Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Read the Footnotes on October 19, 2019, 04:43:23 PM

Title: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Read the Footnotes on October 19, 2019, 04:43:23 PM
It looks like Trump has decided that a new front runner has emerged and he has directed his attention to attacking Romney.

Link to article and the Swiftboating add:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/466553-trump-knocks-romney-as-democrat-secret-asset-in-new-video

Ironic that Trump was a Democrat and Romney was not, but facts don't matter.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Read the Footnotes on November 07, 2019, 02:54:28 PM
I have previously said at investor conferences/presentations (and on this board) that I think one likely scenario is that two strong frontrunners will emerge in Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney for 2020.

That sounded a bit nutty long ago when neither were declared, but it looks like we are one step closer to that prospect as Bloomberg prepares to file for a presidential primary. A study of recent presidential elections could lead one to believe that there is not only no first mover advantage, but there is likely a first mover disadvantage, if anything. Bloomberg seems smart enough to realize that.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/bloomberg-preparing-to-file-for-alabama-presidential-primary-000322
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Gregmal on November 07, 2019, 02:56:33 PM
I love the idea of Bloomberg running. Totally de risks a lot of the apocalypse scenario.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: cubsfan on November 07, 2019, 03:27:19 PM
I love the idea of Bloomberg running. Totally de risks a lot of the apocalypse scenario.

Agree - competing against all the nut bags should be easy - and should make life a lot tougher for Trump.

Maybe the Democratic Party won't melt down.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Spekulatius on November 07, 2019, 04:33:20 PM
I have previously said at investor conferences/presentations (and on this board) that I think one likely scenario is that two strong frontrunners will emerge in Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney for 2020.

That sounded a bit nutty long ago when neither were declared, but it looks like we are one step closer to that prospect as Bloomberg prepares to file for a presidential primary. A study of recent presidential elections could lead one to believe that there is not only no first mover advantage, but there is likely a first mover disadvantage, if anything. Bloomberg seems smart enough to realize that.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/bloomberg-preparing-to-file-for-alabama-presidential-primary-000322

That was a pretty prescient call. I also agree that Bloomberg is a great candidate and by far the most qualified. I do wonder if the late start makes it more difficult to elbow into the top contender field.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: LC on November 07, 2019, 06:43:26 PM
Bloomberg was a pretty good mayor, I think we as a country could do a lot worse with him as Pres. In fact, we currently are!
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: SouthernYankee on November 07, 2019, 07:00:17 PM
Bloomberg WAS a pretty good mayor. The important distinction that must be made is this: if Rudy didn't come before him and clean up the city first, Bloomberg would not have become Mayor. By the time he left, his "I know better than the rest of you" attitude was wearing thin. Of course, compared to DeBlasio, Bloomie was top-rate.

That said, do I want to replace Trump with him? Not particularly.

The people of this country need to see the corruption of Washington DC bureaucrats/entrenched politicians first hand, and the only way to do that is to keep Trump where he is. Hopefully Congress can try to do their job and get a better understanding about budgeting, as the government spends way too much money, and Trump hasn't done anything about that.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Gregmal on November 07, 2019, 07:03:36 PM
Bloomberg was a pretty good mayor, I think we as a country could do a lot worse with him as Pres. In fact, we currently are!

Too bad you have to wait another couple elections before that dirty little hood hamster AOC can be the recipient of your vote!
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Castanza on November 08, 2019, 06:59:32 AM
Bloomberg, another rich bureaucrat looking to leave his mark on society before he passes away. More tactful and qualified than Trump? Without a doubt! Will either of them bring meaningful change? Doubtful. That being said, I would take Bloomberg over Trump (Not a Romney fan).

Jacob Hornberger (LP) has some stances that would probably surprise a lot of you on both sides of the aisle.

https://jacobforliberty.com/positions/all/

https://www.fff.org/blog/

Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 07:09:49 AM
I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if Bloomberg gets the nomination.


I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: LC on November 08, 2019, 07:24:17 AM
I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!
Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 07:28:16 AM
I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!
Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

Life isn't always fun and games. Though that's mostly what the US has known for the last 40 years or so (economically).

I'm pretty confident that our flushing of the system wouldn't look like Hong Kong.

Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Gregmal on November 08, 2019, 07:32:47 AM
I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!
Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

If that is what you really think a vote for Trump is, you're beyond gone. The MSM has officially captured your brain.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Castanza on November 08, 2019, 07:39:16 AM
I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if Bloomberg gets the nomination.


I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!


I agree with you to some extent on the "reset." But I don't think you can/should manufacture that. It needs to happen organically and (if history is any indicator) it will. The quote below sums it up nicely.

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

Also I'm not sure why people are calling Bloomberg a moderate. He is far from being anything moderate and is quite far left if you look at his stances. I think he'll have a harder time getting elected than people seem to think. I am curious through as to why you would vote for Warren over Trump but not Bloomberg?

edit: And I'm not saying a "reset" is close.   
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 07:39:51 AM
People wouldn't actually vote for Trump because they lost their jobs to Mexico or China (thanks to Clinton) or government bailing out Wall St (thanks Bush and Obama!). They certainly wouldn't vote for him due to the opioid epidemic (thanks to Clinton, Bush and Obama). It's not because the system is broken and they want change.

It's because they're prejudiced, racists, whateverophobes, bigots, blah blah blah. Just all around deplorable!
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 07:46:42 AM
I might hold my nose and vote for Trump if Bloomberg gets the nomination.


I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!


I agree with you to some extent on the "reset." But I don't think you can/should manufacture that. It needs to happen organically and (if history is any indicator) it will. The quote below sums it up nicely.

“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

Also I'm not sure why people are calling Bloomberg a moderate. He is far from being anything moderate and is quite far left if you look at his stances. I think he'll have a harder time getting elected than people seem to think. I am curious through as to why you would vote for Warren over Trump but not Bloomberg?

I could be wrong about Warren but she has a history of fighting for the middle class. I think her idea for the CBPF was a very good one. I also think that levying a wealth tax (or some type of distribution) will lower the power of the wealthy and return it (somewhat) to the middle class. Plus, if Cohen is against her, she must be doing something right.

With that said, I disagree with a lot of her policies (free college, loan forgiveness). I would much rather have higher taxes to pay off the debt - even if that meant weaker economic growth. I think it creates discipline and allows for more efficiency.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: no_free_lunch on November 08, 2019, 07:59:30 AM
Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.   There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 08:19:48 AM
Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.   There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

I think by forcing the government to run a balanced budget a lot of the issues would be ironed out before there would be a budget crisis. Like, if the government wasn't running a huge deficit now, we would have probably had a recession sometime over the past 10 years. People act like recessions are terrible thing but I think they have benefits.

Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Castanza on November 08, 2019, 08:21:53 AM
Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.   There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

I agree with this. The idea that “we can do it right this time.” Always fails. Socialism is a system that utilizes unrealistic and imaginary human emotions to produce legislation which ultimately fails directly because of actual human emotions. Systems which limit power because of their understanding of human desires, motives, and emotions work the best. That’s why freedom > central planning. In other words a system that provides the least amount of leverage by a governing body is the best.

This country doesn’t need to be “fundamentally changed” as Obama said upon election. It needs to get back to its fundamentals.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 08:29:31 AM
Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.   There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

It needs to get back to its fundamentals.

Agree with this 100%. That's why a good flush is called for. ;)

Let me be clear here guys. I'm not saying I'm going to vote for Warren, Trump or anyone else right now. I probably won't make up my mind until the debates happen.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: LC on November 08, 2019, 09:14:20 AM
I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!
Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

Life isn't always fun and games. Though that's mostly what the US has known for the last 40 years or so (economically).

I'm pretty confident that our flushing of the system wouldn't look like Hong Kong.

Oh? Trump has been in office for 3 years, 2 of which he had republican control of Congress and Supreme Court. Where has the flush been?

Tell me what “flushing the system” would look like in America.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 09:33:58 AM
I actually like the apocalyptic scenarios. The system is corrupt and needs a good flush. Look at all of the folks Epstein hung out with!
Voting for a demagogue and calling it rebellion is nonsense.

Take a look at HK if you want to see what trying to "flush the system" actually looks like.

Life isn't always fun and games. Though that's mostly what the US has known for the last 40 years or so (economically).

I'm pretty confident that our flushing of the system wouldn't look like Hong Kong.

Oh? Trump has been in office for 3 years, 2 of which he had republican control of Congress and Supreme Court. Where has the flush been?

Tell me what “flushing the system” would look like in America.

This is wishful thinking on my part but I would like to see something like a balanced budget, judging people by the content of their character - not identity, a healthy middle class, having colleges not increase total cost by more than the rate of inflation (or have them on the hook for lousy students), then end of monetary policy - except in very extreme circumstances, giving more power to the IRS to audit folks, having large college endowments to pay taxes, increasing estate taxes, normalizing interest rates, reducing the power of powerful people (like Epstein and his friends), etc.

I think Trump has flushed it somewhat. I know I'm way less trusting of the media than I used to be.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: no_free_lunch on November 08, 2019, 10:23:18 AM
Stahley, I couldn't disagree more on Warren and the wealth tax.  6%, like come on.  On top of income tax.  That is an actual assault on people's assets.   There is language in the consitution which forbids this.

I think it sounds fine now because maybe it doesn't affect you, and even if i was american it wouldn't affect me.  However, just like every other government program this is just the beginning.  It starts at $50m, but then there will be a budget crisis and it will be $10m.  Then there will be some other issue and it will be $2m.  Sooner or later I think they will get to anyone who was foolish enough to save.

I think by forcing the government to run a balanced budget a lot of the issues would be ironed out before there would be a budget crisis. Like, if the government wasn't running a huge deficit now, we would have probably had a recession sometime over the past 10 years. People act like recessions are terrible thing but I think they have benefits.

I think the best way to get a balanced budget is not to expand spending.

I'm just going to respond below to some of the various posts I have seen, not necessarily all based on your comments. 

It is true that the republicans have done little to cut spending.  They cut in some areas but add in others.  However, they are in a box.  If they cut too much they will never get re-elected.  They barely got elected to begin with.   We are at a point where the best you can realistically hope for is a government that doesn't add a bunch of spending.

Let's not forget that all this spending was started by the democrats back in the 30's.  Once these programs start you can never ever get rid of them.  That was by design, if you look online you can find some quotes from Roosevelt about it.

I think it's foolish to compare Warren to Obama or Clinton's track record.  This is something completely different.  There is just no debate, you are going to massively increase the size and spend of your government. She is quite open about that.  She is going to add a bunch of taxes on the wealth (and believe me, the middle class before it's all done) to pay for it.  This is her stated agenda.  To try to compare that to the Rs with the logic that they aren't government either is a strange comparison.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 08, 2019, 11:21:28 AM
^It looks like the 'shift' happened somewhere in the 70's when we all became Keynesians, while forgetting half the story.
And its mind-boggling effect on productivity.
https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/us-industrial-productivity-labor-costs-q3-2019.html
It was fun while it lasted.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: LC on November 08, 2019, 12:03:21 PM
Oh? Trump has been in office for 3 years, 2 of which he had republican control of Congress and Supreme Court. Where has the flush been?

Tell me what “flushing the system” would look like in America.

This is wishful thinking on my part but I would like to see something like a balanced budget, judging people by the content of their character - not identity, a healthy middle class, having colleges not increase total cost by more than the rate of inflation (or have them on the hook for lousy students), then end of monetary policy - except in very extreme circumstances, giving more power to the IRS to audit folks, having large college endowments to pay taxes, increasing estate taxes, normalizing interest rates, reducing the power of powerful people (like Epstein and his friends), etc.

I think Trump has flushed it somewhat. I know I'm way less trusting of the media than I used to be.

I see.

Balanced budget: Trump has the largest deficit outside of a recession. He just added a cool trillion due to fiscal irresponsibility (lower taxes, higher spending)

Judging people by the content of their character: Is this something the President is responsible for?
Not like he does anyways...otherwise I guess his kid and kid's husband are the most qualified senior white house advisors. His administration has the record of the most staff turnover (34% of his initial staff!) and an increasing amount of Trump allies find themselves in handcuffs.

Healthy middle class: Just about every datapoint shows the middle and lower class share of the past 10 years bull market has paled in comparison to the upper class.

Colleges not increase total cost by more than the rate of inflation - hasn't happened (https://www.jasonscottmontoya.com/images/2019/06/cost-tuition-over-time.png)

End of monetary policy - except in very extreme circumstances - hasn't happened (https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm)

More power to the IRS to audit folks - hasn't happened (https://www.atr.org/trump-budget-cuts-irs-funding-239-million)

Large college endowments to pay taxes- 2017 tax code levies 1.4% tax on endowment investment income. About 50 institutions quality. A whole 1.4%, or an estimated $200MM assuming an 6-8% gain on eligible endowments. (https://econofact.org/the-university-endowment-tax-who-will-pay-it-and-why-was-it-implemented)

Increasing estate tax- hasn't happened. Trump actually decreased the effective rate in 2017. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2017/12/21/final-tax-bill-includes-huge-estate-tax-win-for-the-rich-the-22-4-million-exemption/)

Normalizing interest rates - Hasn't happened. Rates are incredibly low. (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DGS30)

Reducing the power of powerful people - hasn't happened (here's the most recent example: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article102356882.html)

I mean, AT MOST you can get progress on the Endowment tax which amounts to a paltry $200MM per year. This is a rounding error compared this year's budget increase.



So you have zero progress on the metrics you list but, somehow, you conclude "I think Trump has flushed it somewhat"
How do you explain this?
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 12:06:30 PM
lc,

Do I seem like a Trump supporter? I didn't say he would carry out those policies which is why I lean toward Warren.

We should give him credit where it's due. For instance, he moved the carried interest loophole from 1 year to 3. Obama had 8 years to do it and did...nothing.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 12:07:32 PM
^It looks like the 'shift' happened somewhere in the 70's when we all became Keynesians, while forgetting half the story.
And its mind-boggling effect on productivity.
https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/us-industrial-productivity-labor-costs-q3-2019.html
It was fun while it lasted.


Why be more productive when we can just grow the deficit? Economic growth. It's like magic!
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Castanza on November 08, 2019, 12:25:27 PM
^It looks like the 'shift' happened somewhere in the 70's when we all became Keynesians, while forgetting half the story.
And its mind-boggling effect on productivity.
https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/us-industrial-productivity-labor-costs-q3-2019.html
It was fun while it lasted.

We have a winner. Hayekians > Keynesians
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: LC on November 08, 2019, 01:28:35 PM
lc,

Do I seem like a Trump supporter? I didn't say he would carry out those policies which is why I lean toward Warren.

We should give him credit where it's due. For instance, he moved the carried interest loophole from 1 year to 3. Obama had 8 years to do it and did...nothing.

You claimed that "Trump somewhat flushed the system". When I asked what that meant, you provided 10 criteria.

Of those ten:
Trump has passed on 1 item;
Actually gotten worse on 6 items;
Has not changed on 3 items.

Well, using your own metrics suggest that Trump has not flushed anything. Instead he has added to the problem.

But now the story is carried interest, "credit where credit is due", and that Warren would do a better job on those criteria.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: stahleyp on November 08, 2019, 01:42:08 PM
lc,

Do I seem like a Trump supporter? I didn't say he would carry out those policies which is why I lean toward Warren.

We should give him credit where it's due. For instance, he moved the carried interest loophole from 1 year to 3. Obama had 8 years to do it and did...nothing.

You claimed that "Trump somewhat flushed the system". When I asked what that meant, you provided 10 criteria.

Of those ten:
Trump has passed on 1 item;
Actually gotten worse on 6 items;
Has not changed on 3 items.

Well, using your own metrics suggest that Trump has not flushed anything. Instead he has added to the problem.

But now the story is carried interest, "credit where credit is due", and that Warren would do a better job on those criteria.

I think there is some confusion. I didn't mean that Trump "flushed" the system by my criteria.

I meant he flushed the system by showing how biased the media is. He's also spot on with China.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: Cigarbutt on November 08, 2019, 04:54:36 PM
Why be more productive when we can just grow the deficit? Economic growth. It's like magic!
Then you may want to look into the concept of debt or credit intensity. The idea comes from globalist organizations that drain US funds in order to publish useless papers. The 'experts' talk about concepts such as the marginal utility of debt (which can be an incredibly useful concept in distressed investing and the identification of the fulcrum security for individual names, a specific topic which would be infinitely more exciting than discussing macro topics in a tribal political thread) and, if I understand correctly, the idea has to do with the unfalsifiable evidence that developed economies (and China more recently and more convincingly), in a conceptual way, need a progressively more significant amount of leverage in order to produce a unit of incremental growth in GDP. The econometric models are way above my limited analytical skills and, unlike Elon Musk who reasons on first principles, I have to resort to more basic reasoning which, in this case, implies using analogies. So, in addiction parlance, there is a well known phenomenon related to habituation which refers to the fact that, in order to simply maintain an effect, the addict must use a progressively larger dose leading to very unsustainable consequences. Of course, the addict is not (or does not want to be) aware of this phenomenon and often overlooks the detrimental and cumulative effect on productivity. Because of multiple biases and incomplete knowledge, I've come to think that the 2007-9 episode was simply an episode where another dealer, a very public and explicit one, took over. Contrary to Mr. Romney who suggested that 47% of people were deplorables, the new guy in charge, the greatest salesman of all times for whom bankruptcies was just a cost of doing business, has been able to somehow rally a majority supporting the greatest deficits and debt to GDP in peace time. I guess it's like magic.
We have a winner. Hayekians > Keynesians
Then you may want to look into youtube videos that confront, in a humorous way, Mr. Keynes and Mr. Hayek. IMO, the unfortunate historical outcome has been the incomplete application of the relevant aspects of both perspectives. I think it's called the path of least resistance, which may not lead to an optimal outcome. If you made it this far, I'd like to share that I followed the HSA thread that you started recently even if health care is free in the US Protectorate where I live. What's the link between HSAs and this thread? The HSAs in your great again country are used to their full extent only by about 5% of HSA account holders (the rest of holders use them as equivalent to checking accounts) so I submit that saving for later is a dead concept for most. Contemporary to the initiation of your HSA thread, I set up an appointment for my third child (who just reached 18, legal age in my immature country) with a local bank representative in order to open an account (called a TFSA in Kanada, a typical tax-deferred account similar to HSAs but which can be used for any purposes and which is used as a checking account by a large majority). The bank person forcibly offered many credit options (from credit card with rewards, LOC, to other various debts, student-type or otherwise) and was incredibly disappointed to learn that my daughter simply wanted to open a tax-deferred account. "Why would somebody do that at age 18", she said, adding that she had never seen this before (forgetting that I had met her with my older daughter 3 years ago for the exact same procedure). To answer, and taking into account that it had not sunk in the first around, I just said that a financial planner advised to do so obviating the need to explain that a 5000$ (CDN) "investment" made at birth in an in-trust account had become sufficient (avoiding mostly any taxation through capital gains reported on the child's declaration) to fund the yearly contributions of the new adult-only tax-deferred account while the in-trust fund had reached escape velocity in the sense that it would likely continue to grow despite the annual withdrawals and would allow the holder of the initial 5000$ investment to have amassed a net worth superior to the median CDN household wealth by age 30. My kids don't want to hear about Hayek or Keynes but I use the concept of thrift described by Hayek and use the Keynes concept of alternating cycles in spending and saving, underlining though the very contrarian idea that it's easier (at least from my perspective) to save first.
Title: Re: Welcome President Romney 2020
Post by: no_free_lunch on November 09, 2019, 05:34:06 AM
You have hit on the real reason or one of for the wealth gap. It seems intuitive that saving rate has an impact on net worth. I could believe that there are simply no funds for investment but the cars on the road would imply otherwise.

There are other factors of course. Globalization and automation are probably hg eadwinds for the middle and lower class but when you have a culture that frowns on saving, what else would you expect.