Cortopassi wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:07 pm
pmward wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:13 pm
It's pure craziness to think that there is no line that you can cross that would create a crisis.
I'm sure there are people who have been out of the market since 1987 and 2000 and 2008 thinking it can't keep on going up, there is too much debt, unsustainable.
Every few years people seem to come to the conclusion that our debt is too big and the party is over. Yet it keeps on growing and we have yet to be called on it.
I certainly don't know a timeline or what the line is that can't be crossed. Only that many, many supposedly smart people have called for it a long time ago (or call for it perpetually) and it still hasn't happened.
And if you've been out of the market during that time (I was for a chunk before 2014) and highly into gold waiting for that time, you've pretty much been screwed.
PP is better.
I agree that we don't know where the bounds are. That's also no reason to intentionally test them, haha. That's really what they are proposing, is printing money and binging on debt to do whatever they want. Guaranteeing jobs for everyone, having a "new green deal", paying for college and health care for all, etc all by simply printing money and binging on debt. Then increasing and decreasing taxes, not to pay the debt or generate revenue, but as a way to keep inflation in check. Interest rates would permanently be 0, so they would be substituting taxes for interest rates as the way to attempt to control the currency values.
I also agree that it's best to have a balanced portfolio, to benefit come what may. But I also don't think that if we go to MMT it's going to end well. While we here will do ok with a PP, we are the minority. It's not going to end well for the average stock and bond only investor. All kinds of people that were saving all their lives to be independent in retirement will wind up being forced into dependence on the government. I don't think the central bank system is great either, it's a flawed system as well, but at least it separates politics from monetary policy and does not give congress a blank check to spend as much money as they want and hope there will be no consequences.
That being said, I do always look at both sides of the argument. If anyone is interested, this is a lecture from a very pro-MMT professor. It's very much the counter-argument against what I'm saying. This is kind of the 101 lecture on MMT, and it's kind of the pillar that AOC and the more socialistic Dems policies and opinions are based on. It's always good to look at things from both angles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5JTn7GS4oA