Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Hi Catch - at one time pickups were sold at a discount to autos. Mainly for use by farmers and small business. At some point (probably in the 70s) trucks became "hip" among the public and began to command big premiums over cars. Newly implemented government fuel economy standards back than had a lot to do with this change in consumer attitude, as smaller cars back than suffered greatly in ride and comfort compared to larger trucks. Profit margins are much higher on trucks today than on cars. For Ford (and probably GM) trucks are the "bread and butter."
Watching these prices over a lifetime opens one's eyes to the ravages of inflation. I've always felt the challenge to modern day investors is to avoid getting wiped out by temporary but sharp deflationary spiral before the inflation kicks in.
An increasing debt load is the expedient compromise our politicians have made with an American populace that wants infrastructure, social services and a functioning military but doesn't want to pay the taxes necessary to fund these government programs. The irony is many of the people complaining about exorbitant levels of debt are the same ones who own that debt in their mutual funds and collect interest off that debt, often tax free, while insisting, that their taxes be as low as possible. And it is because taxes are so low by historical standards that the government needs to borrow more debt. And a greater irony is many of those complaining are over 65 and receiving the government benefits--social security, medicare--that require the U.S. to borrow so much. Meanwhile, they receive interest on their debt investments. On a state level it's particularly egregious for anyone who owns muni bonds to complain that both their state taxes are too high and there is too much debt. The reason the debt that pays them tax free interest exists is that taxes are too low to cover the costs of running the state.
Pennywise and pound foolish is the phrase that comes to mind. Like starving the IRS (where each $1 extra spent results in $4 extra collected) because people would rather cheat on their taxes (we're not talking about raising taxes here, just collecting taxes due).
Look at New Jersey, where the gas tax hasn't been raised in two decades. Estimates on how much a tax increase would cost average residents range in the $200-$300 range, while the cost of private vehicle repairs due to potholes is estimated at $600/year. Maybe that's okay? Those car repairs support private industry, the government isn't taxing and spending for public improvements (roads), and Christie gets to say how he's keeping taxes down (and increasing Amtrak delays).
Keeping taxes down has resulted in nine credit rating downgrades for NJ. Quoting the obvious from the linked article: "Credit downgrades make it more expensive for the state to borrow money to pay for things like road improvements and school construction." Pennywise and pound foolish.
Bailing out the banks helped the poor, actually, significantly. But +1 to your spirit re what people will support against their own interests (Kafkaesque indeed) and also warmongering. But not the economy-saving actions of 08ff.
Bailing out the banks helped the poor, actually, significantly. But +1 to your spirit re what people will support against their own interests (Kafkaesque indeed) and also warmongering. But not the economy-saving actions of 08ff.
I would also enjoy hearing what you yourself advocate, specifics, details, rationales, refutations, as to policy and all else in the social and public and gov-financial spheres.
It is more fun to post offpoint quotes, I realize. This one (is it from some libertarian site?) is a little decontextualized, as it had to do with Christianity, IIRC, to which CSL was famously a late convert and is from a book on modern theology including advocacy (it seems) for vegetarianism. It continues: ... They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will ....
Or maybe it is not just to do with God, as CSL also worried about life when the State is everyone's schoolmaster and employer .
Anyway, and again, any good evidence countering the prescriptions of economic 'moral busybodies' is welcome.
Please quote the poster so there isn't any misunderstandings
Well, you mostly, but here are a few comments I pulled that don't speak to highly of debt:
@davidrmoran I wish my household had a money printing machine. Not enough debt. Adds more debt. Ooops, didn't work, not enough debt. Fail. Adds more debt. Hey, I have an idea! Lets add more debt.
That's not the whole point - other point missing, the interest has to be paid. Think about it.
In my humble estimation the US will have stagnating employee wages and a VAT added to deal with the interest on the debt.
But this comment tend to sum up this thread nicely..
This thread contains quite a number of comments based on research, history, and legitimate financial modeling.
It also contains quite a number of mindless rants.
Please quote the poster so there isn't any misunderstandings
Well, you mostly, but here are a few comments I pulled that don't speak to highly of debt:
@davidrmoran I wish my household had a money printing machine. Not enough debt. Adds more debt. Ooops, didn't work, not enough debt. Fail. Adds more debt. Hey, I have an idea! Lets add more debt.
That's not the whole point - other point missing, the interest has to be paid. Think about it.
In my humble estimation the US will have stagnating employee wages and a VAT added to deal with the interest on the debt.
But this comment tend to sum up this thread nicely..
This thread contains quite a number of comments based on research, history, and legitimate financial modeling.
It also contains quite a number of mindless rants.
My dear friend. Please quote "Who said debt wasn't a needed tool here? Please quote the poster so there isn't any misunderstandings " Peace out brother.
Closed minds calling people idiots do tend to cause closed threads.
Live and learn and play nice.
1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid.
I guess we're now at the point where cartoons replace substantive discussion. Wow. How enlightening.
People can't talk about politics on here nor monetary policy because of the fact that they are attached to their beliefs in a manner that is unshakable and - without fail - it ends in snide comments and name calling. I agree with you on some things, I think you agree with me on perhaps a thing or two, but honestly, discussions of monetary policy and politics on here is talking to people who cover their ears. That's fine, it is what it is. I'm not upset, I accept that fact.
But really, why am I going to spend the time and effort to do a thesis on my beliefs on the internet of all places when you have people who are so fundamentalist in their beliefs that I'm simply wasting my time? The endless, almost Scientology-like pushing of Krugman like he's some sort of monetary religion - hey, it's your right to believe in someone who goes on cable and rants like a lunatic about how we should fake an alien invasion to boost GDP, among other things. I've read Krugman. I don't agree with Krugman. I don't care what his political affiliation is. Perhaps Krugman will eventually give me a reason to change my view of him - stranger things have happened - but it seems unlikely.
I do question how much the orthodox political beliefs of some weave into their approval of monetary policy at any given time, but honestly, at the same time I just don't care to even begin to go into it because it - like other political and monetary policy discussions on this board - will go absolutely nowhere.
I'd rather offer a gif and laugh than be any more infuriated than I already am today and waste my time discussing views with people who very clearly have no interest in hearing anything that they don't agree with when it comes to these topics. It's okay you have your views on these topics. It's okay I don't agree with them. Time and time again though, it's been shown on this board that political and monetary theory discussions all end up with name calling, snide comments and upset.
I'll stick with the view this thread should be closed and I'm done posting in this thread.
Comparing evidentiary economics to Scientology surely does represent the end of the discussion. A pity it comes down to the individual personality or whatever it is of one public economist when so many of the real pros agree with him. talk about off point. I do see you totally missed the point of his alien quip ('rant like a lunatic', good God), and you have got completely wrong ('initial reaction' ! ) the 9/11 points. Sigh. You're right, there is no possibility of substantive discussion here now.
I'd rather offer a gif and laugh than be any more infuriated than I already am today and waste my time discussing views with people who very clearly have no interest in hearing anything that they don't agree with when it comes to these topics. It's okay you have your views on these topics. It's okay I don't agree with them.
I agree, with most except with being infuriated. Some get to the point of recognition of what you say sooner then others.
Time and time again though, it's been shown on this board that political and monetary theory discussions all end up with name calling, snide comments and upset.
Except for my Krugman comments (used for emphasis) I do not participate in name calling, snide comments
As to others that do it, I hope that they are not so abrasive in their personal lives.
>> waste my time discussing views ... hearing anything that they don't agree with when it comes to these topics. It's okay you have your views on these topics. It's okay I don't agree with them.
Absolutely, sure ... but are you now claiming that you have offered anything substantive to discuss?? Where was that?
>> monetary theory discussions
Come on, you're trying to get off easy, driving by with cheapshots but not engaging or offering anything with any thought or evidence behind it.
One thing most people on this board are not is lazy --- intellectually or otherwise. A Disney song is a fitting end, yup.
Next time you disagree, see if you can bring it. Everyone else does.
@little5bee- If you go back in this discussion and read my contributions carefully, you will see that nowhere do I make any personal claim with respect to the benefit or lack thereof of national debt. However, I most certainly did point out that there is a substantial body of first-class rational financial research which suggests that national debt, as long as it is not carried to an extreme, is in fact helpful to a national economy.
I am open to the possibility that those arguments may be correct. I am also open to the possibility that they may not be correct. Those studies clearly differentiate between entities which have the power to "create" money as opposed to all other types of debt. This means that debt at the federal level, and ONLY at the federal level, is being considered here. State, local, business or private debt is definitely excluded from this analysis.
Those who explicitly defended Krugman cited numerous sources of information to buttress their points. Those who attacked Krugman supplied exactly nothing, other than ad hominem attacks calling Krugman an idiot. Those attacks were buttressed by nothing whatever in the way of documentation, unless you consider cartoons as rational arguments. Commentators such as Dex are open to nothing other than their own preconceived ideas of reality, and believe that they have no need to support their opinions with any sort of reasonable evidence. Might as well talk to a rock.
>> how can you argue with people who think debt is good
l5b, go back and read the articles about how gov debt is not at all like what you seem to be imagining, personal debt or something. Chiefly moneys we owe ourselves etc.
Why chime in dismissively when you have not kept up ? Look at the graphs of debt to GDP for many countries.
And Dex had to have the last zero-substance word. This is all wild.
No pondering needed: mine had substance. That was the point, another one you missed. We all are waiting for you to post something on point for this discussion.
No pondering needed: mine had substance. That was the point, another one you missed. We all are waiting for you to post something on point for this discussion.
Comments
Watching these prices over a lifetime opens one's eyes to the ravages of inflation. I've always felt the challenge to modern day investors is to avoid getting wiped out by temporary but sharp deflationary spiral before the inflation kicks in.
Look at New Jersey, where the gas tax hasn't been raised in two decades. Estimates on how much a tax increase would cost average residents range in the $200-$300 range, while the cost of private vehicle repairs due to potholes is estimated at $600/year. Maybe that's okay? Those car repairs support private industry, the government isn't taxing and spending for public improvements (roads), and Christie gets to say how he's keeping taxes down (and increasing Amtrak delays).
Keeping taxes down has resulted in nine credit rating downgrades for NJ. Quoting the obvious from the linked article: "Credit downgrades make it more expensive for the state to borrow money to pay for things like road improvements and school construction." Pennywise and pound foolish.
They will say it is to help the poor, yet the only one it helps to bail out the bankers and the investors in those banks.
Sad state of affairs when black becomes white and bad becomes good. Kafka would be proud.
It also contains quite a number of mindless rants.
Take your pick.
Lol.
I would also enjoy hearing what you yourself advocate, specifics, details, rationales, refutations, as to policy and all else in the social and public and gov-financial spheres.
It is more fun to post offpoint quotes, I realize. This one (is it from some libertarian site?) is a little decontextualized, as it had to do with Christianity, IIRC, to which CSL was famously a late convert and is from a book on modern theology including advocacy (it seems) for vegetarianism. It continues:
... They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will ....
Or maybe it is not just to do with God, as CSL also worried about life
when the State is everyone's schoolmaster and employer .
Anyway, and again, any good evidence countering the prescriptions of economic 'moral busybodies' is welcome.
Peace out brother.
1. Ad hominem An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO’s are crazy or stupid.
These monetary policy threads often go in the same direction as political threads on here.
But really, why am I going to spend the time and effort to do a thesis on my beliefs on the internet of all places when you have people who are so fundamentalist in their beliefs that I'm simply wasting my time? The endless, almost Scientology-like pushing of Krugman like he's some sort of monetary religion - hey, it's your right to believe in someone who goes on cable and rants like a lunatic about how we should fake an alien invasion to boost GDP, among other things. I've read Krugman. I don't agree with Krugman. I don't care what his political affiliation is. Perhaps Krugman will eventually give me a reason to change my view of him - stranger things have happened - but it seems unlikely.
I do question how much the orthodox political beliefs of some weave into their approval of monetary policy at any given time, but honestly, at the same time I just don't care to even begin to go into it because it - like other political and monetary policy discussions on this board - will go absolutely nowhere.
I'd rather offer a gif and laugh than be any more infuriated than I already am today and waste my time discussing views with people who very clearly have no interest in hearing anything that they don't agree with when it comes to these topics. It's okay you have your views on these topics. It's okay I don't agree with them. Time and time again though, it's been shown on this board that political and monetary theory discussions all end up with name calling, snide comments and upset.
I'll stick with the view this thread should be closed and I'm done posting in this thread.
Absolutely, sure ... but are you now claiming that you have offered anything substantive to discuss?? Where was that?
>> monetary theory discussions
Come on, you're trying to get off easy, driving by with cheapshots but not engaging or offering anything with any thought or evidence behind it.
One thing most people on this board are not is lazy --- intellectually or otherwise. A Disney song is a fitting end, yup.
Next time you disagree, see if you can bring it. Everyone else does.
I think everyone is a little petulant today because of the market. We will all be happy again when we go to new highs!
I am open to the possibility that those arguments may be correct. I am also open to the possibility that they may not be correct. Those studies clearly differentiate between entities which have the power to "create" money as opposed to all other types of debt. This means that debt at the federal level, and ONLY at the federal level, is being considered here. State, local, business or private debt is definitely excluded from this analysis.
Those who explicitly defended Krugman cited numerous sources of information to buttress their points. Those who attacked Krugman supplied exactly nothing, other than ad hominem attacks calling Krugman an idiot. Those attacks were buttressed by nothing whatever in the way of documentation, unless you consider cartoons as rational arguments. Commentators such as Dex are open to nothing other than their own preconceived ideas of reality, and believe that they have no need to support their opinions with any sort of reasonable evidence. Might as well talk to a rock.
l5b, go back and read the articles about how gov debt is not at all like what you seem to be imagining, personal debt or something. Chiefly moneys we owe ourselves etc.
Why chime in dismissively when you have not kept up ? Look at the graphs of debt to GDP for many countries.
And Dex had to have the last zero-substance word. This is all wild.
But wait, maybe I just did. If you don't post after me ... mmm
Something to ponder.
We are now discussing the discussion.