Wow - 15 year fixed rate is over 5%.

30 year almost 7%.

At least all the telemarketers trying to get me to refinance have gone away!

I remember when 7% was low.

aTmAg said:

---

I remember when 7% was low.

---

Yeah, but CD rates were 10% - those haven't budged at all. Sure they will soon - maybe.

wbt5845 said:

---

Wow - 15 year fixed rate is over 5%.

30 year almost 7%.

At least all the telemarketers trying to get me to refinance have gone away!

---

IDK what you are looking at but 30 yrs are still sub 5% with less than a point and around 4% on 15 yr - at least according to Bankrate. I spoke with a commercial lender not more than 2 hours ago and commercial real estate loans at his bank today are at 5%.

Nice 1,000 pt loss today.

YouBet said:

---

Nice 1,000 pt loss today.

---

Yeah, that bump didn't last long.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

Fed be like: "Everyone is distracted by RvW, let's move quickly and decisively. Maybe they won't notice."

---

Anyone that follows interest rates knew this was coming and everyone thought it would be 50 bps.

unemployment claims up today

and then this...

Worker output fell 7.5% in the first quarter, the biggest decline since 1947

Joe did that!!

LMCane said:

---

unemployment claims up today

and then this...

Worker output fell 7.5% in the first quarter, the biggest decline since 1947

Joe did that!!

---

We all saw this coming...hell, even Stevie Wonder saw this coming.

_mpaul said:

---

Too little, too late. Worthless Fed. It should have done that in January. It has one job, and can't even do that well. We're better off getting rid of it altogether and letting the free market set rates.

---

The chairman saying we aren't heading into a recession but could see us having a recession is the problem with liberal leaders. They just spin spin spin and have no idea how often they contradict themselves.

Question: one of the historical "street" definitions of inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods." I don't recall exactly when I heard that but it was sometime during the '80s -- probably early '80s in reaction to Carter era inflationary issues. Anyway, to the extent it is true (and it seems to apply to today), isn't the "too many dollars" portion of that statement an opportunity to pay down debt -- personal, corporate, and government?

What am I missing here?

I realize we then start throwing all this into a proverbial washing machine of issues such as lending, money multiplier, etc. and get future money supply issues (the real inflation definition), but in the short term, can't we use this to our advantage? Or is the definition above illusory and simply a way to think about what's going on?

Boo Weekley said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Housing prices won't see any changes so long as Blackrock is buying up all the available inventory.

---

Companies like this seriously need to be regulated. I'm very free market, but this is unsustainable and anti-consumer. It's especially the case when you have foreign investment buying up property as well.

---

Nope.

---

Interested in hearing why not? They are playing a rigged game...you don't think Blackrock would ever be bailed out if it ever came to that?

They are a hyper liberal mega fund clearly making life worse for millions of people. What good does Blackrock do for society as a trade off to making it nearly impossible for people to get a first home for their families?

---

Some "conservatives" worship the "free" market above everything. There is no free market and there never was. We have been duped into supporting those who enslave us.

---

THIS. They even cry "free marketsh!!!" when it comes to China, lol. In a truly free market, I would agree with most, if not all of the libertarian principles.

---

The problem is not that markets aren't free, it's that markets don't exist in a vacuum and are inherently connected to things like strategic security and politics. Laissez faire politics and economics come with an inherent flaw in that they must tolerate behavior intended to undermine and destroy them, but actions or policies meant to counteract such behavior is contrary to laissez faire ideals.

As a perfect example, look at American academia and the idea of tenure. The purpose was to maintain academic freedom in research and teaching, but that very same freedom has ultimately been coopted by decades of Russian and Chinese subversion to promote division and suppress dissension against the ideas that subversion sought to implement. Now we have woke universities where only certain ideas are acceptable and academic freedom was ultimately the tool of its own destruction. Instead of nipping bad ideas behind pushed and funded by duplicitous foreign actors in the bud, the ideas behind academic freedom allowed them to grow and fester.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Question: one of the historical "street" definitions of inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods." I don't recall exactly when I heard that but it was sometime during the '80s -- probably early '80s in reaction to Carter era inflationary issues. Anyway, to the extent it is true (and it seems to apply to today), isn't the "too many dollars" portion of that statement an opportunity to pay down debt -- personal, corporate, and government?

What am I missing here?

I realize we then start throwing all this into a proverbial washing machine of issues such as lending, money multiplier, etc. and get future money supply issues (the real inflation definition), but in the short term, can't we use this to our advantage? Or is the definition above illusory and simply a way to think about what's going on?

---

The problem is that no one entity is incentivized to do this. You'd be paying off low interest rate debt in an environment where inflation is skyrocketing. You're giving away more valuable dollars now for less valuable dollars later.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Housing prices won't see any changes so long as Blackrock is buying up all the available inventory.

---

Companies like this seriously need to be regulated. I'm very free market, but this is unsustainable and anti-consumer. It's especially the case when you have foreign investment buying up property as well.

---

Nope.

---

Interested in hearing why not? They are playing a rigged game...you don't think Blackrock would ever be bailed out if it ever came to that?

They are a hyper liberal mega fund clearly making life worse for millions of people. What good does Blackrock do for society as a trade off to making it nearly impossible for people to get a first home for their families?

---

Some "conservatives" worship the "free" market above everything. There is no free market and there never was. We have been duped into supporting those who enslave us.

---

THIS. They even cry "free marketsh!!!" when it comes to China, lol. In a truly free market, I would agree with most, if not all of the libertarian principles.

---

The problem is not that markets aren't free, it's that markets don't exist in a vacuum and are inherently connected to things like strategic security and politics. Laissez faire politics and economics come with an inherent flaw in that they must tolerate behavior intended to undermine and destroy them, but actions or policies meant to counteract such behavior is contrary to laissez faire ideals.

As a perfect example, look at American academia and the idea of tenure. The purpose was to maintain academic freedom in research and teaching, but that very same freedom has ultimately been coopted by decades of Russian and Chinese subversion to promote division and suppress dissension against the ideas that subversion sought to implement. Now we have woke universities where only certain ideas are acceptable and academic freedom was ultimately the tool of its own destruction. Instead of nipping bad ideas behind pushed and funded by duplicitous foreign actors in the bud, the ideas behind academic freedom allowed them to grow and fester.

---

"Free market" policy has us overly dependent and fastened at the hip with China, one of the worst and most evil countries the world has ever known. They own us. But Milton Friedman would be proud that we stuck to our guns!

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Question: one of the historical "street" definitions of inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods." I don't recall exactly when I heard that but it was sometime during the '80s -- probably early '80s in reaction to Carter era inflationary issues. Anyway, to the extent it is true (and it seems to apply to today), isn't the "too many dollars" portion of that statement an opportunity to pay down debt -- personal, corporate, and government?

What am I missing here?

I realize we then start throwing all this into a proverbial washing machine of issues such as lending, money multiplier, etc. and get future money supply issues (the real inflation definition), but in the short term, can't we use this to our advantage? Or is the definition above illusory and simply a way to think about what's going on?

---

In theory, yes. Or at least some think so. I just read an article on this yesterday discussing this from the angle of debt to GDP ratios. I skimmed it so I couldnt tell you any of the details one day later though.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Question: one of the historical "street" definitions of inflation is "too many dollars chasing too few goods." I don't recall exactly when I heard that but it was sometime during the '80s -- probably early '80s in reaction to Carter era inflationary issues. Anyway, to the extent it is true (and it seems to apply to today), isn't the "too many dollars" portion of that statement an opportunity to pay down debt -- personal, corporate, and government?

What am I missing here?

I realize we then start throwing all this into a proverbial washing machine of issues such as lending, money multiplier, etc. and get future money supply issues (the real inflation definition), but in the short term, can't we use this to our advantage? Or is the definition above illusory and simply a way to think about what's going on?

---

The excess dollars are not with the main street folks. It's not like wages and salaries keep pace at all. Take a look at the reverse repo exchange. Money is there, but it's just circulating between the Fed and the banks. It's getting closer to $2 trillion every night. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRPONTSYD

What it boils down to is that the fractional reserve banking system is no better than a ponzi scheme. Money gets created with nothing supporting it outside of the good old USA saying it will pay its debts. Short story is the dollar is losing purchasing power because it floats on nothing and just wait until the eurodollars come home to roost.

Commodities are what matters - oil, food, etc...

And for anyone wondering, check out the "Rubble" gaining strength on the dollar, passing pre-invasion markers.

https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=USD&view=1Y

This is a long video - but the cliffs notes are we are watching an upheaval to the system.

Boo Weekley said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Boo Weekley said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

Waffledynamics said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Housing prices won't see any changes so long as Blackrock is buying up all the available inventory.

---

Companies like this seriously need to be regulated. I'm very free market, but this is unsustainable and anti-consumer. It's especially the case when you have foreign investment buying up property as well.

---

Nope.

---

Interested in hearing why not? They are playing a rigged game...you don't think Blackrock would ever be bailed out if it ever came to that?

They are a hyper liberal mega fund clearly making life worse for millions of people. What good does Blackrock do for society as a trade off to making it nearly impossible for people to get a first home for their families?

---

Some "conservatives" worship the "free" market above everything. There is no free market and there never was. We have been duped into supporting those who enslave us.

---

THIS. They even cry "free marketsh!!!" when it comes to China, lol. In a truly free market, I would agree with most, if not all of the libertarian principles.

---

The problem is not that markets aren't free, it's that markets don't exist in a vacuum and are inherently connected to things like strategic security and politics. Laissez faire politics and economics come with an inherent flaw in that they must tolerate behavior intended to undermine and destroy them, but actions or policies meant to counteract such behavior is contrary to laissez faire ideals.

As a perfect example, look at American academia and the idea of tenure. The purpose was to maintain academic freedom in research and teaching, but that very same freedom has ultimately been coopted by decades of Russian and Chinese subversion to promote division and suppress dissension against the ideas that subversion sought to implement. Now we have woke universities where only certain ideas are acceptable and academic freedom was ultimately the tool of its own destruction. Instead of nipping bad ideas behind pushed and funded by duplicitous foreign actors in the bud, the ideas behind academic freedom allowed them to grow and fester.

---

"Free market" policy has us overly dependent and fastened at the hip with China, one of the worst and most evil countries the world has ever known. They own us. But Milton Friedman would be proud that we stuck to our guns!

---

Problem #151: Milton Friedman isn't the end all, be all god of economics that many (especially here) purport him to be. He was an economist, and a fairly good one, but his ideas were but perfect. Personally, I generally prefer Kahneman and Thaler's ideas, though not particularly the idea of "nudging." I buy the underlying principles, but I don't like the idea of using them, as Thaler puts it, "libertarian paternalistically."