No where to hide

[I Shrugged]

Reub,
If you had a significant lump sump to invest today, in what would you invest?

[Reub]

Cash.

[barrett]

If you had a significant lump sump to invest today, in what would you invest?

Always an interesting question. I am less wary of bonds now that some of the air has been let out, but I have been contemplating a higher cash component as well. At these price levels though I think I would be adding to all four assets equally. Wealth is a relative thing and I think the PP has a better chance of preserving it than other portfolios I have looked at.

Been thinking that a good idea for a new thread might be "What are the most commonly proposed PP tweaks?" But as near as I can tell they change with whatever is happening in the financial markets.

As another side note, does anyone else find the title of this thread odd? I guess "No where" sounds more poetic (in a rapper sort of way) than "Nowhere."

[portart]

We going down into a trough. You would expect when stocks do turn down, the other areas would pick up. Rather is seems that once the equities stop growing, we may get equally punished in stocks and gold as a total all over takedown of portfolio value. Maybe there is a master plan to give no one but short sellers a profit.  I am looking for a climate that will make gold interesting again but I am not sure what that is. Gold is the driver of PP by its very nature of volatility, both up and down. Every time a market cycles, it does something different. Earn, save, re invest and hope...

[ochotona]

Cash!

[dragoncar]

Cash!

Hasn't USD been declining too?

[LC475]

I wouldn't have an issue with government disaster relief if 1) it was universal and unpolitical; and 2) insurance liability was capped where the government coverage kicked in.  Arbitrarily deciding everybody gets a new house only encourages people to not sign up for necessary insurance in the first place, and the insurance is expensive because they have to assume that the government will not step in.

That's because you think if it were done that way, it would work.

Unfortunately, government doesn't work.

[Ad Orientem]

Unfortunately, government doesn't work.

That's frequently true. Unfortunately, anarchism works even less.

[LC475]

Unfortunately, government doesn't work.

That's frequently true. Unfortunately, anarchism works even less.

Actually, it is always true.  That is the lesson Harry was patiently, calmly, reasonably trying to explain to us.

As for anarchism, I don't have any idea what you mean by it.  Do you?

[Ad Orientem]

Unfortunately, government doesn't work.

That's frequently true. Unfortunately, anarchism works even less.

Actually, it is always true.  That is the lesson Harry was patiently, calmly, reasonably trying to explain to us.

As for anarchism, I don't have any idea what you mean by it.  Do you?

The absence of government is anarchy. I took your earlier statement as a subtle endorsement of anarchism. That's probably from spending too much time in threads with kshartle. Beyond which I dislike speaking in absolutes. Harry Browne was a smart guy but he was not infallible. Stating that government never works is just silly.

[moda0306]

That's frequently true. Unfortunately, anarchism works even less.

Actually, it is always true.  That is the lesson Harry was patiently, calmly, reasonably trying to explain to us.

As for anarchism, I don't have any idea what you mean by it.  Do you?

The absence of government is anarchy. I took your earlier statement as a subtle endorsement of anarchism. That's probably from spending too much time in threads with kshartle. Beyond which I dislike speaking in absolutes. Harry Browne was a smart guy but he was not infallible. Stating that government never works is just silly.

HB is one of my favorite investors and individual philosophers, but he essentially commits the fallacy of composition when he assumes that when people individually all seek their own individual best-interests, and do so unencumbered, that this, by logical necessity, will result in the most overall happiness.

This is the underlying problem with anarchism/uber-libertarianism... they take what is true of the individual and try to logically carry it to the system as a whole. 

But this is getting into hijack mode.

[Pfanni]

When I, as a European, pay in fact close to 70% taxes on my income (taking into account direct and indirect taxation, VAT and mandatory social plans plus mandatory public TV channel tax) I presume a grain of low-tax uber-libertarianism would be very good for this society.

[goodasgold]

[/quote]

HB is one of my favorite investors and individual philosophers, but he essentially commits the fallacy of composition when he assumes that when people individually all seek their own individual best-interests... will result in the most overall happiness.
[/quote]

Happiness is subjective, but in the economic sphere this is called capitalism. To paraphrase Churchill, it is the worst economic system for achieving prosperity, except for all the others that have been tried. In other words, "Let those who say it can't be done get out of the way of those who are doing it." Works for me... 

[Cortopassi]

Well, looks like today all PPers have no reason to hide!  Yeah!  Good to see gold get bid for a couple days in a row, seems very rare in the past few years.

[Stewardship]

Stating that government never works is just silly.

Have you read Why Government Doesn't Work by HB?

I believe HB would respond: please give a single example of a government program that works well.

[ochotona]

Stating that government never works is just silly.

Have you read Why Government Doesn't Work by HB?

I believe HB would respond: please give a single example of a government program that works well.

If the government didn't operate traffic signals, I believe my 30 min commute today would've been like 3 hours with uncontrolled intersections. I do not believe organizations would voluntarily and charitably spring up spontaneously to handle this work. Also sewers, clean water, these are nice things. It could be better, but our food is relatively safe... safer than China, though much less delicious. All of these attributes are conspicuously absent in the third world, or countries headed toward that status, like Greece or Venezuela, where tax evasion is also rampant.

[Pointedstick]

It's clear that government can work, but it depends on how you define "work."

If you mean "accomplishes staled goals," then plenty of government programs work (and an embarrassing number don't).

If you mean "accomplishes stated goals within the bounds of common moral standards," then fewer government programs work, but there are still a bunch.

If you mean "accomplishes stated goals within the bounds of common moral standards and has no negative side effects that are as bad or worse than the solved problem," then we're getting into the realm where the examples of success are rarer.

If you mean "accomplishes stated goals within the bounds of common moral standards and has no negative side effects that are as bad or worse than the solved problem and systematically incentivizes improvement over time", then maybe there are one or two, but it's doubtful. This is the most common category that market transactions fall into, coincidentally.

If you mean "accomplishes stated goals within the bounds of common moral standards and has no negative side effects that are as bad or worse than the solved problem and systematically incentivizes improvement over time and is the most economically efficient way to solve the problem," then there probably aren't any examples of this. This is how the best marketplace transactions could be described.


IMHO It's really not so much that government can't work, but more than government works less reliably than most alternatives, and usually with higher cost, more wasteful expenditure of resources, and more morally objectionable side effects then those alternative would be and are in the cases where they're permitted.

[dragoncar]

Stating that government never works is just silly.

Have you read Why Government Doesn't Work by HB?

I believe HB would respond: please give a single example of a government program that works well.

If the government didn't operate traffic signals, I believe my 30 min commute today would've been like 3 hours with uncontrolled intersections. I do not believe organizations would voluntarily and charitably spring up spontaneously to handle this work. Also sewers, clean water, these are nice things. It could be better, but our food is relatively safe... safer than China, though much less delicious. All of these attributes are conspicuously absent in the third world, or countries headed toward that status, like Greece or Venezuela, where tax evasion is also rampant.

The classic argument is that private road operators would install traffic signals (to beat their competitor road operators with no signals).  Of course having all these competing but independent road operators would be super inefficient.

[Pointedstick]

The classic argument is that private road operators would install traffic signals (to beat their competitor road operators with no signals).  Of course having all these competing but independent road operators would be super inefficient.

Not at all. Competition is the process by which efficiency is discovered in the first place. Of course it would be the most efficient to have one single monopoly provider that did everything perfectly, but without a competitive market, there is no means by which the most efficient process is ever discovered, and even if it was, with no market, the single monopolist would abuse its position and exploit people.

[Cortopassi]

I know we are getting off the original topic, but a couple things come to mind.

--Bureaucrats moan depending on left or right on cutting spending or increasing spending for different programs.  For example, the Amtrak derailment, caused increasing or decreasing funding for Amtrak to come to the forefront.  In the range of single billion up or down!  Why/how can these amounts of spending possibly be a concern when $85 billion was used per month during QE?  I am sure someone will explain to me it's not the same, not really "real" money, etc.  I just found the magnitudes interesting.  Social Security payouts per month are recently $72B a month.  What am I missing?  Seems that $85B could have been put to amazingly better use.

--As an engineer, we were talking about this positive train control being discussed and some outrageous cost mentioned for it.  I know it is simplistic, but with a smartphone with mapping/GPS or a Garmin system, an interface to the throttle of the train and I could have a working system to control train speed in production probably for less than $100k.  What am I missing?

A somewhat frustrated citizen.

[moda0306]

Corto,

To your first question, QE is not adding net new assets to the economy, while deficit spending is.  That's why you'll see a collective shrug out of most people here when the Fed "prints money," because taken in full macro-economic context, it's really not doing much of anything. It's giving people one form of fiat paper for another one.

(I've been waiting for MR principles to start getting debated again!!)

[Cortopassi]

Moda,

I think I understand, but then why were so many intelligent well schooled pundits/commentators, etc. so firmly convinced that QE was going to cause inflation, or even hyperinflation?  It obviously didn't, or at least not immediately.

MR?

[Pointedstick]

Moda,

I think I understand, but then why were so many intelligent well schooled pundits/commentators, etc. so firmly convinced that QE was going to cause inflation, or even hyperinflation?  It obviously didn't, or at least not immediately.

MR?

If they were all wrong, then I guess that calls into question just how intelligent and well-schooled they were, eh?

If any given financial commentator was right, why would they be doing commentary instead of putting their money where there mouths were and buying assets that would profit from this predicted hyperinflation? I'll bet that very few of these guys decided to put 100% of their assets into gold and TIPS and the like. That should tell you how much faith they had in their own predictions. Their yapping is just noise; ignore it.

[moda0306]

Corto,

MR = Monetary Realism.  It's a school of thought around money trying to describe how our fiat currency system actually works.  Personally, I find some of the lessons and explanations within MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) to be easier to digest earlier on in my "how the f'k does our monetary system work" days, but MR is 1) technically more correct on how the operations actually work, and 2) not nearly as heavy handed with regards to policy prescriptions.  MR & MMT have some Keynesian-esque foundations along with what I'd argue is a few "Austrian" economic foundations (production is SUPER important).

Those pundits, while perhaps intelligent on micro-finance, are pretty lacking when it comes to macro-economics.  A lot them follow deficit-hawkery that is tied into monetarism and Austrian economic philosophies.

[moda0306]

MR?

Corto,

MR = Monetary Realism.  It's a school of thought around money trying to describe how our fiat currency system actually works.  Personally, I find some of the lessons and explanations within MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) to be easier to digest earlier on in my "how the f'k does our monetary system work" days, but MR is 1) technically more correct on how the operations actually work, and 2) not nearly as heavy handed with regards to policy prescriptions.  MR & MMT have some Keynesian-esque foundations along with what I'd argue is a few "Austrian" economic foundations (production is SUPER important).

Those pundits, while perhaps intelligent on micro-finance, are pretty lacking when it comes to macro-economics.  A lot them follow deficit-hawkery that is tied into monetarism and Austrian economic philosophies.

To expand on the Monetary Realism stuff, if you are interested...

A fellow named Cullen Roche has developed this school of thought.  He maintains a couple of different websites:

www.pragcap.com
www.monetaryrealism.com

He's also upload a number of papers on the Social Sciences Research Network:

Cullen Roche papers on SSRN

He's not the greatest writer, but he's worked really hard at explaining the operational realities of the monetary system.

We used to have many thread here discussing these issues.

Is the plural of thread "thread"?