Reminder

[Anonymous No.54095339]

The market bottoms AFTER the Fed pivots, not before.
Keep your heads on straight faggots. Stay focused.

[Anonymous No.54095545]

>>54095339
can you explain why this happens

[Anonymous No.54095701]

>>54095545
Market usually does the opposite of what "makes sense". Amateur trader sensibilities would argue that when interest rates drop is the best time to buy, when in fact, that's not what smart/big money does. They dump onto the retail trader and take that easy money.

[Anonymous No.54096110]

>>54095545
no i cant

[Anonymous No.54096291]

>>54095339
>>54095545
Maybe because high interest rates take time to do their damage and the FED realizes it has to stop before the damage visibly manifests in the markets?

[Anonymous No.54096411]

>>54095545
Rate rises have often been done 'until something breaks'. Inflation ramps up, the interest rate is jacked up far too late, a bunch of shitty businesses/banks/institutions that have been living off of low interest loans blow up as rates rise, eventually one causes a big contagion event that threatens to fuck the whole system, interest rates are lowered. The softer version is just where a shitload of people end up unemployed, which obviously drops consumption, which obviously has an impact on profits, which also initiates a recession, which again results in rates being dropped.

Why do interest rates keep on being jacked up too late? Political reasons, wherever concern over unemployment (massive in the post WW2-70s era), a mistaken belief in a new paradigm sustained by transient trends (2008-2022), or crippling levels of government debt (what will come next).

[Anonymous No.54096472]

I say don't do shit until bond prices start expressing their inverse relationship. Otherwise I think we are still poised for a bigger dump.

[Anonymous No.54097116]

>>54096411
Why do things keep breaking sooner every time?

[Anonymous No.54097169]

>>54097116
Because they never actually fix the problem. It takes a millisecond for a bomb to detonate, and years to rebuild from the resulting explosion. Now imagine that instead of rebuilding your town after a bomb hits it, the government just steps in and hires everyone in the town to work at a bomb factory. No real economic recovery and unnecessary risk which sets up the next "big one."

[Anonymous No.54097228]

>>54097169
So what happens when there's no room left to raise rates to kick the can any further?

[Anonymous No.54097314]

>>54097228
Hyperinflation, economic collapse, or both.

[Anonymous No.54097398]

>>54097314
Is this what all the 2030 crap is about? Preparing a new system for when this one inevitably breaks?

[Anonymous No.54097423]

>>54097228
>everyone starts turning into trannies; bigger government means women have more power; women with power always turn their men into trannies.
pic related, when this happened in 1420

[Anonymous No.54097445]

>>54097398
Yep, pretty much. Fractional reserve banking clearly doesn't work, so they will push a CBDC as the superior alternative to avoid bank runs and keep deposits safe.

[Anonymous No.54097613]

>>54097398
Yes. Everyone knows that the system has to reset eventually. Thus far they've managed to extend it for decade longer than it was expected. 08 was close to being the true 'big one' but they avoided that and basically bought some extra time to set up the next system. They don't want to end up in a similar situation to the ussr where it just suddenly ends with no plan.

[Anonymous No.54097787]

>>54097116
I'm not sure that things are as linear as that little graphic makes them look.

The big reason for the change that is largely related to low interest rates is much higher public and private debt. Essentially, everyone racks up debt when rates are low for a very long time, because why the fuck not? This becomes a problem as rates rise as they refinance or have to seek further funding.

Other factors are:
Demographic decline
End of China exporting deflation
ESG trashing cheap energy
Decline in innovation
Misallocation of investment
Failure to invest in appropriate infrastructure
Failure to invest in appropriate workforce education
De facto encouragement of moral hazard and rentier capitalism

[Anonymous No.54097957]

>>54097787
I took the graph from another thread. It's basically charting the area under the spikes of the FED funds rate chart, so I guess it represents the "pressure" imparted by the interest rates (level of rates times time) imparted on the system before they have to pivot.

>>54097445
>>54097613
>>54097787
What are your takes on "peak oil," or the end of cheap energy in general and how it factors into all of this?

[Anonymous No.54097982]

>>54097957
I'll have to remember to proofread my posts before posting..

[Anonymous No.54098056]

>>54095545
The Federal Reserve's decision to cut interest rates is intended to stimulate economic activity by making borrowing cheaper and encouraging spending and investment. However, the impact of interest rate cuts on financial markets and asset prices can be complex and multi-faceted.

One reason why prices may fall after the Federal Reserve cuts rates is that the market may have already priced in the expected rate cut, and once the cut is announced, there may be a sell-off as investors take profits. This is known as "buy the rumor, sell the news" phenomenon.

Another reason is that lower interest rates can lead to a weaker currency, which can make imports more expensive and push up inflation. This can create concerns about future inflationary pressures, which can lead to a sell-off in stocks and bonds.

Furthermore, lower interest rates can also mean lower yields on fixed-income investments such as bonds, which can prompt investors to shift their money out of bonds and into other assets such as stocks. This can lead to a temporary boost in stock prices, but once the impact of the rate cut wears off, stocks may fall back to their previous levels or even lower.

In summary, the impact of Federal Reserve rate cuts on financial markets and asset prices is complex and depends on a variety of factors, including market expectations, inflationary pressures, and investor sentiment. While rate cuts can provide a short-term boost to stocks and other assets, they may not necessarily result in sustained market gains over the long term.

[Anonymous No.54098073]

>>54097957
Peak oil absolutely is playing a part. Old boomers love to cope that muh oil is infinite and we will never run out, but it is objective reality that EROEI is declining for oil. Input costs are rising over time, and this means we are less able to use oil extraction as a means of fueling growth and prosperity. It's still the best fuel source we have, unfortunately. Energy is everything. As long as energy is cheap and abundant you can have a corrupt broken system that is still wildly successful. If the pie is getting bigger, then the plebs won't care that their portion of the pie is actually a smaller percentage, they just see that their slice is getting bigger. Once the whole pie's growth starts to shrink, and the effect of their diminishing slices relative to the wealthy becomes apparent, that's when the cracks show and you get civil unrest.

[Anonymous No.54098127]

>>54098056
This is a bot post

[Anonymous No.54098158]

>>54098127
Yes, it sounded very much like ChatGPT, I agree.

[Anonymous No.54098175]

>>54098073
I'm wonder why it is that we're approaching the EROEI energy cliff at the same time that we're approaching the end of the monetary system. Is the decline of the monetary system in fact an expression of the decline in cheap energy? And is the skyrocketing debt how the system papers over the decline, by pulling purchasing power from the future into the present?

[Anonymous No.54098353]

>>54098175
yes

[Reminder No.54098362]

The price isn't going anywhere this is the golden crab run

[Anonymous No.54098375]

>>54095339
What does pivot mean, anon?

[Anonymous No.54098414]

>>54098175
>Is the decline of the monetary system in fact an expression of the decline in cheap energy?
Pretty much. Like I was saying in my last post, during "good times" you can do a lot of bad things and it doesn't matter as much. The era of cheap oil is the global equivalent of that random small town in the US which elected a dog as its mayor. It didn't matter for them because it's a peaceful well-functioning town anyway. Similarly, when you have cheap energy, your monetary system can be abused and your economy distorted for a long time. We kept costs low in the US for ages by importing cheap crap from China. This wouldn't be possible without cheap energy which makes it more cost effective to ship things around the entire globe instead of just using American labors to produce them locally.

The skyrocketing debt is exactly as you describe, they try to mimic the geniune energy-rich prosperity and growth of the past by increasing the amount of paper claims on future wealth. That wealth will never materialize, because you need cheap energy and a productive society to produce it, but as long as everyone believes in the paper claims then the musical chairs game can continue.

[Anonymous No.54098465]

>>54095339
Trigger, but not the cause

[Banhamster No.54098518]

>>54098414
>...during "good times" you can do a lot of bad things and it doesn't matter as much. The era of cheap oil...
Literally what happened to Venezuela. What was once the posterchild of marxists, it's turned into a "not actually socialist" hellhole when the oil money ran out.

[Anonymous No.54098536]

>>54097957
Can you link to the thread, I want to get the details on their method

[Anonymous No.54098550]

>>54097423
go back to /pol/ glownigger

[Anonymous No.54098743]

>>54098175
Don't forget that we're also in the final part of value adding through mechanisation of labor. It's why people are so hyped about AI, since it could be the final piece of the puzzle to make certain tasks entirely automated.

[Anonymous No.54098991]

>>54098536
>>/biz/thread/S54036232#p54036344

>>54098414
>The skyrocketing debt is exactly as you describe, they try to mimic the geniune energy-rich prosperity and growth of the past by increasing the amount of paper claims on future wealth
The scary thing is that this suggests the collapse will be that much more intense, since instead of a comparatively slow decline, we're doing everything possible to stay on the peak of the mountain while everything below is is hollowed out.

>>54098743
I think you're right. Replacing humans with automated mechanisms is a big part of this. It's kind of strange that all these threads appear converging toward the same point around 2030.

[Anonymous No.54099356]

>>54097957
Peak oil and the end of cheap energy in general is overestimated. It's a consistent shibboleth that exists for a few reasons, which can be summed up as 'midwittery'- but in detail:

1. There is a lot of oil out there. What is quoted as 'the world's remaining oil reserves' is actually the oil that has (a) Been discovered (b) Been declared (there are reasons businesses and nations would not want to declare all reserves prior to exploitation c) Is technically feasible to exploit *at that moment in time*. So an analyst/academic/jo*rnalist looking at a graph and some tables has no idea of the reality. This is why we have had peak oil declared in the 70s, 90s, late 00s, and today.

2. Nuclear power is not what it was forty or fifty years ago when further building was mostly shelved in the West. It is a cheap, safe, and very viable form of energy generation. Again, a lot of the 'analysis' out there is based on the first and second generation reactors built *seventy or sixty years ago* (think about how much better cars and planes are compared to 1960) primarily as a source of cheap fissile material for weapons, with energy, efficiency and safety as secondary concerns. Uranium reserves are massively understated for the same reasons given for oil in (1). And that's before you then consider Thorium and breeder reactors.

Current energy problems are because of under-investment and malinvestment (solar panels in Northern Europe, etc). These are driven by moronic politicians, ESG, a desire to use climate politics to force socialism, and geopolitics. And if anything pushes Russia and China ahead of the West, it won't be AI, Disinformation, war, etc, but the simple continuation of this trend in the West.

[Anonymous No.54099413]

>>54099356
Oh and natural gas of course. Which has become far more viable as an energy source thanks to technological developments in extraction and distribution.

[Anonymous No.54099627]

>>54099356
What you say is the truth, but it doesn't change the fact that over time the amount of energy needed to extract a barrel of oil out of the ground has gone up massively over time. Even with technological improvements, shale oil is dogshit when it comes to EROEI. The wells dry up incredibly fast, so while it is "new" oil that doesn't mean it's the same quality as the "old" oil. It is the nature of humanity to extract the easiest stuff first, and it's never going to be easier to get oil out of the ground when it's 20,000 feet deep vs just hitting a gusher 100 years ago, no matter how great your tech is. Global oil production is basically flat in the last decade, yes this is in large part due to malinvestment, but there are no "easy" investments anymore to be made.

[Anonymous No.54100904]

Bump

[Anonymous No.54101148]

>>54098158
It's the only correct answer.

[Anonymous No.54101207]

>>54097445
>so they will push a CBDC as the superior alternative to avoid bank runs and keep deposits safe.
it is superior though.

[Anonymous No.54101213]

>>54099627
Well, there's a few things here. You're right about declining EROEI, BUT:

*EROEI that we had in the past was great, but hardly necessary to sustain civilisation (100:1 when the stuff was lying around in Texas or whatever). Also, purely relying upon EROEI is deceptive since it doesn't factor in other efficiencies, such as processes which are now automated/streamlined/done by machine. Extraction with 2:1 EROEI that requires (say, obvs arbitrary numbers) ten workers may actually be more sustainable for society than extraction of 10:1 EROEI that requires a thousand. If energy extraction only takes a tiny number of workers (which is true today, compare modern oil to 1950s coal mining, and will go further with automation), why fundamentally is it a problem for the EROEI to be 1.1:1 if there's enough of a resource out there?

*EROEI is not fixed on the supply/extraction/refining side of the equation. Again, this is the problem with looking at 'academic'/analyst information about a fast-developing field like shale. Shale is not what it was two years ago, never mind ten. Technological development in shale (and hence efficiency) works in the way that fighter aircraft development did in WW2 (i.e. shockingly quickly and way ahead of academic body of knowledge), something very rare in the modern West. So, again, all these statistics are flying around about it that are flat out untrue. Something similar applies to pipelines, tankers, refining- all much more efficient than the recent past.

*Very few things *have* to be done with oil/natgas. Perhaps aircraft, some chemicals, shipping and very heavy diesel machinery. And this could be augmented by synthetics, particularly as biotech improves. Much that we currently use oil/natgas for could be turned over to nuclear- e.g. heating and hydrogen cars. Automation would allow us to replace big diesel trucks with small hydrogen/electric ones. Anything that remains can become more efficient, too.

[Anonymous No.54101424]

>>54095339
>>54095545
Because it is Fed admitting that they can't raise rates without breaking the economy

[Anonymous No.54101462]

>>54101213
Also, EROEI doesn't have to be across one energy type. So we could, say, extract oil in the Arctic in 2050 using pumps powered by a sixth generation portable nuclear plant and shipping the oil out on megatankers powered by a miniaturised nuclear reactor. The EROEI could be negative, but that wouldn't matter since we have access to so much nuclear energy, and are willing to spend it liberally to have enough oil to run aircraft and mining machinery.

None of this is a certainty- catabolic collapse is more likely if we continue on current trajectory- but it's certainly possible.

[Anonymous No.54101538]

>>54097116
Niggers and women

[Anonymous No.54102042]

>>54098414
One of the scariest things I've ever read on biz.

The collapse is gonna suck

[Anonymous No.54102158]

>>54098991
>it's kind of strange that all these threads appear converging toward the same point around 2030.

The WEF-types all fell for the IBM predictiooner in the 70s which says the world is gonna end by 2030. This led to a bunch of goovernments who were influenced by them to create a bunch of self-fulfilling prophecies to make the predictioon come true. In reality the EROI problem could be solved tomorrow

[Anonymous No.54102305]

>>54096291
ive used this analogy before on here but it's ignored
you trim a tree until its pruned
you take the big branches off
you tidy it up
the tree rejoices that whew that's finally over
yet a long regrowth begins in the new constraints of the arborists will
only then can the tree grow again sustainably

[Anonymous No.54102757]

>>54096110
based trader. Can't explain shit. He just nootices patterns.

[Anonymous No.54103482]

>>54097423
>gog this
>mcgog that
Why dont you gog and get some pussy fucking loser

[Anonymous No.54104009]

>>54101207
>white people are statistically proven to be less racist then all other races
i'm not surprised

[Anonymous No.54104571]

>>54097116
the can is flying a little less far every time we kick it