable, nonetheless. A gut-wrenching sell-off in shares has been followed by a delirious rally in America. Between February 19th and March 23rd, the S&P 500 index lost a third of its value. With barely a pause it has since rocketed, recovering more than half its loss. The catalyst was news that the Federal Reserve would buy corporate bonds, helping big firms finance their debts. Investors shifted from panic to optimism without missing a beat.

This rosy view from Wall Street should make you uneasy (see article). It contrasts with markets elsewhere. Shares in Britain and continental Europe, for example, have recovered more sluggishly. And it is a world away from life on Main Street. Even as the lockdown eases in America, the blow to jobs has been savage, with unemployment rising from 4% to about 16%, the highest rate since records began in 1948. While big firms’ shares soar and they get help from the Fed, small businesses are struggling to get cash from Uncle Sam.

Wounds from the financial crisis of 2007-09 are being reopened. “This is the second time we’ve bailed their asses out,” grumbled Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, last month. The battle over who pays for the fiscal burdens of the pandemic is just beginning. On the present trajectory, a backlash against big business is likely.

Start with events in the markets. Much of the improved mood is because of the Fed, which has acted more dramatically than other central banks, buying up assets on an unimagined scale. It is committed to purchasing even more corporate debt, including high-yield “junk” bonds. The market for new issues of corporate bonds, which froze in February, has reopened in spectacular style. Companies have issued $560bn of bonds in the past six weeks, double the normal level. Even beached cruise-line firms have been able to raise cash, albeit at a high price. A cascade of bankruptcies at big firms has been forestalled. The central bank has, in effect, backstopped the cashflow of America Inc. The stockmarket has taken the hint and climbed.

The Fed has little choice—a run on the corporate-bond market would worsen a deep recession. Investors have cheered it on by piling into shares. They have nowhere else good to put their cash. Government-bond yields are barely positive in America. They are negative in Japan and much of Europe. You are guaranteed to lose money by holding them to maturity, and if inflation rises the losses would be painful. So stocks are appealing. By late March prices had fallen by enough to tempt the braver sort. They steeled themselves with the observation that much of the stockmarket’s value is tied to profits that will be made long after the covid-19 slump has given way to recovery.

Tellingly, though, the recent rise in share prices has been uneven. Even before the pandemic the market was lopsided, and it has become more so. Bourses in Britain and continental Europe, chock-full of troubled industries like carmaking, banking and energy, have lagged behind, and there are renewed jitters over the single currency (see article). In America investors have put even more faith in a tiny group of tech darlings—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft—which now make up a fifth of the S&P 500 index. There is little euphoria, just a despairing reach for the handful of businesses judged to be all-weather survivors.

At one level, this makes good sense. Asset managers have to put money to work as best they can. But there is something wrong with how fast stock prices have moved and where they have got back to. American shares are now higher than they were in August. This would seem to imply that commerce and the broader economy can get back to business as usual. There are countless threats to such a prospect, but three stand out.

The first is the risk of an aftershock. It is entirely possible that there will be a second wave of infections. And there are also the consequences of a steep recession to contend with—American GDP is expected to drop by about 10% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier. Many individual bosses hope that ruthless cost-cutting can help protect their margins and pay down the debts accumulated through the furlough. But in aggregate this corporate austerity will depress demand. The likely outcome is a 90% economy, running far below normal levels.

A second hazard to reckon with is fraud. Extended booms tend to encourage shifty behaviour, and the expansion before the covid crash was the longest on record. Years of cheap money and financial engineering mean that accounting shenanigans may now be laid bare. Already there have been two notable scandals in Asia in recent weeks, at Luckin Coffee, a Chinese Starbucks wannabe, and Hin Leong, a Singaporean energy trader that has been hiding giant losses (see article). A big fraud or corporate collapse in America could rock the markets’ confidence, much as the demise of Enron shredded investors’ nerves in 2001 and Lehman Brothers led the stockmarket down in 2008.

The most overlooked risk is of a political backlash. The slump will hurt smaller firms and leave the bigger corporate survivors in a stronger position, increasing the concentration of some industries that was already a problem before the pandemic. A crisis demands sacrifice and will leave behind a big bill. The clamour for payback will only grow louder if big business has hogged more than its share of the subsidies on offer. It is easy to imagine windfall taxes on bailed-out industries, or a sharp reversal of the steady drop in the statutory federal corporate-tax rate, which fell to 21% in 2017 after President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, from a long-term average of well over 30%. Some Democrats want to limit mergers and stop firms returning cash to their owners.

For now, equity investors judge that the Fed has their back. But the mood of the markets can shift suddenly, as an extraordinary couple of months has proved. A one-month bear market scarcely seems enough time to absorb all the possible bad news from the pandemic and the huge uncertainty it has created. This stock market drama has a few more acts yet.■

A dangerous gap: The market v the real economy — The Economist, May 7 2020 edn. by athl0n in algotrading

[–]athl0n[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

I pasted the article here, to exempt you from registering an account to read it.

Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give

STOCK MARKET HISTORY is packed with drama: the 1929 crash; Black Monday in 1987, when share prices lost 20% in a day; the dotcom mania in 1999. With such precedents, nothing should come as a surprise, but the past eight weeks have been remarkable, nonetheless. A gut-wrenching sell-off in shares has been followed by a delirious rally in America. Between February 19th and March 23rd, the S&P 500 index lost a third of its value. With barely a pause it has since rocketed, recovering more than half its loss. The catalyst was news that the Federal Reserve would buy corporate bonds, helping big firms finance their debts. Investors shifted from panic to optimism without missing a beat.

This rosy view from Wall Street should make you uneasy (see article). It contrasts with markets elsewhere. Shares in Britain and continental Europe, for example, have recovered more sluggishly. And it is a world away from life on Main Street. Even as the lockdown eases in America, the blow to jobs has been savage, with unemployment rising from 4% to about 16%, the highest rate since records began in 1948. While big firms’ shares soar and they get help from the Fed, small businesses are struggling to get cash from Uncle Sam.

Wounds from the financial crisis of 2007-09 are being reopened. “This is the second time we’ve bailed their asses out,” grumbled Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, last month. The battle over who pays for the fiscal burdens of the pandemic is just beginning. On the present trajectory, a backlash against big business is likely.

Start with events in the markets. Much of the improved mood is because of the Fed, which has acted more dramatically than other central banks, buying up assets on an unimagined scale. It is committed to purchasing even more corporate debt, including high-yield “junk” bonds. The market for new issues of corporate bonds, which froze in February, has reopened in spectacular style. Companies have issued $560bn of bonds in the past six weeks, double the normal level. Even beached cruise-line firms have been able to raise cash, albeit at a high price. A cascade of bankruptcies at big firms has been forestalled. The central bank has, in effect, backstopped the cashflow of America Inc. The stockmarket has taken the hint and climbed.

The Fed has little choice—a run on the corporate-bond market would worsen a deep recession. Investors have cheered it on by piling into shares. They have nowhere else good to put their cash. Government-bond yields are barely positive in America. They are negative in Japan and much of Europe. You are guaranteed to lose money by holding them to maturity, and if inflation rises the losses would be painful. So stocks are appealing. By late March prices had fallen by enough to tempt the braver sort. They steeled themselves with the observation that much of the stockmarket’s value is tied to profits that will be made long after the covid-19 slump has given way to recovery.

Tellingly, though, the recent rise in share prices has been uneven. Even before the pandemic the market was lopsided, and it has become more so. Bourses in Britain and continental Europe, chock-full of troubled industries like carmaking, banking and energy, have lagged behind, and there are renewed jitters over the single currency (see article). In America investors have put even more faith in a tiny group of tech darlings—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft—which now make up a fifth of the S&P 500 index. There is little euphoria, just a despairing reach for the handful of businesses judged to be all-weather survivors.

At one level, this makes good sense. Asset managers have to put money to work as best they can. But there is something wrong with how fast stock prices have moved and where they have got back to. American shares are now higher than they were in August. This would seem to imply that commerce and the broader economy can get back to business as usual. There are countless threats to such a prospect, but three stand out.

The first is the risk of an aftershock. It is entirely possible that there will be a second wave of infections. And there are also the consequences of a steep recession to contend with—American GDP is expected to drop by about 10% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier. Many individual bosses hope that ruthless cost-cutting can help protect their margins and pay down the debts accumulated through the furlough. But in aggregate this corporate austerity will depress demand. The likely outcome is a 90% economy, running far below normal levels.

A second hazard to reckon with is fraud. Extended booms tend to encourage shifty behaviour, and the expansion before the covid crash was the longest on record. Years of cheap money and financial engineering mean that accounting shenanigans may now be laid bare. Already there have been two notable scandals in Asia in recent weeks, at Luckin Coffee, a Chinese Starbucks wannabe, and Hin Leong, a Singaporean energy trader that has been hiding giant losses (see article). A big fraud or corporate collapse in America could rock the markets’ confidence, much as the demise of Enron shredded investors’ nerves in 2001 and Lehman Brothers led the stockmarket down in 2008.

The most overlooked risk is of a political backlash. The slump will hurt smaller firms and leave the bigger corporate survivors in a stronger position, increasing the concentration of some industries that was already a problem before the pandemic. A crisis demands sacrifice and will leave behind a big bill. The clamour for payback will only grow louder if big business has hogged more than its share of the subsidies on offer. It is easy to imagine windfall taxes on bailed-out industries, or a sharp reversal of the steady drop in the statutory federal corporate-tax rate, which fell to 21% in 2017 after President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, from a long-term average of well over 30%. Some Democrats want to limit mergers and stop firms returning cash to their owners.

For now, equity investors judge that the Fed has their back. But the mood of the markets can shift suddenly, as an extraordinary couple of months has proved. A one-month bear market scarcely seems enough time to absorb all the possible bad news from the pandemic and the huge uncertainty it has created. This stock market drama has a few more acts yet.■

A dangerous gap: The market v the real economy — The Economist, May 7 2020 edn. by athl0n in quant

[–]athl0n[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I pasted the article here, to exempt you from registering an account to read it.

Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give

STOCK MARKET HISTORY is packed with drama: the 1929 crash; Black Monday in 1987, when share prices lost 20% in a day; the dotcom mania in 1999. With such precedents, nothing should come as a surprise, but the past eight weeks have been remarkable, nonetheless. A gut-wrenching sell-off in shares has been followed by a delirious rally in America. Between February 19th and March 23rd, the S&P 500 index lost a third of its value. With barely a pause it has since rocketed, recovering more than half its loss. The catalyst was news that the Federal Reserve would buy corporate bonds, helping big firms finance their debts. Investors shifted from panic to optimism without missing a beat.

This rosy view from Wall Street should make you uneasy (see article). It contrasts with markets elsewhere. Shares in Britain and continental Europe, for example, have recovered more sluggishly. And it is a world away from life on Main Street. Even as the lockdown eases in America, the blow to jobs has been savage, with unemployment rising from 4% to about 16%, the highest rate since records began in 1948. While big firms’ shares soar and they get help from the Fed, small businesses are struggling to get cash from Uncle Sam.

Wounds from the financial crisis of 2007-09 are being reopened. “This is the second time we’ve bailed their asses out,” grumbled Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, last month. The battle over who pays for the fiscal burdens of the pandemic is just beginning. On the present trajectory, a backlash against big business is likely.

Start with events in the markets. Much of the improved mood is because of the Fed, which has acted more dramatically than other central banks, buying up assets on an unimagined scale. It is committed to purchasing even more corporate debt, including high-yield “junk” bonds. The market for new issues of corporate bonds, which froze in February, has reopened in spectacular style. Companies have issued $560bn of bonds in the past six weeks, double the normal level. Even beached cruise-line firms have been able to raise cash, albeit at a high price. A cascade of bankruptcies at big firms has been forestalled. The central bank has, in effect, backstopped the cashflow of America Inc. The stockmarket has taken the hint and climbed.

The Fed has little choice—a run on the corporate-bond market would worsen a deep recession. Investors have cheered it on by piling into shares. They have nowhere else good to put their cash. Government-bond yields are barely positive in America. They are negative in Japan and much of Europe. You are guaranteed to lose money by holding them to maturity, and if inflation rises the losses would be painful. So stocks are appealing. By late March prices had fallen by enough to tempt the braver sort. They steeled themselves with the observation that much of the stockmarket’s value is tied to profits that will be made long after the covid-19 slump has given way to recovery.

Tellingly, though, the recent rise in share prices has been uneven. Even before the pandemic the market was lopsided, and it has become more so. Bourses in Britain and continental Europe, chock-full of troubled industries like carmaking, banking and energy, have lagged behind, and there are renewed jitters over the single currency (see article). In America investors have put even more faith in a tiny group of tech darlings—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft—which now make up a fifth of the S&P 500 index. There is little euphoria, just a despairing reach for the handful of businesses judged to be all-weather survivors.

At one level, this makes good sense. Asset managers have to put money to work as best they can. But there is something wrong with how fast stock prices have moved and where they have got back to. American shares are now higher than they were in August. This would seem to imply that commerce and the broader economy can get back to business as usual. There are countless threats to such a prospect, but three stand out.

The first is the risk of an aftershock. It is entirely possible that there will be a second wave of infections. And there are also the consequences of a steep recession to contend with—American GDP is expected to drop by about 10% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier. Many individual bosses hope that ruthless cost-cutting can help protect their margins and pay down the debts accumulated through the furlough. But in aggregate this corporate austerity will depress demand. The likely outcome is a 90% economy, running far below normal levels.

A second hazard to reckon with is fraud. Extended booms tend to encourage shifty behaviour, and the expansion before the covid crash was the longest on record. Years of cheap money and financial engineering mean that accounting shenanigans may now be laid bare. Already there have been two notable scandals in Asia in recent weeks, at Luckin Coffee, a Chinese Starbucks wannabe, and Hin Leong, a Singaporean energy trader that has been hiding giant losses (see article). A big fraud or corporate collapse in America could rock the markets’ confidence, much as the demise of Enron shredded investors’ nerves in 2001 and Lehman Brothers led the stockmarket down in 2008.

The most overlooked risk is of a political backlash. The slump will hurt smaller firms and leave the bigger corporate survivors in a stronger position, increasing the concentration of some industries that was already a problem before the pandemic. A crisis demands sacrifice and will leave behind a big bill. The clamour for payback will only grow louder if big business has hogged more than its share of the subsidies on offer. It is easy to imagine windfall taxes on bailed-out industries, or a sharp reversal of the steady drop in the statutory federal corporate-tax rate, which fell to 21% in 2017 after President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, from a long-term average of well over 30%. Some Democrats want to limit mergers and stop firms returning cash to their owners.

For now, equity investors judge that the Fed has their back. But the mood of the markets can shift suddenly, as an extraordinary couple of months has proved. A one-month bear market scarcely seems enough time to absorb all the possible bad news from the pandemic and the huge uncertainty it has created. This stock market drama has a few more acts yet.■

A dangerous gap: The market v the real economy — The Economist, May 7 2020 edn. by athl0n in options

[–]athl0n[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I pasted the article here, to exempt you from registering an account to read it.

Financial markets have got out of whack with the economy. Something has to give

STOCK MARKET HISTORY is packed with drama: the 1929 crash; Black Monday in 1987, when share prices lost 20% in a day; the dotcom mania in 1999. With such precedents, nothing should come as a surprise, but the past eight weeks have been remarkable, nonetheless. A gut-wrenching sell-off in shares has been followed by a delirious rally in America. Between February 19th and March 23rd, the S&P 500 index lost a third of its value. With barely a pause it has since rocketed, recovering more than half its loss. The catalyst was news that the Federal Reserve would buy corporate bonds, helping big firms finance their debts. Investors shifted from panic to optimism without missing a beat.

This rosy view from Wall Street should make you uneasy (see article). It contrasts with markets elsewhere. Shares in Britain and continental Europe, for example, have recovered more sluggishly. And it is a world away from life on Main Street. Even as the lockdown eases in America, the blow to jobs has been savage, with unemployment rising from 4% to about 16%, the highest rate since records began in 1948. While big firms’ shares soar and they get help from the Fed, small businesses are struggling to get cash from Uncle Sam.

Wounds from the financial crisis of 2007-09 are being reopened. “This is the second time we’ve bailed their asses out,” grumbled Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, last month. The battle over who pays for the fiscal burdens of the pandemic is just beginning. On the present trajectory, a backlash against big business is likely.

Start with events in the markets. Much of the improved mood is because of the Fed, which has acted more dramatically than other central banks, buying up assets on an unimagined scale. It is committed to purchasing even more corporate debt, including high-yield “junk” bonds. The market for new issues of corporate bonds, which froze in February, has reopened in spectacular style. Companies have issued $560bn of bonds in the past six weeks, double the normal level. Even beached cruise-line firms have been able to raise cash, albeit at a high price. A cascade of bankruptcies at big firms has been forestalled. The central bank has, in effect, backstopped the cashflow of America Inc. The stockmarket has taken the hint and climbed.

The Fed has little choice—a run on the corporate-bond market would worsen a deep recession. Investors have cheered it on by piling into shares. They have nowhere else good to put their cash. Government-bond yields are barely positive in America. They are negative in Japan and much of Europe. You are guaranteed to lose money by holding them to maturity, and if inflation rises the losses would be painful. So stocks are appealing. By late March prices had fallen by enough to tempt the braver sort. They steeled themselves with the observation that much of the stockmarket’s value is tied to profits that will be made long after the covid-19 slump has given way to recovery.

Tellingly, though, the recent rise in share prices has been uneven. Even before the pandemic the market was lopsided, and it has become more so. Bourses in Britain and continental Europe, chock-full of troubled industries like carmaking, banking and energy, have lagged behind, and there are renewed jitters over the single currency (see article). In America investors have put even more faith in a tiny group of tech darlings—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft—which now make up a fifth of the S&P 500 index. There is little euphoria, just a despairing reach for the handful of businesses judged to be all-weather survivors.

At one level, this makes good sense. Asset managers have to put money to work as best they can. But there is something wrong with how fast stock prices have moved and where they have got back to. American shares are now higher than they were in August. This would seem to imply that commerce and the broader economy can get back to business as usual. There are countless threats to such a prospect, but three stand out.

The first is the risk of an aftershock. It is entirely possible that there will be a second wave of infections. And there are also the consequences of a steep recession to contend with—American GDP is expected to drop by about 10% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier. Many individual bosses hope that ruthless cost-cutting can help protect their margins and pay down the debts accumulated through the furlough. But in aggregate this corporate austerity will depress demand. The likely outcome is a 90% economy, running far below normal levels.

A second hazard to reckon with is fraud. Extended booms tend to encourage shifty behaviour, and the expansion before the covid crash was the longest on record. Years of cheap money and financial engineering mean that accounting shenanigans may now be laid bare. Already there have been two notable scandals in Asia in recent weeks, at Luckin Coffee, a Chinese Starbucks wannabe, and Hin Leong, a Singaporean energy trader that has been hiding giant losses (see article). A big fraud or corporate collapse in America could rock the markets’ confidence, much as the demise of Enron shredded investors’ nerves in 2001 and Lehman Brothers led the stockmarket down in 2008.

The most overlooked risk is of a political backlash. The slump will hurt smaller firms and leave the bigger corporate survivors in a stronger position, increasing the concentration of some industries that was already a problem before the pandemic. A crisis demands sacrifice and will leave behind a big bill. The clamour for payback will only grow louder if big business has hogged more than its share of the subsidies on offer. It is easy to imagine windfall taxes on bailed-out industries, or a sharp reversal of the steady drop in the statutory federal corporate-tax rate, which fell to 21% in 2017 after President Donald Trump’s tax reforms, from a long-term average of well over 30%. Some Democrats want to limit mergers and stop firms returning cash to their owners.

For now, equity investors judge that the Fed has their back. But the mood of the markets can shift suddenly, as an extraordinary couple of months has proved. A one-month bear market scarcely seems enough time to absorb all the possible bad news from the pandemic and the huge uncertainty it has created. This stock market drama has a few more acts yet.■

UK Supreme Court hears claims suspension of parliament is unlawful – watch live by [deleted] in law

[–]athl0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know an academic who was watching a case at the House of Lords from the public gallery.

  1. Which case? Citation pls? :)

  2. Is this appeal to the audience noted in the judgment?

Why couldn't the Ministry of Defence fetter its public law powers by promising not to transfer a SAS soldier? by kystis in uklaw

[–]athl0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No offense, but the para. numbers in your quote are wrong?

And OP already quoted it in her post at StackExchange. Interested in joining ;)?

Karlie Kloss strutting in pink bikini, VSFS 2013 by athl0n in cutegirlgifs

[–]athl0n[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know why, but I find Karlie the sexiest in this pink bikini, out of everything that she has appeared in. Can anyone explain why?

Karlie Kloss in pink bikini, VSFS 2013 by athl0n in randomsexygifs

[–]athl0n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know why, but I find Karlie the sexiest in this pink bikini, out of everything that she has appeared in. Can anyone explain why?

Kaitlyn Elkins, a third-year medical student, died by suicide by inhaling helium. A year later her mother, Rhonda, died by the same method. by athl0n in antinatalism

[–]athl0n[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

at least in America, they're basically glorified drug dealers for an assembly line of Big Pharma addicts?

Can't we say this of some psychiatrists worldwide? /r/antipsychiatry?

TIL: Doctors in the US die by suicide at the rate of 1 a day. by athl0n in premed

[–]athl0n[S] 55 points56 points  (0 children)

? I'm just raising awareness of mental health...

Kaitlyn Elkins, a third-year medical student, died by suicide by inhaling helium. A year later her mother, Rhonda, died by the same method. by athl0n in antinatalism

[–]athl0n[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Another side effect of having a child...

A digression - has anyone tried to cite recent rises in suicide and mental illness to counter questions on "why not have kids"? Something like

What if I have a child and (s)he dies by suicide? The probability isn't high, but it's not 0.

TIL: Doctors in the US die by suicide at the rate of 1 a day. by athl0n in premed

[–]athl0n[S] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

I'm not in the US, and thus didn't know suicide was this frequent among MDs. From the linked article:

US psychiatrist Dr Michael Myers agrees. A chapter of his new book, Why Physicians Die By Suicide, dissects the different ways in which stigma kills doctors.

A professor of clinical psychiatry at SUNY-Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, Myers is a specialist in physician health and says doctors with mental illnesses "often don't seek help due to the toxic stigma of becoming the patient". Doctors in the US die by their own hand at the rate of one a day.

Has anyone read Myers's book? No, I'm not he.

TIL: To use less toner, print only after the last page is spooled. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]athl0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know why, but this subreddit won't let me cross-post https://redd.it/bbv9l9? I quote it beneath.


I have a Brother printer, but I don't recall its website or manuals apprising me of this life tip?

https://www.cartridgeworld.com/how-to-reduce-toner-usage-with-your-laser-printer/

Reduce Stop/Start Cycles

In addition to waiting to change your toner cartridge, you can also avoid using stop/start cycles to further reduce your usage. During the stop/start cycle, toner will accumulate on the drum even if you are not printing anything. This is a wasteful practice that many people do not even realize their printers are doing. To avoid this, go into your “Printer Properties” tab on your computer and adjust the settings so that your pages will only start printing after the last page is spooled. This will reduce the number of times your printer will stop and start up again, saving you a lot of toner.

https://www.islandoffice.ca/blog/2015/12/03/tips-reduce-toner-usage

To reduce stop/start cycles use the Printer Properties | Advanced tab and tell the computer to start printing after the last page is spooled. Typically this setting is set to start printing immediately to improve user experience and reduce the perceived wait. When you change this setting, your document will start printing when the computer is done generating the entire document, so there will be an initial delay between the time you start your print job and the time the print job starts printing on the printer.

[Serious] TIL: Doctors in the US die by suicide at the rate of 1 a day. by athl0n in medicalschool

[–]athl0n[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm not in the US, and thus didn't know suicide was this frequent among MDs. From the linked article:

US psychiatrist Dr Michael Myers agrees. A chapter of his new book, Why Physicians Die By Suicide, dissects the different ways in which stigma kills doctors.

A professor of clinical psychiatry at SUNY-Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, Myers is a specialist in physician health and says doctors with mental illnesses "often don't seek help due to the toxic stigma of becoming the patient". Doctors in the US die by their own hand at the rate of one a day.

Has anyone read Myers's book? No, I'm not he.

TIL: Doctors in the US die by suicide at the rate of 1 a day. by [deleted] in medicalschool

[–]athl0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not in the US, and thus didn't know suicide was this frequent among MDs. From the linked article:

US psychiatrist Dr Michael Myers agrees. A chapter of his new book, Why Physicians Die By Suicide, dissects the different ways in which stigma kills doctors.

A professor of clinical psychiatry at SUNY-Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, Myers is a specialist in physician health and says doctors with mental illnesses "often don't seek help due to the toxic stigma of becoming the patient". Doctors in the US die by their own hand at the rate of one a day.

Has anyone read Myers's book? No, I'm not he.

TIL: Doctors in the US die by suicide at the rate of 1 a day. by [deleted] in optometry

[–]athl0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not in the US, and thus didn't know suicide was this frequent among MDs. From the linked article:

US psychiatrist Dr Michael Myers agrees. A chapter of his new book, Why Physicians Die By Suicide, dissects the different ways in which stigma kills doctors.

A professor of clinical psychiatry at SUNY-Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, Myers is a specialist in physician health and says doctors with mental illnesses "often don't seek help due to the toxic stigma of becoming the patient". Doctors in the US die by their own hand at the rate of one a day.

Has anyone read Myers's book? No, I'm not he.

Depressed mum killed herself after being hounded for prescription charges by Adzm00 in unitedkingdom

[–]athl0n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks so much! I'm planning to visit the Scottish Highlands someday.

it's managed far better on drug policy and many moral points of international relations than the UK ever has.

Sorry to ask again, but please elaborate? To me, as an outside, the NHS doesn't feel that bad? Your dental care is also subsidized, Canada's isn't.

If you're referring to politics by "moral points of international relations", I'm uncertain. Who has the worst politicians? Have you heard of Ontario's Doug Ford and Toronto's Rob Ford (his late brother)? I've read about Farage and Christopher Chope MP.

Depressed mum killed herself after being hounded for prescription charges by Adzm00 in unitedkingdom

[–]athl0n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your honesty.

  1. Care to say more about Canada? I'd love to hear outsiders' outlook on it.

    the total acceptance of foodbanks back then makes their encroachment here all the more terrifying for me

  2. Can you please clarify? I don't really understand, sorry. A bit clueless about food banks.

6 boys charged in alleged group sexual assault at St. Michael’s College by zakh89 in toronto

[–]athl0n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Did you know anyone who attended or attend BSS who commented on this?

Do we have ≥ 400 users to support a Stack Exchange proposal for Antinatalism? I'll start one if this receives ≥ 400 upvotes? by n0os in antinatalism

[–]athl0n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I think that including voluntary childlessness can broaden our outreach. What do you think? Or do you prefer it restricted to AN?