boognish_bear said:

---

Majorie Taylor Greene:

"Prices have not come down at all. The job market is extremely difficult. Wages have not gone up. Health insurance is going up. Home insurance goes up. Rent is going up. Young people have no hope of buying a home."

pic.twitter.com/lvIzrn9I19

— Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) October 11, 2025

---

She is making her move at Trump's expense. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Corporations like Amazon don't want to pay their workers OR hire American workers

Last year, Amazon's CEO made $40.1 MILLION. How much did the average Amazon worker make? Only $37,181.

How are you supposed to raise a family on $37,181? pic.twitter.com/lBny6yUdyy

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 8, 2025

---

Amazon has a $2.4 trillion market cap and their CEO makes less money than 16 NFL quarterbacks...

These kind of arguments avoid the real problem.

The real problem is lessening buying power which is caused by printing trillions of dollars which has a major artificial effect on supply/demand.

---

You cant compare entertainment salaries of top performers to anyone but each other. Ot is not a fair comparison. CEOs and Execs do kot need higher salaries or bonuses. They are all ready at all time highs. Pay the workers more.

---

I highlighted the part in bold so you could reflect on it further.

CEO of Ford makes $24m/yr.
Ford has 171k employees, who have a median salary of $98k.

So let's do the math.
$24m ceo pay (divided by) 171k employees = $140 per employee

So you want to fix (whatever problem you think there is) by forcing the CEO Ford to work for free and redistributing his salary, which would give $140 per year to the 171k Ford employees, and keep letting the Federal Government inflate the currency which will reduce the purchasing power of that $98k salary by $5-10k/yr.

Really?
Pointless virtue signaling on class warfare memes while inflating away blue collar purchasing power is your preferred solution?
Democrat much?

---

That is a BS analysis.

---

No, it is simple math, which marxist dialectics are purpose-built to avoid.

Marx was a loser.
Marxism is the philosophy of losing.
Don't be a loser.

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Funny, you are the only one that ever mentions Marx. I have not seen ONE person come on hear and say that Marx was right and we need Karl Marx based economy. Only you. Please cut with the extremes and negative implications. There is a whole range of economics between Marx and what we are seeing today.
Quit playing marxists games and you'll quit winning marxist prizes.

You also leave out that if Ford pays him $70 an employee and he makes the poverty rate of 12m a year, there is 12M left to reinvest in human or capital resources. Your analysis pretends that the $140 is fixed, it is not. 12M a year not enough? Is it insulting? The mathematics are out of whack because we are managing for Wall Street.
That is absolutely chaotic. The poverty rate is not 12m per year. $140 is $140. Sure you can edit and clarify, but it does not change the simple math = eliminating CEO pay will raise Ford employees wages about $2.69 per WEEK (about $0.67 per hour).

---

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Or, it is invested in benefits or plant modernization or giving the employees a .50 cent raise.
Now you're changing the argument. Is it wages, or is it investment?
The fact that you think a $.50 an hour raise is insubstantial shows where you stand and how much time you spent with the actual people that do the work. ANYTHING helps. If nothing else, it shows that they are appreciated and when possible the Company will spread the wealth.
Firstly, I made a typo = decimal is in the wrong place. The CEO pay doesn't work out to $0.67 per hour. It's $0.067 per hour. 7 CENTS per hour.
I rode my bicycle two miles to work 6 days per week (48hrs) for $1 an hour pumping gas in the summer between 7th & 8th grade. And worked hourly wages part-time all the way thru grad school. I've also signed the front of paychecks, too.
You on the other hand, think giving the whole 12M to the CEO so his salary can go from 12M to 24M is better than giving all the workers a fifty cent an hour raise because that amount is worthless. THINK ABOUT THAT. Talk about haves and have nots...
You're the one whose not thinking this thru. $24m is .000533% of Ford's market cap.

---

Emotion is leading your logic here. The Ford CEO pay offends your sensibilities. Everything flows from there.

There is an old rule of thumb that one gets what one pays for. If you want a good employee, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you wage is 20% below market, the good employees won't even apply. You'll get applications from people who are to varying degrees less inexperienced, more incompetent, and have temperament or even character problems. You have to pay a competitive market wage commensurate to needs. A $45B company needs a very intelligent, experienced, and principled leader. The board of Ford Motor Company, acting on behalf of the shareholders, determined the value of the CEO by extending him a contract. They determined that it was wise to pay well for someone to manage a $45B company. They did, and the compensation package they set was inconsequential compared to the market cap of the company.

This dynamic is as old as time. We have a health care system which pays our doctors very well. That is a powerful incentive for our best and brightest to choose a medical career. We have increasingly flirted with a single payer system which will effectively turn doctors into civil servants, and will inexorably seek to limit their pay as part of cost controls across the system. And, as sure as the sun will set this evening and rise again tomorrow morning, that will tend to drive the best and brightest minds out of medicine and into other pursuits. That's the way markets work. Talent will flow to higher wages.

You are trying to build up the little guy by tearing the big guy down.
It won't work.
Never has.
Never will.
It's just class warfare....the mudpie of the mid-wit mind.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Corporations like Amazon don't want to pay their workers OR hire American workers

Last year, Amazon's CEO made $40.1 MILLION. How much did the average Amazon worker make? Only $37,181.

How are you supposed to raise a family on $37,181? pic.twitter.com/lBny6yUdyy

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 8, 2025

---

Amazon has a $2.4 trillion market cap and their CEO makes less money than 16 NFL quarterbacks...

These kind of arguments avoid the real problem.

The real problem is lessening buying power which is caused by printing trillions of dollars which has a major artificial effect on supply/demand.

---

You cant compare entertainment salaries of top performers to anyone but each other. Ot is not a fair comparison. CEOs and Execs do kot need higher salaries or bonuses. They are all ready at all time highs. Pay the workers more.

---

I highlighted the part in bold so you could reflect on it further.

CEO of Ford makes $24m/yr.
Ford has 171k employees, who have a median salary of $98k.

So let's do the math.
$24m ceo pay (divided by) 171k employees = $140 per employee

So you want to fix (whatever problem you think there is) by forcing the CEO Ford to work for free and redistributing his salary, which would give $140 per year to the 171k Ford employees, and keep letting the Federal Government inflate the currency which will reduce the purchasing power of that $98k salary by $5-10k/yr.

Really?
Pointless virtue signaling on class warfare memes while inflating away blue collar purchasing power is your preferred solution?
Democrat much?

---

That is a BS analysis.

---

No, it is simple math, which marxist dialectics are purpose-built to avoid.

Marx was a loser.
Marxism is the philosophy of losing.
Don't be a loser.

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Funny, you are the only one that ever mentions Marx. I have not seen ONE person come on hear and say that Marx was right and we need Karl Marx based economy. Only you. Please cut with the extremes and negative implications. There is a whole range of economics between Marx and what we are seeing today.
Quit playing marxists games and you'll quit winning marxist prizes.

You also leave out that if Ford pays him $70 an employee and he makes the poverty rate of 12m a year, there is 12M left to reinvest in human or capital resources. Your analysis pretends that the $140 is fixed, it is not. 12M a year not enough? Is it insulting? The mathematics are out of whack because we are managing for Wall Street.
That is absolutely chaotic. The poverty rate is not 12m per year. $140 is $140. Sure you can edit and clarify, but it does not change the simple math = eliminating CEO pay will raise Ford employees wages about $2.69 per WEEK (about $0.67 per hour).

---

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Or, it is invested in benefits or plant modernization or giving the employees a .50 cent raise.
Now you're changing the argument. Is it wages, or is it investment?
The fact that you think a $.50 an hour raise is insubstantial shows where you stand and how much time you spent with the actual people that do the work. ANYTHING helps. If nothing else, it shows that they are appreciated and when possible the Company will spread the wealth.
Firstly, I made a typo = decimal is in the wrong place. The CEO pay doesn't work out to $0.67 per hour. It's $0.067 per hour. 7 CENTS per hour.
I rode my bicycle two miles to work 6 days per week (48hrs) for $1 an hour pumping gas in the summer between 7th & 8th grade. And worked hourly wages part-time all the way thru grad school. I've also signed the front of paychecks, too.
You on the other hand, think giving the whole 12M to the CEO so his salary can go from 12M to 24M is better than giving all the workers a fifty cent an hour raise because that amount is worthless. THINK ABOUT THAT. Talk about haves and have nots...
You're the one whose not thinking this thru. $24m is .000533% of Ford's market cap.

---

Emotion is leading your logic here. The Ford CEO pay offends your sensibilities. Everything flows from there.

There is an old rule of thumb that one gets what one pays for. If you want a good employee, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you wage is 20% below market, the good employees won't even apply. You'll get applications from people who are to varying degrees less inexperienced, more incompetent, and have temperament or even character problems. You have to pay a competitive market wage commensurate to needs. A $45B company needs a very intelligent, experienced, and principled leader. The board of Ford Motor Company, acting on behalf of the shareholders, determined the value of the CEO by extending him a contract. They determined that it was wise to pay well for someone to manage a $45B company. They did, and the compensation package they set was inconsequential compared to the market cap of the company.

This dynamic is as old as time. We have a health care system which pays our doctors very well. That is a powerful incentive for our best and brightest to choose a medical career. We have increasingly flirted with a single payer system which will effectively turn doctors into civil servants, and will inexorably seek to limit their pay as part of cost controls across the system. And, as sure as the sun will set this evening and rise again tomorrow morning, that will tend to drive the best and brightest minds out of medicine and into other pursuits. That's the way markets work. Talent will flow to higher wages.

You are trying to build up the little guy by tearing the big guy down.
It won't work.
Never has.
Never will.
It's just class warfare....the mudpie of the mid-wit mind.

---

Once again you lead with BS and a false choice.

There are various options you can do, rather than give it to one person. If you are not going to raise the wages the paltry fifty cents, you could reinvest in benefits or capital. But, you like changing the argument.

Finally, tearing the big guy down? Paying him 12M a year? That is tearing down? Geez, you truly are a cake eater. Oil on beaches, 12M is tearing down. You must be a troll...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Corporations like Amazon don't want to pay their workers OR hire American workers

Last year, Amazon's CEO made $40.1 MILLION. How much did the average Amazon worker make? Only $37,181.

How are you supposed to raise a family on $37,181? pic.twitter.com/lBny6yUdyy

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 8, 2025

---

Amazon has a $2.4 trillion market cap and their CEO makes less money than 16 NFL quarterbacks...

These kind of arguments avoid the real problem.

The real problem is lessening buying power which is caused by printing trillions of dollars which has a major artificial effect on supply/demand.

---

You cant compare entertainment salaries of top performers to anyone but each other. Ot is not a fair comparison. CEOs and Execs do kot need higher salaries or bonuses. They are all ready at all time highs. Pay the workers more.

---

I highlighted the part in bold so you could reflect on it further.

CEO of Ford makes $24m/yr.
Ford has 171k employees, who have a median salary of $98k.

So let's do the math.
$24m ceo pay (divided by) 171k employees = $140 per employee

So you want to fix (whatever problem you think there is) by forcing the CEO Ford to work for free and redistributing his salary, which would give $140 per year to the 171k Ford employees, and keep letting the Federal Government inflate the currency which will reduce the purchasing power of that $98k salary by $5-10k/yr.

Really?
Pointless virtue signaling on class warfare memes while inflating away blue collar purchasing power is your preferred solution?
Democrat much?

---

That is a BS analysis.

---

No, it is simple math, which marxist dialectics are purpose-built to avoid.

Marx was a loser.
Marxism is the philosophy of losing.
Don't be a loser.

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Funny, you are the only one that ever mentions Marx. I have not seen ONE person come on hear and say that Marx was right and we need Karl Marx based economy. Only you. Please cut with the extremes and negative implications. There is a whole range of economics between Marx and what we are seeing today.
Quit playing marxists games and you'll quit winning marxist prizes.

You also leave out that if Ford pays him $70 an employee and he makes the poverty rate of 12m a year, there is 12M left to reinvest in human or capital resources. Your analysis pretends that the $140 is fixed, it is not. 12M a year not enough? Is it insulting? The mathematics are out of whack because we are managing for Wall Street.
That is absolutely chaotic. The poverty rate is not 12m per year. $140 is $140. Sure you can edit and clarify, but it does not change the simple math = eliminating CEO pay will raise Ford employees wages about $2.69 per WEEK (about $0.67 per hour).

---

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Or, it is invested in benefits or plant modernization or giving the employees a .50 cent raise.
Now you're changing the argument. Is it wages, or is it investment?
The fact that you think a $.50 an hour raise is insubstantial shows where you stand and how much time you spent with the actual people that do the work. ANYTHING helps. If nothing else, it shows that they are appreciated and when possible the Company will spread the wealth.
Firstly, I made a typo = decimal is in the wrong place. The CEO pay doesn't work out to $0.67 per hour. It's $0.067 per hour. 7 CENTS per hour.
I rode my bicycle two miles to work 6 days per week (48hrs) for $1 an hour pumping gas in the summer between 7th & 8th grade. And worked hourly wages part-time all the way thru grad school. I've also signed the front of paychecks, too.
You on the other hand, think giving the whole 12M to the CEO so his salary can go from 12M to 24M is better than giving all the workers a fifty cent an hour raise because that amount is worthless. THINK ABOUT THAT. Talk about haves and have nots...
You're the one whose not thinking this thru. $24m is .000533% of Ford's market cap.

---

Emotion is leading your logic here. The Ford CEO pay offends your sensibilities. Everything flows from there.

There is an old rule of thumb that one gets what one pays for. If you want a good employee, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you wage is 20% below market, the good employees won't even apply. You'll get applications from people who are to varying degrees less inexperienced, more incompetent, and have temperament or even character problems. You have to pay a competitive market wage commensurate to needs. A $45B company needs a very intelligent, experienced, and principled leader. The board of Ford Motor Company, acting on behalf of the shareholders, determined the value of the CEO by extending him a contract. They determined that it was wise to pay well for someone to manage a $45B company. They did, and the compensation package they set was inconsequential compared to the market cap of the company.

This dynamic is as old as time. We have a health care system which pays our doctors very well. That is a powerful incentive for our best and brightest to choose a medical career. We have increasingly flirted with a single payer system which will effectively turn doctors into civil servants, and will inexorably seek to limit their pay as part of cost controls across the system. And, as sure as the sun will set this evening and rise again tomorrow morning, that will tend to drive the best and brightest minds out of medicine and into other pursuits. That's the way markets work. Talent will flow to higher wages.

You are trying to build up the little guy by tearing the big guy down.
It won't work.
Never has.
Never will.
It's just class warfare....the mudpie of the mid-wit mind.

---

Once again you lead with BS and a false choice.

There are various options you can do, rather than give it to one person. If you are not going to raise the wages the paltry fifty cents, you could reinvest in benefits or capital. But, you like changing the argument.

Finally, tearing the big guy down? Paying him 12M a year? That is tearing down? Geez, you truly are a cake eater. Oil on beaches, 12M is tearing down. You must be a troll...

---

Just pointing out the flimsiness of your thought process here. There is no better way to demonstrate you're out of productive ideas than to blame CEO pay for all the ills of a society. Reality is, the dollars involved are infinitesimally small, absolutely inconsequential to the material issues on either end of the spectrum - worker pay on one end and investment on the other. It's rhetorical virtue posturing at its finest, exactly the kind of nonsense pay CEOs a lot of money to overcome on behalf of the shareholders.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Corporations like Amazon don't want to pay their workers OR hire American workers

Last year, Amazon's CEO made $40.1 MILLION. How much did the average Amazon worker make? Only $37,181.

How are you supposed to raise a family on $37,181? pic.twitter.com/lBny6yUdyy

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 8, 2025

---

Amazon has a $2.4 trillion market cap and their CEO makes less money than 16 NFL quarterbacks...

These kind of arguments avoid the real problem.

The real problem is lessening buying power which is caused by printing trillions of dollars which has a major artificial effect on supply/demand.

---

You cant compare entertainment salaries of top performers to anyone but each other. Ot is not a fair comparison. CEOs and Execs do kot need higher salaries or bonuses. They are all ready at all time highs. Pay the workers more.

---

I highlighted the part in bold so you could reflect on it further.

CEO of Ford makes $24m/yr.
Ford has 171k employees, who have a median salary of $98k.

So let's do the math.
$24m ceo pay (divided by) 171k employees = $140 per employee

So you want to fix (whatever problem you think there is) by forcing the CEO Ford to work for free and redistributing his salary, which would give $140 per year to the 171k Ford employees, and keep letting the Federal Government inflate the currency which will reduce the purchasing power of that $98k salary by $5-10k/yr.

Really?
Pointless virtue signaling on class warfare memes while inflating away blue collar purchasing power is your preferred solution?
Democrat much?

---

That is a BS analysis.

---

No, it is simple math, which marxist dialectics are purpose-built to avoid.

Marx was a loser.
Marxism is the philosophy of losing.
Don't be a loser.

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Funny, you are the only one that ever mentions Marx. I have not seen ONE person come on hear and say that Marx was right and we need Karl Marx based economy. Only you. Please cut with the extremes and negative implications. There is a whole range of economics between Marx and what we are seeing today.
Quit playing marxists games and you'll quit winning marxist prizes.

You also leave out that if Ford pays him $70 an employee and he makes the poverty rate of 12m a year, there is 12M left to reinvest in human or capital resources. Your analysis pretends that the $140 is fixed, it is not. 12M a year not enough? Is it insulting? The mathematics are out of whack because we are managing for Wall Street.
That is absolutely chaotic. The poverty rate is not 12m per year. $140 is $140. Sure you can edit and clarify, but it does not change the simple math = eliminating CEO pay will raise Ford employees wages about $2.69 per WEEK (about $0.67 per hour).

---

"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln

---

Or, it is invested in benefits or plant modernization or giving the employees a .50 cent raise.
Now you're changing the argument. Is it wages, or is it investment?
The fact that you think a $.50 an hour raise is insubstantial shows where you stand and how much time you spent with the actual people that do the work. ANYTHING helps. If nothing else, it shows that they are appreciated and when possible the Company will spread the wealth.
Firstly, I made a typo = decimal is in the wrong place. The CEO pay doesn't work out to $0.67 per hour. It's $0.067 per hour. 7 CENTS per hour.
I rode my bicycle two miles to work 6 days per week (48hrs) for $1 an hour pumping gas in the summer between 7th & 8th grade. And worked hourly wages part-time all the way thru grad school. I've also signed the front of paychecks, too.
You on the other hand, think giving the whole 12M to the CEO so his salary can go from 12M to 24M is better than giving all the workers a fifty cent an hour raise because that amount is worthless. THINK ABOUT THAT. Talk about haves and have nots...
You're the one whose not thinking this thru. $24m is .000533% of Ford's market cap.

---

Emotion is leading your logic here. The Ford CEO pay offends your sensibilities. Everything flows from there.

There is an old rule of thumb that one gets what one pays for. If you want a good employee, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you wage is 20% below market, the good employees won't even apply. You'll get applications from people who are to varying degrees less inexperienced, more incompetent, and have temperament or even character problems. You have to pay a competitive market wage commensurate to needs. A $45B company needs a very intelligent, experienced, and principled leader. The board of Ford Motor Company, acting on behalf of the shareholders, determined the value of the CEO by extending him a contract. They determined that it was wise to pay well for someone to manage a $45B company. They did, and the compensation package they set was inconsequential compared to the market cap of the company.

This dynamic is as old as time. We have a health care system which pays our doctors very well. That is a powerful incentive for our best and brightest to choose a medical career. We have increasingly flirted with a single payer system which will effectively turn doctors into civil servants, and will inexorably seek to limit their pay as part of cost controls across the system. And, as sure as the sun will set this evening and rise again tomorrow morning, that will tend to drive the best and brightest minds out of medicine and into other pursuits. That's the way markets work. Talent will flow to higher wages.

You are trying to build up the little guy by tearing the big guy down.
It won't work.
Never has.
Never will.
It's just class warfare....the mudpie of the mid-wit mind.

---

Once again you lead with BS and a false choice.

There are various options you can do, rather than give it to one person. If you are not going to raise the wages the paltry fifty cents, you could reinvest in benefits or capital. But, you like changing the argument.

Finally, tearing the big guy down? Paying him 12M a year? That is tearing down? Geez, you truly are a cake eater. Oil on beaches, 12M is tearing down. You must be a troll...

---

Just pointing out the flimsiness of your thought process here. There is no better way to demonstrate you're out of productive ideas than to blame CEO pay for all the ills of a society. Reality is, the dollars involved are infinitesimally small, absolutely inconsequential to the material issues on either end of the spectrum - worker pay on one end and investment on the other. It's rhetorical virtue posturing at its finest, exactly the kind of nonsense pay CEOs a lot of money to overcome on behalf of the shareholders.

---

Yeah, that was the point. You have really turned into a clown... We are done, enjoy your MAGA rallies.

FLBear calling others "clowns" suggests FLBear has a fear of mirrors, otherwise he would notice the rubber nose and oversized shoes when he sees himself, and reconsider his choice of words.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear calling others "clowns" suggests FLBear has a fear of mirrors, otherwise he would notice the rubber nose and oversized shoes when he sees himself, and reconsider his choice of words.

---

I love seeing your contributions, give me great pleasure to know I disagree. Shows me I am on the right track...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear calling others "clowns" suggests FLBear has a fear of mirrors, otherwise he would notice the rubber nose and oversized shoes when he sees himself, and reconsider his choice of words.

---

I love seeing your contributions, give me great pleasure to know I disagree. Shows me I am on the right track...

---

Yeah sure, you're on track but not the right one, son.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear calling others "clowns" suggests FLBear has a fear of mirrors, otherwise he would notice the rubber nose and oversized shoes when he sees himself, and reconsider his choice of words.

---

I love seeing your contributions, give me great pleasure to know I disagree. Shows me I am on the right track...

---

Yeah sure, you're on track but not the right one, son.

---

Well, I am sure your track is in YOUR best interest. Mine are in my best interest. Just like the positions Whiterock espouses are in his. But they are not in everyone's best interest.

As Milton Friedman said "Everyone acts in their own best self interest".

The question becomes more complicated when it is not just your or my self-interest, it is public policy. I am sure Trump's actions are in his and his partners best interest, not sure it is in everyone's best interest.


By the way, he has done some things I think are great - border, Gaza, Iran, taxes. He deserves Nobel, no doubt. I am even on-board with drug interdictions in Caribbean.

[NEWS] Subprime cracks are widening in auto lending:

Delinquencies on subprime loans hit 6.43% in August, the highest in years.

Repos are climbing too, now back at levels not seen since the Great Recession.

At the same time, nearly 1 in 7 car buyers now has a credit score…

— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) October 14, 2025

Americans with “upside-down” car loans owe more money than ever before:

28.1% of trade-ins toward new car purchases had negative equity in Q3, up 1.5% quarter-over-quarter.

And the average amount owed hit an all-time record of $6,905.

Even crazier— a fourth of trade-ins with… pic.twitter.com/kZcFAqA1gA

— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) October 15, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

---

You could take all of their money and probably pay for about six months of the federal budget, maybe less.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear calling others "clowns" suggests FLBear has a fear of mirrors, otherwise he would notice the rubber nose and oversized shoes when he sees himself, and reconsider his choice of words.

---

I love seeing your contributions, give me great pleasure to know I disagree. Shows me I am on the right track...

---

Yeah sure, you're on track but not the right one, son.

---

Well, I am sure your track is in YOUR best interest. Mine are in my best interest. Just like the positions Whiterock espouses are in his. But they are not in everyone's best interest.

As Milton Friedman said "Everyone acts in their own best self interest".

The question becomes more complicated when it is not just your or my self-interest, it is public policy. I am sure Trump's actions are in his and his partners best interest, not sure it is in everyone's best interest.

By the way, he has done some things I think are great - border, Gaza, Iran, taxes. He deserves Nobel, no doubt. I am even on-board with drug interdictions in Caribbean.

---

Friedman was half-correct. Everyone acts in what they perceive to be their own best self-interest, not what actually is in their best self interest. Very often, what's best is quite painful, and it is human nature to be prone to reorder reality to justify the easier choices. EX: Neither parent nor child benefits from Mengele-esque gender reassignment surgeries, but they fervently believe otherwise. (among countless examples).

Moderates are the most amusing of all. They tend to be quite convinced that pragmatism and compromise are so virtuous that they often find themselves in the ironic position of taking uncompromising positions to defend obvious middle ground fallacies. (Electeds are particularly prone to this, facilitated by the fact that they are usually doing it with public monies). Even worse, they will contrive nonsense to fight with people they mostly agree with on most issues just to prove that their own independence from entangling alliances. They will actually engage in polemics to demonstrate how much they hate polemics.

BREAKING: US regulators to offer capital relief to community banks, per Bloomberg

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 16, 2025

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear calling others "clowns" suggests FLBear has a fear of mirrors, otherwise he would notice the rubber nose and oversized shoes when he sees himself, and reconsider his choice of words.

---

I love seeing your contributions, give me great pleasure to know I disagree. Shows me I am on the right track...

---

Yeah sure, you're on track but not the right one, son.

---

Well, I am sure your track is in YOUR best interest. Mine are in my best interest. Just like the positions Whiterock espouses are in his. But they are not in everyone's best interest.

As Milton Friedman said "Everyone acts in their own best self interest".

The question becomes more complicated when it is not just your or my self-interest, it is public policy. I am sure Trump's actions are in his and his partners best interest, not sure it is in everyone's best interest.

By the way, he has done some things I think are great - border, Gaza, Iran, taxes. He deserves Nobel, no doubt. I am even on-board with drug interdictions in Caribbean.

---

Friedman was half-correct. Everyone acts in what they perceive to be their own best self-interest, not what actually is in their best self interest. Very often, what's best is quite painful, and it is human nature to be prone to reorder reality to justify the easier choices. EX: Neither parent nor child benefits from Mengele-esque gender reassignment surgeries, but they fervently believe otherwise. (among countless examples).

Moderates are the most amusing of all. They tend to be quite convinced that pragmatism and compromise are so virtuous that they often find themselves in the ironic position of taking uncompromising positions to defend obvious middle ground fallacies. (Electeds are particularly prone to this, facilitated by the fact that they are usually doing it with public monies). Even worse, they will contrive nonsense to fight with people they mostly agree with on most issues just to prove that their own independence from entangling alliances. They will actually engage in polemics to demonstrate how much they hate polemics.

---

I agree with you on the perception part. That is a very good point.

BANK CRASH

There has been NO News today on why regional banks have entered a correction with a majority of banks down -10% to 20% since the Fed heads cut rates at the end of Sept.

**Overnight Repo Ops have been rising as we been reporting $WAL $BANC $EBC $VLY $KRE pic.twitter.com/V7vhAQt3dC

— The Coastal Journal (@1CoastalJournal) October 16, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

[NEWS] Subprime cracks are widening in auto lending:

Delinquencies on subprime loans hit 6.43% in August, the highest in years.

Repos are climbing too, now back at levels not seen since the Great Recession.

At the same time, nearly 1 in 7 car buyers now has a credit score…

— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) October 14, 2025

Americans with “upside-down” car loans owe more money than ever before:

28.1% of trade-ins toward new car purchases had negative equity in Q3, up 1.5% quarter-over-quarter.

And the average amount owed hit an all-time record of $6,905.

Even crazier— a fourth of trade-ins with… pic.twitter.com/kZcFAqA1gA

— Car Dealership Guy (@GuyDealership) October 15, 2025

---

Whenever 5 and 6 year loans for cars was a standard thing is when this crisis started. Get a lemon? Good luck.
Drive lots of miles? Losing deal. Drive until the wheels fall off? Good unless you lose your job, or your income drops. Too much car or too much house for your income is a risky game.

Man...hope he's right

Trump: "We are working on beef. I think we have a deal on beef that's gonna bring the price of beef. That would be the one product that we would say is a little bit higher than we'd want it. Maybe higher than we want it. And that's gonna be coming down pretty soon too. We did… pic.twitter.com/X6veCTfRdR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Man...hope he's right

Trump: "We are working on beef. I think we have a deal on beef that's gonna bring the price of beef. That would be the one product that we would say is a little bit higher than we'd want it. Maybe higher than we want it. And that's gonna be coming down pretty soon too. We did… pic.twitter.com/X6veCTfRdR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2025

---

Old McDonald needs a lot more moo-moo on his farm.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Man...hope he's right

Trump: "We are working on beef. I think we have a deal on beef that's gonna bring the price of beef. That would be the one product that we would say is a little bit higher than we'd want it. Maybe higher than we want it. And that's gonna be coming down pretty soon too. We did… pic.twitter.com/X6veCTfRdR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2025

---

Old McDonald needs a lot more moo-moo on his farm.

---

building a herd takes years. It requires retaining animals that would otherwise go to slaughter. Supply/demand flows from there. Elevated prices disincentivize retention of stock for building the herd.

If we are not wanting to import as much beef to cover shortfalls (thereby incentivizing foreign powers to subsidize to protect their newly gained market share), we are going to need policy to encourage the building process.

Given our size, geography, and climate, there is no reason for us to import a single slice of meat of any kind other than for specialty markets (Waygu beef, Iberico ham, etc....) which tend to be price inelastic.

whiterock said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Man...hope he's right

Trump: "We are working on beef. I think we have a deal on beef that's gonna bring the price of beef. That would be the one product that we would say is a little bit higher than we'd want it. Maybe higher than we want it. And that's gonna be coming down pretty soon too. We did… pic.twitter.com/X6veCTfRdR

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 16, 2025

---

Old McDonald needs a lot more moo-moo on his farm.

---

building a herd takes years. It requires retaining animals that would otherwise go to slaughter. Supply/demand flows from there. Elevated prices disincentivize retention of stock for building the herd.

If we are not wanting to import as much beef to cover shortfalls (thereby incentivizing foreign powers to subsidize to protect their newly gained market share), we are going to need policy to encourage the building process.

Given our size, geography, and climate, there is no reason for us to import a single slice of meat of any kind other than for specialty markets (Waygu beef, Iberico ham, etc....) which tend to be price inelastic.

---

Yep.

I've become a Mazda fan the last few years...seems to be pretty close in reliability to Toyota/Honda...but at a cheaper price usually

Whats the best car you can buy for under $10,000? pic.twitter.com/BI7Hoj3H1J

— Financial Dystopia (@financedystop) October 16, 2025

"Investors around the world are pouring money into China for the first time in years," per Bloomberg.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 16, 2025

Wonder how much average salaries have increased since 2019?

"Groceries are 29% higher since before the COVID-19 pandemic," per USA Today.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 16, 2025

Doesn't seem healthy for the 90%

10% of the U.S. population owns 93% of the stock market wealth, per the Guardian.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 16, 2025

boognish_bear said:

---

Doesn't seem healthy for the 90%

10% of the U.S. population owns 93% of the stock market wealth, per the Guardian.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 16, 2025

---

Shhh! That is the secret yiu cant say or you will be deemed a Socialist. Didnt you know it us all the 90% fault as they did not make as good of decisions as the 10%. Dont believe me, ask the 10%...

Sounds like FLBear made some bad stock decisions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like FLBear made some bad stock decisions.

---

no, was smart enough to stay away, outside if mutual funds. Just not one of the gilded class. Enough to know that those that defend the 90/10 split are usually from the 10% not the 90%. You seem to be very gilded. Either you are gilded or just want them to like you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like FLBear made some bad stock decisions.

---

no, was smart enough to stay away, outside if mutual funds. Just not one of the gilded class. Enough to know that those that defend the 90/10 split are usually from the 10% not the 90%. You seem to be very gilded. Either you are gilded or just want them to like you.

---

Try again, your guesses miss me by a mile.

As usual.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like FLBear made some bad stock decisions.

---

no, was smart enough to stay away, outside if mutual funds. Just not one of the gilded class. Enough to know that those that defend the 90/10 split are usually from the 10% not the 90%. You seem to be very gilded. Either you are gilded or just want them to like you.

---

What would you propose to do about this reported 90/10 split?

58% of students who graduated within the past year are still looking for a job, per FORTUNE

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 17, 2025

D. C. Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sounds like FLBear made some bad stock decisions.

---

no, was smart enough to stay away, outside if mutual funds. Just not one of the gilded class. Enough to know that those that defend the 90/10 split are usually from the 10% not the 90%. You seem to be very gilded. Either you are gilded or just want them to like you.

---

What would you propose to do about this reported 90/10 split?

---

I apologize in advance, not very thought out or organized. Just a thought-stream on my unanalyzed observational view of the 90-10 split. IMO, we shifted from what is best for the Company to meet the mission of what they are supposed to produce, provide or develop to what is best for Wall Street valuations. Take SW Airlines, Herb Kelleher built SW to be customer and worker focused to provide regional transportation. All decisions were based on what made the trip more efficient and reliable. Was highly successful. Now, they are more worried about the Wall Street valuation and are pretty much gutting their values to become Delta light.

If you want to close that gap, then wages have to keep up with development costs and inflation and we can't be as Wall Street focused as we have been for the past 30 years. Executives are being hired and rewarded to keep Wall Street happy, that is not always consistent with keeping your workforce and product needs for quality products. We are making due, paying as little as possible, cutting corners and using sub-par Materiels to hit a Wall Street valuation . The reward structure is messed up.

Another example, stormwater credits for building. We have stormwater credits because supposedly there is excess capacity in the system and they shift them from project to project to lower costs. The lower cost is not having to build infrastructure. Problem is credits don't move water, they are a paper drill. Meanwhile, we are putting more development for lower prices and it is still flooding. Developer, mostly funded through hedge fund, made a great profit and bonuses for all that were able to pull off the low development cost. Meanwhile, the people living there are still flooding and walking through knee deep water or worse. They apply Wall St valuation tactics to building and providing jobs, as cheap as possible for short term gain. Who cares if in 5 years a storm floods it out. They sold the paper to some holding company. Main Street is left cleaning up and taking the hit.

The reward system is f-ed. We do not reward quality or even solving problems, we reward Wall St valuation. As long as that remains in place, the gap will not fill. Because it is expensive to do things right, you have to pay people for quality. Not cut every cost you can, low bid is not the best answer. As long as Execs are rewarded to make millions by going cheap, cutting costs, and playing Wall St, Main St will be the 10%.

It will change with the next big War, the one we could actually lose. Because there quality matters more than Wall St valuations. Tesla is a poster child. You think Elon is doing the Government stuff out of civic duty? He is playing it and making a fortune. Government is going to bail him out, look at what he makes on Govt contracts at the beginning of the Trump Admin and at the end. I will bet it is triple. Elon is the poster child for the current problem. He is making a Trillion on a Company that has yet to sustain a profit. All on future valuations... Meanwhile, Main Street can't pay their bills.

Experts Say the Actual Value of Tesla's Stock Is a Ticking Time Bomb

Individual bankruptcy filings have increased 15% in the first 9 months of 2025, per American Bankruptcy Institute.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) October 16, 2025

$10,000 per household...WTH?!?

Americans are drowning in credit card debt:

US household credit card debt hit a record $1.33 trillion in August.

The combined average credit card balance across all age groups is now at whopping $10,668 PER household.

States with the largest average debts in Q2 2025 were… pic.twitter.com/QSZgTBa8XB

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) October 16, 2025