frestly.bsky.social
240 posts
33 followers
1 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Looking for a "Happy Ending" to his career?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwBH...
comment in response to
post
Greatest impact any person can have on another person's life is just to sit and listen.
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and Speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." - Winston Churchill
comment in response to
post
Worked out well the first time.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I don't go to war often. But when I do I drink bourbon.
comment in response to
post
When you figure out what you actually believe in, come back and chat again.
Nice chatting.
comment in response to
post
So Clinton and Congress raised tax rates above the prevailing rates that were present during the Reagan / Bush Sr. administrations (and also flatlined defense spending).
comment in response to
post
Good, then you should know the answer to your own question.
comment in response to
post
Sure it does. If the source of currency depreciation is too much money, then government sells equity that is expensive for them to sell, but cheap for you to buy.
Amount of currency in circulation falls, and amount of equity increases.
Same way that bond sales pull money out of circulation.
comment in response to
post
Do you think you have a claim on government assets like the White House, Pentagon building, Jefferson memorial, when you buy a government bond?
Do you understand the legal distinction between debt and equity?
comment in response to
post
Here is the support for that statement. By 1990, interest payments on the federal debt were consuming a little over 50% of federal tax receipts. Graph courtesy of St. Louis Fed.
The federal government by law is not permitted to pay interest on bonds by selling new bonds (Ponzi finance).
comment in response to
post
I get what you are saying, but consider that a big reason that Clinton raised tax rates back in the 1990's was because of the debt service costs.
So if government is selling equity in lieu of debt, then there is one less reason for it to raise tax rates.
comment in response to
post
Which in turn makes equity better for government to use instead of debt in protecting it's currency.
comment in response to
post
If it's expensive for the government to sell equity, then it must be cheap for you or I to buy it - no?
So nobody will buy equity when the government is selling it cheap - is that what you are trying to convince yourself of?
comment in response to
post
Buying equity shares in a company doesn't guarantee you a positive return.
Look, if you don't like equity investing, then just say so.
But don't pretend that nobody likes it.
comment in response to
post
Which makes equity even better than debt for the federal government because as you say:
"..it doesn’t want to devalue its currency."
comment in response to
post
I've already said that purchasing the equity is completely by choice - buy the equity if you want, if you don't that's fine too.
It's you that can't decide if "nobody will buy them" or if there is some risk premium that will attract buyers.
comment in response to
post
Most people that I know like lower taxes on their earned income.
You prefer higher taxes on your earned income?
comment in response to
post
How many people buy corporate equities that might or might not pay off in the long term?
comment in response to
post
But not for everyone.
It's you that is floating around the "nobody will buy them" BS even after admitting that there is a risk premium needed to get someone to buy them.
comment in response to
post
The same people that ask for a raise in pay while they are working.
comment in response to
post
First you say that equity buyers will demand a risk premium (and I agree).
Then you say that no one will buy the equity (no risk premium is large enough).
Make up your mind.
comment in response to
post
Right, and with a recession comes joblessness.
So if you are holding equity (and losing ROI), you have a pretty good incentive to go find a new job.
Can the same be said if you are holding bonds?
comment in response to
post
Okay, I said similar, not exactly the same.
comment in response to
post
Again speaking for people you have never talked to.
comment in response to
post
Okay, then you agree there are good reasons for government to choose a more expensive method of financing (like equity).
comment in response to
post
Sure by jawboning long term interest rates higher, Trump will bring prices down.
Shame he didn't learn that before serving his first term.
comment in response to
post
Printing money is cheaper than bonds. And yet the government chooses the more expensive option.
comment in response to
post
Except that during a recession, the realized gains from bonds stay the same. The realized gains from equity fall when fewer equity holders have taxable income.
I think Robert Shiller discussed something similar with what he called "Trills".
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
comment in response to
post
Except the government's liability with the equity dies with the owner (similar to Social Security). Not so with marketable bonds - transferrable across generations.
comment in response to
post
With bonds, the upside is limited to the total tax liability of all tax payers.
With equity, the upside is limited to the equity purchasers individual tax liability.
comment in response to
post
Not if the government can lower the price of the equity to whatever the market requests, sell whatever quantity of equity the market requires, and sell equity anytime the market requires it (irrespective of budget deficit or surplus).
Can the same be said of bonds?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
These are firms that are required to submit bids at Treasury auctions.
comment in response to
post
1. Has there ever been a President like Trump?
2. Not refused, impounded payment. Let the next President worry about lifting the impound and restoring payments.
3. Depends how you want to treat TIPs. You say the terms can't be changed. Jack Lew says otherwise.
comment in response to
post
Again, not sure Social Security beneficiaries care that much about accuracy, consensus, or research.
comment in response to
post
Sure, when there is a clear cut case of cause & effect (cyanide resulting in death).
When there is no clear cut conclusion on how things will work out? Was it abundantly clear what effect the effect on the CPI would be when housing was replaced with OER?
Trump can't "we'll see"?
comment in response to
post
So the threat of lawsuits resulting from Trump changes in the CPI is basically an empty threat?
comment in response to
post
TIPs also don't protect investors against impoundment (an official Presidential action) of coupon payments.
comment in response to
post
Conservatives are comfortable doing nothing.
Liberals are uncomfortable doing nothing.
So you are saying Trump is a liberal?
And you didn't vote for him?
comment in response to
post
And, to this point no one has sued over those changes?
That is what we are talking about here - legal challenge to changes made in the CPI.
So, has it happened and what was the outcome in court?
comment in response to
post
Hmmm....not sure that Social Security beneficiaries really care what economists think if their benefits are cut.
comment in response to
post
Not sure that "warranted by the research" is much of a legal argument.
comment in response to
post
And I am sure Trump will pick researchers that agree with him for whatever changes in the CPI he has in mind.
comment in response to
post
What you seem to be forgetting is that former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew changed the terms on inflation-indexed government bonds so that during an extended deflation, the principle value can't fall.
Once Lew did that, he put them at risk for any other change by any other President.
comment in response to
post
Like Social Security beneficiaries (inflation indexed benefits courtesy of Nixon starting in the 1970's) had a great lawsuit against Clinton and the Boskin Commission?
comment in response to
post
You mean the government can change the CPI inflation measure?
Oh wait, they already did - twice.
First time the 1980's when housing prices were replaced with OER (Owner's Equivalent Rent).
Second time courtesy of the Clinton Boskin commission.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskin_...
comment in response to
post
Not quite. With bond sales, the federal government has prearrangements with banks who are required to submit bids in bond auctions - they are called primary dealers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary...
With equity sold by government there are no primary dealers.
comment in response to
post
Baltimore would have scored more points.
Pittsburgh this year on 4th down - next to last ahead of Dallas (38.89%).
www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/fou...
comment in response to
post
High priced Steelers defense didn't exactly put up a fight.
TJ Watt, 0 Tackles, 0 Sacks, 0 Passes defended.
Defense gives up 186 rushing yards to Henry.
Steelers running game was non-existent
Harris, 6 Carries, 17 Yards
Warren, 2 Carries, 6 Yards