(11-30-2025, 07:41 PM)CriticalStinker Wrote: Not just the fact they held us hostage, interest payments are about to be the biggest expenditure of the government. 

We're cooked.

Maybe... 'interest' (compounded and aggregated) is certainly the demon "engineered" into the framework. That and fractional reserve lending.

However, a few well-placed bitter pills could be applied to save us all...

By "bitter," I mean bitter for the BIS...  
This also, will never happen with the political 'theater' in place... and her clown cavalcade.

This "circumstance" has been forewarned, exposed, and proclaimed to the heavens for decades...
too bad it was foretold by people who the right and left both hate.

The math ALONE told us what we were doing wrong.... even disregarding the overt political subterfuge.

Our "beloved" leaders will tell us how this is ALL our collective faults over the years... regrettable 'resource' surprises, and "partisan" compromises at loggerheads. 

But they will assure us they have a plan... perhaps involving a "single" currency... a "universal" currency.... and one authority to manage policy....

any guesses who?

(11-30-2025, 08:28 PM)Maxmars Wrote: Maybe... 'interest' (compounded and aggregated) is certainly the demon "engineered" into the framework. That and fractional reserve lending.

However, a few well-placed bitter pills could be applied to save us all...

By "bitter," I mean bitter for the BIS...  
This also, will never happen with the political 'theater' in place... and her clown cavalcade.

This "circumstance" has been forewarned, exposed, and proclaimed to the heavens for decades...
too bad it was foretold by people who the right and left both hate.

The math ALONE told us what we were doing wrong.... even disregarding the overt political subterfuge.

Our "beloved" leaders will tell us how this is ALL our collective faults over the years... regrettable 'resource' surprises, and "partisan" compromises at loggerheads. 

But they will assure us they have a plan... perhaps involving a "single" currency... a "universal" currency.... and one authority to manage policy....

any guesses who?

I could take a good guess as to who.

But the interesting part to me, a lot of these people aren't nearly as competent as the conspiracy community makes them out to be. 

The populace makes most of them out to be in warring factions. A lot of them are in the same ideology, it just so happens their different groups help justify their very existence. But if you zoom in and look at them all, they're just as human as everyone else. Their greed makes them make horrible decisions that snowball down the road. If we look at the national debt, it was incredibly manageable before 2000. Since then, it's become and exponential problem. We're likely fast approaching an irreversible line. 

I can kind of appreciate why many don't recognize this. I recently visited family for Thanksgiving, and it was interesting seeing the divide. Much of my family is far from being liberal, yet they are critical of Trump right now. That line isn't as much ideological as it is generational. The ones who are approaching and in retirement think highly of the current environment. And I suppose if I'm being honest, I can't really blame them. Stock prices, Bonds, Property, other asset prices are doing well. But the question is if that is short term, or long term. 

The thirty somethings, a lot of us are skeptical. We're not woke or lib, we just think this is the same song and dance before more troubles. I don't think that is unfair either, look at before 2008. People talk about slashing taxes, I get it... But they don't think of the fallout if we don't adjust the scale on the other end. Of course, there are groups who say it will trickle down, take out some of the cost of doing business and it will spread. Personally I agree with that to an extent, but we have plenty of timelines to extrapolate data from to show it's not the end all be all. Especially in an economy where we socialize the losses and privatize the profit.

(11-30-2025, 08:59 PM)CriticalStinker Wrote: I could take a good guess as to who.

But the interesting part to me, a lot of these people aren't nearly as competent as the conspiracy community makes them out to be. 

The populace makes most of them out to be in warring factions. A lot of them are in the same ideology, it just so happens their different groups help justify their very existence. But if you zoom in and look at them all, they're just as human as everyone else. Their greed makes them make horrible decisions that snowball down the road. If we look at the national debt, it was incredibly manageable before 2000. Since then, it's become and exponential problem. We're likely fast approaching an irreversible line. 

I can kind of appreciate why many don't recognize this. I recently visited family for Thanksgiving, and it was interesting seeing the divide. Much of my family is far from being liberal, yet they are critical of Trump right now. That line isn't as much ideological as it is generational. The ones who are approaching and in retirement think highly of the current environment. And I suppose if I'm being honest, I can't really blame them. Stock prices, Bonds, Property, other asset prices are doing well. But the question is if that is short term, or long term. 

The thirty somethings, a lot of us are skeptical. We're not woke or lib, we just think this is the same song and dance before more troubles. I don't think that is unfair either, look at before 2008. People talk about slashing taxes, I get it... But they don't think of the fallout if we don't adjust the scale on the other end. Of course, there are groups who say it will trickle down, take out some of the cost of doing business and it will spread. Personally I agree with that to an extent, but we have plenty of timelines to extrapolate data from to show it's not the end all be all. Especially in an economy where we socialize the losses and privatize the profit.

So we are going to pretend none of the USAID fraud happened in a vacuum; much of that has been going on since the Obama era(cough, cough)
However, since both Republicans and Democrats tapped into it, it was just lost due to spillage or incompetence.

A phased elimination for 150 grand and under would represent 65-85 million returns, and it could easily kick-start the economy, for perspective, thats just 13% which could easily be replaced with the new tariff revenue 

The amount of new income for this financial demographic will mostly be reinvested in thier communities in a variety of ways, even those who put it all in regular savings are reinvesting in the community.

(12-01-2025, 09:37 AM)putnam6 Wrote: So we are going to pretend none of the USAID fraud happened in a vacuum; much of that has been going on since the Obama era(cough, cough)
However, since both Republicans and Democrats tapped into it, it was just lost due to spillage or incompetence.

A phased elimination for 150 grand and under would represent 65-85 million returns, and it could easily kick-start the economy, for perspective, thats just 13% which could easily be replaced with the new tariff revenue 

The amount of new income for this financial demographic will mostly be reinvested in thier communities in a variety of ways, even those who put it all in regular savings are reinvesting in the community.

I have no doubt that USAID had a lot of waste and fraud. But that's like 27b a year. I'm not saying it shouldn't be addressed, but it's not the reason why we're at where we are at.

Both parties voted for the war in Iraq, that was trillions. Both have voted for bailout packages and stimulus packages that were even more.

I imagine the tariffs could offset the income tax of those making under 150k per year for a short time. The question is, would we actually start to offset the debt? I don't think we would. Tariffs are a great tool, and when used correctly they would achieve certain goals. The point is to discourage spending towards imports, and favor domestic. If they were successful, tariff revenue would decline. That's not to say there isn't a world where they could help benefit our broader economy, I just question if the way they're currently deployed they could offset income taxes for most American's while reducing debt. 

Our debt is still increasing, interest payments will be the number one federal expenditure very soon. Anyone in credit card debt knows that once your interest payments are your highest amount of spending, it only gets worse.

And then, all of this would rely on the Supreme Court to allow all of the tariffs to stay in place, which isn't likely, so that's another problem. 

The only way I see a large tariff regime working is if it's codified by congress. Until then, it is as temporary as a presidency.

On the topic of tariffs are trashing the economy.

Fall and holiday retail has always been a bellwether for the economy in general, YES or NO...

Even for our industry, we were busier than usual.

Our retailers were swamped a bit; calls for special orders are way up. In our sector, it's encouraging as hell. 

For perspective, 10 years ago, online sales were less than 10% of retailers' business; now it's approaching 25-30% and because this new business is mostly out of the retailers' home zipcodes, it'sa  new nationwide business and isn't cannibalizing local in-store sales in a noticeable amount

If that holds through our busiest retail months, January through April, we will have a massive start to 2026
 

Quote: 
Overview of Black Friday 2025 
Black Friday 2025 (November 28) was a tale of two shopping worlds: record-breaking online activity that underscored its evolution into a digital powerhouse, contrasted with modest or slightly declining in-store crowds. Overall, it was busier than 2024 in terms of total spending and participation, with U.S. consumers showing resilient demand amid economic pressures like inflation and tariffs. However, shoppers were more tactical—prioritizing deals via apps and AI tools—leading to fewer units bought per transaction despite higher dollar volumes. Here's a breakdown based on key metrics:
 
 
Online vs. In-Store Breakdown

• Online Boom: E-commerce dominated, tripling from $3.54 billion a decade ago. Adobe tracked over 1 trillion site visits, with AI assistants (e.g., Amazon's Rufus, Walmart's Sparky) influencing $3 billion in U.S. sales—shoppers using AI converted 38–54% more often. Electronics ($2.1 billion), toys, and apparel led categories, but tariffs (up 17% on electronics) pushed prices higher, curbing volume.  Social commerce (TikTok Shop, Instagram) generated 19% of sales for some retailers.
  
• In-Store Reality: Crowds were thinner than the pre-pandemic era, with videos of empty aisles at stores like Best Buy going viral on X, evoking nostalgia for 2005's "doorbuster" chaos.  The shift reflects extended promotions ("Black November") starting in October, reducing the need for one-day rushes. Winners included Target (early swag bags) and Walmart (late-day surge), while off-price and department stores outperformed. 
  

Broader Context and Sentiment
Despite economic headwinds (e.g., CPI up on essentials, sentiment at 88.7), spending held strong—contradicting recession fears (24% probability per Cleveland Fed). X posts highlighted the paradox: record sales amid "empty malls" and boycott calls that fizzled.  Gen Z cut discretionary spend 15%, but the top 10% earners (48% of Q2 spending) fueled the surge.  Looking ahead, Cyber Monday projections: $14.2 billion (+6.3%), with holiday totals eyeing $1 trillion+. 
In short, Black Friday 2025 was busier digitally than ever, but felt quieter in physical spaces—a sign of evolved, efficient consumerism rather than decline.

(12-01-2025, 10:56 AM)putnam6 Wrote: On the topic of tariffs are trashing the economy.

Fall and holiday retail has always been a bellwether for the economy in general, YES or NO...

Even for our industry, we were busier than usual.

Our retailers were swamped a bit; calls for special orders are way up. In our sector, it's encouraging as hell. 

For perspective, 10 years ago, online sales were less than 10% of retailers' business; now it's approaching 25-30% and because this new business is mostly out of the retailers' home zipcodes, it'sa  new nationwide business and isn't cannibalizing local in-store sales in a noticeable amount

If that holds through our busiest retail months, January through April, we will have a massive start to 2026
 

To be fair, I didn't say tariffs are trashing the economy. 

I stated the following which are facts:

• We are still increasing our debt
  
• We cannot get rid of income taxes for large groups without increasing debt more (as everything stands at the moment)
  
• The current tariff regime isn't codified, it's an executive order. Even if SCOTUS lets them stay, which looks unlikely, the next admin could change the landscape
  

And that's great for holiday spending. We could use a good quarter, as almost all of the gains in the stock market in the past year have been tied to AI. Hopefully that gives other industries a much needed bump.

(12-01-2025, 11:55 AM)CriticalStinker Wrote: To be fair, I didn't say tariffs are trashing the economy. 

I stated the following which are facts:

• We are still increasing our debt
  
• We cannot get rid of income taxes for large groups without increasing debt more (as everything stands at the moment)
  
• The current tariff regime isn't codified, it's an executive order. Even if SCOTUS lets them stay, which looks unlikely, the next admin could change the landscape
  

And that's great for holiday spending. We could use a good quarter, as almost all of the gains in the stock market in the past year have been tied to AI. Hopefully that gives other industries a much needed bump.

Apologies, I didn't know I replied directly to your comment 

You lean pessimistic, I lean optimistic...

Black Friday up 9% over 2024... 

would it be up that much in a sputtering economy?

Not suggesting the economy is fantastic, just your fears seem like overreactive, worst-case scenarios

 

Quote:Top Black Friday Statistics 2025 (New Data)

• Record Online Spending: In the US, consumers spent $10.8 billion online on Black Friday 2024, confirming a 10.2% increase from last year, where spending was reported at $9.8 billion. (Adobe)
  
• Around 87.3 million shopped online, and 81.7 million people shopped in stores on Black Friday 2024. (Adobe)
  
• Globally, Salesforce said spending also reached a new high: $74.4 billion was spent in the 24-hour period, up 5% from a year ago. (Salesforce)
  
• BNPL Spending: People spent $686.3 million using BNPL for online purchases, showing an 8.8% increase compared to last year. (NRF)
  
• Mobile Shopping Growth: Globally, 69% of Black Friday purchases were made on mobile devices, slightly up from 68% in 2023. (Salesforce)
  
• Cyber Monday sales: Cyber Monday saw a big jump in sales, reaching $13.3 billion, up $0.9 billion from last year. (Adobe)
  

(12-01-2025, 12:39 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Apologies, I didn't know I replied directly to your comment 

You lean pessimistic, I lean optimistic...

Black Friday up 9% over 2024... 

would it be up that much in a sputtering economy?

Not suggesting the economy is fantastic, just your fears seem like overreactive, worst-case scenarios

 

Like I said, I think that is good it bumped up.

That said, average first time home buyer age is at 40, and median homebuyer at 59.

(12-01-2025, 12:42 PM)CriticalStinker Wrote: Like I said, I think that is good it bumped up.

That said, average first time home buyer age is at 40, and median homebuyer at 59.

So, I bought my first house at 9.25% back in 88-89, the housing market has its cycles too. If I wasn't married and looking to start a family I would have rented forever

We are seeing a shift from home ownership to renting, we are moving away from traditional nuclear families, more single adults than ever, all of this and more play into why the first-time home buyer is 40. 

It's not just the economy, it's society; younger generations have shunned traditional adult milestones like getting married, starting a family.

For example, both my daughters keep their finances separate from their spouses, LOL at my suggestion, but that was rarely the case in the 80s and 90s; now it's fairly commonplace, according to both my daughters.

Home ownership isn't the priority it used to be.

It's like the 3 times your monthly income for an engagement ring or a large and lavish wedding. Society is slowly moving away from past protocols and procedures 

ADAPT or DIE

(12-01-2025, 12:57 PM)putnam6 Wrote: So, I bought my first house at 9.25% back in 88-89, the housing market has its cycles too. If I wasn't married and looking to start a family I would have rented forever

We are seeing a shift from home ownership to renting, we are moving away from traditional nuclear families, more single adults than ever, all of this and more play into why the first-time home buyer is 40. 

It's not just the economy, it's society; younger generations have shunned traditional adult milestones like getting married, starting a family.

I think there is a degree of that, especially with people wanting to be able to move easily.

But I don't think not wanting a family means people don't want to buy. Rent is expensive, and that can be going to equity instead. Reality is houses are over double in a lot of places from where they were just a few years ago. 

I think more of that has to do with private equity buying so many houses to rent them out. 

This goes back to what I said earlier though. I think the divide on who thinks the economy is doing well is generational. Young people aren't making much more than they were a few years ago, but normal things are more expensive, as are costs of living. Older generations have assets, and those assets look like they're performing well on paper. 

The job market looks to be taking a dip at the moment now too. Though, those reports were cancelled from the government, so we only have the ADP one to go off of. If AI takes a dip, it will likely bring down the whole stock market as well. Nividia is 16% of our GDP at the moment.