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.
I think that the support for corporate bailouts and such is to protect their stock investments and retirement funds. A huge number of people from the middle class and up to the very wealthy would be tragically affected if the large corporations were to have failures and bankruptcies. Many pension plans would collapse.
Right. In other words, it was a bailout of the baby boomers. They were too highly invested in risk assets, which collapsed, and now everyone else has to sacrifice so they don't lose any money.
Which contradicts the basics of capitalism.
Which is why the younger generations want to vote in a socialist.
ok. be that as it may, your point is not relevant to a discussion about national policy.
You just confirmed for me that you, in fact, do not understand that there is a difference in personal investing strategy and national economic policy.
I have more understanding than you do. What is your degree in? Loony theories?
Invest 10% of your paycheck starting with your first job, at least 80% in stock till you are 50 and you will be fine regardless of what the politicians do. There is higher risk if the Fed goes from expansionary to contractionary policies too quickly. However, the Fed has done an excellent job since 1978.
Young people, put your money in your 401K, keep doing it even when the inevitable recessions happen. In fact double up on your investment after any 10% drop in the stock market if you can. Ignore the idiots who have been predicting runaway inflation for 30 years and the gloom and doomers who are always looking for bubbles.
Let me also add that if you have bought anything on payments since 2008 you are part of the donor class.
These links do not tell us that Republicans aren't bought and paid for by corporate america.
They just state what everyone already know about Hillary Clinton.
Trump is too rich to be bribed.
That's why the establishment has worked so hard to try to defeat him.
Their bought and paid for corporate ***** Republicans (Rubnio, Bush, Kasich) were dismissed by the primary voters.
Hillary, in sharp contrast, is on a glide path to the Democrat nomination with the full support of the party elite who were nice enough to squash her opposition with Democrat super deligates.
I have more understanding than you do. What is your degree in? Loony theories?
Yup, PhD in Canadian monetary policy
Quote:
Invest 10% of your paycheck starting with your first job, at least 80% in stock till you are 50 and you will be fine regardless of what the politicians do. There is higher risk if the Fed goes from expansionary to contractionary policies too quickly. However, the Fed has done an excellent job since 1978.
Young people, put your money in your 401K, keep doing it even when the inevitable recessions happen. In fact double up on your investment after any 10% drop in the stock market if you can. Ignore the idiots who have been predicting runaway inflation for 30 years and the gloom and doomers who are always looking for bubbles.
Like I said, you don't grasp the difference between personal investing strategy and national economic policy.
Right now that is correct. Artificially so. The government should not be forcing everyone into the markets by their actions in order to keep the markets inflated.
Increasing the risk-free rate decimates the lowest 40%.
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.