Capitalism, The Fed and Economic Policy

tempo_n_groove said:

static111 said:

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!

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.

I'll say you're both right.

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.

static111 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/tyson-closure-workers-lexington-nebraska-beef-plant-638e615f6225bc7452767d2bc836890c?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-12-27-One+Must-Read

So much for the American dream 

That was a really sad article.  

The sad thing is it could happen to anyone in any industry in any town or city at any time.  I have driven through old abandoned towns it’s just sad that profits always get put before people.

Although it’s a sad story, Where in that article are profits discussed?

“ Tyson says it’s closing the plant to “right-size” its beef business after a historically low cattle herd in the U.S. and the company’s expected loss of $600 million on beef production next fiscal year.”

Are you being intentionally naive or obtuse? Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value. You can define that by profit, Ebit, net income, or other financial metrics. But any decision they make is fundamentally connected to value. 

You don’t think losing 600mm affected their profit?

Are you? Their beef business is losing money. There are no profits in their beef business. 

is this how your business operates? Just give up your silliness always “protecting your friends” at any cost.

You said they never said anything about profits. A loss is lost profits. It’s clearly about profits. I didn’t opine as to whether the company had other levers to pull or whether the closing was the right thing to do. I don’t know enough. But claiming it’s not about profits is really absurd. 

The issue is within that town. The beef segment that scaled back had no profits and Tyson overall is hurting financially. Companies have the right to manage by segment, and that one had no profits. Companies typically dont stay in business by keeping units open that nearly drain all company resources, as is the case here. Sounds like what you want is that town to be subsidized by other Tyson  segments. Your employer may have more in common, why don’t you subsidize that segment and cover the employment costs for that town? Being it to the bosses and get rewarded. More handouts. Good solutions.

If you don’t think that a company being able to devastate an entire town because of profits is a bad thing and a sign of the problems of capitalism, I don’t think you have a heart or soul.

* The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

josevolution said:

https://apnews.com/article/tyson-closure-workers-lexington-nebraska-beef-plant-638e615f6225bc7452767d2bc836890c?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-12-27-One+Must-Read

So much for the American dream 

That was a really sad article.  

The sad thing is it could happen to anyone in any industry in any town or city at any time.  I have driven through old abandoned towns it’s just sad that profits always get put before people.

Although it’s a sad story, Where in that article are profits discussed?

“ Tyson says it’s closing the plant to “right-size” its beef business after a historically low cattle herd in the U.S. and the company’s expected loss of $600 million on beef production next fiscal year.”

Are you being intentionally naive or obtuse? Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value. You can define that by profit, Ebit, net income, or other financial metrics. But any decision they make is fundamentally connected to value. 

You don’t think losing 600mm affected their profit?

Are you? Their beef business is losing money. There are no profits in their beef business. 

is this how your business operates? Just give up your silliness always “protecting your friends” at any cost.

You said they never said anything about profits. A loss is lost profits. It’s clearly about profits. I didn’t opine as to whether the company had other levers to pull or whether the closing was the right thing to do. I don’t know enough. But claiming it’s not about profits is really absurd. 

The issue is within that town. The beef segment that scaled back had no profits and Tyson overall is hurting financially. Companies have the right to manage by segment, and that one had no profits. Companies typically dont stay in business by keeping units open that nearly drain all company resources, as is the case here. Sounds like what you want is that town to be subsidized by other Tyson  segments. Your employer may have more in common, why don’t you subsidize that segment and cover the employment costs for that town? Being it to the bosses and get rewarded. More handouts. Good solutions.