Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
Stanley Druckenmiller https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=81834 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | bigfan [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 6:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Stanley Druckenmiller |
Hedge Fund Guy, just ripping the entire Obama Empire. "They created the biggest wealth gap in history" As honest as honest could be. "Hey, this stuff is great for me, Warren Buffet and anyone else who is really rich, but this is terrible for the middle class and below." Better than when he played for the 49ers! |
Author: | Douchebag [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:10 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Why is this guy complaining about the income gap? That's class warfare. What a commie. |
Author: | spmack [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Author: | denisdman [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
I caught much of his commentary on CNBC. His vitriol was focused on the Federal Reserve's policy of holding down interest rates. It has led to the inflation of stock prices, which benefits the wealthy. It is well known that printing money creates asset bubbles. His point was that this asset bubble benefits the wealthy because they own the majority of stock market value. He is definitely correct about the flaw in the Fed's policy. What he neglects to mention is that low interest rates also significantly benefit debtors to the detriment of creditors because they are holding rates down artificially. So it is not as simple as wealthy vs. poor. It also has a big impact on savers/fixed income retirees vs. debtors. |
Author: | leashyourkids [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
It's that simple! The once-pegged communist, class warfare King is now a capitalist pig who hates poor people! It is all His fault! It is clear that Republican alternatives are much more interested in helping poor people! Also, the R's (the voice of poor people) have never had an administration under which the Fed artificially held down interest rates, thus leading to bubbles! They are too economically savvy to allow such a thing! Don't blame me - I voted for the poor man's party! #Change |
Author: | bigfan [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:57 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
denisdman wrote: I caught much of his commentary on CNBC. His vitriol was focused on the Federal Reserve's policy of holding down interest rates. It has led to the inflation of stock prices, which benefits the wealthy. It is well known that printing money creates asset bubbles. His point was that this asset bubble benefits the wealthy because they own the majority of stock market value. He is definitely correct about the flaw in the Fed's policy. What he neglects to mention is that low interest rates also significantly benefit debtors to the detriment of creditors because they are holding rates down artificially. So it is not as simple as wealthy vs. poor. It also has a big impact on savers/fixed income retirees vs. debtors. Of course it is more complicated than 1 paragraph on a message board. Also, if you are referring to debtors in the lower class that pay auto finance charges, mortgages, credit cards, etc. pay extremely high rates stil, due to poor credit most of the time. Not always, but when they miss payments on a constant basis the rate soars for the other basic needs. |
Author: | denisdman [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
I am not an Obama guy. If you follow my posts, you know I lean toward the Ron Paul camp. In any case, you can't blame Obama for the monetary policy of the Fed. You can definitely blame Obama for a lack of sound fiscal policies and for addressing long term financial concerns with entitlement programs. Bush the Republicans are a big part of the long term fiscal issues. I also think the Affordable Care Act will be another market distorting disaster. You can't have rating bands that overcharge the healthy and undercharge the sick, while having only minimal penalties for the healthy if they don't buy. A take all comers mechanism requires that you allow insurance companies to charge an adequate rate for the risk. Risk sharing requires that the pool being insured is collectively charged an adequate rate. Otherwise, long term, the insurance mechanism will fail. The problem is not Obama, solely. It is a collective effort of a short term thinking Congress, a weak President, and a Federal Reserve that is bending all rules of sound economic policy. |
Author: | leashyourkids [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
denisdman wrote: I am not an Obama guy. If you follow my posts, you know I lean toward the Ron Paul camp. In any case, you can't blame Obama for the monetary policy of the Fed. You can definitely blame Obama for a lack of sound fiscal policies and for addressing long term financial concerns with entitlement programs. Bush the Republicans are a big part of the long term fiscal issues. I also think the Affordable Care Act will be another market distorting disaster. You can't have rating bands that overcharge the healthy and undercharge the sick, while having only minimal penalties for the healthy if they don't buy. A take all comers mechanism requires that you allow insurance companies to charge an adequate rate for the risk. Risk sharing requires that the pool being insured is collectively charged an adequate rate. Otherwise, long term, the insurance mechanism will fail. The problem is not Obama, solely. It is a collective effort of a short term thinking Congress, a weak President, and a Federal Reserve that is bending all rules of sound economic policy. Agreed on most. Certainly agree that to blame a single president for America's economic policy is ridiculous. |
Author: | Jaw Breaker [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
denisdman wrote: I caught much of his commentary on CNBC. His vitriol was focused on the Federal Reserve's policy of holding down interest rates. It has led to the inflation of stock prices, which benefits the wealthy. It is well known that printing money creates asset bubbles. His point was that this asset bubble benefits the wealthy because they own the majority of stock market value. He is definitely correct about the flaw in the Fed's policy. What he neglects to mention is that low interest rates also significantly benefit debtors to the detriment of creditors because they are holding rates down artificially. So it is not as simple as wealthy vs. poor. It also has a big impact on savers/fixed income retirees vs. debtors. You couldn't be more correct. People were outraged when depositors' money was taken in Cyprus, but essentially you have had a similar, but stealth, confiscation of wealth in this country thanks to Fed policy. Savers have been brutalized and borrowers rewarded. So while it is true that the wealthy who have been willing to risk their money buy buying stocks, real estate, and commodities have flourished, people (especially older folks who should be reducing risk exposure) who have depended on an income stream from interest on their balances have been absolutely fucked. |
Author: | denisdman [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Jaw Breaker wrote: denisdman wrote: I caught much of his commentary on CNBC. His vitriol was focused on the Federal Reserve's policy of holding down interest rates. It has led to the inflation of stock prices, which benefits the wealthy. It is well known that printing money creates asset bubbles. His point was that this asset bubble benefits the wealthy because they own the majority of stock market value. He is definitely correct about the flaw in the Fed's policy. What he neglects to mention is that low interest rates also significantly benefit debtors to the detriment of creditors because they are holding rates down artificially. So it is not as simple as wealthy vs. poor. It also has a big impact on savers/fixed income retirees vs. debtors. You couldn't be more correct. People were outraged when depositors' money was taken in Cyprus, but essentially you have had a similar, but stealth, confiscation of wealth in this country thanks to Fed policy. Savers have been brutalized and borrowers rewarded. So while it is true that the wealthy who have been willing to risk their money buy buying stocks, real estate, and commodities have flourished, people (especially older folks who should be reducing risk exposure) who have depended on an income stream from interest on their balances have been absolutely fucked. You bring up a great example with Cyprus. Depositors money is being "stolen" via inflation. You are being paid 0% on savings, while inflation erodes the real value at a rate of about 2-3% annually. It is a stealth way to recapitalize the banking sector and subsidize debtors over creditors. |
Author: | denisdman [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
leashyourkids wrote: denisdman wrote: I am not an Obama guy. If you follow my posts, you know I lean toward the Ron Paul camp. In any case, you can't blame Obama for the monetary policy of the Fed. You can definitely blame Obama for a lack of sound fiscal policies and for addressing long term financial concerns with entitlement programs. Bush the Republicans are a big part of the long term fiscal issues. I also think the Affordable Care Act will be another market distorting disaster. You can't have rating bands that overcharge the healthy and undercharge the sick, while having only minimal penalties for the healthy if they don't buy. A take all comers mechanism requires that you allow insurance companies to charge an adequate rate for the risk. Risk sharing requires that the pool being insured is collectively charged an adequate rate. Otherwise, long term, the insurance mechanism will fail. The problem is not Obama, solely. It is a collective effort of a short term thinking Congress, a weak President, and a Federal Reserve that is bending all rules of sound economic policy. Agreed on most. Certainly agree that to blame a single president for America's economic policy is ridiculous. Exactly. I have a political philosophy, but I see the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They love fiscal discipline unless it involves military spending and tax cuts. Then it's ok to bust the budget. I am more than willing to pay more taxes to balance budget annually. In fact, if everyone was required to pay enough taxes to balance the budget, then we could have an honest discussion about the size and role of the Federal Government. Are you really willing to spend that much on fighter jets and troops if you have to actually pay for it each year? Instead we pretend we can borrow into infinity. |
Author: | Douchebag [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:41 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
denisdman wrote: Exactly. I have a political philosophy, but I see the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They love fiscal discipline unless it involves military spending and tax cuts. Then it's ok to bust the budget. I am more than willing to pay more taxes to balance budget annually. In fact, if everyone was required to pay enough taxes to balance the budget, then we could have an honest discussion about the size and role of the Federal Government. Are you really willing to spend that much on fighter jets and troops if you have to actually pay for it each year? Instead we pretend we can borrow into infinity. Post of the day If that tax bill came due every year to all American's and we had to go into next fiscal year with zero debt, everyone's tune would be changing VERY quickly. |
Author: | Jaw Breaker [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 9:51 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Douchebag wrote: denisdman wrote: Exactly. I have a political philosophy, but I see the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They love fiscal discipline unless it involves military spending and tax cuts. Then it's ok to bust the budget. I am more than willing to pay more taxes to balance budget annually. In fact, if everyone was required to pay enough taxes to balance the budget, then we could have an honest discussion about the size and role of the Federal Government. Are you really willing to spend that much on fighter jets and troops if you have to actually pay for it each year? Instead we pretend we can borrow into infinity. Post of the day If that tax bill came due every year to all American's and we had to go into next fiscal year with zero debt, everyone's tune would be changing VERY quickly. That's also why we have the current pension mess. Promises were made based on faulty actuarials (8-10% investment returns in perpetuity, etc.), and elected officials aggravated the issue by not making proper payments. If these pensions had to be properly funded each year, our taxes would have to be quadrupled or more...and that would not have been tolerated at the time these pension promises were granted. |
Author: | Seacrest [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:25 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Jaw Breaker wrote: Douchebag wrote: denisdman wrote: Exactly. I have a political philosophy, but I see the hypocrisy of the Republicans. They love fiscal discipline unless it involves military spending and tax cuts. Then it's ok to bust the budget. I am more than willing to pay more taxes to balance budget annually. In fact, if everyone was required to pay enough taxes to balance the budget, then we could have an honest discussion about the size and role of the Federal Government. Are you really willing to spend that much on fighter jets and troops if you have to actually pay for it each year? Instead we pretend we can borrow into infinity. Post of the day If that tax bill came due every year to all American's and we had to go into next fiscal year with zero debt, everyone's tune would be changing VERY quickly. That's also why we have the current pension mess. Promises were made based on faulty actuarials (8-10% investment returns in perpetuity, etc.), and elected officials aggravated the issue by not making proper payments. If these pensions had to be properly funded each year, our taxes would have to be quadrupled or more...and that would not have been tolerated at the time these pension promises were granted. Three great posts together. We have not even begun to see the pension mess play out. |
Author: | Chus [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:51 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
This thread has gone the opposite direction of most on topics such as these. We have gone from "Because Obama", to rational discourse. Well done, CSFMB. |
Author: | Nas [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Great thoughts! I told BF this section had potential. |
Author: | spmack [ Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:55 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Stanley Druckenmiller |
Chus wrote: This thread has gone the opposite direction of most on topics such as these. We have gone from "Because Obama", to rational discourse. Well done, CSFMB. It was my Jim Druckenmiller post that started it all. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |