ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Correctly anticipating market movements in any direction is a profitable activity.
If you correctly anticipate the value of some asset will inflate , even completely out of whack to fundamentals (IE a bubble), profiting from that is the expected outcome.
Guessing right on what other people do is a (very) profitable activity.
You might dislike the idea that guessing future aggregate behavior (including any irrational behavior) can be profitable but it is.
I've no problem with that. People can profit greatly from understanding bubbles. Undertsanding stuff is valuable.
Risky as **** as well. Shorting bubble can be right in principle but so dangerous because timing is so difficult.
I've no problem with that. People can profit greatly from understanding bubbles. Undertsanding stuff is valuable.
Risky as **** as well. Shorting bubble can be right in principle but so dangerous because timing is so difficult.
And some "bubbles" end up being justified after all.
House prices are a lot higher than in 2006, aren't they?
Do you even ****ing know what reconciliation is? Do you know with how many votes trump tax cuts passed?
Take the loss man and move on
(Nevermind that the filibuster can always be nuked anyway with a simple majority, but it wouldn't be needed to reverse trump tax cuts with a trifecta)
I dont really do 'justified'
Nor do I see higher house prices as some good thing.
lol no. have another think
'another' might be an abuse of prose.
Justified: prices actually were justified by fundamentals.
Housing fundamentals are the rent yield.
The value of an asset at the end is the value of the cash flows it produces.
You can claim something is in a bubble if you think the valuation won't correspond to future cash flows.
But when the future happens, and the valuation is justified by cash flows, then it was never a bubble.
Doesn't matter at all if you would have liked that asset price to be lower for other reasons.
It was never a bubble, anyone who bought at the purported peak before the GFC and just hold, made money.
If it is a bubble, and you never sell at some point you lose your shirt.
I wont hold my breath. Thanks
Do you even ****ing know what reconciliation is? Do you know with how many votes trump tax cuts passed?
Take the loss man and move on
(Nevermind that the filibuster can always be nuked anyway with a simple majority, but it wouldn't be needed to reverse trump tax cuts with a trifecta)
Yes. I'm not sure you do. The opportunities to use Reconciliation are extremely limited. Democrats used it to pass the American Rescue Act in the only real opportunity they had. Trying to tack on tax reform to this would've increased the chances of the nutjobs Manchin and Sinema tanking it. As it was, The vote in the senate was tied and Harris broke the tie. It was far too risky to attach anything else to that package. Sinema in particular was vocal about resistance to it.
Once again, please try not to be so arrogant about topics you know very little about.
Justified: prices actually were justified by fundamentals.
Housing fundamentals are the rent yield.
The value of an asset at the end is the value of the cash flows it produces.
You can claim something is in a bubble if you think the valuation won't correspond to future cash flows.
But when the future happens, and the valuation is justified by cash flows, then it was never a bubble.
Doesn't matter at all if you would have liked that asset price to be lower for other reasons.
It was never a bubble, anyo
I agree on that.
Maybe you missed the part where I said that recently the GOP moved to the very far left on the issue.
"Normal" republicans left on the issue are those in congress saying "no deal on any spending if we don't balance the budget" and they are considered crazies by everyone else.
That 's how dramatically to the left a good portion of GOP and all democrats moved.
Remember the topic was lolwat claiming the literal opposite, while it's objectively true that in one of the most important, and defining polic
Dude, it's people like you who make the Republican Party a bunch of cowards who **** their pants over who goes to what bathroom and petrified about hordes at the border instead of caring about any kind of fiscal conservativism.
Usually yes but the supply is lacking and I guess at near 5% interest rates it’s hard to raise capital to build new stuff .
Not to mention the inflation that happened on materials after 2020.
If a recession comes tho we could see a correction unless people were smart , they could have remortgage at like 2% for 30 years in 2020….
That helps a freakn lot not to want to sell your house even when u lost your job .
Ps: Canada has a bigger problem because 1 they didn’t suffer like the U.S. in 2008 and idiot Trudeau is making the lack of houses even worst with his bad immigration policy .
And canadian don’t do 30 years mortgage , they do like 5 years .
I would feel much safer in the U.S. owning an house .
House prices vs disposable income in Canada
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/can...
As land becomes monopolized it sucks up all wealth beyond what it takes to barely live.
As land becomes monopolized it sucks up all wealth beyond what it takes to barely live.
nice try but it's clearly faked, how could she have read it 😀
jkjk, having read the synopsis i'm deeply skeptical but will give it a gander
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55308
Montreal, yes a lot of inflation occurred under trump. However, the 3 causes of that inflation (some of which that you pointed out in your super long post) was all very well supported by dems and some repubs caved to the dems and also supported it - printing money at 3x the normal rate, giving away tax payer money immediately after Covid and shutting down parts of the economy.
As land becomes monopolized it sucks up all wealth beyond what it takes to barely live.
What do you mean by “land becomes monopolized”?
Probably the wikipedia page on Georgism would be enough to give you an idea. It's too long for a forum post.
Gigantism
Montreal, yes a lot of inflation occurred under trump. However, the 3 causes of that inflation (some of which that you pointed out in your super long post) was all very well supported by dems and some repubs caved to the dems and also supported it - printing money at 3x the normal rate, giving away tax payer money immediately after Covid and shutting down parts of the economy.
What do you mean by “land becomes monopolized”?
That’s great baham !
So even if trump was in power you still find a way to blame democrats !
But at least own it !
Ps: tax cuts do gives away money to tax payer as well while still creating deficit ….
Funny isn’t ?
You can’t really say that short stimulus and expansionary monetary policy under Biden caused inflation because 30 years later the increase in aggregate supply from the cumulative results of that policy could lead to overall prices being lower vs simply leaving resources idle. Note that that’s the EXACT same argument baha uses to claim maybe trumps trillion dollar debt increase isn’t really an increase at all. But for some reason he forgets it when it comes to inflation.
