On 18/11/19 8:11 pm, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 7:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:


"Xeno" wrote in message
...
On 18/11/19 12:19 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/17/2019 12:01 AM, Xeno wrote:
On 17/11/19 2:23 am, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT,
(Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT,
(Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just
crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to
normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from
a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do
succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market
assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that
trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to
their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations
and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare
investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the
market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did
just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real
competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the
malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing
to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class
never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo
and associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and
that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only
thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb
on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is
holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45
year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will
now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another
banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike
and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is
spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate
(11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs
to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a
dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money
offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some
citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest
rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay
for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what
part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I
did was take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

Mine started at 13%, rocketed up to 18% forcing me to do two jobs
in order to keep the house. It too was 20 years but paid it off in
13. Life became easier after that - until I became sick in 2001
and, after a long period on sick leave, was forced into very early
retirement. All my plans went just a little awry!Â* :-(


I was forced to retire early too.Â* I had accumulated enough
vacation pay to pay off the house and get a new kitchen floor.
Son's had finished college and all was paid for.Â* Our eldest son
who is the same age I was when I retired has his house paid off and
our youngest son is near there too.Â* I started consulting and still
do a bit today.Â* Never had any financial woes.

I had financial woes until the house was paid off. Been Ok since
then. I was a teacher in a technical college but now I tutor PhD
research students from a non English speaking background to fill in
time. My current student of the past 9 years will graduate next
month so I will have to attend. That will entail a 2800 kilometre
round trip by car. 15 solid hours of driving in each direction.

Makes more sense to fly and cheaper too.

It doesn't. Been there, checked it all out. Works out quite a bit more
expensive

Bull**** with fuel alone.

I was *planning* to fly. With two people, just doesn't compete, tickets
aren't cheap in December. Had I been able to book early, I *might* have
been able to pick up a few cheap air tickets but I needed to wait until
my student in Thailand was (a) definite about attending and (b) had
booked Bkk-Mel-Bkk tickets on dates we could work around. I had a number
of alternate possibilities available but, one by one, they vanished as
time passed and driving the distance became to only viable option - and
it was and is the cheapest. The cost of the fuel for the entire 2800
kilometres I've calculated at $270 @ between 7-8 litres per hundred
kilometres. 2 fares from our local airport to Melbourne work out close
to $800, airport transfers, etc. not included. And, yes, I have been
working on fuel pricing at the cheapest places en route according to a
fuel price app.
Even flying out of Coolangatta, where flight tickets are a little
cheaper, requires a 600 kilometre round trip by car and heading in the
opposite direction. I have sat here doing all the sums Rod,

The other advantage of driving the route is that we are not limited as
to what we can take or return home with - as long as it fits in the car.
Planes, as you might have noticed, are a little more restrictive. Also,
whilst in Melbourne I will have an extra person in the car who I will
pick up at the airport on Monday and will need to drop off at the
airport on Friday.

and would require a car rental at the other end.

Nope, you can use uber.

Simply not economical for the distances around Melbourne I need to
travel. Used Uber in Brisbane, no problem there. Melbourne is a
different kettle of fish.

I have done all the sums, the car wins out by a considerable margin.
Your mileage may vary but for us, the car is the way to go based on
economics and convenience.

I do the trip a couple of times a year anyway so I know what's involved.
A friend here does the trip 4 times a year minimum. By the end of this
month I will have done the drive to Brisbane and return (800km) 3 times
this November alone - and there is a stretch of 100 kilometres of
*roadworks* where speeds are highly restricted. Took me an extra couple
of hours last Tuesday to get home as the Pacific Highway at New Italy
was closed due to bushfires forcing me to do a very long detour on minor
roads. I am no stranger to very long road trips.

You are lucky on your pension.

I was indeed very lucky. It was a defined benefit super scheme
indexed to cost of living for life and, should I predecease her,
2/3rds to my wife.

Most businesses today are not offering them.

Same here. Totally different scene with super pensions these days.

They give you extra for your 401k and when you are no longer
working there you are done with them.

We don't have a 401k here so I am not sure what that is.

Basically the same as our self managed super.

It would appear so.

A quick checkÂ* of Dr Google tells me it is much like the super
schemes we now have here with either a lump sum payout or a
retirement income stream.

Its actually close to our self managed super with some differences.

It's a bit different to what I had, a defined benefit scheme, and I
had no control over fund management, not even risk management.

Yes but you didnt have self managed super.

Yes, that was my point. Glad to see you picked up on it.

--

Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)