|
|
Post by theCapraAegagrus on Oct 26, 2022 4:54:43 GMT -8
If Democrats are so super awesome and their ideas so spectacular why is every city run by Democrats for decades a violent s***hole? I know I know its trump's fault- It's literally Idiocracy. The dumb people do dumb s**t, the politicians virtue signal that they'll fix it for the dumb people, and then nothing actually gets fixed because the dumb people don't see through the lies. Time and again, the politicians will lie, and the dumb people never catch on. The lies are always the 'easy fix' because doing the right thing the right way is not attractive to these kinds of voters. The 'easy fix' never works, though, and again the dumb people never catch on. Stupidity breeds stupidity and intelligent people are vastly outnumbered. The only thing we can do is try to herd the sheep with voices of equal manipulation, but with truly good and righteous ideas. Either way, the 2-party system was always going to devolve down to 2 sets of liars. This is why the Founding Fathers knew a 2-party system would be the death of Western politics. It's a false dichotomy that they've manipulated the public into believing is a reality. Most Americans have Stockholm Syndrome. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Oct 26, 2022 5:11:08 GMT -8
If Democrats are so super awesome and their ideas so spectacular why is every city run by Democrats for decades a violent s***hole? I know I know its trump's fault- It's literally Idiocracy. The dumb people do dumb s**t, the politicians virtue signal that they'll fix it for the dumb people, and then nothing actually gets fixed because the dumb people don't see through the lies. Time and again, the politicians will lie, and the dumb people never catch on. The lies are always the 'easy fix' because doing the right thing the right way is not attractive to these kinds of voters. The 'easy fix' never works, though, and again the dumb people never catch on. Stupidity breeds stupidity and intelligent people are vastly outnumbered. The only thing we can do is try to herd the sheep with voices of equal manipulation, but with truly good and righteous ideas. Either way, the 2-party system was always going to devolve down to 2 sets of liars. This is why the Founding Fathers knew a 2-party system would be the death of Western politics. It's a false dichotomy that they've manipulated the public into believing is a reality. Most Americans have Stockholm Syndrome. The driver, though, is the Fed, and international monetary interests (international banking entities) and always has been. Place the Chess piece "oil" on any map of the world and any country chosen randomly, and make an educated guess as to the entity that funds it and controls its distribution. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Oct 26, 2022 5:59:59 GMT -8
Like I said, you are missing the point, my point and the point of the article. I agree with some of the things you are saying, but there are more powerful variables at play here that can't be ignored. Can you expound on the "more powerful variables" that you detect, that justify the present functions of the Fed, and the danger of Economy vs. World War Chess pieces being placed? I'd like to hear it as well. I have a genuine interest in the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Bryan on Oct 26, 2022 15:32:09 GMT -8
Political Parties no longer work. I find fault with both parties and I am quickly becoming one of those people that may no longer vote. I wish people who are way past retirement age would get the f**k out of politics! Should be an age limit. I would say if you are age 65+ you should not be allowed to run for any political office. Minds slow down at a certain age and I want people in office who are sharp thinking. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples why the elderly need to stop working. When the thought process starts to slip it will affect your job performance. Some may argue that Trump is more spry, but I see something totally different, but will not comment further because it wouldn't go over well here. I agree with Andrew Yang (in theory) when he said we need MORE political parties because just DEM/REPUBLICAN gives you only 2 choices and that is most often no real choice at all.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Oct 27, 2022 4:27:25 GMT -8
Political Parties no longer work. I find fault with both parties and I am quickly becoming one of those people that may no longer vote. I wish people who are way past retirement age would get the f**k out of politics! Should be an age limit. I would say if you are age 65+ you should not be allowed to run for any political office. Minds slow down at a certain age and I want people in office who are sharp thinking. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples why the elderly need to stop working. When the thought process starts to slip it will affect your job performance. Some may argue that Trump is more spry, but I see something totally different, but will not comment further because it wouldn't go over well here. I agree with Andrew Yang (in theory) when he said we need MORE political parties because just DEM/REPUBLICAN gives you only 2 choices and that is most often no real choice at all. I don't find any non-reality statements in your post, excepting 2: 1) "..because it wouldn't go over well here". I think you are projecting an assumption of inclusion by everyone that are members here as being opposed to free speech. 2) Mr. Yang is an interesting person, and very thoughtful, but I am not of the opinion that more political parties are needed. I am of the opinion that no political parties are needed. I have always held this opinion since I was very young. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Oct 27, 2022 6:09:26 GMT -8
Political Parties no longer work. I find fault with both parties and I am quickly becoming one of those people that may no longer vote. I wish people who are way past retirement age would get the f**k out of politics! Should be an age limit. I would say if you are age 65+ you should not be allowed to run for any political office. Minds slow down at a certain age and I want people in office who are sharp thinking. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are prime examples why the elderly need to stop working. When the thought process starts to slip it will affect your job performance. Some may argue that Trump is more spry, but I see something totally different, but will not comment further because it wouldn't go over well here. I agree with Andrew Yang (in theory) when he said we need MORE political parties because just DEM/REPUBLICAN gives you only 2 choices and that is most often no real choice at all. 2) Mr. Yang is an interesting person, and very thoughtful, but I am not of the opinion that more political parties are needed. I am of the opinion that no political parties are needed. I have always held this opinion since I was very young. How would you see a political system working this way? I liked Bret Weinstein's idea of Unity2020, where one member from EACH party would be elected to the presidency and they worked TOGETHER with each party having 2 years at the helm and swapping the VP role, half way through. They'd flip a coin to see who went first. Talk about diversity. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Oct 27, 2022 6:47:54 GMT -8
2) Mr. Yang is an interesting person, and very thoughtful, but I am not of the opinion that more political parties are needed. I am of the opinion that no political parties are needed. I have always held this opinion since I was very young. How would you see a political system working this way? I liked Bret Weinstein's idea of Unity2020, where one member from EACH party would be elected to the presidency and they worked TOGETHER with each party having 2 years at the helm and swapping the VP role, half way through. They'd flip a coin to see who went first. Talk about diversity. Simplicity. A person wants to run. For any office at any level. The person publicly seeks support. The person lives or dies, depending on the level of support. The People vote for the person or they don't. Yes, I understand that in a given district/county/municipality/city/State/Fed election there would possibly (and probably) be multiple candidates. Good. The People will choose, eventually, the winner, and the public will not be subjected to Ideology Of Division that is used by existing political organizations to cause disruption and confusion and obfuscation. The term limits have to be changed, to no more than 4 years in any office at any level. Period. But, what do I know? I don't belong to any political affiliation. I do what she tells me to do. |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Oct 27, 2022 6:49:29 GMT -8
To put things in perspective, the Fed has already destroyed the housing industry with these hikes. Many are predicting 8% in the 30 year fixed mortgage before the Fed stops this nonsense (we were at 3.09% a year ago). 
October 27, 2022
The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage broke seven percent for the first time since April 2002, leading to greater stagnation in the housing market. As inflation endures, consumers are seeing higher costs at every turn, causing further declines in consumer confidence this month. In fact, many potential homebuyers are choosing to wait and see where the housing market will end up, pushing demand and home prices further downward. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Oct 27, 2022 7:10:31 GMT -8
Can you expound on the "more powerful variables" that you detect, that justify the present functions of the Fed, and the danger of Economy vs. World War Chess pieces being placed? I'd like to hear it as well. I have a genuine interest in the topic. I have been fascinated by the UK system of mortgage lending and the propensity of terms to be 2-5 years, and generally it has worked to the benefit of the borrower, based on the belief that the rising cost of housing and falling rates, that supported a "nothing to lose" attitude. It especially interests me because of the UK banking and insurance failures of previous years, did not dissuade the public at all. Now, with the economic crisis, and the impending disaster of defaults similar ca. 2008 U.S., there is still a shyness of the 10/15/30 year mortgage system (frankly, that is the only reason things are not a hell of a lot worse in the U.S. right now). I am not unaware of the difficulties of the availability of and cost of housing and mortgage financing rates in the present economic conditions. But, what is so bad about increased mortgage rates at this time? I do not see a downside. This will eventually support the new housing market, and allow manufacturing innovation and product availability and delivery and cheaper land acquisition and labor availability to catch up with the housing needs. The housing system needed a little destroying, and the public had 2 years of warning that eventually there would be an expensive recovery needed. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Oct 27, 2022 14:44:14 GMT -8
How would you see a political system working this way? Simplicity. A person wants to run. For any office at any level. The person publicly seeks support. The person lives or dies, depending on the level of support. The People vote for the person or they don't. Yes, I understand that in a given district/county/municipality/city/State/Fed election there would possibly (and probably) be multiple candidates. Good. The People will choose, eventually, the winner, and the public will not be subjected to Ideology Of Division that is used by existing political organizations to cause disruption and confusion and obfuscation. The term limits have to be changed, to no more than 4 years in any office at any level. Period. Oh my God, that sounds to brilliant and logical I can't believe I questioned it. I like it. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Oct 27, 2022 14:59:36 GMT -8
Simplicity. A person wants to run. For any office at any level. The person publicly seeks support. The person lives or dies, depending on the level of support. The People vote for the person or they don't. Yes, I understand that in a given district/county/municipality/city/State/Fed election there would possibly (and probably) be multiple candidates. Good. The People will choose, eventually, the winner, and the public will not be subjected to Ideology Of Division that is used by existing political organizations to cause disruption and confusion and obfuscation. The term limits have to be changed, to no more than 4 years in any office at any level. Period. Oh my God, that sounds to brilliant and logical I can't believe I questioned it. I like it. Thank you for the nod, Roy, but it was a very rare cerebral moment for me, so don't expect a repeat performance. Now, has anybody seen my Sesame Street Slippers? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Oct 27, 2022 15:55:19 GMT -8
Oh my God, that sounds to brilliant and logical I can't believe I questioned it. I like it. Thank you for the nod, Roy, but it was a very rare cerebral moment for me, so don't expect a repeat performance. Now, has anybody seen my Sesame Street Slippers? As I think about this more, I start to run into challenges on how effective it would be. For example, one of the main advantages to having a party is shoring up support to get stuff done. How would that work if each politician in every region was an independent? It would be tough to actually implement things if each individual has their own set of values or agendas? |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Oct 28, 2022 2:55:32 GMT -8
How Biden could have warded off inflation yahoo!Finance Rick Newman·Senior Columnist Thu, October 27, 2022 at 2:36 PM Whether he deserves it or not, President Biden is catching the blame for high inflation that’s wrecking family budgets. Republicans argue that the huge COVID relief bill Biden championed and signed in 2021 flooded too much money into the system, boosting demand and therefore, prices. That’s an exaggeration, but voters won’t parse the details, and they’re poised to pummel Biden’s Democrats in the Nov. 8 midterm elections. Biden knows inflation is a threat to his presidency. He has released oil from the strategic reserve to bring down gasoline prices, and pursued other measures to lower medication and health care costs. At campaign events, Biden tells voters that other legislation he signed recently will help bring down prices in 2023 and beyond. One thing Biden never addresses, however, is his own culpability in the Federal Reserve’s delayed effort to raise interest rates and get inflation under control. It’s the Fed’s job to combat inflation, not the president’s, and the Fed did start raising interest rates in March of this year. But that was almost a year after inflation began to rise above normal levels. At the end of 2020, inflation was a negligible 1.3%. By June of 2021, it had hit 5.3%, well above the Fed’s 2% target. Yet the Fed did nothing for another 9 months. Why did it wait so long? There was fevered debate in the summer of 2021 over whether inflation was transitory or permanent. Biden insisted it was transient, and Fed chair Jerome Powell basically agreed. Financial markets didn’t sniff out stubborn inflation, either, with stocks and other assets vulnerable to inflation soaring to new highs toward the end of 2021, as if everything were fine. We know now that this view was wrong, and that the Fed should have moved sooner. But amid the second-guessing, one explanation for the Fed’s tardiness has been overlooked. Powell was a Donald Trump appointee whose first term ended in February of 2022. He wanted a second term and was essentially competing for the job as inflation was rising in the middle of 2021. Powell was no shoo-in. Biden reportedly considered Fed governor Lael Brainard for the job, which would have allowed Biden to reshape the central bank and install a head considered by some to be less traditional and more progressive than Powell. Had Powell started hiking rates in mid-2021, Biden may very well have decided that Powell was too hawkish, and was unnecessarily slowing the economy. That could have tipped the job to Brainard, who's now the Fed's vice chair. So Powell may have had personal reasons to hold off on rate hikes. “If Powell had chosen to initiate a cycle of interest-rate hikes, it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that Biden would have replaced him with a different chair, perhaps Lael Brainard,” Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff wrote recently in Foreign Affairs. “The Fed held back on raising rates, and Biden eventually reappointed Powell. Only then, with Powell comfortably in his new term, did the Fed finally raise interest rates in the spring of 2022.” What Biden could have done differently, to assure the Fed was free to act, was reappoint Powell sooner. As it was, Biden didn’t announce Powell’s reappointment until Nov. 22, 2021. By then, inflation had hit 6.8%. The Fed normally signals important changes in monetary policy ahead of time, to avoid market shocks. This timing set the stage for the first rate hikes in March of 2022, once Powell was safe in his job and the Fed had made its intentions clear. By then, inflation was at 8.6%. It's impossible to know what might have been different if Biden had reappointed Powell, say, in June or July of 2021. There's no guarantee the Fed would have started hiking sooner. If it did, however, it could have meant significantly lower inflation by the crucial deadline of Nov. 8, midterm election day. Inflation has dropped from the June peak of 9%, but only to 8.2%. Investors have been hoping for faster progress, one reason for stock market rallies that fizzle as inflation data keeps coming in hotter than expected. The Fed operates with a lag, and in a few months’ time there might be more progress against inflation, with the year-over-year rate well below 8% and maybe below 7%. How Biden would love to have those numbers today! Back in the middle of 2021, Biden probably didn’t think 8% inflation would knock Congressional Democrats from power. Now, that seems likely. Elections sometimes hinge on decisions not made, and on developments politicians could have foreseen but didn’t.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Oct 28, 2022 4:42:19 GMT -8
Thank you for the nod, Roy, but it was a very rare cerebral moment for me, so don't expect a repeat performance. Now, has anybody seen my Sesame Street Slippers? As I think about this more, I start to run into challenges on how effective it would be. For example, one of the main advantages to having a party is shoring up support to get stuff done. How would that work if each politician in every region was an independent? It would be tough to actually implement things if each individual has their own set of values or agendas? Yes, I expected that you would have this thought as the first response. You are describing the Tribalism Conundrum. Tribalism has been bastardized in the modern world, to be a dividing (example: republican/democrat) tool. The death of true Tribalism was slow and painful, and occurred in CONUS for the last time between 1650 and 1875. It was Comancheria. People have evolved and are not Neanderthal in modern society in their need for survival, because of social interaction advancements-education, communication, ease of travel, common good, healthcare, etc. Awareness of the better mousetrap is instant, now. If my location knows the benefit of the other location's mousetrap is superior, my location is not going to insist and demand that we continue with the lesser quality of our mousetrap. We are going to improve, via discussion/cooperation/trade etc., because all will benefit. The People of my location will demand the improvement, and if not delivered, change will occur in the governance of my location, because to not do so is reverting to Neanderthal Tribalism, and Tribalism has never survived. Oh sure, there are pockets of Tribalism in the modern world today, and the average size is minimal... usually 100 or so, and is more a product of the Neanderthal society: genetic linkage and/or religious belief. Consider the Amish and or Anabaptist or Mennonite societies, as a more applicable example. All have interaction with the rest of society, because it is beneficial to do so. Anyway, I am just running at the mouth, and you would want to strangle me if I continued, so I will end with a simple answer to your thoughts: OK. And? |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Oct 29, 2022 5:00:28 GMT -8
Another jumbo Fed rate hike is expected next week — and then life gets difficult for Powell
Oct 28, 2022 11:34 AM PDT By Greg Robb All eyes on what Powell says about possible downshift in rate rise size in December First the easy part. Economists widely expect the Federal Reserve to approve the fourth straight jumbo interest rate rise at its meeting next week. The three quarters of one percentage point hike would bring the central bank's benchmark rate up to a level of 3.75%- 4%. "The November decision is a lock. Well I would be floored if they didn't go 75 basis points" said Jonathan Pingle, chief U.S. economist at UBS. The Fed decision will come at 2 p.m. on Wednesday after two days of talks. What happens at Fed Chairman Jerome Powell's press conference a half-hour later will be more fraught. The focus will be on whether Powell gives a signal to the market about plans for a smaller rise in its benchmark interest rate in December. The Fed's "dot-plot" projection of interest rates, released in September, already penciled in a slowdown to a half-point rate hike in December, followed by a quarter-point hike early in 2023. The market is expecting signals for a change in policy and many think Powell will use his press conference to hint that a slower pace of interest rate rises is coming. A Wall Street Journal story last week that said some Fed officials are not keen to keep hiking rates by 75 basis points per meeting. That , alongside San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly's comment that the Fed needs to start talking about slowing down the pace of hikes, were taken as a sign of a slowdown to come by the stock and bond markets. "No one wants to be late for the pivot party, so the hint was enough," said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust, thinks that Powell will signal a smaller rate hike in December by focusing on some of the good wage inflation news that was published earlier Friday. There was a clear slowdown in private sector wage growth, Tilley said. See: U.S. third-quarter wage pressures cool a little from elevated levels But the problem with Powell signaling he has found an exit ramp from the jumbo rate hikes this year is that his committee members might not be ready to signal a downshift, Pingle of UBS said. He argued that the inflation data writ large in September won't give Fed officials any confidence that a cooling in press pressures is in the offing. See: U.S. inflation still running hot, key PCE price gauge shows Another worry for Powell is the future data might not cooperate. There are two employment reports and two consumer price inflation reports before the next Fed policy meeting on Dec. 13-14. So Powell might have to reverse course. "If you pre-commit and the data slaps you in the head -- then you can't follow through," said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities. This has been the Fed's pattern all year, Stanley noted. It was only in March that the Fed thought its terminal rate, or the peak benchmark rate, wouldn't rise above 3%. While the Fed may want to slow down the pace of rate hikes, it doesn't want the market to take a downshift in the size of rate rises as a signal that a rate cut is in the offing anytime soon. But some analysts believe talk about the first cut will come soon after the Fed reduces the size of its rate rises. In general terms, the Fed wants financial conditions to stay restrictive in order to squeeze the life out of inflation. Pingle expects Kansas City Fed President Esther George to formally dissent in favor of a slower pace of rate hikes. There is growing disagreement among economists about the "peak" or "terminal rate" of this hiking cycle. The Fed has penciled in a terminal rate in the range of 4.5%-4.75%. Some economists think the terminal rate could be lower and others who think that rates will go above 5%. Those who think the Fed will stop short of 5% tend to talk about a recession and the Fed fast pace of hikes "breaking something." Those who see rates above 5% think that inflation will be much more persistent. Ultimately, Stanley thinks that the data isn't going to be the deciding factor. "The answer to the question of what either forces or allows the Fed to stop is probably not going to come from the data. The answer is going to be that the Fed has a number in mind to pause," he said. The Fed "is careening toward this moment of truth where it has very tight labor markets and very high inflation and the Fed is going to come out and say 'okay, we're ready to pause here'." "That strikes me that is going to be a very volatile period for the market," he added. Fed fund futures markets are already volatile with traders penciling in a terminal rate above 5% two weeks ago and now seeing a 4.85% terminal rate. Over the month of October, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note rose steadily this month above 4.2% before softening to 4% in recent days. "When you get close to the end, every move really counts," Stanley said.
|
|
