• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Inflation.......... ?



Don't know if this is inflationary, deflationary, or just the type of trend that is likely to annoy me in a couple of months when the kids "need" some Chinese junk for whatever reason and we can't find it at the local big-box store, and my wife says "we'll make it at home as a family project!", and it wipes out a Saturday.

I will say that fireworks prices are the strongest sign of inflation I've experienced in the past 48 hours. Yikes. Good thing that Saturn Missile Batteries is not part of the CPI or else Jerome would have some 'plainin' to do the next time he's hauled in front of Congress.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Hobo Hilton


Don't know if this is inflationary, deflationary, or just the type of trend that is likely to annoy me in a couple of months when the kids "need" some Chinese junk for whatever reason and we can't find it at the local big-box store, and my wife says "we'll make it at home as a family project!", and it wipes out a Saturday.

I will say that fireworks prices are the strongest sign of inflation I've experienced in the past 48 hours. Yikes. Good thing that Saturn Missile Batteries is not part of the CPI or else Jerome would have some 'plainin' to do the next time he's hauled in front of Congress.

Here in the Bitterroot Valley there is an annual event "The 50 mile Yard Sale" from Missoula to Darby. A good reason to get out, talk to people and look for treasures. It was different this year. People were great after being locked down for a year. Stuff for sale was mostly junk, and it was over priced. I spent $3 over two days on a few trinkets... Lots of odd ball ammo and a few odd ball guns. All the Remington 700's were previously sold off, months ago. We all noted how there was very little "good stuff". Almost no cast iron cooking gear. Heavy winter outdoor gear was non existent. The bulk of stuff was that Chinese produced stuff with a short lifetime...

Yes, times are changing. I see it in the items people are holding on to and what they are getting rid of... All agreed that the cost of just maintaining what you have is going up.
 
The average price of a previously owned home in the United States crossed $350,000 for the first time ever in May, surging 23.6 percent from a year earlier, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) said on Tuesday. ...Jun 22, 2021
____________
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Tuesday responded to concerns from Republican lawmakers about spiking inflation by reiterating his view that current price increases will likely prove temporary.Jun 22, 2021

Question:
If someone is buying a house today.... How is that inflation temporary?
 
One more shortage:

Hay

 
Nothing makes batshit crazy beliefs more normal than placing them next to Frodo Baggins' regular posts. It's like insanity laundering. Not talking about Rutgers, just anything that happens to be within six posts of his nuttiness.
 
Just wait, from the talks I’m hearing we haven’t seen anything yet..
5B5AA843-C884-49CB-B1A2-47B8514B446A.png
 
Just wait, from the talks I’m hearing we haven’t seen anything yet..View attachment 7662827
If you are implying that Opec could fuck us, and the rest of the world, with oil prices, then you are right. And cancelling domestic production and blocking Trump's proposed additions to the SPR will have made it easier for them to do so. But Opec doesn't have a great history of working together to get something like this done. Maybe they are feeling less kind to us because of our new turn back toward Iran, but I am skeptical of their ability to keep production low when it starts to hurt them. Of course, "inability to agree to production increases" really means that they have either tacitly agreed to low production, or, per usual, more US allied producers will just do as they please and pump more, which has been the story generally.
 
If you are implying that Opec could fuck us, and the rest of the world, with oil prices, then you are right. And cancelling domestic production and blocking Trump's proposed additions to the SPR will have made it easier for them to do so. But Opec doesn't have a great history of working together to get something like this done. Maybe they are feeling less kind to us because of our new turn back toward Iran, but I am skeptical of their ability to keep production low when it starts to hurt them. Of course, "inability to agree to production increases" really means that they have either tacitly agreed to low production, or, per usual, more US allied producers will just do as they please and pump more, which has been the story generally.

one of the things Trump was trying to do last year when oil completely cratered in price, was to buy as much as he could get his hands on to fill the Strategic Reserves. This was removed and voted out of the stimulus bill March a year ago. of course dems blocked him.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: camocorvette
If you are implying that Opec could fuck us, and the rest of the world, with oil prices, then you are right. And cancelling domestic production and blocking Trump's proposed additions to the SPR will have made it easier for them to do so. But Opec doesn't have a great history of working together to get something like this done. Maybe they are feeling less kind to us because of our new turn back toward Iran, but I am skeptical of their ability to keep production low when it starts to hurt them. Of course, "inability to agree to production increases" really means that they have either tacitly agreed to low production, or, per usual, more US allied producers will just do as they please and pump more, which has been the story generally.

Yes, implying exactly that. After last years down turn in the market, well let use the term crash. Companies are moving cautiously on growth. Having been in the O&G Industry for 37 years I’m about nearing my end. Been good to me and my family, I fear it will never be the same after the next itch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Choid
one of the things Trump was trying to do last year when oil completely cratered in price, was to buy as much as he could get his hands on to fill the Strategic Reserves. This was removed and voted out of the stimulus bill March a year ago. of course dems blocked him.
Absolutely, and I mention that above. It was a no brainer to do it at that point. It would not make a huge difference outside of a crisis, but it was definitely worth doing.
 
Yes, implying exactly that. After last years down turn in the market, well let use the term crash. Companies are moving cautiously on growth. Having been in the O&G Industry for 37 years I’m about nearing my end. Been good to me and my family, I fear it will never be the same after the next itch.
How long do you think OPEC could reasonably keep it together at low production? I know we can point to the 70s, but in general they have been less competent than anybody could imagine.
 
The UAE—OPEC’s third-largest producer--deems this as “unfair”, and has shown no indications that it is willing to budge on its demand that its baseline be changed to reflect “current production capacity”.

Last year, the UAE opposed plans by the OPEC majority, as well, sparking speculation that it would leave the cartel.

Today’s planned talks were further encumbered by the Saudi move to challenge the UAE on another front—free trade within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
 
The UAE has a production capacity of some 4 million bpd; however, under the OPEC+ deal from last year, its actual output was capped at 2.59 million bpd until the end of 2020, rising to 2.74 million this year.
 
The UAE has a production capacity of some 4 million bpd; however, under the OPEC+ deal from last year, its actual output was capped at 2.59 million bpd until the end of 2020, rising to 2.74 million this year.
Personally, I think every US government official other than Trump is at a complete loss in understanding how to deal with dictator states. My distaste for Trump is well known, but in this respect, he did a consistently good job. The return to the DC consensus here is going to be a disaster for us.

That said, this quote is unintentionally hilarious and telling when talking about OPEC:
“OPEC+ has been thrown its most serious crisis since last year’s ill-fated price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia,” Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, said in a research note.
I'm going to guess that UAE and Saudi will come to some compromise, since they are generally in bed and do each others bidding in various ways. It would be helpful if we had more influence with them like we did last year, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChristianSilver
Yes, changes to discount rates make big differences in valuations especially when rates are low and risk premiums are low. No, there is no ethical argument against stock buy backs, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
stock buybacks are great, nothing unethical about it. That argument is for people that don't understand stocks, the laws and duties of a corporation or are simply just angry at not having benefited from the markets like others.

on to your main point however, Apple is not, nor is Amazon (fking racist company) but the mkts are floating up on cheap money, zero risk being priced in, and the belief that low rates will persist. Any rise in rates has to trigger a revaluation given the capex considerations.

you want energy, goods delivery services, gold/silver miners
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hobo Hilton
its all good as I watch an amazon commercial for 'black accelerator' on amazon for black only businesses. Hey, it feelz so don't worry about stinking valuation, we got feelz
 
stock buybacks are great, nothing unethical about it. That argument is for people that don't understand stocks, the laws and duties of a corporation or are simply just angry at not having benefited from the markets like others.

on to your main point however, Apple is not, nor is Amazon (fking racist company) but the mkts are floating up on cheap money, zero risk being priced in, and the belief that low rates will persist. Any rise in rates has to trigger a revaluation given the capex considerations.

you want energy, goods delivery services, gold/silver miners
On one point I would disagree with you: in a previous generation stock buybacks would be considered unwise. How is that the best use of capital? You wanted money so you sold stocks; now you want to use debt (usually) to buy them back. How does this say that a company is looking forward strategically and is worthy of investment? Is there nothing else that the company can invest in to generate a return for the shareholders and it is relying on the existing lifecycle of its products to generate ever decreasing revenues for its shareholders? Granted, this line of thought isn’t worth much in this day, but it may prove to be true soon enough.
 
Last edited:
On one point I would disagree with you: in a previous generation stock buybacks would be considered unwise. How is that the best use of capital? You wanted money so you sold stocks; now you want to use debt (usually) to buy them back. How does this say that a company is looking forward strategically and is worthy of investment? Is there nothing else that the company can invest in to generate a return for the shareholders and it is relying on the existing lifecycle of its products to generate ever decreasing revenues for its shareholders? Granted, this line of thought isn’t worth much in this day, but it may prove to be true soon enough.
doesn't really work like that. Most of the stock buybacks were on div or income producing stocks hence the debt issuance which reduced capital outflow and increased fcf which of course, is A GREAT USE OF CAPITAL to increase operating income. A companies legal responsibility is to support shareholders first so everything is a distant second. If a company decides that their business model supports using cash to support shareholder value with a stock buyback then game on. It's remedial to say buybacks have no value. Never have buybacks been bad per se
 
  • Like
Reactions: Choid
On one point I would disagree with you: in a previous generation stock buybacks would be considered unwise. How is that the best use of capital? You wanted money so you sold stocks; now you want to use debt (usually) to buy them back. How does this say that a company is looking forward strategically and is worthy of investment? Is there nothing else that the company can invest in to generate a return for the shareholders and it is relying on the existing lifecycle of its products to generate ever decreasing revenues for its shareholders? Granted, this line of thought isn’t worth much in this day, but it may prove to be true soon enough.
People used to think a lot of really stupid things. That those beliefs are old doesn't make them any less ridiculous. Given tax laws the cost to companies and investors of substituting buybacks for dividends with basically the same free cash makes perfect sense. Not only that, unlike dividends the current owners of the stock get to decide whether to participate or not with a stock buyback. If the company is able to buy stock back at whatever price they believe is lower than the true value of the stock, then they are performing their most important responsibility to their shareholders, which is increasing shareholder value. If they are buying it for too high a price, the shareholder should sell, either to the company or to other market participants. No reason to hold on to overvalued stocks.
 
doesn't really work like that. Most of the stock buybacks were on div or income producing stocks hence the debt issuance which reduced capital outflow and increased fcf which of course, is A GREAT USE OF CAPITAL to increase operating income. A companies legal responsibility is to support shareholders first so everything is a distant second. If a company decides that their business model supports using cash to support shareholder value with a stock buyback then game on. It's remedial to say buybacks have no value. Never have buybacks been bad per se
I’ll just let this sit and soak in it’s own error. The articles that have been written about this line of thought are legion. It’s like nothing was learned the past two decades.
 
So does team "I don't know shit about finance" hate forced dividends too, or just optional ones?
 
Let me be more clear with my original post: spending cash to buy back stocks represents short term gains in the market to satisfy short term goals. It adds nothing to the productivity of the company, and may indeed sacrifice future earnings that would have been realized through that productivity gain. Stock market analysts may cheer the buy back, but the long-term sacrifices go unseen. Not to mention that if there is a serious productivity or economic decline the transfer of obligations from OE to liability still remains to be repaid. Unless someone in the corporation then decides to convert debt to stock.
 
So, what does team "I'm a finance genius" think the practical take away is when a company had a market cap around $500 Billion in July of 2016 and $2 Trillion in July of 2021 during a period of low interest rates and several hundred billion in stock buy backs. The market cap increase is around 300% while the percent increase in revenues is about 28% over the same period.


And, should have known better in the bear pit than to ask to put an issue aside. That is like sending out the bat signal for re-arguing that topic LOL
I think markets swing from under to over valued all the time. Demand for tech stocks is very high, risk premia are very low. The market disagrees with the Bear Pit consensus on long term interest rates/inflation rates.

Remember valuing a stock isn't so much about today's free cash flow and cost of capital, but the estimates as to what each will be in successive periods. You don't discount five years from now based on today, you discount each period based on estimates, micro and macro, for that period. So, assuming that the market has been fairly valued the whole time, you have to assume that people either believe more strongly in their operations going forward, have lowered their equity risk premiums or have more benign inflation projections than at that point in time. Or a mix. Or you believe that the market is, long term, really good at pricing things, but that doesn't mean that it is correct at every single moment in time. I tend to believe the latter strongly, but the former a bit as well because people need a logic through which to buy.
 
Let me be more clear with my original post: spending cash to buy back stocks represents short term gains in the market to satisfy short term goals. It adds nothing to the productivity of the company, and may indeed sacrifice future earnings that would have been realized through that productivity gain. Stock market analysts may cheer the buy back, but the long-term sacrifices go unseen. Not to mention that if there is a serious productivity or economic decline the transfer of obligations from OE to liability still remains to be repaid. Unless someone in the corporation then decides to convert debt to stock.
This is really impoverished thinking. Let's assume, arguendo, that the motivation you ascribe is correct, even then, the buying back of stock just allows the sellers to deploy the proceeds of their sales to areas where they perceive more growth prospects. They become the allocators of that capital rather than the companies themselves. And if the choice is between dividends and buybacks, the sellers (new allocators) are able to do so at a lower transactional cost. The only way your scenario makes any sense is if the pool of potential growth prospects is limited to the companies currently buying back stock. As long as that pool is not limited, there is no possible reason to see a zero sum growth/market price dichotomy. If the money can be deployed elsewhere, it is growth capital just as much as it is when deployed in the company in question. This isn't hard stuff.
 
I used to think with Choid there was more than just arguing a point for the sake of argument. Nope. And then I still thought the conversation was around the same focal point. Nope.

I think I see the light. I remember now why ignore was enabled. Back on it goes.
 
Last edited:
Lol dope. I guess ignore is for when your argument gets fuckimg nuked.
 
Deja Vu

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumer credit soared in July, posting its biggest jump since November 2001, driven in part by demand for auto loans and student borrowings. Total consumer credit increased $26.01 billion to $3.24 trillion in July, the Federal Reserve said on Monday. June's consumer credit figure was revised up to show an $18.81 billion increase from $17.26 billion. Economists polled by Reuters had expected consumer credit to increase $17.35 billion in July. Chris Low, chief economist at FTN Financial, said the credit growth is being driven by auto loans, though he added that signs of loose standards and spikes in default rates are showing. "The only thing we have to worry about is there is excessive risk-taking in the auto sector," said Low. "But it's still a good thing for the economy at least in the short term.
___________________________________________________
Wells Fargo Bank will reportedly no longer offer personal lines of credit to customers, not accepting new applications and closing down the accounts of those who already had a line of credit open with the bank.
 
Last edited:
I’m debating whether I should have my son take out a student loan for college on the basis that he stands a good chance of $10k/year being forgiven. Versus using his 529 to pay full tuition.
 
I’m debating whether I should have my son take out a student loan for college on the basis that he stands a good chance of $10k/year being forgiven. Versus using his 529 to pay full tuition.

Student loans are the WORST

Avoid them if at all possible.

I would not count on the Democrat's promised bribe to young people of... vote for us and we'll give you free money...
Don't believe the very ones that put the chains on people for their own greed will be taking them off.
 
Can you take out interest free loans now, and in 4 years, use 529 to pay them off if Biden doesn't keep handing out free money from future tax payers?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hobo Hilton
Student loans are the WORST

Avoid them if at all possible.

I would not count on the Democrat's promised bribe to young people of... vote for us and we'll give you free money...
Don't believe the very ones that put the chains on people for their own greed will be taking them off.

it all depends on what the degree is in and what the actual cost of the school is.

i used grants, student loans (subsidixzed and unsubsidized) and whatever other financing i could to get through with my degree in engineering. Interest rates were low, i consolidated everything to like 2.1% after i got out of school, and by age 34 I had them completely paid off.

my total student loan burden was probably less than $30k. if you are getting into the 6 figures, then yeah, id say avoid that.
 
it all depends on what the degree is in and what the actual cost of the school is.

i used grants, student loans (subsidixzed and unsubsidized) and whatever other financing i could to get through with my degree in engineering. Interest rates were low, i consolidated everything to like 2.1% after i got out of school, and by age 34 I had them completely paid off.

my total student loan burden was probably less than $30k. if you are getting into the 6 figures, then yeah, id say avoid that.
I think this is solid advice. I worked near full time while also pulling a full load, best thing I could have done. Damn near killed me but it created a work ethic that still is paying dividends today. I don't think engorging oneself with loans to get a degree at a high dollar college is the right path forward. No need to encumber your life early. People tend to forget that debt is a form of slavery - you are promising to give a portion of your life (labor) back to the bank in the form of dollars. Every dollar you earn represents some form of time that used to be on your life clock. Those dollars should be spent wisely because they cant be gotten back. Depending on the pay rate loan repayment could be a lot of days out of your life, whether it be for a car, house, education, boat or whatever. There has to be wisdom and a long-term view applied to any loan that is signed. I think many do not understand this or actively choose to not consider the "what-ifs".
 
I'm not sure engorging means what you think it means, lol. Also, debt is not slavery. That is ridiculous. It is an obligation entered into freely. If you don't understand the difference, maybe it would have been a better idea to try one of those high dollar schools where you could have learned a little more. All of this histrionic bullshit about financial decisions would be laughable were it not presented in the service of helping another person. Quite often debt is the most responsible choice in a given situation, depending on the cost of that debt and the perceived value of it.

That said, I've never taken out a loan other than to establish credit when it seemed like a good idea, and I could borrow money cheaper than I could use it, so my tendency is to say no to any excess debt. No mortgages, car loans, student loans, margin loans. That isn't a position on debt as much as a realization that I am happier limiting my losses to what I have. However, I would be surprised if all student debt was not cancelled within a decade, so in all likelihood it is going to be the cheapest way to pay for an education. I have no idea why people think this isn't going to happen, given that Democrats are fine with paying people to do nothing. In the end, he is going to be paying everybody's education costs in taxes, so he might as well get his.

Oh, and BTW, since this is an inflation thread, anybody who believes high inflation is imminent should be borrowing as much as they can at fixed rates, especially student loans. If you think the government is going to devalue money in order to service its own debt, then you sure as hell want to be on the same side as the government in that equation.
 
Mainly just because it’s the end of the day and there is a fish on the line:

it’s an idiom. I meant it exactly as I said it. It’s called english and it’s the shit.

“2. By extension, to greedily consume, hoard, or take advantage of a huge number or amount of something.

‘The private equity firm engorged itself on the investments of millions of unsuspecting consumers.The political campaign is engorging itself on the fears and anxieties of the population.’”

——————

@XTREM HTR16 here is a tag to two articles to read. It’s one side, but it is a side of the equation worth considering. I think most of us obtained loans to go to school; the trick is how to not get so in debt that no post-college entry level job can pay for the monthly loan and living expenses. If those debts don’t get forgiven then your son is on the hook. Something to consider, hopefully they have something that is useful for you guys.

In this first article it points out that unlike other forms of voluntary debt, student loans must be repaid in full and will follow you throughout life until the obligation is fulfilled. This is an important point to consider if you are helping your son make this decision.


 
Last edited:
Mainly just because it’s the end of the day and there is a fish on the line:

it’s an idiom. I meant it exactly as I said it. It’s called english and it’s the shit.

“2. By extension, to greedily consume, hoard, or take advantage of a huge number or amount of something.

‘The private equity firm engorged itself on the investments of millions of unsuspecting consumers.The political campaign is engorging itself on the fears and anxieties of the population.’”

——————

@XTREM HTR16 here is a tag to two articles to read. It’s one side, but it is a side of the equation worth considering. I think most of us obtained loans to go to school; the trick is how to not get so in debt that no post-college entry level job can pay for the monthly loan and living expenses. If those debts don’t get forgiven then your son is on the hook. Something to consider, hopefully they have something that is useful for you guys.

In this first article it points out that unlike other forms of voluntary debt, student loans must be repaid in full and will follow you throughout life until the obligation is fulfilled. This is an important point to consider if you are helping your son make this decision.


Yeah, well, actually no. It is an incorrect usage, but it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that the idea of debt being slavery is ridiculous, and it is irresponsible to suggest that to somebody asking a serious question about their kid's future. Debt is just one way among many that people finance things they think they need. There isn't a moral component to it unless you go into debt planning not to pay it back. The calculus is financial, viz what is the cheapest cost of funds to get the greatest return. Those articles are as overwrought as all the fools out there complaining that their masks are just like the holocaust. Debt is a tool and should always be considered relative to the cost of obtaining funds through other means, sometimes it is the best way to do it, and sometimes not, but whether it is or not won't have to do in any way with whether it is ackshually slavery.

I would suggest looking into fellowships etc, but when talking about the actual cost of school funds, it is important to realize that earning potential in many fields is significantly different depending on how somebody does academically. That can make the decision to work several jobs as opposed to taking on student debt extremely expensive from a longer term point of view. It also probably depends on the field of study, whether he plans to go to a graduate level program etc. There are just a ton of variables to take into consideration, none of which is whether your kid is going to be a slave.

And BTW, those links are legit fucking bonkers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
Yeah, well, actually no. It is an incorrect usage, but it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that the idea of debt being slavery is ridiculous, and it is irresponsible to suggest that to somebody asking a serious question about their kid's future. Debt is just one way among many that people finance things they think they need. There isn't a moral component to it unless you go into debt planning not to pay it back. The calculus is financial, viz what is the cheapest cost of funds to get the greatest return.

You are confusing two completely different things.
Sure the big money boys and corporations can borrow all they want at as low prices as they wish and then when they can't pay it, they just run off to a judge, do a quickie wipe out of all their debts and continue on business as usual.

I think you probably haven't actually fully understood how the "student loan" system works and you are simply cheer leading the greedy bastards who are enslaving the youth (even if perhaps those youth kind of deserve it for being the unthinking communist morons they are).

The Government, as in the congress critters and their minions setup the program, decide the rules and how much everybody is going to make off the students.

Students are told, "well sure we sent all the jobs overseas, but not to worry, as long as you have a good enough degree you'll be able to get the better jobs... oh and if you don't you'll be a failure forever.."

These naive, bleary eyed, indoctrinated, young people swallow it hook line and sinker, and don't question why somebody would give them huge loans when they have like no credit, assets or work history. BECAUSE nobody taught them proper financial stuff, because the schools, corporations, banks and government is all in on it. It's an assembly line to produce indentured servants for the corporations and banks.

So they get their degree eventually, and find that the promise of "great jobs" isn't really there for most..

Now they get to find out the terms of the debt.

Oh, you can't EVER get rid of it, sorry none of that bankruptcy stuff for you serfs, you will pay until the day you die.
Oh, you want to work extra hard and pay it off early, sure, but you still have to pay ALL the interest on the loan for the entire term up front and then you can start paying the principal and it doesn't matter if you pay it off right away, sorry, you guaranteed us we would make the entire amount of interest... so keep paying.

Of course the same "good folks" that gulp down the "private corporation" B.S. and "Just doing their duty," stuff will be all about "well they signed the contract, so they deserve to be indentured servants for life." THAT is specifically why when society was not all about making it best for the rich, there were strict limits on contracts and unconscionable or vastly unfair contracts were ruled void.

The price of education keeps skyrocketing way past the rate of inflation thanks to these unlimited loans, so it becomes almost impossible to save for university ahead of time if you want any higher end degree. The Universities love it because it's just tons of money for them to play with or waste on "sports". Many of the big universities have large enough endowments they could offer free education forever, and still turn a yearly profit.

So in short, I would tell anyone who is thinking about doing "student loans", to really really think long and hard about if there is any way to avoid them, and if not, they need to try to do all in their power to make them as little as possible and understand the enslavement that will come their way.

The Democrats love talking loud and long about "freeing the students from their crushing debt", BUT you'll notice they don't do anything about it, because they are all in on the making money off it. BUT it makes good talking points because a large chunk of young adults would vote for the devil if he promised to wipe away their student loan debt. You'll notice Bernie promised it then... well... issues... You'll notice President House Plant made it a big centerpiece and then well... it's complicated and... bad Republicans.

Meanwhile the stupid Republicans and conservatives harp on this "well you made a contract" load of.... as their ONLY talking point and so get painted as the villains by the same politicians that setup the enslavement. The Republican Party could steal the lead, steal the message and shine a light on the greedy bastards who setup the system, and pass laws to force student loans to be the same as most other loans and reform the cost structure for education, but they are most likely also in bed with profiting from misery and have no wish to see the feed trough get empty.
 
You are confusing two completely different things.
Sure the big money boys and corporations can borrow all they want at as low prices as they wish and then when they can't pay it, they just run off to a judge, do a quickie wipe out of all their debts and continue on business as usual.

I think you probably haven't actually fully understood how the "student loan" system works and you are simply cheer leading the greedy bastards who are enslaving the youth (even if perhaps those youth kind of deserve it for being the unthinking communist morons they are).

The Government, as in the congress critters and their minions setup the program, decide the rules and how much everybody is going to make off the students.

Students are told, "well sure we sent all the jobs overseas, but not to worry, as long as you have a good enough degree you'll be able to get the better jobs... oh and if you don't you'll be a failure forever.."

These naive, bleary eyed, indoctrinated, young people swallow it hook line and sinker, and don't question why somebody would give them huge loans when they have like no credit, assets or work history. BECAUSE nobody taught them proper financial stuff, because the schools, corporations, banks and government is all in on it. It's an assembly line to produce indentured servants for the corporations and banks.

So they get their degree eventually, and find that the promise of "great jobs" isn't really there for most..

Now they get to find out the terms of the debt.

Oh, you can't EVER get rid of it, sorry none of that bankruptcy stuff for you serfs, you will pay until the day you die.
Oh, you want to work extra hard and pay it off early, sure, but you still have to pay ALL the interest on the loan for the entire term up front and then you can start paying the principal and it doesn't matter if you pay it off right away, sorry, you guaranteed us we would make the entire amount of interest... so keep paying.

Of course the same "good folks" that gulp down the "private corporation" B.S. and "Just doing their duty," stuff will be all about "well they signed the contract, so they deserve to be indentured servants for life." THAT is specifically why when society was not all about making it best for the rich, there were strict limits on contracts and unconscionable or vastly unfair contracts were ruled void.

The price of education keeps skyrocketing way past the rate of inflation thanks to these unlimited loans, so it becomes almost impossible to save for university ahead of time if you want any higher end degree. The Universities love it because it's just tons of money for them to play with or waste on "sports". Many of the big universities have large enough endowments they could offer free education forever, and still turn a yearly profit.

So in short, I would tell anyone who is thinking about doing "student loans", to really really think long and hard about if there is any way to avoid them, and if not, they need to try to do all in their power to make them as little as possible and understand the enslavement that will come their way.

The Democrats love talking loud and long about "freeing the students from their crushing debt", BUT you'll notice they don't do anything about it, because they are all in on the making money off it. BUT it makes good talking points because a large chunk of young adults would vote for the devil if he promised to wipe away their student loan debt. You'll notice Bernie promised it then... well... issues... You'll notice President House Plant made it a big centerpiece and then well... it's complicated and... bad Republicans.

Meanwhile the stupid Republicans and conservatives harp on this "well you made a contract" load of.... as their ONLY talking point and so get painted as the villains by the same politicians that setup the enslavement. The Republican Party could steal the lead, steal the message and shine a light on the greedy bastards who setup the system, and pass laws to force student loans to be the same as most other loans and reform the cost structure for education, but they are most likely also in bed with profiting from misery and have no wish to see the feed trough get empty.
so much wrong here and it's clear your view is driven by emotional bias

student debt is not gov't problem, if you send your kids to college for a $hitty degree that is overpriced, shame on you as a parent and your kids for being stupid. Makes perfect sense to go to NYU for 4yrs so you can become a teacher right?

Debt is good, debt helps to drive growth and spreads the wealth, prosperity, ability to grow, finance large projects, and the same holds true for the individual consumer. Two clear examples of this home ownership and municipal expenditures.

Going back to student loan debt, gov't shouldn't be in the loan business here to the degree they are but where in fk do provosts, profs etc get to make 200k/yr for what they do? that is the crime here. College costs have gone up so much so fast that it's become a burden for upper middle class and this with them holding billions in investments! If colleges have over 500mm in endowments money, they should be taxes like any other enterprise unless they use that endowment money to lower costs, increase research etc etc. imho

debt is good

oh and conservatives are right, you did make a contract and you said ok, I'll pay 75k a yr to come out and make 40k. stupid is as stupid does. I'm not paying for your bad choices here when half the country doesn't even go to college.

We need more trade schools
 
Man, people can get emotionally unhinged about just about anything in here.

Definitely need more trade schools, and there are other, creative ways we could deal with financing education, but the bottom line is that if you are going to take somebody's money to pay for shit, you are going to have to pay them back some how. The ability to finance things with debt is, as Rutgers says, a good thing. It isn't always the right decision, but often is.

And again, I repeat, if you are sitting in this thread caterwauling about how big inflation is on the horizon because the government needs to inflate its way out of debt, then you sure as hell want to be borrowing money as well, so that you get to be on the government side of that trade. If you find yourself holding disparate opinions on the two sides, you probably aren't thinking straight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RUTGERS95
so much wrong here and it's clear your view is driven by emotional bias

student debt is not gov't problem,

oh and conservatives are right, you did make a contract and you said ok, I'll pay 75k a yr to come out and make 40k. stupid is as stupid does. I'm not paying for your bad choices here when half the country doesn't even go to college.

We need more trade schools

My opinion on the Student Loan mess, is based on seeing how things actually are working in the Student Loan industry, so let's not get off about how "debt is good" for all these other projects and corporations. I wasn't talking that and that is a completely different discussion.

The Student Loan mess, IS a government problem Because the government started the problem, wrote the rules that make it a problem and enforces them to make sure their favoured bankers and financial firms get extra rich with special laws that only apply to enslaving students and provides the "just following orders" types with guns to enforce that the bankers get their money.... all of it...

Without all that, getting a student loan would be much like a traditional loan for a car, house or anything else you want to pay off.
Interest rates would be at market rates, and you could pay off early with no penalty, refinance competitively and could discharge it in bankruptcy like other stuff.

It would mean that those lending the money would be a lot more conservative about total amount of money spent vs. earning potential and as such, the Universities would not be able to keep upping their prices as there would simply not be the money to support insane prices from all but a small handful of wealthy elites.

As long as the government guarantees endless streams of money, the prices will keep rising as fast as the money stream will support.

I personally much prefer the system they use in Australia (but the government is trying to destroy so they can let their buddies get rich off American enslavement way). In Australia for many things it's a more rigid system of if you want xxx position, you must have at least xxx degree and if you want a pay raise / promotion, you have to get another degree etc. Society there decided that having a educated workforce would give them an advantage in their global business dealings.

Now things are not all perfect, but basically, if you are a citizen and want to study, the government will loan you money directly at a very low rate, that can be used to study at where you want to study at, and the University prices are kept in control (with the exception of foreigners can be charged whatever you want). Then you get your degree and any year that you happen to make over around $50k a certain amount is added to your tax bill to repay your loan & then you can repeat the cycle next time you want to get an advanced degree.

Many of my married relatives regularly are leapfrogging education with their partner, so for example while both are working, one does most of the kids, housework and all the rest while the other studies for a degree, then once they get the degree, the roles flip and the other one studies for a degree then once they get that it flips again. The system of government loans there makes it much easier to do.

There are still many problems, and such as nobody is perfect, but I think it's way better than the utter disaster of student loans I see here in the USA.
 
Man, people can get emotionally unhinged about just about anything in here.

Definitely need more trade schools, and there are other, creative ways we could deal with financing education, but the bottom line is that if you are going to take somebody's money to pay for shit, you are going to have to pay them back some how. The ability to finance things with debt is, as Rutgers says, a good thing. It isn't always the right decision, but often is.

And again, I repeat, if you are sitting in this thread caterwauling about how big inflation is on the horizon because the government needs to inflate its way out of debt, then you sure as hell want to be borrowing money as well, so that you get to be on the government side of that trade. If you find yourself holding disparate opinions on the two sides, you probably aren't thinking straight.
well said

I've been looking at silver miners as an inflation hedge and as a EV play
 
My opinion on the Student Loan mess, is based on seeing how things actually are working in the Student Loan industry, so let's not get off about how "debt is good" for all these other projects and corporations. I wasn't talking that and that is a completely different discussion.

The Student Loan mess, IS a government problem Because the government started the problem, wrote the rules that make it a problem and enforces them to make sure their favoured bankers and financial firms get extra rich with special laws that only apply to enslaving students and provides the "just following orders" types with guns to enforce that the bankers get their money.... all of it...

Without all that, getting a student loan would be much like a traditional loan for a car, house or anything else you want to pay off.
Interest rates would be at market rates, and you could pay off early with no penalty, refinance competitively and could discharge it in bankruptcy like other stuff.

It would mean that those lending the money would be a lot more conservative about total amount of money spent vs. earning potential and as such, the Universities would not be able to keep upping their prices as there would simply not be the money to support insane prices from all but a small handful of wealthy elites.

As long as the government guarantees endless streams of money, the prices will keep rising as fast as the money stream will support.

I personally much prefer the system they use in Australia (but the government is trying to destroy so they can let their buddies get rich off American enslavement way). In Australia for many things it's a more rigid system of if you want xxx position, you must have at least xxx degree and if you want a pay raise / promotion, you have to get another degree etc. Society there decided that having a educated workforce would give them an advantage in their global business dealings.

Now things are not all perfect, but basically, if you are a citizen and want to study, the government will loan you money directly at a very low rate, that can be used to study at where you want to study at, and the University prices are kept in control (with the exception of foreigners can be charged whatever you want). Then you get your degree and any year that you happen to make over around $50k a certain amount is added to your tax bill to repay your loan & then you can repeat the cycle next time you want to get an advanced degree.

Many of my married relatives regularly are leapfrogging education with their partner, so for example while both are working, one does most of the kids, housework and all the rest while the other studies for a degree, then once they get the degree, the roles flip and the other one studies for a degree then once they get that it flips again. The system of government loans there makes it much easier to do.

There are still many problems, and such as nobody is perfect, but I think it's way better than the utter disaster of student loans I see here in the USA.
slowdown big guy, I can assure you that you do not know more about this space than I do so take your emotional bias and illinformed view elsewhere.

Our system works, it's why we are who we are. I do agree the costs are ridiculous but if kids today continue to pay for it, then like any other enterprise, the supply and price point will react accordingly. Most of the kids going to college today should not, college has become a big business. If the gov't really wanted to enact meaningful change on it's costs, start with the tax structure, endowment size, pay scale (more than half of higher education persons are affiliated with state pay schemes) and fees.

Oh and for all the parents bitching about costs, not my problem you lease 800/month to have a Tahoe and I keep and old Jeep so that I HAVE MONEY TO SEND MY KIDS. Like everything in life, it's about choices and accountability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pbgt and Choid
Well..... Look into your crystal ball, what does this mean?

U.S. wholesale inventories surge in May as businesses rush to keep up with strong sales​