So much for inflation being "transitory"

[Hards Alumni]

Maybe, But did my 20 yo college student need to get $1400 checks .... Nope

The targeting mechanism needs some refinement.

True, but getting the money out the door asap was essential.  Wasting time deciding who does and doesn't get it would have had a larger negative effect.

[PBRme]

True, but getting the money out the door asap was essential.  Wasting time deciding who does and doesn't get it would have had a larger negative effect.

Agree to disagree.  Do not think it would have been wasting time and do not think it would have taken longer just would have taken smarter

[The Sultan]

Agree to disagree.  Do not think it would have been wasting time and do not think it would have taken longer just would have taken smarter

Easy thing to say 18 months later.

[tower912]

I don't know if PBR is correct.    I do hope it is studied, learned from, and refined, if ever the need should arise again.   

[Pakuni]

Agree to disagree.  Do not think it would have been wasting time and do not think it would have taken longer just would have taken smarter

You don't think establishing an effective system to determine which of hundreds of millions of people should have received how much wouldn't have substantially slowed things down? I mean, it takes 3-4 months to get a simple building permit from the federal government, but they were going to pull that task off in, what ... a couple of weeks?

[PBRme]

I said it then and how hard would it have been to exclude dependent children

[lawdog77]

I said it then and how hard would it have been to exclude dependent children

Dependent children spend $$ as well as everyone else. -Signed my kids

[Lennys Tap]

I mean, it takes 3-4 months to get a simple building permit from the federal government

Great example of why the federal government should be the solution of last resort.

[Pakuni]

Great example of why the federal government should be the solution of last resort.

Based on the private sector's sterling record of looking out for people's best interests.

[Lennys Tap]

Based on the private sector's sterling record of looking out for people's best interests.

Where would your beloved public sector get the resources to spend 4 years pondering the issuance of a building permit if not from the private sector?

And who do you suppose does the best job of "looking out for people's best interest" - the sector that has made it's citizens the wealthiest in the history of mankind or the one who confiscates wealth and squanders it?

[Uncle Rico]

Based on the private sector's sterling record of looking out for people's best interests.

Golden parachutes for thee, not for me

[TSmith34, Inc.]

And who do you suppose does the best job of "looking out for people's best interest" - the sector that has made it's citizens the wealthiest in the history of mankind or the one who confiscates wealth and squanders it?

Another boomer that doesn't actually understand the function of government.

[Pakuni]

Where would your beloved public sector get the resources to spend 4 years pondering the issuance of a building permit if not from the private sector?

Huh?

And who do you suppose does the best job of "looking out for people's best interest" - the sector that has made it's citizens the wealthiest in the history of mankind or the one who confiscates wealth and squanders it?

Only the economically illiterate or libertarians (kind of the same thiing) think like this. The reality is that the success of the private sector is wholly reliant on a stable, effective (not perfect, effective) public sector "squandering" wealth on things like infrastructure, research, education, military protection, law enforcement, fire protection, health care, foreign trade agreements, etc.
And God knows, no corporate entity has ever fed at the public sector trough to expand its operations, build a new facility or survive an economic crisis.
I mean, maybe Lenny could establish a successful, wealth generating business without a transportation network to deliver his goods and services, or an educated workforce, or piggybacking on decades of government-funded research, or his personal police force ... but I'm kinda skeptical.
The reason our private sector can thrive is the existence of our public sector. Pray tell, how many successful, multinational corporations have been created in Somalia and Yemen, where they don't have to worry about a squandering public sector?

Though it's cute you apparently believe squandering wealth is the exclusive province of the public sector. Spoken like someone who's never attended a sales conference.

[Uncle Rico]

Huh?

Only the economically illiterate or libertarians (kind of the same thiing) think like this. The reality is that the success of the private sector is wholly reliant on a stable, effective (not perfect, effective) public sector "squandering" wealth on things like infrastructure, research, education, military protection, law enforcement, fire protection, health care, foreign trade agreements, etc.
And God knows, no corporate entity has ever fed at the public sector trough to expand its operations, build a new facility or survive an economic crisis.
I mean, maybe Lenny could establish a successful, wealth generating business without a transportation network to deliver his goods and services, or an educated workforce, or piggybacking on decades of government-funded research, or his personal police force ... but I'm kinda skeptical.
The reason our private sector can thrive is the existence of our public sector. Pray tell, how many successful, multinational corporations have been created in Somalia and Yemen, where they don't have to worry about a squandering public sector?

Though it's cute you apparently believe squandering wealth is the exclusive province of the public sector. Spoken like someone who's never attended a sales conference.

See: Erie Canal

[tower912]

I will by more Patagonia going forward.

[The Sultan]

Another boomer that doesn't actually understand the function of government.

And doesn't have a great understanding of American economic history.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Taking profits and paying cap gains tax on a market that looks this vulnerable should never be viewed as "taking a hit". Is watching profits turn to losses a win because you can sell and "save" on your taxes? Unless you're on your deathbed with a big gain and you want your heirs to get a step up in the purchase price holding on (for tax purposes) to a stock you think has topped and is going south is stupid.

Yes, I agree WRT individual stocks--taking profits is perfectly fine and reasonable, whether because you feel the stock had become overvalued, you want to reduce risk, you are in the deaccumulation phase, whatever. But you've mixed your argument between individual stocks and the overall market.

I mean, if you think you can be one of the infinitesimal number of people than can successfully time the market frequently enough to beat it, go for it. 

[rocky_warrior]

The FUD is strong in this thread.  The US economy - and its people - will be just fine.

[tower912]

Yes.  There are always challenges.   There are always headwinds.  There is always room for improvement.   There are always lessons to be learned.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The FUD is strong in this thread.  The US economy - and it's people - will be just fine.

If anything, I think the Fed is using way too heavy of a hammer. Inflation is a global phenomenon, the Fed is trying to beat it into submission in the U.S. without recognizing it's a global economy.

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate

We can't single-handedly fix global inflation, but the Fed can single-handedly destroy the U.S. economy with the blunt force trauma it seems intent on levying.

[rocky_warrior]

We can't single-handedly fix global inflation, but the Fed can single-handedly destroy the U.S. economy with the blunt force trauma it seems intent on levying.

To the first point - agreed.

To the second - the fed is not going to "single-handedly destroy the U.S. economy".  There will be a bit of a recession, that's it.  And given we have only had a 2 month covid recession since 2009 - that's not necessarily bad or unexpected.

[Goose]

rocky

How do you define a bit of a recession? What does that look like to you?

[rocky_warrior]

How do you define a bit of a recession? What does that look like to you?

One that I'm not particularly concerned about.  I believe the "great recession" will still have been worse.  Heck, even the covid recession may have been worse.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

To the first point - agreed.

To the second - the fed is not going to "single-handedly destroy the U.S. economy".  There will be a bit of a recession, that's it.  And given we have only had a 2 month covid recession since 2009 - that's not necessarily bad or unexpected.

Perhaps "destroy" is too loose of a descriptor. "Send the economy into a far deeper, far longer recession" would more accurately describe what I think the risk is with the Fed's current trajectory.

[Goose]

I'm guessing you did not think the "great recession" was anything to be overly concerned over at the time, fair assumption?