581–590 of 898 posts
OpenTable data
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRbPuAyJy74U...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 1% earn 36% of the income[1] as of 2016, and pay 37% of the taxes[2]. Everyone happy now? [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide... [2] https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-...
Income != wealth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems like an unfair comparison. The govt has courts that can overturn it. Before trump we didn't have the whim on the executive.
It may make you feel good to blame the current guy but we've had the whim of the Executive since the beginning. The only things that has changed are a) the willingness to use it and b) the sheer number of places it can be used. Obama ordered drone strikes on Americans. Reagan ran Iran-Contra. Kennedy tried to invade Cuba. FDR tried to grow the Supreme Court to 13. A better approach would be for the federal government…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all about risk vs return. Furthermore, in the current environment of high adversity, and increased scarcity there will eventually be innovations. Some of those will translate into products and profits.
The problem is perception. Stocks are increasingly seen as a risk-free play, backstopped by a Fed that will take drastic action if prices fall. In that world, why bother innovating? Why bother investing in innovation when the risk-free play has a huge positive expected return?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the Fed isn't there all the time. Under normal circumstances, you can't just sit there. Aside from competition, you won't retain quality employees.
But they are now, and that's what matters. When prices fell the first time, it didn't even take a week before the government passed the largest stimulus ever, 80% of which went to corporations. Investors know that the government will do anything to underwrite their risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you defined perfectly the defining problem of this generation in the US: nepotism. It is the root cause of so many structural problems that we see as unrelated. In particular the failure of the press to do their job and hold the powerful accountable. Not so easy when you went to the same school as them; got an internship thanks to them; were at a NYC roof party with them last week. Positions once available to…
Of all things, nepotism seems like an odd thing to single out. Do you have any numbers for this claim? It would be useful to hear e.g. what percentage of people secure positions through referrals/family members.
But when you weigh by total wealth the Walton and Mars families skew the data in favor of nepotism. It also depends on your opinion of source of personal wealth of Ms Bezos or Ms Jobs (and anyone in similar position) - nepotism or self-made?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a good thing to me. I’d rather people “work” to earn rather than easily collecting rent through interest. Work in quotes since applying capital in risky investments is work compared to stashing money in an interest bearing account.
What? Putting money in an index fund, or buying Apple stock, or a 401k, is "work"? Companies don't even get the money from secondary stock purchases, so the invested money is doing absolutely nothing. Banks use deposits to create loans whose funds go directly to the companies receiving those loans. Banks which interview the loan applicants, review financials, ask for references, and which themselves tend to be pillar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder. Investing is all about relative yield. If stocks return 0.5% and treasuries return -4%, stocks will sustain higher ratios than the historical mean. But I’m putting my money where your mouth is and betting on a correction.
True but you are taking say a -30% loss risk for only 0.5% expected return. I don’t think any risk manager is going to be very comfortable with that risk/reward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most every other developed nation has greater social mobility than the US [1]. Why can't the US reach Scandinavian levels of social mobility? [1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ranked-the-s...
Advocates of big government love these metrics that have been put through the academic ringer, so-as to spit out whatever tortured output is expected. Why look at this kind of esoteric figure at all? Why not look at, you know, real numbers? Spending as percentage of GDP: Denmark - 52% of GDP Norway - 55% of GDP Finland - 53% of GDP Sweden - 50% of GDP Iceland - 42% of GDP Average - 50.5% USA - 22% of GDP What does al…
Also should comparing the spending numbers take into account that healthcare, schools and universities are paid by government spending in the Nordics and not from household income?
Honest questions, I'm really interested in these differences between systems.