The Trump Economy

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Do you want to know how to get out of this situation. Stop borrowing money and start raising taxes!

To do that the government is going to have to raise revenues (income and corporate taxes) and cut spending (all government spending across the board including and especially military expenditures).

If we can get to a point where we have a budget surplus for the foreseeable future then we can start to pay down our debts. That may not bring in enough to swing the needle, but it sure would be symbolic.

It’s a good bet that we’ll have to start raising taxes on boomer estates as they begin to pass on. Estate taxes will have to rise.

Federal estate taxes don't apply until the total value of an estate hits $15mln. There are approximately 900,000 people in the US with estates over $10mln, so an even lower number of people are subject to an estate Tax. Those rates are already between 18% to 40% and I think there are ways like trusts to avoid even paying that.

If you want the government to pull money from estates, eliminating steps ups should work. It's a bummer, but it's hard to complain about having to pay capital gains taxes on money that wasn't yours until someone died.

Also figure out a way to combat billionaires just borrowing against their assets instead of ever having to pay capital gains taxes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.usbank.com/wealth-manage...ate-taxes.html

[CPT Savajo]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Ima having a Deja Vu moment here.
Could have sworn that I had this same convo.

But I don't have the best memory.

Only thing different is I don't think I did a googly about it.
And it sez:

"Based on historical data and projected trends leading into 2026, $100 invested in the stock market (S&P 500) would have a significantly higher return compared to $100 invested in gold, assuming both were held from the early days of Wall Street (roughly 1792) to 2026.
While gold is an effective long-term store of value and hedge against inflation, stocks generally offer superior growth through capital appreciation and reinvested dividends.
Historical Performance Breakdown
Stocks (Long-Term): Over the long term (100+ years), stocks have vastly outperformed gold. For example, $100 invested in 1928 would have grown to over $624,000 in the S&P 500 (with dividends) by 2022, while the same amount in gold would have only grown to approximately $8,800.
Gold (Short-Term/Crisis): Gold has outperformed stocks during specific periods of high inflation or market crashes (e.g., 2000–2010). As of late 2025/early 2026, gold has experienced a strong rally due to geopolitical tensions, but it is typically viewed as a portfolio stabilizer, not a primary growth engine. "

So, again, being a non $$$ guy, it seems both have their traits/qualities. But overall Stocks are the better performer on a broader scale. As with the market, gold does well on special circumstances. But I guess that is why a great number of simulations have to be done to find those where it is favoured. Sorta like that Capt Sulley thing landing a big bird in a body of water under his special circumstances.

The real world simulation, which is reality itself, my original statement of dumping same in one and than the other and let time take over, the market did much better than the metal sitting on a shelf.

Personally, I think investing in lead and powder is the safer hedge










CPT is correct in that this isn't a problem we have now that you can point at one person. Takes a village to burn it down But sitting on a bunch of metal waiting for the end of days isn't very productive. Seeing how the situation is today, going back to my $100 market/metal thing, i'd take that $$$$ from the market and leave the market behind. Ima sure at even a devalued face value, the cash is a better thing.

If you gotta invest in metal for bad times, *I* would put it into Lead and hedge with powder.

Preposterous! In the early days of America the price of gold was pegged to a specific price. Gold won over depreciating fiat currencies such as Colonial currencies, Continental currencies, and Confederate Democratic Southern currency of the civil war that got invested into early financial markets in America. The S&P 500 index was officially created on March 4, 1957 so the AI overview is making up it's own make believe world viewpoint. During 1957 Americans were not allowed to own physical gold and that is why I chose the year 1974, the year Americans were once again granted the privlege by their government to once again own gold. 1974 represented the most fair outcome of the experiment with gold being the winner. From 1933 until 1974 ownership was illegal.

You must not have a lot of faith in man if you feel that lead and powder is a better investment or you're preparing for civil war that the Democrats keep prepping their voter base for. While lead and powder is important there are better investments to invest in that will bring about a better tomorrow.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

Preposterous! In the early days of America the price of gold was pegged to a specific price. Gold won over depreciating fiat currencies such as Colonial currencies, Continental currencies, and Confederate Democratic Southern currency of the civil war that got invested into early financial markets in America. The S&P 500 index was officially created on March 4, 1957 so the AI overview is making up it's own make believe world viewpoint. During 1957 Americans were not allowed to own physical gold and that is why I chose the year 1974, the year Americans were once again granted the privlege by their government to once again own gold. 1974 represented the most fair outcome of the experiment with gold being the winner. From 1933 until 1974 ownership was illegal.

You must not have a lot of faith in man if you feel that lead and powder is a better investment or you're preparing for civil war that the Democrats keep prepping their voter base for. While lead and powder is important there are better investments to invest in that will bring about a better tomorrow.

Hey! Don't kill the messenger. Just did a googly. But you are right about S&P.

So, that's fair assumption on your part.

Let's use 1957 and 1974 as start times to just dump and go to see which one does better with no oversight. I did say I was a dummy with money

1957:
"A $100 investment in the S&P 500 in 1957 (with dividends reinvested) would grow to approximately $105,407.74 by early 2026. While specific 1957-2026 gold data is less commonly cited in the same format, inflation-adjusted returns suggest stocks significantly outperformed gold over this long-term period, notes {Link: In2013Dollars https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1957}.
Investment Breakdown (1957-2026):
Stock Market ($100 in S&P 500): $105,407.74 (Nominal value), which is a 105,307.74% total return.
Gold ($100): While gold acted as a hedge against inflation, its total return,, is significantly lower than the compounding effect of reinvested dividends in the stock market over 69 years, notes {Link: In2013Dollars https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1957}.
Real Value (Adjusted for Inflation): The $105,407.74 stock investment has a real buying power of approximately $9,038.40 in 1957 dollars."

1974:
"If you invested $100 in the S&P 500 at the start of 1974 and reinvested dividends, it would be worth approximately $28,732 by early 2026. A $100 investment in gold in 1974 would have grown significantly less,, reaching approximately $5,300 to $5,500 by early 2026, assuming a price of roughly $100/oz in 1974 and ~$5,500/oz in 2026.
Stock Market ($100 in 1974): The S&P 500 experienced a compound annual growth rate of roughly
, leading to a total return of over
.
Gold ($100 in 1974): Gold was roughly
per ounce in 1974. With spot prices hovering around
per ounce in 2025-2026, the $100 investment (roughly
to
ounce) grew to over
.
The stock market heavily outperformed gold over this specific 50+ year period due to reinvested dividends and compound growth. "


So, the '57 response probably took into account what you said about the ownership of such. But still shows a shellacing.

Again, don't kill the messenger. *I* would still take those deflated market dollars since the amount still looks greater to *me*.

You jogged me memory. I'd like for you to stay around "this time". I seem to remember the last time you speculated about me and made guess and such you had a little vacay. Please stay around this time. And spare me such as you did last time to earn that.

[Turner2099]

Originally Posted by Precious_b View Post
Ain't a $$$ person.

But i'd lay odds that if you invested $100 day 1 Wall Street opened and $100 in gold, the Stock Market would have a better return on investment.

Not to say you shouldn't hedge your assets with a bit of coin there.

I used Claude.ai and asked about buying $100 worth of gold on May 17, 1792; in the stock market on May 17, 1792; and in the S&P 500 on March 4, 1957. Let's assume someone illegally kept the gold somewhere safe. : ).

Value today

Gold:
$26,140.56

Stock Market (keep in mind this is over 234 years):
Assuming a 7% return: $169 million
Assuming an 8% return $3.3 billion

S&P 500
Price Appreciation only: $15,750
Dividends reinvested: $30,000 to $40,000

The detail are broken out below and at the bottom are links to the actual Claude.ai results with reference links.

Claude includes the concerns raised about the Stock Market by CPT and admits that it's more of a mathematical exercise than a realistic scenario.

Gold

How much gold would $100 buy on May 17, 1792?

Based on the search results, the Coinage Act of 1792 established gold at $19.39 per fine ounce.

On May 17, 1792, $100 would buy approximately 5.16 troy ounces of gold (100 ÷ 19.39 = 5.157 ounces).

This price remained fixed for over 40 years until 1834, when it was raised to $20.67 per ounce.

How much would 5.16 troy ounces of gold be worth, today, February 12, 2026?

Based on today's gold price, gold is currently trading at around $5,066 per ounce as of this morning, though prices have been volatile today with gold falling 2.77% to drop below $4,900 per ounce at some point.

Using the current price of approximately $5,066 per ounce, your 5.16 troy ounces of gold would be worth:

5.16 × $5,066 = $26,140.56

That represents a roughly 261-fold increase from the original $100 investment in 1792 — quite an impressive return over 234 years! This shows gold's role as a long-term store of value, though it's worth noting that gold prices have been particularly elevated recently, reaching record highs in recent weeks.

(It's worth noting this amount would have been worth about half of the above amount at the end of 2025, which is $13,070.28. It took 234 years to reach approximately $13,070.28.)

The Stock Market

How much would $100 be worth today, February 12, 2026, if it was invested in the stock market on May 17, 1792?

Based on the search results, I can provide a calculation, but with important caveats. May 17, 1792 is an interesting date choice—it's right around when the Buttonwood Agreement was signed (May 17, 1792), which established what would become the New York Stock Exchange.

However, reliable stock market data from 1792 is extremely limited. According to the sources, trustworthy price and dividend records only begin from January 1793. Even then, the market was very different from today—it consisted primarily of a few bank stocks and the 1st Bank of the United States.

Using the most comprehensive long-term data available (from 1825-2019), the average annual total return was approximately 9.56%. For an even longer period from 1793 onwards, various sources suggest returns in the range of 6-8% annually when accounting for the numerous crises, bank failures, and wars of the early period.

If we use a conservative estimate of 7% annual return (accounting for dividends reinvested) over 233.74 years (May 17, 1792 to February 12, 2026):

$100 × (1.07)^233.74 ≈ $169 million

With a more optimistic 8% return:

$100 × (1.08)^233.74 ≈ $3.3 billion

Important caveats:

There was no real "stock market" to invest in on May 17, 1792—only a handful of bank stocks

This assumes perfect reinvestment of all dividends and surviving multiple market crashes

Early returns (1790s-1860s) were highly volatile with many bank failures

This ignores transaction costs, taxes, and the practical impossibility of maintaining such an investment

The calculation demonstrates the extraordinary power of compound returns over very long periods, but it's more of a mathematical exercise than a realistic scenario.

S&P 500

How much would $100 invested in using the S&P Index on March 4, 1957, be worth today, February 12, 2026?

The S&P 500 opened at 44.06 on March 4, 1957, and as of February 11, 2026, it closed at 6,941.47.

Price appreciation only (excluding dividends):

Starting value: $44.06

Current value: $6,941.47

Price return: 157.5x or 15,650%

$100 invested would be worth approximately $15,750

However, this calculation only accounts for price appreciation. The actual total return including 58 years of dividends would be significantly higher. With dividends reinvested over this 69-year period, the total return would likely be in the range of $30,000-$40,000 or more, though the exact amount depends on dividend reinvestment assumptions.

The compound annual growth rate for price appreciation alone has been approximately 7.6% per year over this nearly 69-year period, which aligns with the historical compounded annual growth rate of just over 7% Begin To Invest for the index.

https://www.google.com/search?q=when...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://claude.ai/chat/1be1f2c7-6637...d-a4d16931b721

https://claude.ai/chat/cdbf7078-32fa...9-18b5ec1cf008

https://claude.ai/chat/29be2d47-bcb9...7-ec5b195e1e06

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Well then, why don't you just do the calculations yourself? They're not difficult.

Our current national debt (gross) is $38.6 trillion. Can you compute 1% of that? Good! Now try to compute 2% as well.

Gee, I hope I don't fuck this up... wouldn't the numbers be $386 billion and $772 billion, respectively?

Meanwhile, the CBO is predicting a federal budget deficit of $1.9 trillion for the current fiscal year ending 9/30/26.

So... if interest rates drop by two full percentage points (or 200 basis points) and we assume this would allow the US Treasury to save accordingly on what it spends to service our national debt, then the deficit would shrink by 40% to around $1.1 trillion.

Hey, that wasn't so hard, was it? You could've laid out the actual numbers and showed everyone exactly how much Trump was off. I would call him an idiot too, but at least he is drawing everyone's attention to the problem. That's more than Biden ever did.

But wait - not so fast! The story doesn't end there. That would be too simple. Isn't anyone going to ask what is the current weighted-average interest rate paid by the US Treasury on its outstanding debt? I'll tell you anyway - it's 3.4%. Anyone want to know the average maturity of this debt? Just short of 6 years.

Why is that important? Because the Treasury has to pay the coupon rate on its debt, not the current market yield, which means any general reduction in rates won't translate fully or immediately into interest savings. Another reason to fault trump's logic.

Now I'll let Tiny and Texas Contrarian weigh in on the topic. I know Tiny prefers to track our net debt, which is lower. I prefer to emphasize the gross debt, because it's scarier. Plus I don't want to suggest it's ok and doesn't really count whenever other government agencies (especially the Federal Reserve) buy & own big chunks of this debt.

Hi LustyLad, I'm dealing with a posting addiction and am trying to hold my activity to one post a day. I'd dearly love to correct/admonish TxDot and Turner about their view of the estate tax. And TxDot about his belief that higher taxes are the solution to all our problems. But that will have to wait.

Trump as we know exaggerates. In Trump Speak, $386 billion, or $300 billion (1% of the $30 trillion federal debt held by the public) is the same as $600 billion.

Yeah, it's crazy, that half the federal deficit is interest on the debt. Trump's right, that if you were able to cut the weighted average interest rate on the debt to 1% or lower, it would bring down the deficit to manageable levels. That's a large part of the reason why Japan was able to support massive government debt without running into severe problems, although the economy has been stagnant for decades. When you have negative interest rates all the way out to 10 years, as was the case at one time, it makes life a lot easier!

But Japan had some things going for it that the USA doesn't. Its debt was mostly owned by Japanese people and institutions, not foreigners. Japanese households and, I believe, corporates are prolific savers. Japan was experiencing very low inflation or deflation, in part because of a shrinking population.

None of those are true of the USA, except maybe a shrinking population if Stephen Miller keeps having his way. We don't have deflation, like Japan did. Do you really want interest rates at 1% when inflation is 3%? That's great if you're a real estate developer (e.g. Donald Trump), but if you're a spendthrift government, not so much in the long term. Asset prices would go up, and I believe inflation would too, if you continue to keep interest rates below inflation. At some point unless another Paul Volcker came along you're screwed. And when/if he does and interest rates go to 15% on a $50 trillion debt, you're doubly screwed.

Second theory: On the other hand, maybe Trump's crazy like a fox. The federal politicians aren't ever going to get serious about controlling spending or deficits. They're not going to raise taxes on most Americans (aside: actually I agree with them on that.) So the only way out is through inflation. Not piddly ass, high-single-digit deflation. We need to MALV, Make America Like Venezuela! Get Maduro out of his jail cell and into the White House! Have him replace Scott Bessent. That's the ticket

I favor the first theory.

[Precious_b]

Originally Posted by Turner2099

I used Claude.ai and asked about buying $100 worth of gold on May 17, 1792; in the stock market on May 17, 1792; and in the S&P 500 on March 4, 1957. Let's assume someone illegally kept the gold somewhere safe. : ).

Value today

Gold:
$26,140.56

Stock Market (keep in mind this is over 234 years):
Assuming a 7% return: $169 million
Assuming an 8% return $3.3 billion

S&P 500
Price Appreciation only: $15,750
Dividends reinvested: $30,000 to $40,000

The detail are broken out below and at the bottom are links to the actual Claude.ai results with reference links.

Claude includes the concerns raised about the Stock Market by CPT and admits that it's more of a mathematical exercise than a realistic scenario.



https://www.google.com/search?q=when...hrome&ie=UTF-8

https://claude.ai/chat/1be1f2c7-6637...d-a4d16931b721

https://claude.ai/chat/cdbf7078-32fa...9-18b5ec1cf008

https://claude.ai/chat/29be2d47-bcb9...7-ec5b195e1e06

Well, that's 3 for 3 if we call them simulations.

Doesn't matter what you invest in, if you watch all parameters like a hawk, you can get bigger returns than the lazy guy (me).

Hell, years ago a guy parlayed a paperclip into a house. But that was alot of work.

I'll just take the market.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Hi LustyLad, I'm dealing with a posting addiction and am trying to hold my activity to one post a day. I'd dearly love to correct/admonish TxDot and Turner about their view of the estate tax. And TxDot about his belief that higher taxes are the solution to all our problems. But that will have to wait.

I’m not looking to raise taxes to historic levels but they certainly can go up to at least what we had under Clinton.

Revenue and spending cuts. Both will be required to dig our way out of the mess that Republicans tax cuts have caused in the last 26 years.

[pxmcc]

^^+1 sir..

you solve deficits-and eventually debt-when revenue> expenditures. there are no shortcuts or workarounds. it's called, math..

or we can monetize the debt-print greenbacks our way out of debt-and expect inflation in the 15-20% range. ya, no thanks..

finally, we can slowly choke on our own debt and interest payments alone. also, not a plan going forward, although, interestingly and pathetically, our present trajectory..

Trump is in no way helping. he gives a grand total of zero fucks about future Americans.