Reply
Advisor
Posts: 13,047
Registered: ‎02-06-2014
0

Re: a bit complicated

Silver btw, I'm on the other side of that bet. 

 

One of those rare back up the truck moments when a near decade long uptrend support is broken. That's also the neckline on a massive head and shoulders.

 

Also the key that something is different was when the large spec COTs went net short for the first time in history a few months ago- specs are always long gold and silver, just a matter of how much.

 

Anyway I'm in good enough to stop out at a disappointing profit.

 

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2157137/china-has-no-idea-how-play-trump-and-doin...

 

There are points to be made in favor of all of the major Trump agenda items- trade, immigration, geopolitics (probably not on massively pro-cyclical Keynesianism through upper end tax cuts). 

 

But coherent policy would be nice, rather than WWE Reality TV theater for the slobbering masses.

 

 

Advisor
Posts: 13,047
Registered: ‎02-06-2014
0

Re: a bit complicated

But permanent 4% growth will solve that!!!!

 

Gotta get a huge guffaw out of Trumpish farmers getting a huge per capita government payout while tut-tutting over Fed spending.

 

Why not give everybody $100K?

Honored Advisor
Posts: 8,647
Registered: ‎07-18-2011
0

Re: a bit complicated

regardless of mistakes being made, we are still responsible for that spending and will pay it back.
Watched cspan yesterday regarding a new bill to give homeless healthcare.
They want another 100 billion to feed the bureaucracy hiding behind that smoke screen cause. (Assuming homeless get no care presently)
Regardless the debt grows and taxpayers have pick up the tab. For today we have a spending problem. Tomorrow we have a debt problem that takes more income to pay. Unfortunately that is yesterday’s problem as well.
Once it is spent it is our responsibility.
Leaders who will say no, will get elected when bills come due
Advisor
Posts: 13,047
Registered: ‎02-06-2014
0

Re: a bit complicated

Which part of the 10% of the budget that is non-defense/security and non- entitlement spending do you want to cut?

 

Pro-cyclical deficits created by high end tax cuts probably have little or no economic traction. They do have a lot when there's a lot of slack in the economy although there's a much better multiplier from giving money to poor and working people.

 

Other than wanting to appear serious in front of your clientele I can't even fathom why anyone in agriculture wouldn't be thankful that the gubmint temporarily ran $1-2T deficits at a time when aggregate demand was extremely depressed. If you recall, corn went from $7 to $3 in short order and most everybody would have gone out of business- even people who had recently seen a 0 added to the end of their net worth.

 

The real question to answer is why that was necessary, and the answer largely lies in zombie conservative "economic"ideas. The DLC dems also embraced a lot of that but Rs did the heavy lifting.

 

 

Senior Contributor
Posts: 212
Registered: ‎12-04-2010
0

Re: a bit complicated

Nox,

$1 T deficits are going to become regular and gdp to debt is going to get worse and worse.  But referring to running $1 T deficits to get us out of the crisis, that only kicked the can down the road.  And the can will get big enough that we won't be able to kick it eventually.  

Honored Advisor
Posts: 17,400
Registered: ‎05-13-2010
0

Re: a bit complicated

After the national debt hit $6 Trillion, that was the point of no return.  So, now apologists of whatever party is in power tout that mantra of "deficits don`t matter".  And I suppose if it`s inevitable, might as well lay back and enjoy it.

 

In a demockracy it only works so long as voters don`t realize that they can pick the taxpayer`s pocket....well we got a little over 200 years out of the grand experiment.   At some point, our creditors will get a haircut.

Advisor
Posts: 13,047
Registered: ‎02-06-2014
0

Re: a bit complicated

If you want to pretend to be a serious guy being a "deficit hark" is a sure bet- Paul Ryan made a career out of it and had large swaths of the punditry fawning over his serious wonkiness. But all he ever did was issue partial budget frameworks with magic growth from tax cuts and deficit reduction from "loopholes to be named later" which never were.

 

His fall from grace with his caucus isn't due to that ideological view- the people who made his life miserable are all in on that, too, and more. They also are warriors for Christ, out to punish the poor and inferm as he commanded.

Honored Advisor
Posts: 17,400
Registered: ‎05-13-2010
0

Re: a bit complicated

To say you`re in favor of free ice cream is a real vote getter in many districts.

Honored Advisor
Posts: 8,647
Registered: ‎07-18-2011
0

Re: a bit complicated

There are no entitlements
Highlighted
Senior Advisor
Posts: 1,172
Registered: ‎05-20-2010

Re: a bit complicated

[ Edited ]

Ah the hardbody one finally gets to it...."warriors for Christ out to punish the poor"...

 

Easy to say and completely meaningless all the same time...of course it is easy

to blame a Christian...about nothing in particular of course....the atheist in the 

USSR etal  was much better at punishment of course, 100 million dead proves

the point.

 

I will just say that welfare as it currently exists has hardly helped the plight of

the beneficiaries over time. Christ taught PERSONAL charity, not Rome based

redistribtion...nice try Hardy one but you offer a hallow, brainless, pathetic point of view.