What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[DGuller]

Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.

We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.

I suspect part of the reason is in how we define the inflation.  If all the money we print is for now used to inflate the stock of Tesla or Gamestop, then it doesn't show up as inflation, since Tesla stocks are not part of the consumer basket of goods.  Of course, it's a ticking time bomb; if we ever distributed that printed money away from those who are so bored with their wealth that they trade in stocks, to those who are so poor they spend all their income on consumption, then we may well go "oh, turns out it's not different this time, yikes".

[grumbler]

Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.

They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks.  So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.

It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe.  I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.

Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct.  What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal?  Some other rabbit hole?

Very interesting.  Someone who claims to be a lawyer is ignorant of the difference between a regulatory offense and an activity that makes the actor subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, without the act being itself forbidden.  Too hungover to attend class that day?

[grumbler]

Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.

We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.

Yes.  One can increase inflationary pressures without causing inflation, because all else is not equal.

[Iormlund]

Other way around. If that money was getting spent instead of sitting idle, it would increase inflation, much like printing money does.

We've just been printing money for a decade with not much sign of inflation.

I suspect part of the reason is in how we define the inflation.  If all the money we print is for now used to inflate the stock of Tesla or Gamestop, then it doesn't show up as inflation, since Tesla stocks are not part of the consumer basket of goods.  Of course, it's a ticking time bomb; if we ever distributed that printed money away from those who are so bored with their wealth that they trade in stocks, to those who are so poor they spend all their income on consumption, then we may well go "oh, turns out it's not different this time, yikes".

Agreed. To me that shows that the way we print money is basically broken. It needs to go directly to consumers, not financial isntitutions.

[alfred russel]

Another way to look at it is imagine it is 2005.  Apple has become the dominant player in the music industry with the hugely successful iPod and the iTunes store.  They also have a profitable niche line of premium computing products.

At this point someone goes to the board and suggests that Apple should enter into a completely new market.  One that is presently characterized by razor thin margins and brutal competition from powerful well resourced companies like Nokia and Motorola: mobile phone handsets.

If Apple had followed AR's reasoning, that suggestion would have laughed out of the board room.

That isn't a fair representation of my reasoning.

Entering a new and evolving market is one thing. Establishing joint ventures to gain expertise in legacy industries that you want to move in another direction also makes sense.

Straight up buying a $75 billion company that has a ton of political interest and is one of the most high profile companies in the world, has operations across the globe, and many times your number of employees is something completely different.

[crazy canuck]

Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.

They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks.  So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.

It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe.  I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.

Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct.  What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal?  Some other rabbit hole?

Very interesting.  Someone who claims to be a lawyer is ignorant of the difference between a regulatory offense and an activity that makes the actor subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, without the act being itself forbidden.  Too hungover to attend class that day?

Don't choose law as a new career Grumbles, the activity that will amount to a regulatory offence is the activity that is illegal.

[grumbler]

Yes I am aware of all that. I was just curious about the legalization of stock buy backs and why they were illegal in the first place specifically.

They were never illegal, they just left mangers in the position whereby they could be accused of manipulating the value of their stocks.  So they were rare between 1934 (when price manipulation was made illegal in the wake of the 1929 crash) and 1982 when the rules were changed to allow low levels of stock buybacks without creating liability for charges of manipulation.

It isn't as simple as the black-and-white thinkers want you to believe.  I personally believe that the pre-1982 rules were better, but there are economists who would disagree with me, and have some reason on their side.

Very interesting, a regulatory offence is not illegal conduct.  What is it, just sort of outside the law? A minor deviation that is not quite legal and also not illegal?  Some other rabbit hole?

Very interesting.  Someone who claims to be a lawyer is ignorant of the difference between a regulatory offense and an activity that makes the actor subject to increased regulatory scrutiny, without the act being itself forbidden.  Too hungover to attend class that day?

Don't choose law as a new career Grumbles, the activity that will amount to a regulatory offence is the activity that is illegal.

Do you actually get people to pay you to mouth truisms like this?  I can do that easily, so maybe law should be my next career! 

[Razgovory]

Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?

Nah, I tried that.  On several occasions I left my wallet in my pants and threw them in the washing machine.  The cash circulated like mad, but when I took it out there wasn't more of it.  It just got soggy.

[Oexmelin]

Won't money circulating rather than sitting idle increase inflation?

Nah, I tried that.  On several occasions I left my wallet in my pants and threw them in the washing machine.  The cash circulated like mad, but when I took it out there wasn't more of it.  It just got soggy.

It takes some technical skills to properly launder money.

[crazy canuck]

Do you actually get people to pay you to mouth truisms like this?  I can do that easily, so maybe law should be my next career! 

Sure.  What is stopping you.

[Syt]

[Caliga]

THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP! 

[Syt]

Someone checked and the text actually fits in a tweet.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't follow the logic — he isn't President but we are getting the shots.

[grumbler]

I don't follow the logic — he isn't President but we are getting the shots.

I take it that you didn't notice who sent this, what with your reference to "logic" and such.