Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Huh, it’s almost as if energy prices affect prices for everything (production, transportation, etc.), therefore, getting rid of oil and natural gas was a stupid idea. Oh, and then draining our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for political purposes was also terrible policy. And de-commissioning nuclear power plants was not that smart.
https://x.com/DKThomp/status/1927700160337117617
Could this be part of the problem?
I’m going to further drift this thread with this article. It’s fascinating how many headline grabbing papers that have drifted into the popular culture have been withdrawn. Case in point: Francesca Gino’s research.
Not to leave Stanford out of this, I think I posted this when discussing Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s data fraud scandal.
Huh? I posted an assessment that (everyone’s) endowments may be overvalued that I have not seen before. Seemed like as good a place as any to post it.
I find the economics of academia interesting, and this is probably why universities that seem to have large endowments are still constantly fundraising. There is a hedge fund-ish aspect to endowments (the UC endowments are famously “activist” investors), and their management actually usually outperform hedge funds. In addition, that Harvard is monetizing its endowment as a securities offering (again) is interesting to people in finance. There may be broader implications to the bond issuance, but I also hope their legal department knows what they are doing. Also, one of the Harvard Crimson articles says the bonds are taxable, and the other says tax-exempt. I am not aware of anything in the tax code that says a 501 corporation can issue tax-exempt bonds. Like I said, I hope the legal department knows what they are doing.
On another note, I have always wondered why, say Stanford, doesn’t offer its alumni money management as a service in exchange for a tax-deductible management fee. If endowments are generating better than S&P returns (or comparable returns), why not give alumni access in exchange for a management fee that goes into the endowment? Seems like a win-win.
Not everything is an attack, or political. Don’t try to read minds (“apparently implying”). It’s not a skill you have, and leads to straw man fallacies.
Chili’s “birthday” was last quarter (March 13). They offered $5 margaritas as a loss leader. I went. It was packed. People downed 4-5 of those each and ordered tons of food.
https://x.com/BonkDaCarnivore/status/1912156074737643785
I am not happy with further market distortion, and certainly not happy with additional spending.
The slight deflation is driven by declining energy prices. Oil and gas prices are down. So fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! (Another short-sighted Biden policy done for political purposes).
On another note, those price drops aren’t uniform. In the West, gasoline prices are still high.
On another note, China is ramping up its coal fired plants now that it has sort of cleaned up some of their air. They are going with the all energy sources policy that I advocate for, but is panned by people who believe magic solutions (that aren’t nuclear) exist.
Not mine, but pretty much sums up the problem. To be clear, paying taxes for non-infrastructure government generally does not improve the economy. There are rare exceptions (NASA innovations, the Internet, etc.) of stuff funded by public research that gains commercial acceptance, but a lot of what is publicly funded nowadays is not that kind of research.
——————————
In 2010, federal spending was $3.456 trillion—14.6% of GDP.
In 2023, it hit $6.134 trillion—22.8% of GDP.
That’s a 78% increase in spending in just 13 years.
And what do we have to show for it?
Nothing.
