• Krugminator2's Avatar
    Today, 05:20 PM
    Also of note, Nancy Reagan hated Barbara Bush. I didn't realize there was a whole backstory about Reagan not liking Bush and barely endorsing him. Reagan basically OK'd a primary challenge from Buchanan. http://www.newsweek.com/reagan-and-bush-call-it-snub-196034
    20 replies | 222 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 07:30 PM
    Krugminator2 replied to a thread Stocks: Market Crash Looming in Economy & Markets
    That's fundamental data not technical. You could be right. I just posted that because I saw it 3 minutes before I saw your post. This is obviously a much different situation than anytime when that data was compiled.
    3055 replies | 376450 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 05:34 PM
    Interesting. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/384047-rand-paul-under-pressure-as-pompeo-hunts-for-votes
    54 replies | 2468 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    20 replies | 449 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    20 replies | 449 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 05:06 PM
    Special guest Lou Holtz on Liberty Report to talk about Syria.
    4 replies | 227 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 04:31 PM
    We live in the future. We can look back and see what happened. The second longest expansion in history happened under Reagan. The Clinton years were basically a continuation of Reagan. You had a 20 year surge in prosperity. Maybe wealth inequality was lower the 20 years prior to Reagan. Multi decade stagnation with a breakeven stock market will do that. Why is finance unproductive? Why is growing wealth with speculation bad? Why is marketing bad? Why is representing the wealthy's interests bad? Those all seem like good things to me. The last thing is the Piketty argument that wealth inequality is bad because wealthy will have more influence with the government. Sounds good to me. The average wealthy person is far more fiscally conservative than the average voter. I'm glad Charles Koch and his organization has outsized influence. Better him than the average moron watching the Kardashians. Even George Soros is much more sane the average than the average liberal.
    8 replies | 204 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 03:18 PM
    Krugminator2 replied to a thread Stocks: Market Crash Looming in Economy & Markets
    987061015140450309 FWIW
    3055 replies | 376450 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 12:32 PM
    Most charts don't show that let alone every chart. It started in the early to mid 70s. You could just easily say it started in the 1990s. You only say it started in the early 80s because of your anti-capitalist bias. And why is a shrinking middle class a bad thing? It isn't shrinking because low income earners are earning less. It is shrinking because there are more people who are high income earners.
    8 replies | 204 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 12:01 PM
    This seems like a pretty big deal. Trump was leaning on him in the press. I was hoping he would stay a no but thought there was a decent chance he would use the North Korea talks as an out. 987023774976561152
    54 replies | 2468 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 09:40 AM
    Trickle down is a made up term that has nothing to do with the ideas they presented to cut taxes. Trickle down never existed. The top marginal tax rate was 70% when Reagan made the major tax cut. How does cutting the top rate hurt the middle class?
    8 replies | 204 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 04:42 PM
    The way a liberty candidate would win is if they have some other overriding popularity and charisma. Reagan (setting aside what people here will say about him) was the most ideologically conservative in a long long time to win. The average person who voted for him did so in spite of that. They voted because he was a smiley face. I can't think of any libertarian who could overcome the ideological problems a libertarian will face. Maybe Vince Vaughn?
    53 replies | 606 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 04:32 PM
    I think Rand is a clear no on running in any future Presidential election. Even though he was the best liberty candidate in history, this past election shows there isn't a market for what he is selling and he has just a few too many gaps in his presentation. My gut instinct is Amash will run on the LP at some point though. Maybe Rand runs LP down the road. More interesting is if he votes no on Pompeo. Voting no will be a huge deal. If he votes no, I wouldn't be surprised if he is at least considering not running again for Senate
    53 replies | 606 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 06:54 AM
    What you linked to with Lehman has nothing to do with the uptick rule. They quoted a Senator talking about the uptick rule and blaming it on naked shorting, but he of course is an idiot. It has to do with Reg Sho, which wasn't as firmly enforced as it should have been. The rules are insanely enforced on shorting now. It makes sense that a lot of shares would fail to deliver and that number would be up substantially. Lehman stock was extremely hard to borrow because everyone in the world wanted to be short Lehman. It was a king zero. Lehman was was leveraged 50-1. A 2% move in equity was enough to wipe them out.
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 08:46 PM
    Fiscal policy in practice has almost no effect. If you run a budget surplus that reduces demand and lowers inflation then monetary policy will just be used to offset it. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/08/monetary_offset_1.html
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 08:27 PM
    Glass-Steagall had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis. Glass-Steagall had no impact on the majority of investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley because most aren't commercial banks. It had no impact on the types of mortgage securities that were bough and sold. And it had no impact on loan companies like Countrywide or Washington Mutual they aren't investment banks. It is a BS Elizabeth Warren talking point that even Politifact shoots down. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/ The repeal of the uptick rule is the most bonkers talking point. The uptick rule didn't stop a market panic in 1987. It didn't keep the Nasdaq from dropping 80% in the early 2000s. No company went under because of short sellers. Mentioning the uptick rule is a way to scapegoat those "evil" short sellers and speculators. Investment banks went under because they were so heavily leveraged that even a small move in their equity was enough to wipe them out. Companies are not their stocks. I noticed there is no downtick rule on the escalator up. The uptick rule adds an insanely high cost to short selling which already has too high of a cost. If the goal is to eliminate financial fraud, short selling should be made easier not harder. Short selling also has the benefit of stabilizing. Every seller becomes a buyer so it thickens markets up during panics. Maybe the uptick rule made sense when markets were illiquid in the 30's. It sure as hell doesn't make sense now. Australia hasn't hasn't had a recession in 20 years and they have run budget surpluses at different points throughout that time. How do you explain that?
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 04:11 PM
    You did leave out the second part "or are ou just pointing out that some people are gullible . Actually no. There have been stock scams under every monetary system going back to the South Sea Bubble in the 1700's. I don't think sound money has even a little bit to do with stock schemes. What is sound money? You mean a gold standard? If the question is what is wrong with a gold standard, then the answer is a lot. For one thing, you can't have a gold standard with the massive entitlement state that currently exists. The people on this forum don't even want cut Social Security and Medicare. That alone makes it a non-starter. You also had constant banking panics under a gold standard 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893 and 1907.
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 01:04 PM
    I am not sure what you are advocating. In most (probably all) cases where people lose their shirt, they deserved it because they were greedy. John McAfee ran a pump and dump scheme. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head to buy his trash stock. They chose it. I guess you want more laws saving people from their own bad decisions or are you just pointing out that some people are gullible? I don't understand what is stopping people from saving? Anyone can buy treasuries or CDs if they just want to hold cash.
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 12:14 PM
    Brokerage fees are practically zero for normal transactions. What would be an example of an insider fleecing people in the stock market, where the person getting fleeced didn't deserve it and the person wasn't committing a crime?
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 10:28 AM
    But why do people accept FRNs? A pretty good reason there will always be demand is because you have to pay taxes in FRNs. Why would tools, parts, and equipment be of real value? Those all depreciate far faster than cash. And what happens if you buy something of real value at the top? If you bought gold or silver in the late 70 early 80's you would have been underwater for decades? I don't think there are too many easy answers with this stuff. Ultimately any financial action you take is a speculation.
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 03:29 PM
    ???? That was exactly the point I replied to. The first few sentences were how I arrived at the conclusion.
    103 replies | 2160 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 07:12 AM
    Is that really true though? Ron Paul got 10% of the Republican Primary vote. Rand Paul was probably headed for 2% (or worse). That leaves 80%. Those numbers match up with my intuition on the make up of Ron Paul supporters. The Zero Hedge/Alex Jones/Conspiracy crowd went to Trump. The paleoconservatives went to Trump mostly. Those were the two biggest Ron groups. The residual support went largely to Bernie/non-voters/assorted Repubs. Liberty people were a small part of Ron's base. If you polled every person who ever posted here starting 2007, my bet is 40% or more voted for Trump in the Republican primary and well over 50% voted for him in the general.
    103 replies | 2160 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-12-2018, 11:38 AM
    MMT treats all spending the same. Spending is part of a functioning economy but it isn't the driver. Cuba can spend as much money as it wants. MMT completely ignores the supply side. Production and innovation drives standards of living. The goal is to maximize productivity. The government is wasteful and unproductive. Government spending doesn't face a market test. Government spending takes productive workers and resources from the private sector and puts them to work inefficiently. Then there are the practical problems with government spending even if you ignore the productivity argument. Government spending isn't a faucet you can turn on and off. You have to pass legislation and figure out how to spend that money. That is time consuming. Then it isn't like you can just turn spending off once it starts. "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."
    73 replies | 1246 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-11-2018, 12:24 PM
    I'll take the contrarian view. I like HOAs. If someone wants to paint their garage a goofy color or if people are loud or if someone doesn't maintain their property, those affect me even though they don't violate my property rights. That is a choice I make and someone makes living in a sub with a HOA. As far dogs, I like the idea of banning dogs altogether - they shit and people do a bad job scooping up after them, they are loud, and some can be dangerous. If you are dog lover, that's fine. People should be able to make different choices where they live. In this case, the HOA should probably grandfather in dogs. But a perfectly free society would have lots of private restrictions on freedom. As long as they aren't blanket government restrictions people always have choices.
    102 replies | 1219 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-10-2018, 03:25 PM
    http://www.newsweek.com/white-people-should-stop-panicking-about-losing-their-land-south-africa-871477 Absolutely chilling. I don't differentiate between Nazis and the author of the opinion piece. Property rights are human rights.
    2 replies | 115 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-10-2018, 07:16 AM
    Posting facts is manufacturing conflict and against the rules?
    81 replies | 1291 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-09-2018, 01:09 PM
    I am sure these new knife control laws will work. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/knives-ban-london-stabbings-home-delivery-online-government-crackdown-a8293686.html
    3 replies | 127 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-09-2018, 06:48 AM
    When you make housing a right, using government violence to take property becomes acceptable and normal. This isn't just a socialist, this is almost mainstream left wing. Two good examples. https://www.thenation.com/article/remembering-allende/ "Remembering Allende His dual commitment to socialism and democracy ought to be a model today." The Nation praises a guy who confiscated 5000 family farms without compensation from people who had too much to give to people who had too little. A little starvation and hyperinflation never hurt anyone. It's democracy. http://cafehayek.com/2016/05/joseph-stiglitz-met-with-and-praised-hugo-chavez.html "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appears to have had success in bringing health and education to the people in the poor neighborhoods of Caracas,to those who previously saw few benefits of the countries oil wealth"
    38 replies | 443 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-08-2018, 10:41 AM
    Tony Robbins gave the economics 101 answer that discrimination lawsuits discourage hiring. But of course, the science of economics is a Koch Brothers conspiracy.
    6 replies | 189 view(s)
  • Krugminator2's Avatar
    04-07-2018, 12:10 PM
    No it isn't. That was the first thing that came to mind and is actually the specific thing I linked to. Read my post again. Your post proves the point Williamson was making. Ron Paul is in the same category as Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. People treat them as religious figures that are somehow immune to even mild legitimate criticism. Even around the time that article was published Williamson still was pretty complimentary to Ron Paul, especially given the publication he worked for. As an example, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ron-paul-dropping-reality-bomb-gop-field-kevin-d-williamson/
    84 replies | 1669 view(s)
More Activity
About Krugminator2

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,212
Posts Per Day
1.63
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:20 PM
Join Date
08-01-2014
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


06-10-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 54 1231151 ... LastLast

04-19-2018


04-18-2018


04-17-2018


04-16-2018


04-12-2018



Page 1 of 54 1231151 ... LastLast