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.
• The ideologically-driven narratives of the ever-wrongs make for bad policy, poor economic analysis, and terrible investment strategies.
• They continue to say things will happen that keep on not happening. They promise an immediate uptick in capital expenditures, but there has been none. They say job growth will improve, but it is actually worse than the prior few years.
• A temporary GDP sugar high, a surge in stock buybacks and dividend increases, and a surge in deficits. All very foreseeable.
And this absolutely right-on quote from Upton Sinclair:
• “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
As I recall, American corporations were sitting on the largest cash horde ever. (Not positive about the "ever", but it was at least huge.) So lack of cash was not an obstacle for capital expenditures.
Maybe handing consumers more cash would have spurred demand, stimulating investment by companies. Handing that cash over to companies wasn't going to. This is not rocket science.
Michael Dell was recently owned in Davos by MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson when he mused about where in the world – ever – such high marginal tax rates had ever worked:
“No, I am not supportive of that, and I don’t think it would help the growth of the U.S. economy,” he said in response to questions from The Washington Post.
When Dell was asked to explain why he thinks that, he said, “Name a country where that’s worked — ever.”
Co-panelist and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson jumped in to offer an answer: “the United States.”
I don't know what the future holds; it seems the odds of getting back to the spirit of grudging sharing of the 1950s and before are way low. Plutocrats have insane powers for holding onto moneys they do not need by any stretch of the imagination. Historical ignorance and miseducation are rampant.
Many super-rich people make the mistake of thinking they are super-smart, instead of super-lucky, and they act accordingly, with bravado and a false sense of certainty. (Warren Buffet might be an exception: my guess would be he considers himself super-disciplined.) This ties in with the observation about historical ignorance. So does something retired Justice Anthony Kennedy said the other day: “I am so concerned with the egocentrism that the cyber age has brought us. Our young people in the cyber age don’t think the past is important. ... If it’s not on your screen, it’s not important.” I don't think there is any reason at all to confine such an observation to "young people," as wilful ignorance is widespread among all age groups.
Many super-rich people make the mistake of thinking they are super-smart, instead of super-lucky, and they act accordingly, with bravado and a false sense of certainty. (Warren Buffet might be an exception ...)
Other exceptions might be: Bezos, Dalio, Musk. (Lord knows the last has lots of other “issues.”)
I’m not sure Individual #1 is all that rich. Really? Would like to have a look at his tax returns before concluding that. However, he’s clearly not very smart in the conventional sense of the word. But there are different kinds of smart. Some people are very astute at reading the feelings and reactions of others and in manipulating people using that ability (ie: threats, fear, intimidation, pie-in-the-sky promises). This they learn at an early age and - as they say - Practice makes perfect. It’s not a type of “smarts” I admire or value. But give him credit. He is quite smart in that regard.
Many super-rich people make the mistake of thinking they are super-smart, instead of super-lucky, and they act accordingly, with bravado and a false sense of certainty. (Warren Buffet might be an exception: my guess would be he considers himself super-disciplined.) This ties in with the observation about historical ignorance. So does something retired Justice Anthony Kennedy said the other day: “I am so concerned with the egocentrism that the cyber age has brought us. Our young people in the cyber age don’t think the past is important. ... If it’s not on your screen, it’s not important.” I don't think there is any reason at all to confine such an observation to "young people," as wilful ignorance is widespread among all age groups.
Comments
Regards- OJ
• The ideologically-driven narratives of the ever-wrongs make for bad policy, poor economic analysis, and terrible investment strategies.
• They continue to say things will happen that keep on not happening. They promise an immediate uptick in capital expenditures, but there has been none. They say job growth will improve, but it is actually worse than the prior few years.
• A temporary GDP sugar high, a surge in stock buybacks and dividend increases, and a surge in deficits. All very foreseeable.
And this absolutely right-on quote from Upton Sinclair:
• “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
(Emphasis added.)
Maybe handing consumers more cash would have spurred demand, stimulating investment by companies. Handing that cash over to companies wasn't going to. This is not rocket science.
Michael Dell was recently owned in Davos by MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson when he mused about where in the world – ever – such high marginal tax rates had ever worked:
“No, I am not supportive of that, and I don’t think it would help the growth of the U.S. economy,” he said in response to questions from The Washington Post.
When Dell was asked to explain why he thinks that, he said, “Name a country where that’s worked — ever.”
Co-panelist and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson jumped in to offer an answer: “the United States.”
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman
I don't know what the future holds; it seems the odds of getting back to the spirit of grudging sharing of the 1950s and before are way low. Plutocrats have insane powers for holding onto moneys they do not need by any stretch of the imagination. Historical ignorance and miseducation are rampant.
I’m not sure Individual #1 is all that rich. Really? Would like to have a look at his tax returns before concluding that. However, he’s clearly not very smart in the conventional sense of the word. But there are different kinds of smart. Some people are very astute at reading the feelings and reactions of others and in manipulating people using that ability (ie: threats, fear, intimidation, pie-in-the-sky promises). This they learn at an early age and - as they say - Practice makes perfect. It’s not a type of “smarts” I admire or value. But give him credit. He is quite smart in that regard.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/03/opinion/democrats-wealth-tax.html