91–100 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly are they keeping their assets in? A house that they can't sell and make that worth liquid? A retirement account they cannot withdraw without huge costs and compromising old age? Where else?
Uh, you ever hear of taxable investment accounts? Online brokerages, mutual funds, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is backwards. Inflation destroys the value of debt. Poor tend to be borrowers and rich tend to be lenders, so inflation is an equalizer.
no, the wealthy keep their capital in assets with above average returns. the rest of us get to pay for that with below average returns, fees, and inflation.
What I am talking about here is debt. Owe money on your house? Inflation makes you owe less. Lend money to someone buying a house? Inflation means you get paid back less.
The surprise that is coming is that the working class won't tolerate being robbed in the next financial crisis. Working American's had to financially absorb the 2008 Mortgage crisis. 2008 was a direct robbery because Mortgage Orginators KNEW the mortgages would blow up, because their own Underwriting equations said they would. That is why they did fraud on the customer's income levels or worked with politicians to al…
> the working class won't tolerate being robbed in the next financial crisis The working class wasn't robbed at all. Maybe they lost the value they thought their homes had, but the reality is that all of that was just inflated. 2008 was an issue of moral hazard and unfortunately Joe Schmuck isn't aware of that going into a mortgage agreement. This will continue to happen forever until people finally learn that when s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is backwards. Inflation destroys the value of debt. Poor tend to be borrowers and rich tend to be lenders, so inflation is an equalizer.
no, the wealthy keep their capital in assets with above average returns. the rest of us get to pay for that with below average returns, fees, and inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, the wealthy keep their capital in assets with above average returns. the rest of us get to pay for that with below average returns, fees, and inflation.
Yes that would explain them being rich. But I'm sure you have heard the phrase "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." What I am talking about here is debt. Owe money on your house? Inflation makes you owe less. Lend money to someone buying a house? Inflation means you get paid back less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If that's true, then why is the current government working hard to remove any protection (however meager it is/was) to prevent the same mistakes from happening all over again? I find your average worker doesn't really pay attention to the day-to-day news/politics (especially regulations & individual votes, media doesn't cover this either and nobody watches CSPAN) but by now knows that in 2008 the bankers & wall stre…
The average citizen not paying attention will stop when the next financial crisis hits.
One of the few times Bettridge's Law of Headlines doesn't apply. "Survive" is an extreme word here, but I do see a big issue w/ index funds. Perhaps an unpopular opinion - but I believe index funds will be the next major bubble that cripples the financial system. It's one massive way to persist the same inequality status quo. You know what made Bezos so rich in spite of a company that doesn't make much accounting sen…
This is a real misunderstanding of how markets work. An index fund invests in everything, market-cap weighted (usually). This means that your investment merely reinforces the prices already determined by the other participants in the market . There are still huge numbers of active managers, not to mention quants and others. They, collectively, determine the prices of assets. When you invest in an index fund, you're j…
Yes, it does - you cannot add capital to a market without raising the market cap. It doesn't cause it to raise higher or faster than it's index peers, but it absolutely does cause it to rise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the banks were part of the cause. That is not in dispute, as you can see by reading my previous comments. But they would not have been able to commit their fraud without the aid of credulous buyers willing to purchase far more house than they could afford. That's all I'm saying.
In a functioning market, a buyer would not have received a loan, no matter how much they wanted to over extend themselves. But, because fraud was being committed from the rating agencies, investment banks and mortgage originators, they got the loan. I understand what you saying, but I think you underestimate the lack of accountability that allowed people to get loans they were not in the best interest of anyone.
The surprise that is coming is that the working class won't tolerate being robbed in the next financial crisis. Working American's had to financially absorb the 2008 Mortgage crisis. 2008 was a direct robbery because Mortgage Orginators KNEW the mortgages would blow up, because their own Underwriting equations said they would. That is why they did fraud on the customer's income levels or worked with politicians to al…
> the working class won't tolerate being robbed in the next financial crisis The working class wasn't robbed at all. Maybe they lost the value they thought their homes had, but the reality is that all of that was just inflated. 2008 was an issue of moral hazard and unfortunately Joe Schmuck isn't aware of that going into a mortgage agreement. This will continue to happen forever until people finally learn that when s…
https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-211.htm
Those banks should have been insolvent, and wiped out investors, it cost Americans an estimated 12.8 trillion dollars by kicking the can down the road
https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/2008-financial-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. It's I don't care if banks survive as long as I'm not negatively impacted. I'm sure the banks feel the same way. Survive also doesn't mean 'maintain standard of living.' The government has a surefire way of propping up the wealthy: Inflation. Savings accounts lose purchasing power (normal person) and the means of production gets more expensive (wealthy).
This is backwards. Inflation destroys the value of debt. Poor tend to be borrowers and rich tend to be lenders, so inflation is an equalizer.