The Sisyphean effort of US pension funds and the burden on tax payers.

Here's the statement again: The US economy CAN save its citizen a hefty trouble by slashing one rule: Pension funds can't bet against the market.

Bet on growth, or don't bet at all.

US has tied itself fevicolly to the performance of its company. America is growth, growth is American, and that has served it well. Until, things Go. Very. Wrong. The bitter after taste of the wrong bets always go to its citizens when they had minuscle piece of the pie that is the growth story.

US has budget problem, debt problem and promises it struggles to keep. Pansion funds heavily rely on the market to make the monthly payments. With one catch, don't bet against the market. Betting against the market is betting against america. But once in a while, there are shitty ideas, shitty bets and stupid races undertaken by suits and the large funders (think pensioners and tax payers) has no say in it. And when these bets go bust... ahhh you've seen it all.

"Tax payers will bail them out." - The Big short (2015)

Let the funds short the market. Let them earn even when the mistakes catch up to the companies. You prosper at my expense, I shall at yours.

Ideally, I should not be paying for your mistakes. I should surely be able to make money on your misery just as you did on mine.

But this is hardly an ideal world.

I think a lot of Texans would be surprised by some of these numbers. We hear all the time about the benefits of living in a state without income taxes, but there's a lot more to the picture. I put this together because I think we should all know how these policies affect us, especially when we're deciding who represents us.

Early voting ends October 30, and Election Day is November 3. Find your polling place at https://www.votetexas.gov/voting/where.html. Please get out and vote!

So I just finished eating lunch, bought a TACO Tuesday special from a local sandwich shop - which got me think why did I pay 16 after tax for three tacos that are not even tasty or fresh. I could have made the same thing my own in the morning using whatever leftover I have and probably cost me 3 dollars and 15 minutes of my own time. From there, an inside voice started with but you have to spend what you earned into the economy, thus there is a circulation of money and everyone benefits from the transacations and value added to labor and materials... So - question to you now, is it really long term better if we all go to work and buy lunch - or should we stick to the money saving thing and eventually cause some recession???

There are ways that the U.S. can freeze its debt rate currently, but should it? The United States is currently in approximately 32 trillion dollars of debt to people. This debt accrues interest from the people. We can find this rate by looking at the current payments to the total debt. We can see that according to congress.gov that our current total payment toward our debts is 3% of our GDP. If our GDP is $32.563 trillion that means that we are spending .03*32~1 trillion dollars on our debt each year. If we divide the payment by the total debt, we get 1/32=~.032 which means that our current interest rate per year is approximately 3.2%.

This means that each year we pay about 3.2% of all the debt to the people holding the debt. If we look at the interest rate on our debt during 2016, we find that it is 1.69% and in 1980 it was 7.73% and finally the average debt from 1962-present is 5.556394441%. If we take a look at what would change if we were to magically jump up to the average interest, we can calculate that the total increase in expenditures would be about $.7trillion which is approximately the cost of tall non-defense discretionary spending. So, if we were to jump to the average debt cost (which is possible in leu of covid) we would have to sacrifice all education, transportation, veterans’ affairs, homeland security, and health and human services (CDC, FDA, medical research).

The reason that the United States is prone to this is because much of the debt that the United States currently holds is short term loans that they issue to pay of longer loans. Thus, the loans are reactive to the market confidence in the US government. So how can we protect against this possible jump in debt payments if people lose faith in the US government. The government has ways to freeze its debt payments. The United States is able to refinance their loans for 30-inifinity years. This will freeze their debt interest rate at what it is when they refinance it. This may seem great however, looking back we can see that the rate of interest in 2016 was 1.69%. If we had foresaw the future in 2016 and froze our debt, we could have saved an incredible amount of money on interest that we are currently paying on debt from then. If we freeze our loans now, we would be stuck with the rate, we currently have with no possibility of it decreasing. Freezing our loans would also signify our distrust in our own currency or financial stability which would be a detriment to the nation as a whole. Thus, freezing our debt rate is a difficult issue with no clear solution. If we freeze it, we protect against future spikes. But we will be met with distrust for future loans and the possibility of missing out on lower rates in the future.

Here is a representation of the average debt interest by day since 1962:

Fundamentals aren't the problem. Capital is.

Right now, three giants are fighting over the same shrinking pool of liquidity:

• A U.S. government borrowing $2T/year
• AI data centers spending trillions on infrastructure
• Consumers squeezed by war and rising energy costs

That’s why bond yields are surging. And in a leveraged system, nothing works when yields stay above 6%.

Wall Street thinks Fed Chair Kevin Warsh will stay hawkish forever. He won't.

Neither the government nor the Fed will let the AI revolution fail when the solution is doing the one thing they do best: printing money.

Why can't you buy alcohol or ciggarettes online? I am disabled and don't go out much. Therefore I am not able to personally buy them. They should be available online, for home delivery. But in India, I think that you are not legally allowed to buy them online. Why? Because they are harmful to your health? But alcohol in moderation isn't harmful. And one or two glasses of wine a day, might be beneficial to your health.

We had real/true Capitalism until 2008/9. Then it died and got replaced with Corporatism.

The state didnt even intervene during the dot com bubble. But in 2008/9? They bailed out companies and banks with tax money. Hundreds of Billions.

No one went to prison.

They did the same during 2020/21. This time it was Trillions.

And they will try to do the same when the AI bubble pops with a dozen Trillion.

There is no more competition/Innovation. Just a monopoly by big companies that get saved by the state every time something goes wrong.

No more accountability for bad business decisions. No more large companies that go bankrupt. Just the small ones.

Real Capitalism died in 2008/9. Since then we have Corporatism. Large Corporations do whatever they want with their monopolies and get saved by tax Dollars every time something goes wrong.

Thats not a free Market. Or competition. Or accountability. Thats a monster that has been ruining our economy for the past 16 years.

I'm no expert so forgive me if it's a silly question, but I'm curious if this sudden push for everyone to buy food and other items to prepare for an extended period without supplies is a way to change the economy before the election. If so, what would it do? What would be the point?

Never before has a company gone public with anywhere near this amount of cash.

Reuters: General ‌Motors plans to introduce hybrid versions of its popular three-row SUVs, people familiar with the matter said, in a strategic shift after heavily investing in electric vehicles...

... US hybrid sales have taken off as car shoppers seek relief from higher gas prices. GM, which only sells a hybrid version of the Chevy Corvette in the US, has lost market share ​this year, while strong hybrid players like Toyota have gained.. .

... The department is restructuring a previously awarded grant to GM to support EV production at a nearby Lansing plant to now support ⁠hybrid production.

My Opinion: GM is getting something like half a billion dollars from the government to build hybrids. That means the people or taxpayers are paying for it. Perhaps the public money would be better spent on building affordable compact EVs, but it's SUVs where GM gets its sales revenue or profits. What does Tesla and other automotive companies have to say about it?

GM will need help to be able to compete with foreign companies who are selling hybrids, like Japanese Toyota. GM needs to have a consistent strategy to invest in the future. But it is difficult to do so with changing government policy, and uncertainty in the global economy.

It takes about four to five years to develop a new vehicle. GM needs to shorten it to two to three years, to be globally competitive.

Reference: https://www.reuters.com/business/gm-plans-offer-hybrid-suvs-strategic-pivot-2026-10-27/

To sum up the thesis states that japan leverages borrowed money from domestic savings to buy up assets all over the world.

Financial Times: The UK government is considering new requirements for data centre developers to invest in local communities as ministers seek to head off public opposition to new AI infrastructure.

The option would form part of a proposed “covenant” for the sector, a list of conditions for developers to meet, and could be made public in time for this week’s Budget, according to two government figures.

Other conditions being considered include sustainability requirements and specific agreements on energy use, potentially in return for the projects being given priority access to the electricity grid.

My Opinion: The decision to allow construction and operations of data centers should be made by the local authorities. The national government need not make additional requirements. Of course they have to follow national environmental and safety laws.

Local authorities can make these same requirements based on their particular situation. Like data centers operators providing local jobs and buying from local businesses. As far as sustainability and energy, data centers can be asked to secure their own renewable energy supply.

The Financial Times first reported on 8 October that Starbucks was weighing up a takeover of the fast-food chain Chipotle. They claim the company has spent the last few months considering what a prospective takeover offer would look like.