We'll see how that strategy works if we run into a deflationary period.
The more that I hear about inflation-this and inflation-that in the mainstream, the more this feels like the period running up towards fall of 2008.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Inflation.......... ?
- Thread starter Hobo Hilton
- Start date
We'll see how that strategy works if we run into a deflationary period.
The more that I hear about inflation-this and inflation-that in the mainstream, the more this feels like the period running up towards fall of 2008.
I think we are more likely to see stagnation in wages / income and then a deflationary pressure in that (unless you get government money).
Coupled with rising taxes, rising property taxes and rising cost of just about everything.
People are going to get ground into the poor house no matter how frugal they try to be.
I'm not sure loading up on debt is a good idea for the average consumer who can't just get it all written off the same way the corporations can.
Coupled with rising taxes, rising property taxes and rising cost of just about everything.
People are going to get ground into the poor house no matter how frugal they try to be.
I'm not sure loading up on debt is a good idea for the average consumer who can't just get it all written off the same way the corporations can.
I agree with you regarding facebook and twitter. This forum is the only active social media platform that I participate on. I don't think it is unhealthy as long as I can walk away when necessary. Open discourse and exposure to viewpoints that may differ from my own has always been a productive exercise.
I'm not saying that Kudlow is right or wrong about this, although I will say that the numbers he leads off with appear to be year-on-year numbers, which means he's comparing the most recent quarter to that of the deepest part of the lockdowns in spring 2020.
I will say that Larry was about the last guy to figure out what was happening prior to the 2008 crash, and so I would be very cautious about listening to anything he says unless it's to do the exact opposite.
No, but if I'm in an industry - cars, planes, etc. - that burns cash doing things like R&D and building physical capital to launch new products, and maybe the margins aren't stellar, then those are some precious dollars I'm burning to keep institutional shareholders happy. And yeah, I get that there is nothing particularly evil about such things, but any stumble that occurs after such an allocation of precious cash deserves some snark in return.
Flat-out, Boeing should have taken a few of those buy-back dollars and spent them on product development, and GM should have kept every one of its buyback dollars and invested them into new technology and maybe a semiconductor plant or two. Interesting fact: GM once had a semiconductor plant, but wound it down since the investment required to modernize it was "cost prohibitive". I'm sure that it was, since this occurred in the middle of a three-year period when the company spent $10.5B buying back its own share (coincidentally, the stock price basically moved sideways across that period).
My point is simply that Y-o-Y numbers right now are kinda garbage. It'd be nice if, for the next six months or so, we could all agree to use 2019 numbers as a baseline (or at least provide them as a secondary resource).
Wow - looking at the starts, this was already getting kicked off well before the pandemic. Which also means it's not being entirely driven by stimulus.
The results from conglomerates are so uniformly awful that the world is probably better off without a GM semiconductor plant.
I don't know Boeing's business well enough to make any comments about what they should or shouldn't have done. Never invested in it. Never really studied it. But I don't think the fact that they suck means much about stock buybacks in general. And remember, institutional investors are the biggest investors in startup funds, so, again, that money does not necessarily come out of Boeing or GM, and not go into R&D and building capital. It just doesn't do it at those companies. The overall economic effects are much less than people think when they hear that the money is just going back to big investors.
Interesting. I'll be honest - that was a pre-pandemic trend that I missed (as did everyone else, judging by the commentary).
Considering what technology that particular conglomerate once brought to the marketplace (the Kokomo semiconductor plant built chips for Delco, which once led the market in automotive electronic innovations and was spoken with the same reverence as Bosch), it's pretty hard to consider this "uniformly awful".
Also consider the success of the Japanese keiretsu system - particularly as it applies to Toyota. Of course, that company has decided to take 10-12% of its considerable free cash flow and roll that into ongoing stock buybacks, which isn't helping my point
Your point about institutional investors cycling this money into newer start-ups is well-taken. But doesn't that also make the case that we should be shifting our own investments similarly?
But all this notwithstanding, I'll restate my point - buybacks aren't inherently evil in the way that liberals feel, but they tend to indicate that a legacy company has run out of ideas (or else they'd invest the money in something that would benefit its bottom line) or that they don't have confidence in their ability to produce cash flow into the future (or else they would redistribute the money as dividends). You see things differently and are probably much better at making money in the market, so I'm almost certainly tilting at windmills. Everyone needs a hobby...
5 months ago I was paying 10.99 for 40 lbs. of pellets and now it is 12.49 for the same 40 lbs. and don't eve talk about wood, metal OR groceries! and gasoline. Same boat as you my friend fixed income and skyrocketing prices across the board with no apparent end in site.
OK, not uniformly awful, but generally pretty bad compared to specialized companies. The more integrated the subsidiary is into the main business line the better, but when they get too far afield, management starts to run into just the issue we are basically talking about. It gets harder and harder to allocate capital to different subsidiaries when they are more disparate and harder to understand as a whole. Kind of to your next point, if I want to diversify, I'd prefer to do it myself. Realize I am a bit biased because going through school we had come out of the 70s, where conglomeratization had really helped fuck the economy and were in the late 80s when we thought that the debt addled slimming of business lines was the shiznit.Considering what technology that particular conglomerate once brought to the marketplace (the Kokomo semiconductor plant built chips for Delco, which once led the market in automotive electronic innovations and was spoken with the same reverence as Bosch), it's pretty hard to consider this "uniformly awful".
Also consider the success of the Japanese keiretsu system - particularly as it applies to Toyota. Of course, that company has decided to take 10-12% of its considerable free cash flow and roll that into ongoing stock buybacks, which isn't helping my point
Your point about institutional investors cycling this money into newer start-ups is well-taken. But doesn't that also make the case that we should be shifting our own investments similarly?
But all this notwithstanding, I'll restate my point - buybacks aren't inherently evil in the way that liberals feel, but they tend to indicate that a legacy company has run out of ideas (or else they'd invest the money in something that would benefit its bottom line) or that they don't have confidence in their ability to produce cash flow into the future (or else they would redistribute the money as dividends). You see things differently and are probably much better at making money in the market, so I'm almost certainly tilting at windmills. Everyone needs a hobby...
I think we basically agree, though. Buybacks have no particular moral characteristic, but they are a snapshot of where a company is. So are dividend raises, which are generally seen as a moral good. I don't agree that buybacks are a signal that cash flow will drop, though I kind of understand the reasoning. But if cash flow were to drop, why would insiders want to own more of the company, since cash flow determines value. I don't see the distinction as buybacks actually give the shareholders more choice as to where they would like to put that money. But I think we also agree that large scale buybacks across the market are a sign to be taken seriously. They either mean that corporations see the stock market as very cheap, or they see innovation as expensive and hard to come by.
I am just "doubling up" on food items that I have used for many years when I make my routine trips for supplies. Instead of two cans of Pork and Beans.... I now buy 4 cans. Getting some things now at the Dollar Tree rather than at Safeway. Continuing to take a healthy dose of vitamins, drink lots of water and if there is something physical that can be corrected, I get it done sooner now than when I was 20 years old. I have a dental plan that lets me get a teeth cleaning every 4 months so I take advantage of that.... Got my right foot "tuned up" last week. We may see a time when "two walkin' feet" is our prime transportation.
For many of us simply "maintaining" can be a challenge.
Attachments
You can describe this shit without showing us your nasty toes.
More atrocious job numbers today...
Normally, that would be deflationary. But let me see if I can figure out how this works in the post-2008 era: 1) Bad economic news lands; 2) Investors say "well, that's bad, but it probably means that the Fed will keep rates low and maybe even launch another round of QE"; 3) markets go up based upon the bad news.
So I guess this is actually an argument suggesting this news supports the inflation hypothesis? And that I should go load up on kidney beans as a result even though I rarely eat them?
What I do know is that I should clean the glass on this Trijicon RMR that's sitting on my desk. Fuckin' thing is filthy
Well, being a member of the Bear Pit, I will give you the obvious answer. You can use this anywhere you like -- All new information supports my original hypothesis.Normally, that would be deflationary. But let me see if I can figure out how this works in the post-2008 era: 1) Bad economic news lands; 2) Investors say "well, that's bad, but it probably means that the Fed will keep rates low and maybe even launch another round of QE"; 3) markets go up based upon the bad news.
So I guess this is actually an argument suggesting this news supports the inflation hypothesis? And that I should go load up on kidney beans as a result even though I rarely eat them?
What I do know is that I should clean the glass on this Trijicon RMR that's sitting on my desk. Fuckin' thing is filthy
In this case, it does. Risks are high and balanced. At this point, inflationary risk is preferable to slowdown risk because the tools to fight inflation are in place, and the tools to fight a slowdown are non existent.
In general, though, the effect of news on markets doesn't come from whether it is good or bad simply, but where it is in relation to expectations.
So on that last point:
GM says it will now spend $35 billion on electric and autonomous cars
General Motors ups its game on electric vehicles.
Even prior to the latest splurges on EV and autonomous tech, it was really expensive to play in this market. Sergio Marchionne (RIP) liked to point out the amount of money that auto companies spend on yearly R&D as a proportion of their market cap (VW typically led with something like a 1:3.5 ratio, and this was several years ago when it was much easier to coast on incremental innovation). Certainly not a perfect metric and maybe not even meaningful, but it was at least entertaining.
My point is that I still find it strange when an industrial company doesn't want to invest in its own business despite ample opportunity; seems like that should be interpreted as a signal that maybe I should also find a different home for my money. I think this is where the moral aspect comes into play; if a company is willing to voluntarily signal that it's not a good investment, then that must indicate some sort of ulterior motives on behalf of the execs who are executing such policies. But if their goal is to spend the company's money to enrich themselves via their personal share holdings, and we accept that buybacks aren't generally effective at increasing share prices, then I fail to see that some sort of evil master plan is being successfully executed. It's much easier to conclude that this is a morally neutral idea that simply indicates a lack of creativity.
So on that last point:
I think the disconnect between us is over whether a good investment means good growth, or good return. To illustrate, if I could buy an 8% non increasing bond, I would consider it a good investment. Growth or not. Likewise, if I could buy GM at a FCF yield of 8%, it would be a great investment, even if that yield never changed. I could then, actually in the bond scenario or theoretically in the FCF scenario, put the excess money into other investments. The constancy of the yield is not a bug. True, we are all used to looking at investment as purely growth after the last decades of the market, but it doesn't have to be. But the cost for returns and cost for growth aren't going to be the same at all times. And the risk premium on growth investments is likely to be higher than on assumptions of steady returns.
So in a one company economy, I would agree with you, but the existence of thousands upon thousands of companies makes that a different call.
That's not what they are signaling. In fact, what they are signaling is that, at market price, they believe their own shares are a very good investment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be willing to pay market price for them. And if they are right, then each share they buy back adds value for the continuing owners. And from all the research I have read, buybacks tend to increase share prices about 3% over the general market annualized (1995-2018 data) , so I don't accept that premise as a given. Over the period, that is 2x return overall.
GM says it will now spend $35 billion on electric and autonomous cars
General Motors ups its game on electric vehicles.finance.yahoo.com
Even prior to the latest splurges on EV and autonomous tech, it was really expensive to play in this market. Sergio Marchionne (RIP) liked to point out the amount of money that auto companies spend on yearly R&D as a proportion of their market cap (VW typically led with something like a 1:3.5 ratio, and this was several years ago when it was much easier to coast on incremental innovation). Certainly not a perfect metric and maybe not even meaningful, but it was at least entertaining.
My point is that I still find it strange when an industrial company doesn't want to invest in its own business despite ample opportunity; seems like that should be interpreted as a signal that maybe I should also find a different home for my money. I think this is where the moral aspect comes into play; if a company is willing to voluntarily signal that it's not a good investment, then that must indicate some sort of ulterior motives on behalf of the execs who are executing such policies. But if their goal is to spend the company's money to enrich themselves via their personal share holdings, and we accept that buybacks aren't generally effective at increasing share prices, then I fail to see that some sort of evil master plan is being successfully executed. It's much easier to conclude that this is a morally neutral idea that simply indicates a lack of creativity.
I think the disconnect between us is over whether a good investment means good growth, or good return. To illustrate, if I could buy an 8% non increasing bond, I would consider it a good investment. Growth or not. Likewise, if I could buy GM at a FCF yield of 8%, it would be a great investment, even if that yield never changed. I could then, actually in the bond scenario or theoretically in the FCF scenario, put the excess money into other investments. The constancy of the yield is not a bug. True, we are all used to looking at investment as purely growth after the last decades of the market, but it doesn't have to be. But the cost for returns and cost for growth aren't going to be the same at all times. And the risk premium on growth investments is likely to be higher than on assumptions of steady returns.
So in a one company economy, I would agree with you, but the existence of thousands upon thousands of companies makes that a different call.
Last edited:
And this is where I'm indeed beginning more fearful of another slowdown than continuation of the recent inflationary trends. We know that things weren't looking great at the very end of 2018, and that Trump was successful into jawboning the Fed into another round of easing, and then we forgot about all that by March 2020. But what if those chickens are still waiting to roost, or if simply we're going to see pullback because the likelihood that we've mis-allocated some of the several trillion dollars of stimulus is, like, something greater than zero? I don't know. The continuation of the economic expansion from 2009 up until the start of the pandemic felt unprecedented, and certainly what's happened since is completely new and unique, and so the premise that it's just going to continue from here to the moon feels a bit shaky.
So, yeah, what happens if we see a small negative print on, say, the Q4 GDP print? Might be a scenario worth pondering.
Understood. The "goodness" or "badness" is indeed all relative.
Just to add one more thought, a lot of this is a question of where you sit is where you stand. From my point of view, professionally, exploiting price discrepencies is "good." Good as in, it is the goal, and in my case, the goal is to find what I perceive as a difference between market price and underlying value. In your point of view, and I am just spitballing, as an engineer "good" work is solving problems in new, creative and more efficient ways. Now, looking as an unbiased citizen, your good is gooder than my good, but I don't think that makes one good and one bad. And in that way, buybacks are "good" from my point of view, and an admission of defeat from yours*, which makes our different perceptions of them completely reasonable.So on that last point:
GM says it will now spend $35 billion on electric and autonomous cars
General Motors ups its game on electric vehicles.
Even prior to the latest splurges on EV and autonomous tech, it was really expensive to play in this market. Sergio Marchionne (RIP) liked to point out the amount of money that auto companies spend on yearly R&D as a proportion of their market cap (VW typically led with something like a 1:3.5 ratio, and this was several years ago when it was much easier to coast on incremental innovation). Certainly not a perfect metric and maybe not even meaningful, but it was at least entertaining.
My point is that I still find it strange when an industrial company doesn't want to invest in its own business despite ample opportunity; seems like that should be interpreted as a signal that maybe I should also find a different home for my money. I think this is where the moral aspect comes into play; if a company is willing to voluntarily signal that it's not a good investment, then that must indicate some sort of ulterior motives on behalf of the execs who are executing such policies. But if their goal is to spend the company's money to enrich themselves via their personal share holdings, and we accept that buybacks aren't generally effective at increasing share prices, then I fail to see that some sort of evil master plan is being successfully executed. It's much easier to conclude that this is a morally neutral idea that simply indicates a lack of creativity.
As a citizen I'd certainly prefer that we were able to find more and better ways of doing things, BUT in the absence of that, making markets more efficient is a positive step. At least it tends to put money toward where those new things are being done.
*I don't mean this in any loaded way, just that it is an admission that money is better spent in non operational uses.
Inflation related-
Shaping up to be the next Government bail out:
Despite falling jobless claims, America’s poverty rate just reached the highest level since the pandemic began
Shaping up to be the next Government bail out:
Despite falling jobless claims, America’s poverty rate just reached the highest level since the pandemic began
what they need to do is cut the corporate tax rate, incentivive manufacturing and job creation and create levies on companies that offshore. It's ridiculous to keep up the current pattern which only leads to job loss, more on the dole, and less middle class.
This is a bullshit stat... it's only been tracking for a year, and basically says the freebies government handouts to the poor is ending.. hence, their "income" is going down. what fucking ever. Many of these people could have been working but decided to take free money instead.
Sorry, but Orange Man tweeted mean things. Imagine what could have gotten done by the repukian party with Trump in the oval office. If they had done anything at all they would not have lost the mid terms in the house.
But.. at least the pedophile is the most popular president ever.
But.. at least the pedophile is the most popular president ever.
And he scared the shit out of Putin.
Buybacks keep the stock prices from plummeting to the level appropriate to their lack of reinvestmentSo on that last point:
GM says it will now spend $35 billion on electric and autonomous cars
General Motors ups its game on electric vehicles.
Even prior to the latest splurges on EV and autonomous tech, it was really expensive to play in this market. Sergio Marchionne (RIP) liked to point out the amount of money that auto companies spend on yearly R&D as a proportion of their market cap (VW typically led with something like a 1:3.5 ratio, and this was several years ago when it was much easier to coast on incremental innovation). Certainly not a perfect metric and maybe not even meaningful, but it was at least entertaining.
My point is that I still find it strange when an industrial company doesn't want to invest in its own business despite ample opportunity; seems like that should be interpreted as a signal that maybe I should also find a different home for my money. I think this is where the moral aspect comes into play; if a company is willing to voluntarily signal that it's not a good investment, then that must indicate some sort of ulterior motives on behalf of the execs who are executing such policies. But if their goal is to spend the company's money to enrich themselves via their personal share holdings, and we accept that buybacks aren't generally effective at increasing share prices, then I fail to see that some sort of evil master plan is being successfully executed. It's much easier to conclude that this is a morally neutral idea that simply indicates a lack of creativity.
So, reupping this. A month or two ago you were doomsaying over ag prices. SInce then, as I predicted, every single one of those earlier winning trades has rolled over. It's convenient never to have to revisit what you said earlier, but between this and the lumber price retrenchment, your inflation logic has fallen apart. That isn't because things have changed, or inflation is any less likely. It is because you were trying to see every data point as supporting your argument. You know what they say, bulls get rich, bears get rich, pigs get slaughtered.
Try 1 dollar in Oklahoma. Prices are up on homes about 20%. Meat is closer to 40%. Electricity has been slower , maybe 10%. People( or investment companies) are paying asking price + 20% sight unseen for land and housing.
I have no idea what is coming, but it sure seems like we are waiting for the other shoe to drop. Strange times.
The other shoe has dropped.... We are just waiting for it to hit the floor.
This is not a sarcastic comment:
If we could replace the 10 million American's not working with people like you....... We would not be having this discussion, there would be little inflation, few supply chain breakdowns and a strong infrastructure. But, this is not the case. The harder you work, the behinder you get. Perhaps that is a greater issue than simply inflation. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how many people a hard working, responsible American is actually supporting ?
I recently locked my electricity rate in for 3 years. 8.4c per KW average cost... I was paying like 7.8c per KW and I could have signed another year at 7.8c, but I wanted to hedge against inflation and the coming increase in energy costs, especially here in TX when ERCOT finally gets off their asses and fixes things(ill likely be dead and gone by then in reality) and prices rise accordingly...
Ha. I've read several of @Frederick_77 s posts, and I completely agree that the country would be better off with ten million more of him, as he seems to be part of the dwindling minority of sane people out there.
As to the other, if I am going to treat it as something other than mad ramblings, in many ways it is one of those questions we all kind of ask ourselves, and have an answer we want. That is, are economic problems related to moral failings in society, punishment for leaving the straigt and narrow path, or are they unavoidable bad spells that come from less nefarious reasons? This is combined with whether, in the presence of bad, non-workers, whether those working are actually just fools who are being punished for non workers non working. I think, at least.
Taking the last line first, what is unusual about the US tax structure, when compared to the rest of the world, is how lightly the middle class is taxed in comparison to the high earners. So, I would say that Hobo is incorrect. Most "hard working Americans" are actually not net taxpayers to a great degree. This, of course, is because no politician wants to be caught taxing the middle class, but it is also a main reason that our debt is so high. So I would guess that each of these hard working Americans is supporting himself, maybe, at most. I mean, we all agree that only about 50% of people pay gross federal taxes, but accounting for the value of services rendered by the government, wanted or not, the number of net taxpayers is really, really low.
The above said, we pretty much don't have any areas in the tax code where there is an issue with actual disincentive to work, as in if you work you become poorer. We just have a lot of spots where if you work more, you don't become a whole lot richer. That has changed a bit with Covid bucks, which is why, I think, we are seeing such odd job numbers in a time when we should, by all rights, be seeing a big recovery. This also happened, though to a lesser degree, in the Obama recovery that wasn't much of a recovery.
But the first statements are the ones that get me. Basically, if we were all good and moral, would all of our economic problems go away. It's a fascinating view into what happens at the intersection of government, religion and economics, and the answer is that I have no fucking idea. One of the problems with economics is that everybody wants their moral position to be good economics, and everybody wants economic policy to contour itself to their moral position. I don't think it is true, sadly. I do think that there is a lot we can do to make our economy run more efficiently, but as you often point out, there are significant dislocations that come with efficiency. People aren't quite as fungible as we would like them to be, so you have human cost. We could certainly do better, policy wise, but I am not sure our economic problems reflect our moral failings. It's tempting to say they reflect the moral failings of our policy makers, and there is a lot of truth in that, but there is the sticky issue that the worst, in my opinion, of our policy makers are very much in line belief wise with a large percentage of our citizens.
That's a lot of words to say 1) I don't know, 2) Everybody wants morality and outcomes to be linked, 3) sadly they are not.
This is a big reason why I am a fan of either the fair tax or flat tax. It captures EVERYBODY... the fair tax more so than the flat tax. Get rid of all deductions, credits, etc... Fuck you can get rid of the IRS except as a small entity to administer the code.
Im considered "middle class" by government standards(albeit at the very high end) and last year between FICA and SS I paid over 30k in taxes... But my wife and I dont have kids and she doesnt work... and the Trump tax "cuts" really fucked me since I lost all of my deductions for work, cant write off my house anymore(because I cant get it above the 24k standard), cant write off my state taxes(I dont live in a state tax state anyway), etc....
So to say the "middle class" dont pay taxes is not really true. I think as you hit the high end of the middle class you start to get fucked more and more and then once you hit "upper class" its a real ass burner.
So fuck everybody and everybody pay 15%... individuals of all income levels, corporations, etc...
Or also fuck everybody and turn our system into a consumption tax based system... which would have made the government a fucking KILLING in revenue the past few months with prices on shit going sky fucking high. 10% on 10 dollars is $1... 10% on 40 dollars is $4... a 4x increase in revenue... that would have been the largest tax grab in history LOL... but no they want to nickel and dime us on the marginal rates.
So, I don't mean any disrespect, and I generally agree with your statements here. The point I am trying to make is that in order to find out if you are a net tax payer, you'd also have to figure out the spending that would be applied to you. I use net as the taxes you pay minus the benefits you get, whether you want them or not. But yeah, at your level you are likely a net tax payer to some degree. Your net rate, though, still is quite low, though of course I don't know your income level etc. My point wasn't to disparage people like you, but to point out that if we think 50% of people don't pay taxes, it is actually closer to 75-80% that pay no net taxes. You are probably just above that percentile, the greater point being that it is still a very narrow base as compared to other countries, which is a huge problem.
I definitely endorse your proposals, though.
I dont feel like I get fuck all from the federal government except an ass raping anally, sorry I mean annually, and negligible benefits from my ridiculous property taxes I pay to the state... Like I said we have no kids and 85% of our property tax goes to the schools... so I get bupkis from that. I feel like I get something from the money that goes to police, fire and EMS... My gas tax(17c per gallon) goes to the roads. Im sure other tax money also goes to the roads, oh except when we pay it more directly via bond initiatives...
So federally... what have the feds done for me this year/last year/etc... Military...ok ill buy into that.... A few ATF NICS checks that are "free"... Some money to my state for roads and bridges im sure... And a whole lot of fucking... I dont give shit to charity because the federal government seems to do that for me freely...if you count giving money to illegals "charity"... I should get a deduction for that LOL...
I know my examples are simplistic, but I feel that, as a whole, the US Citizens(note i didnt say the US Population) gets to take advantage of like 10-15% of the FICA tax money that is sent in and the other 85-90% is fucked away to foreign countries, illegals, poors, etc... Im not talking about SSD money either because thats a whole nother ball of government fucking us payers over that most people cant even fathom..."but I get my check that I paid in"...lol
So federally... what have the feds done for me this year/last year/etc... Military...ok ill buy into that.... A few ATF NICS checks that are "free"... Some money to my state for roads and bridges im sure... And a whole lot of fucking... I dont give shit to charity because the federal government seems to do that for me freely...if you count giving money to illegals "charity"... I should get a deduction for that LOL...
I know my examples are simplistic, but I feel that, as a whole, the US Citizens(note i didnt say the US Population) gets to take advantage of like 10-15% of the FICA tax money that is sent in and the other 85-90% is fucked away to foreign countries, illegals, poors, etc... Im not talking about SSD money either because thats a whole nother ball of government fucking us payers over that most people cant even fathom..."but I get my check that I paid in"...lol
So, imagine yourself as a prisoner of the system. You might not want to cost to house you, feed you, pay the guards etc, and you might find no value in it, but it has a cost. That is what I am talking about, not what you get, but what the outlay is for each "benefit" the government feels it gives you. So you might not think that FDIC insurance is worth anything to you, or that the FBI is,, or that market regulators who "help" make sure your retirement portfolio is protected from fraud or even that schools are or whatever. The point is that in a massive bureaucratic state like ours, each citizen costs a lot.
So we really need to address the issue from the outlay side as much as anything else, probably more than anything else, but as it stands now, as captives to the state, our net taxes are really what we pay, minus that percentage of costs that is apportioned to each citizen for the benefits of having all of these agencies looking out for us, whether we want them or not.
I have tried to make clear, in word and in tone, that I don't support any of this, or really even buy the line of logic that citizens get much from what they put in, but that I am just trying to balance the ledger of payments to show that, actually, we are in the position we are because we spend so much, and we have exempted many more people from paying than has any other country in the world. And because of that, back to the original point that Frodo made, each working American really isn't supporting a bunch of other non working Americans. They are barely paying in the amount that the government has decided is necessary on a per capita basis. Per capita is about 20k per person spending wise on the federal level, and though not apportioned equally, an astonishing number of those items can basically be considered to be equal among citizens. And an astonishing number of those equal ones are the really bad ones.
But still, I agree with your proposition of a flat tax, especially if it is combined with greatly lowered spending. But good luck to us on that.
No daddy issues here, but I appreciate your attempt to psychoanalyze over an internet forum.
I apologize for not being more specific. I use "boomer" as a broad catch all for really fucking old people, and/or people who generally behave like old, pearl clutching assholes who sacrifice the young for the last few months of their own lives. If you are taking my use of the term to mean a narrow window of age, commonly accepted as people born from 1946-1964, that is not its intended use. And "boomer" is really more of a mindset than an age demographic in my mind.
I am not sure how your "homework assignment" above meaningfully connects to our country's response to the pandemic, specifically from boomers and their related friends straight up fucking our country over with their pandemic decision making yielding a massive loss of life years of the younger generations.
Or, really, said another way:
I guess Powell has not bought any OSB at Home Depot recently..........
www.foxbusiness.com
Powell says Fed will wait for 'actual inflation' before raising interest rates
Powell says Fed will wait for 'actual inflation' before raising interest rates
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said Tuesday the U.S. central bank will not raise interest rates from rock-bottom levels too quickly due to recent inflation fears, reiterating policymakers' commitment to a "broad and inclusive" job-market recovery.
www.foxbusiness.com
For those new to reading such things, this is what we call a head and shoulders pattern. It's not bullish. It is, of course, the LBS chart for random length lumber. You guys remember lumber. The commodity of doom just a few weeks ago. Less talk about it now.
I told you guys this was professional trading noise, but apparently my opinions on election fraud are so awful that you won't listen to reason elsewhere.
I don't understand it. I told them it was professional traders, that it didn't look anything like the patterns you would see in organic demand. I hope none of them decided to go long commodities. It's a losers game. Double if you can't stay solvent when things go bad.
So far the inflation / price gouging has had an effect on the peripheral commodities like ammo, lumber, steel, copper wiring and pipe, etc... It will eventually center on a commodity that every living person must have...... FOOD. I'm not looking forward to the dark day in our future when the price of food is double what it was a year ago. The US Government is buying (one way or another) food. The perfect storm is on the horizon.
Similar threads
