Investing Strategies. What is your move?

Tomorrow all eyes and ears will shift to the Fed meeting. Powell is expected to raise rates by 50 BP on Wednesday but could he make a surprise move and raise them 75bp? The scuttlebutt is growing that he might.
 
National debt is at 31 trillion. What happens to the budget when we have to pay interest at rates of 4 to 5 times what they were?
I like what Pablo says. Need to find gold and silver at close to spot though. Glad I didn't get into Bitcoin before it reaches it's intrinsic value of nothing.
 
Tomorrow all eyes and ears will shift to the Fed meeting. Powell is expected to raise rates by 50 BP on Wednesday but could he make a surprise move and raise them 75bp? The scuttlebutt is growing that he might.
True, but IMO no way are they going to raise it by 75BP. Expecting them to do the right thing (which is to raise it even higher) is just plain silly.
 
Bullionexchanges dot com, but right now only if buying higher numbers. When they put it on sale, sometimes you can get the lower price on individual bars.
Silver is as low as $1.45 over spot, but that's 100 oz bars and 10 units minimum.
Never used them though so can't comment on customer service. Have used Apmex, JB Bullion, First Majestic. All those too much of a premium over spot.
 
National debt is at 31 trillion. What happens to the budget when we have to pay interest at rates of 4 to 5 times what they were?
I like what Pablo says. Need to find gold and silver at close to spot though. Glad I didn't get into Bitcoin before it reaches it's intrinsic value of nothing.
I listen to a smart economist who spoke about the national debt and I hadn't thought about the way he presented it. Here's a recap:
1. The national debt will never be repaid BUT more importantly the national debt NEVER needs to be repaid.
2. It is best to think of how good or bad the national debt is as percentage of GDP.

He asks someone do you think a $200B deficit every year for the next 100 years would be good or bad? People always say bad. He states that it would actually be terrific because using historic data the GDP in 100 years would be $100T dollars and the sum total of the 100 years of $200B deficits would only represent 3% of GDP. Today it is 35% of GDP. (Don't check my math - these numbers are fuzzy and here to support his point).

3. His take home is you do not have to repay it all or really any of it and a deficit year over year is still fine - all you have to do is control the slope of the deficit line relative to GDP. That makes it seem more manageable even though the slope of that line has been horrible for the past 2 years.
 
True, but IMO no way are they going to raise it by 75BP. Expecting them to do the right thing (which is to raise it even higher) is just plain silly.


We will have to wait and see. Powell had a meeting in the Oval Office around a week ago. It would have been interesting to have been a fly in that room.

I suspect the actions will be timid.
 
Powell is trying to salvage his reputation before he leaves office.

He doesn’t want to be remembered as being dumb and incompetent.
 
Last edited:
I listen to a smart economist who spoke about the national debt and I hadn't thought about the way he presented it. Here's a recap:
1. The national debt will never be repaid BUT more importantly the national debt NEVER needs to be repaid.
2. It is best to think of how good or bad the national debt is as percentage of GDP.

He asks someone do you think a $200B deficit every year for the next 100 years would be good or bad? People always say bad. He states that it would actually be terrific because using historic data the GDP in 100 years would be $100T dollars and the sum total of the 100 years of $200B deficits would only represent 3% of GDP. Today it is 35% of GDP. (Don't check my math - these numbers are fuzzy and here to support his point).

3. His take home is you do not have to repay it all or really any of it and a deficit year over year is still fine - all you have to do is control the slope of the deficit line relative to GDP. That makes it seem more manageable even though the slope of that line has been horrible for the past 2 years.
If it wasn't for my very bright brother-in-law, I'd think that most economists were engineer wannabes who couldn't do the math. I do agree the slope is the important thing, but the steepness of the slope is a fine point that politicians do not seem to understand. Once you disconnect income from spending things go South fast.
I believe that students that follow this theory go through life not being able to pay off their student loans, and empires that follow it (I think the US falls into that category) are destined to fail. But I'm just an unfrozen cave man engineer, and am constrained by old timey thinking.
 
Powell is trying to salvage his reputation before he leaves office.

He doesn’t want to be remembered as being dumb and incompetent.


If you ask 100 people who was the Fed Chairman before Paul Volcker I would guess you would get a lot of blank stares.

Powell might end up that way.
 
I had a good day with SQQQ, TZA and DRV.

I only trade these and other inverse ETFs if I’m in front of my computer.

I set a new record today…..
 
Last edited:
I listen to a smart economist who spoke about the national debt and I hadn't thought about the way he presented it. Here's a recap:
1. The national debt will never be repaid BUT more importantly the national debt NEVER needs to be repaid.
2. It is best to think of how good or bad the national debt is as percentage of GDP.

He asks someone do you think a $200B deficit every year for the next 100 years would be good or bad? People always say bad. He states that it would actually be terrific because using historic data the GDP in 100 years would be $100T dollars and the sum total of the 100 years of $200B deficits would only represent 3% of GDP. Today it is 35% of GDP. (Don't check my math - these numbers are fuzzy and here to support his point).

3. His take home is you do not have to repay it all or really any of it and a deficit year over year is still fine - all you have to do is control the slope of the deficit line relative to GDP. That makes it seem more manageable even though the slope of that line has been horrible for the past 2 years.
Most properly educated economists will say the same thing. Ironically, many of the more, um, politically "opinionated" people look down their noses at the educated. Well, I should say up their noses I guess. It's just one of those cliches they've adopted like talking about the weather and football.
 
If it wasn't for my very bright brother-in-law, I'd think that most economists were engineer wannabes who couldn't do the math. I do agree the slope is the important thing, but the steepness of the slope is a fine point that politicians do not seem to understand. Once you disconnect income from spending things go South fast.
I believe that students that follow this theory go through life not being able to pay off their student loans, and empires that follow it (I think the US falls into that category) are destined to fail. But I'm just an unfrozen cave man engineer, and am constrained by old timey thinking.
Economics is far more of a look backward and explain science than a forward looking science.
I love Economics.
 
Back
Top Bottom