could we ah talk about investing please
could we ah talk about investing please
agip wrote:
could we ah talk about investing please
Sure.
But I will respond to these pathetic attacks launched by that one dude.
agip wrote:
could we ah talk about investing please
love the passive aggressive.
I seem to recall you getting into some of these arguments on this thread oh high and mighty.
Hey agip since you are still in your "year-in-review" mode, revisiting old predictions, I will blow my horn again, regarding not 1 but 2 very specific predictions I made on this board:
1) Macy's. Finally closing a ton of stores and laying off many. Getting destroyed in after-hours trading to near lowest level of 2016. They are finally understanding that their retail operations are absolute garbage, and they and their shareholders are paying the price.
2) DB. DB was something about which I had very specific knowledge that I tried to share in the intelligent cryptic way without revealing anything.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
agip and Igy, are you guys shorting the Russell 2000?
Nice Buddy wrote:
agip wrote:could we ah talk about investing please
love the passive aggressive.
I seem to recall you getting into some of these arguments on this thread oh high and mighty.
I may have gotten off topic a few times sure but never this utterly lame "I know you are but what am I" carp.
what possible fun could that be?
Maserati wrote:
Hey agip since you are still in your "year-in-review" mode, revisiting old predictions, I will blow my horn again, regarding not 1 but 2 very specific predictions I made on this board:
1) Macy's. Finally closing a ton of stores and laying off many. Getting destroyed in after-hours trading to near lowest level of 2016. They are finally understanding that their retail operations are absolute garbage, and they and their shareholders are paying the price.
2) DB. DB was something about which I had very specific knowledge that I tried to share in the intelligent cryptic way without revealing anything.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
agip and Igy, are you guys shorting the Russell 2000?
I'll give you Macy's but not DB - there was lot of debate on that one and it was clear that you weren't bearish or bullish on it - you just thought it was important for some reason. And DB is down 15% over a year...it's come back a long way.
and no I'm not shorting the r2k - I'm massively long it. One way I am always out of consensus is being overweight small stocks. It sure has worked since the election.
Maserati,
Personally net short equities generally. Over the past year a losing trade at times, a winning trade at times. Currently a losing trade for sure. Reflective of my belief the market is "a big fat ugly bubble.
I was thinking of you earlier today. I was getting my core workout this evening after a hard early morning run and working all day. The wife, a tough little gal, was out shoveling the snow as I hit the driveway. Centered the car. Well time to chip in and get the "Maserati Core Workout."
Igy
agip and Maserati,
The Bull case is based on the hope that Central Bank policies and mountains of debt morph into real economic growth. This belief is not grounded in any reality, in fact I believe the results will be the exact opposite. The gain is slow growth and massively inflated assets prices. Sorry, but nothing I see leads to anything but bad news. Of course the natural assumption of most people is "there will be no pain." Perhaps my age alone colors my view that this is not possible. Not that I wish pain on anyone. But magical beliefs, are what they are, not grounded on anything but wishes.
Igy
The bull case is based on the reality of the markets for the past eight years.
Maserati, I've been away for awhile just getting back to you on this. If you are advocating just using private contractors to administer the existing Social Security system than that is fine, whatever. Although I think its been shown that any financial gains from efficiencies produced by private contractors largely are taken by the private contractors. It actually expands bureaucracy. Of course tax cuts need to be financed. What are you talking about? At the end of the day government spending has to be paid for and it will be paid one way or another. So if you cut taxes while increasing spending, then you pay for it through borrowing. That's inflationary and effectively its an inflation tax Which is a regressive consumption tax. In particular "tax preferences" (basically loopholes) is government spending in every way that matters. Tax preferences now total over $1 trillion. there are hundreds, maybe thousands of tax preferences. But the major ones you know. Mortgage interest deduction, deferred compensation (401ks, IRAs), employer paid health insurance. Also, I see massive "off balance sheet" government tax and spending. Basically through the Federal Reserve but also through various rules and regulations. For example, Obamacare mandates that you have to buy health insurance. What is that? Isn't that tax and spending in every way that matters? Point being is that over recent decades corporate entitlements is what has really grown out of control. Not SS or Medicare. And powerful forces are now wanting SS and Medicare to finance those corporate entitlements. On the issue of single payer health care. I support Medicare for all. Disagree with supporting it if you want. But it only means public insurance of health care. The health care remain private. It takes the burden of insuring healthcare off private businesses. It reduces overall bureaucracy. Its basically a sunk cost anyway. All the infinite current laws, rules and regulations basically add up to a government mandated universal healthcare system anyways. Medicare for all just makes too much sense.
Mopar wrote:
The bull case is based on the reality of the markets for the past eight years.
Meaningless statement.
Look in the mirror wrote:
Reel K5 wrote:[quote]agip wrote:
could we ah talk about investing please
Sure.
But I will respond to these pathetic attacks launched by that one dude.
You're the one launching attacks. And, yes, they are pathetic.
Re-writing history fails when all the posts are still up for all to see.
I would say nice try but it wasn't
I'm back in my VXX trade - hoping to make another $100.
the downside is now I just stare at my screen watching the little bugger bounce around.
and we've got trades reversing themselves now -
bonds are flying back upwards, gold is surging, dollar falling, REITs are back up
I think this "chinese dumping treasuries to support the renminbi" was correct.
Hi Ryan, nice to have you back.
"Efficiencies" resulting from use of private contractors are shared between the contractors and the public, as they should be. The contractors respond to an existing landscape, after all, and they know what the starting point is, and they bargain for as much of the "gain" as they can get. When there is a multiplicity of qualified contractors, it's a market operation. Nothing wrong with that, it is still more efficient than the gov alone could ever do.
"Of course tax cuts need to be financed. At the end of the day government spending has to be paid for and it will be paid one way or another." You seem to be mixing up ideas--tax cuts are never financed. As you say in the second part, programs are funded, either through spending (taxes) or borrowing (financing). The first part makes it sound like social programs are something inherent in the world, that they are eternal and inviolate, and that one way or another, they will be funded, because there is no alternative.
Clearly that's not true, but it is a prevalent attitude. As is obvious, both programs and taxation are expressions of social policy decisions, which social policy is fluid and can, and should, change over time. The attitude that social programs are somehow inherent in the world leads to conclusions like "In particular "tax preferences" (basically loopholes) is government spending in every way that matters.", which is a conclusion that gets cause and effect reversed.
On a detail matter, "tax preferences" are not the same thing as "loopholes". Whereas a loophole permits the avoidance of the social policy expressed in the provision in question, whereas tax preferences do exactly the opposite: they FURTHER the social policy expressed in the provision in question. What you derisively call "corporate entitlements" are simply expressions of agreed-upon social policy. Don't like them? Vote and work to get them changed--but like it or not, they are expressions of social policy from an elected Congress or President, every bit as much as are SS and Medicare programs ("personal entitlements")--in that narrow sense, they are philosophically identical, and IMO NEITHER of them should be mis-described as "entitlements".
If I may, you seem to be arguing against your own purpose a bit. I think you're confusing corporate structures with work, in this sense--you don't think there should be a personal income tax because, if I may, work should be rewarded and not punished--yet, you seem to advocate the taxation, and increased taxation, of corporate structures. While the corporate form of organization exists only at the behest of the government, it is just that--a form of organization: the organization of the activities of a group of people, ultimately all of which represents work, be it actual labor or capital.
You did identify relative to the individual taxation a distinction that is important, namely the taxation of consumption vs production. Corporate taxation is just another means of taxing production. While I agree with some degree of corporate taxation, I think it should be limited to the extent to which it can be targeted to paying for the activities of the corporation that have broader social costs--for instance, a mining company should be taxed sufficiently to pay for land/water remediation costs and management. The REAL, and inefficient and unconscionable, "corporate entitlements" are those that not only externalize such costs, but at the same time kick those costs down the road while both society and the corporate structure evolve and re-organize, which often increases the ultimate costs associated with the activity.
Again, one does not "finance" a decrease in taxation of productive activity--it is the TAXATION that finances the programs on which the funds are spent. The programs are not inviolate, they are not inherent in the world. We don't HAVE to fund them, in the same sense that we HAVE to breathe air or drink water. We MUST have air and water; we don't HAVE to have SS or Medicare. "Corporate entitlements" which are "financed", or paid for, by the general public, are those negative externalities that result from corporate activity, for which the public ultimately pays, and which could be paid for more efficiently, and sooner, by the corporate entity.
Yes there are many such externalities, but many such costs have been internalized through policy. As new industries evolve and existing ones change, policy will always be a step behind in its response. Recently we have gone through significant social changes, and policy has been slow to respond, and in that sense it could be argued that such "entitlements" have indeed been increasing--however, it would be impossible to determine conclusively if there has been a net increase or decrease over the past, say, 20 years. That call is left to one's personal judgment and experience.
SS and Medicare "finance" nothing. They produce nothing, and therefore create no wealth that can be represented by money, and are therefore incapable of "financing" anything. The position of primacy that productive activity occupies must be recognized and given favor over the lesser position that consumptive activity occupies. You seem to be in favor of this when you decry the taxation of personal income and advocate a VAT.
Cliffhanger....
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Cliffhanger....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-05/
Easily the most interesting thing you've ever posted here.
Detector Dude,
Yes and you are a serial offender.
Igy