The Changing World Order

I thought they were investment advisors. Google elaborated a bit. *Continues surfing...* Am I missing something?
Hedge funds 101: What are they and how do they work?
Is your financial advisor employed by a firm or are they self-employed? Do they make a fair wage? If so, than whats the frickin problem???

True. I never thought about that, although it too concerns me. That's a terrible thing to say. I don't cheat nor do I advocate cheating. (Though upon reflection I have cheated 40 years ago)I will tell you this much, however. The US is going into another level of debt relative to GDP. Both political parties blame the other guys, but I see ALL politicians as responsible due to the fact that NO administration wants to be the "bad guys" who have to cut up the national credit card (short term pain) to rescue the country from long term destruction. jar used to always say that "The Bill Will Get Paid" and no generation wants to be retired and dependent on the government for assistance the decade that they decide to pay off the debt (if they ever do). I think that they plan to inflate their way out of it by paying back our national obligations in cheaper dollars. This still might mean that a new currency will be created to replace the old inflated (and worthless) dollars. Im still researching the idea...and am trying not to listen to people who already have "it" all figured out and have an opinion (usually anti-Biden) regarding the idea. Even back when I was growing up 40+ years ago, I remember buying cars from third party sellers (like one of my friends Dads) where we would state the purchase price on the paperwork as less because the motor vehicle tags would tax you more the higher the price you paid. So in reflection, I suppose that was cheating....even 40 years ago. Back in 1980, when Reagan was just becoming president, I worked at a restaurant owned by another friends Dad. I was the dishwasher and they paid me $4.00 an hour. I also worked 2-3 hours at lunch (I was in that place 7 days a week) and I recall being paid in cash for the lunch shift. So again, I suppose that that was "cheating" though I never complained about it nor did many of my other friends who were busboys at different restaurants back then. They all declared their tips to be less than they were to avoid the taxes.​

|
Thankfully, Jesus never said, "Render unto Putin that which is Putin's!"At least I hope not!

The people decide what's necessary. If enough of us vote a certain way, that way will become in charge of law and principle and the government will collectively decide what's necessary. According to Dalio's video, Liberals by and large want to redistribute. Conservatives want to maintain.If you raise my taxes beyond a reasonable level, I will lobby to have you voted out.

I'm afraid that taxes will increase dramatically even if no more money is funneled to the rich. My argument(and fear) is that the government should never have the power to strip us of our savings. People may be starving, but Jesus said that the poor will be with us always. My argument focuses on Liberal Authoritarianism and control.Now about the Conservatives. They advocate those huge tax cuts for the wealthy for two reasons, in my opinion.
1) They believe in trickle-down economics, which in my mind has failed to work. They do have a point in that there is no reason for a man such as Bezos or Musk to even stay in this country if the people vote to supertax their wealth (rather than giving them business perks)
2) Crony-Capitalism. Remember Dalio's third global empire described in his book? Britain. Britain sought to tax the crap out of wealthy rock artists such as Jagger and Richards. So what did the old stoners do? They packed up and left the country. The same thing will (and is) happening here as the Liberal agenda desperately needs tax revenue from the top 10%.

Why would Walmarts close if the Walmart family left the country?

How is making the working class pay ever larger bills going to be the tide that raises all boats?Lets get back to the book.(Page 24)

Ray Dalio:

---

I learned that the biggest thing affecting most people in most countres throughout time is the struggle to make, take, and distribute wealth and power, though they also have struggled over other things too, most importantly ideology and religion.(...) I also saw how, throughout time and in all countries, the people who have the wealth are the people who own the means of wealth production. In order to maintain or increase their wealth, they work with the people who have the political power, who are in a symbiotic relationship with them, to set and enforce the rules.

---

It is like the old saying: The Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.Can anyone argue that this was not true? | he goes on to say that though these are his own views the ideas corroborate with what others have said before him.And it all makes sense for a Hedge Fund manager to inform his clients about changes likely to sweep through a country or economy so that they can prepare accordingly.

Well of course the businesses can be taxed. That's only fair. Alice Walton still has plenty of money and pays her legal share, though the attorneys she hires are a business expense.I worry that the wealthy will legally get out of paying the necessary increase in tax revenue to bail the United States out of the huge hole that it is in (which I think will never happen) and the bill will be stuck with you and I. Meanwhile, homelessness will continue to increase and the future of the country is uncertain. I hate to be negative...Tangle always says I preach DOOM and GLOOM, but people need to take their blinders off.

Who is "we"? And why should "we" elect a government (of either political persuasion) who considers the money in the treasury and the money of the people as one lump sum?

To clarify, I believe that even in a national crisis, the government has no right to nationalize everyone's private wealth.(Nor to confiscate the gold, as FDR did) I'm guessing that the peanut gallery sees that they do. (At least ringo will. )He will appeal to emotionalism, asking me how I can call myself a Christian if women and children are starving....anywhere in the world. I stand on the right to private property and individual liberty over and above group cohesiveness.Taxation in and of itself is necessary. Confiscatory taxation in the event of a "national crisis" infringes on individual liberty and private property rights. This is also why the NRA is supported by many. Jar would tell you. He sees individual liberty as the right to bear arms. I see it as the right to private property. I didn't learn this from Dalio, but there is a global movement backed by the BRIC nations to usurp the dollar as the global reserve currency. The Democrats would use that as an excuse. I again bring up FDR and gold confiscation.When the global economy tanks,(and it will within 5 years) the government in power at that time would likely turn authoritarian and in an appeal to emotionalism claim that "they" were trying to help society. But that's getting off-topic...sort of.

This is not mentioned in Ray Dalio's book (I don't think, anyway) but the question arose in my mind about why precisely FDR confiscated the gold and silver in 1933.
Wiki had the following quotes, taken from
Executive Order 6102

quote:

---

Executive Order 6102 is an executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States." The executive order was made under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the Emergency Banking Act in March 1933.

​

The limitation on gold ownership in the United States was repealed after President Gerald Ford signed a bill legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars, and certificates by an Act of Congress, codified in Pub.L. 93–373,[1] which went into effect December 31, 1974.

​

The stated reason for the order was that hard times had caused a "hoarding" of gold, stalling economic growth and worsening the depression as the US was then using the gold standard for its currency.
The main rationale behind the order was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve preventing it from increasing the money supply during the depression. The Federal Reserve Act (1913) required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes that were issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost reached the limit of allowable credit, in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes, which could be backed by the gold in its possession.

---

Several things to note:

FDR was a Democrat.

Gerald Ford was a Republican.
Note the interplay between national interest and private property rights.

​

And in order to get a peek into my mind and where this all is heading, consider the implications of an executive order today that tied in the digital currency with the price and legality of private gold ownership. Democrats want control. They think that fiat money belongs to the public. Republicans want freedom of private ownership.

​

Note also that today's Fed "prints" money with abandon...especially since Nixon took us off of the Bretton Woods system to "defend the dollar against the speculators." The speculators were not private citizens at this point, since Ford's executive order was in 1974 and Nixon's was in 1971. (The speculators were other nations trying to get their own stash of gold from the US.

​

And for those of you who argue lamely that the dollar determines the price of gold rather than the inverse, I can only say that the IMF and most global Central Banks still own (and are buying) more gold.

​

Also, consider that gold is priced in dollars and the dollar is high right now in the current global sanctions/currency war. If the US Dollar ceased being the main reserve currency (and) at best a bit player among many, gold would show its true value.

​

My theory is that the Democrats want the gold/money available for public interest above private interest and the Republicans to this day are still likely hoarding gold in the event that the dollar either hyperinflates or deflates and becomes shunned by the global markets...a time which has not yet arrived and which many say is coming.

Wiki:

---

Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve in exchange for $20.67 (equivalent to $433 in 2021)[5] per troy ounce. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, a violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $209,000 in 2021),[5] up to ten years in prison, or both.

​

The order specifically exempted "customary use in industry, profession or art," a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, sign-makers, etc. The order also permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins, a face value equivalent to 5 troy ounces (160 g) of gold valued at approximately $10,000 in 2020. The same paragraph also exempted "gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins", which protected recognized gold coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting.

​

The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was then raised by the Gold Reserve Act to $35 an ounce (equivalent to $733 in 2021)[5]. The resulting profit that the government realized (ended up funding)the Exchange Stabilization Fund, established by the 1934 Gold Reserve Act.

---

​

You guys can draw your own conclusions, but I will argue until the cows come home that gold is never going to become a barbarous relic (Keynes) nor will it ever crash like bitcoin.
Commodities are always a safe harbor in an economic storm.

​

Now back to the book.....

​

Edited by Phat, : clarification.

​

Edited by Phat, : more tinkering

---

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).

​

When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy

​

Democrats should notbe the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022 explaining his stance regarding political moderation.

I'll give him 1/3 credit. Churchill and Stalin get the other two-thirds. And it was WW II and the war effort that made America an Empire...not a New Deal Democrat. Nixon, Reagan, and Ford were no better, to be fair.

I give the American people as much credit for the war effort as I do FDR. There were wealthy industrialists who helped turn us into the vaunted arsenal of democracy.And getting back to Churchill, I saw an alleged quote by him on BrainyQuote, but I'm not sure I trust these quotes as having originated from the purported authors! See what you guys think: More on Churchill from Wiki:
In 20th century politics, Winston Churchill (1874–1965) was one of the world's most influential and significant figures. He was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 to 1945, when he led the country to victory in the Second World War, and again from 1951 to 1955. Apart from two years between 1922 and 1924, he was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1900 to 1964. Ideologically an economic liberal and imperialist, he was for most of his career a member of the Conservative Party, and its leader from 1940 to 1955. He was a member of the Liberal Party from 1904 to 1924. (...)

​

The historian Roger Hermiston writes that, when forming his national coalition government in May 1940, it helped Churchill that his own career had "never been circumscribed by party affiliation".[1] He had begun as a Conservative, defected to the Liberals for twenty years and then returned to the Conservatives. Stuart Ball asserts that he was always comfortable with the idea of governing coalitions.[2] Churchill was perceived by some observers to have been largely motivated by personal ambition rather than political principle,[3][4] and he lacked "permanent commitment to any party".[5] While Robert Rhodes James wrote that Churchill was "fundamentally a very conservative man",[5] Martin Gilbert considered him to be always "liberal in outlook".[6]

​

Roy Jenkins believed that, whether Churchill was conservative or liberal, he invariably opposed socialism, except that he was completely reliant on the help and support of his Labour Party ministers in the wartime coalition.[7][8] Churchill was wary of socialist tendencies toward state planning and bureaucracy, because he consistently believed in both the liberty of the individual and of free markets.[9] Paul Addison asserts, however, that Churchill was paradoxically supportive of trade unionism, which he saw as the "antithesis of socialism".[10] While Churchill was in some respects a radical and a reformer,[11] it was not from any desire to challenge existing social structure, but to preserve it.[12] He could not empathise with the poor, so instead he sympathised with them,[13] displaying what Addison calls the attitude of a "benevolent paternalist".[14] Thus Churchill, 1/3 of the Big Three, was a Conservative in World War II and beyond. Stalin was of course a Dictator, and FDR had a sleeping giant of a country backing him in his role.
Granted FDR was a very influential president and helped Britain win its war as a member of the allied powers. My point is that the allied block had both conservatives and liberals involved in the war effort.

Nonsense. After all, Herbert Hoover was credited for getting us *in* to the depression, and he was a Republican. After reading up on Churchill, I must say that I respect him for being a member of both parties at different times. And for those of you who despise rich guys, note that FDR was a very wealthy individual. Churchill, though he had an aristocratic background was said to not be particularly wealthy.I studied more online.
Did New Deal Programs Help End the Great Depression? ...

quote:

---

Since the late 1930s, conventional wisdom has held that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” helped bring about the end of the Great Depression. The series of social and government spending programs did get millions of Americans back to work on hundreds of public projects across the country.

​

But in the 80 years since the Great Depression was formally declared over in June of 1938, historians and economists have continued to debate the true merits of the New Deal and whether, in fact, the radical government spending programs brought about the end of the biggest economic downturn in history.(...)But, just because the United States hasn’t repeated the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression doesn’t mean the programs of the New Deal can take all the credit. Other factors were also at play—including the onset of a major world war. “It really could be argued World War II, which ultimately lowered unemployment and increased GNP through weapons production really played a much bigger role,” Lichtenstein says.

---

And lets get back to Ray Dalio's book.

Mr.Dalio has another brilliant video that explains, in 30 minutes, a simplified description of how the economy works in the United States. You have said some uninformed and ignorant statements that show me that you really don't understand the economy.I will provide the video link, but I also want to break down the transcript so that people such as ringo who believe in the discipline (and old-fashioned approach) to modern learning can begin to understand the concepts. Here is the basic outline of this video. Those so interested can click on the transcript themselves (on YouTube) but I also am rereading what Mr.Dalio says in his presentation. I have the transcript. There is no charlatan involved here. No "theory" from a Hedge Fund Founder. What I see is straightforward talk and beautifully animated explanations from a man who first learned economics on the street long before this so-called "Modern" Economic theory was ever conceived. Judge for yourselves.Oh and by the way, I cut out nothing and added nothing. What you see is what he teaches.