OlDawg

I don't like government interference in private lending markets. Protecting against predatory lending practices? Sure. Setting rates? No. This Administration has already interfered way too much in the free enterprise markets in my book. This is not what I expected from a supposedly conservative, free market Administration. We've got free trade manipulation, government purchasing majority stakes in private corporations and basically nationalizing them, and desires to limit the credit lender's ability to minimize risk in their own practices. While I don't think limiting some people's access to 'easy credit' is a bad thing, it's not government's job. The only thing government manipulation has ever done is interfere with the free market, and they have a horrible track record of picking winners and losers.

Good summary article on the current state of personal finances. The actual numbers may surprise many. (Hint: Personal debt to income is at its lowest level since the 90’s.) [Hidden Content] Well done to those who are finally becoming more financially responsible. This is the real key to personal freedom.

La Porte Lady Dawgs vs Austin Anderson Tuesday, Feb. 24, 5:00 pm Brenham HS

Cuomo has no clue yet. He’s judging based on the wrong criteria & way too soon. The goal of tariffs was to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. That won’t happen overnight. While I may not be a fan, it’s too soon to know if they’re successful at the core goal yet.

I believe tariffs have only brought in about 1% of the national debt. That’s before some will probably be refunded. It would have been much better to cut spending from a fiscal standpoint. Of course, we know that’ll never happen. Neither Party will cut. I am still hopeful some needed items can be re-onshored. That—to me—was the actual goal. It’s still up in the air, and possibly won’t be known for a few years. It’s critical to bring back some pharma & semiconductors. (Even though I dislike the government buying stakes in private firms like they have done under this administration.) I am against the nationalization of industries from a competition aspect, and a socialistic approach in private enterprise. This shouldn’t be a government function other than to provide incentives—not ownership. GM still owes us around $14 billion. I’m not sure who is really running the fiscal show from the Administration. But, I’ve always questioned some of the moves as a private enterprise/free trader. Yes, there have been some successes. There’s also been a lot of turmoil.

I wouldn’t disagree with your take. I’d debate you on your second sentence is all. I think the lockdowns did affect not only the manufacturing of goods, but also the logistics of supply. We both agree the $1.9 Trillion wasn’t needed & actually hurt. It actually accomplished nothing of note. When the Feds kept raising rates, and the extra money people received ran out, they had to pull back some. That helped cool inflation as well.

No. You don’t appear to see. The 9% was artificially inflated. The Feds raising the interest rates lowered the inflation rate more than anything the Biden Administration did. Somewhat similar to Trump. This Administration has hurt inflation coming down more due to tariff policy. The Feds maintaining a higher interest rate than needed are also affecting the slower pace of disinflation. The Fed is slowing down the drop on purpose. They want to ease into 2%. Not crash. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if the Fed target is 2%, that 1/2% is a major change one way or other when not artificially inflated. If core inflation were to hit 3%, the Fed would immediately raise 50 basis points. That’s how big a 1/2% change is when the rate is close to target.

That’s actually what he sounded like to me.

Not a fan. As I said, this needs to stop.

We could quibble all day and never come to a definite conclusion. Adding $1.9 Trillion free cash flow caused the Fed to have to raise interest rates significantly. This helped fuel inflation. Yes, the other factors you mention played a role as well. Numbers I've seen credit the IRA with raising inflation by 30-40%, with the other factors contributing the rest. So, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act actually increased inflation by around 3-3.5% in the short term.

Half a point is historically a significant drop. It just doesn't seem like much compared to the high of 9%. I made nothing up. You need to study history more.

Gonna be a good weekend to smoke a brisket for sure. I usually buy 2 when they go on sale around Memorial Day. Smoke one & freeze the other for later. We like smoking a brisket for Christmas if our kids/grandkids are coming down.

Can of no salt added Starkist in water, tbsp. of mayo, tbsp. of dill relish on a low carb tortilla. Add an apple I split with my better 1/2. 40 grams of protein, 20 grams of fiber, only 200 mg of sodium, and a bunch of vitamins. It’s a fancy lunch called a tuna wrap. Cost: About $2.75 😉

Man! Where the heck are y’all buying groceries? KROGER: Choice Boneless Beef Brisket Untrimmed Whole in Bag (Limit 1 at Sale Price) $3.99/lb. I never pay full price even before inflation. Pork Butt was $.99/lb. last week. I’m smoking it tomorrow, vacuum packing what we don’t eat for stuffed spuds, brisket enchiladas, & barbacoa tacos. We gat about 4 different meals for about $12.00 total for the main course. 😀

It’s not a punishment to say you ‘might be inclined to keep someone out’ that didn’t want to invest there in the first place. Exxon has been around a lot longer than Trump. They’ll be here long after he’s gone.

Welp...That didn't take long. NYC residents say Mamdani reneging on affordable housing promise with proposed property tax hike [Hidden Content]

No he didn’t. He offered incentives for investing—not punishment. Now, you’re just making stuff up to fit a narrative. Also, remember what I said about good policy vs. bad policy. The previous Administration’s policies stunk. It showed up immediately with over 9% inflation. Unreal. The current Administration has lowered that inflation number down significantly to a manageable rate. Question is, with the new policy fluctuations again, will they begin creeping up, or will they maintain a 2.4-2.6? The new Fed Chair will have a bearing since the benchmark interest rate should be around 3.5 right now at the high end. Either way, we need stability for investments. Promises are good. Actual tangible infrastructure investments are better. The deregulation will play a big part moving forward.

Need to remember: Good policy takes a while to show benefits. Bad policy shows up almost immediately. That’s why I’ve given time on the tariff situation. But, it’s to the point where businesses need more final clarity. Most of the clients I worked for had at least a 5 year plan for engineering projects. This is too much turmoil for them to make major investment decisions. It affects not only engineers, construction, equipment suppliers & other vendors, but also the support businesses like restaurants, safety equipment suppliers, even lodging, etc. Pretty sizable chunk of the economy. I’d expect a builder who also wants to expand our infrastructure, and wants to ‘drill baby drill’, would know this and enact policy accordingly. People sure aren’t going to invest in Venezuela when they don’t even know what’s going on here.

Out of area for basketball, so I’ll just drop here for anyone interested. Lady Dawgs 63 A&M Consol 28 La Porte Area Champs

My approach is based on policy. Nothing more. Nothing less. As @UT alum has noted, I am a fiscally conservative libertarian…the most dispassionate of the political affiliations.

Now, it will be August—at the earliest—before businesses can make longer term plans. If POTUS wants an economic boom, keeping businesses from planning isn’t the way to do it. These will be the most bogus USTR investigations in history. I’m taking bets they’ll be completed within 149 days.

He acted like a petulant child. The same way he enacted some of the tariffs in the first place. This needs to stop. You can't continue to have a global trade policy change at the whims of a single person. That would mean trade policy could change every 2-3 years at election time. That's no way to run a business, and the U.S. is basically a very big business. SCOTUS stuck with their majority textualist's interpretation. I appreciate their consistency.

This X infinity. POTUS will either have to work with Congress (doubtful—especially with early primaries going already), or find another way. Bad thing is, people will expect prices to come down and they won’t.

They didn't mention anything about having to return collected funds. Curious about that issue. FYI... The link is a live update link. So, you can continue to check it for reactions if desired.

The Supreme Court justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court's decision that the Republican president's use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority. [Hidden Content]