Biden is Mentally Fit Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: my replies are based on fact and supported by legitimate citations. 45 minutes ago you posted this with no citation: The divergence of building values and rents from loan payments stems from a real estate bubble inflated over the past decade. Investors and lenders alike bought into the notion that office demand would continue growing steadily for the foreseeable future. The COVID-driven mass shift to remote work shattered that premise. Why would someone as honest as you do that and follow it up less than an hour later with “my replies are supported by legitimate citation”. Why not include the link rather than present it as an original thought? 9 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: link? examples (yes, apparently I added 2 years to my age once)? they're called citations. you should use them. smart people do. it's conventional among the educated. See directly above. edit - link added. Maybe it’s a coincidence or they somehow copied your work proactively. https://bitscapital.net/blog/new-report-shows-over-44-of-office-buildings-underwater/ Edited January 23 by JDHillFan 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: 45 minutes ago you posted this with no citation: The divergence of building values and rents from loan payments stems from a real estate bubble inflated over the past decade. Investors and lenders alike bought into the notion that office demand would continue growing steadily for the foreseeable future. The COVID-driven mass shift to remote work shattered that premise. Why would someone as honest as you do that and follow it up less than an hour later with “my replies are supported by legitimate citation”. Why not include the link rather than present it as an original thought? See directly above. edit - link added. Maybe it’s a coincidence or they somehow copied your work proactively. https://bitscapital.net/blog/new-report-shows-over-44-of-office-buildings-underwater/ citation available on request is a standard reply in Academic meetings: https://bitscapital.net/blog/new-report-shows-over-44-of-office-buildings-underwater/ feel free to request at any time and assume above if no citation included in a post. Edited January 23 by Joe Ferguson forever 1 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) Person A -my replies are always supported by legit CITATION. It’s what smart people do. Person B - you copied from an article with no citation less than an hour ago Person A - that’s on everyone else for not assuming. Edited January 23 by JDHillFan Typo 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 23 Posted January 23 28 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Person A -my replies are always supported by legit CITATION. It’s what smart people do. Person B - you copied from an article with no citation less than an hour ago Person A - that’s on everyone else for not assuming. my bad. we run in different intellectual circles. i shouldn't have assumed. 1
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted January 23 Posted January 23 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: my bad. we run in different intellectual circles. i shouldn't have assumed. You seem confused on the definition of “citation”. It happens to people in the 62-65 age range. 1 2
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Just now, JDHillFan said: You seem confused on the definition of “citation”. It happens to people in the 62-65 age range. no....splain. please cite your reference for defining citation 1
Tommy Callahan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Gdp per capital is like 7O k. Debt per capital is over 90k
The Frankish Reich Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Gdp per capital is like 7O k. Debt per capital is over 90k Maybe we should get a bit more granular than those cherry-picked 5-year time periods (click to embiggen): Edited January 23 by The Frankish Reich 1
Tommy Callahan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Maybe we should get a bit more granular than those cherry-picked 5-year time periods (click to embiggen): Maybe you should. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S And why people outside the farm don't want establishment. Even yours showed Obama taking it from 60 to 100..... What point were you going with? Edited January 23 by Tommy Callahan
The Frankish Reich Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Maybe you should. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S And why people outside the farm don't want establishment. I don't understand your point. In your full 57 year graph, you'll see: - a very substantial rise in the Reagan/Bush 41 years - a reduction in the Clinton years - a slight upward trend in the Bush 43 years - a big spike after the Great Recession, and a continued upward trend in the Obama years - a generally flat trend in the first 3 years of Trump, followed by a huge spike in 2020 (COVID recession) - a generally downward trend in the Biden years so far And from that we can glean ....???? That we should have elected Hillary because that would have brought about another Clinton improvement? That Trump does't make matters better or worse unless there's an extraneous shock? That tax cuts (Reagan) are bad? Edited January 23 by The Frankish Reich 1
Tommy Callahan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 More liquidity and lower rates will make something take off like a rocket.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 23 Posted January 23 3 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: More liquidity and lower rates will make something take off like a rocket. The expectation of lower rates is based on falling inflation numbers. So yes, the expectation of an improving inflationary environment will likely lead to interest rate cuts. Liquidity? How so? 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted January 23 Posted January 23 The "soft landing" scenario predominates investor sentiment at the moment.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 23 Posted January 23 3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The "soft landing" scenario predominates investor sentiment at the moment. yes, and that's good, right. 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don't understand your point. In your full 57 year graph, you'll see: - a very substantial rise in the Reagan/Bush 41 years - a reduction in the Clinton years - a slight upward trend in the Bush 43 years - a big spike after the Great Recession, and a continued upward trend in the Obama years - a generally flat trend in the first 3 years of Trump, followed by a huge spike in 2020 (COVID recession) - a generally downward trend in the Biden years so far And from that we can glean ....???? That we should have elected Hillary because that would have brought about another Clinton improvement? That Trump does't make matters better or worse unless there's an extraneous shock? That tax cuts (Reagan) are bad? thick callahan with his usual nonresponse. just an X 1
Tommy Callahan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The "soft landing" scenario predominates investor sentiment at the moment. It would be good for the investor class. Fortune 500 1
The Frankish Reich Posted January 23 Posted January 23 16 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: It would be good for the investor class. Fortune 500 Yes, it would. You know who else it would be good for? The working man and woman who get to keep their jobs instead of being laid off! The federal deficit situation that you are now all worked up about, since soft landing = higher GDP = higher tax revenues! It's almost as if it would be good for everyone. Except Trump, of course, who is publicly hoping for a sooner and steeper recession. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 23 Posted January 23 20 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: It would be good for the investor class. Fortune 500 oh poor you..literally. Wasn't reagomics responsible for the saying "a rising tide lifts all ships"? 1
Tommy Callahan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) the tide would be the entire sea, not some pillars on the beach. you got to be miles from main street to think inflation isn't nailing people. Federal Spending to fortune 500 looks good for the GDP, not so much for people or main street. Lowering taxes for all corps and people gives people money to create a natural economy. And economics 101. Lowering rates increases liquidity into the economy. Raising them does the opposite. it's not anything new. Edited January 23 by Tommy Callahan
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 23 Posted January 23 27 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: the tide would be the entire sea, not some pillars on the beach. you got to be miles from main street to think inflation isn't nailing people. Federal Spending to fortune 500 looks good for the GDP, not so much for people or main street. Lowering taxes for all corps and people gives people money to create a natural economy. And economics 101. Lowering rates increases liquidity into the economy. Raising them does the opposite. it's not anything new. you clearly never grasped Reaganomics. Did u vote for him without understanding his policies also?
Tommy Callahan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Kids can't vote. Even though I know you Dems would like that. It's not 1980 anymore. Most corps are not private like then. But I do remember from economics class how they raised rates to fix the Carter run away inflation.
Recommended Posts