sherpa

None of these measures would stop a pilot who was a legitimate hire.

If he's sane, he will avoid Venezuela, or prepare to give up his life. Brazil is the much better option, but if he doesn't care about immigration protocol, there may be no no place for him.

I think its funny when US or Canadians comment on countries and their govs and social systems that they know absolutely nothing about. Brazil is not what people think, nor is any other country. Corruption exists from the top levels of government to the school crossing guard, (which they don't have as I have been run over in Sao Paulo and can verify). Changing people at the top won't change that. It is systemic. Regional differences exist as well. Rio is completely different than Sao Paulo or Recife, and we won't even consider the Amazon area. What this is, in my humble view, is the final nail in the now continental repudiation of the Chavez Bolivarian Revolution coffin. Way too much ground to travel though, as Argentina has demonstrated.

Make no mistake. The provision that allows a guarantee of birth in the United States to citizenship in the United States is an industry across Central and some parts of South America. Along with the other profit making aspects of the immigration "trade." We need to view it for what it is, which is a profit seeking industry, designed to make money off the heartstrings of American benevolence. I saw it for years, and it has to be stopped.

Finally, a way to dispose of the missing 9-11 passengers. Or maybe just a simple pitot static problem that very poorly trained pilots on a very poor airline could not handle. But for conspiracy folks.....Both. By the way, I'm no DR, but I do have some contacts. Here's a maintenance write-up in that aircraft's logbook the day prior. " Indicated airspeed and altimeter disagree after takeoff and elevator feel differential pressure light illuminated." The airline claims it was fixed. I'm guessing they were wrong.

Or in some parts of the Islamic world.....dead.

You have no idea why they were targeted. Just stop......Until somebody with no other objective other than fact finding figures this out.

The size of the balance sheet has a good deal to do with the ability of the Fed to deal with the next downturn. Of course there is no magic number, unlike an individuals credit limit, but eventually the size gets to the point where it can't be reasonably financed by any rational estimate of GDP, so it eventually causes currency problems. See Venezuela. Deficits don't cause inflation, nor, in and of themself, stimulate economic activity. Deficits are simply spending more than one takes in. Supply and demand imbalance causes inflation or deflation, and clearly, gov demand is part of the calculus, but a part of it. The Fed is doing what it needs to do to fulfill its dual mandate of price stability and full employment. It is responding by incrementally raising its two rates. It is clearly not responsible for fiscal policy, which is an entirely different issue.

The Fed's balance sheet has grown form 869b in 2007 to over 2 trillion. Fed balance sheet If you question the need to reduce that, there is not much I can say. It's kind of like asking if it is OK to increase your mortgage from 500k to 2.5 billion. Works as long as it works, but it gives the Fed little room to handle the next downturn, unless adding multiple zeros to debt doesn't matter-and it does, to those who must pay it. Expanding the deficit, in and of itself, does nothing, unless it results in: a. decreasing the value of the dollar, or. b. spiking interest rates. Of course there is the moral obligation of strapping the number to our progeny, but that is beyond the scope. Neither of those has happened. Interest rates are rising at a very moderate level at the gov and corporate level, and are evidence of a very healthy debt market. that can change. If your "if" suggestions are considered, you have a point. As of now, we are not in your "if" scenarios.

I fully understand what tax cuts do. What the Fed does is based on a number of things, the deficit not even close to being one of the criteria. We are at a very healthy 3-4% GDP growth. 2 in some quarters, close to 4 in others. Nobody in their right mind would state that is "overheating." What the Fed needs to do is lower its balance sheet, a balance sheet expanded exponentially under QE forever. The good news is that their recent moves have been in the right direction, and a start to getting us back to normal metrics. We are not in an inflationary period. Tariffs are a damper, and the Fed is doing what it should do. Deficits matter when the bond market determines they matter. I never said a thing about "taxes." What I said was that tariffs are economic wet blankets. They are not inflationary. Of course specific industries experience price increases, but in aggregate, they are stifling. Watch the Democrat strategy unfold this autumn. Quite likely they will pull the deflationary strings of farmers and anyone else who has experienced decreased prices from trade policy. The point is that that the tariff policy mentioned was extremely important in what developed in 1930.

Goodness. Tell me how Smoot-Hawley caused inflation. If you aren't familiar with that tariff, I suggest you look at the 1930 time frame, and the economic decade that followed. You really get this, don't you?

You are clearly ill-informed. Tariffs diminish trade activity. Diminished trade activity is counter inflationary, and in and of itself, would lead to reduced demand for capital, and thus lower interest rates. You are over the cliff.

And by the way, it is curious why the accusation of the Trump trade policies, which are whined about repeatedly here as being anti growth, anti economic activity and therefore anti inflationary, are not mentioned in the same discussion. Perhaps its a bit disingenuous to complain about minor, healthy, justified stimulus without mentioning minor, unhealthy, justified anti stimulus.

Are you completely incapable of considering that your views are foolish? A very minor and justified tax adjustment is a very minor stimulus. It was something that the Fed would never consider as a stand alone policy to increase the rates they control, which are minor by the way. You are apparently unaware of what they use and how they use that criteria to execute their mandate. All that aside, a more healthy, growing economy, which is generating wage growth above inflation, a point I made earlier and which you have, seemingly, disregarded, is good for everybody. Your point is akin to stating that a reduction in body temperature and flu symptoms for one suffering from that is a bad thing, 'cause it increases the likelihood they might get out of bed and get into an accident. Here's a clue. A slow growing economy with a healthy demand for capital is a good thing. Economic activity has far more impact on fed tax revenue than minor, justified, adjustments to taxes. It also makes for a happier populace, at least the sane ones.

I don't agree at all that tax cuts put pressure on the Fed. That isn't one of the things they look at to execute their mandate, which is clear. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand your claim that rates could have risen slower, or that tax cuts caused the acceleration. The Fed has been extremely slow to raise rates, and the tax cut wasn't near the stimulus that QE to infinity presented to a rate hawk. I think your reasoning is corrupted by your politics. In fact, I'm certain of it.

Tax cuts didn't "juice the economy." Of course they were a positive, but economic activity was increasing with or without that issue. Tibs, you are one of those guys that I'm not going to do homework for, but the true indicator is wage growth, and wage growth is quite positive. Getting interest rates to a normal level vs economic activity is not only desirable, but after having been at negative rates vis a vis inflation, necessary to allow the Fed to use its most normal weapon to minimize the effects of the next downturn. Simply stated, it is quite desirable to have the ten year at 4% or slightly higher, for a number of reasons, none of which are political, which is the stick in your eye you can't seem to remove.

You'd be "sharper" if you wrote calls against them during periods of market over valuation. Chances are, you can cover at a much lower price, and hold them all the while. But you knew that.

That is good information.

No. The smart people use those times to write calls against issues they have made money on. But you knew that. And I guarantee you I am not jealous of you.

Now I'm convinced you don't know how this works. Equity markets react to a number of things, not the least is rising interest rates. Interest rates rise due to capital demand in healthy and expanding economies. All is well.

Do you understand any of this?

918 mb pressure. That is incredibly serious. Record breaking.

Zero.

Yes he is. It is so bad it has to be intentional, or he thinks everyone who would ever look at the very small part that I did is a complete idiot. These guys expose themselves very early in their "presentations."

I made it through the tears at the 6 minute mark. Fast forwarded to about the 18 min mark where he starts talking about the Pentagon. Listened to that. Determined he's a dope and quit.