[Cog]

LOL Bring your leftist violence. Obama and Hillary has insured that the right is armed to the gills. I need to check my range card anyway. So by all means burn your cities down and attack Trump supporters. I'm ready for a big laugh on how that turns out.

Oh and Pete, you might want to modify or have a moderator remove your threat against Trump. Some nasty person would have reported it to the Secret Service.

Which threat was that? So many I just can't remember? You finally going full Brown Shirt now that your Nazi won?

Whoever invokes Godwin's law in an argument, loses it by default. But thanks for playing.

[Revi]

Back to when do you think the economy will crash. Since our new president plans on doubling the spending on late 20th century infrastructure and also plans on tax cuts we are going to be in serious trouble soon. Coupled with his promise to renegotiate the debt I would say an accelerated crash schedule is in the works.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... r-the-eco/

[Newfie]

Your personal financial collapse is not my concern. You should have planned for a future better.

If you want to create a pharmaceutical company and give away pills to the poor, have at it. Good luck with all that.

I thought were about personal freedom? So you want the freedom to be fleeced? Come on, use your intellect to make a better argument. But let's move it to the ACA thread.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Back to when do you think the economy will crash. Since our new president plans on doubling the spending on late 20th century infrastructure and also plans on tax cuts we are going to be in serious trouble soon. Coupled with his promise to renegotiate the debt I would say an accelerated crash schedule is in the works.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... r-the-eco/

Funny how liberals love it when THEIR man is adding $9 trillion to the deficit.

But the minute a GOP candidate discusses spending, they have a fit.

I agree that tax cuts shouldn't be in the mix until and unless we fix things like the insfrastructure, pay off all the debt, fix things like social security, medical care, etc.

But really, can you see how unbalanced your position is? But by all means, call for an "accelerated crash", as that's what short term crash meme doomers constantly do.

[Cog]

Your personal financial collapse is not my concern. You should have planned for a future better.

If you want to create a pharmaceutical company and give away pills to the poor, have at it. Good luck with all that.

I thought were about personal freedom? So you want the freedom to be fleeced? Come on, use your intellect to make a better argument. But let's move it to the ACA thread.

I am for personal freedom. If you don't want to pay for overpriced pills or pay for healthcare costs, then don't do so. If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company I would charge as much as the market would bear. That is the way I would express my personal freedom.

The problem you have Newfie is this. You want government when it benefits you but do not like it when it doesn't. Government should be strangled down to a size that no longer threatens individual liberty to choose. And yes that includes the corporate right to buy and sell their product to a price of their choosing. Don't like it? Don't buy their product. There you go chief. You are now free.

[yellowcanoe]

The problem you have Newfie is this. You want government when it benefits you but do not like it when it doesn't. Government should be strangled down to a size that no longer threatens individual liberty to choose. And yes that includes the corporate right to buy and sell their product to a price of their choosing. Don't like it? Don't buy their product. There you go chief. You are now free.

If you want to reduce the role of government I would hope that would also include eliminating intellectual property rights. Government imposed intellectual property rights eliminate competition by giving the IP owner a monopoly.

[careinke]

Your personal financial collapse is not my concern. You should have planned for a future better.

If you want to create a pharmaceutical company and give away pills to the poor, have at it. Good luck with all that.

I thought were about personal freedom? So you want the freedom to be fleeced? Come on, use your intellect to make a better argument. But let's move it to the ACA thread.

I am for personal freedom. If you don't want to pay for overpriced pills or pay for healthcare costs, then don't do so. If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company I would charge as much as the market would bear. That is the way I would express my personal freedom.

The problem you have Newfie is this. You want government when it benefits you but do not like it when it doesn't. Government should be strangled down to a size that no longer threatens individual liberty to choose. And yes that includes the corporate right to buy and sell their product to a price of their choosing. Don't like it? Don't buy their product. There you go chief. You are now free.

I have to agree with you COG, but it also should give the individual the right to buy their meds from whomever and wherever they want, including across borders. That would naturally reduce what you can fleece me for. Freedom for the corp, freedom for the individual.

[GHung]

Your personal financial collapse is not my concern. You should have planned for a future better.

If you want to create a pharmaceutical company and give away pills to the poor, have at it. Good luck with all that.

I thought were about personal freedom? So you want the freedom to be fleeced? Come on, use your intellect to make a better argument. But let's move it to the ACA thread.

I am for personal freedom. If you don't want to pay for overpriced pills or pay for healthcare costs, then don't do so. If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company I would charge as much as the market would bear. That is the way I would express my personal freedom.

The problem you have Newfie is this. You want government when it benefits you but do not like it when it doesn't. Government should be strangled down to a size that no longer threatens individual liberty to choose. And yes that includes the corporate right to buy and sell their product to a price of their choosing. Don't like it? Don't buy their product. There you go chief. You are now free.

I have to agree with you COG, but it also should give the individual the right to buy their meds from whomever and wherever they want, including across borders. That would naturally reduce what you can fleece me for. Freedom for the corp, freedom for the individual.

Meh, Cog's stance is simplistic and unworkable to the extreme in an advanced society. I wonder how he would feel if a corporation was "free" to build an asphalt plant adjacent to, and upwind of his home. How about a 24 hour rock concert venue? Maybe someone should be "free" to dump their sewage into the stream he gets his drinking water from? I wonder how he would feel if the corporation that sells, but didn't actually develop, a drug he or his family member needed to continue to live decided to charge him $10,000 per day for that drug.

Shit-talking is easy until it applies to you, eh Cog? I can think of hundreds of circumstances where your tough-guy libertarian ideas would be thrown out with your trash. Our freedom-loving republican's here in NC who boast about protecting my property rights passed a law that prevents me from stopping any company that decides to explore for oil and minerals on my place as long as they give me notice and stay 600 feet from my dwelling. I'm sure you would love that. Maybe I should build an industrial pig farm upstream and upwind of your place. According to you, I'm free to do that. If you don't like it, just move. I'm sure some other freedom-loving individual would pay you top dollar for your land.

[Cog]

[Newfie]

Cog,

Let's take ACA stuff to that thread.

obamacare-politics-opinions-conspiracies-etc-pt-2-t69092-320.html

[Cog]

Trump has advocated insurance companies having the ability to compete across state lines. He does understand the prices we pay for prescription meds. I expect he will address that issue in due time.

[onlooker]

At this point the US and world Economy can crash at any moment from both Peak Oil dynamic problems and also from the over leveraged status of most of the planet and the profound corruption inherent in the financial sector. It all really is one big ponzi scheme designed to enrich the already rich. It is the debt based system that is no longer compatible with Economies that instead of growing will be shrinking. Do not expect to see necessarily one big crash wiping out modern industrial civilization rather step downs in stages of descent whereby the Economies unravel in fits and starts.

[Newfie]

They may collapse at any time, agreed. But when? And how? Without fairly precise knowledge of when and how there is only so much prepping you can do.

[Pops]

Actually the key term now is OPM
when you use other people's money to do a big public works program you increase the demand for funds, which leads to higher bond yields and lower value, increased dollar value and higher interest rates across the board, which of course is inflation (ETP-BS aside, there is such a thing as inflation)

That is if you can believe anything you hear...

Here's the first picture I found:


http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/donald-tr ... tion-bond/

Doesn't mean collapse next tuesday, just another dot

[GHung]

They may collapse at any time, agreed. But when? And how? Without fairly precise knowledge of when and how there is only so much prepping you can do.

It's all about your expectations, lifestyle, and avoiding industrial age traps. God help you if you're a debt slave, unless you plan to default along with the rest of society. Then you become the low-hanging fruit.

[ROCKMAN]

Ghung - "...prevents me from stopping any company that decides to explore for oil and minerals on my place as long as they give me notice and stay 600 feet from my dwelling." And a real life example that has happened tens of thousands of times with Texas land owners. In the field I'm redeveloping horizontally: on one of my leases a guy had built a very nice home (probably the most expensive in this small town). But he only wanted to pay for the surface rights and not the oil/NG rights. So the original owner, a retired school teacher, was stuck with keeping the mineral rights on a lease with 6 old depleted and plugged oil wells.

But then along comes the Rockman with as idea to get more oil out of the ground. When I started drilling on offset leases the homeowner came unhinged that I might drill a well close to but at a legal distance from his house. So whose rights outweighs the other's right? Easy answer: the mineral owner. The homeowner had the RIGHT to buy the oil/NG ownership. Had he done so no one could have ever drilled a well near his home...unless he leased that right to a company. The oil/NG rights were an asset and potential income source for the elderly retired teacher.

The irony: since I was drilling a horizontal well the surface location was on an offset track of land on the other side of the highway. The producing portion of the well was under the homeowners land. So OTOH he got lucky. But also unlucky: had he paid for the oil/NG rights instead of sticking the old teacher with them he would already received about 4X what he would have paid for those rights plus what he paid for the surface rights plus what the house cost him to build. And the well is still producing about 200 bopd. A well not anywhere close to his house.

It's really simple in Texas: if you don't want someone drilling a well on your property near your house you just buy those rights and don't lease them to a company. The real irony: if I owned a piece of land and a company wanted to include it in a drilling unit I could stipulate no drilling on my property. Such stipulations were written into many Eagle Ford Shale leases.

Everyone has the right to make their own decisions in such matters...be they good or foolish.

[careinke]

wow the Japanese market is up about 7%. That's quite a comeback.
http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/asia/

[Outcast_Searcher]

Here's the first picture I found:


http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/donald-tr ... tion-bond/

Doesn't mean collapse next tuesday, just another dot

From what I saw today, the markets believe inflation will be meaningfully higher under Trump.

Bonds don't like inflation. The longer term bonds (which HATE inflation) were by far the most negative.

Also, I noticed things like silver, copper, etc. were up: possibly as a hedge against higher inflation expectations.

Also, short term doesn't mean much. Looks like the Dow had nearly a roughly 1300 point swing from the futures Tuesday night to the close of the market on Wednesday.
...

I have no idea if this higher inflation expectation makes sense. We had lots of new debt under Obama and that didn't seem to cause inflation. Can Trump actually spur stronger economic growth? We don't know if congress will pass anything he proposes. We don't know if his ideas would work, etc.