I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have
financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec
branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actual significant
civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement, than
at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor my wife
for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about 3-4 weeks
ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it will recede,
but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where we stood in our
last year of earned income. It has all been passive income since then,
and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly impervious
to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial increase--I wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so the driving
force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a sense
that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no worldly reason
for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, at least.
Sawfish <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have financial policy being changed at
This has been going on since 2007 when we had the financial market
issues, toxic assets, bad loans etc.
The market should have been left to correct itself and fix
everything that has been going wrong as a result like very
inflated housing market, equities, etc.
But instead the Feds bailed the banks, bought the toxic assets,
and as a result we never got a correction. We have had the
longest Bull market in the history of USA so far.
I tried to follow my own logic, and thought the market was very
overvalued then and should self correct. So I kept good portion
of my assets on the side for almost 15 years waiting for this
correction but it never happened.
Historically p/e ratio higher than 12 was considered too high, but
people have no issues buying securities now that have p/e ratio
higher than 100 :)
The p/e ratio of sp500 is about 27 now while at times it was above 40.
So in my opinion the free market isn't free as we think. It's
protected now by the government and the feds.
Sawfish <[email protected]> Wrote in message:r
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have financial policy being changed at
This has been going on since 2007 when we had the financial market
issues, toxic assets, bad loans etc.
The market should have been left to correct itself and fix
everything that has been going wrong as a result like very
inflated housing market, equities, etc.
But instead the Feds bailed the banks, bought the toxic assets,
and as a result we never got a correction. We have had the
longest Bull market in the history of USA so far.
I tried to follow my own logic, and thought the market was very
overvalued then and should self correct. So I kept good portion
of my assets on the side for almost 15 years waiting for this
correction but it never happened.
Historically p/e ratio higher than 12 was considered too high, but
people have no issues buying securities now that have p/e ratio
higher than 100 :)
The p/e ratio of sp500 is about 27 now while at times it was above 40.
So in my opinion the free market isn't free as we think. It's
protected now by the government and the feds.
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have
financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec
branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actual significant
civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement, than
at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor my wife
for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about 3-4 weeks
ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it will recede,
but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where we stood in our
last year of earned income. It has all been passive income since then,
and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly impervious
to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial increase--I wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so the driving
force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a sense
that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no worldly
reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments nowadays
try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as
well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter what
happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, we're
more conservative & careful with our money. I think probably a bit too
careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low.
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a sense
that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no worldly
reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as
well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter
what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, we're
more conservative & careful with our money. I think probably a bit
too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
On 10/06/2025 5:14 am, Sawfish wrote:
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have
financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec
branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actual significant
civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement,
than at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor my
wife for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about 3-4
weeks ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it will
recede, but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where we stood
in our last year of earned income. It has all been passive income
since then, and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly impervious
to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial increase--I
wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so the driving
force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
Calm before the storm. Smokes and mirrors. Probably best advice is to
get out of USA if you can.
TT <[email protected]> writes:
Whisper kirjoitti 10.6.2025 klo 18.07:
On 10/06/2025 5:14 am, Sawfish wrote:
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You haveCalm before the storm. Smokes and mirrors. Probably best advice is
financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec
branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actual
significant civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement,
than at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor
my wife for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about
3-4 weeks ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it
will recede, but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where
we stood in our last year of earned income. It has all been passive
income since then, and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly
impervious to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial
increase--I wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so
the driving force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
to get out of USA if you can.
Perhaps. Although I don't think it's necessarily wise to leave US
stock market altogether. The valuations can still double if US follows
Japan's example in the 80s :)
But I certainly wouldn't have everything in US stock market only. If
US has a lost decade it'll be a long time to hold.
My current equities portfolio:
46% Finland + Nordic Countries
28% US + Developed markets
26% China + Emerging Markets Asia
Dump worthless stocks where you get screwed by backroom deals and
political manipulation. Buy Bitcoin! ;)
On 6/10/25 1:32 PM, TT wrote:
Whisper kirjoitti 10.6.2025 klo 18.07:
On 10/06/2025 5:14 am, Sawfish wrote:
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have
financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec
branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actual
significant civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement,
than at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor
my wife for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about
3-4 weeks ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it
will recede, but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where
we stood in our last year of earned income. It has all been passive
income since then, and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly
impervious to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial increase--
I wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so the driving
force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
Calm before the storm. Smokes and mirrors. Probably best advice is
to get out of USA if you can.
Perhaps. Although I don't think it's necessarily wise to leave US
stock market altogether. The valuations can still double if US follows
Japan's example in the 80s :)
But I certainly wouldn't have everything in US stock market only. If
US has a lost decade it'll be a long time to hold.
My current equities portfolio:
46% Finland + Nordic Countries
28% US + Developed markets
26% China + Emerging Markets Asia
I see where in our main managed account we have 56% in stocks, with an
even split between US 28% international 28%.
I'd have to dig to find out the specific international markets.
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a sense
that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no worldly
reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as
well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter
what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, we're
more conservative & careful with our money. I think probably a bit
too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a sense
that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no worldly
reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as
well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter
what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, we're
more conservative & careful with our money. I think probably a bit
too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out by
the Fed and the legacy media...
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a
sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no
worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter,
at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as
well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter
what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans,
we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think probably
a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out by
the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his
thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying there's
a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt ballooning
budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt ceiling. So he can
keep barking at it. But you can't really have it both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
Sawfish <[email protected]> writes:
On 6/10/25 1:52 PM, jdeluise wrote:
TT <[email protected]> writes:
Whisper kirjoitti 10.6.2025 klo 18.07:Dump worthless stocks where you get screwed by backroom deals and
On 10/06/2025 5:14 am, Sawfish wrote:
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You haveCalm before the storm. Smokes and mirrors. Probably best advice is >>>>> to get out of USA if you can.
financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec >>>>>> branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actual
significant civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement, >>>>>> than at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor >>>>>> my wife for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about >>>>>> 3-4 weeks ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it >>>>>> will recede, but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where >>>>>> we stood in our last year of earned income. It has all been passive >>>>>> income since then, and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly
impervious to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial
increase--I wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so
the driving force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
Perhaps. Although I don't think it's necessarily wise to leave US
stock market altogether. The valuations can still double if US follows >>>> Japan's example in the 80s :)
But I certainly wouldn't have everything in US stock market only. If
US has a lost decade it'll be a long time to hold.
My current equities portfolio:
46% Finland + Nordic Countries
28% US + Developed markets
26% China + Emerging Markets Asia
political manipulation. Buy Bitcoin! ;)
jd, I've heard a lot about crypto and lets us bitcoin as the basis...
What are the strengths/weaknesses of bitcoin vis-a-vis an
international currency like the Euro or the dollar?
I don't know much about crypto other than the first creation of issues
came from cryptos being traded for services. This was the "mining"
phase.
So the supply is limited to what has been mined (created by underlying
services or commodities) and it can grow based on more mining
activities. There may be other ways, but I'm unaware of them.
Its legitimacy is ensured by the blockchain that's attached each bitcoin.
That's the extent of what little I know.
Well, there are many blockchains. Hundreds if not thousands of them,
many of which are unique and have specific strengths (and weaknesses)
for specific use cases. With bitcoin, the supply is limited to 21
million coins of which nearly 20 million have been rewarded from
"mining" already. This supply limit cannot be changed. The reward rate from mining is also predetermined and "halves" every four years, so
mining will continue well into the next century. In any case, unlike
some of the other popular blockchains (Solana, Ethereum) it is natively deflationary due to scarcity.
In contrast, Solana and Ethereum have an unlimited supply and have to
deal with inflation through artificial mechanisms like "burning".
Also in contrast to other blockchains, no "incompatible changes" have
ever been made to bitcoin, and no such changes would easily be adopted
by nodes on the network. This may be mostly psychological, but it adds legitimacy. At least it can be said that the underlying principles of bitcoin are sound and have been battle-tested over the last 17 years
without the need for an incompatible change to the architecture.
On OTHER blockchains, incompatible changes are made all the time.
They're developed by a business or an individual, and are just adopted/ accepted by the network (possibly due to the prevalence of "insiders").
This means new features are added, but those features come with the risk
of bugs and new security vulnerabilities. These changes also put your
funds at risk in other ways. Early on in Ethereum's history there was a massive hack and they "fixed" it by forking the blockchain with the
offending transactions revoked. Such an action delegitimizes the
blockchain - if they can get consensus to revoke a single transaction
from the blockchain what's to say one day a change won't be accepted
that wipes out your balance?
I also think it's important that bitcoin was developed and released by
an anonymous entity, rather than a known company or individual with
biased self-interest and the ability to be manipulated.
Of course I don't think bitcoin is perfect. There are definite risks to
the technology, quantum computing for instance. But for the benefits I stated and more, it's considered "digital gold". But unlike gold you can easily store it non-custodially, or spend and trade it anywhere in the
world quasi-anonymously if you're careful. It can easily be used as collateral for loans, etc.
..or is the recommendation to TT another "travel tip", like when you
recommended Pete visit Papua New Guinea?
Nah, but I was joking about stocks having no value, I am a believer in diversification. Just in my mind stocks and fiat currency lack the permanence, transparency, convenience and potential of bitcoin. IF you
are willing to tolerate the risk.
On 6/11/25 6:16 PM, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/11/2025 1:37 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <[email protected]> writes:
On 6/10/25 1:52 PM, jdeluise wrote:
TT <[email protected]> writes:
Whisper kirjoitti 10.6.2025 klo 18.07:Dump worthless stocks where you get screwed by backroom deals and
On 10/06/2025 5:14 am, Sawfish wrote:
I'm as surprised and anxious as anyone else, I suppose. You have >>>>>>>> financial policy being changed at whim, it seems, you have the exec >>>>>>>> branch to a degree ignoring the judiciary, you have actualCalm before the storm. Smokes and mirrors. Probably best advice is >>>>>>> to get out of USA if you can.
significant civil disturbances.
Yet today I have more money, as per my update financial statement, >>>>>>>> than at any time in my life, and I haven't worked in >11 years. Nor >>>>>>>> my wife for 8. We first exceeded our previous high water mark about >>>>>>>> 3-4 weeks ago, and it has stair-stepped up since then. Of course it >>>>>>>> will recede, but it will have to recede A LOT to get back to where >>>>>>>> we stood in our last year of earned income. It has all been passive >>>>>>>> income since then, and it exceeds our lifestyle needs.
So how can this be? Why are the financial markets seemingly
impervious to all of these disruptions?
I can't honestly see any policy reasons for the financial
increase--I wouldn't attribute this to Trump, that' for sure--so >>>>>>>> the driving force(s) must be something less obvious.
What the fuck do you think is going on here?
Perhaps. Although I don't think it's necessarily wise to leave US
stock market altogether. The valuations can still double if US
follows
Japan's example in the 80s :)
But I certainly wouldn't have everything in US stock market only. If >>>>>> US has a lost decade it'll be a long time to hold.
My current equities portfolio:
46% Finland + Nordic Countries
28% US + Developed markets
26% China + Emerging Markets Asia
political manipulation. Buy Bitcoin! ;)
jd, I've heard a lot about crypto and lets us bitcoin as the basis...
What are the strengths/weaknesses of bitcoin vis-a-vis an
international currency like the Euro or the dollar?
I don't know much about crypto other than the first creation of issues >>>> came from cryptos being traded for services. This was the "mining"
phase.
So the supply is limited to what has been mined (created by underlying >>>> services or commodities) and it can grow based on more mining
activities. There may be other ways, but I'm unaware of them.
Its legitimacy is ensured by the blockchain that's attached each
bitcoin.
That's the extent of what little I know.
Well, there are many blockchains. Hundreds if not thousands of them,
many of which are unique and have specific strengths (and weaknesses)
for specific use cases. With bitcoin, the supply is limited to 21
million coins of which nearly 20 million have been rewarded from
"mining" already. This supply limit cannot be changed. The reward
rate from mining is also predetermined and "halves" every four years,
so mining will continue well into the next century. In any case,
unlike some of the other popular blockchains (Solana, Ethereum) it is
natively deflationary due to scarcity.
In contrast, Solana and Ethereum have an unlimited supply and have to
deal with inflation through artificial mechanisms like "burning".
Also in contrast to other blockchains, no "incompatible changes" have
ever been made to bitcoin, and no such changes would easily be
adopted by nodes on the network. This may be mostly psychological,
but it adds legitimacy. At least it can be said that the underlying
principles of bitcoin are sound and have been battle-tested over the
last 17 years without the need for an incompatible change to the
architecture.
On OTHER blockchains, incompatible changes are made all the time.
They're developed by a business or an individual, and are just
adopted/ accepted by the network (possibly due to the prevalence of
"insiders"). This means new features are added, but those features
come with the risk of bugs and new security vulnerabilities. These
changes also put your funds at risk in other ways. Early on in
Ethereum's history there was a massive hack and they "fixed" it by
forking the blockchain with the offending transactions revoked. Such
an action delegitimizes the blockchain - if they can get consensus to
revoke a single transaction from the blockchain what's to say one day
a change won't be accepted that wipes out your balance?
I also think it's important that bitcoin was developed and released
by an anonymous entity, rather than a known company or individual
with biased self-interest and the ability to be manipulated.
Of course I don't think bitcoin is perfect. There are definite risks
to the technology, quantum computing for instance. But for the
benefits I stated and more, it's considered "digital gold". But
unlike gold you can easily store it non-custodially, or spend and
trade it anywhere in the world quasi-anonymously if you're careful.
It can easily be used as collateral for loans, etc.
..or is the recommendation to TT another "travel tip", like when you
recommended Pete visit Papua New Guinea?
Nah, but I was joking about stocks having no value, I am a believer
in diversification. Just in my mind stocks and fiat currency lack
the permanence, transparency, convenience and potential of bitcoin.
IF you are willing to tolerate the risk.
Thanks for the lengthy post; very informative for laymen like myself.
I buy $20 of either Bitcoin or Ethereum every week. It's not much
money and if either takes off (like Bitcoin, again, is seeming to do)
I will profit from it. Otherwise it just $20 I threw away on
speculation as opposed to spending that money on delivery pizza that
my belly and tennis game doesn't need...
How does a person buy bitcoin like you're doing--a casual investor?
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a
sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no
worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, >>>>>>> at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc. >>>>>>
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as
well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter
what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans,
we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think probably >>>>>> a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low. >>>>
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out by
the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his
thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying
there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other
things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt ballooning
budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt ceiling. So he
can keep barking at it. But you can't really have it both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning budgets"
and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for yourself.
On 11.6.2025 21.25, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a
sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no >>>>>>>> worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next quarter, >>>>>>>> at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the
earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc. >>>>>>>
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed as >>>>>>> well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no matter >>>>>>> what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans,
we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think
probably a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very low. >>>>>
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out
by the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his
thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying
there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other
things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt ballooning
budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt ceiling. So he
can keep barking at it. But you can't really have it both ways, can you. >>>
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning budgets"
and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for yourself.
Not according to a recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul. He pays lip
service to the deficit by whining about the debt ceiling. But he
supports and will vote for Trump's budget which increases the deficit by trillions. Because of the tax cuts. He wants them tax cuts more than he
cares about the deficit.
Pelle Svanslös <[email protected]> writes:
On 11.6.2025 21.25, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a >>>>>>>>> sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is >>>>>>>>> no worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next
quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the >>>>>>>> earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates
etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed >>>>>>>> as well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no
matter what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, >>>>>>>> we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think
probably a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very >>>>>>> low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out
by the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his
thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying
there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other
things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt
ballooning budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt
ceiling. So he can keep barking at it. But you can't really have it
both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
budgets" and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for
yourself.
Not according to a recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul. He pays lip
service to the deficit by whining about the debt ceiling. But he
supports and will vote for Trump's budget which increases the deficit
by trillions. Because of the tax cuts. He wants them tax cuts more
than he cares about the deficit.
But you know what really gets his goat? Being uninvited from a White
House picnic, e.g. a poster child of waste, fraud and abuse.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5345620-rand-paul-white-house-picnic/
"I’ve just been told that I’ve been uninvited from the picnic; I think I’m the first senator in the history of the United States to be
uninvited to the White House picnic," Paul told reporters. "The White
House is owned by the taxpayers, we are all members of it, every
Democrat will be invited, every Republican will be invited, but I will
be the only one disallowed to come on the grounds of the White House."
"I just find this incredibly petty," he added. "I have been, I think
nothing but polite to the president. I have been an intellectual
opponent, a public policy opponent, and he’s chosen now to uninvite me
from the picnic and to say my grandson can’t come to the picnic."
Paul continued, saying "the level of immaturity is beyond words" before tearing into Trump himself.
"I’m arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in
debt and getting worse, and they choose to react by uninviting my
grandson to the public," he said. "It really makes me lose a lot of
respect I once had for Donald Trump."
On 6/12/2025 8:34 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 21.25, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a >>>>>>>>> sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is no >>>>>>>>> worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next
quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the >>>>>>>> earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments
nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc. >>>>>>>>
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed >>>>>>>> as well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no
matter what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, >>>>>>>> we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think
probably a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very >>>>>>> low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out
by the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his
thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying
there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other
things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt
ballooning budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt
ceiling. So he can keep barking at it. But you can't really have it
both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning
budgets" and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for
yourself.
Not according to a recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul. He pays lip
service to the deficit by whining about the debt ceiling. But he
supports and will vote for Trump's budget which increases the deficit
by trillions. Because of the tax cuts. He wants them tax cuts more
than he cares about the deficit.
Care to show a link to this "recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul?"
I bet you can't.
On 14.6.2025 7.36, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/12/2025 8:34 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 21.25, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a >>>>>>>>>> sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is >>>>>>>>>> no worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next >>>>>>>>>> quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the >>>>>>>>> earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments >>>>>>>>> nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates etc. >>>>>>>>>
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed >>>>>>>>> as well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no >>>>>>>>> matter what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, >>>>>>>>> we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think
probably a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very, very >>>>>>>> low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out >>>>>> by the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his
thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying
there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other
things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt
ballooning budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt
ceiling. So he can keep barking at it. But you can't really have it
both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning
budgets" and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for
yourself.
Not according to a recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul. He pays lip
service to the deficit by whining about the debt ceiling. But he
supports and will vote for Trump's budget which increases the deficit
by trillions. Because of the tax cuts. He wants them tax cuts more
than he cares about the deficit.
Care to show a link to this "recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul?"
I bet you can't.
I'll just correct one sentence: "He will support the BB bill if the
increase in debt limit is removed". How balanced the actual budget is,
is not a concern as long as the tax cuts are there. But there is a
chance he might vote against it yet.
Paul voted for a $1.5T increase in debt in 2017. He will vote for a much larger increase now. If only the debt limit is not increased. He needs
that limit so he can waste everybody's time pretending to be a budget
hawk next time a government shutdown is scheduled.
I very nearly couldn't re-find the article. Thanks to hard work and perseverance, I did.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/06/05/rand-paul-trump-bill- tax-cuts-national-debt/84032972007/
(There's quite a few fraudulent claims in that piece. Read it at your
own risk)
Scall5 <[email protected]> writes:
On 6/12/2025 10:09 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Pelle Svanslös <[email protected]> writes:
On 11.6.2025 21.25, Scall5 wrote:But you know what really gets his goat? Being uninvited from a
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a >>>>>>>>>>> sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is >>>>>>>>>>> no worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next >>>>>>>>>>> quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... the >>>>>>>>>> earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that governments >>>>>>>>>> nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means... debt, low rates >>>>>>>>>> etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed >>>>>>>>>> as well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no >>>>>>>>>> matter what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, >>>>>>>>>> we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think
probably a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very,
very low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted out >>>>>>> by the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced his >>>>>> thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just saying
there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit. Among other >>>>>> things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt
ballooning budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt
ceiling. So he can keep barking at it. But you can't really have it >>>>>> both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
budgets" and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for
yourself.
Not according to a recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul. He pays lip
service to the deficit by whining about the debt ceiling. But he
supports and will vote for Trump's budget which increases the deficit
by trillions. Because of the tax cuts. He wants them tax cuts more
than he cares about the deficit.
White House picnic, e.g. a poster child of waste, fraud and abuse.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5345620-rand-paul-white-house-
picnic/
"I’ve just been told that I’ve been uninvited from the picnic; I
think I’m the first senator in the history of the United States to
be uninvited to the White House picnic," Paul told reporters. "The
White House is owned by the taxpayers, we are all members of it,
every Democrat will be invited, every Republican will be invited,
but I will be the only one disallowed to come on the grounds of the
White House."
"I just find this incredibly petty," he added. "I have been, I think
nothing but polite to the president. I have been an intellectual
opponent, a public policy opponent, and he’s chosen now to uninvite
me from the picnic and to say my grandson can’t come to the picnic."
Paul continued, saying "the level of immaturity is beyond words"
before tearing into Trump himself.
"I’m arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired
in debt and getting worse, and they choose to react by uninviting my
grandson to the public," he said. "It really makes me lose a lot of
respect I once had for Donald Trump."
Poorly done, your follow-up just proved that jd doesn't have a clue.
?
My post wasn't really related to Pelle's besides Paul, and because I'd
seen the article that morning.
But god, Paul sure made HIMSELF look weak, petty and immature here.
After everything that Trump has proposed wrt to the BBB and tariffs, the
one and only thing that makes Paul lose respect for him and speak out
about it is being uninvited to some picnic for elites? Seriously?
And what kind of naive person thinks that Trump is going to have any
respect for someone who is a "polite... intellectual opponent"? He
wants followers. This is the kind of behavior MAGA and Trump see as WEAKNESS and exploit mercilessly.
On 6/14/2025 2:32 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 14.6.2025 7.36, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/12/2025 8:34 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 21.25, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/11/2025 4:01 AM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
On 11.6.2025 8.10, Scall5 wrote:
On 6/10/2025 10:10 AM, Whisper wrote:
On 10/06/2025 8:45 am, Sawfish wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:31 PM, TT wrote:
Sawfish kirjoitti 9.6.2025 klo 23.25:
American risk taking optimist mindset.
It's almost necessary to discourage it periodically, and in a >>>>>>>>>>> sense that's what the Fed does if left alone. E.g., there is >>>>>>>>>>> no worldly reason for the Fed to loosen rates for the next >>>>>>>>>>> quarter, at least.
Yes. Someone said that periodic crashes are a good thing... >>>>>>>>>> the earlier it happens the less it'll hurt. Also that
governments nowadays try to avoid crashes by all means...
debt, low rates etc.
Although Trump looks like wanting to crash the market, and Fed >>>>>>>>>> as well. But the US retail investor keeps buying every dip no >>>>>>>>>> matter what happens. :)
I do think that Americans love risk taking more. Us Europeans, >>>>>>>>>> we're more conservative & careful with our money. I think
probably a bit too careful.
I don't think that's a negative. My risk tolerance is very,
very low.
US debt is out of control, no one seems to care lol
Some do, like Rand Paul, Massie, and etc. But they are shouted
out by the Fed and the legacy media...
Not sure what you're talking about. Powell certainly has voiced
his thoughts on the sustainability of the deficits. He's just
saying there's a right time and a wrong time to run a deficit.
Among other things.
Paul is a classic case of a fraud. He approves of the debt
ballooning budgets (of Trump) but is opposed to raising the debt
ceiling. So he can keep barking at it. But you can't really have
it both ways, can you.
The fingers should be firmly pointed at those who make the fiscal
decisions. Trump, Congress (Paul).
100% incorrect. Paul has always been against "debt ballooning
budgets" and his voting record proves that. Go ahead and check for
yourself.
Not according to a recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul. He pays
lip service to the deficit by whining about the debt ceiling. But he
supports and will vote for Trump's budget which increases the
deficit by trillions. Because of the tax cuts. He wants them tax
cuts more than he cares about the deficit.
Care to show a link to this "recent op-ed written by ... Rand Paul?"
I bet you can't.
I'll just correct one sentence: "He will support the BB bill if the
increase in debt limit is removed". How balanced the actual budget is,
is not a concern as long as the tax cuts are there. But there is a
chance he might vote against it yet.
That is not very good considering you implied that your were copying and pasting an article. Thus your entire post is invalidated...
Paul voted for a $1.5T increase in debt in 2017. He will vote for a
much larger increase now. If only the debt limit is not increased. He
needs that limit so he can waste everybody's time pretending to be a
budget hawk next time a government shutdown is scheduled.
I very nearly couldn't re-find the article. Thanks to hard work and
perseverance, I did.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2025/06/05/rand-paul-trump-bill-
tax-cuts-national-debt/84032972007/
(There's quite a few fraudulent claims in that piece. Read it at your
own risk)
See above about me invalidating your entire post.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:04:20 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,358 |