Powell has printed $6T, and the DXY has gone nowhere but up, along with the SPY and the QQQ and the DJIA.
Every single Thursday, we report more job losses than expected, and the market screams higher.
As much as we'd like to think there will be consequences to printing money, the evidence is in that there won't be, either in currency value or market confidence. MMT has proven itself correct.
You don't seem to be taking into account that stocks shooting up is itself the inflation. The stock market is completely disconnected from the economic forecast, because money remains easy for wall street despite everything happening on main street.
Has it? The argument could be made that US financial health is worse now than in 2008 and not better. Wall Street gorging on free money is not really a good argument right now if the country is literally on the verge of falling apart.
Personal experience from someone who enjoys hunting and eating game:
The bigger issue is getting one's family on board. A spouse or kids who have grown accustomed to CAFO beef and chicken and not much else will be difficult to transition to gamier meats, to say nothing of offal.
That's certainly an issue. We solved that, by taking the boys to a local Methodists' Mens' Wild Game Feed (rural church event). The good ol boys brought out everything from the freezer for the season, had a potluck, a fundraiser for the church. We feasted on every kind of fish, pheasant, boar, wild mushrooms, every part of deer imaginable. All grilled or stewed in a machine shed and enjoyed in the attached shop space with big tables set out and everybody seated together.
To this day my boys rave about the pepper deer tenderloin, roasted and sliced thin. Best meal of their lives. And they're all about 30 now.
This is where the meat grinder swoops in to save the day. Venison doesn't always make the best steak but there's very few meats that don't make a good burger or taco.
> whose fault is it that Wall Street react to tweets?
He's not permitted to tweet anything that may materially impact the stock without prior board or general counsel approval, per his contempt agreement.
Obviously Jay Clayton is going to let him get away with it just like his prior violation of the Consent Decree, but for the brief period of time that the market forgets the SEC is toothless when it comes to Musk, this is nominally a big deal.
>He's not permitted to tweet anything that may materially impact the stock without prior board or general counsel approval, per his contempt agreement.
Isn't the actual SEC agreement a lot more specific than that? This first article [1] I found in a quick search from last year has a specific list, he has to have it cleared for including any of:
• any information about the company’s financial condition or guidance, potential or proposed mergers, acquisitions or joint ventures,
• production numbers or sales or delivery number (actual, forecasted, or projected),
• new or proposed business lines that are unrelated to then-existing business lines (presently includes vehicles, transportation, and sustainable energy products);
• projection, forecast, or estimate numbers regarding Tesla’s business that have not been previously published in official company guidance
• events regarding the company’s securities (including Musk’s acquisition or disposition of shares)
• nonpublic legal or regulatory findings or decisions;
• any event requiring the filing of a Form 8-K such as a change in control or a change in the company’s directors; any principal executive officer, president, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer, principal operating officer, or any person performing similar functions
Were there other more general terms? If not, does pure opinion of "lol it's up too high" actually violate the letter of any of those? I guess it could be argued that maybe he's saying that due to information he knows that other people don't, but it's not itself disclosing anything at all.
May get an investigation, but if internally there has been nothing of material impact (and he didn't benefit in any way) and it's just Elon Musk going off I'm not sure it's a matter for the SEC vs the board and shareholders. But his genius/drive and crazy/lack of control are pretty well known quantities at this point and tied together. If he's not violating any actual laws and a majority of shareholders are fine taking the bad with the good vs other mixtures of bad and good (safe and conservative but low vision for example) that seems like it'd be up to them?
His tweet is literally a "projection, forecast, or estimate" of "numbers regarding Tesla’s business" (the stock price) "that have not been previously published in official company guidance".
It's also absolutely "any information about the company’s financial condition or guidance".
I don't see any way this doesn't fall in the list of bullets. Saying the stock price is too high is nothing but a guidance as to the company's financial condition.
>of "numbers regarding Tesla’s business" (the stock price)
That was my first glance interpretation, but I genuinely was curious if people with more legal knowledge would know if it was a correct one. Is the stock price actually part of "Tesla's business" in this context or a reflection of Tesla's business, with the actual numbers about that being the kinds of things that go into company guidance and reports. Additionally, "it should be lower" doesn't seem like it's at all literally a "projection, forecast, or estimate" but a statement of opinion. If said opinion isn't based on undisclosed fact is it a violation? Or is there precedent (seriously) that anything a CEO says inherently is going to be an issue because they can't possibly avoid knowing private info? Normally CEOs at big public corps are more careful by default so I'm kind of curious where it's come up before. That'd tie into the "guidance" aspect too it seems.
Anyway, to be clear this isn't meant to defend him per se it's just that I find law and how the specificity of language in it plays out interesting, so I was curious about other readings.
This is a ridiculous assumption. For two obvious examples, Art Bell attracted plenty of advertisers, as did early-day Howard Stern.
Some advertisers do, and some do not. Don't lump them all into a single bucket. YouTube is creating an environment that guarantees a future without Art Bells or Howard Sterns.
The concern you raise could easily be remedied with a single checkbox on the advertiser portal labeled "Display this Campaign on Fringe Content". The fact that with the enormous technical capability of Google, they choose not to do this and instead decide that they know the advertisers' preferences better than the advertisers themselves demonstrates clearly that this is about power and control, not ad revenue or serving the customer.
Can you explain this? It's never made any sense, at all.
1. If you earn excess unreported income, eventually the IRS will figure it out and come get their cut.
2. If you earn it through criminal means, you're already committing a crime for which, if caught, you will be punished.
Why is the act of obfuscating the source of income a crime? Who gets harmed by this, that isn't already harmed by either the potential crime committed or taxes evaded?
If you make money laundering easy it becomes much easier to commit crimes and keep your gains, while the volume of the payoff gets much higher.
If drug dealers in the 80s could have started hedge funds (or even deposit funds legally) with their shoeboxes of cash, it would’ve been an even crazier ball game.
It's not a crime if the source is legitimate, but if you ask me to hold on to a bag of cash which your friend will retrieve tomorrow, then it's reasonable for me to ask if the cash is legit. Otherwise, I may be harmed by being part of a crime.
It's no different for a financial institution holding onto a bag of cash.
regarding 1), the point of money laundering is that you can report that income to the IRS without clearly implicating yourself in criminal activity. laundering your money and then not reporting it defeats the purpose.
there's nothing inherently wrong with obfuscating a source of income, although it's hard to do this without committing some sort of fraud along the way. it's a (somewhat distasteful, imo) administrative convenience. people who run criminal enterprises have a variety of methods for distancing themselves from the actual crimes they are making money from. it turns out to be a lot easier to catch them doing funny stuff with money than it is to pin any of the original crimes on them.
This method, while effective, is likely to be a significant frustration for the woman in this situation, given that cyclical high fertility usually coincides with high sex drive.
Then they do what everyone else does. Sell the asset and cut back on expenses.
Capital owners are not a special class of citizen. If you have assets and need cash, there is a way to convert one to the other. It's called a "market". You may have heard of it.
It seems that during recessions, asset-rich/cash-poor people, nominally Capitalists, turn into overnight socialists because making cuts to the ol' lifestyle is for the little people, not them.
You very well may be correct, but I'd like to point out that for a broader sense of "doomsday narrative", living in or near DC while the rest of the US crumbles would be a lot like living in Rome when the Germanic tribes were overrunning the Empire's frontiers. DC is the absolute best place to be during an American empire collapse - until, of course, the very end.
I actually live in NYC, I'm just in DC for a few weeks (have already been here a while). When I left NYC it was very quiet, not at all like it is here. I left before things got really crazy.
