It’s not debt if you don’t carry a balance. I thought you meant you were making payments against a carried balance.

As for advice, anyone who is paying 15%, 20% on cc debt obviously doesn’t understand finance, like a fat man giving diet advice. But that’s not the case for you.

I figured it wasn’t, given your analysis earlier was too sharp to be someone carrying a balance.

A lot of people get tricked into playing the stupid games the credit agencies have you play. They get a credit card and pay off 3/4 of it every month because having a small balance to charge interest to gives you a small 20 point boost. Just pay off the whole debt every couple weeks. That's what I do, and my credit is near perfect (or as close as you can get)

This looks ugly, where has all this money gone? Straight from the fed into bonds? Is there really 3x as much currency units today as existed 10 years ago?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

QE Infinity....

Everyone should be incredibly careful about giving personalized investment advice on here

@Darth absolutely, just yesterday pinned a notice to only invest money you can risk losing. Feel free to @ everyone to repeat every once in a while, I will try to do it every few days. See pins for an example

Yeah, just making sure, brother. :-) With being an attorney, I can be a little anxious...hahaha

We don't need FINRA and the SEC up in our grills...haha

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4134596-dreaded-flattening-yield-curve-meets-qe-unwind

"The Fed's "balance sheet normalization" will accelerate as 2018 progresses: In Q1, the Fed is scheduled to shed $60 billion in securities, in Q2 $90 billion, in Q3 $120 billion, and in Q4 $150 billion, for a total of $420 billion. This is scheduled to increase to $600 billion in 2019."

What does this mean really? We don’t really have reserve requirements anymore so this will just reduce the money supply by that much every quarter correct?

a quick google search tell me the reserve requirement is 10%

the jist of the article was talking about the yield curve

currently it is flat - ~50bp spread between the 10yr and 2yr

an inverted yield curve (short rates greater than long term rates) is a leading indicator a recession is on the horizon. we had this in 2006

the above quote shows that fed has ammo to keep the yield curve normal (short rates lower than long rates) which is a good thing

Trying to find the report but apparently banks have gone on record saying that they will make loans without reserves and find the reserves later. Maybe they are referring to the discount window

again, its importnt to watch cadence of fed rate increases.. too quick and it will trigger a recession i believe. 2-3 rate hikes it about right for 2018. 50-75bp increase puts us at ~2% fed fund rate

The increases you are talking about are to the discount rate, correct?

the federal fund rate is the minimum rate banks can borrow from other banks. the discount rate is the rate at which banks can borrow directly from the fed

the discount rate is 2% https://www.bankrate.com/rates/interest-rates/federal-discount-rate.aspx

Right but the fed reserve only controls the discount rate directly where as the fed funds rate is indirectly controlled correct

that is my understanding yes

@Zyzz have you read Gottfried Feders "Breaking interest slavery"? and what do you think of his pronouncements, or generally the argument against usury or borrowing money at interest? is money only a measure and an exchange or should it be treated as a commodity?

@REVNAT/PA I haven't read the book but my thoughts on charging interest on loans is as follows: no one in their right mind would give you money (for free) with the expectation that it'll be paid back at a later date. lending money has inherent risks (not being paid back) and a lender should receive adequate compensation for that risk(interest). additionally, if you are going to lend money out to someone, that means you are unable to use that capital. a lender deserves some form of compensation for being without his capital for that period. if usury were abolished i would not lend it out to anyone because there would be no payoff for me and i would be without my capital for whatever period of time i had lent it for

What about state run usury like they had in Colonial Pennsylvania

Usury is necessary, it is a market signal for the price of money's time value.

I think there should be a separation of currency and state. The state should not be in control of the supply of money, nor the interest rate of money.

@Deleted User i am unfamilar with that or how hitler did it in Germany. i generally view state run anything as inferior. socialism/communism are inferior economic systems. not saying capitalism is perfect (especially in this country) but governments getting involved in business almost always results in inefficiencies

I am as well but the colony of Pennsylvania had no taxes, just this bank. Sounds like a good deal

Usury is an immoral act that was considered a mortal sin for European peoples for a good long time. Debt creates enslavement, it fosters free loading and parasitism of the monied elites, it promotes instant gratification, increases the cost of living for everyone, it punishes children through public and private debts of parents (treasury or student loan). Even if all the moral, societal, familial dire consequences were ignored in order to have 'economic growth', there is nothing preventing anyone from _investing_ in a new business as opposed to lending the money. That is how concerns were set up from time immemorial. There is not one good reason why usury should be legal. All money changers should have their assets stripped and clawed back.

morality is for goyim, duh

Interest rate is not price of money (I guess maybe in the world of Mises with gold backed blah blah). In our fractional reserve system, lending comes first then "reserves" are conjured up. Money is literally free for the banks. Yet you still pay 15% on your credit card or 5% on your car loan or 3% on your studen loan. They can lend to anybody anytime as long as they think they will get it back. To say that there is a price on an item that is literally (to steal sjw parlance) infinite is just absurd.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

His articles back during the 2008 recessions were very illuminating and explanatory to me.

In regards to the comment about “nothing preventing anyone from investing in a business”. Equity and debt have different risk and return characteristics. So yes, if you are more risk averse and you do not want to bear excessive risk then yes that is stopping you from investing in the equity.

Additionally, that is why mortgage securitization was such a great thing (invented by a Christian). It distributed risk to those who were most willing and able to bear it. Your community bank down the street does not necessarily want to hold your mortgage note for 30 years. Securitizing mortgages allowed him to sell off your note; freeing up his capital.

I have nothing that could be presented as a counter argument to what you set forth. I agree with what you said: if you have capital it is much less risky and more advantageous to lend the money then to invest the money; receiving rent payments enforced through student loan, mortgage, till tap, garnishments, professional license forfeiture and other statues, laws and legal devices. That IS better and my advice to anybody looking to deploy their liquid assets would be to do it in a fashion where the individual or individuals that are the recipients of said debt will forever transfer to you a portion of their future earnings, hopefully in perpetuity with no or minimal ability to escape the contract. That is good financial advice. Furthermore, should anybody in this Discord chat be in such an entrepreneurial position, I hope they remember me and allow me to participate in the chicanery they happen to luck upon. I am not beyond praying on pensioners with reverse mortgages to ensure my sons can get bottle service at a club to impress the sluts.

Since, this _is_ after all a practical investment channel, not an academic discussion so I don’t want to belabor the point but the question was raised by others. My intent was NOT to say that individuals should not chase yields or let their savings be eaten by inflation in order to prove to be the most righteous man standing. I have made substantial multi-year gains going short ABX indexes (betting against MBS) in 2008 and long precious metals. Financial speculation is a necessity today and no man can survive outside a monastery without taking a bit out of serpent’s apple. My intent is to say that it is a provable fact that usury besides being a sin is also an economically net negative policy, creating the very instruments like mortgages that have replaced a multi-generational asset accumulation and private ownership of homes into a system of perpetual renting where an average American today has almost no chance to ever own their own property whereas individuals throughout the world and throughout the history of this country prior to today were perfectly fine buying and owning property after a minimal period of saving. Even if it was not soul destroying, corroding practice, it is an economically destructive one whose merits and demerits would be open to argument some 100 years ago but today are open for all with eyes to see.