I was about to make a joke that it looked like they could go about another 69.8%. Now I'm glad I waited.
What does that even signify, a federal bank owning >100% of its attached country's GDP? Debt in excess of produced value, i.e., the country being underwater?
Ok, but they don't control inflation. At some point, I think it's obvious that printing money becomes counterproductive. But where exactly is that line?
The Bank of Japan, can actually control inflation, because, as we have determined, they control the interest rate. Also, if necessary, the government could raise taxes and run a surplus to diminish inflationary pressures.
But those are moot points, because the problem of Japan for the last 20 years has been deflation, not inflation. Despise that, as you can see in the comments here, there are people that still predict inflation in the future.
They don’t control inflation. But all of the warnings about hyperinflation being “right around the corner” have remained hilariously false. So who knows?
What if we alter that analogy to a person who makes 100k/yr with a 110k mortgage, and next year they make 101k with a 115k mortgage, and next year they make 102k with a 120k mortgage, and so on?
Misses the point, but sure, "student loans" is a fair comparison. The name doesn't matter to me, it's all debt.
I don't see it as "technically" fine that the rate at which the debt grows consistently exceeds the rate at which the income grows. There comes a point in time in which the principal of the debt is large enough that minimum payments exceed income.
This is not how reserve banking works, doesn't reflect how much the US pays to service it's bonds, misses the fact that the fed creates new money and loans it out, it doesn't have obligations it can default on, misses the fact that the US would have to default on its debt to erase it, misses the fact that there isn't that much gold in the world (if the us stole every oz of gold on the planet it would have to devalue it's currency by half to return to the gold standard)
The claim that the Fed is somehow "private" has been rebutted millions of times. Google has an explainer above its search results: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&sxsrf=ALe.... The structure is a historical artefact with some private elements, but it is entirely controlled by governments and the private banks notionally holding some shares have no voting rights nor do they receive dividends.
Continuing to use this conspiracy theory can only be considered bad faith.
The liabilities of the Fed [0] are money in circulation, reserves accounts of banks (mainly to meet requirements) and the deposits of the Treasury. Besides the fact that it is not clear why the Fed may collapse when they can create money to pay back their liabilities, I am not sure what it would mean for the Fed to default on the bills and coins in circulation (?) or to wipe out the accounts of banks when those very banks are legally bound to hold money in those accounts.
"... With no federal debt to pay interest on, personal income taxes are going away. The whole wealth transfer mechanism of the central bank system gets cut off."
"2nd Edit: Also, notice how the IRS dealine for filing and pay has been delayed, for the first time in history? Because Trump ordered it. The IRS isn't even pursuing collection actions on old taxes owed. The filing deadline is going to get moved again to the end of the year, mark my words."
Why would going to a gold backed currency imply that debt would be wiped out? I can see the machiavellian reasoning for spending trillions of debt financed dollars if you know you're going to default, but I don't get how the gold standard helps.
I could believe that Trump wants to do one or both, but I don't see them as connected in a coherent way.
Destroying the petro-dollar was critical to breaking the central bank rule. You can't back money with oil right now. What's the current price per barrel of oil again?
Selling off the US petroleum reserve helped force the glut of oil on the market. Trump unloaded it when oil was high, and now he's refilling the tank with super cheap crude. Heck, every tanker in the world is trying to get their oil into the US petroleum reserve right now.
What do you back money with if not gold?
You all think Trump is a bumbling idiot but you are going to feel gut punched after he's played his hand. And, he hasn't even broken suit to trump his opponent yet!
Even if I didn't think that this entire prediction was completely ridiculous and not based on how our monetary system works, at all, I would still know it is total b.s. simply because it implies that Trump has some strategic master plan.
The man doesn't plan to the end of the sentence before he starts vomiting words. He's not planning a masterful takeover of our monetary system.
Why are the feds able to inject so much money into the system these days without much push back? While during the 2008 Crisis Hank Paulson had such difficulty with getting 700 billion injected?
That 700 billion was Treasury money. The Fed at the time also engaged in trillions of dollars of quantitative easing, similar to what they’re doing now. I would guess the reason the Fed is going all in this time is because there was consensus among the decision makers that last time we were too slow - we did QE but it took years. I assume they think that if we hit it hard now, we can shorten the recession period. Also this time there is more unified and obvious support from “the people”. Rather than bailing out bankers and all the hazards that come with that, everyone is getting a check, so everyone is more on board.
Interesting. What is the difference between Treasury Money and money coming from the Federal reserve? Was the 700 billion of Treasury money at that time a loan that had to be paid back while today, they're simply increasing the money supply?
> Why are the feds able to inject so much money into the system these days without much push back? While during the 2008 Crisis Hank Paulson had such difficulty with getting 700 billion injected?
Hank Paulson was the Secretary of the Treasury. Both the Fed and the Treasury have the power to create money, but in different ways (and the side-effects of each method are different).
IBM did 140 billion in stock buy backs in the last decade.
They have a 100 Billion dollar market cap.
I think that is a bit of what we have going on right now. A system propped up by injected cash, which works for now because everyone plays along. Most of this injected money goes into the pockets of the rich, who are the ones holding the assets that the FED is bailing out. Modern extreme economic inequality is a function of monetary policy, not political policy.
> IBM did 140 billion in stock buy backs in the last decade.
And? What is the alternative, and is it any better?
> IBM has effectively been dead money for the last decade. They’re up 20%, including dividends, versus 315% for the tech index (XLK). IBM currently has a market cap of ~$100 billion, so when people hear they spent $45 billion on buybacks while their share price went down 38%, people get angry. I get it, it’s an easy argument to make.
> But a better argument, which Jake made recently is that poorly managed companies like IBM are doing the right thing by returning cash to shareholders. That’s $45 billion into the hands of investors who can then take that money and actually invest it in companies that are, you know, not terrible. Would the anti-buyback crowd be happier if IBM invested that $45 billion and had a negative ROI? And what about the $76 billion they “wasted” on dividends? Why does this return of capital to shareholders escape criticism? More on this in a minute.
If IBM invested the money into actual research and product development - that would mean the money still enters the economy via the workers doing the research and development. I feel like this point isn't emphasised well enough in the quote above - and I wonder if the "anti buyback crowd" would have anything to say against that.
Sure, but that would be research done by IBM. That would still be money spent - the researchers still get paid - but it might be less likely to result in usable technology and sellable products than if someone else did it.
The point isn't just to give people money to spend. IBM is not a basic income operation. The point is to develop and make stuff that people want to buy, and IBM arguably has been doing less well at that than others. So letting the money go to the others who are doing better seems like a reasonable plan.
(I doubt that IBM was thinking of it in this way, though...)
That presumes that IBM knows how to create something of value with its R&D department. If the R&D department is just finding faster ways to answer Jeopardy questions, real resources are going to waste. Those smart people could be doing important work somewhere else.
> Bingo. Would you rather have a poorly managed company hold on to their cash and spend it internally, or return it to shareholders?
It's not an either/or. A poorly managed company can make itself more dysfunctional by neglecting investment and returning too much cash to shareholders.
>Bingo. Would you rather have a poorly managed company hold on to their cash and spend it internally, or return it to shareholders?
I think it's a bunch of bs the way you are wording this. I know these are not your words alone, it's what people say.. but it's so misleading!
You say "return it to shareholders". Well, no. A dividend is returning to shareholders.. that's what a dividend is.
A stock repurchase is basically nothing more than the company buying back stock, and giving holders the option to sell theirs to the company..
The investor can sell the damn stock any time they want... this is NOT "returning it to shareholders".
It is a completely convoluted way to arbitrarily do a bunch of fancy things to both use cash, get stock, prop up the price even more since there is a buy pressure..
> A stock repurchase is basically nothing more than the company buying back stock, and giving holders the option to sell theirs to the company.
The point of a stock repurchase program is to decrease the number of shares on issue and therefore increase the value of each share. Theoretically share price = market cap / shares on issue.
Market cap equals share price times number of shares. But that equation can't be rearranged. Share price equals what the last person was willing to buy the stock at.
Buying back stock does raise the price. But only because it clears out the sellers that are willing to sell at lower prices and leaves the higher ask prices.
IBM may or may not be a good example, but I think the overall critique holds here.
Stock buy backs weren't a thing until a SEC rule change in the 80's, this is a relatively new phenomenon and not intrinsic to a functioning market.
Home Depot could have given their employees massive raises with the amount they've spent on buybacks (15 billion in buybacks in February 2019 alone). With ~400,000 employees, that could be a $37,500 bonus to every employee for the year...
The scale of that is breathtaking - and instead of spreading the love around, it goes to the shareholders and C level alone.
>Stock buy backs weren't a thing until a SEC rule change in the 80's, this is a relatively new phenomenon and not intrinsic to a functioning market.
Buybacks and dividends are essentially equivalent. This comment shows a distinct lack of understanding. Of course home depot could return their profits to employees, but then it wouldn't be a business. Home depot's sole reason for existing is to return money to shareholders. If they don't do that leadership would be fired.
Ahh the old "shareholders are the only thing that matters" argument.
Buybacks and dividends are not equivalent, buybacks are tax advantaged in ways that dividends are not.
We've allowed numerous companies to get to a size where they are "too big to fail". They know they are too big to fail, and they get to take advantage of this position. They get to go into near unlimited amounts of debt to finance buybacks to enrich shareholders and C levels, and when times are good this all works out. When the economy enters a downturn and they don't have cash on hand to weather the storm, they know the Fed will be there to bail them out.
Something is fundamentally broken here. You can reasonably argue whether it is with the buybacks, or the bailout, but this system is fucked.
Companies like Home Depot and IBM aren't usually considered 'too big to fail', so these aren't really great examples for the point you're trying to make.
> Buybacks and dividends are not equivalent, buybacks are tax advantaged in ways that dividends are not.
[citation needed; location specific]
Here in Canada both capital gains and dividends of Canadian companies have special tax treatments.
Also remember: in both cases the money leaving the company are profits, which are (should be?) taxed at the corporate tax rate. So the government should be/is getting a cut already. The recipient of the money (either buyback or dividend) is then getting taxed again(?) potentially.
> Home Depot could have given their employees massive raises with the amount they've spent on buybacks
Each company can decide how they pay their employees. If Home Depot had wanted to pay their employees with stock options, they would have been free to do so.
It turns out it usually works out best for both the company and the employees to receive a fixed amount of cash. If the employee wants to use the cash to buy shares or options, that's up to them.
And dividends/buybacks are a reasonable choice. It moves the choice of whether to invest into new markets to the investors instead of dictating it from above. Companies like Google are blown out of proportion in comparison to the part that actually makes the money, all in order to find the next toothbrush product that may never come. The core Google products barely changed in the last 5 years, yet the employee count almost doubled. Great for the engineers who get the cushy 200k comp jobs, but not great for investors.
Even if we take at face value the idea that the products have barely changed, which I completely disagree with, this explanation vastly underestimates how many engineers it takes to scale the infrastructure it takes to run Google Search, Google Cloud, YouTube, etc.
Saying "Google hasnt changed" is somewhat of a disservice to what Alphabet is. Its an investment firm / publicly traded venture capital stock, and one of their main holdings is Google. Their future growth potential is much more than just Google, despite Google being their current source of revenue. I would hope, over time, Google Ads being 80% of Alphabets revenue drops and drops, and if I were investing in Alphabet that would be the reason, not to buy into Ad Words ownership.
> The core Google products barely changed in the last 5 years
Frontend development and UI updates are not the only way progress is made on the technical infrastructure in technology companies. How do we know that Google isn't battling an adversarial web with 1000s of engineers just to keep the search quality where it is? It must be quite an arms race to behold between Google teams and the coordinated and well motivated spammers, scammers and other bad actors (who also might be leveraging automation, AI and more!)
Google's stock price is well over double today compared to five years ago--and that's even after the recent volatility. It is quite far ahead of the S&P 500 over those five years.
If you think that's "not great for investors", then I don't know what to tell you.
It's a little hard to eyeball, but profits per employee has been on a long upward trend too, except for 2019, where it fell substantially, but note the revenue gains above--that didn't just magically appear [2].
Also great for all the managers and VPs who get to put on their CV that they managed a team of n engineers that worked on X to increase Y key metric by an insignificant amount or that they created a new product that will get the can in 9 months
Part of what allows a company to have insane cashflow is issuing corporate bonds at artificially low prices because the Treasury is manipulated by the Fed.
That doesn't inherently follow at all. It very much depends on the company in question. IBM has a very profitable business and has for the past decade.
They're paying around mid 2.x% interest on their debt ($1.3b interest expense last fiscal year). You can double that rate, and IBM can safely handle the cost. They can afford to pay far higher interest rates on their debt while still producing excellent profitability.
A stock buyback is theoretically the same as a dividend, in that it should reduce market cap by roughly the amount of the buyback.
I do agree with your sentiment though. I feel like the wealthy in this country have developed the perfect scheme for leeching the wealth from this country. We will only know how bad it was after the postmortem, at which point, we will be (figuratively) dead.
I think it's more subtle now, though, and harder to be aware of.
Back in the day, robber-barons simply exploited the working class through substandard working conditions, and outright theft of money or property [citation needed].
Now, though, you need a deep understanding of global monetary policy, tax law, and labor laws to be able to connect the dots.
So I would argue that now is different from earlier times in history, because those who are exploiting the system have finally figured out how to a) hide it well enough, and b) co-op members of the classes being exploited to fight for those doing the exploiting through misdirection and propaganda.
That's the craziest part of all of this. The exploited actively support the politicians who cause maximum exploitation and vilify those who would actually help them. It's insane.
Isn't that why they are politicians though? Because they were able to promise one thing to the masses and deliver another to their funders? If they were bad at that, they wouldnt get propped up.
Honestly, it just doesn't make sense. And my experience, when you sit down with, and I'm going to say extremely conservative people because they are the ones I would put in this category, and explain it to them using facts, they just dig in their heels and ignore you. Humans. What weird things.
Source: I talk politics with family all the time; I'm vilified as the weirdo, brainwashed, college liberal in a family of conservatives.
Yes. The reason I say theoretically is because, from a business perspective, they aren't different. Whether you buy your own stock or distribute a dividend shouldn't matter from a market cap perspective. It's still cash the company used to have, but no longer does and the market cap will reflect both equally.
Now some investors prefer buybacks for tax reasons, others may not. It depends entirely upon how they invest. If you're a buy-and-hold, then it's favorable due to lack of taxes, but if you rebalance a lot (which most mutual funds do), then it doesn't matter.
>A stock buyback is theoretically the same as a dividend
I don't think that is true at all.
A dividend is literally "We are paying out some amount of cash. If our stock price is $40 and we give $5 to each shareholder the shares should immediately go down to $35". Although since the stock price should be a NPV of the company's cash flow, they technically have even less working capital to create returns over the years, so I think the price should go down by even more than $5.. but that's a different discussion...
In a stock buyback.. let's say the price is $40 and they buy the equivalent of $5 back from the market. Well.. yes they gave away $5 but they also gained $5 of value because they are now holding the shares. It's a net zero transaction if their stock price doesn't change from it. Which.. it shouldn't unless you think it's a signal of something. Yes there's a bit more details, but value is not "given away" in the same sense.
In the dividend example, the company gave away money.
In a stock repurchase, they gave away money in return for shares of (almost) equal value.
When companies do buybacks they don't control the shares they buyback, the shares disappear. The market cap of the company decreases because they know have less assets but the stock price doesn't because the cap is split over less shares. Either way, the market cap theoretically decreases by the amount paid out.
21st century IBM is effectively a labor arbitrage firm. They buy labor in low cost countries and sell it in high cost countries. They are not the platform tech company they were in the 60s to the 80s. Labor arbitrage can be a good business, but there is much more competition than in platform technology. The competition constrains both profits and growth.
Why is firing workers inconsistent with paying dividends? They kind of feel like two sides of the same coin: a company can't find a better return on its capital so it divests itself of the resource (labor or cash).
Most dividends are treated as 'qualified,' meaning that they are taxes as LT cap gains. So in that respect, the tax treatment is the same as selling the appreciated stock at a profit.
The big difference is that you're forced to pay taxes on a dividend the year you receive it, while you can theoretically defer capital gains taxes forever in a reinvestment scenario. Practically speaking though, most people own mutual funds that rebalance every year or so (think, S&P500 index fund), and pay out LT Cap Gains quarterly/yearly. So for most investors, there's not a huge difference between the two.
Additionally, there are schemes to allow for different tax treatment on dividends, such as capital dividends or stock dividends.
It also puts assets with positive rates of return out of the hands of the common person. Kind of like how an overheated housing market makes it so you'll never own a home and are stuck paying rent forever. If you ever wanted to own a piece of America's economy and get dividends in the future, now it's priced out of reach. This inflation in investment assets further cements the division between those that have to work 9-5 for a living, and those that have enough investments to live off their returns and not worry about becoming destitute. Jumping that gap between renter and owner is harder than ever.
That's why printing cash (whether in the form of UBI or any other cash printing social program) is not a sustainable solution for lifting people out of poverty or building a healthy economy. There are always negative long term effects that end up hurting the poor and middle classes even more. Even if there's not inflation of consumer goods, there's inflation of investment grade assets.
I don't think this is a sound argument for further enriching the rich and leaving the common person to struggle. An oligarchy is not a desirable model any more than a monarchy is.
it doesn't save us from inflation, it just changes the path it takes. Rich people buy stuff too, which employee us peasants. But by the time us peasants see the money, its already inflated so we don't get the benefits.
Yes.... they have a small market cap because they are returning cash to shareholders. That is literally the idea of a buyback - to shrink the market cap.
Wouldn't a stock buyback reduce the number of outstanding shares, but keep market capitalization roughly constant? The company has less cash, but it has bought an asset of equal value with it (the shares).
Sure but what does it matter if it's "monetary policy" or "political policy"? They work hand in glove and as @mywittyname aptly states above:
"...I feel like the wealthy in this country have developed the perfect scheme for leeching the wealth from this country."
The perfect scheme involves a bailout mechanisms without question. And too many Americans are falling for the scheme with hands out for a piece of welfare from the wealthy. They are selling out the future of their country in exchange for a pittance in the process.
The scheme doesn't stop, it only exacerbates as long as the bailouts continue...bailouts for wall street, bailouts for mains street, bailouts for every day individuals = all part the scheme by design.
I'm in constant awe of how many otherwise intelligent people can't grasp the role that these "bailouts" play in perpetuating the inequality gap. That, or they happen to be on a certain side of things and don't want to know what it's like to be on the other when the gravy-train stops flowing...
Oh I agree with all your conclusions. However, I think politicians have leveraged monetary policy to gain political points for decades. Rather than tell people we have to cut programs and we have to live within our means, we've got an endless series of wars and unsustainable social programs that don't work in a world where a large chunk of the population is old (boomers), while the young population have inherited a consumption-based economy that is currently eating itself.
Other countries are failing, too. It's not a unique feature of the U.S. We're going to see a lot of nation-states struggle under the weight of their existing programs when the debt-fueled growth stops. People have lost all sense of sustainable fiscal and monetary policy.
I watched an interview on YouTube with Stephen A. Schwarzman from 'The Blackstone Group' which was really eye opening. There is a part where he explains how to multiply ROI on any investment using bank loans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kThTbLUQdU
When you take into account that the credit is printed by banks out of thin air (and more so given the latest 0% reserve requirement), it's not difficult to see why the ROI surplus derived from this 'magic trick' (as Schwarzmam refers to it) is basically free money.
Corporations and financial firms with a lot of capital have access to huge loans on favorable terms; this puts them on a different playing field than small companies which don't have much capital and can't use this 'magic trick' to multiply their earnings in the same way. Earning 30% ROI is simply not possible for most individuals and small businesses.
I suspect this is the same trick which Renaissance Technologies uses for their 'Medallion fund' to hit 66% ROI per year on average... Maybe they're able to take loans against collateral owned by their other mainstream funds.
If I have $1K in cash and I can find a bank to loan me an additional $5K... If I invest that in an asset which returns just 10% per year, given the 0% interest rate environment, I can make $600 per year in pure profit on my investment... Which is 60% ROI! Anyone can be a legendary investor... You just need to find a bank which can give you 5x leverage.
These leveraged loans which yield free surplus ROI are impossible for small businesses to access. This is why they're fundamentally unfair. The efficiency advantages of economies of scale are greatly exaggerated. The real advantage is mostly financial.
And remember, that 'leverage' credit was printed out of thin air by the bank... So any extra profit which can be derived from it by an individual or company is by definition also 'printed out of thin air'... Especially when you know you're going to get bailed out every 10 years when things go wrong - There is no risk.
If you want to take the risk of losing a multiple of sectors losses, its incredibly easy to invest in leveraged etfs. They take out loans at 2x their value, and buy 2 more shares of everything inside. So they sit on 3x stock and 2x debt.
Look at something like TQQQ, which is 50% FAAAMIN stocks 3x. Was a 488% return in the last 5 years till the crash, now its at 330%. Regular QQQ is only up 192%.
And it's still not even remotely enough. 5-year inflation expectations running at 0.67%, CPI falling. The shock to aggregate demand is being allowed to exceed the supply shock. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T5YIE
How is that supposed to work? I can understand if this were a normal cyclical pullback, but this isn't a normal times; there is actual economic destruction wrought by a real (non-monetary) shock to supply. In order to believe this helps, you have to imagine it happening by this mechanism:
"Can you lend to our business that's not allowed to operate and probably won't pay you back?"
'lol no. ... wait, I just got off the phone with our credit line. We can borrow at 3% instead of 3.25%. What's your business model again?'
Usually, destroying some of the supply, but holding the flow of money fixed, means that the remaining items will be bid up. If instead prices are falling, it means that the secondary financial effects of the real shock are exceeding the impact of the real shock itself. If the flow of money is slowing down, one should create more money to avoid worsening the real shock through financial reverberations.
If there are actual, viable ventures right now, given the new conditions, then their lenders' investment probably doesn't hinge on whether the Fed is slightly more lose with credit than the ultra-loose policy it's had for the past year.
Fiscal policy creates debt that needs to be repaid. Ordinary monetary policy involves swapping new currency for very stable assets like Treasury bonds that can be sold back later to destroy the currency. As much aggregate demand as possible should therefore be created by ordinary monetary policy, since it's cheaper (and faster and easier).
As the QE programs have showed, you don't get any demand by creating more reserves in a depression. For those reserves to get traction over the economy you need somebody that borrow from the banks.
But monetary policy is quite unfair in that it benefits the wealthy / institutionals most (e.g. through buying of junk bonds) while inflating the money of all other people
And there will be NO inflation because this money is largely going to corporations who will figure out ways to maximize ROI -> invest it in the financial market. So although there might inflation of equity prices (as seen by the recovery of the S&P and other equities), the world is still out of work and starving and without the dollars to drive demand and price increases of goods and services.
We need to separate financial money flows (Gross Financial Product?) from the GDP to really know what is going on.
I have a hard time believing that real estate prices will explode.
From what i can see the prices are expected to go down, mostly due to the fact that there's less ppl able to buy due to many being out of work(some for a good while probably as i doubt some jobs/positions will be immediately re-filled). This same thing will cause many to go into foreclosure, this adding new supply to the real estate market. Also banks already tightening credit/loans requirements and availability. All this means larger supply than demand, no reason for real estate to go up.
This is all just starting, curious to see what the end of 2020 will bring and start of 2021.
Also the market doesn't represent the economy and right now most of the money goes into the market creating a false-positive idea that everything's fine. Just my 2 cents.
Agree. It turns out that jumbo mortgage rates are higher than regular mortgages. Banks cannot find buyers for the jumbos because of the anticipated drop in real estate value from the COVID freeze. No one wants to lend to people who might find themselves underwater on a mortgage. AGAIN.
There is quite a lot of stuff going on here, but I think it can still swing both ways. An adverse effect to the one you mentioned could be the flux of debt / bonds to the central banks and the flux of printed money to the investors. This money is looking to be invested (which happened to find real estate post 2008)
Is the song that plays on this website commonly known? The only other time I've heard it is in the video that the New Zealand mass shooter recorded, and it makes me uncomfortable that it's the same song if it is indeed not common.
Here’s how I see this going (obviously just a guess): the entire corporate financial system is now unprofitable without being bailed out with zero interest loans every 10 years. This time around, the recovery will be slow, 10 years, then another, bigger bubble will form, that will pop and get bailed out again, but the next time around it will cause fast rising inflation. The fed will have to choose between either allowing hyperinflation to happen, which will crash the dollar, or saving the dollar by jacking up interest rates but allowing a second Great Depression to occur. I think they’ll choose the latter. At that point, the right wing, funded by the desperate corporate state which needs to stem the rising tide of labor activism, will blame coastal elite liberals and immigrants for their problems and there will be some kind of fascist coup, followed potentially by war, (but probably not). This will be right at the same time as lots of mass movement of people due to climate change is happening. If a war does happen it will be because of tensions caused by people flooding across various borders. I cannot see any further ahead than that.
> At that point, the right wing, funded by the desperate corporate state which needs to stem the rising tide of labor activism, will blame coastal elite liberals and immigrants for their problems and there will be some kind of fascist coup, followed potentially by war, (but probably not).
You had me until "funded by the desperate corporate state", who want absolutely nothing to do with the right wing. If anything, we'll see a continued rise in Totalitarian Liberalism rather than any kind of right-wing renaissance.
> there will be some kind of fascist coup
You need a Great Man for that, and there are none on the horizon.
The corporate state in Weimar Germany was faced with a popular communist movement, and to defeat it they threw money at the fascists, who they saw as the only credible opposition. But, history never repeats, it may go down differently next time. Just look at how the supposedly left wing media responded to Bernie Sanders. When money is on the line, they will align with the right wing. Plus, left wing is by definition a movement that opposes the current power hierarchies in society. Look it up on Wikipedia.
By that standard, none of the people you would call totalitarian liberals are left wing at all, they’re just corporatists with socially liberal virtue signaling. Trust me when I say that those people are the very first to suppress labor strikes or call the cops on protesters. They would absolutely support a fascist coup if it was their only way to keep their money, power and influence.
> Plus, left wing is by definition a movement that opposes the current power hierarchies in society. Look it up on Wikipedia.
A foolish movement that doesn't recognize that power and competency hierarchies are endemic to nature and are a part of any human organization. The moment the current system is torn down, the rhetoric of the Left fails as it offers no actual method towards constructing anything meaningful - this is left to men who actually build and maintain things, who all recognize the fundamental nature of the hierarchy if anything is to actually be accomplished. A few years after every leftist revolution, there's a shittier version of the same basic hierarchy in place, equality is never achieved, and as many people starve as before.
> none of the people you would call totalitarian liberals are left wing at all
Agreed, they're just the left-side position in the false dichotomy. And probably none of the people you'd consider "right wing" are at all right wing by the standards of the real right, they're just the right-side of the same dichotomy, established to prevent anyone from actually upsetting the applecart in the name of real change.
> They would absolutely support a fascist coup if it was their only way to keep their money, power and influence.
So would just about every normal working class citizen, if they had the opportunity and if the populist values were sufficiently representative of their own. The problem is that fascism has been grossly misrepresented as simply being totalitarianism, when it is actually an ethos and aesthetic towards the upward construction of a nation in the interest of its families that is (obviously) considered undesirable by globalists.
Why is printing money a bad thing at this point in time?
I see two strong reasons that printing money is the right move:
1) Wealth inequality is high relative to recent history. Printing money is a very effective way to even some of that out. Possibly the only form of 'wealth tax' that can actually be executed successfully.
2) The US debt / GDP fraction is still relatively low compared to many other countries.
> Printing money is a very effective way to even some of that out. Possibly the only form of 'wealth tax' that can actually be executed successfully.
This only holds if the wealthy are holding their wealth as USD, not assets. This is not the case. The wealthy do not typically have Scrooge McDuck-style vaults of cash laying around waiting to be inflated away.
The wealthy do not typically have vaults of cash, but they do invest most of their money in companies which often do have large USD reserves. The vast majority of their wealth is greatly impacted by the relative value of USD.
So what would be different between two similar countries, one with a debt:GDP ration of 0.1 and the other with a ratio of 2? Is the only difference that the first country has more options in a time of crisis?
How much further can they go?
26 million or so recent unemployment applications and the stock market is not off much from recent all time highs.
This is more concerning than the initial falling knife mid-March.