"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

That someone failed to make money on the market doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong, it may just mean nobody gave them a pile of money they could afford to risk.

The Big Short is a fantastic read due to watching somebody who you know is right, and knows that he's right, almost get wiped out because the market teetered on the edge of the precipice for over a year.

With something like inflation over a 10 year period this isn't true. In ten years either it was lower than you thought or it wasn't, and you can make lots of money based on the spread of inflation-protected and non-inflation protected assets.

Being right doesn't mean very much. A broken clock is right twice a day. If I say something will go up I have a 50% chance of that being true. That doesn't mean anyone should take my advice on the future.

Sure, I'm just saying the argument above was fallacious. That an argument against X is fallacious does not mean X is true.

I was about 13 years old I didn't have much capitol to invest. I just put together the two pieces of the puzzle that housing prices were rising much faster than wages and that a products price can't continuously rise faster then the consumers ability to pay for that product. I guess the "smart money" missed that.

Now we have a bunch of presidential candidates that tell me they are going to print money all day long and a bunch of people who "know better" telling me that won't cause inflation to spike. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Before we saw a huge inflation, we'd see very low unemployment then inflation would uptick to 2%. And in the current interest rate environment we could probably use an inflation rate closer to 4%.

No candidates are talking about printing money, just spending it in different ways.

The democrats can never seem to manage to tax the wealthy (themselves effectively) when push comes to shove. I'm not trying to be partisan, Republicans similarly are unable to cut spending. Perhaps this time will be different but I'm betting against that personally.

Also it is my belief that moving money from investment vehicles to consumers will have a inflationary effect on consumer goods. The slow trickle of subsidized Uber rides for example probably has less of an effect than a direct cash transfer that happens more rapidly. More so much of that money is invested internationally, by increasing taxes on the wealthy we may be in effect increasing the total money supply in the United States.

Taxing the wealthy wouldn't increase the money supply but if redistributed could increase money velocity.