How long have you been running the PP?

General Discussion on the Permanent Portfolio Strategy

Moderator: Global Moderator

How long have you been running the PP?

< 1 year
24
55%
1-2 years
7
16%
2-3 years
2
5%
4-5 years
2
5%
5+ years
3
7%
haven't pulled the trigger
6
14%
 
Total votes: 44
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:25 am

What made things better under Reagan was primarily driven by demographics.

When a demographic bulge of that size enters its peak earning years in a stable economy, things are normally going to look very rosy.

The dawning of the technology revolution and the capacity of the U.S. economy to take on enormous amounts of debt also helped (though the ability to take on debt is itself a product of favorable demographics).

George W. Bush tried to do what Reagan did, but failed to realize that the Reagan playbook appplied to an unfavorable demographic situation is a recipe for disaster.

Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy.  Interestingly (and I am interested in PkgMan's thoughts on this matter), these three metrics are frequently not given that much attention by economists.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
AdamA
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2336
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by AdamA » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:51 am

MediumTex wrote: Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy. 
The leaders don't dictate the times, the times dictate the leaders...or something like that. 
"All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone."

Pascal
clacy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:16 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by clacy » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:15 am

MediumTex,

Have you ever looked at Harry Dent?  I just received his book, but haven't had time to read it.  He is a very demographic-driven economist.  He seems to be very bearish about the next decade or more and he's pessimistic overall about the future of the US (again I haven't read much of his work, but this is my impression of what I've heard from him so far).  He believes that demographics can foretell economic trends over a large time frame.

I really have no idea if his track record is accurate or not.  Obviously timing and putting your ideas into practice are just as, if not more important when making these types of calls so I won't be betting the farm on anything he has to say.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:29 am

clacy wrote: MediumTex,

Have you ever looked at Harry Dent? 
Harry Dent is kind of like a bush league Robert Prechter.  IMHO, he is mostly a gadfly who makes his living making ridiculous predictions (Dow 40,000!!!).  His analysis is very loosely based upon demographic trends (as he understands them), but his primary role is telling interesting stories (like most of his ilk).

Let me know what you think after reading his book.  I agree with his focus on demographics as providing insights into the shape of the future, but I think his predictions should just be treated as a form entertainment.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
TBV
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by TBV » Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:49 pm

The reluctance in some quarters to recognize Reagan's leadership is instructive.  Perhaps if he had allowed the Carter recession to drag on for ten more years, he would at least have matched FDR's performance during the Depression and thus gained true immortality.

Moda and MT:The demographic bulge (i.e the Baby Boomers) didn't hit their "peak" earning years until the Clinton administration, when coincidentally crude oil prices hit post-WWII lows.  Perhaps that helps us understand how the "pure luck" of demographics and cheap oil goosed the economy during Clinton's second term.  As for the Reagan years, oil didn't really get cheap until 1986, long after the economy and inflation problems had been tamed.

Adam1226: I haven't heard that particular argument as a reason for Carter's weak foreign policy.  But then again, within recent memory, I know of no resources that the US has "bullied" other countries out of.  At least not since Woodrow Wilson's invasions of Haiti and Mexico.  There was, of course, the recent bullying of Honduras, but that wasn't about natural resources.
Last edited by TBV on Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 7680
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by moda0306 » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:00 pm

The beginning of the end of the middle class started under Reagan.

The beginning of an unsustainable expansion of credit began under Reagan.

The beginning of large defecits began under Reagan.

Boomers started being born in 1945, which would have made them 35-43 during his term.  That's maybe not their "peak", but certainly is some of their better earnings years.

Reagan is given a lot of credit for Volker's strangling of inflation, but Volker was a Carter appointee and a democrat if I am not mistaken.

Computer technology, demographics, defecits, and lowering gas prices helped BOTH Clinton & Reagan.

A lot of the deregulation that let banks play fast and loose with OPM started under Reagan.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:33 pm

TBV wrote: The reluctance in some quarters to recognize Reagan's leadership is instructive.  Perhaps if he had allowed the Carter recession to drag on for ten more years, he would at least have matched FDR's performance during the Depression and thus gained true immortality.
I recognize Reagan's leadership.

He just had the benefit of some favorable tailwinds along the way that I think made him look a bit better than he might have looked in the 2000-2008 period, for example.

As far as the steps the Fed took under Volcker to bring inflation under control, I don't think Reagan gets any credit for that.  If anything, the Reagan administration pressured the Volcker Fed to be less restrictive in its monetary policy.

I think to be fair one must also point out that in fiscal matters there was a bit of a disconnect between the Reagan myth and the Reagan reality.

When it comes to spending, although Reagan spoke of reducing the size of government, the size of the federal government increased during his presidency as a percentage of GDP (see statistic in article below).

When it comes to taxes, although Reagan talked about reducing tax burdens, he signed off on many tax increases during his presidency.

Here is an article with an overview of tax and spending policy during the Reagan years:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/ec ... /index.htm

On Taxes:
After Reagan's first year in office, the annual deficit was 2.6% of gross domestic product. But it hit a high of 6% in 1983, stayed in the 5% range for the next three years, and fell to 3.1% by 1988. (By comparison, this year it's projected to be 9% but is expected to drop considerably thereafter.)

So, despite his public opposition to higher taxes, Reagan ended up signing off on several measures intended to raise more revenue.

"Reagan was certainly a tax cutter legislatively, emotionally and ideologically. But for a variety of political reasons, it was hard for him to ignore the cost of his tax cuts," said tax historian Joseph Thorndike.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together "constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," Thorndike said.
There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

"Some of these taxpayers were substantial contributors to the Republican Party and to the president's re-election campaign, and had direct access to the White House. Reagan rebuffed their pleas," wrote J. Roger Mentz, the Treasury assistant secretary for tax policy in 1986, in a Tax Notes commentary last year.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
On Spending:
Thanks in part to the increases in defense spending during his administration, Reagan also didn't really reduce the size of government. Annual spending averaged 22.4% of GDP on his watch, which is above today's 40-year average of 20.7%, and above the 20.8% average under Carter.

Indeed, in one very symbolic respect he enlarged it. While in the early years of his presidency Reagan tried to shrink the IRS, by the end, the number of IRS employees hit an all-time high, according to Steuerle in his book Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy.
Ronald Reagan was a feel good presence (compared to Jimmy Carter's feel-bad presence) and I think he did some good things while in office.  My point was that favorable demographics and lower oil prices in the 1980s helped a lot.  

The oil story also has an added dimension that is not often discussed, and it involves the collapse in revenue from oil exports that the USSR experienced as a result of the dramatic declines in oil prices in the 1980s (oil prices were falling during almost all of Reagan's presidency).  This dramatic decline in revenue made it much harder for the Soviets to keep up with U.S. levels of defense spending, which probably hastened its demise.  

In my view, Reagan was an extremely skilled politician, but ultimately he did what all modern politicians do: he increased the size of the government and ran up debt that would be left to later generations to deal with.
Last edited by MediumTex on Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Lone Wolf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Lone Wolf » Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:08 pm

I started my PP in mid-2009 mid-2010.  (Edit: Due to either mental feebleness or deliberate deception, I initially wrote mid-2009, which was not correct.)  I was fortunate enough to have a large chunk of cash after the 2008 financial crisis and gathered up enough intestinal fortitude to buy into stocks.  In the meantime, I read and read on monetary policy and history to try to figure out some answers.  I wanted to get into gold but was quite afraid of gold as an investment (with good reason.)  Eventually my searching led me to the Permanent Portfolio.

Not sure how this turned into a Reagan thread, but grading on the "politician's curve", Reagan does very well.

Both Carter and Reagan were budgetarily victimized by the Congress of the day, causing both men (Carter and Reagan) to run deficits throughout their entire terms.  I genuinely believe that both of these Presidents wanted to cut a good deal more spending than Congress allowed them to.  (I think that Carter felt especially betrayed by this.)

Reagan's tax policy was excellent.  The inexcusable 70% tax rate was finally dismantled and all tax rates were slashed, to great positive effect.  The 80s saw rapidly falling unemployment, rapidly rising standards of living and rapidly rising real income.  Times were really, really good after things had been really, really bad.

Volcker gets credit for ending the out-of-control inflation while Reagan gets the credit for enduring the recession these Fed policies caused (no mean feat.)  The root cause of the inflation was of course the Nixon Shock, and Carter was largely a victim without a clear idea how to end it, at least at first.

TBV's right about energy prices.  They weren't really coming down until later in the 80s so Reagan didn't benefit from this until much later in his Presidency.

Reagan also had a genuine libertarian streak.  This was a wonderful, welcome change after the sleaze and economic cluelessness of Nixon.

Like I said, no politician is perfect but I'd take Reagan in a heartbeat over the current possibilities.  With the potential for the US to have to choose between Donald Trump and Barack Obama, it is an easy choice.  :)
Last edited by Lone Wolf on Wed Apr 13, 2011 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:46 pm

I split the energy stuff into a separate thread.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Pkg Man
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Pkg Man » Thu Apr 14, 2011 8:46 pm

MediumTex wrote: What made things better under Reagan was primarily driven by demographics.

When a demographic bulge of that size enters its peak earning years in a stable economy, things are normally going to look very rosy.

The dawning of the technology revolution and the capacity of the U.S. economy to take on enormous amounts of debt also helped (though the ability to take on debt is itself a product of favorable demographics).

George W. Bush tried to do what Reagan did, but failed to realize that the Reagan playbook appplied to an unfavorable demographic situation is a recipe for disaster.

Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy.  Interestingly (and I am interested in PkgMan's thoughts on this matter), these three metrics are frequently not given that much attention by economists.
It's been quite a while since I took an economics of development course, but clearly demographics play a role in how fast an economy can grow.  In a simplistic way, GDP is a function of labor (which is a function of population) and capital (both physical capital and human capital, i.e., skills).  A rising population will, other things being equal, lead to higher GDP growth than a falling or barely rising population.  This is one reason that the so-called "potential GDP growth rate" of the US has fallen to under 3%.  The post-WWII average growth is 3.3%.  While the difference between 3.3% and say 2.8% might not sound like much, it makes an enormous difference over time.  The other day I saw a USAToday headline stating that the labor force participation rate was at it's lowest level in years.  I believe that during the Reagan years you still saw a lot of women entering the workforce, which was a tailwind to growth, but not something that can be repeated.  I'm not sure how this differed between the Reagan and Bush 41 terms, but perhaps it did.

The other obvious things that matter are political institutions, or stability as MT says.  Included in this is how friendly or unfriendly the government is to business.  I'm not talking about being in the pocket of big business, but rather not interfering excessively in the ability to create and run a business.  If you look at a scatter chart of the number of days it takes to start a business on one axis, and GDP per capital on the other axis, there is a clear relationship.  For an exciting read on the importance of institutions, read Jim Rogers' Investment Biker.  It is replete with examples of nations with fairly prosperous economies that border basket-case economies, each with the same endowment of natural resources.  The Chilean economic miracle of the 70s is a great example of what can happen when the right institutions are in place.  Whatever you may think of Pinochet, he knew enough to hire some bright Chicago-School PhDs.  Of course it goes without saying that a government that is relatively free from corruption is preferred, but I don't think it is essential in order for an economy to prosper.

One aspect of economic development that I think has not received much attention from economists is the degree of social cohesion in a society.  Years ago I read a great book by Francis Fukuyama called Trust.  To put it in overly-simplistic terms, it is much easier to enter into contracts in a society where a person can have a certain degree of trust in the people he is dealing with.  This was vividly demonstrated to me after spending some time in South America.  It seemed that everyone was out to screw everyone else, which makes it much more difficult to enter into business with others.  If I were teaching a course on economic development, both Investment Biker and Trust would be required readings. 

Natural resources are of course a plus for growth, but probably on the lower end of the scale in terms of importance. 
"Machines are gonna fail...and the system's gonna fail"
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:23 pm

Pkg Man wrote: One aspect of economic development that I think has not received much attention from economists is the degree of social cohesion in a society.  Years ago I read a great book by Francis Fukuyama called Trust.  To put it in overly-simplistic terms, it is much easier to enter into contracts in a society where a person can have a certain degree of trust in the people he is dealing with.  This was vividly demonstrated to me after spending some time in South America.  It seemed that everyone was out to screw everyone else, which makes it much more difficult to enter into business with others.  If I were teaching a course on economic development, both Investment Biker and Trust would be required readings. 
I think this is an area in which the U.S. has great economic advantages.  Regardless of what anyone says about corruption or crooked politics at the macro level, it's very uncommon to fear being short-changed in routine commercial transactions, feel that you need to bribe a police officer to stay out of trouble, feel that you won't get paid after doing work, etc. (there are exceptions, but I am just talking about typical expectations).

If you look around you every day, there is also normally a basic level of courtesy among enough people that it really smooths the process of economic transactions.

I think that lots of people in the U.S. also have a basic sense of fairness about things that translates into smoother commercial dealings as well.  This is not exclusive to the U.S. and there are certainly plenty of people in the U.S. who don't care about fairness, but I just frequently sense that when I am dealing with people we are both calculating what is fair more than we are calculating how we can best take advantage of one another.

We often take these things for granted in developed economies, but in many societies they are not prevalent outside of one's family, tribe, religious group, etc.

There is a peculiar tradition in professional table tennis of a player not accepting a point that he/she doesn't think is clean.  The video below contains a few such examples (music is goofy), and I think this characteristic and way of thinking is a huge advantage to any society where such values are widespread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzwZP5X8 ... re=related

Creating this sense of shared values is harder to do than it looks, but when a community or society does reach a critical mass of shared values, it is a powerful boost to economic transactions (among other things).  When people are talking about the U.S. being in bad shape, as PkgMan notes, they rarely focus on this huge structural advantage that our economy has.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Lone Wolf
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:15 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Lone Wolf » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:39 am

Pkg Man wrote: One aspect of economic development that I think has not received much attention from economists is the degree of social cohesion in a society.  Years ago I read a great book by Francis Fukuyama called Trust.  To put it in overly-simplistic terms, it is much easier to enter into contracts in a society where a person can have a certain degree of trust in the people he is dealing with.
MediumTex wrote: I think this is an area in which the U.S. has great economic advantages.  Regardless of what anyone says about corruption or crooked politics at the macro level, it's very uncommon to fear being short-changed in routine commercial transactions, feel that you need to bribe a police officer to stay out of trouble, feel that you won't get paid after doing work, etc. (there are exceptions, but I am just talking about typical expectations).
...
Creating this sense of shared values is harder to do than it looks, but when a community or society does reach a critical mass of shared values, it is a powerful boost to economic transactions (among other things).  When people are talking about the U.S. being in bad shape, as PkgMan notes, they rarely focus on this huge structural advantage that our economy has.
I very much agree with you both.  This is one of those very important intangibles that I have never quite been able to pin down.  How does it emerge?  Why does it fail to emerge in so many societies?  In short, I don't yet understand how you "bottle that magic".

Does anyone have any ideas on this?
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:55 am

Lone Wolf wrote: I very much agree with you both.  This is one of those very important intangibles that I have never quite been able to pin down.  How does it emerge?  Why does it fail to emerge in so many societies?  In short, I don't yet understand how you "bottle that magic".

Does anyone have any ideas on this?
The thing that is so impressive about what the U.S. has achieved in this area is that it exists in a multi-cultural society.  Japan also has a very strong social cohesion factor, but that is less surprising in a homogeneous society with a strong tradition of intrasociety trust.

As far as how these values get a foothold, I think it's a slow process and requires a sense among the people that the game isn't rigged against them.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
HB Reader
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:34 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by HB Reader » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:47 am

I very much agree that trust confers more economic advantages than most people realize.

Although we are quick to express our frustrations with our legal and political processes, few Americans seem to appreciate (probably because they've never known it any other way) the rule of law here and how free our society is from the petty corruption that is endemic in much of the world.

I say this from the perspective of someone who spent several years in Latin America growing up and spent 24 years working in Washington with a fair amount of exposure to foreign businessmen and government officials.

   
TBV
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by TBV » Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:47 pm

From a social science standpoint, economic interdependence, exposure to integrative mass media, upward social mobility, shared universal norms, the existence of intermediary social institutions (between citizens and the state) and the absence of multiple reinforcing social cleavages go a long way toward building trust.  The opposite is a system reliant on face-to-face communication, enforced loyalty toward primordial groups, fragmented markets hindered by geographic isolation, etc.

Social trust is present in all societies, but the intensity and scope vary widely. Insular groups often exhibit high levels of trust intramurally, but not toward outsiders.  The major benefits come when trust is extended to an ever-widening circle.  Working in the opposite direction is the need to feel special and supported.  At the DMV or the Post Office, everyone is treated the same, but that's not very emotionally satisfying.  Having an "uncle in the business", a "back door", or an acquaintance who treats you better than the norm is far more satisfying. But that is contrary to universal norms of equal treatment.  I think the truth is we would not like a society very much that was purely one way or the other.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Tortoise » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:04 pm

MediumTex wrote: The thing that is so impressive about what the U.S. has achieved in this area is that it exists in a multi-cultural society.  Japan also has a very strong social cohesion factor, but that is less surprising in a homogeneous society with a strong tradition of intrasociety trust.
In the case of the U.S., the intrasociety trust in spite of the nation being multicultural is probably a combination of (1) the immense unifying power of the historically radical idea of individual liberty, and (2) the fact that the U.S. was able to form itself with a relatively clean slate--no historical baggage of tribal/ethnic conflicts over the territory going back hundreds or even thousands of years.
TBV
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by TBV » Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:56 pm

Tortoise wrote:
MediumTex wrote: The thing that is so impressive about what the U.S. has achieved in this area is that it exists in a multi-cultural society.  Japan also has a very strong social cohesion factor, but that is less surprising in a homogeneous society with a strong tradition of intrasociety trust.
In the case of the U.S., the intrasociety trust in spite of the nation being multicultural is probably a combination of (1) the immense unifying power of the historically radical idea of individual liberty, and (2) the fact that the U.S. was able to form itself with a relatively clean slate--no historical baggage of tribal/ethnic conflicts over the territory going back hundreds or even thousands of years.
Geography and the Constitution had a lot to do with it.  Vast expanses allowed discontented citizens to vote with their feet in search of communities that better suited them.  Once arrived, they had few advantages over anyone else, making cooperation a viable strategy for success.  As for the lack of tribal/ethnic conflicts, I'm not so sure.  Religious differences were very pronounced in 18th and 19th century America. Rhode Island, Utah, and Maryland (for example) owed their existence to a desire to be free of the established religions of other colonies/states. And let's not forget the Indian wars, slavery and the Civil War.  In a sense, the constrained federal government that the Constitution gave us grew out of a distrust which states had toward one another, fear that the more powerful ones would expand the reach of their religion, or wealth, or slaves beyond their  home borders.  Perhaps by making it so difficult to achieve pre-eminence, the Constitution helped reduce tensions that would have otherwise made trust very difficult.
cabronjames

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by cabronjames » Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:27 pm

9 months, started in July 2010.

Perhaps I ended up starting at a "lucky time", altho I did not try to time the start.  When i decided on the Perm Portfolio-type asset allocation, I "just did it".
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by MediumTex » Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:53 pm

cabronjames wrote: 9 months, started in July 2010.

Perhaps I ended up starting at a "lucky time", altho I did not try to time the start.  When i decided on the Perm Portfolio-type asset allocation, I "just did it".
cabronjames,

How did you learn of this site?

I assume you learned of it after you started your PP, or else you would have joined us sooner.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
User avatar
Pkg Man
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by Pkg Man » Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:33 pm

Pkg Man wrote:
MediumTex wrote: What made things better under Reagan was primarily driven by demographics.

When a demographic bulge of that size enters its peak earning years in a stable economy, things are normally going to look very rosy.

The dawning of the technology revolution and the capacity of the U.S. economy to take on enormous amounts of debt also helped (though the ability to take on debt is itself a product of favorable demographics).

George W. Bush tried to do what Reagan did, but failed to realize that the Reagan playbook appplied to an unfavorable demographic situation is a recipe for disaster.

Normally, the demographic profile, degree of political stability and natural resource availability will tell you all you need to know about the state of an economy.  Interestingly (and I am interested in PkgMan's thoughts on this matter), these three metrics are frequently not given that much attention by economists.
...
The other obvious things that matter are political institutions, or stability as MT says.  Included in this is how friendly or unfriendly the government is to business.  I'm not talking about being in the pocket of big business, but rather not interfering excessively in the ability to create and run a business.  If you look at a scatter chart of the number of days it takes to start a business on one axis, and GDP per capital on the other axis, there is a clear relationship.   
...
As a follow-up, I read an interesting article on bloomberg that touches on the topic I brought up http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-1 ... laces.html.  Below I've posted a portion of the article concerning the difference between the two states in how long it takes to start business and the level of government regulation in how they are run:

Puzder, whose Carpinteria, California-based CKE Restaurants Inc. is the parent of the Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s fast-food chains, said in a telephone interview that he will tell legislators that Texas is quicker to permit new business and has fewer employment restrictions than California.

Puzder, 60, said he can get a new restaurant approved in six weeks in Texas, compared with up to two years in his home state. Employee scheduling is restricted by California laws that prevent managers from spending more than half their time on non- managerial tasks, he said.


So you don't have to look beyond our borders to see examples of this in action.  Regulations, even well-intentioned ones, often have perverse effects.
"Machines are gonna fail...and the system's gonna fail"
cabronjames

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by cabronjames » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:29 am

MediumTex wrote: cabronjames,

How did you learn of this site?
iirc, there was a link to crawlingroad.com from the mymoneyblog.com personal finance blog, that I read occasionally
MediumTex wrote: I assume you learned of it after you started your PP, or else you would have joined us sooner
I had read crawlingroad blog before Jul 2010 when implementing a PP asset allocation.  I don't recall when I started reading this forum, however I was initially "read-only" on the forum a while, before I ever posted.

Thx again to this forum's OGs, including craigr, MT, clive, etc, for your insightful commentary here.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by vnatale » Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:51 am

Lone Wolf wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:08 pm


Like I said, no politician is perfect but I'd take Reagan in a heartbeat over the current possibilities.  With the potential for the US to have to choose between Donald Trump and Barack Obama, it is an easy choice.  :)

I had to check to see if this had been subsequently edited but it WAS written in April 2011!

What prompted Lone Wolf to name Donald Trump way back then??!!

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14228
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: How long have you been running the PP?

Post by dualstow » Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:30 pm

vnatale wrote:
Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:51 am
Lone Wolf wrote:
Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:08 pm


Like I said, no politician is perfect but I'd take Reagan in a heartbeat over the current possibilities.  With the potential for the US to have to choose between Donald Trump and Barack Obama, it is an easy choice.  :)

I had to check to see if this had been subsequently edited but it WAS written in April 2011!

What prompted Lone Wolf to name Donald Trump way back then??!!

Vinny
Because Trump was already taking potshots at Obama as one of the most famous so-called Birthers.
On top of that, he was often asked if he would run.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
Post Reply