Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Fed, Debt, and the Economy


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

I'd buy that just fine if they (the central bankers) had kept rates low for a couple years, then eased them up, even if they had ended up at a lower than average level. They didn't even really try though. They made noises like they would a couple times and markets freaked out and the bankers administered more "medicine". You correctly identified one of the Federal Reserve's dual mandates, the other one is preventing inflation (maintaining stable prices). Proper inflation measurement is tricky as hell. Traditional CPI and PCE measurements have a lot of issues, to say the least. Clearly there were periods of generalized disinflation over the past decade, but it certainly wasn't constant. All of the virtual money-printing the Fed and other central banks did had to inflate something.

The new shadow mandate of the Fed and other central banks has been as an underwriter against market risk.

Red, while your first post is spectacular, I have to disagree here.  The Fed has been actively fighting to prevent deflation.  Their shadow mandate (which isn't in the shadows, it's publicly presented) is to hit their inflation target - +2% or so.  Which they haven't been able to do.  The side effect of this is that they are the bubbly froth underneath equities right now as they lower interest rates and inject ####loads of money into the system.  It's an effect, not a cause.

 

21 hours ago, hxperson said:

Lol equities are where all the money/glory is.  We are like the nerds at the party who are invited to make sure that the sound system is working.

If I saw the amount of leverage you probably use I'd just faint straight away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While much of the current situation is a result of central bank policies over the last 10 years, there is also the contributing factor of the growth of corporatism over the past century.

Growth of corporatism shifts the populace from one line of the profit and loss report to another. While on paper, that may seem like a wash, in reality it has a very depressing affect on the populace, in order to produce benefit to the capital. 

When you own your own business, like many people did a century ago (farmers, store owners, etc...), the business owner's living comes from the profit line of the profit and loss report. The business owner does everything they can to maximize profits, because this in turn benefits their efforts of running the business. So they try to pay less for every other line on the profit and loss report (rent, cost of goods sold, utilities, wages, etc...). This results in a natural downward pressure on all the other lines, so that the profit line increases.

When you are an employee, your living comes from the wages line of the profit and loss report. The business does everything they can to maximize profits, because this in turn benefits the business owners. So they try to pay you as an employee less. This results in a natural downward pressure on on your wages, so that their profit line increases. 

Now there will never be a situation where there are no employees, but there could come a time where there is no such thing as a business owner anymore. All businesses could eventually be corporations, not owned by those who run the business, but instead owned by those who provided their capital. 

We're not there yet, obviously. But we have shifted significantly in that direction in the past 100 years, especially since in the USA prior to the 1860's a corporation couldn't even exist without a state charter, and the state charter required the corporation to provide a public service. When we freed the slaves, we also freed corporations to exist for any reason.

Today a lot more of the populace finds themselves making the living from the wages line of profit and loss reports, where there is a natural downward pressure on their earnings. And more and more owners of capital are benefiting from having their capital work for them, instead of them working for profit. 

TL;DR - the US populace is shifting from working for profit to working for wages as corporatism continues to grow. Thus the profit lines of all US profit and loss reports combined is serving the working populace less and the capital owners more... as capitalism is designed to do.

Edited by Politician Spock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sand said:

Red, you've studiously avoided commenting on my deflation gauntlet. :pokey:  

Since you're looking heavily into this I'd like to get your take.

My knowledge of monetary theory, particularly out at the theoretical extremes, is pretty subpar, so I am not an expert on this stuff by any stretch. But I have never liked inflation targeting and even if you accept it as a necessary evil, I don't necessarily believe that 2% is some kind of magic number. Certainly real deflation is a concern, because it tends to cause a vicious cycle, and the 2% level was probably chosen to give a margin of safety between the target rate and things slipping technically into deflation. So I understand it. But I am not sure I buy that have a few quarters where prices fall less than 0.5% year over year, for instance, is going to really change consumer behavior and cause some kind of a downward spiral. 

It is my operating hypothesis that doggedly pursuing that 2% target with an extended period of ZIRP and bushels of quantitative easing may end up being more harmful in the long run.

But again, this is pretty far from my area of expertise. And I never meant to imply the Fed has had an easy job over the last decade. It hasn't been clear what course they should be pursuing at all. I do think they will end up regretting waiting so long to tighten, however. And there can be no debate that the policy course they chose has had some unintended consequences that present huge risks going forward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 5:38 PM, RedmondLonghorn said:

People who rent, especially in urban areas experiencing a lot of growth, are usually hit the hardest because they aren't benefiting from soaring RE values and rents have been tending to go up because development has been focused on higher rent properties and there is more competition for existing rentals.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but are RE values really "soaring"?

Values in top 20 metro markets (not inflation adjusted):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index#/media/File:Case_Shiller_indice_20_villes.jpg

National avg, top-10 and top-20 metro markets (both unadjusted and adjusted):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index#/media/File:Case_shiller_janv09.jpg

Granted, those plots end in 2016.  I'd be curious to see what the last 2 years have added.  It looks to me like the national average rose 30% (inflation adjusted) from 2000 - 2016.  So yes, it is a little rich compared to what I would consider a "normal" market which 2000 more or less was.  It was just beginning to heat up in the years 1999/2000 after a long period of stagnation.  (Fortunately I bought my first house in 1998).

Certain west coast metro areas are definitely high flyers.  LA, SF and SD.  That seems more a function of local land availability, desirability and local economy than a macro monetary policy thing.  The DC market does its own thing.

Curious what you guys think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, proteus126 said:

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but are RE values really "soaring"?

Values in top 20 metro markets (not inflation adjusted):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index#/media/File:Case_Shiller_indice_20_villes.jpg

National avg, top-10 and top-20 metro markets (both unadjusted and adjusted):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case–Shiller_index#/media/File:Case_shiller_janv09.jpg

Granted, those plots end in 2016.  I'd be curious to see what the last 2 years have added.  It looks to me like the national average rose 30% (inflation adjusted) from 2000 - 2016.  So yes, it is a little rich compared to what I would consider a "normal" market which 2000 more or less was.  It was just beginning to heat up in the years 1999/2000 after a long period of stagnation.  (Fortunately I bought my first house in 1998).

Certain west coast metro areas are definitely high flyers.  LA, SF and SD.  That seems more a function of local land availability, desirability and local economy than a macro monetary policy thing.  The DC market does its own thing.

Curious what you guys think.

Versus any time except for the housing bubble, I think it is fair to say they are soaring, at least in major metro areas. Here is national data, on the basis of median price. Clearly more so in areas that are especially strong economically, as one would expect. Some of the more desirable markets, such as Seattle, have also seen an influx of foreign buying that has also pushed values higher.

In terms of home values relative to rents, the picture looks like a little less of a concern. But while this analysis indicates that prices aren't way out ahead of rents, it doesn't really say anything about rents themselves. Rents have risen substantially faster than overall inflation for years, but rental inflation has really accelerated relative to overall inflation since around 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last chart related to home prices: This is the Case-Shiller National Home Price Index vs. Average Wages for Production & Non-Supervisory Employees in the Private Sector (which is a good proxy for "middle class"). Both graphs are indexed to January 1987 as 100. 

How does the housing market look to you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a note, when I link things or quote things, they are because they are interesting, not because I am 100% in agreement with them. When I offer my opinions, I will try to be clear about it.

Some commentary from Bill Gross, bond market guru (and notable weirdo):

Quote

 

The bond market's current "beast" is not so much a killer but a hibernating bear awakening from an extended secular bullish trend of lower inflation and excessive central bank accommodation.

Both appear to be in reversal mode, but the reversal is gradual and relatively non-threatening to investors compared to historical examples. 10-year Treasuries, now nearly 150 basis points higher than their 2016 lows, should fluctuate around 3% for most of 2018. The Fed's purported 3 to 4 hikes this year beginning in March are likely exaggerated. The U.S. and global economies are too highly leveraged to stand more than a 2% Fed Funds level in a 2% inflationary world. If more than 2%, a stronger dollar would affect emerging market growth and lead to perhaps premature tightening on the part of the ECB and other developed market central banks. When it comes to financial markets, (both bond and stock) the "beast" is really leverage, and while it's hard to pinpoint when enough is really enough, the Great Recession really informed us that Hyman Minsky was right – "stability leads to instability" as good times and higher prices lead to a false sense of optimism. The Fed, under Jerome Powell, hopefully has learned that lesson, and should proceed cautiously, as must his counterparts around the globe.

I write this – not in support of low interest rates and financial repression – indeed I have argued for the necessity of an eventual normal rebalancing if small savers and financial institutions such as pension funds and insurance companies are to continue to perform their critical capitalistic role. But I believe, as does Fed Governor Neel Kashkari, that our financial systems' excesses cannot be expunged quickly by "liquidating assets" à la Andrew Mellon in the 1930's, but by a mild and gradual re-entry back to privately influenced, as opposed to central bank suppressed, interest rates. 2% Fed Funds in a 2% inflationary world is the current limit in my opinion.

Investors should therefore look for 3% plus or minus on the 10-year for the balance of 2018. That level should ultimately force German Bunds and UK Gilts to higher yields, perhaps 1% on Bunds and 1.75% on Gilts. Still, in my mind, this is a hibernating global bear bond market, not a beast. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2018 at 10:57 AM, RedmondLonghorn said:

One last chart related to home prices: This is the Case-Shiller National Home Price Index vs. Average Wages for Production & Non-Supervisory Employees in the Private Sector (which is a good proxy for "middle class"). Both graphs are indexed to January 1987 as 100. 

How does the housing market look to you?

Just from a limited empirical perspective I've felt this was true.  I've been trying to acquire a few rental properties to generate passive income.  The first house I added has been a gold mine.  I added it about 4 years ago.  My rents have gone up by 1/3 and I'm getting cold calls from realtors looking for affordable options for clients in that area saying they can make me roughly that same percentage in profit over my purchase price if I'll sell.  I did acquire some rental condos last year and in just probably 9 months I'm already seeing resales at around 10% more than what I paid. 

All that to say, it just feels like too much too fast even for a small sample size.  From my discussions with a buddy of mine who owns maybe 30 properties in a different area of the country he's feeling the same way and has sold a couple places off recently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2018 at 1:59 PM, RedmondLonghorn said:

Pretty good blog post by a friend of mine.

Danger at the End of the Cheap Debt Era

I would throw a lot of pharmaceutical companies in with energy companies as well.  There are several that are tens of billions in debt, and value of the interest off the debt alone can be >50% of the companies EBITDA in some cases. 

On 3/22/2018 at 11:57 AM, RedmondLonghorn said:

One last chart related to home prices: This is the Case-Shiller National Home Price Index vs. Average Wages for Production & Non-Supervisory Employees in the Private Sector (which is a good proxy for "middle class"). Both graphs are indexed to January 1987 as 100. 

How does the housing market look to you?

How much of this, if any, do you think has to do with globalization and technological advances in travel?  I think more people have multiple homes in multiple cities than the 1980s. And with globalization, there would be a higher percentage of foreign investors that have property here as well.  50 years ago, it wouldn’t make sense to have a home in San Fran and NYC and work in Tokyo.  Now it’s much more common.  Just an idea, have no idea if there is any merit but maybe in select cities.  

Another theory is that the economic boom of the 90s created a lot of wealth in which people were able to buy second homes.  This would have taken a huge supply side out of the market, and driven up home prices.  People who owned three of more homes went up 450% from 1990-1998.  This theory would correlate well with the Case-Schiller chart you posted.  Here is an article from year 2000 that discusses this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/business/amp/Rich-Collecting-2nd-Homes-Owning-2-3-even-4-2777678.php

Edited by dschuler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is really good and worth watching if you have 15 minutes and some interest in how the global macro ties together from an investment point of view.

I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the same viewpoints as Raoul does, but he is also far more accomplished than I am. It is worth noting that he was in print saying many of the same things 14 months ago though. Of course, that doesn't mean he was wrong then. But the fact some of them have started to play out doesn't mean he is necessarily right about all of it now either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2018 at 11:23 PM, Long Ball Larry said:

a little more explanation?

An increasing government deficit is a decrease in savings within the economy.  The chart also shows that household savings are slowing.   This likely means that either investment will decrease or net exports will decrease.  An interesting time for a trade war...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2018 at 0:10 PM, RedmondLonghorn said:

Just a note, when I link things or quote things, they are because they are interesting, not because I am 100% in agreement with them. When I offer my opinions, I will try to be clear about it.

Some commentary from Bill Gross, bond market guru (and notable weirdo):

 

If he's suggesting we'll get to 3% bond yields, that pretty much kills any real, tangible incentive to pay down mortgages taken out a few years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got gas in my car yesterday - gas prices seem to be spiking early this year  :oldunsure:

Higher gas prices, higher interest rates = less disposable income for many Americans -- which leads to a slow down, of an already slow economy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Got gas in my car yesterday - gas prices seem to be spiking early this year  :oldunsure:

Higher gas prices, higher interest rates = less disposable income for many Americans -- which leads to a slow down, of an already slow economy...

The other option being a blow off top like 2007.  Gas prices, IMO, are in direct response to some drawdowns in production in Venezuela and other places (and the fact that the demand for oil continues to climb and the oil majors cut back on development for a while due to the crash - just like housing we're seeing a bit of that backlash).

The way to counter this is to own some XOM, CVX, etc.  That way you're hedging out those gas price increases.

 

On 4/8/2018 at 6:25 AM, -OZ- said:

If he's suggesting we'll get to 3% bond yields, that pretty much kills any real, tangible incentive to pay down mortgages taken out a few years ago. 

The tax bill kills, for many homeowners, the incentive to keep the mortgage if they can pay it off due to the larger standard deduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sand said:

.The tax bill kills, for many homeowners, the incentive to keep the mortgage if they can pay it off due to the larger standard deduction.

I've never been a fan of keeping the mortgage just for the tax break. 

But if, after taxes, your mortgage rate is less than .5% less than safe investments which provide liquidity, I'll keep the mortgage. Liquidity matters imo.

In my case, my mortgage is 3.25% at 300k. If I can get a bond at 3%, it costs me at most $750/yr to keep my mortgage with the bond. Without accounting for taxes. From my perspective that's worth it. Although I'm still going to be mostly in stock.

Edited by -OZ-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

Got gas in my car yesterday - gas prices seem to be spiking early this year  :oldunsure:

Higher gas prices, higher interest rates = less disposable income for many Americans -- which leads to a slow down, of an already slow economy...

I personally believe the price of gas, more specifically diesel,  has a much bigger effect on our economy than it is given credit for. Diesel is the sneaky agent working behind the scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Commish said:

@RedmondLonghorn would it be appropriate to discuss the recent CBO analysis in this thread?  I hadn't seen this one and I started the other one.  If not the intention of the thread, I'll leave the other.  Otherwise, I can move it here and delete the CBO thread.  Thoughts?

Discuss whatever you like. So far, the idiocy in virtually every other political thread has been notably missing from this one.

The CBO analysis is also a good gateway to discussing potential GDP growth, which is a pretty important (and simple) concept that is worth understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedmondLonghorn said:

Discuss whatever you like. So far, the idiocy in virtually every other political thread has been notably missing from this one.

The CBO analysis is also a good gateway to discussing potential GDP growth, which is a pretty important (and simple) concept that is worth understanding.

:thumbup:

This was my original post in that thread...seems more appropriate to be in a thread like this though.

Quote

 

We all know the CBO is only as good as the inputs they are asked to use in their analysis.  However, when they do an analysis of their own, they aren't beholden to the parties and their parameters.  This is an analysis of the next 10 years should we continue on the same path we're on right now.  You can click through the links on the pages to see the inputs and assumptions.

Link

I'm curious what the defense of this trajectory will be, if there is one at all.  The most eye opening thing is within 10 years we'll be at $30 trillion, our deficits for the foreseeable future are well over $1 trillion a year and debt held by the public is forecast to be close to 100% of GDP.  There's also a lot of around 3% growth being the standard for a President as a gauge towards whether they are "good" for the economy or not.  If we remember, Trump promised us 4, 5,6% increases.  The average based on this projection is 1.9% annually.  So not only is this a failed promise of the tax plan, it means the estimates on the deficit impacts are substantially larger than the estimated 1.5 trillion.  The CBO also agrees with the predictions here in the FFA that the tax plan will probably be fine in the short term, but long term impacts are not going to be kind particularly to interest rates and the prices of goods.

Tons of stuff in this analysis....hopefully we can discuss like adults.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've sold most of my personal brokerage investments and moved to cash and gold during any strength in the last 2 weeks.

I expect earnings will surprise to the upside, give a jolt to the market, but I think it will be short-lived. All of this stimulus has just mortgaged the next 5-10 years (or whenever this cycle concludes)... 

With the massive deficits building and ridiculously irresponsible spending out of DC in the last 12 months, my feelings are gold makes for a perfect hedge. Anyone can feel free to argue about the intrinsic value (or lack thereof) of gold, but as a store of value for thousands of years, I'll take my chances. I'm, sure there are a bunch of bulls that will laugh at me as I miss out on another 5, 10, 20% in gains, but everyone seems to stop laughing at the person who was defensive a little early when a cycle concludes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On The Deficit, GOP Has Been Playing Us All For Suckers

-Forbes

 

To say we're all being played by House and Senate Republicans and the Trump administration when it comes to the deficit is my polite way of saying that the GOP is operating the federal equivalent of a huge budget bunco game.

Think of it as three-card monte with you betting billions on which card is the queen of hearts and you'll get the idea.

Still not sure what I mean? Start here.

The Congressional Budget Office last Monday released a report that for the first time officially projected the federal deficit rising to almost $1 trillion in 2019 and then staying at or well above that previously unfathomable level every year through 2028.

As I first pointed out in this post, these projections almost certainly underestimate the actual deficit that will occur because CBO assumes that current law will be followed. In this case, that means assuming that the individual cuts put in place by last year's tax bill that are set to phase out will, in fact, expire as scheduled. As Catherine Rampell noted in The Washington Post last Friday, if, as seems likely, the cuts are extended, the budget deficit will be an additional $2.6 trillion higher than what CBO estimated.

Just a few months after the tax bill was signed, the GOP-controlled Congress agreed to increase federal spending and the budget deficit by another $130 billion or so.

Think about this. The same congressional Republicans who over the previous eight years wanted everyone to believe they were fiscal conservatives hell bent on balancing the budget and not increasing the national debt, sponsored, passed and then danced around the fire because of legislation that will result in a permanent $1 trillion deficit and a debt that will soar to close to 100 percent of GDP by 2028.

And...House and Senate Republicans were enabled by a GOP president who during his campaign said he would eliminate the deficit and completely pay off the debt.

But it's not just that congressional Republicans and Trump faked far right and then actually went far left with these two bills that makes what they're doing a federal budget confidence game. They also:

1. Hid the real cost of the tax cut with the phaseouts so they could claim they were being fiscally judicious while they were actually being economically reckless.

2. First insisted the tax cuts would pay for themselves and then admitted in the president's fiscal 2019 budget released several months later that they would actually increase the deficit big time.

3. Viciously attacked the nonpartisan and very credible Congressional Budget Office for not producing cost estimates that made it easier for them to do what they wanted.

4. Enacted a huge tax cut that skyrocketed the deficit and a $1.3 trillion fiscal 2019 omnibus appropriation that increased it further and then insisted that the real problem is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

5. Continually complained about mandatory spending but, even though they had the majority in both houses of Congress and control of the White House, didn't seriously try to do anything about it.

6. Refused to do a fiscal 2019 budget resolution because, after first enacting the tax and spending legislation that blasted the annual federal budget deficit to over $1 trillion, didn't want GOP members to have go on record in favor of those same deficits.

7. Kept saying that the deficit problem was because the congressional budget process is broken when, in fact, the process has actually enabled the GOP House and Senate Republican majorities to do exactly what they've wanted to do and hasn't forced them to do anything they've wanted to avoid.

8. First enacted legislation that created the permanent trillion dollar deficits and then had the unmitigated temerity to demand that the House vote on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make it illegal for the federal government to run deficits.

9. Implied that the tax cuts and military spending increases they support (and the growing interest payments on the debt caused by those tax cuts and military spending increases) don't have an impact on the deficit.

10. Made it clear that, at the same time they want to reduce revenues and increase funds for the Pentagon, only the domestic part of the budget should be cut.

Just like winning a game of three card monte played on a cardboard box on a street corner, none of what we're being told about the budget by congressional Republicans and the Trump White House is real. But based on how they've operated so far, they obviously think they can keep running this game successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
4 hours ago, The Commish said:

CPI up .5% well above the .3% projection....what kind of inflation woes are we looking at?

That is the beauty of the GOP/Trump plan - by the time the economy implodes it will be someone else's problem.  Blame them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

“That was going to happen. The baby boomers retiring was going to do that,” Ryan said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” of projections that the country will start running trillion-dollar deficits as soon as 2020.

“These deficit trillion-dollar projections have been out there for a long, long time. Why? Because of mandatory spending which we call entitlements,” he said when pressed by NBC host Chuck Todd on Corker’s criticism.

Ryan, a former House Budget Committee chairman, notes that the Congressional Budget Office projects discretionary spending to increase by only $300 billion over the next decade and for total tax revenues to continue to increase.

“Mandatory spending which is entitlements, that goes to $2 trillion over the next decade. Why does it go to $2 trillion? Because the boomer generation is retiring,” Ryan said.

"You keep using that word, entitlements. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

That is the beauty of the GOP/Trump plan - by the time the economy implodes it will be someone else's problem.  Blame them.

Similar to Obama continually printing money to avoid the pain and letting someone else unwind it? Kicking the can down the road isn't a new concept for politicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Commish said:

CPI up .5% well above the .3% projection....what kind of inflation woes are we looking at?

Inflation is predicted to be a major headwind for my company.  The stock price (Fortune 500 Company) has taken a tumble as a result of margin pressures (read: inflation in raw materials) not being recouped on the top line.  The thinking is that we will adjust up the retails to compensate (read: pass inflation on to customers) to protect our margins.

So, yes, inflation is real and it is really affecting people right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Similar to Obama continually printing money to avoid the pain and letting someone else unwind it? Kicking the can down the road isn't a new concept for politicians. 

:lmao:

 

How old were you in 2007/8?  Economy was in the ####ter.  That is when you borrow money, to keep the economy afloat.  You don't bankrupt the country when the economy was going strong.  Unless bankruptcy is kid of your thing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoBirds said:

Similar to Obama continually printing money to avoid the pain and letting someone else unwind it? Kicking the can down the road isn't a new concept for politicians. 

Is this a serious post?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

:lmao:

 

How old were you in 2007/8?  Economy was in the ####ter.  That is when you borrow money, to keep the economy afloat.  You don't bankrupt the country when the economy was going strong.  Unless bankruptcy is kid of your thing.

The continual QE well past 2008 kicked the can down the road further than should have happened. No one wants to face the music, even your golden boy. 

Edited by GoBirds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

:lmao:

 

How old were you in 2007/8?  Economy was in the ####ter.  That is when you borrow money, to keep the economy afloat.  You don't bankrupt the country when the economy was going strong.  Unless bankruptcy is kid of your thing.

Oh and I kept a small business going through this but thanks for the update champ.:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

The continual QE well past 2008 kicked the can down the road further than should have happened. No one wants to face the music, even your golden boy. 

So you're blaming Obama for federal monetary policy, while dodging the issue of Trump and Congressional Republicans cutting taxes for the well off while increasing spending.

Insane. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

So you're blaming Obama for federal monetary policy, while dodging the issue of Trump and Congressional Republicans cutting taxes for the well off while increasing spending.

Insane. 

Not dodging anything, both sides kick the can. Sudden outrage is funny.  Trouble reading?

Edited by GoBirds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GoBirds said:

Not dodging anything, both sides kick the can. Trouble reading?

No, more like trouble understanding.  You're blaming Obama for the actions of the Fed in an effort to "both sides" the issue.  Because actually blaming your side for their fiscal irresponsibilty is too hard.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tommyGunZ said:

No, more like trouble understanding.  You're blaming Obama for the actions of the Fed in an effort to "both sides" the issue.  Because actually blaming your side for their fiscal irresponsibilty is too hard.  

Both sides want to pass the bill, if you want to make excuses for what happened under Obama it falls in line with the rest of your one sided thinking. The asset bubble created under his presidency has sent values of a lot of our holdings through the roof so no hate here but it clearly wasn’t responsible to allow it this far. 

The rich obviously benefited from the tax bill but so do many small business owners that need it. 

 

Complaining about it is funny though, who is going to jump in front of the out of control debt train at this point? Not Trump but clearly wasn’t the golden boy either. Were you outraged then?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Both sides want to pass the bill, if you want to make excuses for what happened under Obama it falls in line with the rest of your one sided thinking. The asset bubble created under his presidency has sent values of a lot of our holdings through the roof so no hate here but it clearly wasn’t responsible to allow it this far. 

The rich obviously benefited from the tax bill but so do many small business owners that need it. 

 

Complaining about it is funny though, who is going to jump in front of the out of control debt train at this point? Not Trump but clearly wasn’t the golden boy either. Were you outraged then?

 

 

This is just flat out disengenious.  It's your side who has campaigned extensively on jumping in front of the debt train for what seems like decades now.  

Was I outraged that public debt exploded during the worst recession in 80 years?  Of course not.  No one who understands economics and automatic stablilizers was outraged.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tommyGunZ said:

This is just flat out disengenious.  It's your side who has campaigned extensively on jumping in front of the debt train for what seems like decades now.  

Was I outraged that public debt exploded during the worst recession in 80 years?  Of course not.  No one who understands economics and automatic stablilizers was outraged.   

Your one sided spin is funny, QE occurred well past the recession but if that’s what you need to believe enjoy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

Your one sided spin is funny, QE occurred well past the recession but if that’s what you need to believe enjoy. 

I don't think ending QE is the real culprit here - the bigger issue is combining tax cuts with increased spending, and, oh by the way, the interest rates on the record-setting debt will be increasing.

 

With the economy rebounding, this was not the time to decrease revenues, increase spending and debt, this was the time to recoup some of the expenses of QE.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...