http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3ipTfnfgcFQ&refer=home...the federal reserve just put the US tax payer on the hook for another half trillion...LOL..this just gets better all the time..
what the heck..another half trillion
- Thread starter max420thc
- Start date
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
now you see why governments deflate their currency.
they never have to pay off their debts. or rather, by the time the debt would come due, the amount being repaid only buys a fraction of goods and services it did when the loan was issued.
they never have to pay off their debts. or rather, by the time the debt would come due, the amount being repaid only buys a fraction of goods and services it did when the loan was issued.
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
yes, i do.
thx.
thx.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
at some point, our foreign investors will realize they are throwing good money after bad(if they havent already)...and that is when the house of cards really comes crashing down
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
they need us now. we support them, and they support us. we buy their goods.
china is now where near the kind of consumption society that we or western europe is. they have to export.
so us going down creates problems for them, for now....if you want to know how china is doing. watch Australia, they provide the raw materials china needs for its infrastructure. copper, iron ore...
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
WHAT’S TO WORRY ABOUT? WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES THE ASIAN
PRODUCERS WOULD BE ALL DRESSED UP WITH NOWHERE TO GO. NO?
You hear this argument all the time, and if you believe it I’ve got
some oceanfront property in Indiana to talk to you about.
The world no more depends on U.S. consumption than
medieval serfs depended on the consumption of their lords,
who typically took 25 percent of what they produced. What a
disaster it would have been for the serfs had their lords not
exacted this tribute. Think of all the unemployment the serfs
would have suffered had they not had to toil so hard for the
benefit of their lords. What would they have done with all
that extra free time?
The way modern economists look at things, had the lords
increased their take from 25 percent to 35 percent, it would
have been an economic boon for the serfs because they would
have had 10 percent more work. Too bad the serfs didn’t have
economic advisers or central bankers to urge such progressive
policies.
Here’s my favorite analogy to illustrate why it’s idiotic to
think the world benefits from Americans’ excess consumption
and would suffer without it
Let’s suppose six castaways are stranded on a desert island,
five Asians and one American. Their problem is hunger.
So they sit down and divide labor as follows: One Asian will do
the hunting, another will fish, the third will scrounge for vegetation,
the fourth will cook dinner, and the fifth will gather firewood
and tend the fire. The sixth, the American, is given the job
of eating.
So five Asians work all day to feed one American, who
spends his day sunning himself on the beach. The American is
employed in the equivalent of the service sector, operating a
tanning salon that has one customer: himself. At the end of the
day, the five Asians present a painstakingly prepared feast to
the American, who sits at the head of a special table built by the
Asians specifically for this purpose.
Now the American is practical enough to know that if the
Asians are going to continue providing banquets they must alsobe fed, so he allows them just enough scraps from his table to
sustain them for the following day’s labor.
Modern-day economists would have you look at the situation
just described and believe that the American is the lone engine
of growth driving the island’s economy; that without the
American and his ravenous appetite, the Asians on the island
would all be unemployed.
The reality, of course, is that the American is not the engine
of growth, but the caboose, and the best thing the Asians
could do would be to vote the American off the island—decoupling
the caboose from the gravy train. Without the American to consume most of their food, they’d have a lot more to
eat themselves. Then the Asians could spend less time working
on food-related tasks and devote more time to leisure or
to satisfying other needs that now go unfulfilled because so
many of their scarce resources are devoted to feeding the
American.
PRODUCERS WOULD BE ALL DRESSED UP WITH NOWHERE TO GO. NO?
You hear this argument all the time, and if you believe it I’ve got
some oceanfront property in Indiana to talk to you about.
The world no more depends on U.S. consumption than
medieval serfs depended on the consumption of their lords,
who typically took 25 percent of what they produced. What a
disaster it would have been for the serfs had their lords not
exacted this tribute. Think of all the unemployment the serfs
would have suffered had they not had to toil so hard for the
benefit of their lords. What would they have done with all
that extra free time?
The way modern economists look at things, had the lords
increased their take from 25 percent to 35 percent, it would
have been an economic boon for the serfs because they would
have had 10 percent more work. Too bad the serfs didn’t have
economic advisers or central bankers to urge such progressive
policies.
Here’s my favorite analogy to illustrate why it’s idiotic to
think the world benefits from Americans’ excess consumption
and would suffer without it
Let’s suppose six castaways are stranded on a desert island,
five Asians and one American. Their problem is hunger.
So they sit down and divide labor as follows: One Asian will do
the hunting, another will fish, the third will scrounge for vegetation,
the fourth will cook dinner, and the fifth will gather firewood
and tend the fire. The sixth, the American, is given the job
of eating.
So five Asians work all day to feed one American, who
spends his day sunning himself on the beach. The American is
employed in the equivalent of the service sector, operating a
tanning salon that has one customer: himself. At the end of the
day, the five Asians present a painstakingly prepared feast to
the American, who sits at the head of a special table built by the
Asians specifically for this purpose.
Now the American is practical enough to know that if the
Asians are going to continue providing banquets they must alsobe fed, so he allows them just enough scraps from his table to
sustain them for the following day’s labor.
Modern-day economists would have you look at the situation
just described and believe that the American is the lone engine
of growth driving the island’s economy; that without the
American and his ravenous appetite, the Asians on the island
would all be unemployed.
The reality, of course, is that the American is not the engine
of growth, but the caboose, and the best thing the Asians
could do would be to vote the American off the island—decoupling
the caboose from the gravy train. Without the American to consume most of their food, they’d have a lot more to
eat themselves. Then the Asians could spend less time working
on food-related tasks and devote more time to leisure or
to satisfying other needs that now go unfulfilled because so
many of their scarce resources are devoted to feeding the
American.
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
Then why is China's economic growth slowing? Many people believed, professional economists as well, in the theory of "de-coupling" This theory basically states that because the emerging markets had grown so much, that they could now support themselves organically, and thus, became less and less dependent on U.S. consumption. There will come a day when this is true, but it hasn't happened yet.
As far as your analogy.........its folly.
If the world didn't benefit from our "excessive consumption" China wouldn't be what it is today....China's growth is 100% because of us. Just 30 years ago, they were little better than N. Korea is now. We wouldn't have latinos pouring into this country like a water taking over a levee. The only problem with our "excessive consumption" is how we finance it....Anytime your cash-flow can't finance your debt it's just a matter of time.
As far as your analogy.........its folly.
If the world didn't benefit from our "excessive consumption" China wouldn't be what it is today....China's growth is 100% because of us. Just 30 years ago, they were little better than N. Korea is now. We wouldn't have latinos pouring into this country like a water taking over a levee. The only problem with our "excessive consumption" is how we finance it....Anytime your cash-flow can't finance your debt it's just a matter of time.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
Ah, you say, but that analogy is flawed because in the real
world the United States does pay for its “food” and Asians do
receive value in exchange for their effort.
Okay, then let’s assume the American on the island pays for
his food the same way real-world Americans pay, by issuing
IOUs. At the end of each meal, the Asians present the American
with a bill, which he pays by issuing IOUs claiming to represent
future payments of food.
The castaways all know that the IOUs can never be collected,
since the American not only produces no food to back
them up, but also lacks the means and the intention of ever providing
any. But the Asians accept them anyway, each day
adding to the accumulation of worthless IOUs. Are the Asians
any better off as a result of this accumulation? Are they any less
hungry? Of course not.
world the United States does pay for its “food” and Asians do
receive value in exchange for their effort.
Okay, then let’s assume the American on the island pays for
his food the same way real-world Americans pay, by issuing
IOUs. At the end of each meal, the Asians present the American
with a bill, which he pays by issuing IOUs claiming to represent
future payments of food.
The castaways all know that the IOUs can never be collected,
since the American not only produces no food to back
them up, but also lacks the means and the intention of ever providing
any. But the Asians accept them anyway, each day
adding to the accumulation of worthless IOUs. Are the Asians
any better off as a result of this accumulation? Are they any less
hungry? Of course not.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
thats just the point...how do we finance it....we dont! We pay our IOUs by selling more IOUs.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Actually Hom36rown part of your arguments are flawed. The problem isn't that we don't produce anything, the problem is that we do not export enough. We actually produce a hell of a lot inside our country, but most of that is destined for other nations where they use what we produce to make consumer goods to send back to us.
The problem with this is that what we routinely send overseas are the raw materials (cotton, steel, iron, silver, silicon, etc.) used to manufacturer consumer goods and the equipment (capital equipment) that makes it all possible.
Clearly, there is a lot more profit in producing 1,000,000 $1 items that only cost .05 to produce ($800,000) than there is in selling 2 $500,000 item that costs $200,000 to produce ($600,000) so in the end our balance of trade is negative, because we are intentionally pursuing a policy that can only be called "reverse mercantilism" which is completely contrary to any reasonable intelligent economic thought.
The idea behind national (as opposed to international (the kind the Democrats and "Compassionate" Conservatives subscriber to)) economics is that a nation imports raw materials (which are cheap) and turns them into finished goods for export (which are not as cheap) and thus has a positive trade balance.
Unfortunately, between the idiotic politicians on both sides of the fence, the "globalists" who are short sighted and obviously hate the thought of America being on top, the liberalists who just hate America, the unions who are driven by greed, and the idiots that run the banks who continuously inflate the currency (at the worst possible times) and deflate the currency (again at the worst possible times) the United States has seen the effective cost of labor shoot up beyond that outside of our borders.
Between German and Japan, both of whom didn't adopt minimum wage laws as stringent as ours regarding manufacturing work, and have focused on ensuring that their economies are export driven (and thus import gold) the United States has been priced out of the market.
Ironically, instead of aggressively seeking to ensure our continued hegemony our elected unrepresentative congressmen have consistently taken long steel poles wrapped in rebar and raped the public with them, and totally ignored what the public wants, and what would be good for our nation.
Mostly at the behest of intellectuals that are anything but, and environmentalists that are more concerned with catching and raping Bambi the Deer than ensuring that our national economy provides full employment.
Of course, the third group out there that has been doing a great job of shafting the worker is our politicians that have done a great job of making sure that our markets are so wide open that our companies fall through the doors taking their jobs with them.
I seriously doubt that any one in the United States would say that this is the kind of America they want if they had been asked what kind of future they wanted for America.
I doubt that there is any one in the middle class or working class that would say that they love the idea of taxes so high that nothing is produced in the United States and that the government is slowly being forced into bankruptcy, along with the vast majority of the private individuals. (Of course that last ignores the fact that the United States is effectively bankrupt, and that as long as we continue to import more than we export and spend more than we bring in we will continue to be that way.)
No, the problem is once again people in the universities and the school system who have all these perfect models that would work if only people were perfect. Thus they have this really idiotic system of beliefs that relies upon altering fundamental human nature (which can't be done) to make it work. Ignoring the fact that if men were angels no government would be necessary, and that the best government is the government that governs the least.
Of course they also ignore the fact (to paraphrase Ron Paul) that the absence of a police state is that as long as you are not stripping any one else of their rights (life, liberty and the PURSUIT OF happiness) then you should be free to do whatever the hell you want.
Of course, these same people have a serious lack of reading comprehension not being able to understand that when the founders defined the pursuit of happiness as a right they did not specify happiness. Of course those people do not comprehend the words pursuit of, and thus have the idiotic notion that government is supposed to guarantee the happiness of everyone, instead of staying the hell out of the way so they are free to try pursuing it on their own.
Though I think I've wondered off topic quite a bit.... sorry.
cheeseysynapse
Well-Known Member
Are they any better off? Hell yes they are..........I'm not addressing your island, I'm talking about china. Look where they were 30 years ago, hell 10 years ago.
I don't like your island because there are too many variables involved. The one thing it is missing is the asians own the means of production to feed the american. That's important. And as we get closer and closer to them being less reliant on our consumption - which I agree, happens everyday....they will have the means of production to service their own population, and others as well. Also, what it would cost the american to be treated like this on an american island is probably 70% less! So, the american can afford more days in the sun...
That's why every time you see our treasury secretary in beijing they always bring up revaluing the yuan....
We talk about how are currency is going to shit.......but, emerging market economies do not want their currency to increase in value.....that would take away their competitive advantage.....then we would start exporting to china. That is the LAST thing china wants now. They don't have the consumption to support themselves.
Don't think about the debt as a stock, something solid, or permanent. Like I said....its how we finance the debt. That refers to a flow....If we can control our spending, maintain stable monetary policy, and be friendly to capital, we can create a stable economy that will function fine and grow moderately and finance just about anything. But, that doesn't mean everything.
Basically, the chinese benefit because they can use our IOUs as currency and build their own means of production to accommodate their own consumption. The more they do so, they gain on us economically, but they also lose their cost advantage on us. China doesn't really give a shit about being paid back. They can use our IOUs to buy what they need for their own country. The end result of all of this is the dollars eventually come home to roost. But, that won't be the tragedy it seems like. As long as we're friendly to capital. As long as we don't treat capital as an enemy, people will always want to invest here. You and I can't invest in china. To invest in china you have to meet with the politboro. We are the most open country on the planet. As long as other countries are as hostile to capital as we are open to it.....we'll be o.k.
40 years ago we went off the gold standard. We had inflation. And then we stopped it for a while. We began to finance our future income to avoid recessions and we ended up massively adding to the debt.....workers will demand more income, we'll have inflation again........kill it again - for a while and we'll repeat this mess we have now 80 years from now.
Once someone else gets the bright idea to be friendlier to capital than we are, we'll have big problems....and we'll be the ones enforcing it, and we won't be alone.
I don't like your island because there are too many variables involved. The one thing it is missing is the asians own the means of production to feed the american. That's important. And as we get closer and closer to them being less reliant on our consumption - which I agree, happens everyday....they will have the means of production to service their own population, and others as well. Also, what it would cost the american to be treated like this on an american island is probably 70% less! So, the american can afford more days in the sun...
That's why every time you see our treasury secretary in beijing they always bring up revaluing the yuan....
We talk about how are currency is going to shit.......but, emerging market economies do not want their currency to increase in value.....that would take away their competitive advantage.....then we would start exporting to china. That is the LAST thing china wants now. They don't have the consumption to support themselves.
Don't think about the debt as a stock, something solid, or permanent. Like I said....its how we finance the debt. That refers to a flow....If we can control our spending, maintain stable monetary policy, and be friendly to capital, we can create a stable economy that will function fine and grow moderately and finance just about anything. But, that doesn't mean everything.
Basically, the chinese benefit because they can use our IOUs as currency and build their own means of production to accommodate their own consumption. The more they do so, they gain on us economically, but they also lose their cost advantage on us. China doesn't really give a shit about being paid back. They can use our IOUs to buy what they need for their own country. The end result of all of this is the dollars eventually come home to roost. But, that won't be the tragedy it seems like. As long as we're friendly to capital. As long as we don't treat capital as an enemy, people will always want to invest here. You and I can't invest in china. To invest in china you have to meet with the politboro. We are the most open country on the planet. As long as other countries are as hostile to capital as we are open to it.....we'll be o.k.
40 years ago we went off the gold standard. We had inflation. And then we stopped it for a while. We began to finance our future income to avoid recessions and we ended up massively adding to the debt.....workers will demand more income, we'll have inflation again........kill it again - for a while and we'll repeat this mess we have now 80 years from now.
Once someone else gets the bright idea to be friendlier to capital than we are, we'll have big problems....and we'll be the ones enforcing it, and we won't be alone.
spoonfucklol
Well-Known Member
The economy is so fucking sick right now....I wonder if it would be any different had no presidents been murdered yah i know its like then inevitable...Just wondered
misshestermoffitt
New Member
Did anyone notice that when China had that big earthquake they were asking other countries to donate tents. Tents are made in China, why didn't they take a truck to the tent factory instead?
I'm feeling the need to stop paying taxes all together. Anyone else feel that way?
I'm feeling the need to stop paying taxes all together. Anyone else feel that way?
yea...it is sickening to finance a government so out of control...its like paying for your own ass rape...i hate paying tax to them..its like giving money to adolph hitler..not only do i not like paying them anymore than i have to..i believe it is my civic duty to not pay them any more than i have to...the stand against everything the constitution stands for...
ViRedd
New Member
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Been feeling that way since I was making $8/hr and saw the government taking 1/6 of my weekly pay. Seeing them take 1/4 when I got bumped to $15/hr only reinforced that feeling, and seeing them take 1/3 of my pay now makes me absolutely livid.
medicineman
New Member
I think you should quit paying then, simple solution, just quit. Don't worry, I'll be fine without your donations.
