Pending US Economic disaster (cont. - for Comrade)

[wade]

(continued from http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160476&postcount=95)

Not necessarily. Government programs simply would only grow when the economy grows and tax revenues increase.

But Congress has good reason to borrow against future revenues in times of economic shortfall and especially in wartime. Such a system like you install would be counter-intuitive to smoothing economic cycles, and unduly restrictive to congressional authority in all matters of collecting revenue and making expenditures.

Deficit spending at times is reasonable. But there are two problems with the way the deficit spending that is currently going on.

1) It has become excessive. Just like an private business owner, when outstanding debt becomes too high it becomes impossible to run a successful business. The same is true of a national economy.

2) What the credit is being spent on. The debt is being incurred to pump up the economy through buying, not through capital investment. It is not making the country more productive - it is just providing short term relief and an increase in consumer spending and debt loading.

Some deficit spending makes sense, but there should be a reasonable expectation that the spending will increase productivity, and it should never go beyond what we can reasonably expect to pay off in less than 20 years of boon economy.

I never said no deficit spending ever. However, the total deficit should never be allowed to exceed about 25% of GDP. Our GDP is $10.98 trillion (2003 - 2004 figures are not in yet) and a NATIONAL DEBT of $7.383 trillion (to date). By the end of the year the debt will be in the area of $7.6 trillion. By the end of another 4 years of Bush economy, the National debt will equal or exceed the GDP.

The economy will grow at what rate over four years?

The economy does not appear to be growing much at all. We appear to be looking at 2.8% real growth for 2004, and estimates for 2005 appear to be for a 3.2% real growth rate. And both figures are based upon very low inflation figures which do not consider increases in the cost of food or oil. This will be the 3rd year in a row that the inflation figures factor out increases in the cost of food, but when something is consistent for 3 years, it is ridiculous to factor it out as "temporary". And while I agree oil prices should drop, I do not believe they will drop back down to sub $30/barrel prices anytime soon. There has been serious inflation that is not being counted.

Realistically we can expect at best a 12-15% growth rate over the next 4 years, including oil and food and everything. If we continue as we have been, we will be looking at a 36-48% increase in the debt over this same period.

Are budgets based on tax and spending bills some trend you can plot or is this is all conjecture?

Can you restate this question more clearly please?

I have no problem with America in deficit because, like I said, I've seen much worse before until market forces adjusted and the US economy bounced back and hammered that deficit down in the upswing.

Really? I've never seen it "Hammered down" one penny. Point this out please:

09/20/2004 $7,359,800,524,277.00
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

Am I missing something? I sure don't see any year where the debt was less than the year before.

Here's the breakdown of the current national debt:

Borrowing by the General Fund $ 7,359,800,524,277
From all Gov. Trust Funds etc. $ 3,035,034,127,222
(From the Social Security Trust $ 1,666,630,801,222)
From the Public $ 4,324,766,397,055

Interest on the debt this year will be ~$309 Billion.

The treasury department estimate for the 2004 debt in 2000 was ~$6 trillion, we will exceed that by over 20%.

Right now we are at war, and the Federal interest rates loaned to banks are still in historical lows. Increased government orders for goods and services under the increased spending programs do wonders to grow the economy into the next expansion. Spending in a deficit <recession?> makes perfect sense.

Yes but there has to be some reason to it, and it has to be productive. Right now it is neither. Right now the debt to GDP load is about the same as it was at the peak of the recession of the early 90's, but this recession is far from over. There is no plan to curb deficit spending any time soon.

Furthermore, the Social Security trust fund, which had been largely treated as a hands off item in the past, has been severely raided to finance this recovery. Given that baby boomers are starting to hit retirement, that fund cannot be allowed to float as debt forever like so many other funds have in the past.

To put this in realistic perspective, today each citizen is on the hook for something around $25,000 of this debt. By the end of next year this will be close to $30,000 for every citizen. This against a mean family income in the US of about $43,000. In real terms this means that right now each family owes between $75,000 and $100,000 today, and this will expand to something between $90,000 and $120,000 by the end of 2005. Add in the private debt loading of the American family - which now well exceeds 100% of family yearly income, and the total debt figures are astounding - never in history have Americans put so much debt on the future generation.

We're not Argentina. The day the US goes bankrupt on debt the world you live in won’t leave you happy about it.

I never said I was happy about it. When the Chinese and other Asian and European countries loose faith and stop financing our debt based spending it is going to be painful for everyone.

A notable increase of spending and increase in debt can be a signal for a boom in the economy.

It can be. But not when what is going on is people are borrowing to buy frivolous items rather than investing in economic growth. We have never seen such cheap money before. This "growth" is different than growth of the past, it is not based upon investment, it's based upon buying. The American public is being encouraged to borrow at low interest rates and go out and buy new cars, homes, clothing, electronics, etc... not to invest in capital equipment, profitable real-estate, etc.

We don't get out of a recession in the long run if the jobs being created are sales clerk positions at Walmart selling consumer goods to to other clerks spending cheap credit. It makes the economy look good, but it is not sustainable. When the cheap credit dries up, or the borrowers have maxed themselves out, those jobs disappear and all that's left is a lot of unemployed people with maxed out credit that they cannot pay back.

So even if the USA will absolutely increase debt by 20% in another year as long as we grow at some modest rate overall consumers will handle the interest on this debt with money to spare.

So it is your contention that it is perfectly fine for people to increase their debt from 60% to 80% vs. their current income knowing full well that income will increase by, at most, 5% because they can somehow manage to make the interest payment? Just how many times have you declared bankruptcy Comrade?

The Bush administration and the Republicans know exactly what they are doing and the long-term consequences. Why do you think they are so focused on changing personal bankruptcy laws so that individuals cannot escape bad debts? I suggest you study up on HR 975, which basically denies the individual the right to effectively declare bankruptcy in most circumstances. Corporate bankruptcy however, is basically unchanged. This is in preparation for what they know is coming - massive individual defaults on outstanding debts.

New Bankruptcy Laws for the US Bankruptcy Courts
The Congressional solution to rising middle-class personal bankruptcy rates is perplexing. Special interest groups propose new bankruptcy laws that are specifically designed to limit individual access to US bankruptcy courts, including: 1) new bans on Chapter 7, 2) increased Chapter 13 payments, 3) new presumptions against debtors with increased penalties, and 4) the reduction of judicial discretion to balance competing interests. These proposed new bankruptcy laws narrowly missed passage each of the last three years.
http://www.personal-bankruptcy-chapters-7-13-filing-laws.com/

The problem is that this "recovery" is not really a recovery at all. It's just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The Bush administration, Republican party, and Alan Greenspan are running a pyramid scheme on the American public and that house of cards always collapses when it reaches critical mass with those at the top getting rich and everyone else loosing their shirts.

Wade.

 

[dmp]

I dissagree.

 

[Comrade]

(continued from http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160476&postcount=95)


Deficit spending at times is reasonable. But there are two problems with the way the deficit spending that is currently going on.

1) It has become excessive. Just like an private business owner, when outstanding debt becomes too high it becomes impossible to run a successful business. The same is true of a national economy.

2) What the credit is being spent on. The debt is being incurred to pump up the economy through buying, not through capital investment. It is not making the country more productive - it is just providing short term relief and an increase in consumer spending and debt loading.

However, since, "U.S. Productivity Is Booming, with No End in Sight"

http://www.bernstein.com/Public/story.aspx?cid=1432

you could be wrong.

Some deficit spending makes sense, but there should be a reasonable expectation that the spending will increase productivity, and it should never go beyond what we can reasonably expect to pay off in less than 20 years of boon economy.


The economy does not appear to be growing much at all. We appear to be looking at 2.8% real growth for 2004, and estimates for 2005 appear to be for a 3.2% real growth rate. And both figures are based upon very low inflation figures which do not consider increases in the cost of food or oil. This will be the 3rd year in a row that the inflation figures factor out increases in the cost of food, but when something is consistent for 3 years, it is ridiculous to factor it out as "temporary". And while I agree oil prices should drop, I do not believe they will drop back down to sub $30/barrel prices anytime soon. There has been serious inflation that is not being counted.

Realistically we can expect at best a 12-15% growth rate over the next 4 years, including oil and food and everything. If we continue as we have been, we will be looking at a 36-48% increase in the debt over this same period.

12-15% over four years? That's not much at all!

Can you restate this question more clearly please?

The question was how do you know all these rates for certain, or are you bullshitting about the unknown economic future?

Really? I've never seen it "Hammered down" one penny. Point this out please:

Did I say debt? No. Are you confused between debt and deficit?

Yes but there has to be some reason to it, and it has to be productive. Right now it is neither. Right now the debt to GDP load is about the same as it was at the peak of the recession of the early 90's, but this recession is far from over. There is no plan to curb deficit spending any time soon.

Someone warn the stock market!

Furthermore, the Social Security trust fund, which had been largely treated as a hands off item in the past, has been severely raided to finance this recovery. Given that baby boomers are starting to hit retirement, that fund cannot be allowed to float as debt forever like so many other funds have in the past.


I never said I was happy about it. When the Chinese and other Asian and European countries loose faith and stop financing our debt based spending it is going to be painful for everyone.


It can be. But not when what is going on is people are borrowing to buy frivolous items rather than investing in economic growth. We have never seen such cheap money before. This "growth" is different than growth of the past, it is not based upon investment, it's based upon buying. The American public is being encouraged to borrow at low interest rates and go out and buy new cars, homes, clothing, electronics, etc... not to invest in capital equipment, profitable real-estate, etc.

We don't get out of a recession in the long run if the jobs being created are sales clerk positions at Walmart selling consumer goods to to other clerks spending cheap credit. It makes the economy look good, but it is not sustainable. When the cheap credit dries up, or the borrowers have maxed themselves out, those jobs disappear and all that's left is a lot of unemployed people with maxed out credit that they cannot pay back.


So it is your contention that it is perfectly fine for people to increase their debt from 60% to 80% vs. their current income knowing full well that income will increase by, at most, 5% because they can somehow manage to make the interest payment? Just how many times have you declared bankruptcy Comrade?

Haha, you're a funny guy, wade.

The Bush administration and the Republicans know exactly what they are doing and the long-term consequences. Why do you think they are so focused on changing personal bankruptcy laws so that individuals cannot escape bad debts? I suggest you study up on HR 975, which basically denies the individual the right to effectively declare bankruptcy in most circumstances. Corporate bankruptcy however, is basically unchanged. This is in preparation for what they know is coming - massive individual defaults on outstanding debts.

I suggest you stay on topic!

The problem is that this "recovery" is not really a recovery at all. It's just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The Bush administration, Republican party, and Alan Greenspan are running a pyramid scheme on the American public and that house of cards always collapses when it reaches critical mass with those at the top getting rich and everyone else loosing their shirts.

Wade.

No, not just

Wade.

This is:

Classic Wade.

 

[wade]

I got the rates and figures from the CIA website and the OMB website, and a few others as well.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/index.html
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/fed-debt.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north300.html
http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/subjects/sose/economics/indicators.htm
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aPDotF7h11OY
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/27/news/economy/gdp/?cnn=yes
http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/3137big_crash_key.html
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/socialservices/20040921/15/1123
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-09-19-fed-usat_x.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Federal_Reserve

Even your referenced source indicates a 4% max. growth rate - and come on you can do better than a wannabe meryl-lynch company website for a source! Let's use this value and expand my anticipated growth rate from 12-15% to 12-16% - it hardly makes a difference.

I used a 3.75% growth rate for the top end of the scale on my figures you dispute. This figure is more than reasonable, there is really no reason to anticipate even a 3.5% growth rate - 3.0% is much more likely and we may well even fail to hit that!

As for the growth in the deficit - well I extrapolated the last 4 years forward another 4 years, and I think this is very reasonable, it will probably grow faster than this since it appears the USA will have at least two more years in Iraq and will need to bail Iraq out of its international debt situation.

I think these numbers are very reasonable, but if you don't, please provide some explanation as to why not. No one knows for certain, but I think my figures are very good estimates of the range of possiblities, putting growth a little higher than I really expect it will be, and deficit spending a little lower than I think it will actually be.

No one has to warn the stock market, it's on the edge of another major revaluation right now.

You may think it's funny, but this borrowing/spending cycle is not productivity. The health of the economy is based upon a sugar rush from eating candybars, not a balanced diet.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

I got the rates and figures from the CIA website and the OMB website, and a few others as well.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/index.html
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/fed-debt.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north300.html
http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/subjects/sose/economics/indicators.htm
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aPDotF7h11OY
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/27/news/economy/gdp/?cnn=yes
http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2004/3137big_crash_key.html
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/socialservices/20040921/15/1123
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-09-19-fed-usat_x.htm
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Federal_Reserve

Good set of links... I don't have the motivation to go into one or the other but I have to approve of you for your work.

Even your referenced source indicates a 4% max. growth rate - and come on you can do better than a wannabe meryl-lynch company website for a source! Let's use this value and expand my anticipated growth rate from 12-15% to 12-16% - it hardly makes a difference.

I used a 3.75% growth rate for the top end of the scale on my figures you dispute. This figure is more than reasonable, there is really no reason to anticipate even a 3.5% growth rate - 3.0% is much more likely and we may well even fail to hit that!

As for the growth in the deficit - well I extrapolated the last 4 years forward another 4 years, and I think this is very reasonable, it will probably grow faster than this since it appears the USA will have at least two more years in Iraq and will need to bail Iraq out of its international debt situation.

Let's not make this thread about an economic bet on the future and instead nail down this thread on the here an now. For example, why should France and Russia be bailed out on their debt with Saddam? What would that gain for US interests in Iraq?

I think these numbers are very reasonable, but if you don't, please provide some explanation as to why not. No one knows for certain, but I think my figures are very good estimates of the range of possiblities, putting growth a little higher than I really expect it will be, and deficit spending a little lower than I think it will actually be.

No one should know for certain. That's the point about a four year futures contract, in that no one knows anything or should expect to even guess.

No one has to warn the stock market, it's on the edge of another major revaluation right now.

We'll see:

Here is the two year S&P chart for reference.

Apparently, wade, you have a short position on this index. When this bears out per your expectation a year (or two?) from now, I'll be sure to circle back on you. I hope you do indeed invest now on your short position, as you assure us, and then become a multi-milllionare and can post full time. I also hope you toss a few bucks to Jimmy for running this board should you get rich from your argument here.

You may think it's funny, but this borrowing/spending cycle is not productivity. The health of the economy is based upon a sugar rush from eating candybars, not a balanced diet.

Wade, RWA pointed out what I find inconsistent from all of your arguments... every position you take on the future of the US is a portent of doom. That is inconsistent.

You are indeed a very intelligent and well informed person, one of the most persistent and capable on this board when it comes to detailing your arguments.

But your rep is so low because of your insistence on basing every argument on DOOM, despite our attempts to sooth your bitter feelings on the subject of politics.

Like I've seen, your religious views are astute and forward looking... I just don't understand why your politics are so incapable of moderation from your doomsday scenarios. I do feel like your ecomonic policies are a carbon copy of far left Democratic ideology. I don't think I am alone in this assumption.

You should be able to reason yourself out of this position in due time. God knows I've tried but I probably won't invest further given your insistent denial to accept any of my attempts.

 

[Annie]

Good set of links... I don't have the motivation to go into one or the other but I have to approve of you for your work.



Let's not make this thread about an economic bet on the future and instead nail down this thread on the here an now. For example, why should France and Russia be bailed out on their debt with Saddam? What would that gain for US interests in Iraq?



No one should know for certain. That's the point about a four year futures contract, in that no one knows anything or should expect to even guess.



We'll see:

Here is the two year S&P chart for reference.

Apparently, wade, you have a short position on this index. When this bears out per your expectation a year (or two?) from now, I'll be sure to circle back on you. I hope you do indeed invest now on your short position, as you assure us, and then become a multi-milllionare and can post full time. I also hope you toss a few bucks to Jimmy for running this board should you get rich from your argument here.



Wade, RWA pointed out what I find inconsistent from all of your arguments... every position you take on the future of the US is a portent of doom. That is inconsistent.

You are indeed a very intelligent and well informed person, one of the most persistent and capable on this board when it comes to detailing your arguments.

But your rep is so low because of your insistence on basing every argument on DOOM, despite our attempts to sooth your bitter feelings on the subject of politics.

Like I've seen, your religious views are astute and forward looking... I just don't understand why your politics are so incapable of moderation from your doomsday scenarios. I do feel like your ecomonic policies are a carbon copy of far left Democratic ideology. I don't think I am alone in this assumption.

You should be able to reason yourself out of this position in due time. God knows I've tried but I probably won't invest further given your insistent denial to accept any of my attempts.

Well said! I've been watching you and wondered when you might get tired.

 

[Comrade]

Well said! I've been watching you and wondered when you might get tired.

Darling, I'll never doubt your warnings again!

 

[wade]

Good set of links... I don't have the motivation to go into one or the other but I have to approve of you for your work.

Thanks.. I spent a lot of time trying to validate figures for this post.

Let's not make this thread about an economic bet on the future and instead nail down this thread on the here an now. For example, why should France and Russia be bailed out on their debt with Saddam? What would that gain for US interests in Iraq?

You have it backwards. As it stands right now France and Russia are owed the debts, and the World Bank will enforce them. Iraq owes these and many other countries many billions in outstanding debt, and this debt makes any kind of economic recovery for Iraq very difficult if not impossible.

Estimates of Iraq's indebtedness vary greatly, from 60 billion to several hundred billion dollars. The most comprehensive study of Iraqi debts, by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), calculates Iraq's total debt to be $127 billion, of which $47 billion is accrued interest (based on 2001 World Bank figures). Iraq owes a further $199 billion in Gulf War compensation and $57 billion in pending contracts signed between the Saddam Hussein regime and foreign companies and governments. Iraq's overall financial burden, according to the CSIS figures, is $383 billion.

Based on these figures, Iraq's financial obligations are 14 times its estimated annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $27 billion--a staggering $16,000 per person. Measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio, Iraq's financial burden is over 25 times greater than Brazil's or Argentina's, making Iraq the developing world's most indebted nation.

U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow recognized the gravity of the problem at the recent G-7 summit of finance ministers in Washington, declaring that "the Iraqi people cannot bear the burden of current debt levels." While Russian President Vladimir Putin has acknowledged that Europe's leaders need to consider debt forgiveness, his French and German counterparts have steadfastly opposed it.

The estimated debt owed to European governments, while much smaller than that owed to Arab countries, is also of huge symbolic importance. The Europeans, among the world's richest and most powerful nations, have an historic opportunity to lead by example and help pave the way for debt forgiveness by the Arab world.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/em871.cfm

There is no way the Arab nations will forgive this debt, except maybe Saudi Arabia, maybe. And it seems unlikely that France or Germany will do so either. Without debt relief, the Iraqi economy will be in a quagmire, leaving it vulnerable to high inflation and this, over a period of time opens wide the door to authoritarian rule. In the end if we want Iraqi democracy to succeed, this debt must be relieved, and the only way this is likely to happen is if the USA buys the debt.

No one should know for certain. That's the point about a four year futures contract, in that no one knows anything or should expect to even guess.

Which is why I gave a range rather than a fixed value. I am very confident the growth rates of both the economy and the debt will fall within the ranges given.

We'll see:

Here is the two year S&P chart for reference.

Apparently, wade, you have a short position on this index. When this bears out per your expectation a year (or two?) from now, I'll be sure to circle back on you. I hope you do indeed invest now on your short position, as you assure us, and then become a multi-milllionare and can post full time. I also hope you toss a few bucks to Jimmy for running this board should you get rich from your argument here.

I've lost selling short 3 times, broken even 3 times, and made out like a bandit in both 1987 and 1990. It is easy to tell about when the market is going to adjust itself, all you have to do is watch earnings vs. value, when earnings are too low to justify value, an adjustment will occur. The trick is timing that within a month - in 1990 I sold short just 3 days before the market went south. Twice I've missed the adjustment by less than a week - and that can be painful.

If Jimmy finds the cost of hosting for this board to be a burdon, he should contact me and I will allieviate that.

Wade, RWA pointed out what I find inconsistent from all of your arguments... every position you take on the future of the US is a portent of doom. That is inconsistent.

You are indeed a very intelligent and well informed person, one of the most persistent and capable on this board when it comes to detailing your arguments.

But your rep is so low because of your insistence on basing every argument on DOOM, despite our attempts to sooth your bitter feelings on the subject of politics.

I don't have bitter feelings about it. I do well reguardless, I just feel sorry for all the people who are getting reamed. My income will always exceed my needs by a significant margin. I'm probably the only person on this board who can take a full year off work regularly just because I feel like it (though usually after 6 months I'm wanting to get out and do something new).

It bothers me that the working class (ie: the upper middle 50%) has made about a 17% gain over the last 10 years, and that this will be lost in just two years of inflation. Greenspan's abidication of his responsibilities has just hidden the problem. When in history have you ever seen such meddling in the free market system and the money supply? You claim to be a staunch capitalist, but don't you think that holding the price of money at an artificially low level is totally contrary to the free market system? Don't you think it has consequences? Don't you think the market, and not the fed, is supposed to set the price of money? THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM!

I've watched the Repubilcans run things through most of my adult life, and I've watched them enrich themselves at the cost of our country while touting "family values" and pointing at irrelevant factors for the moral decline of our society. If this continues, by the end of my life the wealthiest 5% of Americans will have enriched themselves in terms of income by over 70 fold, where the working class will have held even, or lost ground. This country is supposed to be about a better life for everyone - not just the rich and the powerful. The next generation is supposed to be better off than the one before it - but clearly this generation is not even as well off as the last!

The way things are going there is going to be six (seven) classes in America all too soon, arrayed something like this.

96-100%: Corporate America (upper management) and Old money. [60+% of the income distribution]

86-95%: Corporate America (middle management), Technical and Scientific experts (including Doctors not in the top group), and upper escheleons of the military. [20+% of the income distribution]

81-85%: Military [5+% of the income distribution]

51-80%: Blue collar workers. [12+% of the income distribution]

36-50%: Working Poor (poverty level) [2% of the income distribution]

11-35%: Unempolyed/Unemployable Poor [1% of the income distribution]

1-10%: Incarcerated.

Like I've seen, your religious views are astute and forward looking... I just don't understand why your politics are so incapable of moderation from your doomsday scenarios. I do feel like your ecomonic policies are a carbon copy of far left Democratic ideology. I don't think I am alone in this assumption.

You should be able to reason yourself out of this position in due time. God knows I've tried but I probably won't invest further given your insistent denial to accept any of my attempts.

The problem is that our government has no long term plan. Our companies no longer look many years down the road - most of them only look at this year, maybe next year. It didn't used to be this way, but it is now. This is not the way to "win" in a international war of capitalism (and capitalism is a war, don't think otherwise).

Over the years I've watched what the Republicans have done. Constantly wittling away at our rights and manipulation of the economy for the benefit of the rich. As I've pointed out, over the 35 years following WWII, when the Democrats were generally in power, all sectors of the economy, rich, middle class, and poor, made about equal gains in income (about doubling it). But in the 25 years since the "Reagan revolution" what we've seen is that the bottom 80% have held their position or lost ground, while the 81-95% bracket has about tripled their incomes, and the top 5% have made out like bandits increasing their incomes by 850%.

At the same time I've seen our incarceration rate rise to the highest in the world. I've watched the American family destroyed. I've seen the ranks of the homeless swell. And I've seen the quality of basic education drop from near the best in the world to the level of, in fact below the level of, 3rd world countries.

At the eighth grade level, American students are behind the international average in mathematics and only modestly above it in science. At the twelfth grade, U.S. students outperformed only two countries (Cyprus and South Africa) in mathematics and five countries in science.

In advanced mathematics, our best math students outranked only one country (Austria), and in physics American students had the lowest scores of any nation tested.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/cmse/MSEdNC/TIMSS.html

It is becomming impossible for the publically educated american student to compete. Right now, with rare exceptions, only the wealthy student from private schooling, or from a public school in a wealthy neighborhood that subsidises their local public school, gets a quality education.

You seem to think I'm a communist because I happened to take up some arguments about communism from the communist point of view - but that was just a response to this board where no one seems to look at things objectively. I'm not a communist, though I do believe in limited socialism where appropriate. For instance, for health care since we have a policy that no person can be turned away from recieving medical care if their life is at stake, and failure to care for minor problems until they become life-threatening is extremely expensive - I think it makes sense to figure out a way to avoid this viscious and costly cycle.

You seem to think I'm a pacifist and appeaser. I am not. I believe that when appropriate we should use a very firm hand to deal with our enemies, much firmer than we have, i.e.: neutron bombs or even other very high-tech weapons. I just don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water which is what we are doing by engaging in this war in Iraq - which has little to do with our war on terrorism, and is bankrupting us. Look at what is happening in Afganistan:

Afghanistan I: Back to warlords and opium

It appears that in Bush's desire to invade Iraq and oust Saddam, we have largely given up on Afgahnistan. In the end, we are likely to have lost both countries to Islamic fundimentalists.

I believe we have been foolish in our middle-east policies for far too long and created this whole problem by failing to uphold our principals for reasons of expediance and profit. Now we are paying the price many times over, both in lives and money.

We need to start being smart. We need to be effective in this "war on terrorism". We need not to embroil ourselves in costly occupations that leave us incapable of facing new threats or properly dealing with existing ones (such as the Taliban).

And, more than anything else we need to focus on our problems at home, or in the very near future we will find ourselves non-competive in the international economy. And if that happens, the only way we will be able to sustain our way of life is through militarism (which many would say has already happened). And militarism left unchecked leads inevitably to fascism.

Wade.

PS: Comrade - about the S&P500 graph and real inflation - please read this:

S&P 500 Slow-Motion Crash

Exploding Inflation

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So wade, Bush or Kerry?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade, you're obviously a smart guy, a computer programmer who dabbles in many things, including investment. But programmers are still just commodities, and you hate that. You must make the leap to becoming business owner. You'd probably do well. What are ya, chicken?

 

[wade]

I've owned two businesses (well, partnerships), and still recieve income from one of them. I just hate running a business - it is a full time no vacation job. Fun for a few years, but then it gets old. Best to sell it and move on.

In the first we sold the first affordable 3D stereo VR glasses. The second - well I cannot discuss it.

Wade.

PS: I'll decided about voting for Kerry or not after I see the debates.

 

[Comrade]

You have it backwards. As it stands right now France and Russia are owed the debts,

That's what I meant. And furthermore Russia and France can choke on the debt owed to them.

America has been screwed out of their own investments or unpaid contracts with their fallen government debtors as a matter of course in every revolution in the last century and did France and Russia care?

and the World Bank will enforce them.

What are they going to do? Hire collectors to call Allawi at dinner time? Cut him off from what is now zero payments?

Iraq owes these and many other countries many billions in outstanding debt, and this debt makes any kind of economic recovery for Iraq very difficult if not impossible.

Saddam owes them, actually. He's got billions in European accounts, and Euro's will have to live with what they can dig up there.

There is no way the Arab nations will forgive this debt, except maybe Saudi Arabia, maybe. And it seems unlikely that France or Germany will do so either.

Everyone knows they won't collect a dime from Saddams old regime. Many allies have also 'forgiven' Saddams' debt knowing this as the inevitable result.

Without debt relief, the Iraqi economy will be in a quagmire, leaving it vulnerable to high inflation and this, over a period of time opens wide the door to authoritarian rule. In the end if we want Iraqi democracy to succeed, this debt must be relieved, and the only way this is likely to happen is if the USA buys the debt.

France sells missiles to Saddam on credit and charges it to America. Russia provide GPS jammers on credit and charges it to America. The UN oil-for-food program kicks back hard currency for Saddam and this balance due is also charged to America. And some French waiter delivers the bill.

Like hell!


They will have to choke on the debt, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I don't know about you, but that thought doesn't bother me at all.

Which is why I gave a range rather than a fixed value. I am very confident the growth rates of both the economy and the debt will fall within the ranges given.

I've lost selling short 3 times, broken even 3 times, and made out like a bandit in both 1987 and 1990. It is easy to tell about when the market is going to adjust itself, all you have to do is watch earnings vs. value, when earnings are too low to justify value, an adjustment will occur. The trick is timing that within a month - in 1990 I sold short just 3 days before the market went south. Twice I've missed the adjustment by less than a week - and that can be painful.

If Jimmy finds the cost of hosting for this board to be a burdon, he should contact me and I will allieviate that.

Throw him a 20 spot at least. I just did!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/announcement.php?f=36

I don't have bitter feelings about it. I do well reguardless, I just feel sorry for all the people who are getting reamed. My income will always exceed my needs by a significant margin. I'm probably the only person on this board who can take a full year off work regularly just because I feel like it (though usually after 6 months I'm wanting to get out and do something new).

Surely not the only one.

It bothers me that the working class (ie: the upper middle 50%) has made about a 17% gain over the last 10 years, and that this will be lost in just two years of inflation.

17% inflation in two years? How is that?

Greenspan's abidication of his responsibilities has just hidden the problem. When in history have you ever seen such meddling in the free market system and the money supply?

Germany?

The Federal Reserve system isn't too much meddling, its fine by me.

You claim to be a staunch capitalist, but don't you think that holding the price of money at an artificially low level is totally contrary to the free market system? Don't you think it has consequences? Don't you think the market, and not the fed, is supposed to set the price of money? THIS IS NOT CAPITALISM!

The price of money, all currencies, are valued in the the free market,.

If the government prints money, the exchange rate adjusts. Very simple stuff.

You cannot have modern capitalism without a government entity to secure the monetary standard. Instead of dollars maybe you want to hold another currency less 'manipulated' then?. Well go for it.

I've watched he Repubilcans run things through most of my adult life,

But as you say, things worked out for you.

and I've watched them enrich themselves at the cost of our country

They don't take wealth, they create wealth. They 'enrich' themselves and their employees and our country overall, and all have benefitted as a result. It's why the US is the 2nd richest nation per capita today.

while touting "family values" and pointing at irrelevant factors for the moral decline of our society.

So clearly you are against upholding 'family values'.

If this continues, by the end of my life the wealthiest 5% of Americans will have enriched themselves in terms of income by over 70 fold, where the working class will have held even, or lost ground. This country is supposed to be about a better life for everyone - not just the rich and the powerful.

Even lazy, poor Americans eat, and breed. Damn breeders!

The next generation is supposed to be better off than the one before it - but clearly this generation is not even as well off as the last!

Clearly GDP per capita is up since then, so you're absolutely wrong.

The way things are going there is going to be six (seven) classes in America all too soon, arrayed something like this.

96-100%: Corporate America (upper management) and Old money. [60+% of the income distribution]

86-95%: Corporate America (middle management), Technical and Scientific experts (including Doctors not in the top group), and upper escheleons of the military. [20+% of the income distribution]

81-85%: Military [5+% of the income distribution]

51-80%: Blue collar workers. [12+% of the income distribution]

36-50%: Working Poor (poverty level) [2% of the income distribution]

11-35%: Unempolyed/Unemployable Poor [1% of the income distribution]

1-10%: Incarcerated.

I'd say maybe, maybe not. I bet they all eat though!

The problem is that our government has no long term plan. Our companies no longer look many years down the road - most of them only look at this year, maybe next year.

The government should keep out of the economy, like you said before.

This is not the way to "win" in a international war of capitalism (and capitalism is a war, don't think otherwise).

But we're richer than all but Luxemburg and we won. We're rich! Yippee!

Over the years I've watched what the Republicans have done. Constantly wittling away at our rights and manipulation of the economy for the benefit of the rich.

This means you have a mean socialist streak in ya, rich boy!

As I've pointed out, over the 35 years following WWII, when the Democrats were generally in power, all sectors of the economy, rich, middle class, and poor, made about equal gains in income (about doubling it).

Because they taxed the hell out of the rich, and slogged down the economy with all sorts of new things like the income tax, social security, welfare, rockets to the moon, and even Vietnam.

You had to have seen lefty Carter in action in the 70's to really see a Democrat screw the pooch on all fronts.

But in the 25 years since the "Reagan revolution" what we've seen is that the bottom 80% have held their position or lost ground, while the 81-95% bracket has about tripled their incomes, and the top 5% have made out like bandits increasing their incomes by 850%.

Why didn't the government tax the hell out of them?

At the same time I've seen our incarceration rate rise to the highest in the world.

You never considered that the reason why we have a high crime rate is because we restrict government and protect individual freedom. And because we're a dynamic and multicultural and extremely wealthy society in which a criminal element may prosper.

If they get jail time, too freaking bad for them.

I've watched the American family destroyed.

But YOU JUST SAID you don't support 'family values'.

I've seen the ranks of the homeless swell.

And I've seen the quality of basic education drop from near the best in the world to the level of, in fact below the level of, 3rd world countries.

Americans are stupid!

It is becomming impossible for the publically educated american student to compete.

Compete? We're #2, darn it! They all eat our dust, edumacated or not.

Rank Country GDP - per capita Date of Information

1 Luxembourg $ 55,100 2003 est.
2 United States $ 37,800 2003 est.
3 Norway $ 37,700 2003 est.
4 Bermuda $ 36,000 2003 est.
5 Cayman Islands

Right now, with rare exceptions, only the wealthy student from private schooling, or from a public school in a wealthy neighborhood that subsidises their local public school, gets a quality education.

Parent's own money going to educate their own children is BAD!

You seem to think I'm a communist because I happened to take up some arguments about communism from the communist point of view - but that was just a response to this board where no one seems to look at things objectively.

But you take up leftist arguments consistently... you are indeed incredibly predictable and you are not objective or original. Well, the nuetron bomb idea was original, but also freakin' crazy to everyone, left or right.

I'm not a communist, though I do believe in limited socialism where appropriate.

But you do seem to hold out for communism, a bit, don't you? You've attacked America and excused communism enough times that I understand only that you present yourself as anti-American in principle.

For instance, for health care since we have a policy that no person can be turned away from recieving medical care if their life is at stake, and failure to care for minor problems until they become life-threatening is extremely expensive - I think it makes sense to figure out a way to avoid this viscious and costly cycle.

You want nationalized health care, and no surprise there.

You seem to think I'm a pacifist and appeaser. I am not. I believe that when appropriate we should use a very firm hand to deal with our enemies, much firmer than we have, i.e.: neutron bombs or even other very high-tech weapons.

I don't honestly believe you could approve of this, as a consistent leftist loathing Bush, you would read about how mad, murderous, and fascist such an act was and that would be #1 on the list for DOOM.

I just don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water which is what we are doing by engaging in this war in Iraq - which has little to do with our war on terrorism, and is bankrupting us. Look at what is happening in Afganistan:

They're VOTING! Chicks too! :shocked:

It appears that in Bush's desire to invade Iraq and oust Saddam, we have largely given up on Afgahnistan. In the end, we are likely to have lost both countries to Islamic fundimentalists.

DOOM! DoooooOOOM!

I believe we have been foolish in our middle-east policies for far too long and created this whole problem by failing to uphold our principals for reasons of expediance and profit. Now we are paying the price many times over, both in lives and money.

You are just pissed off at America. The problem you say is something we created,, and naturally for far too long. I understand you mean 9-11 is America's fault, of course.

We need to start being smart. We need to be effective in this "war on terrorism". We need not to embroil ourselves in costly occupations that leave us incapable of facing new threats or properly dealing with existing ones (such as the Taliban).

The Taliban is gone. Saddam is captive and the sons are toasted and the former regime is ousted and so I'm actually content with how things are going.

And, more than anything else we need to focus on our problems at home, or in the very near future we will find ourselves non-competive in the international economy. And if that happens, the only way we will be able to sustain our way of life is through militarism (which many would say has already happened).

If we're not competitive why are we so damn rich?

Or is this your portent of DOOM?

And militarism left unchecked leads inevitably to fascism.

C'mon, all you have is Doomsday scenarios, wade. You seem really pissed off at the USA all the time, and what it is, what it was, or what it will be pretty much looks like crap the way you explain it. Your not at all pro-America, are you?

 

[Annie]

Comrade, that was exceptional, one of your bests.

Wade, you are a condescending, self-important bore. You really should get over yourself, others might play nicer with you and read your ideas without the personality bias.

 

[wade]

That's what I meant. And furthermore Russia and France can choke on the debt owed to them.

America has been screwed out of their own investments or unpaid contracts with their fallen government debtors as a matter of course in every revolution in the last century and did France and Russia care?

What are they going to do? Hire collectors to call Allawi at dinner time? Cut him off from what is now zero payments?

Saddam owes them, actually. He's got billions in European accounts, and Euro's will have to live with what they can dig up there.

Everyone knows they won't collect a dime from Saddams old regime. Many allies have also 'forgiven' Saddams' debt knowing this as the inevitable result.

France sells missiles to Saddam on credit and charges it to America. Russia provide GPS jammers on credit and charges it to America. The UN oil-for-food program kicks back hard currency for Saddam and this balance due is also charged to America. And some French waiter delivers the bill.

They will have to choke on the debt, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I don't know about you, but that thought doesn't bother me at all.

The international banking system does not work that way - if it did countries would just refuse to pay their debts w/o consequence all the time. If Iraq simply refuses to pay on the debt, there are many actions the WB/IMF can take to rectify this. And these policies are already in place, it is not a situation where the USA can excercise its veto power.

Suppose the USA and other countries were to ignore and the authority of the world banking system to enforce the unforgiven claims on the Iraqi's. It would throw the whole world financial system into chaos. What happens when nations convert thier debt so that they owe the USA a huge sum and then deny they owe it on the basis of Iraq? Yes it sounds silly, but that is the same sillyness as the idea that Iraq can just decide not to pay it's debt. It has to be voluntarily forgiven or the whole international banking system becomes meaningless unless it enforces that debt. Iraq would never be able conduct international trade.

What the USA can, and probably will do is to buy the existing Iraqi debt at it's current market value - which is far less than its face value - and forgive this. Even so it will cost America another $75-100 billion to do so.

17% inflation in two years? How is that?

You have never heard of double digit inflation? That is where this economic policy is taking us.

The Federal Reserve system isn't too much meddling, its fine by me.

So you believe in a "free market" economy and unregulated capitalism but you also believe in Government intervention in money markets to manipulate the economy? Don't you see that by holding the price of money artifically low it stimulates the economy in the short run by flooding the market with cheap cash based upon consumer credit? Isn't the problem with doing that over time apparent?

The market is supposed to determine the price of money. When it does not things are out of balance and there must be an adjustment eventually to reconcile this. That adjustment will almost definitely take the form of inflation.

The price of money, all currencies, are valued in the the free market,.

That's exactly my point - this is NOT what is happening right now. Instead the Fed is setting a rate based upon Greenspan's dictates. His obligation is to set that rate at something near the market rate, but he's not been doing that for 4 years now!

If the government prints money, the exchange rate adjusts. Very simple stuff.

Yes and when you print more money all the existing money becomes less valuable - that's one form of inflation. Supposedly all the money being borrowed is backed by collateral - but that is a fallicy. The American consumer is so debt laden that this cannot continue. Soon Americans simply won't be able to borrow any more. This will cause the economy to seem to contract as they can no longer spend borrowed money. This will in turn lead to people loosing their jobs. This will in turn lead to people not being able to pay back their debts. This in turn will lead to the collateralization of the debt becoming devalued - and this will result in inflation.

You cannot have modern capitalism without a government entity to secure the monetary standard. Instead of dollars maybe you want to hold another currency less 'manipulated' then?. Well go for it.

Yes, and that government entity in the USA is the Fed. And the Fed., under Greenspan, has chosen to ignore supply and demand rules and instead use its power to control the interest rates in an attempt to manipulate the economy.

For reference, look at the price of gold going up. It will continue to rise over at least the next year.

But as you say, things worked out for you.

Actually, I paid a very high price for my "security". I'd much rather not have the security and not have paid the price, but it is not something I ever even had much choice about. But I cannot get into the details for a number of reasons.

They don't take wealth, they create wealth. They 'enrich' themselves and their employees and our country overall, and all have benefitted as a result. It's why the US is the 2nd richest nation per capita today.

But that's exactly my point. They are not creating wealth, they are creating debt. What is supposed to happen is the economy is supposed to grow through an expansion of real productivity. What is in fact going on is people are borrowing cheap money and spending it, mostly, on consumable items like cars and stereos. This does not create wealth, it creates debt. So the average american (consumer) goes deeper and deeper into debt and the wealthy, the guys who owns the stereo stores reap profits and the foriegn supplier has made sales and GROWN HIS ECONOMY. The economy looks healthier because the salesman at the stereo store is employed. But eventually this has to fall apart, the consumer can no longer borrow, the stereo salesmen gets layed off, and the store owner shuts down his store, the consumer has a stereo that no longer works and a pile of debt. And since that stereo was built in Taiwan, the economy has encurred overall debt. In order for the store owner to make $20, $50 has flowed out of the country.

So clearly you are against upholding 'family values'.

Not at all. However the "moral majority" and the right point at a whole host of things as responsible for the break down of the family and the decline in basic morals of our youth, when the real culpret is clear - the change of the family dynamic and the necessity of a 2 income family to make ends meet. Family values come from the family - and we don't really have families anymore - we have people who live in the same house and don't know each other. Most kids now learn their values from their peers, not their parents. When I was a kid, it wasn't this way in middle class America. Mom stayed home and raised the kids and Dad worked - and Dad earned enough to live a middle class life. That's not really possible anymore.

Clearly GDP per capita is up since then, so you're absolutely wrong.

Are you now trying to be decietful? Remember, the average american has seen little if any of that GDP growth over the last 25 years. The top 15% have seen gains, but the next 60% or so have held their own and the rest have lost ground. Just because 15% of families are doing better than the last generation does not mean that most families are doing better.

And again, GDP per capita is decietful because it does not recognize the fact that there are more workers per family.

I'd say maybe, maybe not. I bet they all eat though!

{skipping over some noise}

Parent's own money going to educate their own children is BAD!

No, its bad when this is the only way a kid can get a decent education in many parts of the country. Example:

I have a friend who is a HS teacher. For many years he taught in the Piedmont district of the Okland school system. Piedmont is a very upper class neighborhood in Okland, sitting on a hill above the city - you may remember it because a lot of it burned to the ground about a dozen years ago.

Now the Piedmont schools were well staffed with quality teachers and had low classroom sizes because the parents contributed to the school to boost it above the norm for Okland. Most of the rest of the schools in Okland were battle grounds with 40-50 students per class and teachers who'd been given "emergency" certificates to have someone in the class - whether they were really qualified to teach or not.

Do you see the problem here? Do you see the wrongness of not providing a quality public education to every student? If the parents want to put their kids in a private school then fine - but if they do not want to participate in a fair and balanced public school system they should not have the option to take the tax money and add to it to make their schools good while the rest of the public schools suck.

But you do seem to hold out for communism, a bit, don't you? You've attacked America and excused communism enough times that I understand only that you present yourself as anti-American in principle.

Actually no. Idealy countries like the USA would recognize when a country is in need of economic reform, and when it undergoes a revolution would support a democracy and a fair redistribution of wealth and land.

Tell me, do you think it is right that Iraqi's who profited unfairly under Saddams regime should retain their wealth and power? Or should we take that wealth and power from them and redistribute it?

You want nationalized health care, and no surprise there.

BUT WE ALREADY HAVE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! All you have to do to get treatment is go to an ER, and you get treated. And this is a very expensive way to do it and the taxpayer ends up footing that bill. What we need is a sensible system of health care that allows the poor and working poor to get basic medical care before they become so sick they need to goto an ER.

I'm in favor of a pretty encompassing national health care system for children (and this would continue to cover adults who were sick as children). But for adults I'm in favor of basic health care coverage only. If you want more than basic coverage, you should have to insure yourself. And I'd extend this to the old as well as the young adults. Unless they have the insurance or money for it, I'm not in favor of extrordinary measures (and expense) for the old. Look at the figures - over 80% of a persons lifetime medical expense occures in the last year of life and usually that year has little or no quality anyway.

They're {Afghani's are} VOTING! Chicks too!

Your not paying attention to what is really going on in Afghanistan.

You are just pissed off at America. The problem you say is something we created,, and naturally for far too long. I understand you mean 9-11 is America's fault, of course.

To a degree. There is little doubt that 9-11 would not have happened if not for the Israeli-Palastine situtation. This whole war really boils down to Israel doesn't it.

The Taliban is gone. Saddam is captive and the sons are toasted and the former regime is ousted and so I'm actually content with how things are going.

The Taliban is not gone. What will happen in Iraq is still very much in doubt.

If we're not competitive why are we so damn rich?

Because our parents were rich. We are now selling off the family assets to sustain our lifestyle.

C'mon, all you have is Doomsday scenarios, wade. You seem really pissed off at the USA all the time, and what it is, what it was, or what it will be pretty much looks like crap the way you explain it. Your not at all pro-America, are you?

I'm pissed off because we are failing to live up to our potential. I'm pissed off because we have forgotten our ideals. I'm pissed off because we are giving up our greatness for more beer and potato chips.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Comrade, that was exceptional, one of your bests.

Wade, you are a condescending, self-important bore. You really should get over yourself, others might play nicer with you and read your ideas without the personality bias.

Go away Kathianne. You're not even smart enough to know when your getting ripped off.

If you're not going to discuss the issues at hand, please stop making the white noise.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Go away Kathianne. You're not even smart enough to know when your getting ripped off.

If you're not going to discuss the issues at hand, please stop making the white noise.

Wade.

Careful dear, first warning.
I was not flaming you, it was a suggestion of why you are not getting along all that well on the board. SE tried earlier to make a similar suggestion.

RULES

2- Flaming - It's understood and expected that flaming (An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network) will occur when discussing politics and other sensitive issues. I ask once again to have common sense prevail. This is not an invitation to flame someone for no reason because the board tolerates the occassional outburst. Members that are here solely to be disruptive will be removed. Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occassional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not.

Moderators are not allowed to flame members, therefore members cannot flame the moderators. I expect the moderators to be held to a different standard than the rest of the board, and I also expect they will get the respect they deserve in return. Flaming of a moderator will result in a warning. On the 3rd warning your account will be banned.

 

[wade]

Careful dear, first warning.
I was not flaming you, it was a suggestion of why you are not getting along all that well on the board. SE tried earlier to make a similar suggestion.

RULES

2- Flaming - It's understood and expected that flaming (An insulting criticism or remark meant to incite anger, as on a computer network) will occur when discussing politics and other sensitive issues. I ask once again to have common sense prevail. This is not an invitation to flame someone for no reason because the board tolerates the occassional outburst. Members that are here solely to be disruptive will be removed. Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occassional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not.

Moderators are not allowed to flame members, therefore members cannot flame the moderators. I expect the moderators to be held to a different standard than the rest of the board, and I also expect they will get the respect they deserve in return. Flaming of a moderator will result in a warning. On the 3rd warning your account will be banned.

Wade, you are a condescending, self-important bore.

That is a flame Kathianne. You can try to call it otherwise, but that's what it is.

There is a word for someone who does what you just did:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=38743&dict=CALD

Follow your own rules!

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Wade, you are a condescending, self-important bore.

That is a flame Kathianne. You can try to call it otherwise, but that's what it is.

There is a word for someone who does what you just did:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=38743&dict=CALD

Follow your own rules!

Wade.

2nd Warning

Wade, you have broken another rule:

"Moderators will decide whether or not someone has broken the rules. These decisions will not be questioned by existing members. There will be no airing of grievances on the board, in ANY forum, about the way the board is ran. Any posts condemning moderator action will be deleted. Further posts on the subject will result in a ban. If a user has a concern about the board they are free to PM a moderator or administrator."

Also, if you are going to quote another member, particulary a moderator, you must quote completely and honestly:

Comrade, that was exceptional, one of your bests.

Wade, you are a condescending, self-important bore. You really should get over yourself, others might play nicer with you and read your ideas without the personality bias.

Careful dear, first warning.
I was not flaming you, it was a suggestion of why you are not getting along all that well on the board. SE tried earlier to make a similar suggestion.

 

[Comrade]

The international banking system does not work that way - if it did countries would just refuse to pay their debts w/o consequence all the time. If Iraq simply refuses to pay on the debt, there are many actions the WB/IMF can take to rectify this.

What, a spanking? Neither of these predominately US funded orgs are going to make a fuss either way. If Iraq needs funds it's got allies to give them.

And these policies are already in place, it is not a situation where the USA can excercise its veto power.

Suppose the USA and other countries were to ignore and the authority of the world banking system to enforce the unforgiven claims on the Iraqi's. It would throw the whole world financial system into chaos. What happens when nations convert thier debt so that they owe the USA a huge sum and then deny they owe it on the basis of Iraq? Yes it sounds silly, but that is the same sillyness as the idea that Iraq can just decide not to pay it's debt.

It's silly because the US is more in debt worldwide with most trading partners. If France and Germany want to screw around with their debt to the US, we're more than ready for playing the game. They know they'd lose that one.

It has to be voluntarily forgiven or the whole international banking system becomes meaningless unless it enforces that debt. Iraq would never be able conduct international trade.

But Iraq sells the oil regardless of France or Russia or China not 'banking' with them.

What the USA can, and probably will do is to buy the existing Iraqi debt at it's current market value - which is far less than its face value - and forgive this. Even so it will cost America another $75-100 billion to do so.

I refuse to pay a cent to France who sold on credit to Saddam missiles in 2004 in violation of all legal and moral principles.

I propose they send over all working age French to hand out towels in every public bathroom in America and earn it all back in quarters.

You have never heard of double digit inflation? That is where this economic policy is taking us.

I've heard of stagflation under Carter. No one can screw the economy like Carter did. But double digits won't happen for years. Like I said, you should bet on this with your nest egg. If you lose your shirt don't come crying to me, but go and do it and stop telling me what I don't know and you do.

So you believe in a "free market" economy and unregulated capitalism but you also believe in Government intervention in money markets to manipulate the economy? Don't you see that by holding the price of money artifically low it stimulates the economy in the short run by flooding the market with cheap cash based upon consumer credit? Isn't the problem with doing that over time apparent?

The government makes and secures the value of money, you see. Look at the dollar bill on the front top... it says "Federal Reserve Note". The Fed has to intervene no matter what the "the price of money" is supposed to do.

I think the Fed is not acting to flush itself down the toilet along with dollar and they have people far smarter than you!

The market is supposed to determine the price of money. When it does not things are out of balance and there must be an adjustment eventually to reconcile this. That adjustment will almost definitely take the form of inflation.

Cheaper domestic goods sold based on a falling exchange rate vs. foriegn good reduces imports, increases exports, grows the economy, pays down foreign debt, all factors which reduce inflation. Did you think of that?

That's exactly my point - this is NOT what is happening right now. Instead the Fed is setting a rate based upon Greenspan's dictates. His obligation is to set that rate at something near the market rate, but he's not been doing that for 4 years now!

So let me get this right... raising fed rates helps reduce borrowing, which is what you hate. But raising interst rates also raising inflation in parallel. And you hate inflation. So which is it?

Yes and when you print more money all the existing money becomes less valuable - that's one form of inflation. Supposedly all the money being borrowed is backed by collateral - but that is a fallicy. The American consumer is so debt laden that this cannot continue. Soon Americans simply won't be able to borrow any more.

Such rates would not spiral upward, but be tempered by increased saving by consumers as in interest rates rose and the cost of borrowing increased along with the reward of saving.

This will cause the economy to seem to contract as they can no longer spend borrowed money.

The 'price of dollars' being so cheap, means reducing the trade balance due to cheaper US goods, and invites investment from abroad and reduced incentive for our own dollars to go overseas, putting force to reduce the interest rates.

Did you think of that?

This will in turn lead to people loosing their jobs. This will in turn lead to people not being able to pay back their debts. This in turn will lead to the collateralization of the debt becoming devalued - and this will result in inflation.

The Doomsday scenario, again. A spiral into meltdown.

Yes, and that government entity in the USA is the Fed. And the Fed., under Greenspan, has chosen to ignore supply and demand rules and instead use its power to control the interest rates in an attempt to manipulate the economy.

And apparently they are trying to destroy it, you say. Would you say the Fed is stupid and foolish to you, or smart and devious. What motive for devious plots like this?

For reference, look at the price of gold going up. It will continue to rise over at least the next year.

Falling stock markets and rising inflation, are good for gold, but rising gold prices do not guarantee it will happen.

Good point though.

Actually, I paid a very high price for my "security". I'd much rather not have the security and not have paid the price, but it is not something I ever even had much choice about. But I cannot get into the details for a number of reasons.

Did you protest and piss off a cop or something? You got me curious now.

But that's exactly my point. They are not creating wealth, they are creating debt. What is supposed to happen is the economy is supposed to grow through an expansion of real productivity.

Sigh... I'll relink again:

"U.S. Productivity Is Booming, with No End in Sight"

http://www.bernstein.com/Public/story.aspx?cid=1432

What is in fact going on is people are borrowing cheap money and spending it, mostly, on consumable items like cars and stereos. This does not create wealth, it creates debt.

Spending money means people get paid, and that creates wealth. See?

So the average american (consumer) goes deeper and deeper into debt and the wealthy, the guys who owns the stereo stores reap profits and the foriegn supplier has made sales and GROWN HIS ECONOMY.

And even the crazy old lady who sells knit pillows down the street, she is reaping profits!

The economy looks healthier because the salesman at the stereo store is
employed. But eventually this has to fall apart,

Well sure, he's not going to sell stereos his entire life, but a job is a job.

the consumer can no longer borrow,

Why do they need to now?

the stereo salesmen gets layed off, and the store owner shuts down his store, the consumer has a stereo that no longer works and a pile of debt.
And since that stereo was built in Taiwan, the economy has encurred overall debt. In order for the store owner to make $20, $50 has flowed out of the country.

In your super high inflation/interest cheap dollar vision, the stereo would be made in America and shipped to Taiwan, business is booming, and people get paid.

Not at all. However the "moral majority" and the right point at a whole host of things as responsible for the break down of the family and the decline in basic morals of our youth, when the real culpret is clear - the change of the family dynamic and the necessity of a 2 income family to make ends meet. Family values come from the family - and we don't really have families anymore - we have people who live in the same house and don't know each other. Most kids now learn their values from their peers, not their parents. When I was a kid, it wasn't this way in middle class America. Mom stayed home and raised the kids and Dad worked - and Dad earned enough to live a middle class life. That's not really possible anymore.

Hardly. Some do some don't. Some want to.

Are you now trying to be decietful? Remember, the average american has seen little if any of that GDP growth over the last 25 years. The top 15% have seen gains, but the next 60% or so have held their own and the rest have lost ground. Just because 15% of families are doing better than the last generation does not mean that most families are doing better.

If the middle 60 have 'held their own' as you so scientifically put it, and follow the GDP growth equally, why would only 15% do better? I think your facts are confused. Please link to source.

And again, GDP per capita is decietful because it does not recognize the fact that there are more workers per family.

Well which is it you want, more workers with jobs or fewer jobs and mamma stuck at home?

No, its bad when this is the only way a kid can get a decent education in many parts of the country. Example:

I have a friend who is a HS teacher. For many years he taught in the Piedmont district of the Okland school system. Piedmont is a very upper class neighborhood in Okland, sitting on a hill above the city - you may remember it because a lot of it burned to the ground about a dozen years ago.

Now the Piedmont schools were well staffed with quality teachers and had low classroom sizes because the parents contributed to the school to boost it above the norm for Okland. Most of the rest of the schools in Okland were battle grounds with 40-50 students per class and teachers who'd been given "emergency" certificates to have someone in the class - whether they were really qualified to teach or not.

Do you see the problem here?

It's as bad as parents buying their own kids Christmas presents, while ignoring all the kids of deadbeat families. Absolutely callous!

Do you see the wrongness of not providing a quality public education to every student? If the parents want to put their kids in a private school then fine - but if they do not want to participate in a fair and balanced public school system they should not have the option to take the tax money and add to it to make their schools good while the rest of the public schools suck.

I think rich parents should buy an Xbox for every poor kid, because they spend way too much on their own kids already.

Actually no. Idealy countries like the USA would recognize when a country is in need of economic reform, and when it undergoes a revolution would support a democracy and a fair redistribution of wealth and land.

Tell me, do you think it is right that Iraqi's who profited unfairly under Saddams regime should retain their wealth and power? Or should we take that wealth and power from them and redistribute it?

I believe Saddam should be allowed to keep one palace and be allowed to strut around as the ruler of his domain, and turn it into a Big Brother kind of thing. When we get bored we'll toss in Milosevich in there with him and watch them fight. And also dig up Noriega out of jail and ship him off there, why not. And a few Al-Quada nutcases when things get dull.

BUT WE ALREADY HAVE NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! All you have to do to get treatment is go to an ER, and you get treated. And this is a very expensive way to do it and the taxpayer ends up footing that bill. What we need is a sensible system of health care that allows the poor and working poor to get basic medical care before they become so sick they need to goto an ER.

So we tax to cover even more medical care for all manner of things, and it's a money saver. I don't buy it. Comprehensive health care rates are far higher (preventative care included) than a same policy for life-threatening care. You do the math.

I'm in favor of a pretty encompassing national health care system for children (and this would continue to cover adults who were sick as children). But for adults I'm in favor of basic health care coverage only.

I'm not saying the children should be tossed in gutter, but I politely disagree about the cost/benefit of such a system.

If you want more than basic coverage, you should have to insure yourself. And I'd extend this to the old as well as the young adults.

And not pay for crucial life threatening care?

Unless they have the insurance or money for it, I'm not in favor of extrordinary measures (and expense) for the old. Look at the figures - over 80% of a persons lifetime medical expense occures in the last year of life and usually that year has little or no quality anyway.

Old people are always the ones who go and start dying, though, and whine about this and that treatment. You'd think medical care is about saving these old geezers. They should just die cheaply!

Your not paying attention to what is really going on in Afghanistan.

So they are not voting? Chicks are back to being chattel? Block robed Taliban are whipping people in the streets?

To a degree. There is little doubt that 9-11 would not have happened if not for the Israeli-Palastine situtation. This whole war really boils down to Israel doesn't it.

You can offer a 10 million dollar check along with that and Rudy will still shove it back at you for saying it.

Your off the lefty scale now, wade. Jews only come in play when you are really trying to justify OBL's terrorism. It was actually months after 9-11 when OBL himself used the Jew angle in declaring his acts because he knows a Jew hating sucker when he sees it.

The Taliban is not gone.

Okay then, the Taliban is dead, retired, or in hiding.

What will happen in Iraq is still very much in doubt.

That's not what you said. You said the forecast calls for DOOM!

I'm pissed off because we are failing to live up to our potential. I'm pissed off because we have forgotten our ideals.

Speak for your own ideals, though. Mine are intact.

I'm pissed off because we are giving up our greatness for more beer and potato chips.[/QUOTE]

Greatness is being able to kick back with beer and potato chips!

 

[Comrade]

That is a flame Kathianne. You can try to call it otherwise, but that's what it is.

There is a word for someone who does what you just did:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=38743&dict=CALD

Follow your own rules!

Wade.

Hey Wade, I'm your Huckleberry. Lay off Kathianne.