Anarchistbear said:

---

In the time of Roosevelt and Truman there were two competing political and economic systems. On the heels of the depression, Communists and Socialists had a broad coalition in the labor movement, civil right movement and among intellectuals. Remember also that the Communists were also allies in defeating fascism. Roosevelt realized massive reforms were needed to both appease the Left (a real left not a Twitter left) and to remain a capitalist country, so return on labor was the driving force and remained that way for decades

That has all changed. Now we have the most capitalist and second most capitalist political parties in the world and return on capital drives our politics and policies. Nothing right now is changing - Warren and Sanders are marginal politicians and institutionalists with no power.

It seems to me everyone on this discussion is in agreement but that of course means little considering we are all doing well, but if you look at the ferment simmering below the surface- trending murder, suicides, addictions , lack of social
cohesion and lack of respect for institutions- I wouldn't be too sure that a rational economic discussion of inequality is going to drive our politics. I think Biden and Trump are transitional figures but to what is the question.?

---

That bolded part I think is largely true. That's why I voted for Sanders in the primary. Not because I agree with everything he says or think he'll be able to do it (actually I think Bernie Sanders' history as a politician shows that he will accept practical realities when he has to), rather because I think our political system needs more pressure from his direction; it's ossifying with a Right (GOP) and Center (Dem) party.

Gotta love white supremacy

Is it rigged or not ?

Nothing says a rigged economy like America's nearly 750 billionaires getting $1 trillion richer in a single year during an economically catastrophic pandemic.

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 13, 2022

Sure seems the deck has been stacked for some and against others …

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In the time of Roosevelt and Truman there were two competing political and economic systems. On the heels of the depression, Communists and Socialists had a broad coalition in the labor movement, civil right movement and among intellectuals. Remember also that the Communists were also allies in defeating fascism. Roosevelt realized massive reforms were needed to both appease the Left (a real left not a Twitter left) and to remain a capitalist country, so return on labor was the driving force and remained that way for decades

That has all changed. Now we have the most capitalist and second most capitalist political parties in the world and return on capital drives our politics and policies. Nothing right now is changing - Warren and Sanders are marginal politicians and institutionalists with no power.

It seems to me everyone on this discussion is in agreement but that of course means little considering we are all doing well, but if you look at the ferment simmering below the surface- trending murder, suicides, addictions , lack of social
cohesion and lack of respect for institutions- I wouldn't be too sure that a rational economic discussion of inequality is going to drive our politics. I think Biden and Trump are transitional figures but to what is the question.?

---

That bolded part I think is largely true. That's why I voted for Sanders in the primary. Not because I agree with everything he says or think he'll be able to do it (actually I think Bernie Sanders' history as a politician shows that he will accept practical realities when he has to), rather because I think our political system needs more pressure from his direction; it's ossifying with a Right (GOP) and Center (Dem) party.

---

Generally speaking the Right isn't right. There are some, but most are just globalist shills cashing in on their position, just like the Dems.

---

Can you define for me what "globalist" is and why it isn't Right?

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Love this country, love the Constitution, hate Trump and my former party, but also hate socialism and entitlement. Not sure where I belong anymore, but I just know that I want to leave a better world for others than what I found.

---

It is commendable you were able to retire at such a young age. I went a different direction which included a stint as CFO of a NYSE company and law, and then into real estate. Real estate is something from which you never retire, and it is amazing how much it it impacted by economic and other governmental polices. But I'm still working. My wife is a Republican, we both dislike Trump, and my wife hates it when I vote for a Democrat, which happens, and screams at me every time that I just increased our taxes! While I love the country and the economic freedom it still provides, I'm willing to admit our county isn't always fair. Both my wife and I have family members who are minorities. My wife's family now has a more latin flavor and believe it or not, LDS/Poly, while mine is now in part Asian and Black. We both find abhorrent what seems to be a growing tolerance of prejudice is some circles, and perhaps overstating things, blame Trump.

I want the next generations of my family to not be shackled by a Sanders like socialist government. Much of this board when it talks about inequality, sees only two ways of governing a country. One is the Sanders Socialist way in which what matters is not the people but the government in which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. A government, borrowing here from a former politician, in which property, profit and savings are taken from the people instead of being held among them, and even in the most absurd ways of taxing are contemplated such as taxing phantom income. A place in which directives from EU-like technocrats replace incentives and make decisions as to which elites will be allowed to thrive and who will not. It is sold to people who look at individual success and achievement with disdain. The other is a free economic system, which not only is supposed to guarantee the freedom of each individual citizen, it has historically been the way to increase the prosperity of this nation as a whole, even while providing some form of safety net, whether that be private of government funded. It is not perfect, but it is better than the socialist alternative.

---

wifeisafurd, with deference to your knowledge and expertise in this area, I'd like to take issue with two ideas in your second paragraph above...

Lesser issue: When you describe the "Sanders Socialist way" you make it sound like it resembles Marxist Socialism, when, in fact -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it much more closely resembles Western European democratic socialism, in which basically, the government taxes more and provides more services. Yes, some other differences as well, but much closer to our system than Marxist Socialism.

Greater issue: The way you present the choices, you make it seem like there are only two. Either a "Sanders like socialist government", or a "free economic system". To the extent that you mean that, it is either a simplification or a mischaracterization, It is not an either/or, but rather a continuum, with any number of landing spots in between. Take taxes, for example: By varying the tax sources and/or the tax rates, virtually anything is possible. Same with the role of government and with government expenditures.

Which is where someone like me comes in: I would choose a path somewhere between your two scenarios. I believe that a regulated free market is the best way of allocating resources and I also believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that we should do more to provide opportunity to all of our citizens. Yes, this might involve many people paying more taxes, but not a lot more, hopefully. (I would also love to cut defense spending and government waste, but easier said than done.) I agree with you and others that a wealth tax is not feasible, so we would have to look for other ways.

Sorry if you would have to pay more taxes (I would, too) and especially if your wife would scream at you. My wife has creamed at me on occasion (whose hasn't). No fun! I would not want to raise anyone's taxes a ridiculous amount, but I feel like many people (like me) can pay a little more and some can even pay a little more than that,

---

Taxes are always about other people's money. I'm still waiting for Tom to show us those cancelled checks for the additional money to pay for those extra tax dollars he should pay. Certainly he like the rest of us had a subsized Cal diploma he should pay the taxpayers back for. If you want to pay more and believe that is th best use of your money, you should pay rather than simply talk about it. In fact, there is authority that you get a tax deduction for willingly paying more than you are owed.

As for your lesser issue: You seem to want to reduce Sanders socialism to name or classifications. In
the '80s , Sanders went through a phase of being infatuated with communist regimes at a time when they were denying basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and committed a host of atrocities. But those governments are essentially all gone, and Sanders has evolved, but that does not mean he simply wants to regulate the sins of capitalism like Warren. Sanders now constantly cites other developed countries, mostly his ideas of Scandinavian Utopia or so called European Welfare, that have implemented some of the social policies he advocates for, as for what he says he stands for. I'm not sure that really maters.It is all nonsense. With Sanders there are an endless numbers of give aways to everybody, it is not hard to like at least some of his policies: massive investments in research and development, drastic reductions in the costs In energy storage and electric vehicles, free educations, employees own at least 20% of large or public companies' shares and elect 45% of their directors for free, companies that lay off employees because of foreign outsourcing or automation would have to issue them stock shares as compensation instead, companies, would explicitly require boards to consider the interests not just of shareholders, but of workers, customers and communities, companies could be required to include women and minorities on their boards, reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist " financial institutions, a government takeover of a fundamental segment of the economy electricity production, free healthcare (or maybe not upon reflection when told the numbers don't work), free childcare, cancel student debt, cancel medical debt, free housing, and a laundry list I have left put. But while stop with confiscator programs, he also wants government to make all the rules, in fact he needs governmet to make all th rules, so he can perfectly vague on how all this gets confiscatory policy gets legally implemented and paid for. And he can't really help himself once he gets going on goverment conrtol its gets ludicrous like condemning excessive consumer choices of deodorant as a sign of misplaced priorities that needs to be stopped. Sure there is criticism from even Democrats because of how much all this would expand the federal government, the challenges of administering such an expansive policy and how much it would actually cost. Does Sanders know? Of course not.

Sanders consistently cites developed European countries saying they have most or at least some of thsee programs. But dude, not even close to all of them. And certainly none which would come with the administrative complexities of such a policy in a more populated country like the United States, where basically the federal government has to regulate essentially every decision. Take that simple free college concept that a few European countries ration to the to top testing few and children of elites. In the US there are massive challenges and consequences where Sanders would face the hurdle of centralizing a huge higher education system that is now mostly run by state governments, which have hundreds of different types of colleges. And then there all the equity rules the schools must follow. What about negative effect on private institutions? How does the federal government insure that the subsidy goes to pay for research? And why would a public school ever control costs the its tuition (or most of it) is paid for by the Federal government? Maybe your are no one of those guys that doesn't like to deal with the technical.




Then you ask the socialist govern to decide who can own you business, what objectives your business must pursue (screw cash flow or profits, what has your company done for social equity for those that donate to the Democratic Party?). You want to get paid for the feeder government diluting your investment? The legal issue are immense (a good portion of Sanders' plans are likely unconstitutional, particularly his main funding mechanics the wealth tax. Not to worry, you can live in the Dajo evolve from America, which again starts sounding like Markist state.

Bigger issue: There is none. Dajo said that socialist Truman had this agenda and got hit done, and even upped the ante on war time spending. I simply can't understand why the federal government has become so much bigger, complex and more expense. Time to move things back where the government spending was the same percent of GDP in Truman's time.

Sorry, but Bernie's Scandinavian utopia ignores that those countries have different views on their socialism, and also have their issues. For example, the country with the strongest economy, Norway, has seen the rise of far rights nationalists, widespread opposition to immigration, and is an ecological footprint that would violate pretty much everything in Bernie "Green Plan" as sale of fossil fuels accounts for the country's wealth to fund socialist programs. Then comes the Danish population with their similar environmental footprint, and taxation rates and levels of personal debt that are among the highest in the world. When your income is taxed away, and you want to keep your standard level, you borrow. Maybe the Danish PM can take a look at the Sanders debt relief programs. Then there is Finland with its high taxes and a generous welfare state, but then that country is not otherwise quite capitalist. The Finns have a large public sector, meaning that it's not just wealth that is much more socialized, but also production. One-third of the workers are employed by the state and 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract that they negotiate with the government, which to me starts sounding like a Marxist State, which gets us back to that lesser issue. What percent to the population are you going to need to administer all of Sanders' programs. As a Wallander fan, I enjoy all the political criticisms of Sweden, where consumerist influences are blamed for the apparent downfall of Scandinavian socialism, (since the '90s, the leadership has privatized and deregulated many portions of the government). The same is somewhat true in Europe as a whole welfare regimes are experiencing what the EU technocrats are calling a level of 'neoliberal drift." Plenty of articles that can be googled on the topic.

So let me ask you a question: one of the cornerstones of Sanders' platform taking over the financial system - is his call to reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist." Support or don't support?

---

If you are asking me, I'd have to say "don't support". I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor said here or anywhere else that I align myself with most of his positions. Maybe you are replying to somebody else, but with our good friend Yogi Bear in quaisi-hibernation and OaktownBear on an indeterminate sabbatical, do we even have any active Sanders supporters who post here in-depth?

As I said to calbear93, intelligent and educated people will come down in different places on the continuum as far as what the role of government should be in America. I'm probably about halfway between where you are and where Bernie Sanders is.

---

I guess I don't follow. Bernie wants government elites to control decisions about your businsss, your investments, you life, what about of money you can have, where you go to school, and on and on. Go back and look at that list. I'm saying the alternative is where people make decision and there is a social net private and/or public exists. I see them as different approaches. Where you draw the line on how much social spending there is can be debated, but that is a different system than Sanders wants. Go back a read that list - it is way beyond social programs. He wants the goverrment to take over sectors of our lives.

---

Let me say again, I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor have I ever said that my views on the role of government align with his. If I had to identify with the views of a politician of recent times, it would probably be Jerry Brown, late iteration. (generally progressive, but with a fairly tight grip on the purse strings, not a Narcissist, at least not outwardly) If that means my views are closer to yours, wifeisafurd, than to those of Bernie Sanders, then that is a wonderful thing.

---

Admittedly I have history with the Brown family, and voted for the younger Brown despite his policy on defunding UC.

My disconnect is that you don't see Sanders for what he really is - he is not a viable alternative along some capitalism continuum. Even Sanders doesn't seem to understand that his proposals will mean a federal government takeover of almost all portions of the economy. That becomes clear when anyone tries to pin him down on scope, cost or consequences, of specific policies and he gets vague and then deflects to the benefits of this proposals.

I'm game any time you want to discuss the capitalism model and tax, spending and deficit policies. But that is a useless discussion in a Sanders administration.

going4roses said:

---

Corporations right now:

🤑Laid off staff in 2020
🤑Received generous gov bailout
🤑Use myths of great resignation and labor shortage to understaff
🤑Shovel work on people that don’t have a better option
🤑Use the myth of inflation to raise prices

Result? All time record profits

— Dan Price (@DanPriceSeattle) January 12, 2022

---

Dear Dan, You are clueless.

https://onezero.medium.com/quote-tweets-have-turned-us-all-into-jerks-d5776c807942



https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-20/president-biden-s-economic-performance-has-proved-unbeatable

Record economic growth, wage growth, employment growth. During a pandemic. Very truly yours, Joe Biden.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Love this country, love the Constitution, hate Trump and my former party, but also hate socialism and entitlement. Not sure where I belong anymore, but I just know that I want to leave a better world for others than what I found.

---

It is commendable you were able to retire at such a young age. I went a different direction which included a stint as CFO of a NYSE company and law, and then into real estate. Real estate is something from which you never retire, and it is amazing how much it it impacted by economic and other governmental polices. But I'm still working. My wife is a Republican, we both dislike Trump, and my wife hates it when I vote for a Democrat, which happens, and screams at me every time that I just increased our taxes! While I love the country and the economic freedom it still provides, I'm willing to admit our county isn't always fair. Both my wife and I have family members who are minorities. My wife's family now has a more latin flavor and believe it or not, LDS/Poly, while mine is now in part Asian and Black. We both find abhorrent what seems to be a growing tolerance of prejudice is some circles, and perhaps overstating things, blame Trump.

I want the next generations of my family to not be shackled by a Sanders like socialist government. Much of this board when it talks about inequality, sees only two ways of governing a country. One is the Sanders Socialist way in which what matters is not the people but the government in which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. A government, borrowing here from a former politician, in which property, profit and savings are taken from the people instead of being held among them, and even in the most absurd ways of taxing are contemplated such as taxing phantom income. A place in which directives from EU-like technocrats replace incentives and make decisions as to which elites will be allowed to thrive and who will not. It is sold to people who look at individual success and achievement with disdain. The other is a free economic system, which not only is supposed to guarantee the freedom of each individual citizen, it has historically been the way to increase the prosperity of this nation as a whole, even while providing some form of safety net, whether that be private of government funded. It is not perfect, but it is better than the socialist alternative.

---

wifeisafurd, with deference to your knowledge and expertise in this area, I'd like to take issue with two ideas in your second paragraph above...

Lesser issue: When you describe the "Sanders Socialist way" you make it sound like it resembles Marxist Socialism, when, in fact -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it much more closely resembles Western European democratic socialism, in which basically, the government taxes more and provides more services. Yes, some other differences as well, but much closer to our system than Marxist Socialism.

Greater issue: The way you present the choices, you make it seem like there are only two. Either a "Sanders like socialist government", or a "free economic system". To the extent that you mean that, it is either a simplification or a mischaracterization, It is not an either/or, but rather a continuum, with any number of landing spots in between. Take taxes, for example: By varying the tax sources and/or the tax rates, virtually anything is possible. Same with the role of government and with government expenditures.

Which is where someone like me comes in: I would choose a path somewhere between your two scenarios. I believe that a regulated free market is the best way of allocating resources and I also believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that we should do more to provide opportunity to all of our citizens. Yes, this might involve many people paying more taxes, but not a lot more, hopefully. (I would also love to cut defense spending and government waste, but easier said than done.) I agree with you and others that a wealth tax is not feasible, so we would have to look for other ways.

Sorry if you would have to pay more taxes (I would, too) and especially if your wife would scream at you. My wife has creamed at me on occasion (whose hasn't). No fun! I would not want to raise anyone's taxes a ridiculous amount, but I feel like many people (like me) can pay a little more and some can even pay a little more than that,

---

Taxes are always about other people's money. I'm still waiting for Tom to show us those cancelled checks for the additional money to pay for those extra tax dollars he should pay. Certainly he like the rest of us had a subsized Cal diploma he should pay the taxpayers back for. If you want to pay more and believe that is th best use of your money, you should pay rather than simply talk about it. In fact, there is authority that you get a tax deduction for willingly paying more than you are owed.

As for your lesser issue: You seem to want to reduce Sanders socialism to name or classifications. In
the '80s , Sanders went through a phase of being infatuated with communist regimes at a time when they were denying basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and committed a host of atrocities. But those governments are essentially all gone, and Sanders has evolved, but that does not mean he simply wants to regulate the sins of capitalism like Warren. Sanders now constantly cites other developed countries, mostly his ideas of Scandinavian Utopia or so called European Welfare, that have implemented some of the social policies he advocates for, as for what he says he stands for. I'm not sure that really maters.It is all nonsense. With Sanders there are an endless numbers of give aways to everybody, it is not hard to like at least some of his policies: massive investments in research and development, drastic reductions in the costs In energy storage and electric vehicles, free educations, employees own at least 20% of large or public companies' shares and elect 45% of their directors for free, companies that lay off employees because of foreign outsourcing or automation would have to issue them stock shares as compensation instead, companies, would explicitly require boards to consider the interests not just of shareholders, but of workers, customers and communities, companies could be required to include women and minorities on their boards, reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist " financial institutions, a government takeover of a fundamental segment of the economy electricity production, free healthcare (or maybe not upon reflection when told the numbers don't work), free childcare, cancel student debt, cancel medical debt, free housing, and a laundry list I have left put. But while stop with confiscator programs, he also wants government to make all the rules, in fact he needs governmet to make all th rules, so he can perfectly vague on how all this gets confiscatory policy gets legally implemented and paid for. And he can't really help himself once he gets going on goverment conrtol its gets ludicrous like condemning excessive consumer choices of deodorant as a sign of misplaced priorities that needs to be stopped. Sure there is criticism from even Democrats because of how much all this would expand the federal government, the challenges of administering such an expansive policy and how much it would actually cost. Does Sanders know? Of course not.

Sanders consistently cites developed European countries saying they have most or at least some of thsee programs. But dude, not even close to all of them. And certainly none which would come with the administrative complexities of such a policy in a more populated country like the United States, where basically the federal government has to regulate essentially every decision. Take that simple free college concept that a few European countries ration to the to top testing few and children of elites. In the US there are massive challenges and consequences where Sanders would face the hurdle of centralizing a huge higher education system that is now mostly run by state governments, which have hundreds of different types of colleges. And then there all the equity rules the schools must follow. What about negative effect on private institutions? How does the federal government insure that the subsidy goes to pay for research? And why would a public school ever control costs the its tuition (or most of it) is paid for by the Federal government? Maybe your are no one of those guys that doesn't like to deal with the technical.




Then you ask the socialist govern to decide who can own you business, what objectives your business must pursue (screw cash flow or profits, what has your company done for social equity for those that donate to the Democratic Party?). You want to get paid for the feeder government diluting your investment? The legal issue are immense (a good portion of Sanders' plans are likely unconstitutional, particularly his main funding mechanics the wealth tax. Not to worry, you can live in the Dajo evolve from America, which again starts sounding like Markist state.

Bigger issue: There is none. Dajo said that socialist Truman had this agenda and got hit done, and even upped the ante on war time spending. I simply can't understand why the federal government has become so much bigger, complex and more expense. Time to move things back where the government spending was the same percent of GDP in Truman's time.

Sorry, but Bernie's Scandinavian utopia ignores that those countries have different views on their socialism, and also have their issues. For example, the country with the strongest economy, Norway, has seen the rise of far rights nationalists, widespread opposition to immigration, and is an ecological footprint that would violate pretty much everything in Bernie "Green Plan" as sale of fossil fuels accounts for the country's wealth to fund socialist programs. Then comes the Danish population with their similar environmental footprint, and taxation rates and levels of personal debt that are among the highest in the world. When your income is taxed away, and you want to keep your standard level, you borrow. Maybe the Danish PM can take a look at the Sanders debt relief programs. Then there is Finland with its high taxes and a generous welfare state, but then that country is not otherwise quite capitalist. The Finns have a large public sector, meaning that it's not just wealth that is much more socialized, but also production. One-third of the workers are employed by the state and 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract that they negotiate with the government, which to me starts sounding like a Marxist State, which gets us back to that lesser issue. What percent to the population are you going to need to administer all of Sanders' programs. As a Wallander fan, I enjoy all the political criticisms of Sweden, where consumerist influences are blamed for the apparent downfall of Scandinavian socialism, (since the '90s, the leadership has privatized and deregulated many portions of the government). The same is somewhat true in Europe as a whole welfare regimes are experiencing what the EU technocrats are calling a level of 'neoliberal drift." Plenty of articles that can be googled on the topic.

So let me ask you a question: one of the cornerstones of Sanders' platform taking over the financial system - is his call to reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist." Support or don't support?

---

If you are asking me, I'd have to say "don't support". I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor said here or anywhere else that I align myself with most of his positions. Maybe you are replying to somebody else, but with our good friend Yogi Bear in quaisi-hibernation and OaktownBear on an indeterminate sabbatical, do we even have any active Sanders supporters who post here in-depth?

As I said to calbear93, intelligent and educated people will come down in different places on the continuum as far as what the role of government should be in America. I'm probably about halfway between where you are and where Bernie Sanders is.

---

I guess I don't follow. Bernie wants government elites to control decisions about your businsss, your investments, you life, what about of money you can have, where you go to school, and on and on. Go back and look at that list. I'm saying the alternative is where people make decision and there is a social net private and/or public exists. I see them as different approaches. Where you draw the line on how much social spending there is can be debated, but that is a different system than Sanders wants. Go back a read that list - it is way beyond social programs. He wants the goverrment to take over sectors of our lives.

---

Let me say again, I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor have I ever said that my views on the role of government align with his. If I had to identify with the views of a politician of recent times, it would probably be Jerry Brown, late iteration. (generally progressive, but with a fairly tight grip on the purse strings, not a Narcissist, at least not outwardly) If that means my views are closer to yours, wifeisafurd, than to those of Bernie Sanders, then that is a wonderful thing.

---

Admittedly I have history with the Brown family, and voted for the younger Brown despite his policy on defunding UC.

My disconnect is that you don't see Sanders for what he really is - he is not a viable alternative along some capitalism continuum. Even Sanders doesn't seem to understand that his proposals will mean a federal government takeover of almost all portions of the economy. That becomes clear when anyone tries to pin him down on scope. cost or consequences, and he gets vague and then deflects to the benefits of this proposals.

I'm game any time you want to discuss the capitalism model and tax, speeding and deficit policies. But that is a useless discussion in a Sanders administration.

---

So, your point is that Bernie Sanders is more of a "true Socialist" than I think he is. That's possible, I might take another look at his views (except he's basically done now, so why take the time). Again, I have never been "for" Sanders. Like Sycasey alluded to, though, I don't mind having his voice heard, even if it's to help us conclude what not to do. (I guess Sycasey voted for him in the primary. I did not.)

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

In the time of Roosevelt and Truman there were two competing political and economic systems. On the heels of the depression, Communists and Socialists had a broad coalition in the labor movement, civil right movement and among intellectuals. Remember also that the Communists were also allies in defeating fascism. Roosevelt realized massive reforms were needed to both appease the Left (a real left not a Twitter left) and to remain a capitalist country, so return on labor was the driving force and remained that way for decades

That has all changed. Now we have the most capitalist and second most capitalist political parties in the world and return on capital drives our politics and policies. Nothing right now is changing - Warren and Sanders are marginal politicians and institutionalists with no power.

It seems to me everyone on this discussion is in agreement but that of course means little considering we are all doing well, but if you look at the ferment simmering below the surface- trending murder, suicides, addictions , lack of social
cohesion and lack of respect for institutions- I wouldn't be too sure that a rational economic discussion of inequality is going to drive our politics. I think Biden and Trump are transitional figures but to what is the question.?

---

That bolded part I think is largely true. That's why I voted for Sanders in the primary. Not because I agree with everything he says or think he'll be able to do it (actually I think Bernie Sanders' history as a politician shows that he will accept practical realities when he has to), rather because I think our political system needs more pressure from his direction; it's ossifying with a Right (GOP) and Center (Dem) party.

---

Generally speaking the Right isn't right. There are some, but most are just globalist shills cashing in on their position, just like the Dems.

---

Can you define for me what "globalist" is and why it isn't Right?

---

Yes I can.

---

Okay, I'll wait.

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

That bolded part I think is largely true. That's why I voted for Sanders in the primary. Not because I agree with everything he says or think he'll be able to do it (actually I think Bernie Sanders' history as a politician shows that he will accept practical realities when he has to), rather because I think our political system needs more pressure from his direction; it's ossifying with a Right (GOP) and Center (Dem) party.

---

---

---

Sanders hasnt ever spearheaded any legislation in his entire career in Congress, besides naming a Post Office. He rarely forges actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it. Even the NY Times has said that "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate."

Sander's lacks effectiveness as a legislator. Is that who you really want to vote for?
Someone that isnt able to work to build a consensus, compromise, and get things done?

In my mind, he's a failed politician because he has no idea what his own policies and proposals cost. But when you are a Socialist, I guess the cost never matters. It's about a Government "takeover" of our economy at all costs.

As I said previously, his "peak" in popularity occurred when he was on 60 Minutes and he couldnt answer Anderson Cooper's question about how much all of his policies would cost. He deflected. He waved his arms around and wound up yapping about Wall Street. - - - That was literally the end of Bernie as a formidable politician at the national level.

Every middle-class family in America knows what their monthly budget is. It most likely struck them as strange (if not dangerous) that Sanders couldnt actually provide any cost numbers for his proposals. Moreover, they probably deduced that all of this free stuff was going to wind up being funded not just by the rich, but by the middle class as well. There just arent enough Billionaire's to pay for all of his proposals.


Sycasey, I wouldnt call the Democratic Party "center" these days.

And Joe Biden literally became Bernie Biden when he moved into the Oval Office.
He wasnt the Joe Biden that I voted for or was our former VP. I voted for a return to normalcy.
Not $6 Trillion in tax and spend.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Dear Dan, You are clueless.

https://onezero.medium.com/quote-tweets-have-turned-us-all-into-jerks-d5776c807942



https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-12-20/president-biden-s-economic-performance-has-proved-unbeatable

Record economic growth, wage growth, employment growth. During a pandemic. Very truly yours, Joe Biden.

---

Yup.

Going for Roses hasnt demonstrated any ability to critically think.
We've had 400 posts on this thread and he's literally shown nothing.
It's all just cut and pasting Tik Tok and Twitter re-tweets, no matter how erroneous they might be.
Is that what the younger generation does these days?

Sad really.
I hope he's not a Cal grad.

Big C said:

---

globalist = immigrants + international conspiracy + George Soros

it's simple addition

---

The problem is trying to tie something like global vs. nationalist/isolationist as a right or left attribute.

I know this is a very simplistic view, but here is my high level perspective.

Economic conservatives and blue dog Democrats as opposed to social conservatives have always been globalist. Bring the best minds to America and increase competition for labor, whether CEOs or blue collar workers. Allow free trade to ensure low prices for consumers and low supply chain costs for corporation (which also leads to lower costs for consumers). Social liberals are a bit like hybrids, meaning solve global problems by allowing free access to our country but don't get involved in helping the other countries to solve the problems locally so that their people don't feel the need to run away at all cost to the United States.

Social conservatives and economic liberals have always been more nationalists and isolationists. Think of Trump and Bernie Sanders. Protect the domestic blue collar workers and shut down the military or our investment in other countries. Think locally. It is not that surprising that in some ways during the first election, Trump had a lot more sympathy for Sanders than Clinton, and a lot of the blue-collar folks in the midwest who used to vote for Democrats and would have voted for Sanders went to Trump

Go on Twitter and have that discussion with him, or are you scared?

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Love this country, love the Constitution, hate Trump and my former party, but also hate socialism and entitlement. Not sure where I belong anymore, but I just know that I want to leave a better world for others than what I found.

---

It is commendable you were able to retire at such a young age. I went a different direction which included a stint as CFO of a NYSE company and law, and then into real estate. Real estate is something from which you never retire, and it is amazing how much it it impacted by economic and other governmental polices. But I'm still working. My wife is a Republican, we both dislike Trump, and my wife hates it when I vote for a Democrat, which happens, and screams at me every time that I just increased our taxes! While I love the country and the economic freedom it still provides, I'm willing to admit our county isn't always fair. Both my wife and I have family members who are minorities. My wife's family now has a more latin flavor and believe it or not, LDS/Poly, while mine is now in part Asian and Black. We both find abhorrent what seems to be a growing tolerance of prejudice is some circles, and perhaps overstating things, blame Trump.

I want the next generations of my family to not be shackled by a Sanders like socialist government. Much of this board when it talks about inequality, sees only two ways of governing a country. One is the Sanders Socialist way in which what matters is not the people but the government in which decisions affecting people's lives are taken from them, instead of being taken by them. A government, borrowing here from a former politician, in which property, profit and savings are taken from the people instead of being held among them, and even in the most absurd ways of taxing are contemplated such as taxing phantom income. A place in which directives from EU-like technocrats replace incentives and make decisions as to which elites will be allowed to thrive and who will not. It is sold to people who look at individual success and achievement with disdain. The other is a free economic system, which not only is supposed to guarantee the freedom of each individual citizen, it has historically been the way to increase the prosperity of this nation as a whole, even while providing some form of safety net, whether that be private of government funded. It is not perfect, but it is better than the socialist alternative.

---

wifeisafurd, with deference to your knowledge and expertise in this area, I'd like to take issue with two ideas in your second paragraph above...

Lesser issue: When you describe the "Sanders Socialist way" you make it sound like it resembles Marxist Socialism, when, in fact -- correct me if I'm wrong -- it much more closely resembles Western European democratic socialism, in which basically, the government taxes more and provides more services. Yes, some other differences as well, but much closer to our system than Marxist Socialism.

Greater issue: The way you present the choices, you make it seem like there are only two. Either a "Sanders like socialist government", or a "free economic system". To the extent that you mean that, it is either a simplification or a mischaracterization, It is not an either/or, but rather a continuum, with any number of landing spots in between. Take taxes, for example: By varying the tax sources and/or the tax rates, virtually anything is possible. Same with the role of government and with government expenditures.

Which is where someone like me comes in: I would choose a path somewhere between your two scenarios. I believe that a regulated free market is the best way of allocating resources and I also believe in personal responsibility, but I also think that we should do more to provide opportunity to all of our citizens. Yes, this might involve many people paying more taxes, but not a lot more, hopefully. (I would also love to cut defense spending and government waste, but easier said than done.) I agree with you and others that a wealth tax is not feasible, so we would have to look for other ways.

Sorry if you would have to pay more taxes (I would, too) and especially if your wife would scream at you. My wife has creamed at me on occasion (whose hasn't). No fun! I would not want to raise anyone's taxes a ridiculous amount, but I feel like many people (like me) can pay a little more and some can even pay a little more than that,

---

Taxes are always about other people's money. I'm still waiting for Tom to show us those cancelled checks for the additional money to pay for those extra tax dollars he should pay. Certainly he like the rest of us had a subsized Cal diploma he should pay the taxpayers back for. If you want to pay more and believe that is th best use of your money, you should pay rather than simply talk about it. In fact, there is authority that you get a tax deduction for willingly paying more than you are owed.

As for your lesser issue: You seem to want to reduce Sanders socialism to name or classifications. In
the '80s , Sanders went through a phase of being infatuated with communist regimes at a time when they were denying basic political and individual rights, murdered and imprisoned dissenters and committed a host of atrocities. But those governments are essentially all gone, and Sanders has evolved, but that does not mean he simply wants to regulate the sins of capitalism like Warren. Sanders now constantly cites other developed countries, mostly his ideas of Scandinavian Utopia or so called European Welfare, that have implemented some of the social policies he advocates for, as for what he says he stands for. I'm not sure that really maters.It is all nonsense. With Sanders there are an endless numbers of give aways to everybody, it is not hard to like at least some of his policies: massive investments in research and development, drastic reductions in the costs In energy storage and electric vehicles, free educations, employees own at least 20% of large or public companies' shares and elect 45% of their directors for free, companies that lay off employees because of foreign outsourcing or automation would have to issue them stock shares as compensation instead, companies, would explicitly require boards to consider the interests not just of shareholders, but of workers, customers and communities, companies could be required to include women and minorities on their boards, reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist " financial institutions, a government takeover of a fundamental segment of the economy electricity production, free healthcare (or maybe not upon reflection when told the numbers don't work), free childcare, cancel student debt, cancel medical debt, free housing, and a laundry list I have left put. But while stop with confiscator programs, he also wants government to make all the rules, in fact he needs governmet to make all th rules, so he can perfectly vague on how all this gets confiscatory policy gets legally implemented and paid for. And he can't really help himself once he gets going on goverment conrtol its gets ludicrous like condemning excessive consumer choices of deodorant as a sign of misplaced priorities that needs to be stopped. Sure there is criticism from even Democrats because of how much all this would expand the federal government, the challenges of administering such an expansive policy and how much it would actually cost. Does Sanders know? Of course not.

Sanders consistently cites developed European countries saying they have most or at least some of thsee programs. But dude, not even close to all of them. And certainly none which would come with the administrative complexities of such a policy in a more populated country like the United States, where basically the federal government has to regulate essentially every decision. Take that simple free college concept that a few European countries ration to the to top testing few and children of elites. In the US there are massive challenges and consequences where Sanders would face the hurdle of centralizing a huge higher education system that is now mostly run by state governments, which have hundreds of different types of colleges. And then there all the equity rules the schools must follow. What about negative effect on private institutions? How does the federal government insure that the subsidy goes to pay for research? And why would a public school ever control costs the its tuition (or most of it) is paid for by the Federal government? Maybe your are no one of those guys that doesn't like to deal with the technical.




Then you ask the socialist govern to decide who can own you business, what objectives your business must pursue (screw cash flow or profits, what has your company done for social equity for those that donate to the Democratic Party?). You want to get paid for the feeder government diluting your investment? The legal issue are immense (a good portion of Sanders' plans are likely unconstitutional, particularly his main funding mechanics the wealth tax. Not to worry, you can live in the Dajo evolve from America, which again starts sounding like Markist state.

Bigger issue: There is none. Dajo said that socialist Truman had this agenda and got hit done, and even upped the ante on war time spending. I simply can't understand why the federal government has become so much bigger, complex and more expense. Time to move things back where the government spending was the same percent of GDP in Truman's time.

Sorry, but Bernie's Scandinavian utopia ignores that those countries have different views on their socialism, and also have their issues. For example, the country with the strongest economy, Norway, has seen the rise of far rights nationalists, widespread opposition to immigration, and is an ecological footprint that would violate pretty much everything in Bernie "Green Plan" as sale of fossil fuels accounts for the country's wealth to fund socialist programs. Then comes the Danish population with their similar environmental footprint, and taxation rates and levels of personal debt that are among the highest in the world. When your income is taxed away, and you want to keep your standard level, you borrow. Maybe the Danish PM can take a look at the Sanders debt relief programs. Then there is Finland with its high taxes and a generous welfare state, but then that country is not otherwise quite capitalist. The Finns have a large public sector, meaning that it's not just wealth that is much more socialized, but also production. One-third of the workers are employed by the state and 90 percent of Finnish workers are covered by a union contract that they negotiate with the government, which to me starts sounding like a Marxist State, which gets us back to that lesser issue. What percent to the population are you going to need to administer all of Sanders' programs. As a Wallander fan, I enjoy all the political criticisms of Sweden, where consumerist influences are blamed for the apparent downfall of Scandinavian socialism, (since the '90s, the leadership has privatized and deregulated many portions of the government). The same is somewhat true in Europe as a whole welfare regimes are experiencing what the EU technocrats are calling a level of 'neoliberal drift." Plenty of articles that can be googled on the topic.

So let me ask you a question: one of the cornerstones of Sanders' platform taking over the financial system - is his call to reform Wall Street by breaking up the "too big to exist." Support or don't support?

---

If you are asking me, I'd have to say "don't support". I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor said here or anywhere else that I align myself with most of his positions. Maybe you are replying to somebody else, but with our good friend Yogi Bear in quaisi-hibernation and OaktownBear on an indeterminate sabbatical, do we even have any active Sanders supporters who post here in-depth?

As I said to calbear93, intelligent and educated people will come down in different places on the continuum as far as what the role of government should be in America. I'm probably about halfway between where you are and where Bernie Sanders is.

---

I guess I don't follow. Bernie wants government elites to control decisions about your businsss, your investments, you life, what about of money you can have, where you go to school, and on and on. Go back and look at that list. I'm saying the alternative is where people make decision and there is a social net private and/or public exists. I see them as different approaches. Where you draw the line on how much social spending there is can be debated, but that is a different system than Sanders wants. Go back a read that list - it is way beyond social programs. He wants the goverrment to take over sectors of our lives.

---

Let me say again, I have never voted for Bernie Sanders, nor have I ever said that my views on the role of government align with his. If I had to identify with the views of a politician of recent times, it would probably be Jerry Brown, late iteration. (generally progressive, but with a fairly tight grip on the purse strings, not a Narcissist, at least not outwardly) If that means my views are closer to yours, wifeisafurd, than to those of Bernie Sanders, then that is a wonderful thing.

---

Admittedly I have history with the Brown family, and voted for the younger Brown despite his policy on defunding UC.

My disconnect is that you don't see Sanders for what he really is - he is not a viable alternative along some capitalism continuum. Even Sanders doesn't seem to understand that his proposals will mean a federal government takeover of almost all portions of the economy. That becomes clear when anyone tries to pin him down on scope. cost or consequences, and he gets vague and then deflects to the benefits of this proposals.

I'm game any time you want to discuss the capitalism model and tax, speeding and deficit policies. But that is a useless discussion in a Sanders administration.

---

So, your point is that Bernie Sanders is more of a "true Socialist" than I think he is. That's possible, I might take another look at his views (except he's basically done now, so why take the time). Again, I have never been "for" Sanders. Like Sycasey alluded to, though, I don't mind having his voice heard, even if it's to help us conclude what not to do. (I guess Sycasey voted for him in the primary. I did not.)

---

Okay, I was just trying to address your comments head on. Not suggesting you agree with Sanders.

wifeisafurd said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Go on Twitter and have that discussion with him, or are you scared?

---

I'm not on twitter. I'm on this site discussing issues with Cal alums. Engaging in snippets of misleading dialog caused by space limitations is not my choice of venue. Clearly you don't have the ability to engage in meaningful dialog so you need to express through surrogates, in a manner that can be incompressible or seemingly non- sequesters. You could always try posting comprehensible, relevant discourse on this forum instead, rather than being reduced to insulting people and name calling for their views, when you can't find a pity response on twitter or tic tock .

---

That's never going to happen.
His posts are very similar to BearForce.
Repeatedly expressing himself through surrogates, most of whom arent the slightest bit credible in the first place.

Awww

DiabloWags said:

---

Sycasey, I wouldnt call the Democratic Party "center" these days.

---

Well, it all depends on the scale you're using. By US standards, they are not "center." By international standards, especially if you're considering most of the wealthy "first world" countries we'd count as our peers, the Dems would be centrist at best. Bernie's ideas are not radical there.

Sure, he's never passed any legislation himself. That kind of thing will happen when you're politically on the fringe of your party. You need more votes for that. But he also doesn't stand in the way of the Democrats' priorities (correctly thinking that half of what he wants is better than nothing). That's what I mean by him being practical when push comes to shove.

But anyway, as Big C has noted, Bernie Sanders is too old to ever run for President again at this point so I don't feel the need to keep discussing his merits or deficiencies. When I voted for him in the primaries (both in 2016 and 2020) I knew he wasn't going to win, but I wanted to send a message to the party that I'd like a more leftward direction on economic policy. That was the purpose of that vote.

going4roses said:

---

Awww

---

Ahh, the Ignatius Jacques Reilly of O/T.

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Sycasey, I wouldnt call the Democratic Party "center" these days.

---

I knew he wasn't going to win, but I wanted to send a message to the party that I'd like a more leftward direction on economic policy. That was the purpose of that vote.

---

And I suspect that was Bernie's purpose for running. He knew he couldn't win either.

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Sycasey, I wouldnt call the Democratic Party "center" these days.

---

I knew he wasn't going to win, but I wanted to send a message to the party that I'd like a more leftward direction on economic policy. That was the purpose of that vote.

---

And I suspect that was Bernie's purpose for running. He knew he couldn't win either.

---

Definitely the first time. His own success surprised him.

Bernie Sanders won Iowa, Biden came in 4th. Then somehow Biden became their guy and garnered a record 81 million votes after no one showed up to his campaign rallies.

bearister said:

---

The US jobs report was a warning sign even before the Omicron surge


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/09/us-jobs-report-warning-sign-even-before-omicron-surge?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

---

Given the weak retail sales just reported for December, Robert Reich may be closer to correct than the Federal Reserve right now. Goldman Sachs is currently forecasting that the Fed will raise the Fed Funds rate 4 times in 2022. That sounds like overkill to me, but more than anything, I think the Fed should be flexible in 2022. The correct answer is probably somewhere in between Robert Reich and the Goldman Sachs prediction for the Fed. Key things to consider that will bring inflation and economic growth down already in place are Omicron and the reduction of fiscal spending, compared to the previous Covid-19 giveaways that were in place. The Fed, with its current anti-inflation zeal, could easily deliver a recession. If that does happen, I expect the first thing the Fed will do is more QE to protect the wealthy. The Fed is currently messaging an end of QE and a move towards Quantitative Tightening (QT). What I am saying is, if we head towards recession the Fed will be very quick to end / not do QT and go right back to QE. The Fed will do QE anytime on an emergency basis to protect the assets of the wealthy. Everything else they do (Fed Funds Rate changes, QT, etc.) requires plodding and long term messaging and hand holding for Wall Street. QE is a massive giveaway to Wall Street so no hand holding is required - just more punch.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-14/u-s-retail-sales-slide-sharply-as-inflation-weighs-on-consumers?srnd=premium

dajo9 said:

---

The Fed, with its current anti-inflation zeal, could easily deliver a recession.

---

The FED always has that capability.

And as I've mentioned in a previous post, they have shown a historical propensity to NOT be able to engineer a "soft" landing. That having been said, anyone that has been involved in the markets knows full well that they are really good at "jawboning" rates to where they want them, without having to do much. And by the time they do actually raise Fed Funds, the market has already discounted that.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Fed, with its current anti-inflation zeal, could easily deliver a recession.

---

The FED always has that capability.

And as I've mentioned in a previous post, they have shown a historical propensity to NOT be able to engineer a "soft" landing. That having been said, anyone that has been involved in the markets knows full well that they are really good at "jawboning" rates to where they want them, without having to do much. And by the time they do actually raise Fed Funds, the market has already discounted that.

---

I wonder if there is any risk of stagflation? When you have a significant supply chain shock, whether oil embargo and COVID related shortages, doesn't inflation get built in to expectation after awhile that drives pricing? That was why I think the FED may have acted too slowly, trying to say inflation was transitory and not a problem. The CEOs and CFOs that I was talking to in early 2020 was seeing something completely different where supply shortage, hunger game type of behavior by manufacturers that needed supplies (especially chips), and labor shortages were unlike anything they had seen before, with no sign of getting better. Isn't one big danger of continued inflation that it keeps self-perpetuating because suppliers expect inflation to continue, which leads to continued higher prices overall, etc.

I don't think the FED will do something idiotic like Dajo is predicting by going back and forth on interest rate. That would confuse the heck out of the markets and the additional risk would impact valuations even more. I definitely know that they won't do QE anytime soon that will pour gasoline on inflation and supply shortage if they were to pivot so quickly. There is still a danger of idiots in Congress or White House who may think you can keep giving money and stimulating demand when there is a finite amount of supply, with supply not as flexible as just giving money to stimulate demand. One thing that has to happen I believe is we do need a bit of a recession to lower the demand and allow demand to fall down to the level of supply. The question is how transparent and reliable the FED is to allow for that recession not to fall into a depression. Recession seems inevitable unless we invest in the supply and transportation side and taking control of the COVID related labor shortage. That is different than free colleges or keep giving money to everyone without some sharp means testing. Yes, the government won't be the lord of all, but just maybe making people's lives better for most would be enough?

High crime rate, high inflation, high infection rate will not save any party in power no matter which side. There will be a bloodbath during mid-term no matter how much validity there is to this not being their fault (high crime is really their fault though). The only other argument would be that they are powerless anyway so why bother. Not a good counter argument.

If the prices start falling consistently as a result of decreased demand, then hopefully the fear of inflation won't continue to contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need smarter people than those who think they are too smart to learn from the last stagflation or who thinks either fiscal policy or monetary policy does not matter when there is a supply shock.

While I stopped giving any investment advice long time ago, for those who are young, I will say this. If there is a bloodbath in the market (this is not a bloodbath right now) and all speculators have capitulated, that is the best time to invest big and go long. That is what I did as a young law firm associate. But that also means that they need to do the research now and identify not by hype but by market leading technology or product, balance sheet and cash flow health, and management and it also means they need to live way below their means and have enough dry powder to invest. That daily Starbucks or heavily financed Tesla 3 will cost a lot more when they consider 15 years down the line the lost opportunity for investment. But when the fear in the market takes quality with junk, you can generate wealth by picking up the quality. There is an opportunity to become the wealthy that others will envy instead of spending all those calories coveting and envying. It just requires work, research, and sacrificing that immediate gratification.

BearForce2 said:

---

Bernie Sanders won Iowa, Biden came in 4th. Then somehow Biden became their guy and garnered a record 81 million votes after no one showed up to his campaign rallies.

---

That is because the moderate or even just slightly progressive Democrats realized that having Sanders as their candidate would mean Trump will remain in power. Biden won because he promised to be the grown-up and bring normalcy back to America. All those college-educated suburbians were not going to vote for Sanders. I can guarantee you that. The number of Sanders supporters who refrained because they were pouting would, I guess, be significantly fewer. especially in the purple states that Biden needed to win, than those suburbia voters. Considering how close the results were in those key states (NY, CA, WA do not matter - they were going to the Democrats, no matter who the candidate - it was more important to cater to the moderates in key battle states instead of catering to progressive in states they were going to carry anyway), it makes complete sense.

Now, why Biden thinks his promise to bring bipartisanship and maturity and normalcy meant he had a mandate to be the next FDR is baffling to me, especially someone like me who previously really liked Biden and voted for him.

calbear93 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The Fed, with its current anti-inflation zeal, could easily deliver a recession.

---

The FED always has that capability.

And as I've mentioned in a previous post, they have shown a historical propensity to NOT be able to engineer a "soft" landing. That having been said, anyone that has been involved in the markets knows full well that they are really good at "jawboning" rates to where they want them, without having to do much. And by the time they do actually raise Fed Funds, the market has already discounted that.

---

I wonder if there is any risk of stagflation? When you have a significant supply chain shock, whether oil embargo and COVID related shortages, doesn't inflation get built in to expectation after awhile that drives pricing? That was why I think the FED may have acted too slowly, trying to say inflation was transitory and not a problem. The CEOs and CFOs that I was talking to in early 2020 was seeing something completely different where supply shortage, hunger game type of behavior by manufacturers that needed supplies (especially chips), and labor shortages were unlike anything they had seen before, with no sign of getting better. Isn't one big danger of continued inflation that it keeps self-perpetuating because suppliers expect inflation to continue, which leads to continued higher prices overall, etc.

I don't think the FED will do something idiotic like Dajo is predicting by going back and forth on interest rate. That would confuse the heck out of the markets and the additional risk would impact valuations even more. I definitely know that they won't do QE anytime soon that will pour gasoline on inflation and supply shortage if they were to pivot so quickly. There is still a danger of idiots in Congress or White House who may think you can keep giving money and stimulating demand when there is a finite amount of supply, with supply not as flexible as just giving money to stimulate demand. One thing that has to happen I believe is we do need a bit of a recession to lower the demand and allow demand to fall down to the level of supply. The question is how transparent and reliable the FED is to allow for that recession not to fall into a depression. Recession seems inevitable unless we invest in the supply and transportation side and taking control of the COVID related labor shortage. That is different than free colleges or keep giving money to everyone without some sharp means testing. Yes, the government won't be the lord of all, but just maybe making people's lives better for most would be enough?

High crime rate, high inflation, high infection rate will not save any party in power no matter which side. There will be a bloodbath during mid-term no matter how much validity there is to this not being their fault (high crime is really their fault though). The only other argument would be that they are powerless anyway so why bother. Not a good counter argument.

If the prices start falling consistently as a result of decreased demand, then hopefully the fear of inflation won't continue to contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need smarter people than those who think they are too smart to learn from the last stagflation or who thinks either fiscal policy or monetary policy does not matter when there is a supply shock.

While I stopped giving any investment advice long time ago, for those who are young, I will say this. If there is a bloodbath in the market (this is not a bloodbath right now) and all speculators have capitulated, that is the best time to invest big and go long. That is what I did as a young law firm associate. But that also means that they need to do the research now and identify not by hype but by market leading technology or product, balance sheet and cash flow health, and management and it also means they need to live way below their means and have enough dry powder to invest. That daily Starbucks or heavily financed Tesla 3 will cost a lot more when they consider 15 years down the line the lost opportunity for investment. But when the fear in the market takes quality with junk, you can generate wealth by picking up the quality. There is an opportunity to become the wealthy that others will envy instead of spending all those calories coveting and envying. It just requires work, research, and sacrificing that immediate gratification.

---

I tend to agree with dajo9 that the FED will protect asset owners and from what I've heard from a number of members of the hedge fund community - they tend to agree.

As for high crime rates being "their fault", would love to hear your basis for that.

Finally, while personally I agree with your advice on investing (and followed much of that same playbook early in my career), I think that it's the sort of advice that you can't really give to people because anyone capable of executing on it doesn't need the advice, if that makes sense. The vast majority of people can't beat the market. They can't evaluate market leading technology, they can't ascertain which managers are good (hell, I'm not sure how anyone does that reliably and in a way that is differentiated from others), they can't evaluate financial health from balance sheets, cash flows and footnotes), etc. etc. What you are talking about doing is quite hard. I know that officially it's a bad idea to time the market but what people can do is make certain personal finance tradeoffs when the market really has tanked. That's what I did on the way down in 2008 and early 2009 and there was almost nothing you could buy back then that wouldn't have been a good idea.

So my simpler suggestion is that if the market tanks, consider freeing up cash to move into broad based index funds like Vanguard Total Market (VTI) or any S&P 500 fund. No knowledge is necessary other than recognizing there is blood in the streets. Right now VTI is trading at $233 which is within spitting distance of its all time high. It was around $100 when Trump took office. If it goes below $150, I will move aggressively to buy.