bearister said:
You are actually too easy.
dajo9 said:
Interesting moves in the Treasury markets. The Fed is signaling they will push the economy into recession and the Treasury markets are responding in kind. The 10-2 spread (the difference between the interest rate on the 2 year Treasury vs. the 10 year Treasury) dropped about 10 points today and is now down to 61 points (1.81% minus 1.19%). The spread was about double that amount just 4 months ago. When that indicator goes negative it is widely viewed as a negative growth development.
Recession secured: BofA joins JPM in slashing Q1 GDP, now sees just 1% in Q1, says "risk of negative growth quarter are significant"
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 28, 2022
GDP will turn negative in a few weeks once econ is hit by fiscal headwinds and as oil hits $100. pic.twitter.com/Rie8Za2fqK
dajo9 said:
The "professionals" have no understanding of how long term Treasuries work. But, as Paul Krugman noted, it is better for your career to be conventionally wrong, than to be correct.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-28/hedge-funds-wrong-way-bets-on-yield-curve-fueled-flattening
I believe that the BAC economist Ethan Harris, is dramatically slashing Q1 growth from 4% to 1% not because of the FED, but because of Omicron exacerbating labor-supply constraints which slows services consumption coupled with the fact that inventories surged in December and contributed 4.9 percentage points to Q4 GDP growth.dajo9 said:
zerohedge is Russian propaganda but they do report real bank-client communications when it suits their perma-disaster narrative. Here comes the Fed recession.
DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
The "professionals" have no understanding of how long term Treasuries work. But, as Paul Krugman noted, it is better for your career to be conventionally wrong, than to be correct.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-28/hedge-funds-wrong-way-bets-on-yield-curve-fueled-flattening
Quote:
Paul Krugman literally is the Poster Child for being Wrong.
If anyone has no understanding of how long term Treasuries work, it's Krugman.
He's been one of the nation's leading doomsayers. Shortly after Trump won the 2016 election, Krugman warned that Trump's victory would trigger a global recession "with no end in sight".
Yes, the 10-2 spread went negative in August 2019 - that is a clear recessionary signal from the bond market. The economy was headed for slower growth (from its 2% baseline) and the Fed immediately ended QT and started expanding the balance sheet again. Tell me, when the 10-2 spread is negative, what signal does that give you?Quote:
In fact, he spent much of early 2019 telling people that the bond market signals predicted a "pretty good chance of a recession sometime in the next year or so".
Nobody is more biased about the financial markets than people who have large investments and careers invested in them. I mean, who on Wall Street wants to tell their Clients that we have been stuck in a low growth environment because the rich are taking home too large a share of the pie?DiabloWags said:
I wouldnt even call him a pundit when it comes to the financial markets because he has no real experience with them. He's not a bond fund manager. Not a former Fed Governor. He has literally nothing to do with the markets that he writes about.
He's written 27 books.
He's a writer. A career academian.
dajo9 said:Nobody is more biased about the financial markets than people who have large investments and careers invested in them. I mean, who on Wall Street wants to tell their Clients that we have been stuck in a low growth environment because the rich are taking home too large a share of the pie?DiabloWags said:
I wouldnt even call him a pundit when it comes to the financial markets because he has no real experience with them. He's not a bond fund manager. Not a former Fed Governor. He has literally nothing to do with the markets that he writes about.
He's written 27 books.
He's a writer. A career academian.
Yes, low demand, low growth environments because an exorbitant amount of economic gains are going to the wealthy is a boon for stocks. None of which contradicts what I said.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:Nobody is more biased about the financial markets than people who have large investments and careers invested in them. I mean, who on Wall Street wants to tell their Clients that we have been stuck in a low growth environment because the rich are taking home too large a share of the pie?DiabloWags said:
I wouldnt even call him a pundit when it comes to the financial markets because he has no real experience with them. He's not a bond fund manager. Not a former Fed Governor. He has literally nothing to do with the markets that he writes about.
He's written 27 books.
He's a writer. A career academian.
Low growth environments are a boon to growth stocks and growth fund managers.
dajo9 said:Yes, low demand, low growth environments because an exorbitant amount of economic gains are going to the wealthy is a boon for stocks. None of which contradicts what I said.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
Nobody is more biased about the financial markets than people who have large investments and careers invested in them. I mean, who on Wall Street wants to tell their Clients that we have been stuck in a low growth environment because the rich are taking home too large a share of the pie?
Low growth environments are a boon to growth stocks and growth fund managers.
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:Yes, low demand, low growth environments because an exorbitant amount of economic gains are going to the wealthy is a boon for stocks. None of which contradicts what I said.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:DiabloWags said:
Nobody is more biased about the financial markets than people who have large investments and careers invested in them. I mean, who on Wall Street wants to tell their Clients that we have been stuck in a low growth environment because the rich are taking home too large a share of the pie?
Low growth environments are a boon to growth stocks and growth fund managers.
That's some pretty massive spin on your part, eh?
Please feel free to prove that the economy has been stuck in a low growth environment because the rich are taking home too large a share of the pie?
The wealth pie is not finite.
That's the typical liberal non sequitur narrative that gets plastered all over the media in sensationalistic headlines.
The one's that Going for Roses spends all of his time cut and pasting here.
dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion? That lady who I quoted above thinks that no one should have more than $20M. That means Elon Musk would have checked out early in the Paypal era. Would we all be better off without him? Steve Jobs would never have returned to Apple. Google wouldn't have sold to Yahoo in 1999. I trust that I don't need to belabor the point but what would our country's GDP growth look like if people weren't incentivized to start new businesses and grow existing ones above the point where we cap their wealth?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?dajo9 said:Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?dajo9 said:Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.
Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.
Feels like your first sentence says it all.dajo9 said:Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?dajo9 said:Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.
Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.
In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.
Unit2Sucks said:Feels like your first sentence says it all.dajo9 said:Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?dajo9 said:Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.
Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.
In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.
I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.dajo9 said:Unit2Sucks said:Feels like your first sentence says it all.dajo9 said:Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?dajo9 said:Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.
Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.
In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.
I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"
Unit2Sucks said:I'm not asking you to be satisfied but would be good to have a sense as to what the government will use the new taxes for.dajo9 said:Unit2Sucks said:Feels like your first sentence says it all.dajo9 said:Ideally we would find ways for labor income to grow but that is difficult for the government to achieve. We should strengthen labor in ways we can and, yes, I think more money in the hands of the poor and middle class through redistributive policies would stimulate economic growth. We saw that in 2021.Unit2Sucks said:Do you think the primary driver of growth will be from a redistribution of wealth that will then be spent by the poor and middle class thus stimulating the economy or would there be another primary catalyst?dajo9 said:Economics is about finding equilibriums. When we are stuck in a high wealth inequality era with low economic growth and high asset prices (I think long term Treasury yields are a good metric for determining this), then we need to raise taxes on the wealthy and provide more services to the poor and middle class. If you asked me in 1980 I would say we need to lower taxes on the wealthy and cut back on services for the poor and middle class.Unit2Sucks said:What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?dajo9 said:The rich have a lower propensity to consume than the middle class. Therefore, when the rich take home a disproportionate share of the pie, consumption demand is lower and asset demand is higher. Therefore, we have have low economic growth and high asset prices, including low interest rates.DiabloWags said:dajo9 said:
Believe me, if I were an economist by trade, working on the impacts of wealth inequality on the economy is exactly what I would be researching. That area of study is the greatest failing of the economics profession. Having studied economics and finance and history, I have learned some things. It helps when you see conventional thought be wrong over and over again. I share my thoughts here.
And once again you deflect.
You didnt answer my question about how the rich are to blame for the economy being stuck in a low growth environment.
Also, how would you propose to tax wealth? I think what I would like to see is a constitutional amendment permitting the taxation of wealth and then a mechanism whereby a fund can be created to permit equity holders to transfer a portion of their equity interests to the treasury. That way, we can avoid diminishing asset values due to forced sales and the government would get their cash as and when the shares become liquid (whether by acquisition of a private company or eventual IPO). This obviously is less than ideal for equity that never becomes liquid and I would want to permit people to just pay cash if they prefer. I think it's going to be a complicated mess but it's something I can get behind.
Raising income taxes any further seems like a waste of time.
In regards to how to tax wealth - didn't we just have a big, long thread on that? I think you can still find it for reference.
I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"
dajo9 said:
I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"