Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Nothing will get passed by the Ds and Rs will get everything they want.

They will get murdered in midterms and let’s welcome trump back in 24

rinse and repeat 

Edited by Gengs1
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

Nothing will get passed by the Ds and Rs will get everything they want.

They will get murdered in midterms and let’s welcome trump back in 24

rinse and repeat 

Michael Scott The Office GIF - Michael Scott The Office Thank You GIFs

Posted
1 hour ago, Zepol87 said:

Barely getting by, amazing. Good for you though

Barely getting by probably a bit of a stretch but it damn sure isn’t going as far as people make it out to be. 
 

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Good god, why can’t both those cunts just drop fucking dead?

Those two are like the D’s version of the aggy coaster.  Godamnit they are wasting the D’s precious time. 

Posted
13 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Is the pivot that $200k is too much to make? That’s barely getting by where I live.

Yeah, that's a you problem, regardless of location. I don't see anyone here arguing a HH income of $200k makes someone/a family unfathomably wealthy or whatever, but this is completely disingenuous nonsense that prevents any adult tax conversation on tax policy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Barely getting by probably a bit of a stretch but it damn sure isn’t going as far as people make it out to be. 
 

Cmon man, one of the resident socialists here equated 200k income with buying second homes. You’ve hit the big time if you hit that number. 
 

In other news, a very curious appointment by the Biden administration to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Basically bank regulation. They essentially nominated a communist. Don’t believe me? Just read her writings. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saule_Omarova
 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715735
 

Some of the proposals she highlights. 

 

(1) Moving all commercial bank deposits from commercial banks to so-called FedAccounts at the Federal Reserve;

(2) Allowing the Fed, in “extreme and rare circumstances, when the Fed is unable to control inflation by raising interest rates,” to confiscate deposits from these FedAccounts in order to tighten monetary policy;

(3) Allowing the most Wall Street-conflicted regional Fed bank in the country, the New York Fed, when there are “rises in market value at rates suggestive of a bubble trend,” such as with technology stocks today, to “short these securities, thereby putting downward pressure on their prices”;

(4) Eliminate the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures bank deposits;

(5) Consolidate all bank regulatory functions at the OCC 

She’s very unlikely to be confirmed due to these opinions, but why on Earth would someone that essentially opposes financial autonomy and privacy be appointed to such a leadership role in our government? These are frankly dangerous positions to every American. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

So definitely Joe's fault.

They explicitly claimed it was his policies that were working when the 4th of July barbecue was $0.16 less than last year. Now they don’t get credit? Cmon 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

They explicitly claimed it was his policies that were working when the 4th of July barbecue was $0.16 less than last year. Now they don’t get credit? Cmon 

Are you arguing that Biden is somehow unique for attempting to take credit for that he cannot?

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Cmon man, one of the resident socialists here equated 200k income with buying second homes. You’ve hit the big time if you hit that number. 
 

In other news, a very curious appointment by the Biden administration to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Basically bank regulation. They essentially nominated a communist. Don’t believe me? Just read her writings. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saule_Omarova
 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715735
 

Some of the proposals she highlights. 

 

(1) Moving all commercial bank deposits from commercial banks to so-called FedAccounts at the Federal Reserve;

(2) Allowing the Fed, in “extreme and rare circumstances, when the Fed is unable to control inflation by raising interest rates,” to confiscate deposits from these FedAccounts in order to tighten monetary policy;

(3) Allowing the most Wall Street-conflicted regional Fed bank in the country, the New York Fed, when there are “rises in market value at rates suggestive of a bubble trend,” such as with technology stocks today, to “short these securities, thereby putting downward pressure on their prices”;

(4) Eliminate the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures bank deposits;

(5) Consolidate all bank regulatory functions at the OCC 

She’s very unlikely to be confirmed due to these opinions, but why on Earth would someone that essentially opposes financial autonomy and privacy be appointed to such a leadership role in our government? These are frankly dangerous positions to every American. 

 

That is a fucking BIZARRE nomination.   Anyone have access to the linked paper?  Eliminating the FDIC, without replacement, doesn't seem ideal.

Edited by Incredulity
Posted
15 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

That is a fucking BIZARRE nomination.   Anyone have access to the linked paper?  Eliminating the FDIC, without replacement, doesn't seem ideal.

There’s a link inside the link to download the whole paper. 
 

I assume if you abolish commercial banks and it’s all held by the Federal Reserve then you don’t really need the insurance?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Satoshi said:

There’s a link inside the link to download the whole paper. 
 

I assume if you abolish commercial banks and it’s all held by the Federal Reserve then you don’t really need the insurance?

thanks,  I  just assumed the download was fee or subscription based.

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, sidis said:

fredgraph.png?g=IeHc

 

 

 

Is the above a better look at corporate profits (absolute dollar amounts) over time better than one than takes into account domestic economic activity increases over the same time frame?

 

Screenshot-2021-10-27-092134.jpg

 

 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Holy Lord.

Advocating for elimination of the current private banking system with a singular Federal Bank, under the pretense that will "democratize" finance.

Disclaimed by this, "do ya think so" 

Quote

Of course, the practical implementation of this multilayered structural reform would require more granular thinking about various
legal, political, and technological issues beyond this Article’s scope

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I see we are now in the "DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" phase again. 

Ya could have done 1 Trillion in infrastructure spending months ago on a bipartisan basis.  Seems like "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" is more the phase we are in.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Holy Lord.

Advocating for elimination of the current private banking system with a singular Federal Bank, under the pretense that will "democratize" finance.

Disclaimed by this, "do ya think so" 

 

I like this pearl. Not dystopian at all. 
 

For U.S. citizens, Individual FedAccounts would be opened automatically upon birth or naturalization. These accounts would also be credited automatically with regularly received federal benefits: social security payments, tax refunds, and all other disbursements that depend on one’s citizenship status.


 

Sure this is all just her wet dream, but the fact that she even proposes such a centralized model says a lot. Quite “progressive”.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Ya could have done 1 Trillion in infrastructure spending months ago on a bipartisan basis.  Seems like "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" is more the phase we are in.

Your boy Trump literally ran on that and it turned into vaporware as soon as he won office. Weird.

Posted
Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Your boy Trump literally ran on that and it turned into vaporware as soon as he won office. Weird.

but, but, but, but....Trump.

 

Strong to Charlie Strong.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

but, but, but, but....Trump.

 

Strong to Charlie Strong.

There's no but Trump beyond I seriously doubt you criticized him for immediately forgetting about his campaign promise after getting elected. Fuck Biden, I don't give a shit. The democrats are fucking this up just as badly. Just be consistent.

Posted
12 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Time to seize the means of production and all private property.

Or, you know, just have them pay taxes and living wages, the way it was when the boomers lived well and now pretend that everyone below them is lazy.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Posted
Or, you know, just have them pay taxes and living wages, the way it was when the boomers lived well and now pretend that everyone below them is lazy.

Louder for the mouth breathers in the back.

Boomers were around when the top whatever percent were in a tax rate of 90% and they say they want to MAGA… well, let’s go!
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

Is the above a better look at corporate profits (absolute dollar amounts) over time better than one than takes into account domestic economic activity increases over the same time frame?

 

Screenshot-2021-10-27-092134.jpg

 

 

both are highly relevant in different ways.  but for the preceding discussion regarding inflation, the after tax corporate profits with no adjustments for inventory value and capital consumption provides a pretty interesting look.  particularly when one simply layers on it actual inflation along with wage growth.  it begs the question from your earlier graph, if the economy is growing rapidly and the profits are generally growing rapidly along with it in significant excess of inflation, as well as wage growth, then where is the excess going?  we know the answer.

fredgraph.png?g=IgYv

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, sidis said:

if the economy is growing rapidly and the profits are generally growing rapidly along with it in significant excess of inflation, as well as wage growth, then where is the excess going?  we know the answer.

To the investment class?

Screenshot-2021-10-27-092353.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, sidis said:

if the economy is growing rapidly and the profits are generally growing rapidly along with it in significant excess of inflation, as well as wage growth, then where is the excess going?  we know the answer.

Yes we do. And it sits doing nothing - testing the credibility of the public investment multiplier effect. Easy fix - inject the free money at the human level, not the ultra-wealthy/corporation private spigot of free cash. Humans spending reestablishes the fiscal multiplier effect.

It will all trickle up anyway. It always does.

Money supply chain broken. See below.

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
48 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes we do. And it sits doing nothing - testing the credibility of the public investment multiplier effect. Easy fix - inject the free money at the human level, not the ultra-wealthy/corporation private spigot of free cash. Humans spending reestablishes the fiscal multiplier effect.

It will all trickle up anyway. It always does.

Money supply chain broken. See below.

spacer.png

Fantastic post.  A powerful illustration of a significant underlying flaw in the system, tied to most of the economic issues we've been discussing.

Posted
1 hour ago, sidis said:

both are highly relevant in different ways.  but for the preceding discussion regarding inflation, the after tax corporate profits with no adjustments for inventory value and capital consumption provides a pretty interesting look.  particularly when one simply layers on it actual inflation along with wage growth.  it begs the question from your earlier graph, if the economy is growing rapidly and the profits are generally growing rapidly along with it in significant excess of inflation, as well as wage growth, then where is the excess going?  we know the answer.

fredgraph.png?g=IgYv

 

Now try and convince the MAGA on this thread that the disparity displayed on this graph is a bad thing. 

Posted
1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes we do. And it sits doing nothing - testing the credibility of the public investment multiplier effect. Easy fix - inject the free money at the human level, not the ultra-wealthy/corporation private spigot of free cash. Humans spending reestablishes the fiscal multiplier effect.

It will all trickle up anyway. It always does.

Money supply chain broken. See below.

spacer.png

I agree with you that “helicopter money” will boost velocity. But what what would happen to our current rate of 5.4% inflation after we get a boost in velocity from increased direct transfers? As this board likes to say we will FAFO. 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, mchookem said:

didn't somebody create an actual economy thread for all these graphs? 

Sneaking in this before the chart jihadists have their way . . . 

spacer.png

 

Deflationary headwind as seen in GDP forecast product from the Atlanta Fed.  Awful trend (GDP at less than 1), but hopefully this is transitory data skewing the model.

Posted
6 hours ago, 'stache said:

Or, you know, just have them pay taxes and living wages, the way it was when the boomers lived well and now pretend that everyone below them is lazy.

re: Billionaire tax:

NYU finance professor Aswath Damodaran wrote that the proposal is “perhaps the worst thought-through and most ineffective attempt ever at rewriting tax code.” Questions like, “What do you do when an investment goes down?” “How would they come up with the money without selling other assets?” and, “Is this even constitutional?” are not easily answered.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

re: Billionaire tax:

NYU finance professor Aswath Damodaran wrote that the proposal is “perhaps the worst thought-through and most ineffective attempt ever at rewriting tax code.” Questions like, “What do you do when an investment goes down?” “How would they come up with the money without selling other assets?” and, “Is this even constitutional?” are not easily answered.

All that's been talked through over multiple pages on this board.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Yes we do. And it sits doing nothing - testing the credibility of the public investment multiplier effect. Easy fix - inject the free money at the human level, not the ultra-wealthy/corporation private spigot of free cash. Humans spending reestablishes the fiscal multiplier effect.

It's not even hyperbole to say all the extra money is doing nothing - the reverse repo market is off the fucking chart

image.thumb.png.259ed764e5a43c40b9f364417f969226.png

$1,413,188,000,000

Just fucking sitting there. Doing abso-fucking-lutely nothing but accruing a teensy bit of interest for the ultra-wealthy and multinational corporation/tax haven shell company economy.



×
×
  • Create New...