Food for Thought

[Wry Catcher]

GM dying would not kill America in and by itself. However it is an indacator of what is wrong.

Within 5-10 years many of our autos will be imported from China.

Auto sales and useage in China if doubling often. And their tech on reverse engineering cars is improving.

It started with friviolous stuff and toys, hand tools, etc. Moved to electronics and the next big exports of China will be vehicles and machinery.

A nation whose economy is based mostly on consumer spending cannot long last.

We have lost control of our economy, large multinational finiancial and manufacturing corporations now control our economy and in a world economy where our standard of living is far higher than that of most nations our standard of living will continue to decline. It is inevitable. I predicted this in the 90's. And if the origional politics.com was around I would have proof in the archives.

Me too friend...I have been saying the same thing for at minimum 20 years.
The financial services industry owns our ass lock, stock and barrel.
We no longer live in a democratic republic. We live in a plutocratic society like America was in the late 1800's. And Obama fits in like a glove in plutocratic principles...like a glove.
And I am not sure Romney fits any less better.

Yes we live in a plutocracy and the final nails in the coffin of our democracy were driven by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia in Citizens United v. FEC (558 U.S. 50 (2010)).

 

[Oddball]

GM dying would not kill America in and by itself. However it is an indacator of what is wrong.

Within 5-10 years many of our autos will be imported from China.

Auto sales and useage in China if doubling often. And their tech on reverse engineering cars is improving.

It started with friviolous stuff and toys, hand tools, etc. Moved to electronics and the next big exports of China will be vehicles and machinery.

A nation whose economy is based mostly on consumer spending cannot long last.

We have lost control of our economy, large multinational finiancial and manufacturing corporations now control our economy and in a world economy where our standard of living is far higher than that of most nations our standard of living will continue to decline. It is inevitable. I predicted this in the 90's. And if the origional politics.com was around I would have proof in the archives.

Me too friend...I have been saying the same thing for at minimum 20 years.
The financial services industry owns our ass lock, stock and barrel.
We no longer live in a democratic republic. We live in a plutocratic society like America was in the late 1800's. And Obama fits in like a glove in plutocratic principles...like a glove.
And I am not sure Romney fits any less better.

We'd be lucky to be living in the society of the late 1880s.

TR, Wilson and the progressive socialists of the turn of the 20th century took that society and put on the steroids of a worthless currency and the illusion of the current left/right Hegalian model of political parties.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

GM dying would not kill America in and by itself. However it is an indacator of what is wrong.

Within 5-10 years many of our autos will be imported from China.

Auto sales and useage in China if doubling often. And their tech on reverse engineering cars is improving.

It started with friviolous stuff and toys, hand tools, etc. Moved to electronics and the next big exports of China will be vehicles and machinery.

A nation whose economy is based mostly on consumer spending cannot long last.

We have lost control of our economy, large multinational finiancial and manufacturing corporations now control our economy and in a world economy where our standard of living is far higher than that of most nations our standard of living will continue to decline. It is inevitable. I predicted this in the 90's. And if the origional politics.com was around I would have proof in the archives.

Me too friend...I have been saying the same thing for at minimum 20 years.
The financial services industry owns our ass lock, stock and barrel.
We no longer live in a democratic republic. We live in a plutocratic society like America was in the late 1800's. And Obama fits in like a glove in plutocratic principles...like a glove.
And I am not sure Romney fits any less better.

Yes we live in a plutocracy and the final nails in the coffin of our democracy were driven by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia in Citizens United v. FEC (558 U.S. 50 (2010)).

You are leaving out Larry Summers...current top economic adviser to your hero President.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm I do not view finiancial coprorations and such as progessive socialists. However lots of their income is based on progessive socialism and such.
They like it.

 

[Oddball]

Yes consumer spending is our economy and that IS our main problem.
However if we had a positive trade balance it would not be an issue but with global comeptition it is impossible for us to regain a positive trade balance until our standards of living drops quite a bit more.

No, without consumers keeping the exchange of goods and services flowing, there would be nothing to refer to as "the economy"...It wouldn't exist at all.

Ever hear of exports?

My useage of consumer spending based economy refers to internal consumers as does most definitions used in the USA.

That definition is intellectually arrested.

Of all reputed economic indicators, the "trade deficit" is the least relevant and most overhyped.

I have the same "trade deficit" with the grocery store and the electric company.

 

[uscitizen]

No, without consumers keeping the exchange of goods and services flowing, there would be nothing to refer to as "the economy"...It wouldn't exist at all.

Ever hear of exports?

My useage of consumer spending based economy refers to internal consumers as does most definitions used in the USA.

That definition is intellectually arrested.

Of all reputed economic indicators, the "trade deficit" is the least relevant and most overhyped.

I have the same "trade deficit" with the grocery store and the electric company.

If you cannot see how the trade deficit matters then you are not qualified to make decisions about the economy of the USA.

simply put the trade defecit maens that we have more money leaving the USA than coming into it.
That means that places like China are getting more of our money than we get of theirs.

.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Umm I do not view finiancial coprorations and such as progessive socialists. However lots of their income is based on progessive socialism and such.
They like it.

The ADORED Reagan for appointing head master and financial doom architect Alan Greenspan.
They LOVED Clinton because he pretty much gave them everything they wanted, and appointed their dream partner - Larry Summers.
They liked Bush because he basically stayed out of their way, and didn't change a thing...then they WORSHIPED Bush for handing them QE1...what a fucking windfall that was.
They L O V E Obama for giving them QE2, rehiring Larry Summers...appointing [chuckle] Jeffery Immelt as [WTF] Jobs Czar - and finally for ensuring QE3, and if re-elected QE4.
They couldn't ask for better.

Meanwhile wages are continuing to fall, and we have created 153,000 less jobs this year than last year.
But Wall Street?? Hell - they had the best year on record in 2009.

 

[Oddball]

Umm I do not view finiancial coprorations and such as progessive socialists. However lots of their income is based on progessive socialism and such.
They like it.

The ADORED Reagan for appointing head master and financial doom architect Alan Greenspan.
They LOVED Clinton because he pretty much gave them everything they wanted, and appointed their dream partner - Larry Summers.
They liked Bush because he basically stayed out of their way, and didn't change a thing...then they WORSHIPED Bush for handing them QE1...what a fucking windfall that was.
They L O V E Obama for giving them QE2, rehiring Larry Summers...appointing [chuckle] Jeffery Immelt as [WTF] Jobs Czar - and finally for ensuring QE3, and if re-elected QE4.
They couldn't ask for better.

Meanwhile wages are continuing to fall, and we have created 153,000 less jobs this year than last year.
But Wall Street?? Hell - they had the best year on record in 2009.

Anybody with half a brain knows that illusory number is based upon a tremendously weakened USD....Though the number is there, the value is not.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm I do not view finiancial coprorations and such as progessive socialists. However lots of their income is based on progessive socialism and such.
They like it.

The ADORED Reagan for appointing head master and financial doom architect Alan Greenspan.
They LOVED Clinton because he pretty much gave them everything they wanted, and appointed their dream partner - Larry Summers.
They liked Bush because he basically stayed out of their way, and didn't change a thing...then they WORSHIPED Bush for handing them QE1...what a fucking windfall that was.
They L O V E Obama for giving them QE2, rehiring Larry Summers...appointing [chuckle] Jeffery Immelt as [WTF] Jobs Czar - and finally for ensuring QE3, and if re-elected QE4.
They couldn't ask for better.

Meanwhile wages are continuing to fall, and we have created 153,000 less jobs this year than last year.
But Wall Street?? Hell - they had the best year on record in 2009.

Anybody with half a brain knows that illusory number is based upon a tremendously weakened USD....Though the number is there, the value is not.

And think about why the USD is weakened?
One big reason is we print more money to cover the trade deficit.

 

[Oddball]

The ADORED Reagan for appointing head master and financial doom architect Alan Greenspan.
They LOVED Clinton because he pretty much gave them everything they wanted, and appointed their dream partner - Larry Summers.
They liked Bush because he basically stayed out of their way, and didn't change a thing...then they WORSHIPED Bush for handing them QE1...what a fucking windfall that was.
They L O V E Obama for giving them QE2, rehiring Larry Summers...appointing [chuckle] Jeffery Immelt as [WTF] Jobs Czar - and finally for ensuring QE3, and if re-elected QE4.
They couldn't ask for better.

Meanwhile wages are continuing to fall, and we have created 153,000 less jobs this year than last year.
But Wall Street?? Hell - they had the best year on record in 2009.

Anybody with half a brain knows that illusory number is based upon a tremendously weakened USD....Though the number is there, the value is not.

And think about why the USD is weakened?
One big reason is we print more money to cover the trade deficit.

Nonsense.

The only thing weaker than the USD is your understanding of macroeconomics.

 

[expat_panama]

For those who think: The Cutting Edge News
Discuss.

Its market capitalization reached $50 billion in 2000. In the past week its market capitalization has dropped below $1 billion...

What they left out was that a share price of zero meant the company was worth nothing in 2009. We then put $50 billion of the public's money into the company, and now it's worth $1billion.



Are we still thinking?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Umm I do not view finiancial coprorations and such as progessive socialists. However lots of their income is based on progessive socialism and such.
They like it.

The ADORED Reagan for appointing head master and financial doom architect Alan Greenspan.
They LOVED Clinton because he pretty much gave them everything they wanted, and appointed their dream partner - Larry Summers.
They liked Bush because he basically stayed out of their way, and didn't change a thing...then they WORSHIPED Bush for handing them QE1...what a fucking windfall that was.
They L O V E Obama for giving them QE2, rehiring Larry Summers...appointing [chuckle] Jeffery Immelt as [WTF] Jobs Czar - and finally for ensuring QE3, and if re-elected QE4.
They couldn't ask for better.

Meanwhile wages are continuing to fall, and we have created 153,000 less jobs this year than last year.
But Wall Street?? Hell - they had the best year on record in 2009.

Anybody with half a brain knows that illusory number is based upon a tremendously weakened USD....Though the number is there, the value is not.

I wasn't talking about DOW numbers...I meant 2009 was a record profit year for several Wall Street firms. The top 3 US Banks that year paid out more in bonuses to employees than in any prior year since 2005...which most agree is the height of the financial market high life.

 

[Oddball]

The ADORED Reagan for appointing head master and financial doom architect Alan Greenspan.
They LOVED Clinton because he pretty much gave them everything they wanted, and appointed their dream partner - Larry Summers.
They liked Bush because he basically stayed out of their way, and didn't change a thing...then they WORSHIPED Bush for handing them QE1...what a fucking windfall that was.
They L O V E Obama for giving them QE2, rehiring Larry Summers...appointing [chuckle] Jeffery Immelt as [WTF] Jobs Czar - and finally for ensuring QE3, and if re-elected QE4.
They couldn't ask for better.

Meanwhile wages are continuing to fall, and we have created 153,000 less jobs this year than last year.
But Wall Street?? Hell - they had the best year on record in 2009.

Anybody with half a brain knows that illusory number is based upon a tremendously weakened USD....Though the number is there, the value is not.

I wasn't talking about DOW numbers...I meant 2009 was a record profit year for several Wall Street firms. The top 3 US Banks that year paid out more in bonuses to employees than in any prior year since 2005...which most agree is the height of the financial market high life.

But even those profits are in terms of an greatly inflated USD...Not that those receiving said profits won't take them, just sayin'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who think:

The Cutting Edge News

Discuss.

What are we supposed to discuss?

Are we discussing corporate welfare? If so, I oppose it categorically.

Are we discussing ignoring bankruptcy laws to reward the friends of powerful politicians? If so, I also oppose that.

Are we discussing the piss poor management at GM that was discussed in the article, and how the US government is doing the exact same thing that led to the GM bankruptcy?

The decline of GM is a testament to how poor strategic decisions over the course of decades will ultimately lead to collapse. The United States has followed the GM model of failure for the last three decades. The U.S. has too much debt, too much bureaucracy, too many government supported industries, too many agencies, too many employees, and $53 trillion of unfunded future liabilities. See any similarities to GM? Can the U.S. avoid the fate of GM, or is it too late? If we can learn the important lessons of the GM decline, it may not be too late to reverse our course. Or, we can continue on the current path and follow the advice of Will Rogers: “If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”

If so, I agree with the author of the article that we are headed for disaster unless we make drastic changes.

Rather than address the structural problems of our healthcare and social security systems, our government politicians push off the issues until after the next election. They have been doing this for 30 years. This is why former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has described these cowardly politicians as displaying “laggardship” rather than leadership. Our elected leaders flounder from crisis to crisis using stopgap methods to plug holes in the ship of State while ignoring the huge iceberg on the horizon.
While the U.S. Titanic steams full speed ahead toward the iceberg of unfunded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid liabilities, our politicians spend our tax dollars on digging holes and then filling them up again. As these future unfunded liabilities continue to rise, the government’s solution is to print money, keep interest rates at 0 percent, devalue the dollar, and hope for the best. The U.S. depends on foreigners to buy more than 50 percent of our newly issued debt. When you owe $10.7 trillion to others, you usually don’t get to dictate the terms. Today, the U.S. is asking foreigners to lend us money for 30 years at 3.5 percent while telling them that we will pay them back in dollars that will be worth 30 percent less in the next five years. Even a Wall Street CEO could figure out this isn’t a good investment.
The burning platform that is the U.S. economy is now a “ten alarm fire." Many say collapse is imminent. Where are the signs indicating that is not the case?

Are we discussing your assumption that this article somehow validates your position that the government is the answer to our problems?

If so, it is not only obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is a proven fact that you did not actually read and comprehend the article you linked to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

GM dying would not kill America in and by itself. However it is an indacator of what is wrong.

Within 5-10 years many of our autos will be imported from China.

Auto sales and useage in China if doubling often. And their tech on reverse engineering cars is improving.

It started with friviolous stuff and toys, hand tools, etc. Moved to electronics and the next big exports of China will be vehicles and machinery.

A nation whose economy is based mostly on consumer spending cannot long last.

We have lost control of our economy, large multinational finiancial and manufacturing corporations now control our economy and in a world economy where our standard of living is far higher than that of most nations our standard of living will continue to decline. It is inevitable. I predicted this in the 90's. And if the origional politics.com was around I would have proof in the archives.

Me too friend...I have been saying the same thing for at minimum 20 years.
The financial services industry owns our ass lock, stock and barrel.
We no longer live in a democratic republic. We live in a plutocratic society like America was in the late 1800's. And Obama fits in like a glove in plutocratic principles...like a glove.
And I am not sure Romney fits any less better.

We'd be lucky to be living in the society of the late 1880s.

TR, Wilson and the progressive socialists of the turn of the 20th century took that society and put on the steroids of a worthless currency and the illusion of the current left/right Hegalian model of political parties.

You've been totally brainwashed, though I suspect a light rinse was all that was required.

Tell us genius, what values would guide you in leading a nation?

 

[Wry Catcher]

For those who think:

The Cutting Edge News

Discuss.

What are we supposed to discuss?

Are we discussing corporate welfare? If so, I oppose it categorically.

Are we discussing ignoring bankruptcy laws to reward the friends of powerful politicians? If so, I also oppose that.

Are we discussing the piss poor management at GM that was discussed in the article, and how the US government is doing the exact same thing that led to the GM bankruptcy?

The decline of GM is a testament to how poor strategic decisions over the course of decades will ultimately lead to collapse. The United States has followed the GM model of failure for the last three decades. The U.S. has too much debt, too much bureaucracy, too many government supported industries, too many agencies, too many employees, and $53 trillion of unfunded future liabilities. See any similarities to GM? Can the U.S. avoid the fate of GM, or is it too late? If we can learn the important lessons of the GM decline, it may not be too late to reverse our course. Or, we can continue on the current path and follow the advice of Will Rogers: “If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can’t it get us out?”

If so, I agree with the author of the article that we are headed for disaster unless we make drastic changes.

Rather than address the structural problems of our healthcare and social security systems, our government politicians push off the issues until after the next election. They have been doing this for 30 years. This is why former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has described these cowardly politicians as displaying “laggardship” rather than leadership. Our elected leaders flounder from crisis to crisis using stopgap methods to plug holes in the ship of State while ignoring the huge iceberg on the horizon.
While the U.S. Titanic steams full speed ahead toward the iceberg of unfunded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid liabilities, our politicians spend our tax dollars on digging holes and then filling them up again. As these future unfunded liabilities continue to rise, the government’s solution is to print money, keep interest rates at 0 percent, devalue the dollar, and hope for the best. The U.S. depends on foreigners to buy more than 50 percent of our newly issued debt. When you owe $10.7 trillion to others, you usually don’t get to dictate the terms. Today, the U.S. is asking foreigners to lend us money for 30 years at 3.5 percent while telling them that we will pay them back in dollars that will be worth 30 percent less in the next five years. Even a Wall Street CEO could figure out this isn’t a good investment.
The burning platform that is the U.S. economy is now a “ten alarm fire." Many say collapse is imminent. Where are the signs indicating that is not the case?

Are we discussing your assumption that this article somehow validates your position that the government is the answer to our problems?

If so, it is not only obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is a proven fact that you did not actually read and comprehend the article you linked to.

I made no assumption, nor did I attempt to sway anyones opinion. The article speaks for itself, it does not need my help. It is food for thought and it is not, "a proven fact that (I) did not actually read and comprehend the article..." but if that opinion feeds your ego have at it.

What was I "talking about" that I have no idea about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For those who think:

The Cutting Edge News

Discuss.

What are we supposed to discuss?

Are we discussing corporate welfare? If so, I oppose it categorically.

Are we discussing ignoring bankruptcy laws to reward the friends of powerful politicians? If so, I also oppose that.

Are we discussing the piss poor management at GM that was discussed in the article, and how the US government is doing the exact same thing that led to the GM bankruptcy?



If so, I agree with the author of the article that we are headed for disaster unless we make drastic changes.

Rather than address the structural problems of our healthcare and social security systems, our government politicians push off the issues until after the next election. They have been doing this for 30 years. This is why former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has described these cowardly politicians as displaying “laggardship” rather than leadership. Our elected leaders flounder from crisis to crisis using stopgap methods to plug holes in the ship of State while ignoring the huge iceberg on the horizon.
While the U.S. Titanic steams full speed ahead toward the iceberg of unfunded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid liabilities, our politicians spend our tax dollars on digging holes and then filling them up again. As these future unfunded liabilities continue to rise, the government’s solution is to print money, keep interest rates at 0 percent, devalue the dollar, and hope for the best. The U.S. depends on foreigners to buy more than 50 percent of our newly issued debt. When you owe $10.7 trillion to others, you usually don’t get to dictate the terms. Today, the U.S. is asking foreigners to lend us money for 30 years at 3.5 percent while telling them that we will pay them back in dollars that will be worth 30 percent less in the next five years. Even a Wall Street CEO could figure out this isn’t a good investment.
The burning platform that is the U.S. economy is now a “ten alarm fire." Many say collapse is imminent. Where are the signs indicating that is not the case?

Are we discussing your assumption that this article somehow validates your position that the government is the answer to our problems?

If so, it is not only obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is a proven fact that you did not actually read and comprehend the article you linked to.

I made no assumption, nor did I attempt to sway anyones opinion. The article speaks for itself, it does not need my help. It is food for thought and it is not, "a proven fact that (I) did not actually read and comprehend the article..." but if that opinion feeds your ego have at it.

What was I "talking about" that I have no idea about?

You made no assumptions? That would be a first.

your position has always been that government is good for the economy. You had that position even before you had an accident and lost the ability to think. You are not my professor, and do not get to order me to discuss something without providing context, which explains why a posted four questions and asked you to clarify what we are discussing. The fact that you jumped over the first three and focused on the one where I addressed the fact that the it contradicts all your previous posts, and the arguments you yourself have actually made in this thread, is rather telling. it also proves that I was right, you didn't comprehend the thrust of the article.

Feel free to pretend you just proved I am stupid even though I actually read the article to the end.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What are we supposed to discuss?

Are we discussing corporate welfare? If so, I oppose it categorically.

Are we discussing ignoring bankruptcy laws to reward the friends of powerful politicians? If so, I also oppose that.

Are we discussing the piss poor management at GM that was discussed in the article, and how the US government is doing the exact same thing that led to the GM bankruptcy?



If so, I agree with the author of the article that we are headed for disaster unless we make drastic changes.

Are we discussing your assumption that this article somehow validates your position that the government is the answer to our problems?

If so, it is not only obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, it is a proven fact that you did not actually read and comprehend the article you linked to.

I made no assumption, nor did I attempt to sway anyones opinion. The article speaks for itself, it does not need my help. It is food for thought and it is not, "a proven fact that (I) did not actually read and comprehend the article..." but if that opinion feeds your ego have at it.

What was I "talking about" that I have no idea about?

You made no assumptions? That would be a first.

your position has always been that government is good for the economy. You had that position even before you had an accident and lost the ability to think. You are not my professor, and do not get to order me to discuss something without providing context, which explains why a posted four questions and asked you to clarify what we are discussing. The fact that you jumped over the first three and focused on the one where I addressed the fact that the it contradicts all your previous posts, and the arguments you yourself have actually made in this thread, is rather telling. it also proves that I was right, you didn't comprehend the thrust of the article.

Feel free to pretend you just proved I am stupid even though I actually read the article to the end.

My position has always been government is good for the economy? I suppose that's true, without government we would be without laws, courts, rules, regulations.

The context was in the article, if, as you claim your've read it, maybe you are stupid or willfully ignorant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I made no assumption, nor did I attempt to sway anyones opinion. The article speaks for itself, it does not need my help. It is food for thought and it is not, "a proven fact that (I) did not actually read and comprehend the article..." but if that opinion feeds your ego have at it.

What was I "talking about" that I have no idea about?

You made no assumptions? That would be a first.

your position has always been that government is good for the economy. You had that position even before you had an accident and lost the ability to think. You are not my professor, and do not get to order me to discuss something without providing context, which explains why a posted four questions and asked you to clarify what we are discussing. The fact that you jumped over the first three and focused on the one where I addressed the fact that the it contradicts all your previous posts, and the arguments you yourself have actually made in this thread, is rather telling. it also proves that I was right, you didn't comprehend the thrust of the article.

Feel free to pretend you just proved I am stupid even though I actually read the article to the end.

My position has always been government is good for the economy? I suppose that's true, without government we would be without laws, courts, rules, regulations.

The context was in the article, if, as you claim your read it, maybe you are stupid or willfully ignorant.

Like I said, you aren't my professor, you don't get to give me assignments. I read the article, and asked you what it is we are supposed to discuss. You chose to discuss your assumptions, bless your heart.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You made no assumptions? That would be a first.

your position has always been that government is good for the economy. You had that position even before you had an accident and lost the ability to think. You are not my professor, and do not get to order me to discuss something without providing context, which explains why a posted four questions and asked you to clarify what we are discussing. The fact that you jumped over the first three and focused on the one where I addressed the fact that the it contradicts all your previous posts, and the arguments you yourself have actually made in this thread, is rather telling. it also proves that I was right, you didn't comprehend the thrust of the article.

Feel free to pretend you just proved I am stupid even though I actually read the article to the end.

My position has always been government is good for the economy? I suppose that's true, without government we would be without laws, courts, rules, regulations.

The context was in the article, if, as you claim your read it, maybe you are stupid or willfully ignorant.

Like I said, you aren't my professor, you don't get to give me assignments. I read the article, and asked you what it is we are supposed to discuss. You chose to discuss your assumptions, bless your heart.

No, I am not your professor and I didn't give you an assignment. You freely chose to interject yourself into this thread and make it about you. Hence my comment on your ego.

The more posts I read from self identified libertarians/independents the more sociopathic** they seem. I won't bother to detail the evidence which leads me to such a conclusion but I will simply point it out as it happens.

**Sociopathic: a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.