OT: Scary Graph

[Tom Gardner]

On 17/10/19 18:51, Martin Brown wrote:
> Auditors, management consultants and creative accounting have a lot to answer for.

Yes.

There are indications that they may come under more scrutiny,
and that the Thomas Cook failure was a response to that
possibility.

If true, the auditor's motives are left as an exercise for
the student.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:32:23 -0500, amdx wrote:

Once we acquired a good networth I haven't had what I think is a good
entry point to get into bonds. I'm some what afraid of them now. I have
less than 3% in a bond fund. I still want growth not a hedge on
inflation and that's all bonds do a the rates paid now.

I've never heard of bonds being described as a hedge against inflation
before! :-D If you want that you should think about *physical* gold or
silver - but primarily gold. And *invariably* physical. No "gold ETFs" or
other similar derivatives that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.


--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 01:02:12 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/10/19 20:10, John Larkin wrote:
STOP playing stupid anti-market-force games like QE.

Short-term, limited QE could be useful.

That's the problem. "Stimulus" is always long term. It's like being
addicted to speed. Just one more hit.

Long-term it looks like an attempt to delay the inevitable,
by transferring money from the poor/middle classes to the
rich, and by transferring the problems onto our children.

No macroeconomist wants to admit that they can't control the world. Or
the ones that do, everyone ignores.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[amdx]

On 10/17/2019 7:16 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 15:32:23 -0500, amdx wrote:

Once we acquired a good networth I haven't had what I think is a good
entry point to get into bonds. I'm some what afraid of them now. I have
less than 3% in a bond fund. I still want growth not a hedge on
inflation and that's all bonds do a the rates paid now.

I've never heard of bonds being described as a hedge against inflation
before! :-D

Hmm, I just looked at treasury bonds,
5yr-1.57% 7yr-1.66% 10yr-1.76% 20yr-2.05% 30yr-2.24%
They won't even keep up with inflation.

Looking through corporate bond rates, I find they run 4.5% t0 6.75%
The 6.75% high rate had a Moody's Ba1 rating, which is in the middle of
their Aaa to C(default) so... not all that safe if that's why you are
buying bonds.
But let's say you go for a safe 4.5% and inflation, last year was
2.44%. I'll call that 2.5%, and 4.5 - 2.5 = 2%, so you can spend 2% and
stay even with inflation. You need a lot of money to live on 2%, if you
want it to last 30 years.
The "standard" wisdom is, you can spend 4% a year if you have 80% or
more in stocks and the money has a high percentage chance of lasting
last 30 years.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNSZzJFwpHRkJBv6Ee2vtgEPEZZ0MQ%3A1571364024640&source=hp&ei=uBypXf-rJMS8tQWI-6uwCg&q=4%25+rule+for+retirement+withdrawal&oq=4%25+rule+for+retirement+withdrawal&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l2.2835.2835..4295...0.0..0.104.104.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.XPQgVu6H2Xw&ved=0ahUKEwj_5_6T26TlAhVEXq0KHYj9CqYQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

If you want that you should think about *physical* gold or

silver - but primarily gold. And *invariably* physical. No "gold ETFs" or
other similar derivatives that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

Never had an interest in gold. I'll stick to Vanguard's Total Stock
Market Index Fund, VTSAX. It has over 3,500 American stocks, and a lot
of those stocks have international sales. If America does well, I do well.

Mike

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 4:06:41 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:38:55 -0500, amdx wrote:

The younger people are all hoping for an economic downturn and stock
market drop, so they can invest more money at a lower price,

Do younger people have such surpluses to invest these days? I assume
you're talking about the ones who don't still live with their parents as
they don't earn enough to go it alone.

older retired people are, of course, NOT hoping for that.

Depends what their funds are invested in. Certainly if they're invested
in anything stock-linked, but there are many more who have their money
in, for the sake of safety, investment grade bonds. This is the rentier
class so hated by the Slomans of this world and they've seen their
incomes, which come from the interest on those bonds, virtually wiped out
over the last 12 years.

I wonder why Cursitor Doom thinks I hate the people who invest in fixed interest bonds? It's not a good long term choice, but it can be a sensible short term option.

He's probably confusing them with "rent seekers" which is a rather different group.

In fact we're increasingly entering into the
uncharted territory of *negative* rates now, owing to concerns of a
global downturn.

The global downtown that motivated that was the 2008 global financial crisis. We've been there for a while.

Strange times indeed. The next war to fight and no ammo left to fight it
with. Nothing to do but print more money.

Only if you are as dumb as Cursitor Doom. Of course Donald Trump's solution - start a few trade wars - is even dumber.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 4:51:56 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/10/2019 18:17, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:34:00 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/10/2019 16:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

The economic models are surprisingly sophisticated and non-linear but
fail to model things like old school tie connections that allow hedge
funds to obtain price sensitive information before anyone else does.

Sophisticated doesn't mean real. Economics is a "consensus science",
experts reinforcing the opinions of other experts.

Not exactly. Some economists specialise in producing opinions which suit rich people. Others don't. It's essentially two different communities of experts.

Some parts of it are more justified than others. I had a chance to play
with the UK economic model in the early noughties. Main problems I can
see is that the economic input data is never trustworthy. You can have
companies reporting audited accounts which are works of fiction.

Problem is that they haven't been able to model the herd instinct that
results in people getting carried away in auctions and boom bust cycles.
Those have been going on since before economics was a formal discipline.
Mississippi paper, South Sea bubble, Tulip Mania - take your pick.

Absolutely. Fear and greed don't model well.

Daniel Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

got the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on how people actually think.

It doesn't seem to have turned into better economic modelling yet - fear and greed didn't come into it - but it might.

They are getting better at it. I have a respect for macro economics even
if I think like you do that most economists are charlatans. It isn't
called the dismal science for nothing.

Researching the UK railways shows the Bank of England writing stern
letters to other banks in much the same tone as after the 2008 crash.

It isn't the economists fault that some people are pretty dumb. I met
the guy who nearly bankrupt the UK mobile phone operators by his
incredibly clever design of the 3G frequency auction. As a demo he
managed to get testosterone fuelled "traders" to bid for a ÂŁ1 coin. I
dropped out at 99p - the winning bid was ÂŁ3! So much for rational
decisions. These were people who buy and sell shares for a living too ;-)

Government policy should be to dampen unstable feedbacks. It's usually
the opposite. Or the wrong timing, which is the same thing.

It is hard to do that when your reliable information is typically six
months behind real time and even then subject to radical revision when
some new accounting black hole opens up in audited accounts. Auditors,
management consultants and creative accounting have a lot to answer for.

Actual cash transactions should be accessible a lot earlier - they'd have to be anonymised - and I suspect that this is already going on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/10/19 01:45, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 01:02:12 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/10/19 20:10, John Larkin wrote:
STOP playing stupid anti-market-force games like QE.

Short-term, limited QE could be useful.

That's the problem. "Stimulus" is always long term. It's like being
addicted to speed. Just one more hit.


Long-term it looks like an attempt to delay the inevitable,
by transferring money from the poor/middle classes to the
rich, and by transferring the problems onto our children.

No macroeconomist wants to admit that they can't control the world. Or
the ones that do, everyone ignores.

I suspect economists are very aware of the consequences.

The problem is that the people that implement policies
don't care - politicians horizons are limited to the
next couple of elections.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, October 18, 2019 at 11:45:34 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 01:02:12 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/10/19 20:10, John Larkin wrote:
STOP playing stupid anti-market-force games like QE.

Short-term, limited QE could be useful.

That's the problem. "Stimulus" is always long term. It's like being
addicted to speed. Just one more hit.

This is John Larkin channeling James Arthur, who never seems to get the message about Keynesian deficit-funded pump-priming stimulus, which only makes sense when the economy is in recession.

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus, but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him - extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.

Long-term it looks like an attempt to delay the inevitable,
by transferring money from the poor/middle classes to the
rich, and by transferring the problems onto our children.

Stimulus spending works for getting an economy out of recession.

The economists who don't like Keynes - mainly for pointing out that their mathematically tractable models of the economy aren't useful - deny this with persistence and enthusiasm, and make all kinds of absurd claims based n their adherence to a theory that doesn't work.

No macroeconomist wants to admit that they can't control the world. Or
the ones that do, everyone ignores.

No macro-economists claims to control the world. They all claim to be able to offer useful advice. There are enough of them that politicians can always find somebody to advise them to do what serves the current political purpose.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

It's amazing that you can *always* be wrong, AlwaysWrong. Truly
amazing. Not amazing at all that you and Slowman would be in a
circle-jerk, though.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.

That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

 

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

No. It allows small businesses to invest in employees and in growth.
Business building is slow: it takes decades and generations of
investment and learning to build most businesses. A modest tax cut,
compounded over many years, will be good for the economy.

Most people don't understand "money." Business investment is not "at
the expense of regular tax payers." Billionaires mostly hold stock
shares in their companies, not sacks gold under their beds.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:34:44 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/10/19 01:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 01:02:12 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/10/19 20:10, John Larkin wrote:
STOP playing stupid anti-market-force games like QE.

Short-term, limited QE could be useful.

That's the problem. "Stimulus" is always long term. It's like being
addicted to speed. Just one more hit.


Long-term it looks like an attempt to delay the inevitable,
by transferring money from the poor/middle classes to the
rich, and by transferring the problems onto our children.

No macroeconomist wants to admit that they can't control the world. Or
the ones that do, everyone ignores.

I suspect economists are very aware of the consequences.

The problem is that the people that implement policies
don't care - politicians horizons are limited to the
next couple of elections.

No. The interventionist macroeconomists are selected and encouraged
and funded by politicians who want to control things and elections.

Economists, like any other market commodity, are for sale.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:36:13 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

It's amazing that you can *always* be wrong, AlwaysWrong. Truly
amazing. Not amazing at all that you and Slowman would be in a
circle-jerk, though.

I don't think either has a job. Certainly neither designs electronics.

After the tax changes, we were able to instantly expense a couple
million in building improvements and equipment. Affordable
productivity.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 18/10/19 18:19, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 07:34:44 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 18/10/19 01:45, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 01:02:12 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 17/10/19 20:10, John Larkin wrote:
STOP playing stupid anti-market-force games like QE.

Short-term, limited QE could be useful.

That's the problem. "Stimulus" is always long term. It's like being
addicted to speed. Just one more hit.


Long-term it looks like an attempt to delay the inevitable,
by transferring money from the poor/middle classes to the
rich, and by transferring the problems onto our children.

No macroeconomist wants to admit that they can't control the world. Or
the ones that do, everyone ignores.

I suspect economists are very aware of the consequences.

The problem is that the people that implement policies
don't care - politicians horizons are limited to the
next couple of elections.

No. The interventionist macroeconomists are selected and encouraged
and funded by politicians who want to control things and elections.

In a mutual admiration society/club, it is always difficult
to separate cause from effect.

Does the potential difference across a resistor cause the
current to flow, or the current flowing through a resistor
cause the potential difference.

Mu.


> Economists, like any other market commodity, are for sale.

Some "commodities" have sufficient self-respect not to sell
themselves to the highest (financial) bidder.

Others don't; no surprises there.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:22:43 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

After the tax changes, we were able to instantly expense a couple
million in building improvements and equipment. Affordable productivity.

Well, Trump said he'd be the greatest jobs president in the history of
the known universe and he's proved it!



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:22:43 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:36:13 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

It's amazing that you can *always* be wrong, AlwaysWrong. Truly
amazing. Not amazing at all that you and Slowman would be in a
circle-jerk, though.

I don't think either has a job. Certainly neither designs electronics.

After the tax changes, we were able to instantly expense a couple
million in building improvements and equipment. Affordable
productivity.

I work for a living (own no corporation) and have about as simple of a
tax filing as you can imagine. I saw about a $3600 reduction in my
taxes last year from the year before (year-end payment/refund plus
withholding, something most forget).

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:19:29 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> Economists, like any other market commodity, are for sale.

That is *so* true. And I've learned over many decades that whenever I
hear a newsreader announce, "a panel of 34 eminent economists all agree
that [insert claim of choice here]" I know they've been hired to say it
and whatever they're predicting will simply *not* come to pass. I've seen
it over and over and over and over again.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:31:23 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

No. It allows small businesses to invest in employees and in growth.
Business building is slow: it takes decades and generations of
investment and learning to build most businesses. A modest tax cut,
compounded over many years, will be good for the economy.

Most people don't understand "money." Business investment is not "at
the expense of regular tax payers." Billionaires mostly hold stock
shares in their companies, not sacks gold under their beds.

Can you imagine how destructive the Democrat's dream of a "wealth tax"
would be? Real, dynamic, cash leaving the economy to pay the taxes on
all that static "wealth"?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 1:36:17 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

It's amazing that you can *always* be wrong, AlwaysWrong. Truly
amazing. Not amazing at all that you and Sloman would be in a
circle-jerk, though.

It's more amazing that krw can think that he is always right - though since his convictions aren't ever based on anything that looks like thought, it's more a manifestation of a cognitive defect than anything else.

And the only jerk in this circle is krw.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, October 19, 2019 at 11:24:44 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:31:23 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:20:26 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:29e69d9f-8308-49fe-8b95-e11a79a1d170@googlegroups.com:

Trump's corporate tax cut was touted as if was such a stimulus,
but in fact it was just Trump giving rich people - like him -
extra money at the expense of regular tax payers.


That is EXACTLY what it was. +1

No. It allows small businesses to invest in employees and in growth.
Business building is slow: it takes decades and generations of
investment and learning to build most businesses. A modest tax cut,
compounded over many years, will be good for the economy.

Most people don't understand "money." Business investment is not "at
the expense of regular tax payers." Billionaires mostly hold stock
shares in their companies, not sacks gold under their beds.

Can you imagine how destructive the Democrat's dream of a "wealth tax"
would be? Real, dynamic, cash leaving the economy to pay the taxes on
all that static "wealth"?

You don't have to imagine it. A couple of European countries have demonstrated that it works, and hasn't destroyed anything.

Krw doesn't know much - and long since lost the capacity to learn anything - so his imagination has cope with a dire shortage of real-world information.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney