Source item

From the repost below: The Fed MUST cut rates to "save" US consumers. More rate CUTS are coming into one of the hottest stock markets in history. Own assets or be left behind. -- Bankrate conducts a survey asking about the ability to cover a $1,000 emergency: Only 41% of Americans say they could pay for a $1,000 unexpected expense entirely from savings. 59% unable to do so without borrowing, selling something, or other means. -- 59% of the public (and maybe a lot more if Bankrate raised the threshold to $5k/$10k) cannot own assets because they don't have the means to buy them. So they believe that stocks soaring to save the economy not only does nothing for them, but might even anger them, since the "rich" are getting bailed out while they are stuck with ever-higher prices. Isn't this always the case? The poor hate when stocks go up. I would argue no. This is new post-COVID. See the chart Consumer confidence (orange) tracked stock prices (blue) closely UNTIL 2020. Now they move in opposite directions. Why? I have argued that consumer confidence is in the dumps because of rising prices (affordability) more than jobs (the unemployment rate is 4.4%). So, I will repeat what I have asked numerous times: How does the Fed help the bottom 59% (or more) by cutting rates to crank up the stock market to the point that investment analysis is screaming every Degen into stocks or "be left behind?" Suppose @markzandi is correct, and the top 10% now account for 50% of consumer spending (record concentration). How does fattening the brokerage accounts of the top 10%, giving them the wherewithal to empty store shelves faster and drive home prices even higher, fix affordability?