144 posts shown.
Please correct me if my logic is flawed.
It is clear to me that cutting taxes inevitably leads to fewer government employees. But honestly, cuts have to happen somewhere. Either 20% of Americans go hungry now, or the entire country faces starvation within a year.
I do not have the exact figures at hand, and I am not inclined to hunt down specific citations right now, so I will simply write what I recall. If anyone possesses the actual data, please correct me.
The United States entered a financial crisis around 2000.
In an attempt to navigate this, Alan Greenspan—who was hailed as an economic mastermind at the time—slashed the dollar's interest rate to 0.5%.
This resulted in a massive influx of cheap money that banks were eager to deploy. They deployed it. When borrowers lacked traditional creditworthiness, they turned to mortgages. Credit was extended for almost anything under the assumption that housing prices would inevitably rise.
Eventually, the bubble burst. Loans went unpaid, and property values plummeted. Banks found themselves lacking the liquidity to honor deposits.
To mitigate the fallout, George W. Bush opted for quantitative easing. Since interest rates were already at 0.5%, there was nowhere left to cut. The only remaining option was to print vast sums of money to bail out failing banks and industries. Approximately $800 billion was printed for the banking sector, plus another $150 billion for the auto industry. Subsequently, Barack Obama continued his predecessor's policy, printing an additional $840 billion with good intentions.
Bill Clinton refuses to consider the anti-recession measures proposed by experts from the economics faculty.
These experts suggested a budget rebalancing—something I believe most other developed nations have implemented by now—along with freezing wage and pension increases, reducing taxes, and ending Sunday labor laws.
Clinton's administration rejected these proposals, meaning the nation will continue to accrue foreign debt just to keep enough capital within the domestic economy.
The direct consequence of the money printing by George W. Bush and Barack Obama is inflation. This is unavoidable. The value of currency decreases. This reality will demand payment eventually, though perhaps not immediately.
The direct result of Clinton's excessive borrowing is higher interest rates. They will be significantly higher than normal because so many countries are currently seeking to borrow abroad; consequently, demand will drive interest rates upward.
That interest must be repaid, and we will be the ones to pay it. Instead of tax revenue being directed toward infrastructure and the public sector, it will end up in the pockets of foreign banks.
The policies of Obama and Clinton rely on the hope that this crisis is brief or already nearing its end. However, economic research suggests the exact opposite: this is merely the beginning.
Or perhaps there is another possibility... that they will not need to defend their currency or repay these debts in the near future for some undisclosed reason.
In any case, it appears the administration is systematically dismantling everything Warren Buffett has managed to save during this crisis. I wonder, would taking to the streets actually help us stop these disasters?
There is simply nothing left to sell when it is already 100% cash.
By the way, I did exactly that a week ago, and today I am back in again. As of Monday, anything influenced by the Veterans Fund no longer carries weight. Whoever collected money for the veterans has already done so; now, you just have to grab whatever opportunities remain.
Furthermore, what kind of crisis regarding the Veterans Fund are we actually discussing? Am I missing something? Is there some scenario where nuclear missiles are being transported through the US, creating a risk that one might blow up AT&T and somehow boost its P/E ratio from 10 to 15 or 20? I fail to see the logic. How can a veterans' fund possibly impact the fact that the P/E ratios of the most liquid companies in America are currently under 15?
If we use the pension fund statements as our benchmark, then anything with a P/E ratio under 15 is a solid buy. AT&T falls right into that category, certainly. But consider the upside: if you invest $100k in AT&T today, could you be sitting on a $10k profit just a month from now? It is entirely possible.