191–200 of 315 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be early or late is the same as being wrong, and I had a friend who lost everything trying to be right take their life when they were wrong. It is true, you have the potential to make money, and if you can afford it, who am I to stop you? But, you can also lose it all, and I hope that those who try don't. It's just numbers in a database after all. Gamble responsibly. There is always someone smarter or faster on th…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just so used to a debt fueled economy that you can't think of it being any other way. That is the problem though in that 99 times out of 100, debt goes rogue in a runaway sense and blows up the system. It is a time bom. In essence, debt doesn't need saving from the system; it's the system that needs saving from debt.
An economy that can be debt based is going to out perform yours nine years out of 10
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who don't know US budgets don't know what drives faster-than-GDP growth in expenses (it's real estate, biotech and college). That's just wrong. Social Security, Medicare, debt interest, and the military eclipse everything else. Discretionary spending outside the military is only like 15% of the budget. Also, why are you even connecting GLP1 drugs and the 90s federal budget surplus? The drugs didn't exist bac…
Because new drugs are what make the federal spending pie larger. Slower growth also does. Wars can also make budgets balloon, but then you’d be like “well Clinton wouldn’t want wars.” Okay, so would he want faster medical progress? Of course, and that turns out to be budget busting! The drugs could have existed back then. You’d have to read the link. And today they do, and under Clinton, would he pay? All great thing…
Your connection between the two is that new drugs are a primary driver of the federal deficit, which just isn't supported by the the reality of where the US government spends money.
I don't know what interesting conversation you expect from any of that. If you can show why you think drugs are driving the deficit, that'd be interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but global reserves are the domestic total foreign debit, and the government does not control that one. (I mean, it can weight in how it grows, but it's not the one that makes it.)
I think what you are saying is the sum total of global economic activity from the US point of view is foreign debt. The US has no direct control over this debt other than control of printing treasuries. Is that fair interpretation.
The US government didn't create that debit. It's not the government's debit. They can influence people, but they don't control that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but even that has serious issues for Europe's export oriented economies Hum... There are no reliable numbers out there, but I don't think the dollar devaluation has been keeping up with the US inflation. And if so, no, Europe's exports are becoming more competitive, not less.
> Hum... There are no reliable numbers out there, but I don't think the dollar devaluation has been keeping up with the US inflation. There isn't anything like "dollar devaluation has been keeping up with the US inflation". You are interested in what is called the import/export price index [1] and for imports that has been relatively flat for the past ~24 months(import +.3%, export +3.8% for TTM). So in a sense, impo…
If all the prices rise in the US to compensate, Europe stays exactly as competitive as before.
> And finally, remember: the US actually exports inflation
You are blowing the horn yelling that this just stopped. Or what do you think a dollar devaluation is?
Whenever I see headlines like this, I ask: what happened in 1994? It was post-Cold War and central banks were trimming USD reserves to test alternatives. Then, crises hit (tequila, Asian, Russian, dot com) and the world reconsolidated around USD, thanks to the immense strength of the Federal Reserve and IMF. Similarly now, reserve share is falling as countries hedge sanctions and geopolitics, yet dollar usage in trad…
1994 was wild
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because new drugs are what make the federal spending pie larger. Slower growth also does. Wars can also make budgets balloon, but then you’d be like “well Clinton wouldn’t want wars.” Okay, so would he want faster medical progress? Of course, and that turns out to be budget busting! The drugs could have existed back then. You’d have to read the link. And today they do, and under Clinton, would he pay? All great thing…
You made a claim (budgeting wasn't good, they were just lucky) and backed it up with a strange hypothetical (if GLP1 drugs were released it would have driven the deficit higher). Your connection between the two is that new drugs are a primary driver of the federal deficit, which just isn't supported by the the reality of where the US government spends money. I don't know what interesting conversation you expect from…
It was written contemporaneous to Clinton. You are welcome to read about the budgetary process of the Clinton years, healthcare was THE primary issue. Like why am I talking about this stuff, and why was everyone talking about it under Clinton? Because we’re all stupid? Military spending is PERCEIVED to be something about the budget, but it is ALL ABOUT HEALTHCARE, it has been since 1965 in this country, and it is all about healthcare everyone else in the developed world, acutely so in Europe and Japan.
Dollar dominance erosion shifting towards dollar inertia. Post RU sanctions dollar lost much of it's leverage (as geopolitical weapon), i.e. actual useful dominance function (transaction panopticon, sanctions)while still retaining most of the liability (Triffin etc). Dollar going to remain popular by volume because plumbing in place, but parallel payment systems last few years = systematic blindspots where US treasur…
> countries (emerging markets / BRI recipients) who would have borrowed USD from FED (or US influenced IMF/WB) now borrow from USD from PRC -> reduce US treasuries demand This makes no sense. If the PRC is lending U.S. dollars, that doesn’t reduce Treasury demand. It increases demand for dollar-denominated assets, goods and service providers. The borrowing country has to spend those lent dollars after all.
Old: PRC recycle surplus USD into US bonds, increase US treasury demand, subsidizes cheap US debt.
New: PRC recycle surplus USD into BRI finance, said USD doesn't return to US treasury to buy bonds, decrease US treasury demand, treasury increase interest to fill hole, makes exorbitant privilege more exorbitant.
PRC parallel dollar bond lending COMPETES with US treasury bond lending. PRC dollars gets recycled towards PRC goods / BRI projects, not US treasury. PRC leveraging dollar liquidity for PRC geopolitical interests, meanwhile taking demand away from treasury bond sales, so US drive rates up to compete. US treasury had to find other buyers to fill ~600 billions (and raising) of USD bonds that PRC no longer holds. Filling hole that size = finding more price sensitive buyers (vs PRC who previously default recycled into treasury), so raise interest, increase debt servicing. US 10 year going from 0% (countries basically paying to hold USD) to ~0.8% cost US ~300B+ annually. Now that's not all PRC doing, but 100 billion here and there and soon we are talking about real money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know you mean it as in governments won't return to a system that doesn't let them inflate the money supply, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing...
Being able to conduct monetary policy is valuable, even if it can be misused. Otherwise all other countries would just be using USD.