16 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ashiitakaNo, the debt is out of control. Trump has done nothing about it but make it worse.
I wasn't talking about wages. I was talking about Mr Trump's growth-above-else focus. The question is, how is that growth being achieved? Is it helping bring down the debt?
16 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ashiitaka..or you could invest in stock shares. The underclass doesn't have those options though. They spend their money quickly which is why they would spend more into the economy if they earned more. Higher wages would lead to a better economy quickly and less money would go to public assistance.
There is a difference between saving by stuffing your money under your mattress (when it is devaluing every second because of inflation) and putting it in a bank, where interest negates and sometimes even exceeds inflation. Better yet, you can put your money in an asset management firm. This era we live in with close to zero interest rates is just because of the crash.
Don't you favor less poor people getting welfare?
16 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhat do you mean by low inflation rates?
Low inflation rates lead to more saving instead of spending. .
16 Sep 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Just above 0% would be best. There would be almost no devaluation so there would be incentive to save. That would be best for the economy. The money supply would still be increasing to keep up with growth, yet the near zero rate would not burden the poor.
What do you mean by low inflation rates?
Inflation discourages saving because it is a devaluation of the currency. Nobody wants to save cash because it will lose value. They are forced to invest it if they have money to invest. The poor do not have that option. They need low inflation to escape abject poverty or higher wages. The FRS want them to have neither.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brain..or you could invest in stock shares.
..or you could invest in stock shares. The underclass doesn't have those options though. They spend their money quickly which is why they would spend more into the economy if they earned more. Higher wages would lead to a better economy quickly and less money would go to public assistance.
Don't you favor less poor people getting welfare?
You could, but that entails a substantially greater risk than simply putting your money in a bank, not to mention it requires a high degree of monitoring.
Higher wages would lead to a better economy quickly and less money would go to public assistance.
Higher wages lead to a better economy immediately, but then inflation catches up eventually if interest rates don't rise. There is always a bit of lag with inflation.
Don't you favor less poor people getting welfare?
Not exactly. I'm against the sense of entitlement that people have towards money that they have not earned. I'm against lazy people claiming welfare. Of course, some people are genuinely very unlucky, but many made poor life choices like not finishing school, doing drugs, having children at a young age, not getting a degree, etc and I don't feel much sympathy for them. Their life is their responsibility and it's nobody else's job to pay for the consequences of their poor life choices.
There is an argument for assistance for those between jobs, but beyond that, people abuse the system. I really loathe the victimhood culture that comes with welfare. If you want something, get off your behind and go and get it yourself - the world doesn't owe you anything.
17 Sep 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainA moderate amount of inflation is indicative of a healthy economy. It's a topic of much debate, but inflation of ~2% is generally considered optimal. Japan and the eurozone have long struggled with low inflation, and it's not a good thing. Also, deflation is the worst of all.
Just above 0% would be best. There would be almost no devaluation so there would be incentive to save. That would be best for the economy. The money supply would still be increasing to keep up with growth, yet the near zero rate would not burden the poor.
Inflation discourages saving because it is a devaluation of the currency. Nobody wants to save c ...[text shortened]... need low inflation to escape abject poverty or higher wages. The FRS want them to have neither.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainI know. It was a rhetorical question.
No, the debt is out of control. Trump has done nothing about it but make it worse.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ashiitaka"Japan and the eurozone have long struggled with low inflation"
A moderate amount of inflation is indicative of a healthy economy. It's a topic of much debate, but inflation of ~2% is generally considered optimal. Japan and the eurozone have long struggled with low inflation, and it's not a good thing. Also, deflation is the worst of all.
I think you are confusing deflation with inflation. No country struggles with low inflation. Low inflation is good.
Where are you getting your information from, Portfolio magazine? Where are you getting such sick propaganda from?
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ashiitakaWho besides Andrew Jackson has ever did anything to lower the national debt?
I know. It was a rhetorical question.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @ashiitakaIndex funds do not require monitoring. A diverse portfolio is a very safe investment with very little risk. You don't know what you are talking about.
[b]..or you could invest in stock shares.
You could, but that entails a substantially greater risk than simply putting your money in a bank, not to mention it requires a high degree of monitoring.
Higher wages would lead to a better economy quickly and less money would go to public assistance.
Higher wages lead to a better economy imm ...[text shortened]... something, get off your behind and go and get it yourself - the world doesn't owe you anything.[/b]
Higher wages have never led to higher interest rates. That is a myth.
The world owes the underclass a wage that is adjusted for inflation. If you like the poor losing buying power so you can do better that is called being selfish. It is called class warfare and you are a sick POS!
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhat is a farce is that the GOP is taking credit for the low unemployment, when in reality, the reason there is low unemployment is that people are having to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
The unemployment rate is a farce.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/opinion/columnists/great-recession-economy-gdp.html
https://slate.com/business/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-gaffe-about-the-unemployment-rate-and-working-two-jobs-is-no-big-deal.html
Stupid Republicans. No wonder the press was so hard on Sarah Palin.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @whodeyDid the link I posted make a false claim? Trump pointed out how the unemployment rate was inaccurate before he was elected. It is still inaccurate.
What is a farce is that the GOP is taking credit for the low unemployment, when in reality, the reason there is low unemployment is that people are having to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.
https://slate.com/business/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-gaffe-about-the-unemployment-rate-and-working-two-jobs-is-no-big-deal.html
Stupid Republicans. No wonder the press was so hard on Sarah Palin.
17 Sep 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainWhat do you mean by just above 0%.
Just above 0% would be best. There would be almost no devaluation so there would be incentive to save. That would be best for the economy. The money supply would still be increasing to keep up with growth, yet the near zero rate would not burden the poor.
Inflation discourages saving because it is a devaluation of the currency. Nobody wants to save c ...[text shortened]... need low inflation to escape abject poverty or higher wages. The FRS want them to have neither.
The incentive to save is surely a function of the difference between interest rates (or expected return on equities) and inflation isn't it? And not just inflation.
If I'm expecting 10% growth on my shares I don't mind inflation at 5% do I?
18 Sep 18
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Are there any banks paying 10%, sounds like a lot, don't forget to subtract the tax.
What do you mean by just above 0%.
The incentive to save is surely a function of the difference between interest rates (or expected return on equities) and inflation isn't it? And not just inflation.
If I'm expecting 10% growth on my shares I don't mind inflation at 5% do I?