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.
Many companies will utilize a sweep account. The money of various function operating accounts at the end of the day is swept into a main account and that main account earns a little interest in the overnight lending markets. Measuring something by adding up the daily sweeps in and not netting with the daily sweeps out leads to a number that is meaningless.
It is not meaningless since the Fed as the lender and backup of last resort has to work that way by our laws.
But I already said, if you don't count the repetitive loans, then $7-9T.
For some definitions of "middle class." Both stock and home ownership has been in decline for over a decade. As long as you include rich folks in the "middle class," 52% of Americans own stocks. Half of those stocks are held by the top 1%.
Home ownership rates have also been declining. In real estate, as in stocks, those of us who got into the game early found it much easier before the big run of asset hyperinflation. I bought my home 26 years ago. If I went shopping for it today, I could never afford anything comparable. Young people have been priced out of the market, which is why their home ownership rates are falling so rapidly.
For some definitions of "middle class." Both stock and home ownership has been in decline for over a decade. As long as you include rich folks in the "middle class," 52% of Americans own stocks. Half of those stocks are held by the top 1%.
Home ownership rates have also been declining. In real estate, as in stocks, those of us who got into the game early found it much easier before the big run of asset hyperinflation. I bought my home 26 years ago. If I went shopping for it today, I could never afford anything comparable. Young people have been priced out of the market, which is why their home ownership rates are falling so rapidly.
There are certainly some crazy RE markets. That and possibly covid 19, along with the ability to work at home, makes me think we might see a movement of many people out of these high rent districts and into more rural environments. This is the life style choice I made over 40 years ago, and have never looked back. Where I live, Californians still can get twice the house for half the money.
Many years ago I was taught to invest in stocks as a way to get rich into retirement. I still encourage my kids to do the same, but for them it will most likely be RE where they gain the most in future asset values. My younger daughter is house shopping right now in Portland, very crazy. She actually offered over the asking price on a house, but may decline as they are finding too many physical problems with the house.
The rich will get richer, but that doesn't have to be at the expense of those poorer. The rich know how and where new moneys can be created and doled out. The middle class don't understand it or believes in inflation, so they turn this largess down.
The fastest and most broad way to enrich those not rich is through central HC benefits. I expect to die before they get it.
If the only way for the rich to get richer is for more money printed out and handed to them for free just so they can turn it around charge others for the use of the money, then is at the expense of others.
If the only way for the rich to get richer is for more money printed out and handed to them for free just so they can turn it around charge others for the use of the money, then is at the expense of others.
Any money, new or old will funnel towards the rich. IMO it would be better to not tax everyone else, or better to charge everyone less, in getting there. No one has to charge anyone for these moneys.
For instance with HC, new moneys could subsidized everyone else. This immediately boosts everyone else. The rich still get rich.
Any money, new or old will funnel towards the rich. IMO it would be better to not tax everyone else, or better to charge everyone less, in getting there. No one has to charge anyone for these moneys.
For instance with HC, new moneys could subsidized everyone else. This immediately boosts everyone else. The rich still get rich.
If you give money to low income people they will spend it. This will lead to increasing inflation and increasing interest rates. The only way our current debt structure can survive is if interest rates are insanely low. A return to the normal 3.5% passbook savings rate, 7% mortgage rate and 5% treasury rate would wreck the system.
If you give money to low income people they will spend it. This will lead to increasing inflation and increasing interest rates. The only way our current debt structure can survive is if interest rates are insanely low. A return to the normal 3.5% passbook savings rate, 7% mortgage rate and 5% treasury rate would wreck the system.
If that new money given to the poor is spent on necessities, then fine. If spent on whores and blow, then not. Either way the rich will end up with a good chunk of that money.
There could be some local inflation in the poor communities on pay day depending on how astute their local small business people.
We are no where near any higher interest rates. Heck we're looking to buy a house at 3 and a quarter.
If that new money given to the poor is spent on necessities, then fine. If spent on whores and blow, then not. Either way the rich will end up with a good chunk of that money.
There could be some local inflation in the poor communities on pay day depending on how astute their local small business people.
We are no where near any higher interest rates. Heck we're looking to buy a house at 3 and a quarter.
You have a weird perspective on low income lifestyles. Give poor people more money and they will spend it on luxuries like clothes for their kids, child care, maybe a summer camp or music lessons, a more reliable vehicle, vegetables, data service, roach and rodent control, and all the other things that poverty forces them to do without.
32% of families in the US do not have enough income to meet basic needs. Provide them with an adequate income and the increased demand would definitely spark nationwide inflation, not just in the "hood."
Any money, new or old will funnel towards the rich. IMO it would be better to not tax everyone else, or better to charge everyone less, in getting there. No one has to charge anyone for these moneys.
For instance with HC, new moneys could subsidized everyone else. This immediately boosts everyone else. The rich still get rich.
Parity matters. As long as the funneling is because the wealthy are supplying something useful to everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
If you give money to low income people they will spend it. This will lead to increasing inflation and increasing interest rates. The only way our current debt structure can survive is if interest rates are insanely low. A return to the normal 3.5% passbook savings rate, 7% mortgage rate and 5% treasury rate would wreck the system.
Many items are not that price elastic, especially everyday items. The items that are will rise regardless of wealth parity. Plus you assume people wont get the brilliant idea of saving some of that money by just not spending it. Poor people, for example, are always bargain hunting. Why will that practice stop just because they have money?
You have a weird perspective on low income lifestyles. Give poor people more money and they will spend it on luxuries like clothes for their kids, child care, maybe a summer camp or music lessons, a more reliable vehicle, vegetables, data service, roach and rodent control, and all the other things that poverty forces them to do without.
32% of families in the US do not have enough income to meet basic needs. Provide them with an adequate income and the increased demand would definitely spark nationwide inflation, not just in the "hood."
Are we talking about increasing people's incomes or just replacing lost incomes? I see no reason to send out stimulus checks to people who haven't suffered any losses but I do think we need to continue the UI FPUC supplement, except adjusted so that no one draws more than 75% of their previous income. Replacing incomes shouldn't result in greater demand (or even match previous demand) so that handles one side of the inflation coin.
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.
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.
