Bogleheads.org

Possibly in the sense that if you are assuming fixed REAL withdrawals then it is possible poor real returns combined with unexpectedly high inflation will be the worst overall scenario you could face early in retirement, and there are empirical reasons to believe value overperformance of growth is most likely during periods of unexpectedly high inflation, which makes sense if you think about it. Of course flexible withdrawal strategies help, but given the above it is reasonable to conclude a certain minimum/floor real withdrawal rate will be somewhat more likely to survive an unexpectedly high inflation/poor stock return sequence with value stocks. It is also reasonable to conclude if your minimum/floor real withdrawal rate is low enough it...

But a fraction of false positives in one data set will be false positive again in a different dataset. Sure, but some factors have survived multiple out of sample tests--different time periods, different markets, and so on. It is always theoretically possible that is "pure luck" but the chance of that being true becomes rather small under such conditions. In the end, this is not a new issue for empirical research, and a lot of people over time are well aware of the problem and have carefully tested for these issues. I am really just pointing out that is a better approach than eyeballing charts and hand-waving arguments. By the way, as a final thought--one could argue that CAPM itself is no more privileged in this sense than any o...

Ben Mathew wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:30 pm Looks like Bogle thought it was just pure luck, and we can't rule that out.

It depends on what you mean by that.

The cross-section of stock returns is subject to statistical analysis. In many different empirical studies, there have been cross-sectional return observations that were statistically significant. Some of these have then survived out of sample testing.

Given that, it is quite unlikely those observations were the product of "pure luck" in the sense of just being generated by random variations.

What actually explains them is, of course, a very challenging question. As is the related question of how, if at all, we should account for these observations in financial planning.

As an aside, commodities futures funds are usually collateralized, which means they usually have a lot of TIPS or TBills. That is why these are sometimes known as CCF funds (collateralized commodities futures). Anyway, there are in fact some relatively simple and transparent CCF funds available, but they historically had all sorts of issues with front-running and also contango, the latter of which generates negative roll returns: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/contango.asp One possible solution is an actively-traded fund like VCMDX. I don't necessarily think that is entirely just like betting on a gambler, because theoretically there are commodity futures which make more or less sense for third-party investors. Note commodity futures...

For one thing, you have to distinguish between higher raw return and higher risk-adjusted return. I think it is worth being clear about this. The question you have to ask is what risks are you adjusting for? If you believe in a multi-risk model, let's say risks A, B, and C, then increasing your exposure to risks B and C will increase your expected returns. If you then adjust those expected returns only for risk A, it will look like you increased your risk-adjusted expected returns. But all you are doing is failing to account for risks B and C in your risk adjustment. This doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad idea to increase your exposure to risks B and C. But a lot of avoidable confusion has been caused by people not being clear and preci...

At a high level, I'd say Bogle was actually a strong defender of the single-risk model (aka CAPM), and a consistent critic of multi-risk models.

Of course the multi-risk models were motivated from the start by the empirical observation that the single-risk model simply was not doing a good job fitting the observed cross-section of stock returns.

And I do think to the extent Bogle tried to defend the single-risk model by eyeballing charts and claiming as long as you held out various periods and didn't look too close at other periods and such, the single-risk model still fit OK . . . that is not a very compelling way of arguing.

G fund is overhyped on this forum. Poster Vineviz has made the case that you are better with the F fund The F Fund and G Fund are sufficiently different that directly comparing them doesn't make much sense. One of the most important concepts in modern portfolio theory incorporating the capital assets pricing model is the division between risky assets, where the goal is to find a mix which optimizes the risk-adjusted expected returns (aka efficiency) of the risky side of your portfolio, and very low risk assets (sometimes called risk free, but nothing is really risk free), where the goal is to use them in combination with the risky side of your portfolio to dial in your preferred location along the efficient risk-reward tradeoff line (aka t...

We opened a brokerage account with TD Waterhouse back in the day because they had an office right across from where my wife worked, and generally seemed like a reasonably competitive brokerage. That became TD Ameritrade, and now it is becoming Schwab, although our understanding is the office will continue on under the new name.

All along the brokerage has seemed to evolve to stay competitive, and the office has been a very useful amenity at times.

So I guess my point is if you are looking for a long-term relationship with good customer service, a major outfit with a convenient local branch is a good idea.

Here is a press release item from 1997. Aside from the recent period, generally TIPS have ended up paying less than nominals historically. It remains to be seen what happens going forward, but here is one taxpayer justification. How Treasury Has Benefited As an issuer of the securities, Treasury is also happy with the program. We have established a program that, over the years, will cost the government and the taxpayers less than nominal debt. This will result from the government, instead of investors, taking the risk of inflation. In brief, we will receive the inflation risk premium instead of paying it. And we can bear the risk of inflation more efficiently than can any single investor, no matter how large. https://home.treasury.gov/news...

secondopinion wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 1:25 pm

MOBY DICK wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:15 am TIPS are one of those things that sound good to have. Actually seemed like a no-brainer.
They have proven to be worse than useless after real inflation kicked in 2 years ago.
So apparently it did work well... for the government... not for the investor.
So much for all the TIPS discussions.

Did they fail? The government had to pay more interest. TIPS “failed” only because the market real yield increased. That is a big difference from being good for the government.

Yep.

In other words, liability-matched TIPS didn't fail.

But if you don't liability match--you roll your dice and take your chances.

I think it is mostly a low-to-no cost public service.

The pricing on TIPS and Treasuries has ended up very similar (anecdotally I think at least some people were expecting more premium to TIPS, but not so far). Maybe there is a slight volume increase at the same price. But overall, I doubt the US government is getting a substantial financial benefit from TIPS, but nor is it experiencing a substantial cost.

I think the first question you should ask is what you plan to do with the income (from REITs or any other asset in a taxable account).

If you are just going to use that income to reinvest in the same thing, then any taxable income is bad in the sense you would prefer those returns instead take the form of unrealized capital gains.

If you are actually looking for post-tax income to spend, use for rebalancing, or whatever, then the next question is what forms of income get better or worse tax treatment.

REIT income actually gets pretty favorable treatment. So off hand, I don't have a problem with having an allocation to REITs in a taxable account for income-producing purposes.

Interesting series so far. I'll just once again flag this Vanguard white paper on various assets and unexpected inflation, which did well out of sample recently, and I think helps clarify which assets (including free-floating gold) should be expected to do what in terms of dealing with unexpected inflation: https://static.vgcontent.info/crp/intl/avw/mexico/documents/commodities-and-st-tips.pdf I note this because this is typically an alternate argument for "real" assets, that they hedge unexpected inflation/currency-devaluation independent from whatever effect they may or may not have on volatility generally. There certainly is something to that idea, but Vanguard's research confirms what theory would suggest--rolling collateraliz...

It amazes me that a forum that promotes "living below your means" also believes that one can "oversave." I lived within my means and am living comfortably in retirement and plan on passing our estate over to kids and our church. Conventional retirement planning is typically based on some notion of consumption smoothing, where you try to provide for the financial means to preserve a certain lifestyle (minus work- and possibly education- related costs) after you stop working. "Living below your means" is helpful to this goal in two ways: it helps establish a lower target consumption level, and allows for savings which can be invested while working and then turned back into income that can be used for consumption...

The most high-frequency home price index I follow finally hit 0% YoY as of their report at the end of last week, which was lagged about two weeks: You also need to keep in mind that over the last year inflation has been about 5.5% so in real dollars that index is 5.5% lower. One way for a housing bubble to unwind it for home prices to just lag inflation for a number of years or even decades. Absolutely. Quick illustration. This is the FHA's national repeat sales house price index. Blue line is nominal, red line is adjusted for inflation, indexed to coincide with latest USDs: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=11jGm The circa 2010 bust is obvious even nominal, although the inflation-adjusted bust is considerably more dramatic...

watchnerd wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:30 am

NiceUnparticularMan wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:17 am So why would anyone assume the market allocation of capital to bonds made sense for a given individual retirement saver in the first place?

I certainly don't, which is my my market-weight risk portfolio is separate from my LMP bond ladder.

That certainly would seem to make sense. And again pretty much tracks what DFA and the TSP do as well.

And really to some extent Vanguard too, although again they seem to use more risky bonds for LMP purposes than would seem to be optimal.

The most high-frequency home price index I follow finally hit 0% YoY as of their report at the end of last week, which was lagged about two weeks:

https://haus.com/resources/the-common-haus-price-index

So I guess I need to withdraw the comment above--I'd now bet on most markets starting to be priced below where they were a year ago.

The next big test is whether we will see much seasonal increase in prices. A relatively modest seasonal increase would potentially drop this index below 2021 levels as of the middle of the year. It would still take further actual drops to get us below 2020 levels. I personally think it is unlikely to drop that fast even if it gets there eventually, but we shall see.

[ ie. Rather than putting the onus on individual investors to game out the level of TIPS to hold, wouldn't it make more sense for all basic Bond Market Index funds incorporate some level of protection from unexpected inflation if this is a fairly universal concern for retirement savers? No, I don't think that makes sense. Indexes are supposed to be data-driven according to criteria, such as market cap weight. Given how much IP bonds one should hold is tied into overall asset allocation and age, I don't see how that would work. If you just want to include TIPS in the bond market index by cap weight, okay, but that doesn't seem like it would really serve the role TIPS play in portfolio design. Yeah, and this is really underscoring why doing ...

ie. Rather than putting the onus on individual investors to game out the level of TIPS to hold, wouldn't it make more sense for all basic Bond Market Index funds incorporate some level of protection from unexpected inflation if this is a fairly universal concern for retirement savers? I don't think this is really possible as again the total size of IP bonds outstanding is really quite small relative to the total size of the fixed income markets, and I don't think there is any good reason to believe there are actually anywhere close to enough to go around for US retirement savers. According to this report, IRAs and defined contribution plans alone have like $20 trillion in assets, so you couldn't do a DFA or TSP style allocation to IP bonds...

Lack of better options for long-term savings.

Risk-adjusted expected real rates were historically poor for all USD assets at the same time TIPS real yields were negative. TIPS were just more transparent about it.

Some people seem to think negative real rates are not sustainable, but there is no good reason to assume that. There is reason to believe nominal rates can't sustainably be below the expected cost of storage/insurance for paper cash. But expected real rates can be as much below that as expected inflation, since stored paper cash is subject to the same expected inflation.

I think a lot of responses so far are basically raising the question of why you would have any bonds at all at more than 30 years from retirement. And it is a good question and plausibly the answer is you don't need them.

And if you do have a good answer in favor of bonds at this point, that will dictate which specific bonds you would use.

No, we threw a special party on our own terms and are still talking and reminiscing about it almost 25 years later.

Of course it is not about the money per se, and you shouldn't do anything just because it is expected, traditional, whatever. But if whatever you spend is within your means and about you and your loved ones having a special, fun memory, that is totally justifiable.

With that combination of marginal federal and state taxes, I would personally look closely at Treasuries versus CA munis. The Treasuries are also exempt from the state portion, so you'd want to look carefully at the total post-tax yield and think about the different risk profile, and any other differences, with state-specific munis.

As others pointed out, that includes a distribution of the (not particularly well-named) principal adjustment.

Whether you should reinvest it depends on why you invested in a TIPS fund in the first place.

I suppose I am not clear on exactly what outcome you are trying to achieve. Do you want all the options considered, or do you want to try to channel the decision to a specific choice? I note we also want our HS junior to apply to our top in-state university, and specifically by the deadline to be considered for merit scholarships. In the event he was admitted to that university, possibly with a merit scholarship, and also other colleges, we'd want him to give serious consideration to all those options before making a final decision. And to that end, we have been having open conversations on our thoughts about college, different education paths and their pros and cons, and so on. In the end we have promised that if he does his best in school...

Real stock returns 9-30 years from now in my opinion is the answer to OP question. It has been historically for hundreds of years including European history of and I see no reason for that to change. It appears we have a different sense of what has happened in stock history. Something like 10+ year negative real returns on stocks is not all that uncommon in stock history as I understand it. And that is pre-tax with reinvestment. Add taxation and withdrawals and it is going to get even more common. Not to mention a matching liability bond allocation would force me to have way more bonds than I want or desire which historically would stifle returns. Historically there has in fact been an equity risk premium. It only makes sense to expect tha...

OTOH, many of the same high-net-worth investors gained disproportionately when inflation was low and interest rates approached zero from 1982 to 2022. The situation for today and the foreseeable future is higher inflation, higher nominal rates but not a real rate of return, and higher taxes. That all adds up to a decline in real wealth. Tough to get around these numbers. Again, I do not have a crystal ball. Yeah, my two cents is if you started working long enough ago and have been saving for a long time in a reasonably Bogleheadish way--well, you have enjoyed a great period for your investments and so now have accumulated a lot of wealth in relation to the income you saved. And if it now takes more accumulated wealth to sustain a given fut...

As a counterpoint to the "standard" advice given here about taxable accounts, see these interesting discussions: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=287967 https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=250819 +1 What convinced me from that first thread that a mirrored asset allocation strategy is "good enough" is this part of that discussion: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6485046#p6485046 Summary: An identical asset allocation in all portfolio accounts (a mirrored asset allocation) doesn't affect the effective riskiness of the portfolio, even after taxes. In contrast, so called "tax-efficient" asset location strategies often promise better "expected" outcom...

Chancellor did not, however, address the taxflation issue with TIPS for large taxable investors. You are postulating that it's still the best fixed income investment in that case if we get long high inflation, but I maintain that Chancellor falls into the category of those giving investment advice who don't really address the huge tax drag of TIPS for high bracket taxable investors. You are right he did not answer a question he wasn't asked. But I doubt he would disagree with the conclusion that in very high unexpected inflation scenarios, you will need to start with a bigger investment in a large taxable account in order to maintain the same real income post-tax, assuming no changes in the US tax system. One of the things established in t...

Problem is, we don't all know our time Horizon. We are semi-retired as we are already financially independent. We can fully retire any day we choose. It could be next month, it could be 10 years from now. It all depends what else we have going on in our lives and how much we enjoy.value the part time work we do. I think 6-8 year bond funds are a pretty reasonable option. Hmm. I don't know how old you are, but suppose you are looking at something roughly like this: Scenario 1: Retire tomorrow, spend from Year 0 to Year 30. Scenario 2: Retire in a year, spend from Year 1 to Year 30. . . . Scenario 11: Retire in 10 years, spend from Year 10 to Year 30. Looking at this overall, you typically would have a lot of your income scheduled for years ...

Assuming you are right you wouldn't pay any taxes on selling, given your situation I would sell it all, immediately buy a Target Income or LifeStrategy Income fund (there are no really significant differences, although I think the Target Income fund reflects a bit more Vanguard's current modeling specifically for retirees), and that could be that.

Craig Tester was part of my long thread where I also have concluded that 50/50 might be the best way to go for investors with large taxable portfolios: https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106544 For the record, what the analysis in that thread showed was: (1) TIPS are a much better idea than nominal bonds in high unexpected inflation scenarios, even in large taxable portfolios; (2) The optimal mix of stocks and TIPS in taxable accounts in such scenarios is going to depend on your stock model, including how you model it responding to the unexpected inflation scenario, and of course your withdrawal model. We sort of stalled out for lack of an agreed stock model. But if you do something like 50% stocks, 50% TIPS in a large taxabl...

2. I think your point (there may not be enough IP bonds available for large TDFs to use them per the recommendation) may well have merit, but I personally don't know. Do you have any links to share that back this up? Just my own back of the envelope calculations. There are something like $1.9 trillion in TIPS outstanding: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/monthly-statement-public-debt/summary-of-treasury-securities-outstanding As of Morningstar's last report there were over $3 trillion in Target funds, which have been growing over time, not least by becoming an increasingly popular option in 401Ks: https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/target-date-fund-assets-grow-to-3-27t-morningstar/ https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/...

Problem is, we don't all know our time Horizon. We are semi-retired as we are already financially independent. We can fully retire any day we choose. It could be next month, it could be 10 years from now. It all depends what else we have going on in our lives and how much we enjoy.value the part time work we do. I think 6-8 year bond funds are a pretty reasonable option. Hmm. I don't know how old you are, but suppose you are looking at something roughly like this: Scenario 1: Retire tomorrow, spend from Year 0 to Year 30. Scenario 2: Retire in a year, spend from Year 1 to Year 30. . . . Scenario 11: Retire in 10 years, spend from Year 10 to Year 30. Looking at this overall, you typically would have a lot of your income scheduled for years ...

However, I also have a fairly high tolerance for volatility, and a fairly low allocation to fixed income. At least from the perspective of standard retirement planning as derived from lifetime human capital and consumption models, concern over NAV volatility in retirement portfolios long prior to withdrawal is just a cognitive error, a form of myopic loss aversion. So from that perspective, it is interesting to see how many people here seem to not just indulge but actually encourage aversion to NAV volatility long before retirement. Conversely, it makes perfect sense start accumulating a low-risk LMP/anti-SO(R)RR allocation (to me these are basically the same thing) once the early retirement period is on the practical investing horizon. Bu...

As a counterpoint to the "standard" advice given here about taxable accounts, see these interesting discussions:

viewtopic.php?t=287967

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=250819

I am a big believer in not letting the tax tail wag the asset allocation dog. Personally, I see no purpose for us holding the bonds in BND anywhere. Good point. However, if you are in the top federal bracket and in a state like CA with very high state taxes then the tax tail will wag very vigorously indeed. Right, but you still have to ask what purpose the bonds serve. If, say, the purpose is to generate spendable income--which is the core purpose of "fixed income" assets--then you have to properly compare what happens in terms of taxation overall. And in a jurisdiction with high state taxes, something like Treasuries (nominal or TIPS) in a taxable account could be quite competitive. Of course income from Roths is always the best...

I note prices in most markets are probably still a bit above where they were one year ago in early 2022, albeit well below where they were last summer (even seasonally adjusted). 2021 or 2020 are likely still way below in most markets.

I think people here underestimate their investment horizon dramatically. To a degree, I understand a focus on volatility since that can lead to behavioral mistakes. I think a better choice is to accept that volatility will happen, and optimize the portfolio with a focus on all risks, not just one. Acceptance is not easy. Again just discussing what behavioral economists think--they think the solution to these psychological issues is Target funds. Of course those are a tough sell in a forum devoted to the idea that a DIY approach to personal finance is a really good idea, and only unsophisticated people use Target funds. I think that is particularly true when people focus on a saving multiple number. That's an interesting point. I've never r...

However, I also have a fairly high tolerance for volatility, and a fairly low allocation to fixed income. At least from the perspective of standard retirement planning as derived from lifetime human capital and consumption models, concern over NAV volatility in retirement portfolios long prior to withdrawal is just a cognitive error, a form of myopic loss aversion. So from that perspective, it is interesting to see how many people here seem to not just indulge but actually encourage aversion to NAV volatility long before retirement. Conversely, it makes perfect sense start accumulating a low-risk LMP/anti-SO(R)RR allocation (to me these are basically the same thing) once the early retirement period is on the practical investing horizon. Bu...

In theory you can start buying rungs on your ladder up to 30 years out.

In practice, companies like DFA start buying LT IP bonds at about 20 years out in their Target funds. So they have waited a few years before they theoretically could have started,

The glidepaths used by companies like DFA are determined from optimizing across a variety of considerations and I personally think that is probably adequate in a tax-protected account.

In your case--you are looking at just a three-year ladder from age 65 to 68, starting 9 years from now?

I'd have no problem just buying that all right now.

You're right, they are wrong--there is nothing magical about dividends per se. That being said--the annualized USD dividend yield on a global stock portfolio is going to be something like 2% these days (note the US-only dividend yield is lower, something like 1.7%). If you invest in a global stock portfolio and set a withdrawal rate of 2%, that of course is an extremely "safe" withdrawal rate. So it "works" in the sense that your withdrawal rate is really low. And in fact, if you have a really low withdrawal rate anyway (say you want to leave a large inheritance), you may well find yourself mostly just withdrawing the dividend income despite that not being a per se goal of your plan. The error arises when you start think...

My two cents is we have never worried too much about overfunding 529s, as there are so many different rules that help. For example, in addition to the new IRA rule, these are long-standing rules: (1) You can take out money matching scholarships without penalty (although you do pay income tax on the earnings); (2) You can use them for grad and professional school and a variety of other qualifying expenses besides college; (3) You can change the beneficiary around within broad limits; (4) At least for federal purposes, 529 contributions are completed gifts and not subject to estate tax. And of course the longer the contributions are compounding returns, the less the 10% penalty on earnings for unqualified withdrawals is a big deal. So basical...

DFA in its Target funds starts phasing them in 20 years before retirement. At that starting point, they are using their LTIP portfolio only, which has a weighted duration of about 26 years. As retirement gets closer, they start adding in their Inflation-Protected Securities Portfolio (I), which has a weighted duration of about 7 years. So, for example, T2035 (12 years out) is currently about 27% LTIP, 4% IPSP; T2030 is about 30% LTIP, 19% IPSP; and T2025 is about 24% LTIP, 44% IPSP. After retirement, T2020 is at about 61% IPSP, 14% LTIP, and T2015 is at 70% IPSP, 5% LTIP. What they are basically doing there is a form of liability matching--although to understand it completely, you have to factor in what they are doing with global bonds and ...

On a related note, I'm not sure if you saw my Bengen reference, but he mentioned that substituting MMF (money market funds) for intermediate Treasuries had little impact on his SWR research....And his study period covered the high inflation era of the late 60's, 70's.... So, finding that comment really interesting ...it leads me to wonder if a good-enough approach might be to just set your "default" choice as a MMF..., and then if you think you can beat that at any moment along the way with a short duration CD, Treasury, etc, go for it.... But again, I'm just noodling out loud on a topic that I really don't think there is a right answer....Anxious to hear all views... I believe that happened in those studies because MMFs, aka cas...

Using a ladder is based on spending maturing rungs which are not subject to market liquidity issues. Right, but if you might unexpectedly want to spend more/earlier than planned, then you have to care again about market liquidity, at least contingently. In other words, it is a virtue of fixed-income ladders versus, say, fixed-term annuities that the former can in fact be sold if desired. But that virtue has an uncertain value. Then my suggestion might be to set aside some dollars in TIPS that mature every 3 or 6 months and keep rolling them until you access them. As long as TIPS yields are positive and you have them in the appropriate type of account you should keep up with inflation. Agreed. Rolling ST TIPS will likely be giving up averag...

Just for reference, here's a link to the main glide path that Vanguard Target Date Funds follow .* I have a concern about the fixed income mix in the glidepaths at Vanguard and the other really large Target providers (last I saw, Vanguard was the top Target provided by size). When you look at the size of those funds collectively, there really are not enough TIPS outstanding for them collectively to use many TIPS for their fixed income. In contrast, DFA, a much smaller provider, transitions to all IP bonds by retirement. The federal Thrift Savings Plan, which argues their G Fund is an adequate substitute for TIPS, transitions to G Fund being about 70% of the 75% total in fixed income, with only the remaining 5% in the F Fund (their version ...

TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 2:44 pm Using a ladder is based on spending maturing rungs which are not subject to market liquidity issues.

Right, but if you might unexpectedly want to spend more/earlier than planned, then you have to care again about market liquidity, at least contingently.

In other words, it is a virtue of fixed-income ladders versus, say, fixed-term annuities that the former can in fact be sold if desired. But that virtue has an uncertain value.

Intuitively I like your TIPS laddered approach, but has anyone "confirmed" that it's any more effective at dealing with inflation than just keeping duration short, and "floating" with the market... Sort of--Vanguard's white paper on unexpected inflation included cash: https://static.vgcontent.info/crp/intl/avw/mexico/documents/commodities-and-st-tips.pdf Cash doesn't get hammered by unexpected inflation like longer-term nominal bonds, but it still gets hurt a bit. This makes sense and I think one should expect shorter-term nominal assets to slot in between. Short-term TIPS, in contrast, did much better in the face of unexpected inflation than cash, or presumably short-term nominal bonds. I note market TIPS didn't do qui...

Countries that depend on trade with the US will be impacted greatly if the USD collapses. I think part of what makes this complicated is what happens over time will reflect various adjustments. US consumers that, say, are still spending out of work income will presumably eventually get paid something with real value--could be a lot more USD, could be something else, but it would have to be something commensurate with the real value of their labor. So too governments that are spending out of taxes, corporations spending out of operating income, and so on--they will get something to spend, whatever it might be And then if there are still personal consumers, government consumers, corporate consumers, and so on who need to buy things that are ...