sherpa

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.

Making such a decision is personal choice, and what you need. Are you going to tow? If so what weight? Do you need a full sized bed, or a crew cab. Can't have both. I'm not giving advice, but my son is a buyer for CarMax. Spends about 200k/week, and I trust his opinion. He gets to buy three vehicles a year for himself at wholesale, which he does, and sells them. I needed a truck that would pull my small RV. Got a 2005 Nissan Frontier. He found it. Had it for two years and got rid of it a couple weeks ago. Not a fan. Neither was the local guy who worked on it. Just bought a used Toyota Tundra my son found through work. Not even close. Much better vehicle. Tacoma used prices are ridiculous. A joke in the industry, but they are what they are.

Grossly judgmental. A Supreme Court judge is responsible for interpreting the Constitution vis a vis legal issues. Kavanaugh is qualified and competent. Democrat misconduct should not convey to a judge's fitness for duty.

I was doing minor maintenance underneath my tractor. Not a small one, about 4000 pounds. The hydrostat transmission suddenly engaged, (long technical reason), and it started forward. Big tractor tires got my shirt in a split second and pinned me. The tractor ran over me, right across my chest. I was facing down. Anyway, broke 21 of my 24 ribs. Four hour surgery and four titanium pieces to reconnect ribs.

Viagra. Seriously, I think the most amazing work is going to be in biotech. So much going on.

Of course, but not until later. Blumenthal was injured, and Kerry not only performed CPR on him, but replaced his torn face skin with aluminum foil, which is why it now looks like Reynolds Wrap.

You don't have to remind me. I saw you and Blumenthal being interviewed by Brian Williams way behind the lines when the interview was interrupted by shots being fired at Hillary Clinton, who was parachuting in. Some things..........You just can't forget.

One of my favorite moments was when Blumenthal invoked the Roman principle of "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus." Of course he neglected to mention his gross lying about having served in Vietnam. Evidently, that principle doesn't apply to him.

Years of going to Brazil, Colombia and Argentina allowed me to watch a ton of this. I would always ask my coworker if he wanted to meet for dinner. After 90% said they "had a friend," I gave up asking and just did my own thing. There are lots of reasons why men cheat, but there is one undeniable reality, in my view. Men are going to have sex at a regular rate. If they are not having it at home, or if it is not, in their view, satisfactory, they will look elsewhere, but they are going to have it.