GG

In 2019, an average American doesn't own an AR-15 either. High capacity magazines have existed for decades before mass shootings became common.

My entire point is that not all countries are the SAME. That's why some countries can get away with far more fiscal irresponsibility, that has nothing to do with how the central banks fund the private banks' reserve accounts. I'm glad you finally came around to agreeing with my point. Argentina and Brazil have greater labor and natural resource capacity than Japan, yet they don't have the same credibility with investors. So please stop with the textbook answers. Developed financial markets is a nice way of saying that the government knows its place in the economy. How did the government under Trump "inject" more spending than in the previous administration? The markets were more accommodating to Trump, because they understand that temporary government revenue shortfalls are better than unsustainable expense growth. Both create a deficit. One is better than the other. There's nothing more disingenuous than insisting that all deficits are the same.

Correct on all accounts, but missing the notion of Herostratic fame. Notice how we see much less assassination attempts of famous people/politicians? You can draw a close parallel between the weekend shooters and a Leo Gzolgosz, with the only difference being the intended targets.

Social media didn't exist 30 years ago.

If your logic held up, investors wouldn't care if Argentina issued more pesos which would be converted to USD to repay USD debt. After all, it's as simple as the Argentinian central bank crediting the Argentine money center banks' reserves. Bank reserves don't matter when investors don't accept your currency. ie, see above.

Crazy has been around since humans started walking upright Guns have been around for centuries Mass shootings have been rising in the last 30 years What has changed?

Define long. You're assuming that Xi has more than 18 months to ride out an economic slowdown and rising unrest in Hong Kong that can spill over to the mainland.

Talk about a QB Murderers' Row.

There is a budget deficit in Trump's administration. They did not deficit spend. They allowed the private sector to keep more of what the private sector earned and removed thousands of regulations. Please stop the insanity. The government cannot create true economic growth!!

So, if I understand your argument correctly, the US Treasury has no limits to money making capacity, but the Argentinian central bank is limited by investor appetite? Are you saying that advanced economies, especially those that issue reference currencies enjoy special status that allow them more leeway than what fundamentals indicate? Did you credit Chinese buyers of US Treasuries for keeping US yields low? Nope, no contradictory logic at all. I've been very consistent in my opinion of why QE didn't lead to real inflation, although the move was fundamentally inflationary. There was still ample demand for US assets, especially as you point out the need by the Chinese to invest their trade surplus. They are perfectly free to buy rubles, Euros & Argentinian pesos. Why don't they? Let's continue this discussion if the Fed runs out of time and can't organically unwind the balance sheet bloat.

Is 212-1 a real channel, anyway? Have they ever broadcast anything on it before?

Center?

As always, best thoughts for a successful procedure and recovery

In NYC depending on time of day. DeBlasio has hit ride sharing hard with fees and regulations.

I guess you don't see the irony of you calling out posters for immaturity, yet you're the one who constantly pulls the "I'm going home with my ball" routine.

Coincidental timing of the Capital One hack through AWS?

Nice copout. I'm asking why didn't they just issue unlimited pesos, convert them to dollars and pay the obligations?

Funny. All Argentina had to do was to issue enough fiat currency to repay US$ obligations

So you still think that you're not contradicting yourself? You seem to be making up your own definition of "default" to claim to win an Internet argument. I know memories are fleeting, but we're not even a decade removed from the possible US default in the summer of 2011. I'm guessing you don't remember the fun conversations about a possible default by a AAA global standard entity, and all the knock on effects that would have? But other than that, sovereign issuers never, ever default. Argentina defaults for second time -- You just wrote up a page backing up my point that the cost of issuing US debt is always dependent on the investor appetite for US Treasury debt. Why else would you bring up the possibility of the Chinese dumping Treasuries? The obligation of Fed's primary dealers to buy up the Treasury auction is not the same as those dealers' ability to float those Treasuries into the market. The last thing that the Fed wants is to saddle its primary dealers with unwanted inventory. Of course the probability of failed Fed auctions is low at this point, but it doesn't mean that it is impossible, and we've certainly lived through scenarios in our lives where the Treasuries' interest rates were adjusted because the demand wasn't there. Again, this furthers the point that the US can get away with much more aggressive monetary & fiscal policies, because it's still the global economic engine. I'm still trying to figure out how you excuse away the Fed creating $2.7 trillion of assets out of thin air, yet show concern over continuing debt build up due to budget deficits. Someone once said that in the long run, we're all dead. The same goes for debt issuances - in the long run someone has to pay for it. Somebody has to hold the $2.7 trillion of debt that the Fed temporarily parked on its balance sheet. It's no different for that $2.7 trillion that was created to prop up the economy or the trillions created each year to fund the budget deficits.

Did she just invoke Jordan Peterson?

To prove that point, Joe wouldn't vote for TPP in the way it was written by the administration of where he was #2.

That speaks to their efforts to ease access to the Indian not Pacific Ocean.

What choke point do they have to go through to get to the Pacific Ocean?

The bill is high because the costs to carry the channels are high. If you add up the 4 broadcast networks to the other channels that charge carriage fees, the cost easily hits $30 just for the basic cable channels. ESPN alone is about $6/month. If the cable company is offering you 100 channels, they are probably paying $50 for those channels. Then add in the cost of running the network and service.

Where else did you expect this topic to go?