• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
Airbus scraps production of A380 superjumbo

European aviation giant Airbus says it will stop making its superjumbo A380 in 2021 after struggling to sell the world's biggest passenger jet. However, the company still announced a significant rise in profits for 2018.

European aircraft manufacturer Airbus on Thursday announced it will end production of the A380 double-decker passenger jet in 2021.

The Franco-German company had hoped the superjumbo would challenge Boeing's 747 and revolutionize air travel in the 21st century.

What's behind the move?

* The decision came after Emirates reduced its order of the model from 162 to 123 aircraft.
* The company said it had "no substantial A380 backlog and hence no basis to sustain production."
* Airbus had warned in January that it would stop making the plane if no new orders came in.

https://www.dw.com/en/airbus-scraps-production-of-a380-superjumbo/a-47511026
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,275
Likes
8,874
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Days Until spring 2019

31 days 4 hours 57 minutes 16 seconds
Yep, gonna be here quick.

Wanna know something else that's gonna be here quick?

Twentytwenty
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,019
Location
Coal Country
My personal debt is much more manageable than that. That's the only debt I concern myself with.
I agree. There's not a GD thing I can do about hyperinflation or what .gov does with the FRN. For a lot of years we, here at GIM, pissed and moaned about the consequences of fiat. Ron Paul was really the last hope for sensible monetary reform. I kind of like the idea weatherman has been putting up, exchange FRN's for real money then print useless FRN's to the moon in order to pay off the useless debt, shitcan the marshal plan and to hell with policing the world.

Once I paid off the house I figured I'd never go into debt again. I kind of lied to myself and took a $15,000 loan on 0% interest for a second car. If something came to pass and I couldn't make the note it doesn't matter. If I became destitute, I don't need a second car anyway. The bitch of buying a new car is any car being promoted at 0% means the interest is built right into the sticker hence, the astronomical price of new cars. The beauty of my cop bait sports sedan is that it was fairly cheap and it was not promoted at 0%. With my good credit and a large down payment I was able to demand 0% and the bank along with the dealership obliged. Sure, I already have $15,000 cash in the thing but I can live without the securitized car. Barring a major economic calamity I can sell it for more than I owe.

In short, for the first time in my life a car dealership, a bank and myself have a symbiotic relationship. Undoubtedly a rare thing to behold. It gets around the traffic on the miner 500 far better than a Tundra ever could.

“They call it the coal miner 500 haha! Because once them coal miners are going to work and coming to work, that used to be the main problem. But now its the oil field. So mix the oil field with the coal miners and you’ve got nothing but a ….race way. A dangerous one.”
http://insideenergy.org/2014/11/17/a-tiny-wyoming-town-stuck-in-boom-traffic/

1550596169277.png
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,275
Likes
8,874
Location
Instant Gratification Land
U.S. debt is now higher than the combined market value of the Fortune 500
My personal debt is much more manageable than that.
Are we supposed to think that's sayin' a lot?



The difference between the government's debt and that of the Fortune 500, is that the companies went into debt to produce useful things that all their customers actually wanted. lol
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,054
Likes
33,556
you think so?

a great deal of that supposed corporate debt is shenanigans, and paper shuffling

for instance, using debt to buy back stock...........what a joke

they took the money by issuing stock, burned it up, then turn around and want to go to a bank for debt to pay off that debt

they pay off a dividend yield, which many of them don't pay anyway, but let's say they are around 2%,
what bank is going to give them fiat credit for less than 2%???

like I said, a silly paper joke to mask their theft

etc.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,275
Likes
8,874
Location
Instant Gratification Land
you think so?

a great deal of that supposed corporate debt is shenanigans, and paper shuffling
Yea, that too.
....but they at least produced something and have willing customers.


Gov on the other hand, produces nothing but demands we be its "customers".
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,054
Likes
33,556
a brother was just bringing up the point about comrade kotex losing NY all those jobs with amazon,

I laughed and told him to quit drinking the koolaid,
first it is corporate welfare,
amazon doesn't pay any fed tax
then is begging for billions from NY just so they can grace NY with massive costs and infrastructure requirements,

liars figure and figures lie, ie the stats will be twisted to whomever has the agenda on each side,

I am against any and all corporate welfare, no matter the 'rationale' provided to justify the theft
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
8,701
Likes
11,946
Location
South Floriduh
Platinum appears to be imitating silver for being a doggie.

Four fargin HUNDRED and fitty bucks less than gold.

YIKES. What ever happened to parity?
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,054
Likes
33,556

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,863
Likes
5,783
Why Americans are suddenly paying $550 per month for new cars

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/03/01/care-payments/3001818002/

In the Netflix era, many Americans are managing their finances based on their monthly subscription payments, often with little regard to the total they’ll pay in the long run.

That paradigm benefits the automotive industry and the lenders that finance car loans, as auto sales remain near record levels.

The average price of vehicles hit an all-time high of more than $36,000 in 2018, according to Kelley Blue Book – and with interest rates rising, car shoppers are now borrowing more than ever and extending their loans to record lengths.

New-car buyers agreed to pay an average of $551 per month for 69 months in January, according to car-buying advice site Edmunds. That’s nearly 10 percent more per month than three years earlier.

It’s a clear-cut sign of how Americans feel confident in a strong economy.

But is it sustainable?

Car debt has risen 75 percent since the Great Recession in 2009, reaching an all-time high of $1.2 trillion, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

"Easy credit and longer repayment terms have coaxed many consumers into buying more car than they can really afford," said Ed Mierzwinski, U.S. PIRG's senior director for consumer programs, in an email. "It's even worse for those who have been subjected to deceptive and predatory lending practices at auto dealers."

Average annual interest rates jumped from 4.68 percent in January 2017 to 4.99 percent that same month in 2018 and then to a 10-year high of 6.19 percent in January 2019, according to Edmunds. With new-vehicle prices averaging nearly $37,000 in January, according to Kelley Blue Book, monthly payments are getting out of reach for many buyers.

Several automotive executives interviewed recently by USA TODAY said car buyers can afford it amid a strong job market and encouraging stock gains.

“The economy is still at a very strong level," said Henio Arcangeli, Jr., a leading executive in Honda’s U.S. division. "Although interest rates are coming up, which obviously can increase the purchase cost of the vehicle, on a historic basis they’re still at a very low level.”

That’s true. Auto interest rates on 4-year loans were never this low in the 1990s, for example, when they ranged between about 7 percent and 12 percent, according to the St. Louis Fed.

But car buyers could run into trouble if the economy takes a turn for the worse and their income drops, especially because they’re locking themselves into long-term loans.

Netflix subscriptions can be canceled. Car payments can't – at least not without giving up the vehicle. About 83 percent of Americans rely on their own car or someone else's to get to work every day, according to an August 2018 poll by research firm Gallup.

More than 7 million Americans are now at least three months delinquent on their auto loan payments, the benchmark for many lenders to trigger a repossession.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the number of these troubled borrowers is a million more than in 2010, following the global financial crisis that led to a bailout for automakers and financiers.

Phaedra Wainaina, a new law school graduate in Michigan who recently lost her job as a legal researcher, was quickly overwhelmed by her bills, including a car loan.


Phaedra Wainaina, 26, lost her job at as a legal researcher, and for the two months she was unemployed she got behind on her car payment. (Photo: Ryan Garza, Detroit Free Press)

"I had to make the decision between paying car notes and buying food,“ the 26-year-old single mom said. She defaulted on her 2010 Chevrolet Equinox loan and the SUV was repossessed. "I am considered someone who has higher education and still got behind."

Deals dry up
One reason the tab is getting more expensive is because deals are harder to find. Zero-percent interest rate offers, which were common following the Great Recession, hit a 13-year low in January, according to Edmunds.

One big reason is the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate hikes, which are aimed at curbing inflation in a strong economy. But the impact on consumers is higher monthly payments.

“The biggest surprise for me is how quickly we’ve seen interest rates go up above 6 percent,” Edmunds analyst Jessica Caldwell said, referring to auto loans. “People were used to low interest rates, and that’s no longer the case. That is kind of frightening for a lot of people.”

One big driver of the bulkier loans is bulkier vehicles, said Melinda Zabritski, senior director of automotive financial solutions for Experian Automotive.

A decade ago, the best-selling segment of vehicles was affordable small cars, like the Ford Focus sedan, she said. Today, it’s entry-level crossovers like the Toyota RAV4 and Ford Escape, which carry starting prices of several thousand more dollars.

“Fundamentally consumers have changed what they’re buying,” Zabritski said. “That’s part of where we’re seeing these rising prices.”

They’ve changed so much that the Focus, in fact, is gone. Ford is discontinuing the car, along with the Fusion and Fiesta sedans. And General Motors is killing the Chevrolet Cruze, a Focus competitor, along with several other car models.


Ford discontinued the Focus compact car for the U.S. market. (Photo: Ford Motor Company)

That’s because rising interest rates simply haven’t stopped people from borrowing more to fuel their thirst for bigger and bigger vehicles in the SUV boom, which has depressed sales of cheaper and smaller passenger cars.

The average new-car buyer borrowed $31,707 in January, marking an all-time high for the month, according to Edmunds.

And the most common loan term is now 72 months, according to Experian.

The good news is the average consumer has “a very healthy balance sheet” right now, said Lakhbir Lamba, executive vice president of retail lending at PNC.

But Lamba noted that while PNC doesn’t offer loans beyond 72 months, many of the bank’s competitors are offering 84-month loans or even longer in some cases.

“There’s been a lot of debate over, is there stress … in that asset class, and I’ll tell you, a lot of it depends upon the financial institution and the type of consumer they’re lending money to,” Lamba said. “We’ve seen some stress but nothing that would concern us.”

How to avoid paying too much
Advisers say car buyers should consider the total amount they’re paying over time. But many people think more about whether they can handle the monthly payment.

At January's rates, a 60-month loan on the average amount borrowed costs a total of $36,947 over time. Adding just 12 months to the loan increases the cost of the vehicle by $1,092.

“It feels like everything is advertised to us at a monthly rate,” Caldwell said. “That’s the way we’ve been conditioned now.”

Another tip: If you can’t afford a midsize SUV, for example, consider a midsize car. The price difference between the average midsize SUV and the average midsize car in January was $38,744 to $25,930, according to Kelley Blue Book.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
When I first began selling new cars, the average financial term for most makes & models was 48 months @ $200 per month. A couple years later it was $250 month @ 60 months. Then the custom van craze came along with Lexis, Acura, etc. and it wasnt uncommon for payments to expand to $350 - $450 month @ 66 to 72 months.

Most banksters love vehicle loans (autos, boats, RV's, etc.) as these loans are usually written on "Rule of 78's" contracts where the majority of the interest is paid on the front end before paying on the principle. I would only agree to a simple interest loan if I required a loan... Rule of 78's is a consumer rip off loan! JMO
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,054
Likes
33,556
there was some dimwit talking head on a week or so ago,

yapping on about how the zeroland was going to extend credit and stimulate to beat hell,

then he was stating this was dollar negative and zero positive

I laughed like hell and was wondering what the dunderhead was even thinking,

going back to stimulus and all the above over there only increases the spread to the USD, making the dollar that much more attractive.

today they announced a bunch of rubbish, and the dollar reacted as expected, while leaving the clueless scratching their bald heads.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,054
Likes
33,556
real nice action in gold against that dollar headwind,

I'll mention it again for old times sake

during the bull, gold would be down on thur and up on Friday, while the reverse was true during a long downtrend

for some time now, we have been finishing up on Fridays
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
FB_IMG_1553180680701.jpg
 

JayDubya

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
4,863
Likes
5,783
From Simon Black:

There’s a new bank in the United States called “TNB USA”. Its business model is simple: park 100% of its customers’ funds in the Federal Reserve. They won’t make loans, they won’t gamble away their customers’ savings on the latest investment fad.

Yet when TNB applied for a master account at the Federal Reserve, they were REJECTED because the Fed thinks the business model is too risky.

That’s right. According to the Fed, NOT taking any chances with your customers’ savings is risky. Unreal.

Here's the article:
The Fed Versus the Narrow Bank

No Narrow Bank
If you are a bank, and you have extra money, you can park it at the Federal Reserve. It will be perfectly safe there: Accounts at the Fed are money, so there is absolutely no way for the Fed to lose your money. 1 Also it will earn interest. The interest rate right now is 2.4 percent.

If you are not a bank, and you have extra money, you cannot do this: Only banks can park their extra money at the Fed. In fact, if you are a large institutional cash investor—a money-market fund, a foreign central bank, things like that—then in some sense you have no way to keep your money perfectly safe. You have no way to just put money in an account that is money, that in all possible states of the world will be usable as money. You can get pretty close. The closest that big non-banks normally get is “overnight general collateral repo”: You give your money to a bank, and the bank gives you back a Treasury security as collateral, and you can get your money back the next day.

Also you get interest. The interest right now is pretty close to 2.4 percent; here are three Fed-calculated rates based on overnight repo, which ranged from 2.36 to 2.38 percent yesterday. Meanwhile of course the bank is using your money to run its business. The bank is levered; it uses the money that it gets from repoing Treasuries to go buy other stuff, to trade stocks and bonds and derivatives and so forth.

The only way for you to lose money here is if (1) the bank’s money disappears overnight so it can’t pay you back and (2) the Treasury security loses value overnight so you can’t sell it for more than you loaned the bank. It’s pretty good. People do not worry too much about this, most of the time. Sometimes they do. When Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, they did.

There are other things you can do. You can just open a deposit account at a bank, but for large institutions this is less safe than repo: If the bank’s money disappears overnight, you don’t have a Treasury security to sell. (For small retail depositors, deposit insurance mostly solves the problem; for big institutions it does not.) You can buy Treasury bills, but there is some market risk there, since their prices can move. Some cash investors—mostly Federal Home Loan Banks—lend money to banks in the fed funds market. There is a whole set of short-term funding markets, all of them slightly less perfect than just parking your money at the Fed.

We talked last year about a thing called TNB USA Inc. “TNB” stands for “The Narrow Bank.” The idea of the Narrow Bank is that you can open a bank account with TNB, and it will take your money and park it at the Fed, and that’s it. The Fed will pay it 2.4 percent, and it will take a small cut, and it will pass the rest on to you. Depending on the exact structure of interest rates, you may end up getting a bit more interest than you would in the repo market. And because TNB only takes money and parks it at the Fed—because it is only a pass-through for Fed accounts, and never invests your money in trading or derivatives or mortgages or business loans or even Treasuries—and because Fed accounts are perfectly, uniquely safe, you might decide that this is the safest possible place to keep your money, safer than repo or regular bank accounts or anything else. (Again, “you” here means large institutional cash investors like money-market funds; TNB was not offering retail accounts.) There is an obvious appeal.

But the Fed has so far refused to open an account for TNB, making this business impossible. When we talked about it back in September, the Fed had not explained itself, and TNB had sued the Fed to figure out what was going on. I speculated that the Fed might have worried that this business model—of paying competitive or even more-than-competitive interest rates for perfectly safe institutional money accounts—might be bad for the regular banks, that “pulling deposits from big banks would precipitate a crisis, or at least reduce lending.” My headline was “Fed Rejects Bank for Being Too Safe.”

Now the Fed has explained itself. Here is a notice of proposed rulemaking that the Fed issued on Wednesday, explaining its objections to what it calls “Pass-Through Investment Entities” like TNB, “depository institutions with narrowly focused business models that involve taking deposits from institutional investors and investing all or substantially all of the proceeds in balances at Reserve Banks.” 2 The Fed’s notice is short-ish, as these things go (16 pages), quite clear, and more or less along the lines we talked about last year.

The Fed raises three main objections. 3 The first is macroeconomic: The Fed worries that narrow banks could mess with the implementation of monetary policy, because if they succeed they will keep a lot of money at the Fed, increasing the size of its balance sheet. 4 They might also make other short-term interest rates (like fed funds) more volatile, because people who would otherwise participate in those markets might park their money at narrow banks instead, making it harder for the Fed to target interest rates. 5

Second, it worries that narrow banks will take funding away from regular banks, making it harder for those banks to trade stocks and bonds (a business largely funded by repo), and maybe even making it harder to make loans:

Lenders in the overnight general collateral (“GC”) repo market could find PTIE deposits more attractive than continued activity in the overnight GC repo market. If the rise of PTIEs were to reduce demand for GC repo lending, securities dealers could find it more costly to finance their inventories of Treasury securities. Such a development could impair the liquidity of the repo market, making it harder for banks to monetize Treasury securities in times of stress and raising the overall cost of Treasury borrowing. A decline in the robustness of the repo market could also have implications for the success of the decision of the Alternative Reference Rates Committee to base LIBOR’s replacement on the U.S. Treasury repo market.

PTIEs could also diminish the availability of funding for commercial banks generally. To the extent that deposits at PTIEs are seen as a more attractive investment for cash investors that currently hold bank deposits, these investors could shift some of their investments from deposits issued by banks to deposits with PTIEs. This shift in investment, in turn, could raise bank funding costs and ultimately raise the cost of credit provided by banks to households and businesses.

Third, the Fed worries that having too safe a bank would be bad for financial stability: In times of stress, everyone will flee from the regular banks to the super-safe narrow banks, which will have the effect of bringing down the regular banks.

Deposits at PTIEs could significantly reduce financial stability by providing a nearly unlimited supply of very attractive safe-haven assets during periods of financial market stress. PTIE deposits could be seen as more attractive than Treasury bills, because they would provide instantaneous liquidity, could be available in very large quantities, and would earn interest at an administered rate that would not necessarily fall as demand surges. As a result, in times of stress, investors that would otherwise provide short-term funding to nonfinancial firms, financial institutions, and state and local governments could rapidly withdraw that funding from those borrowers and instead deposit those funds at PTIEs. The sudden withdrawal of funding from these borrowers could greatly amplify systemic stress.

I find all of this pretty compelling, but I think it would be reasonable not to. I want to make two points. First, I say sometimes that banking is a public-private partnership, and that banks are not pure private companies competing in the free market. This Fed notice is a particularly clear illustration of that: The Fed just gets to decide who gets to compete in the banking business, and how that competition will work, and what their business models can be, by virtue of its control of access to reserve accounts. I don’t mean that one decision (allowing narrow banks, or not allowing them) would be pro-competitive and free-market-y while the opposite decision wouldn’t be; I mean that, either way, the central fact of that competition is about access to government money accounts. There is no modern banking that is independent of the sovereign’s power to control money, 6 and the question is just who the sovereign shares that power with.

Second, I say sometimes that banking rests on an illusion, in which banks transform risky assets (loans, securities trading) into risk-free liabilities (deposits, repo): People give money to banks expecting the money to be absolutely safe, and then the banks go and do risky things with it. There are really good arguments that this is good, essential even, that it is how a society can take risks and build things while people still feel confident in their savings. But there are arguments the other way, that illusions are bad, that this system is unnecessarily crisis-prone and that we should only fund risky activities with risky investments and keep the safe investments truly safe. Narrow banking is an attempt to do that, to offer safe investments that don’t fund risky activities, to separate pure money accounts from loans and trading and the rest of the asset side of the bank balance sheet. And the Fed says: No thanks; sure that would be safer for depositors, but it would make the risky banks riskier. People who deposit their money with banks because that’s the closest they can get to a risk-free money account would no longer think that, and might move their money to narrow banks because those are risk-free money accounts. The illusion would be punctured, and the Fed, at some level, likes the illusion.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,275
Likes
8,874
Location
Instant Gratification Land
That’s right. According to the Fed, NOT taking any chances with your customers’ savings is risky. Unreal.
That's because of our inflationary monetary system. The more funds that are parked, the riskier it is to the overall system. Ie: in order for it to truly grow, the funds needs to be put to work.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
27,054
Likes
33,556
the funds needs to be put to work.
velocity of fiat,
parking it decreases velocity
and at the levels they are speaking to,
it is a major issue, as velocity is already too low with the massive creation going on worldwide

they see the parking as a problem, when in fact the real problem is excess creation

remembering that the fed has already parked oodles of dough that they are trying like hell to unleash on the world, and having a hard time doing so

as excessive creation has continued since '07, the velocity has plummeted accordingly.


1.jpg
 

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,019
Location
Coal Country
Just got a savings offer from citi. They hate guns so I quit doing business with them. They are offering 2.34. Seems you just have to know the right people.
 

Uglytruth

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
6,176
Likes
8,918
It would INCREASE the velocity of money...….. for the people getting .05% on their frn savings.
If people were getting a return on their money and the fed were not playing games the people would be more secure in spending it .

How much was lost unseen by the savers when interest rates were zero and how would that filter through the economy?
I think more and more the crash was designed to take away returns for the baby boomers. The people that had 500K and 7.2 years later would have had 1M HAD to be stopped! The young will most all be poor and resent that!
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
12,471
Likes
20,074
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
now they go after the economy,

yields or rates are going down bigtime as the boyz play the 'recession' card


View attachment 127129
Its save the sovereign U.S. bond market no matter what... western civilization & its financial markets are hinged on growing & efficiently operating bond markets.... nothing else matters.