Looks right

[Plane]

  Isn't the availability of investment monies a factor in establishing and expanding business?

   This would make investment a factor in employment /unemployment and worthy of encouragement.

[sirs]

It is not a bad thing when the stock market goes up. It does not actually affect those who do not invest.

Then why does the left consistently criticize & rail on Republican Presidents, when the market goes up??

It is the nature of capitalism to reward the investors before the
average person.

You mean, like the way Obama managed to make sure his Solyndra donators and like investors recouped their losses before the tax payer?? 

The Oligarchy is simply taking every advantage that it can

So they, whoever "they" are, control no one, unlike your constant harping that they control the GOP.  *whew*, glad we got that cleared up

[Xavier_Onassis]

You got nothing cleared up. Nothing at all.

The Oligarchy contributes greatly to assure that its candidates get the nomination. That is how millionaires like Olebush, Juniorbush, McCain and Romney became candidates rather than guys like Huckabee or Santorum. They have a greater influence on candidates for representatives and senators  and state legislators than on presidential candidates, and much of their donations ate untraceable.

[sirs]

So, .... they were behind Obama getting nominated as well.  Well, that explains the worsening income gap, I suppose, under his and the Democrats' policies

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, it does not, and the fact that you claim  this is true proves to me that you do not understand economics nor capitalism. It would be futile to try to explain it to you, so I will not even bother to try.

This is a pretty good time to invest in the market, especially when the market drops at least 3%, because it will continue to rise afterwards. Our President has been quite good for the market, and those who claim he has been bad are incapable of understanding this, and they will pay for their ignorance by failing to take advantage  of the situation, as we shall see.

The rising tide no longer raises all boats, but that does not prevent those who have access to a boat  from getting in that boat.

[sirs]

LOL....again making my original point....than when the market goes up while a Republican is President is defacto validation that they're only helping "the rich", but when a Democrat is in charge, that's a good thing despite the ever increasign income gap, more folks dropping out of even looking for a job, and an ever increasing pool of people on food stamps

Again, I thank you

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have no point, sirs.

[sirs]

Your deflection & inabililty to refute the point being made, is also duly noted

[Xavier_Onassis]

When the stock market goes up. those who benefit are those who are invested in the stocks and funds that go up. Most Americans who are not rich do not understand the market and either will jot invest in it, or will stop investing if they lose money even once, thinking that is is like a casino.

I do not resent people making money on their investments. I just think that income on investments should not receive the special treatment that they do with regard to the income tax. The political party that is in power has had no real influence on investments most of the time. Not preventing the  9-11 attack and the last Real Estate bubble were the only events that were directly attributable to government action or inaction. In both cases. those to did not invest on margin and who stayed invested and paid attention to the best places to invest came out ahead, and not all of them were rich. In the same way, not all of Bernie Madoff's victims were wealthy. They had one thing in common: most invested most of their money with Madoff, and did not bother to question why his lack of transparency was a giveaway to Madoff being a ripoff artist.

[sirs]

Professor Deflection...NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT WHEN THE MARKET GOES UP, THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR THOSE INVESTED.  Or that many who are invested, aren't as saavy, as perhaps someone like yourself       My point had nothing to do with that.

My point has consistently been the overt double standard employed by the likes of you and your ilk, when it comes to the stock market successes, depending on who's in the White House

And here's a tid bit for later rhetorical consumption.....you mention Bernie Madoff, chief instigator in soaking wealthy folks out of their $$$.  What the Government is doing is largely a Ponzi scheme, but instead of targeting only "the rich", the Government targets anyone that pays taxes.  More detail to follow in that tangent

[Xavier_Onassis]

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. No Ponzi scheme can last over 70 years.
If  Social Security were a Ponzi scheme, I am sure I would have noticed how my checks stopped coming way back in 2009.

I have never said that the market or those who benefit from it are evil. Investing is not really related to politics.
Capitalism is, as I always have said, a tool for developing an economy. It is a TOOL, not something to be worshiped.
An investor simply needs to know how it works, just as a carpenter knows how a hammer or a nail gun works. You don't catch carpenters worshiping hammers and nail guns.

Investing is a collective activity. There would be no stock companies in an economy in which everyone is a lone wolf.


Everything is a deflection for you because you do not understand reality. You constantly think that I an=m commenting on crap you write here, but I make no attempt to do that. Your "points" are generally unrelated to reality.

[sirs]

Actually, SS is indeed a Ponzi scheme......but that wasn't the scheme I was referring to

And no, I never claimed you said those why make money in the stock market are evil.  I claimed that when the Stock Market goes up under a GOP President, the cries from the left are along the lines of "See, look, the Republicans just pushing more policies to help their rich campaign donators".  But when a Democrat is in the WH, and the stock market is up, all is just swell......just ignore the increased income gap, the increase in folks dropping out of the job market, and the increased folks on food stamps.

Everything you post sure appears to miss the mark.  That's why it might seem to you that everything is a deflection.  Here's a hint, focus on the actual point being made, and there won't be any deflection references

[Plane]

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. No Ponzi scheme can last over 70 years.

  I do not think that duration should be included in the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

    The way that longer lived Ponzi schemes last is that they keep on including in larger numbers of paying contributors.

     Social Security has a greater number of contributors than any previous Ponzi scheme.

      What should define the Ponzi scheme is a dependence on new contributors to pay the old contributors.

      Social Security has worked well as long as there were many more contributors than payees, butr how can that ratio be maintained over time?

[sirs]

Actually, SS is indeed a Ponzi scheme......but that wasn't the scheme I was referring to

The U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government.

During those eight weeks, Treasury took in $341,591,000,000 in revenues. That was a record for the period between Oct. 1 and Nov. 25. But that record $341,591,000,000 in revenues was not enough to finance ongoing government spending let alone pay off old debt that matured.

The Treasury also drew down its cash balance by $45.057 billion during the period, starting with $126,568,000,000 in cash and ending with $81,511,000,000.

The only way the Treasury could handle the $942,103,000,000 in old debt that matured during the period plus finance the new deficit spending the government engaged in was to roll over the old debt into new debt and issue enough additional new debt to cover the new deficit spending.

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme," says the Securities and Exchange Commission, “is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission.  “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.”

The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.

If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.

[Plane]

   

   That looks like a good definition for Ponzi scheme.

    I don't believe the definition should include "unless done by a government".