# Stock Markets, Tariffs, Coronavirus **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2020, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451 "2020-02-24T21:02:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/383 "2020-05-08T19:22:44Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > See, this method of argumentation only ever works if you can demonstrate equivalent logic between statements. Indeed. How about the immediately following three sentences in my post, where I laid out the basis for my analogy explicitly? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/384 "2020-05-08T19:39:17Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > I should also point out that even if I _were_ wrong about one thing(and as a human being, there’s sure to be plenty I get wrong) it wouldn’t invalidate any other thing or factual argument I’ve made. Arguments stand on their own, independent of the speaker. To believe otherwise is a genetic fallacy. Although in principle all arguments ultimately stand or fall on their merits, when somebody insists that the sky is green it’s not a genetic fallacy to treat other observations that they make with greater skepticism, and to be less inclined to feel that a debate with that person on other issues is likely to be productive. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/385 "2020-05-08T19:46:00Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > The board only. And that board is not like the board of a normal corporation. What really matters is the FOMC, which does include the board, but also representatives from the member banks over which congress has little to no input whatsoever. > Profits, as in what’s left over after money is transferred to the member banks/share holders. The term profit is not to be confused with “revenue” and what counts as an expense in that context is important to note here. > Not even remotely. The federal government has little to no influence over the fed, except for appointing the board. They don’t even have recall powers. And the influence of the board is not so great as one might be initially inclined to think. You do have a point buried in there: member banks (private) have a half-vote in the election of Federal Reserve Bank presidents (they appoint the Class C Directors), who then comprise a minority of the FOMC. Member banks do get their 6% on their reserves (they are required to keep these with the federal reserve, for reasons dating to the depression related to bank stability), which is an expense. Profits, though, accrue to the Treasury. And, yes, the Federal Reserve Board is independent after its directors have been appointed. That’s intentional - to isolate them from political interference. Worked pretty well, up until Powell, anyway. If that makes them nearly as federal as Federal Express, a wholly private company whose profits accrue to shareholders, whose leaders are appointed by shareholders, and whose policies are intended to benefit solely shareholders, well, we’re just going to have to disagree on that. > [@](#): > > There are three branches of the Federal Government, and the Federal Reserve isn’t one of them. It’s a private corporation - complete with shareholders - that has limited government intervention (namely, appointing the board). I’m not going to get in a zen koan about whether it’s a branch or part of the executive or what. Right-wingers have been pushing a theory that you can’t have an independent Fed because that violates the unitary executive enshrined in the Constitution. Courts haven’t wanted to bite, though, so there’s a bizarre, quasi-government structure that has resulted through a series of opinions. It’s not private, it’s not a branch of the federal government, and it’s not part of the executive, yet it’s all three. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/386 "2020-05-08T19:50:07Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > Only insofar as all US based corporations are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Congress has no recall authority over the fed, nor does the president. Once nominated, the appointees can flip congress the bird and there is literally nothing that congress can do about it. Several fed chairs have \*done \*this to several presidents. It’s completely true that the president can’t do anything. The Fed doesn’t exist as an extension of executive power. It exists as an extension of Congressional power. Congress could eliminate the Fed tomorrow if they wanted to do it. The Fed exists at the order of Congress, by act of Congress. And in fact, Congress regularly changes the powers that the Fed has, by new acts of Congress. The Fed must comply. Not too long ago, Congress dictated that the regional Fed banks were required to pay smaller dividends to their members, so that the Fed could remit more money directly to Treasury. So what happened? The Fed immediately started paying smaller dividends to their member banks, in order to remit more to Treasury. Because they had to. Because their powers exist at the grace of Congress, and can be taken away whenever Congress decides. The Fed can’t “flip congress the bird” when Congress makes an order. The Fed’s powers only exist because Congress has granted them those powers. Congress can remove that grant whenever it wants, or change the exact nature of those powers. And it regularly does so change them. ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/387 "2020-05-08T19:51:47Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Although in principle all arguments ultimately stand or fall on their merits, when somebody insists that the sky is green it’s not a genetic fallacy to treat other observations that they make with greater skepticism, and to be less inclined to feel that a debate with that person on other issues is likely to be productive. Okay, then why are you here insisting the sky is green? > [@](#): > > In United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Western Union Telegraph Co.,[5] the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Instrumentalities like the national banks or the federal reserve banks, in which there are private interests, **are not departments of the government. They are private corporations in which the government has an interest**.” The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[6] In Lewis v. United States,[7] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: “**The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations**.” This is settled law. I’m sorry that it doesn’t comport to whatever belief system you have, but we’re talking about legal entities with strict legal definitions. The supreme court, in multiple instances, has made this point **irrefutable**. I don’t personally agree with the majority of relevant decisions pertaining to the Supreme Court… but as a matter of legal fact, my point stands. The Fed is a private institution. Only the Board of Directors can be considered relevant to the federal government, and that’s not the board of the 12 member banks or their assets, only 7/12’s of the voting power of the FOMC. That’s it. If you still dispute this, find me some relevant legal rulings and stop making claims out of thin air. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/388 "2020-05-08T20:05:20Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > Member banks do get their 6% on their reserves (they are required to keep these with the federal reserve, for reasons dating to the depression related to bank stability), which is an expense. I was about to say “Not anymore for the largest banks, Congress changed that to free up money for highway funds”. Even had [a cite ready](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-dividends/federal-reserve-finalizes-lower-dividend-for-member-banks-idUSKBN13I1VB) for that one. Then I went hunting for more details, and although cutting the dividend was genuinely the plan for a while, it looks like they eventually walked it back. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/389 "2020-05-08T20:14:09Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > This is settled law. Since nobody has disputed that the Fed is in a technical legal sense a private corporation, I’m not sure why you feel the urge to post cites that demonstrate that, or to highlight a clause relating to sovereign immunity that has no relevance to anything. Or were you planning to sue the Fed for its irresponsible policies? ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/390 "2020-05-08T20:41:21Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > It exists as an extension of Congressional power. Close enough to accurate (congress deferred a power granted to it by the constitution - legally or otherwise - to the Fed), though this statement itself doesn’t mean congress has direct _control_ or even oversight. > [@Hellestal](#): > > Congress could eliminate the Fed tomorrow if they wanted to do it. Yes and no. They could - as with any corporation, public private or otherwise - dissolve the Fed. Or nationalize it. But what would happen (from the same wiki article) is… _“If a Reserve Bank were ever dissolved or liquidated, the Act states that members would be eligible to redeem their stock at its purchase value, while any remaining surplus would belong to the federal government.”_ I can’t find anything on how that “purchase price” determined - I’m assuming it’s not talking about the _initial_ nominal value at time of purchase and I have no idea how one would ascertain the market value of a dissolved Fed… Of course, if we’re speaking realistically, they could violate this or any other tenant of law because governments can do just about anything… but legally the fed would get chopped up and shipped off to the member banks… mostly? Again that really depends on how the price of something that can’t be bought or sold would be determined. But the real point is, this doesn’t make the Fed not private. Again, Microsoft could be dissolved by congress tomorrow if they wanted to do it. Microsoft is not part of the Federal Government. > [@Hellestal](#): > > The Fed exists at the order of Congress, by act of Congress. I’m not aware of a US corporation that exists outside of the purview of a government (state or federal). There’s a reason you incorporate _in Delaware_ for example, and not just “incorporate.” And congress can nationalize or dissolve _any_ corporation. That this particular corporation got its start from congress doesn’t actually make it part of or directly subject to congress in any way that any other private US corporation wouldn’t be. Now, as the supreme court noted, **certainly** congress has an interest in regulating this particular corporation… but they’re separate legal entities. The fed (outside of the board) is emphatically **NOT** part of the US government. And before you say it is again, find me ANY legal ruling to support your claim. Because you aren’t arguing against me, you’re arguing against the Supreme Court. Multiple rulings, in fact. > [@Hellestal](#): > > And in fact, Congress regularly changes the powers that the Fed has, by new acts of Congress. The Fed must comply. Not too long ago, Congress dictated that the regional Fed banks were required to pay smaller dividends to their members, so that the Fed could remit more money directly to Treasury. > > So what happened? > > The Fed immediately started paying smaller dividends to their member banks, in order to remit more to Treasury. Because they had to. Because their powers exist at the grace of Congress, and can be taken away whenever Congress decides. The Fed can’t “flip congress the bird” when Congress makes an order. Congress can certainly change the Fed’s legal structure - as it can with any corporation in the US - and has in the past. That doesn’t make it part of congress. And it doesn’t give congress direct oversight. In fact, many congressmen chaffe at the lack of oversight at the fed (which is limited to a very special kind of audit), and have chaffed at the inability to remove appointees. If McConnel wanted a hypothetical appointee to vote a certain way, there’s precious little he could do about it once that appointee is in. And if you haven’t been paying attention, **most of the fed’s recent programs have been strictly illegal and in direct contravention of the Federal Reserve Act.** ([elaboration](https://wallstreetonparade.com/2020/04/gundlach-feds-corporate-bond-buying-program-is-illegal-fed-says-program-isnt-operational/)). Congress can’t get it’s stuff together to unify against the feds actions, and couldn’t weather the blow if they tried. It’d be a murder suicide. In theory, congress holds the cards (because it’s a sovereign government and the Fed is not). In practical reality, it doesn’t. But even if it did, that wouldn’t make the Fed a part of the US government or uniquely subject to direct oversight in a way that wouldn’t be true of a private corporation. Congress’ hands are actually shockingly tied when it comes to the Fed. And even if they _weren’t_ there’s a difference between “being legally related entities” and “one entity having extremely limited control over another.” ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/391 "2020-05-08T21:02:20Z")
Also, after about 10 seconds of googling… > [@](#): > > As an instrument of monetary policy, the Fed was designed > to be politically independent. **However, this has created > challenges in conducting congressional oversight.** For example, > unlike most other government agencies, the Fed is self- > financing and its budget is not subject to the appropriations > or authorization process.\2\ **There is no congressional > budgetary oversight of the Fed and no regular process for > Congress to ensure the Fed is properly utilizing its funds.**\3\ > Unlike other government agencies, under the current system > Congress is unable to use control over the Fed’s resources as > leverage to achieve its goals.\4\ [Sauce](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/115th-congress/house-report/318/1) ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2020, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/392 "2020-05-08T21:02:27Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > Yes and no. They could - as with any corporation, public private or otherwise - dissolve the Fed. Or nationalize it. But what would happen (from the same wiki article) is… _“If a Reserve Bank were ever dissolved or liquidated, the Act states that members would be eligible to redeem their stock at its purchase value, while any remaining surplus would belong to the federal government.”_ I can’t find anything on how that “purchase price” determined - I’m assuming it’s not talking about the _initial_ nominal value at time of purchase and I have no idea how one would ascertain the market value of a dissolved Fed… It’s absolutely talking about the initial nominal value of the capital purchased. All nationally chartered banks are required, by law, to purchase “shares” of their regional Fed bank. That money is tied up, cut off, taken away from them. It’s an expense because these shares are not like shares of any other company. They can’t be sold, can’t be transferred, can’t be used as collateral. They’re just dead. They are “assets” , but they are assets that, by law, are required to just sit on the books, doing nothing. So to compensate for that money being taken away, the banks receive a fixed dividend of 6% of the value of their shares. Again, this is all by Congressional statute. It’s all act of Congress. What you’re reading there is that if the regional bank charter is dissolved, all of the private banks get their original money back. Because of course they do. > [@etasyde](#): > > Of course, if we’re speaking realistically, they could violate this or any other tenant of law because governments can do just about anything… That’s true enough. But this wouldn’t be the violation of any law. Private banks are forced to hand over a certain amount of money to buy “shares” of their local Fed bank, and if the Fed bank dissolved, they would get that original money back. This is all fairly straightforward, after you dig past the morass of Fed history. > [@etasyde](#): > > But the real point is, this doesn’t make the Fed not private. It doesn’t make any of the twelve regional banks “not private”. But when people talk about “the Fed”, they’re essentially always talking about [the government agency](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm) headquartered in Washington, DC. These are the people who make all the big decisions. > [@Federal Reserve](#): > > The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government and reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress. This is where the power is, where the decisions get made. If you want to argue that the twelve regional banks are privately chartered organizations, then sure, that’s technically true, even though their charters are subject to Congressional whim. They pay 6% dividends because an act of Congress declares that they have to pay 6% dividends. They can’t change that payout without permission, unless essentially any other private corporation. You can point out that the FOMC has members from the presidents of the regional banks, but still, a president can’t even be appointed to that position without the permission of the agency in DC. And even given those presidents on the FOMC, it remains the case the outright majority of FOMC votes are from government appointed members. Even more than that, as policy moves toward interest on excess reserves, rather than the federal funds rate (which has been effectively neutered as a policy instrument in this era of massive reserves), that shifts emphasis even more toward the Board of Governors who don’t actually have to consult the rest of the FOMC to decide internal Fed rates like the discount rate or the rate on excess reserves. When people refer to “the Fed” in reference to the monetary authority of the country, they’re talking about decisions made by the government agency. The regional banks are essentially just privately-chartered mechanisms that exist solely to carry out the will of the agency, which has all the power. > [@etasyde](#): > > And before you say it is again, find me ANY legal ruling to support your claim. Because you aren’t arguing against me, you’re arguing against the Supreme Court. Multiple rulings, in fact. Which claim? The claim that Congress can change the Fed’s powers on a whim? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2020, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/393 "2020-05-10T17:47:04Z")
Analysts wonder why the S&P 500 Index is above its October low, despite the on-going economic catastrophe. > [@](#): > > One analyst speculated to Bloomberg that with casinos and sports betting closed down, some people were playing the markets instead. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/394 "2021-03-18T00:55:16Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > DJIA closed down 2,013 points @ 23,851. > > Guys, I think DOW 25,000 is in play again! > > #Winning Normally, I don’t bump threads that are dormant but a thread of this nature which can only answer the question with future data sometimes needs a bump. There was a tremendous amount of doom and gloom in this thread and a tremendous amount of straight up bad and destructive advice. A lot of it driven by emotion and not historical or fundamental analysis. Covid-19 is bad. A global pandemic disrupting productivity was bound to have an immediate short term negative impact on financial markets due to uncertainty and fear. However, other global events such as pandemics of the past and global wars didn’t seem to have a long term negative impact on the financial markets of the surviving nations. So, historically, it appears that as long as the government that controls the money supply remains intact over the long term productivity and wealth will grow. Two dates in this thread have a lot of posts: 2/20 and 3/20. The Dow on those dates was 29,348 and 20,081, respectively. Today, the Dow is at 33,015. That is a 12% and 64% increase. Now, I’m a long term investor and I buy stocks twice a month and I don’t usually have a large bank account balance to buy more on dips. Plus, philosophically, I don’t get into this market timing thing. But I did have a spare $5k on 3/3 to take advantage of what looked like mass panic selling. That purchase in VTSAX is up 32%. This isn’t a gloat or a brag post. The market may have a 4-5 year or even 10 year not so good run and that purchase that is at the moment looking wise may not appear to be wise during that interval. The point of the post is to remind people that the daily, weekly, yearly fluctuations are noise and that one of the greatest hinderances to planning for the future is making decisions based upon emotion. Selling low and buying high is the exact opposite of what folks should do and yet due to emotion quite often that’s how folks behave. Remember, pros can’t beat a blindfolded monkey with regards to picking stocks. I doubt amateurs can do so either. Cite for the monkey study. [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB991681622136214659](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB991681622136214659) Now that said, I do hope that in the future that in the face of a downturn due to seemingly calamitous events that folks take the historical viewpoint in public and personal discussion because propagating the problem of emotional investment and planning does no one any good. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/395 "2021-03-18T01:30:06Z")
Lol, you may think a stock market which is pushing record highs when unemployment is still 10,000,000 jobs lower and 500,000 dead productive citizens later is some sort of reaffirmation of conservative economics, but dude, it’s just more debt and monetary expansion asset inflation and has been since Obama, but ratcheted up because of COVID. Hell, total market cap is pushing 200% of GDP and you’re arguing things are peachy. Anyone understanding macro gets this market is vastly and purposely inflated. But thanks for the bump! [![Imgur](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51034977471_294803bfba_b.jpg "2021-03-14\_01-54-37") ](https://www.flickr.com/photos/68782016@N08/51034977471/) [![Imgur](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51029262662_644eeec107_b.jpg "2021-03-12\_08-56-07") ](https://www.flickr.com/photos/68782016@N08/51029262662/) [![Imgur](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51028974566_f4321df23d_b.jpg "2021-03-12\_07-39-01") ](https://www.flickr.com/photos/68782016@N08/51028974566/) ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/396 "2021-03-18T01:35:17Z")
I’m not going to disagree with that post because I share some of the same fears. I do think that the US economy and society has some fundamental problems that are going to lead to political upheaval in the future. Automation and globalization have been and are going to be really disruptive. Those graphs are actually sort of scary when combined with the numbers out of work. It feels like it should be quite inflationary. However, with regards to investing in financial markets, it is vitally important to remove emotion and short term thinking from the decision making. And as long as dollars are the global reserve currency and US corporations are strong and the US courts sort of work then long term investing in stocks isn’t as foolish as short term speculation or market timing. Finally, what alternative is there to park excess cash or to invest for retirement? Definitely, can’t trust the crooks in government to manage it. ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/397 "2021-03-18T05:14:23Z")
@JohnT You beat me to it. Was going to post those same graphs. This is just a round of declaring victory before the music stops. We’re in a **worse** position than the last time this was talked about, and people are declaring victory? I’ll say it again: until lives are destroyed and people are so ruined that the very _idea_ of buying a stock is sickening, we haven’t had the real crash. You can recognize a top when “only an idiot _wouldn’t_ participate!” and a bottom when “only an idiot _would_ participate!” becomes the common refrain. COVID was bad, but the fed printed up more money, just like 2008. It’s diminishing returns, though, and they’re now stuck at the 0 interest bound with unstable bond yields _and_ the looming threat of widespread inflation. Stay tuned. > [@octopus](#): > > Finally, what alternative is there to park excess cash or to invest for retirement? Crypto. Precious metals. Real assets (eg, invest in a cellphone tower, or reasonably priced land if you can find a deal). ---
**Author:** ![Chad\_Sudan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chad_sudan/32/4509_2.png) [@Chad\_Sudan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chad_Sudan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2021, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451/398 "2021-03-18T10:10:43Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > You can recognize a top when “only an idiot _wouldn’t_ participate!” and a bottom when “only an idiot _would_ participate!” becomes the common refrain. Recognizing unsustainable factors in the stock market boom is one thing. Thinking you can turn this to your advantage by guessing at a top or a bottom in the market is another. As I learned this year, “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stock-markets-tariffs-coronavirus/848451.md?page=19)