patrick.net

FortWayne says

They are both speculation spydah. You are speculating that they'll make more money in the future. One is more speculative than other, but it's still speculation.

When I bought into bank stocks, I was speculating on nothing but the low and high points in the charts. Got lucky and made a killing. Invested in Coca-Cola, very low profit on the other hand, could have made same in a CD account.

If you're going to argue that then your statement about the CD rate is also speculating. You're speculating that the interest rate on the CD will out pace the inflation rate or even interest rates in the future.

But no they're both not speculating. Because speculating is throwing your money into a stock (or betting) with no sound data or reason that you'll get higher returns. Investing is doing your research and looking at the data and determining whether or not that this is a good valuable stock for it current price or even perhaps just loaning money to a company or entrepreneur to expand or start up a company.

Reality says

I'm sure many hookers are wives, to their husbands.

1. Never start a land war in Asia.
2. Never go against a Sicilian when lives are on the line.
3. You can't turn a hooker into a housewife.

thunderlips11 says

Reality says

I'm sure many hookers are wives, to their husbands.

1. Never start a land war in Asia.

2. Never go against a Sicilian when lives are on the line.

3. You can't turn a hooker into a housewife.

#3 also applies to strippers. I'd council every young man in this one. Once they realize sex is for money, that's the way they'll always think about it.

The Professor says

lower taxes on middle class

raise them on the wealthy

impose tarriffs on offshoring or evasion partnerships, while provide tax write offs for hiring within US.

Taxes imply that the government is the best place for capital as if they are good stewards of money and spend it in the best interest of those they take it from.

Bellingham Bill says

control point says

Money is a medium of exchange, not a store of value.

it may not be a store of value, but it is certainly a quantization of it.

The quantization goes out the door with the fiat system, esp. since central banks started printing like there's no tomorrow. Unless one dollar is backed by one dollar of collateral (doesn't have to be gold) nothing will change, the fiat money is directly responsible for the rising inequality because it is injected at the top.

mell says

The quantization goes out the door with the fiat system, esp. since central banks started printing like there's no tomorrow. Unless one dollar is backed by one dollar of collateral (doesn't have to be gold) nothing will change, the fiat money is directly responsible for the rising inequality because it is injected at the top.

Please describe this "injection at the top" process, as you see it.

How is buying bonds or even MBS "injecting at the top"?

tatupu70 says

Please describe this "injection at the top" process, as you see it.

How is buying bonds or even MBS "injecting at the top"?

Buying bonds depresses interest rates, buying MBS leads to loans that would otherwise not be made at that rate and increases demand and prices. Both effects benefit the wealthy (individuals and corporations) most as they have the most leverage (credit) when accessing cheap rates and own the most property.

mell says

Buying bonds depresses interest rates, buying MBS leads to loans that would otherwise not be made at that rate and increases demand and prices. Both effects benefit the wealthy (individuals and corporations) most as they have the most leverage (credit) when accessing cheap rates and own the most property.

OK-so they aren't actually "injecting" anything at the top then, right? You're saying they are making it more favorable for people to take loans?

I agree with that, but not your premise that low interest rates affect the rich more than the average Joe. Rich do own the most property, but they generally pay cash.

tatupu70 says

Rich do own the most property, but they generally pay cash.

and finance later at their leisure.

The Professor says

Strategist says

massive purchases of homes by hedge funds. That prevented a disastrous depression.

Really?

Would it not have been better for the home prices to crash thus enabling people (not corporate "people") to buy homes at a lower price and then spending the extra money in our consumer economy?

Not really. Even lower prices would have resulted in even more foreclosures, the cost of which would be picked up by the taxpayer via bank support. The hedge funds would have simply grabbed them all up.
Some homes in the West declined by 90%, the consumer had their chance.

mell says

Bellingham Bill says

control point says

Money is a medium of exchange, not a store of value.

it may not be a store of value, but it is certainly a quantization of it.

The quantization goes out the door with the fiat system, esp. since central banks started printing like there's no tomorrow. Unless one dollar is backed by one dollar of collateral (doesn't have to be gold) nothing will change, the fiat money is directly responsible for the rising inequality because it is injected at the top.

Money is just numbers on a bank note. Money has a claim against goods and services giving it value.

smaulgld says

The Professor says

lower taxes on middle class

raise them on the wealthy

impose tarriffs on offshoring or evasion partnerships, while provide tax write offs for hiring within US.

Taxes imply that the government is the best place for capital as if they are good stewards of money and spend it in the best interest of those they take it from.

It's not the governments money, which is why they are lousy stewards of money.
The ones they take it from get very little back as it mostly goes to the ones they don't take it from.
What we gonna do....that little 7 year old orphan has to be taken care of.