bearister said:

---

You are actually too easy.

---

And here I thought Hell to Pay was the only bitter, lonely, old man posting here in their retirement.
With nothing else going on in their life but to troll.
Man.... you're living the dream.

Axiom from back in the day...

DON'T FIGHT THE FED

If they are raising rates to slow the economy down, then, uh, HEE-LLOOO?!?!

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.

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.

---

Yes, the 2 and 10-year spread shrank to the lowest level since Nov. 2020
The 5 and 30-year spread shrank to a level not seen since Jan. 2019

But I think that one of the big factor's that is influencing the trajectory of long-term rates is the demand for Treasury's from overseas as well as some other market (risk-off) participants.

Clearly, Powell's super hawkish comments on Wednesday helped yields on the short-end spike dramatically.
The market was already pricing in 4 rate hikes heading into the meeting.
It appears that "it" was even surprised by how hawkish Powell was.

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 would suggest that last Friday's plunge in the stock market and the "flight to safety" that ensued also was a factor; turbocharged by shorts scrambling to cover. The 10 - year yield plummeted 5% on that day alone.

zerohedge is Russian propaganda but they do report real bank-client communications when it suits their perma-disaster narrative. Here comes the Fed recession.

Recession secured: BofA joins JPM in slashing Q1 GDP, now sees just 1% in Q1, says "risk of negative growth quarter are significant"

GDP will turn negative in a few weeks once econ is hit by fiscal headwinds and as oil hits $100. pic.twitter.com/Rie8Za2fqK

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 28, 2022

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

---

Oh the irony.
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". 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".

He spent all of 2019 with the same rant with articles entitled:

Why Was Trumponomics a Flop?

From Trump Boom to Trump Gloom

Trumpism is Bad for Business

Here Comes the Trump Slump

The Day the Trump Boom Died

It's puzzling why anyone would ever quote Krugman.
He's not even a decent economist, let alone someone that is a market participant.
He's worthless.

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.

---

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.

Remember, GDP depends on the change in inventories and not the level of inventories.
Thus, the $173 Billion increase in inventories in Q4 limits the scope for inventories to drive growth again in Q1.

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".

---

He walked that back 3 days afterwards. How many pundits who are wrong do you ever see walk anything back? Not the constantly conventionally wrong ones.

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".

---

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?

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.

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.

---

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?

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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?

---

This has got to be one of your more ignorant statements made on this thread.
It just goes to show how little experience you have with the financial markets.
Low growth environments are a boon to growth stocks and growth fund managers.

Your post makes no sense at all.
Zero.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

dajo9 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.

---

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.

---

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.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

The Effect of Population Aging on Economic Growth, the Labor Force and Productivity (nber.org)

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

I know you aren't arguing for a wealth cap, but I would like to know exactly what you are arguing for. There are certainly people who think a wealth cap is appropriate and they must think that there are no benefits to society from people being incentivized to grow their fortunes.

I don't think there are any easy answers here but it seems that the demonization of the wealthy seems to be the tactic that many people have settled on.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

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.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

What is a proportionate share of the pie in your opinion?

---

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.

---

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?

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Feels like your first sentence says it all.

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

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.

---

Health care, community college, state university, child care, child credits, infrastructure, climate change, lowering the retirement age

dajo9 said:

---

I'm not satisfied with living in a subpar economy because "it's hard"

---

And for some strange reason, we have a "subpar" economy due to the fault of people that worked hard and took on RISK.

Never mind that the demographics of this country (as I posted above) are heavily skewed to the 60+ crowd that no longer need to spend money like they did when they were younger and as a result, drive economic growth. For some reason, demographics and a declining birth rate dont play into your "tidy" narrative as to why our economy is stuck in low growth. Nope, it's the rich people's fault.

So, we will "reward" the entrepreneurs who took on RISK and created jobs and products that improved our quality of life and liberty - - - by taxing them more than they already are so that we can "redistribute" their money to the poor and the middle class. Because you know, the Govt knows how to spend money far better than you or I do. We should really trust Government on the ability to redistribute people's wealth.

What could go wrong???
Anyone for an $80 BILLION DOLLAR BULLET TRAIN?

I strongly suggest that you take a look at one of the most liberal City Council's in America and what their policies" have done for their citizens (of whom 57% are black) in Flint, Michigan. We're talking about a city with a poverty rate of 41%. That's 2.5x the rate across the state of Michigan.

One out of every 2.4 residents of Flint lives in poverty.
How have all of the social welfare policies "benefitted" the residents of Flint?

Think that's a liberal success story?
Think again.

Fed Could Hike at Every Meeting This Year, BofA Says - Bloomberg

BofA's Ethan Harris now sees 7 Fed rate hikes.
JPM's Michael Feroli now sees 5 hikes.
Evercore ISI now sees 5.