Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Walgreens Beats


Should not be surprising to anyone here.

The 10,000 retirees per day vs the Fed low interest rate idiots... retirees winning.




20 comments:

Auburn Parks said...

The real idiots are people who want to give $4 of income interest subsidy to the wealthy, corporations & foreigners for every $1 in interest income subsidy to regular people via the govt paying higher rates of interest on try cds and ior .

If you can't think of a better policy for stimulating the economy than giving more free money to rich people foreigners and corporations then you are the moron and not zirp supporters.

Matt Franko said...

Auburn here Series EE, 0.10%

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_eebonds_glance.htm

This is insane...

Auburn Parks said...

What's insane is the govt subsidizing 4$ fir the wealthy corporations and foreigners (since they combine to own roughly 80% of the relevant tsy cds stock) in order to give 1$ to regular pensioners.

That is insane

Matt Franko said...

"wealthy corporations"

I'm not the one anthropormorphing a corporation... the corp will only use the income to pay people or increase capex.... maybe save a little...

Youre disregarding savers who have planned on higher risk free rates...

Auburn Parks said...

Matt

Is that really the best you can do? to attack a straw man because i didn't get the comma in there typing on my phone in between coats of paint in my garage? That's just plain ridiculous.

Auburn Parks said...

I care very much about retiree living conditions which is why i support a UBI for retirees of at least 2x the poverty level per person. That's a real policy solution for retirees not the absolutely regressive garbage of the govt paying out larger interest subsidies to the already wealthy, corporations, and foreigners

Matt Franko said...

Auburn they are never going to do it....

TofuNFiatRGood4U said...

It's easy for the federal government to leave interest rates near zero and for them to provide a subsidy to individual tax payers, wherein for every $X of interest earned, $Y additional credit is added to your 1040 schedule B (up to a principle of $250K or $500K), and then taxed, with the remainder refunded.

This is Targeted Deficit Spending and leaves the Fed rates alone.

Ignacio said...

"higher risk free rates"

You still haven't explained why you are entitled to "risk free" income. you aren't and you can't justify it.

This sort of entitlements just generate more inequality, in a world where bottom 90% are losign net worth each year.

Are you in for a Maria Antoinette moment, embracing it? THAT is insane.

"Auburn they are never going to do it...."

Unimaginative, stupid, one-sided, short-term solutions of can kicking are not going to save this boat... If you still haven't grasped that by now you are part of the problem.


Of all the ways you can solve elderly problems you choose the most inefficient, crooked, partisan and classicist one.

MRW said...

TofuNFiatRGood4U,

That only takes care of people lucky enough to have a job, or lucky enough to be make enough income that they do pay taxes.

Tax credits are useless to those out of work for a year.

Matt Franko said...

Well I don't have a problem with what the left terms "inequality!"....

It's a natural outcome...

Find me a time in human history where the saver cohort didn't expect a return on their savings?

We are not created equal... Some among us save and some don't... The left look at savers and think they didn't save it or something... I don't understand it...

Matt Franko said...

Why have a JG wage then either?

Matt Franko said...

Hypo:

take two same people, both equivalent in every way but one is a saver and one is not...

Same pay, same job, same education, same social... they both make 100k/yr... one spends all of it and one saves 20k/yr...

After 5 years the saver's account has 100k in it and the non-saver has ZERO...

The left/Picketty/Saez people would have a BIG problem with this... How do you justify THAT position?

Bob said...

Why save when you are assured an income throughout life?
Eventually people may learn to stop living like chipmunks.

Tom Hickey said...

Find me a time in human history where the saver cohort didn't expect a return on their savings?

For most of history a few people that clawed their way to the top, took all the status, power, and wealth. That sets a precedent to follow?

Ignacio said...

You have one person with 1000 mill. and you think it's fine to give them free money for doing nothing.

In a perfect world where money does not buy influence, assets are not inherited and where people has the same opportunities maybe. In a world where everybody can actually save 20k a year (which is rather fantasising example) maybe. In the real world I've a HUGE problem with it. Then in a perfect world we wouldn't have money anyway...

"Why have a JG wage then either?"

Because a JG put idle resources to work, and gives income to those who actually need it instead of throwing them under the bus and let them "just starve". It increases aggregate demand from those who are actually going to spend it. While "risk free" income makes lives "better" for those who already are in a better position and won't likely invest or spend it anyway. Fix causes not symptoms.

Just be glad if you can actually save 20k a year. Start a business, invest it in other business or spend it. Use the money for what is for, don't be a wanna-be-rentier. This is not about those who started on the same position, is about those who didn't start in a same position which (surprise, surprise) are the majority of the population. On top of that you want the situation (and your savings) to compound?

"Find me a time in human history where the saver cohort didn't expect a return on their savings?"

Every single one which didn't invest it some way or an other. You can LEND your money and expect a return. Or don't and just use it, do it what you want. But don't expect an income for doing nothing with it, you are not entitled to it. Unless you believe loans come from deposits.

Tom Hickey said...

Hypo:

take two same people, both equivalent in every way but one is a saver and one is not...

Same pay, same job, same education, same social... they both make 100k/yr... one spends all of it and one saves 20k/yr...

After 5 years the saver's account has 100k in it and the non-saver has ZERO...

The left/Picketty/Saez people would have a BIG problem with this... How do you justify THAT position?


Say's law, on which neoclassical economics is based, assumes that all markets clear (all goods are sold) at optimal use of resources (general equilibrium). This requires that all income is spent or some goods produced won't be sold. The "saving" in the model is equal to investment, which translates into owner's share. Worker's don't save. They consumer all they produce.

So either government runs a deficit and transfers $ to workers to save (welfare), or there is no difference between owners and workers as in worker coops (democratic socialism).

In a capitalist society run by the rules that conventional economists generate and policy makers follow, only owners are in a position to save unless welfare.

MRW said...

Michael hudson has an exhaustive article here, published in 2000. His latest book, however, contains exciting new discoveries about economics and debt in antiquity that his Harvard colloquium's experts uncovered on ancient history discovered only in the last 15 years, things like actual invoices for building the Egyptian pyramids, and employment and capitalization records of massive public works from 10,000 BC.
How Interest Rates Were Set, 2500 BC – 1000 AD
http://michael-hudson.com/2000/03/how-interest-rates-were-set-2500-bc-1000-ad/

MRW said...

Find me a time in human history where the saver cohort didn't expect a return on their savings?

Matt, saving is not lending. It’s not extending credit.

There’s no risk in saving. There is in extending credit to another. Big diff.

MRW said...

[Cpntd.]

So, Matt, expecting a return on savings is dependent on, and a function of, whatever financial instrument the saver invests in, or the asset the saver buys that he expects to increase in value.

The saver could put his money in his mattress. Or buy gold, whose value goes up and down like a toilet seat. Consider those who bought gold in 2011 for $1900/oz. It’s worth 2/3 that today. Some return.