U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-16-2015, 06:02 AM
 
78,803 posts, read 33,515,967 times
Reputation: 15780

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
It is "odd' only if you are ignorant of the many types of investments.
Which is really irrelevant. The statement was people were not investing because of Obama. The stock market has boomed under Obama. (even if artificially so to the detriment of a large portion of the country). Look at how many here are bragging about doing well in the markets. What does there being many types of investments have to do with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2015, 11:01 AM
 
325 posts, read 203,007 times
Reputation: 287
After reading about 8 pages of the same nonsense (with about 3 sensical posts), I think a quick reminder is in order about the nature of "capitalism" and private ownership of the means of productions. It is easily confused (and conspiracized) by both lice-ridden "occupy" types and lower-income Palin-ites who listen to AM radio far too much.

I'll make it real simple - the stock market is simply the owner's forum of US companies. The vast majority of the ownership is by retirement vehicles - IRAs, grandma's pension, etc. Both your Scott-trade account and the evil-monocled Yankee robber baron really don't own a comparatively huge amount.

Does an out-sized portion of the wealthy own an absurd amount of investable assets? Sure. Is it a threat, a neo-Reaganite conspiracy, or a self-perpetuating system to keep the "99%" down? Hardly. In fact, the equity market has become very much democratized in the past two decades - and a good deal of this is the passive investing done for your retirement. The people that handle this are paid very well (but surprisingly, not usually as well as people who actually run the companies that receive the investment).

There is a theory, tenuous at best, that by allowing the very wealthy to have more "spare cash", they will invest that cash into tangible capital and expand American business. It had a small bit of merit in the early 1980s (as did nearly anything that was simply different than what Jimmy Carter advocted). Today, the pool of capital available and ease of international ownership is so massive, it is more of a problem having too much global cash to invest - not of needing a tax-cut stimulus to free up more.

Bottom line, capital flows freely in a free market, and if that means some people get rich while Midwestern auto factories (making an awful product) get shut down. This is not terribly effected if my top rate is 39% vice 35%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 11:11 AM
 
3,262 posts, read 3,002,338 times
Reputation: 1893
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's not just private Americans who have too much debt...

Corporations and governments with "good credit" can borrow at 1%. They can have $10 million in outstanding debt, and many corporations and governments have that or more.

What happens when the rate of interest goes to 2% for those with "good credit," a mere 1% rise?

As an example, the interest payment required to keep an outstanding $10 million debt now doubles to $200,000. If the debtor can't come up with the extra $100,000, the only way to reduce their carrying costs, other than bankruptcy, is to pay down $5 million of that $10 million debt.

But they don't have that $5 million; it's already been spent. That was, after all, the entire point of borrowing the $10 million.

This is the trap The Federal Reserve is in, and from the size of it (much larger than the $10 million example I gave) you should easily be able to see the problem: Even a modest increase in interest rates, for example just a 1% increase, will drive "good credit" borrowing costs in the short term to roughly 2% or so, which will instantly double the interest due or force a paydown of half of the outstanding debt.

The latter is impossible because the money has already been spent, and therefore the former is also impossible. It's a TRAP.
This is also why, when you choose what stocks to buy, in the current environment of a currency debased by the Fed in conjunction with inflation temporarily held back by the remaining post-crisis vestiges of real-economy weakness, a capital structure with lots of long term debt or float is a Very Good Thing while companies which finance using a sizable revolver (very short term debt constantly turned over to take advantage of rock bottom short term interest rates) are to be avoided like the plague.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 11:15 AM
 
78,803 posts, read 33,515,967 times
Reputation: 15780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pac_5 View Post
After reading about 8 pages of the same nonsense (with about 3 sensical posts), I think a quick reminder is in order about the nature of "capitalism" and private ownership of the means of productions. It is easily confused (and conspiracized) by both lice-ridden "occupy" types and lower-income Palin-ites who listen to AM radio far too much.

I'll make it real simple - the stock market is simply the owner's forum of US companies. The vast majority of the ownership is by retirement vehicles - IRAs, grandma's pension, etc. Both your Scott-trade account and the evil-monocled Yankee robber baron really don't own a comparatively huge amount.

Does an out-sized portion of the wealthy own an absurd amount of investable assets? Sure. Is it a threat, a neo-Reaganite conspiracy, or a self-perpetuating system to keep the "99%" down? Hardly. In fact, the equity market has become very much democratized in the past two decades - and a good deal of this is the passive investing done for your retirement. The people that handle this are paid very well (but surprisingly, not usually as well as people who actually run the companies that receive the investment).

There is a theory, tenuous at best, that by allowing the very wealthy to have more "spare cash", they will invest that cash into tangible capital and expand American business. It had a small bit of merit in the early 1980s (as did nearly anything that was simply different than what Jimmy Carter advocted). Today, the pool of capital available and ease of international ownership is so massive, it is more of a problem having too much global cash to invest - not of needing a tax-cut stimulus to free up more.

Bottom line, capital flows freely in a free market, and if that means some people get rich while Midwestern auto factories (making an awful product) get shut down. This is not terribly effected if my top rate is 39% vice 35%.
A free market also says that if your bank makes bad investments it goes belly up, not get bailed out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 11:49 AM
 
325 posts, read 203,007 times
Reputation: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
A free market also says that if your bank makes bad investments it goes belly up, not get bailed out.
True, for the most part, but modern finance involves a bit more than money in a coffee can, the ol' County Bank and "fairness". A world without of TARP program..... that would have hit my bottom line profoundly, and perhaps even have cost Todd Palin his job
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 01:50 PM
 
78,803 posts, read 33,515,967 times
Reputation: 15780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pac_5 View Post
True, for the most part, but modern finance involves a bit more than money in a coffee can, the ol' County Bank and "fairness". A world without of TARP program..... that would have hit my bottom line profoundly, and perhaps even have cost Todd Palin his job
No, not for the most part. I care less about what would have happened to Todd Palin. It's not O.K. simply because it is you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,724,367 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
In a nutshell, because job growth in well paying jobs has been beyond crappy and raises have been nil for years due to abysmal policies perpetrated by this administration.


Many of us are making a lot less than we did 10 years ago. It doesn't matter how much you cut my taxes. You won't get me back to the buying power I had 10 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 02:33 PM
Status: "1st day of summer feels like fall" (set 18 days ago)
 
5,482 posts, read 3,215,451 times
Reputation: 2131
Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusNexus View Post
Because "trickle down" is the most absurd economic concept in history. It has never worked for the benefit of all and never will.
LOL...It pays for your sorry butt I bet and millions of other baby make'n' do not's who cry and whine all the way to the projects...boohoo !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 03:14 PM
Status: "I CRAVE Canine-stew" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Brawndo-Thirst-Mutilator-Nation
16,440 posts, read 16,539,969 times
Reputation: 12442
Liberals idea of trickle-down is totally free housing, healthcare, food, teeveee, high-speed internet, Osamaphone, free school breakfast/lunch/dinner....etc, etc...........for anyone who makes up to 400% of the poverty-level, so of course it has not worked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 04:19 PM
 
66,437 posts, read 30,294,925 times
Reputation: 8660
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul View Post
Liberals idea of trickle-down is totally free housing, healthcare, food, teeveee, high-speed internet, Osamaphone, free school breakfast/lunch/dinner....etc, etc...........for anyone who makes up to 400% of the poverty-level, so of course it has not worked.
Sure it has... the LEECHES vote Dem for life. /puke
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top