Capitalism, The Fed and Economic Policy
Comments
-
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus now
https://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.0 -
mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.0 -
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.0 -
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5677021-trump-targets-housing-affordability/
He calls on congress to codify it. It will be interesting if the GOP senate supports this.0 -
mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.0 -
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.0 -
mrussel1 said:
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.Really, man. I won’t even bother with googles overview, just post the link for posterity
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&client=safari&hs=D2m9&sca_esv=512b3b0f1298b71e&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n79QF_XtZmdaGTLicfpIzOsllI1Jw%3A1767825473537&ei=QeBeaYjNIJ2vptQPo-zN0Qs&ved=0ahUKEwjI8f-Kv_qRAxWdl4kEHSN2M7oQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiTXVzYSBnb3Z0IHVzZXMgbW9uZXRhcnkgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBpbmZsYXRpb24gdG8gcmVkdWNlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBuYXRpb25hbCBkZWJ0SABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp0 -
Did I not say it cold be a second or third order effect, not the purpose? Why yes, I said it twice.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.Really, man. I won’t even bother with googles overview, just post the link for posterity
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&client=safari&hs=D2m9&sca_esv=512b3b0f1298b71e&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n79QF_XtZmdaGTLicfpIzOsllI1Jw%3A1767825473537&ei=QeBeaYjNIJ2vptQPo-zN0Qs&ved=0ahUKEwjI8f-Kv_qRAxWdl4kEHSN2M7oQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiTXVzYSBnb3Z0IHVzZXMgbW9uZXRhcnkgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBpbmZsYXRpb24gdG8gcmVkdWNlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBuYXRpb25hbCBkZWJ0SABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serpTo quote your AI buddy, “ though this is a complex, often unintended consequence rather than a primary policy goal, with potential negative impacts on future borrowing costs and central bank credibility.”You understand the concept of second order effects, right?0 -
mrussel1 said:
Did I not say it cold be a second or third order effect, not the purpose? Why yes, I said it twice.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.Really, man. I won’t even bother with googles overview, just post the link for posterity
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&client=safari&hs=D2m9&sca_esv=512b3b0f1298b71e&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n79QF_XtZmdaGTLicfpIzOsllI1Jw%3A1767825473537&ei=QeBeaYjNIJ2vptQPo-zN0Qs&ved=0ahUKEwjI8f-Kv_qRAxWdl4kEHSN2M7oQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiTXVzYSBnb3Z0IHVzZXMgbW9uZXRhcnkgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBpbmZsYXRpb24gdG8gcmVkdWNlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBuYXRpb25hbCBkZWJ0SABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serpTo quote your AI buddy, “ though this is a complex, often unintended consequence rather than a primary policy goal, with potential negative impacts on future borrowing costs and central bank credibility.”You understand the concept of second order effects, right?This is the top level of my search result. It mirrors my thought about the topic, although I’m not married to it. I’d only add the govt obviously doesn’t want to promote these types of goals.
”Yes, the U.S. government can use monetary policy, primarily through the Federal Reserve, to influence inflation, which effectively reduces the real value of the national debt by diminishing what bondholders are owed, transferring wealth to the government, and lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio, though this is often a byproduct of broader economic goals and carries risks like inflation expectations. The Fed adjusts interest rates to manage inflation and employment, and higher inflation makes existing dollar-denominated debt worth less in real terms, benefiting the borrower (the government). “….
edit, and it’s not my ai buddy lol, it’s freaking google, and they are positioned to be a force in this new market. I’d say come invest with us.Post edited by Lerxst1992 on0 -
It appears you are using monetary policy and QE interchangeably. QE is one monetary policy tool. Another is the fed funds rate. The latter is what is historically used to control inflation and the second bullet you posted. Again, QE started in 2009 as an effort to stimulate economic growth, not to reduce the deficit. We did not go to austerity to deal with the financial crisis, we went the opposite way (wisely).Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Did I not say it cold be a second or third order effect, not the purpose? Why yes, I said it twice.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.Really, man. I won’t even bother with googles overview, just post the link for posterity
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&client=safari&hs=D2m9&sca_esv=512b3b0f1298b71e&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n79QF_XtZmdaGTLicfpIzOsllI1Jw%3A1767825473537&ei=QeBeaYjNIJ2vptQPo-zN0Qs&ved=0ahUKEwjI8f-Kv_qRAxWdl4kEHSN2M7oQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiTXVzYSBnb3Z0IHVzZXMgbW9uZXRhcnkgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBpbmZsYXRpb24gdG8gcmVkdWNlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBuYXRpb25hbCBkZWJ0SABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serpTo quote your AI buddy, “ though this is a complex, often unintended consequence rather than a primary policy goal, with potential negative impacts on future borrowing costs and central bank credibility.”You understand the concept of second order effects, right?This is the top level of my search result. It mirrors my thought about the topic, although I’m not married to it. I’d only add the govt obviously doesn’t want to promote these types of goals.
”Yes, the U.S. government can use monetary policy, primarily through the Federal Reserve, to influence inflation, which effectively reduces the real value of the national debt by diminishing what bondholders are owed, transferring wealth to the government, and lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio, though this is often a byproduct of broader economic goals and carries risks like inflation expectations. The Fed adjusts interest rates to manage inflation and employment, and higher inflation makes existing dollar-denominated debt worth less in real terms, benefiting the borrower (the government). “….
edit, and it’s not my ai buddy lol, it’s freaking google, and they are positioned to be a force in this new market. I’d say come invest with us.
FYI, I first bought google (Alphabet) in about 2006. I've been on that train for 20 years now. My point is that the AI service you used made my point nicely. Thanks.0 -
mrussel1 said:
It appears you are using monetary policy and QE interchangeably. QE is one monetary policy tool. Another is the fed funds rate. The latter is what is historically used to control inflation and the second bullet you posted. Again, QE started in 2009 as an effort to stimulate economic growth, not to reduce the deficit. We did not go to austerity to deal with the financial crisis, we went the opposite way (wisely).Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Did I not say it cold be a second or third order effect, not the purpose? Why yes, I said it twice.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.Really, man. I won’t even bother with googles overview, just post the link for posterity
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&client=safari&hs=D2m9&sca_esv=512b3b0f1298b71e&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n79QF_XtZmdaGTLicfpIzOsllI1Jw%3A1767825473537&ei=QeBeaYjNIJ2vptQPo-zN0Qs&ved=0ahUKEwjI8f-Kv_qRAxWdl4kEHSN2M7oQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiTXVzYSBnb3Z0IHVzZXMgbW9uZXRhcnkgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBpbmZsYXRpb24gdG8gcmVkdWNlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBuYXRpb25hbCBkZWJ0SABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serpTo quote your AI buddy, “ though this is a complex, often unintended consequence rather than a primary policy goal, with potential negative impacts on future borrowing costs and central bank credibility.”You understand the concept of second order effects, right?This is the top level of my search result. It mirrors my thought about the topic, although I’m not married to it. I’d only add the govt obviously doesn’t want to promote these types of goals.
”Yes, the U.S. government can use monetary policy, primarily through the Federal Reserve, to influence inflation, which effectively reduces the real value of the national debt by diminishing what bondholders are owed, transferring wealth to the government, and lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio, though this is often a byproduct of broader economic goals and carries risks like inflation expectations. The Fed adjusts interest rates to manage inflation and employment, and higher inflation makes existing dollar-denominated debt worth less in real terms, benefiting the borrower (the government). “….
edit, and it’s not my ai buddy lol, it’s freaking google, and they are positioned to be a force in this new market. I’d say come invest with us.
FYI, I first bought google (Alphabet) in about 2006. I've been on that train for 20 years now. My point is that the AI service you used made my point nicely. Thanks.Congrats. So you should retire, no need to work. My language isn’t as precise as yours, I was making a general comment about a general govt strategy (monetary policy) dealing with a bad debt problem. I apologize for the incorrect term used. Perhaps align that commenting standard along all commenting here, make amt better, not just me. I got that google result here to clarify and indicate my exact point, but that’s still not good enough lol.I see the flaw in my original comment (“The biggest issue is the govt has one [best] way to pay down the national debt …)and it’s obvious when I reread I am cutting corners and going fast in that box. please apply your elevated standards to all the orange clown and orangutan comments flooding the forum.. Thanks!
Don’t get the ai hate on here, especially from a fellow LT investor. Have an associate who is looking to wind down assets , m and a related, and has a retirement account question evolving for years. Before Gemini, the standard internet search results were horrible. Every link is the same standard bs with the general obvious info, over and over. Zero help.
with Gemini I can ask follow up questions, redirect and filter answers, drill down. It’s next level compared to what was available even a year ago. You must know that but it’s better to tear away bc of politics. It’s 100x better than the old internet. When it’s time to go to an advisor, he will be much better informed. I’d expect a fellow member of the long term team to be on board and less interested in gotcha politics.Post edited by Lerxst1992 on0 -
Lot of things embedded in here. I don't hate AI. Hardly. I don't mind the AI help related to google searches and what-not. What I don't like, or at least what is not for me, is outsourcing my thinking and writing to AI. I see lots of this now and I think it turns people's brains into mush. If you can't make a compelling argument on paper, so you resort to AI, well then you're never going to make a compelling argument in a work environment where you have to think fast and use your actual brain and mouth. So the more you let AI do these things for you, the far less prepared you are to be successful.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
It appears you are using monetary policy and QE interchangeably. QE is one monetary policy tool. Another is the fed funds rate. The latter is what is historically used to control inflation and the second bullet you posted. Again, QE started in 2009 as an effort to stimulate economic growth, not to reduce the deficit. We did not go to austerity to deal with the financial crisis, we went the opposite way (wisely).Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Did I not say it cold be a second or third order effect, not the purpose? Why yes, I said it twice.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE1 was in 2009 and 2010. You are saying the central bank's priority in that time was flooding the market with cash to shrink the debt? What? Listen, I was in the thick of all of this. My company was one that was forced to take TARP even though we didn't need it. QE was not about debt management, it was about economic stimulation.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
QE is a tool to increase the money supply, and therefore liquidity in the economy. It was used in 2009 to try to stimulate growth after all of the pull-back on investments. It is essentially increasing the balance sheet of the central bank through the acquisition of gov't bonds. When you try to cool the economy, interest rates are one tool, but QT is also available and the inverse of QE. Regarding your comment about the national debt, I'm not sure how it would directly affect the national debt. Perhaps you can expand on it. I think it may have a second order effect of helping raise tax revenue through the stimulation of the economy, but I'm not familiar with any central bank, let alone ours, using it as a debt tool.Lerxst1992 said:mrussel1 said:
Why are the 80's the compare? Gen X (us) are not the ones most concerned about affordability. Millennials and Z didn't live in teh 80s so you might as well compare today to the post-war gen. They didn't live through either of them.Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
So the guy in this said that the economics is not math yet uses math to prove his point?Lerxst1992 said:tempo_n_groove said:
A chia pet cost $2 which is maybe $10 today so maybe the Chia Pet angle isn't the best? There was less crap for our parents to buy. They didn't have Keurigs and Nespresso or airfryers to have to buy. They had a coffee pot and an oven, lol.static111 said:
They were buying cigarettes and chia pets and all sorts of dumb shit back then too.. Mostpeople in the current society need some type of smart phone for work, QR codes, etc…had this shit not been pushed by businesses people wouldn’t need to have a $1000 phone. I had a dumb phone until two years ago, because it finally got to the point you have to clock in and out from work etc without a phone. I mean saying people don’t need a smart phone in 2025 seems a bit out of touch.tempo_n_groove said:
I'll say you're both right.static111 said:
I know you and mister incredible are just trying to brainwash with repetition, but the thing is the generations before millennials didn’t have to skimp to this degree just to maybe have some unrealized money in retirement. My parents and grandparents and most of my peers parents and grandparents were able to buy homes, save for retirement etc without denying themselves or their families in hopes they would maybe someday have some retirement money. All the while doing this with basic jobs like farmer, carpenter, waitress, house cleaner etc. The system is broke.Lerxst1992 said:Tim Simmons said:Maybe those towns shouldn’t have had any streaming subscriptions or Starbucks.“ "Listen, I'm going to tell you something most people don't want to hear," O'Leary said in a December YouTube video titled "If You Want To Get Rich, Stop Buying These 5 Things." "You're broke. Not because you don't make enough money, not because the economy is rigged against you, not because you didn't get lucky. You're broke because you keep buying stupid things that are keeping you poor."
"People tell me they don't have money to invest. And then I watch them spend $15 on a salad for lunch," he said. That's not a splurge. It's financial self-sabotage.”The average American spends nearly $4,000 a year eating out, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. O'Leary runs the math: investing that same $3,500 annually for 30 years at 10% could become more than $600,000. "You're trading half a million dollars in retirement wealth for convenience and fancy meals you'll forget about in 24 hours," he said.
Even your subscriptions don't escape his fire. "It's like a slow leak in your bank account—$10 here, $15 there," he said. "Cancel them today. Not tomorrow. Today."
…
Maybe open up a financial advisor service? You and your clients can go bankrupt together!
Your parents weren't buying 1000 phones or paying for streaming subscriptions. You also can save money on NOT having those things.
You can both be right about this one.
Business' are forcing phones down your throat. They can't fault you for not having it either. I know people whom don't have them and function fine. They are outliers sure.
I still see as our parents being able to work one job and afford a house and car. Their parents before them you could be a clerk at a soda stand and afford those very same two things.
A reasonable analysis of cost of living 1985 versus nowhttps://youtu.be/7vNZ84TJsXs?si=u4xLuv4whrgPTQR3
A few other things here. Early 80's I know were rough. I also live in NY so most of these points go right out the window.
I am speaking from my vantage point and how we grew up.He says it right at the outset, by almost all metrics it was worse in the 80s…income, wealth, inflation, unemployment and poverty were all worse.The biggest issue is the govt has one way to pay down the national debt, and that’s managing inflation, and making it look better than it actually is, he does make that point.Everything in our domestic economy results from quantitative easing and financial suppression. This has converted the economy from labor based to investment based. So the trick is to own assets, hence all the Netflix, Starbucks and Mr Wonderful jokes.
No matter what someone like mamdani wants to do, he can not change the fundamental way the economy operates, and can not out manage the govt and fed, and if he pushes too hard, his policies will get crushed by the financial might in this country. Let him have some small wins, but overall, he is a spec in comparison to the US economy. But the left would rather laugh than invest.
On another note, QE1 happened in 2009. Are you really arguing we were a labor economy until 2009 and now we are an investment economy? 70% of spending in this economy is consumer spending even today.IMO that shift to investor based economy was more in line with the 80s. I mentioned QE because it’s a tool the govt is using to effectively pay down the national debt, and it enhances the impact monetary policy has on investing and the value of long term assets.
The 80s represent a good comparison because Reagan’s policy shifts was fundamental to the change in how the economy functions. We’ve seen a recent trend from the left thinking socialism has the answers because nothing is affordable now. My point is it’s better to understand how the economy is functioning and what can individuals do now, leverage current rules (whether by using active real estate investing or retirement account benefits, as two examples), to better themselves economically. Works much better than socialism. So does building new homes, as you’ve indicated previously., but that can be expensive as well.
On another note, Trump evidently announced that he is going to restrict large firms from buying homes. While this is one policy I can stand behind, I'm not sure how he can legally do this without an act of congress. I hope he goes through it the right way.To shrink the debt, they flood the market with cash to keep interest rates lower than inflation ? Then they subtly change how they measure inflation to make it seem like it’s not so high. They also try to “inflate the debt away,” which was easier to do after WWII than now.
Let's try a thought exercise. QT1 was was 2017 until 2019. Do you think the central bank was intentionally growing the debt during that period? They must have been if QE is for shrinking the debt. But clearly that isn't true. QE never shrunk the debt and QT will not grow it (other than second/third order effects as I pointed out). And third, the Fed tries to keep the benchmark rate HIGHER than inflation if anything, not lower.
You are trafficking in conspiracy theories.Really, man. I won’t even bother with googles overview, just post the link for posterity
https://www.google.com/search?q=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&client=safari&hs=D2m9&sca_esv=512b3b0f1298b71e&hl=en-us&sxsrf=ANbL-n79QF_XtZmdaGTLicfpIzOsllI1Jw%3A1767825473537&ei=QeBeaYjNIJ2vptQPo-zN0Qs&ved=0ahUKEwjI8f-Kv_qRAxWdl4kEHSN2M7oQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=usa+govt+uses+monetary+policy+and+inflation+to+reduce+effective+national+debt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiTXVzYSBnb3Z0IHVzZXMgbW9uZXRhcnkgcG9saWN5IGFuZCBpbmZsYXRpb24gdG8gcmVkdWNlIGVmZmVjdGl2ZSBuYXRpb25hbCBkZWJ0SABQAFgAcAB4AZABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAKACAJgDAOIDBRIBMSBAkgcAoAcAsgcAuAcAwgcAyAcAgAgA&sclient=gws-wiz-serpTo quote your AI buddy, “ though this is a complex, often unintended consequence rather than a primary policy goal, with potential negative impacts on future borrowing costs and central bank credibility.”You understand the concept of second order effects, right?This is the top level of my search result. It mirrors my thought about the topic, although I’m not married to it. I’d only add the govt obviously doesn’t want to promote these types of goals.
”Yes, the U.S. government can use monetary policy, primarily through the Federal Reserve, to influence inflation, which effectively reduces the real value of the national debt by diminishing what bondholders are owed, transferring wealth to the government, and lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio, though this is often a byproduct of broader economic goals and carries risks like inflation expectations. The Fed adjusts interest rates to manage inflation and employment, and higher inflation makes existing dollar-denominated debt worth less in real terms, benefiting the borrower (the government). “….
edit, and it’s not my ai buddy lol, it’s freaking google, and they are positioned to be a force in this new market. I’d say come invest with us.
FYI, I first bought google (Alphabet) in about 2006. I've been on that train for 20 years now. My point is that the AI service you used made my point nicely. Thanks.Congrats. So you should retire, no need to work. My language isn’t as precise as yours, I was making a general comment about a general govt strategy (monetary policy) dealing with a bad debt problem. I apologize for the incorrect term used. Perhaps align that commenting standard along all commenting here, make amt better, not just me. I got that google result here to clarify and indicate my exact point, but that’s still not good enough lol.I see the flaw in my original comment (“The biggest issue is the govt has one [best] way to pay down the national debt …)and it’s obvious when I reread I am cutting corners and going fast in that box. please apply your elevated standards to all the orange clown and orangutan comments flooding the forum.. Thanks!
Don’t get the ai hate on here, especially from a fellow LT investor. Have an associate who is looking to wind down assets , m and a related, and has a retirement account question evolving for years. Before Gemini, the standard internet search results were horrible. Every link is the same standard bs with the general obvious info, over and over. Zero help.
with Gemini I can ask follow up questions, redirect and filter answers, drill down. It’s next level compared to what was available even a year ago. You must know that but it’s better to tear away bc of politics. It’s 100x better than the old internet. When it’s time to go to an advisor, he will be much better informed. I’d expect a fellow member of the long term team to be on board and less interested in gotcha politics.
My company is deploying AI in a number of ways. All of them cost jobs, mostly at the entry level (people who can least afford it) as well as BPO jobs offshore. We are not cutting head count, but it will certainly increase company efficiency, margin % and therefore EBIT. I don't feel bad about this because I don't owe a job to someone who does not work here today, but at a macro level, AI is going to absolutely reduce our productive workforce.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149.1K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 284 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.4K Flea Market
- 39.4K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help