• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Economy Trump calls for negative interest rates

Higus said:
Not quite. A negative interest rate in this context means that instead of getting positive returns on bonds, you will actually be paying the government for the investment. The point is to discourage saving and encourage spending. It's ideally meant as a hail Mary when an economy is tanking.
Click to expand...
It sounds like an awesome way to quickly suck a place dry of its remaining wealth before the people can get past the crisis and keep it for themselves.
 
Fawlty said:
The towel should have been thrown itt a long time ago.
Click to expand...
ya but @Madmick is not going to desist and take the L.

I went back and read all the examples, even though I recall the history and there simply is no denying all the republican backlash against the 'low interest rates' during the Obama term. As Jack Savage says, it should not even be a point of debate. Maybe you can argue they never meant it and it was just blatant politicking but you cannot say they were not saying it.

This is the most blatant TDS we've seen where he is desperate to spin every example given as 'oh well they may have been referring to low interest rates in that rant but what they really were taking issues with was...'

and Mick is in too deep now so there is no chance he'll concede.
 
Did he say why he wants them at zero or negative? Isnt that a sign of a BAD or stagnant economy? WTF should I believe right now? Some indicators show a strong economy. Then cheetoh dude says some dumb shit like this. Someone educate me.
 
Crazy Diamond said:
Disagree. He was right about something in a thread where he was demonstrably wrong about something first. He was desperate for a win and his foil handed him one for nothing; now I'm going to nuke them both from orbit since it's the only way to be sure. Mind you, that does sound like it could be from a play, but that's not the same thing, is it?


I don't usually insert myself into the pedantic spat of others without an invitation, but this is an open discussion forum, so my take is that you should both be embarrassed.

Having a good command of the English language is a wonderful thing, and while it may be a predictor of better than average intelligence, it isn't near 100% reliable, and it also isn't necessarily the case that people with less learned usage have less intelligence, though there may sometimes be a connection. I try do it when it may be useful, or when it's clearly for laughs, and only very rarely and obviously is it a barb to thrust into my nemeses. Y'all have no idea how many bits of this and that I ignore every day on here. I hope when I do it people can see it's for something close to a decent reason. There's no need to be a dick about it and there's no need to double down on the dickishness just because you just got sonned yourself.

@Madmick is correct about this rather lame point of course. One can be facile in the same way one can be brilliant or dull. For his part, he's gloating over a point of usage that barely gets me out of bed in the morning. Worse yet, you've cooperated to completely derail the thread which has allowed Mick to escape any need to answer for his foolishness with the main topic.
--Captain Pedantic​
Click to expand...
I was being facetious. We have a trolling moderator that sets traps with uncommon usage to distract from his errors on the thread topic. {<shrug}
 
Crazy Diamond said:
Disagree. He was right about something in a thread where he was demonstrably wrong about something first. He was desperate for a win and his foil handed him one for nothing; now I'm going to nuke them both from orbit since it's the only way to be sure. Mind you, that does sound like it could be from a play, but that's not the same thing, is it?


I don't usually insert myself into the pedantic spat of others without an invitation, but this is an open discussion forum, so my take is that you should both be embarrassed.

Having a good command of the English language is a wonderful thing, and while it may be a predictor of better than average intelligence, it isn't near 100% reliable, and it also isn't necessarily the case that people with less learned usage have less intelligence, though there may sometimes be a connection. I try do it when it may be useful, or when it's clearly for laughs, and only very rarely and obviously is it a barb to thrust into my nemeses. Y'all have no idea how many bits of this and that I ignore every day on here. I hope when I do it people can see it's for something close to a decent reason. There's no need to be a dick about it and there's no need to double down on the dickishness just because you just got sonned yourself.

@Madmick is correct about this rather lame point of course. One can be facile in the same way one can be brilliant or dull. For his part, he's gloating over a point of usage that barely gets me out of bed in the morning. Worse yet, you've cooperated to completely derail the thread which has allowed Mick to escape any need to answer for his foolishness with the main topic.
--Captain Pedantic​
Click to expand...

Hmm, no. Mick did his usual copy and paste barrage meaning to appeal to the authority of the sheer volume of his text, despite the fact that, even for those centuries-old uses, most didn't apply at all and none applied well. You may be trying to be pedantic, but in actuality you're just wrong. And you are, despite claiming to be annoyed with the derail, derailing further in order to weirdly flex.

We can cite (Merriam-Webster) - to (Dictionary) - just (Vocabulary) - about (Wiki) - any (Cambridge) - dictionary (LDOCE) - anywhere (Collins) - to verify that the usage was incorrect and that he was, as usual, carelessly using words in a way to seem smart, but ended up showing he's a moron. Hell, in fact, the only documented usage from that list that would be facially proper (see #3 of the Wiki link) would completely change his intended meaning to say that @sabretruth was easygoing and affable.

Also, I think Langford was being sarcastic. I somehow doubt he really believed that Madmick was using a word incorrectly or archaically on the off chance someone would pick out that word to point out the incorrect usage.
 
How can you argue with someone if when you provide proof he just don't accept it, move the goal post or derail the conversation with something else?

I think he's trolling us and because he's a mod there are no consequences for him
 
I assume he's talking about emulating Japan, where it didn't work particularly well.
No doubt it's great for heavily leveraged real estate moguls.
 
Son of Ireland 34 said:
Did he say why he wants them at zero or negative? Isnt that a sign of a BAD or stagnant economy? WTF should I believe right now? Some indicators show a strong economy. Then cheetoh dude says some dumb shit like this. Someone educate me.
Click to expand...
Trump wants the economy as strong as it can be, without any safeguards or regulations, so he'll have a talking point during his campaign.
 
Trotsky said:
Hmm, no. Mick did his usual copy and paste barrage meaning to appeal to the authority of the sheer volume of his text, despite the fact that, even for those centuries-old uses, most didn't apply at all and none applied well. You may be trying to be pedantic, but in actuality you're just wrong. And you are, despite claiming to be annoyed with the derail, derailing further in order to weirdly flex.

We can cite (Merriam-Webster) - to (Dictionary) - just (Vocabulary) - about (Wiki) - any (Cambridge) - dictionary (LDOCE) - anywhere (Collins) - to verify that the usage was incorrect and that he was, as usual, carelessly using words in a way to seem smart, but ended up showing he's a moron. Hell, in fact, the only documented usage from that list that would be facially proper (see #3 of the Wiki link) would completely change his intended meaning to say that @sabretruth was easygoing and affable.

Also, I think Langford was being sarcastic. I somehow doubt he really believed that Madmick was using a word incorrectly or archaically on the off chance someone would pick out that word to point out the incorrect usage.
Click to expand...
I have to admit, the whole "it's not a typo, it was a trap" angle was pretty amusing. Kind of like a guy who's fly is down and exposes his tiny dick in the high school cafeteria, but he tries to save face by saying that anyone who saw it is gay.
 
Crazy Diamond said:
It sounds like an awesome way to quickly suck a place dry of its remaining wealth before the people can get past the crisis and keep it for themselves.
Click to expand...
Part of me wonders if they're going to try to make borrowing as cheap as possible before they do something that's going to blow up inflation.
 
Ruprecht said:
I assume he's talking about emulating Japan, where it didn't work particularly well.
No doubt it's great for heavily leveraged real estate moguls.
Click to expand...
Especially ones that i have pointed out in another thread who seem to be dealing with a drop in revenues currently which is a death knell to overly leveraged businesses that rely on growing cash flow to service debt. That is exactly what was at the heart of all his other bankruptcies he suffered.

I almost feel sorry for POTUS if that is the pressure he is under right now as missing debt payments, and breaking covenants puts your lender in an enormous amount of leverage over you. You can try and refinance out that debt with another party, which rising interests will typically prevent or failing that you literally go on bended knee to your current lender and hope they will voluntarily not foreclose and instead ease the terms on your debt.

But why would they do that in a rising interest rate environment when they could be getting more for their money? What, oh what could a man like Trump offer his Russian lenders to try and get some easement on his loans?

Ukraine anyone? How about destabilizing NATO and Ally relationships? Hmmm...
 
Richie Madano said:
Nobody cares about budget deficits and trade is fine.
Click to expand...
that is a stupid statement. A few idiots don't but I can quote you countless Trump supporters who do, or did up until it was Trump causing them.

If your point is 'people are dumb and short sighted and as such do not understand the future implications of budget deficits such as Trump is running' that is something I can get behind.
 
Higus said:
Not quite. A negative interest rate means that instead of getting positive returns on bonds, you will actually be paying the government for the investment. The point is to discourage saving and encourage spending. It's ideally meant as a hail Mary when an economy is tanking.
Click to expand...

Saw this article the other day.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-bond-anomaly-negative-yields-bring-positive-returns-11567947602
ElBerryKM13 said:
How can you argue with someone if when you provide proof he just don't accept it, move the goal post or derail the conversation with something else?

I think he's trolling us and because he's a mod there are no consequences for him
Click to expand...

This fucking dude averages under 7 posts a year and is using one of them to accuse @Madmick of trolling because the showing in this thread was so bad lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

koa pomaikai
Law Unprecedented, Trump uses executive powers to go after big banks and caps interest rates! MAGA
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
2K
Scott Stapp
Scott Stapp
deviake
Crime Trump, 50 year mortgage?
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
4K
fedorthegoat777
fedorthegoat777

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,565
Messages
58,375,698
Members
176,016
Latest member
mihailo

Share this page

Back
Top