PDA

View Full Version : How to Create a Mountian of Debt. Stimulus!!



Sev
08-07-2011, 09:44 AM
One thing is for sure all this stimulus has had an impact.


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/decade-of-stimulus-yields-nothing-but.html
<span style="color: #000000"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Decade of Stimulus Yields Nothing But Mountain of Debt; What to Do About It?
</span>
Is there any kind of stimulus the US did not try in the last 10 years?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #CC0000">
1. We had 1% interest rates from Greenspan fueling housing.
2. We had wars from Bush and Obama fueling defense industry employment.
3. We had two rounds of Quantitative easing from the Fed.
4. We had cash-for-clunkers.
5. We had two housing tax credit packages.
6. We had an $800 billion stimulus package from Congress for "shovel-ready" projects.
7. We had stimulus kickbacks to states.
8. We had HAMP (Home Affordable Mortgage Program).
9. We had bank bailouts out the wazoo to stimulate lending.
10. We had Small Business lending programs.
11. We had central bank liquidity swaps.
12. We had Maiden Lane, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III
13. We had Single Tranche Repurchase agreements
14. We had the Citi Asset Guarantee
15. We had TALF, TARP, TAF, CPFF, TSLF, MMIFF, TLGP, AMLF, PPIP, and PDCF
16. We had so many programs the Fed must have run out of letters because they were not given an acronym.



That is a partial list. Other than bailing out bondholders what exactly do we have to show for any of it? The one-word answer is "debt".</span></span>

Decade of Stimulus Yields Nothing But Debt

Caroline Baum wrote an excellent article on this theme. It was so good I asked if I could reproduce it in entirety.

With permission please consider Decade of Stimulus Yields Nothing but Debt: Caroline Baum

<span style="color: #000066">When George W. Bush took up residence in the White House in January 2001, total U.S. debt stood at $5.95 trillion. Last week it was $14.3 trillion, with $2.4 trillion freshly authorized by Congress Tuesday.

Ten years and $8.35 trillion later, what do we have to show for this decade of deficit spending? A glut of unoccupied homes, unemployment exceeding 9 percent, a stalled economy and a huge mountain of debt. Real gross domestic product growth averaged 1.6 percent from the first quarter of 2001 through the second quarter of 2011.

It doesn’t sound like a very good trade-off. And now Keynesians are whining about discretionary spending cuts of $21 billion next year? That’s one-half of one percent. And it qualifies as a “cut” only in the fanciful world of government accounting.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 will save $917 billion over 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline. It leaves the tough work to a bipartisan congressional committee of 12, to be appointed by the leadership in each house. If this supercommittee fails to agree on a minimum of $1.2 trillion of additional savings over 10 years, automatic spending cuts -- evenly divided between defense and nondefense -- will kick in.

Is there any reason to think the same folks who couldn’t agree on a grand bargain this past month will join hands and find commonality in the next three, with one month off for vacation?

Rosy Scenario

Even if the committee agrees on the prescribed savings by Nov. 23 and Congress enacts them by Dec. 23, as required, laws passed today aren’t binding on future congresses.

Throw in the fact that revenue and budget forecasts tend to be overly optimistic, and there’s even less reason to think Congress has put the U.S. on a sound fiscal path.

In a July 2011 working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Harvard economist Jeffrey Frankel identified a pattern of over-optimism in official forecasts, a bias that gets bigger in outer years. (Who can forget the CBO’s 2001 estimate of a 10-year, $5.7 trillion budget surplus?) A fixed budget rule, such as the euro area’s Stability and Growth Pact with its mandated deficit-to-GDP ratios, only exacerbates the tendency.

“Political leaders meet their target by adjusting their forecasts rather than by adjusting their policies,” Frankel writes.

First Installment

The deal hashed out in Washington at the eleventh hour this week does nothing to curb the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending -- on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Medicare outlays have risen 9 percent a year for the last 30 years in a period of stable demographics, according to Steven Wieting, U.S. economist at Citigroup Inc. The automatic spending cuts outlined in the budget act would limit reductions in Medicare expenditures to no more than 2 percent a year.

By the end of 2012 or start of 2013, the federal government will be back at the trough with a request for additional borrowing authority. The debt will keep rising, and the ratio of publicly held debt to GDP will increase from 62 percent last year to as much as 90 percent in 2021, according to some private estimates, depending on what Congress does about the expiring tax cuts, the Medicare “doc fix” and the alternative minimum tax.

The CBO’s estimate of $2.1 trillion in savings over 10 years is well short of the $4 trillion Standard & Poor’s says is necessary to stabilize the debt and avoid a rating downgrade.

‘Architectural Change’

No matter. Some prominent Keynesians are advocating more spending now for an economy that is sputtering. Alas, there is little appetite in this country, and less in Congress, for more spending in light of the questionable results. A lost decade doesn’t seem like a good return on an $8.35 trillion investment. (For purists, only $6 trillion of the increase was in marketable debt, the kind of good old deficit spending Keynesians love.)

Maybe it’s time to try something new and different. In 2002 I wrote a column titled, “How About Some Tax Reform Along With Tax Relief?”

How about it? Get rid of the loopholes. Better yet, scrap the entire tax code, which would decimate the lobbying industry. Implement a flat tax or a national sales tax. The time has come for what former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill calls “architectural change.”

Can the Code

The current tax code is burdensome, inefficient and costly to administer. O’Neill says it costs the Treasury an estimated $800 billion annually, divided equally between administrative costs and uncollected revenue.

Eliminate the corporate and individual income tax, he says, and replace them with a value-added or consumption tax, with tax refundability for lower-income households.

“We should focus the tax system on raising revenue for the things we as a society need,” O’Neill says.

Of course, what society needs is a matter of opinion. Without strong economic growth, the options are more limited, the choices more difficult. Fiscal stimulus can have only a short-term impact. The government taxes or borrows from Peter to pay Paul, reflecting a temporary transfer of resources, nothing more.

What does the nation have to show for chronic short-term thinking and policies like these? Long-term problems and a mountain of debt.
</span>
Keynesians Always Want More Stimulus

Baum wrote "Some prominent Keynesians are advocating more spending now for an economy that is sputtering."

She is too polite, but to follow suit I will not name-drop either.

Keynesians always want more stimulus. They claim they don't, but there is never a time any of them ever wanted to run surpluses or even a balanced budget out of fear of ending a nascent recovery or starting a "recession of choice" as one Keynesian clown put it.

More to the point, the idea that government or the Fed can micro-manage the economy stepping in as needed is absurd. Heck the Fed could not even see a housing bubble or a recession and it is supposed to manage the economy?

Look at the supporters of Fannie Mae in Congress. Look at Democrats whining about cutbacks in social programs 100% of the time. They are supposed to run a surplus?

Lesson of Japan

For over 20 years Japan tried Monetarist (various QE and interest rate) stimulus as well as Keynesian (fiscal) stimulus and all it has to show for it is the highest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major country in the word. Rest assured that is going to matter sometime within the next 5 years.

Right now we are following their path and it clearly is not working.

How About We Try Something Different?

I am with Caroline here, how about trying something different like scrapping the tax code?

I will add my standard three ideas 100% guaranteed to help cities and states.

Scrap Davis and all prevailing wage laws
Eliminate collective bargaining of public unions
Institute national right-to-work laws


If you want to try something really radical (yet perfectly sensible), here is an idea that is also guaranteed to help: get rid of the Fed and its perpetual bubble-blowing, moral-hazard, bail-out-the-bondholder policies.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
</span>

jimmyg
08-07-2011, 10:07 AM
The stimuli is funded by interest bearing debt created through the private central banking system and paid for by the serfs (taxpayer).

Why, and who else would promote an economic theory than has been proven to NOT work so many times over? That's what the private central banking does...it's called debt enslavement.

J

Sev
08-07-2011, 10:17 AM
If only we had listened to Jefferson.

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 02:07 PM
The funny thing is the only alternative with support is Keynesian style tax cuts, financed the same way, except those supporting it claim against all evidence that they pay for themselves.

It would be better to realize at least to stop doing the very most ineffective Keynesian stimulus, in favor of the full strength variety. Instead we have the critics of Keynesian demand side, pushing strongly for more of THEIR weak beer version.

LWW
08-07-2011, 04:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The funny thing is the only alternative with support is Keynesian style tax cuts, financed the same way, except those supporting it claim against all evidence that they pay for themselves.</div></div>

If so, why do you have so much trouble finding said evidence?

Instead, you beg for more of the fascist economy we have ... which results in the privatization of profit with the socialization of risk.

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 05:05 PM
It is hard sometimes to find negative evidence.

However, no economist of any description (this side of Art Laffer, anyway, or Jude Wanniski), including any legit economist even of the right, can be found saying anything but that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Sure, it's a bit of an argument from authority, but these are authorities, and they reference all the historical experiments as to this question, accurately, from all I've seen.

All the supply siders' most wild-eyed advocates can point to is that after tax cuts, the tax revenues EVENTUALLY got back to where they were, and then went ahead of where they were. Years later, of course, with a growing work population which almost always, even in recession years, throws off more revenue every year. (WHEN didn't it? In recession years, in which tax cuts had occurred. Reagan's, and George W's recessions. W's wonderfully effective tax cuts (but I joke, of course), didn't see the return of the same level of tax revenues from the income tax as 2000 until 2006, and that wasn't in inflation adjusted dollars, but nominal dollars.)

It's as if I thought mowing the grass caused the grass to grow, simply because eventually it got as high or higher than before. Most of us would know from experience, if I had only let the grass continue to grow without cutting it, the grass would be far higher at that time it finally caught up to where it was before cutting it, had I not cut it.

jimmyg
08-07-2011, 06:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The funny thing is the only alternative with support is Keynesian style tax cuts, financed the same way, except those supporting it claim against all evidence that they pay for themselves.

It would be better to realize at least to stop doing the very most ineffective Keynesian stimulus, in favor of the full strength variety. Instead we have the critics of Keynesian demand side, pushing strongly for more of THEIR weak beer version. </div></div>

I realize that you qualified your remark "only alternative" with "with support", but, pleasee tell me that you don't really believe that there are no other alternatives.

Yes, we realize that the "official" US economic policy is Keynesian, the entire thesis of the original article is that Keynesian policies and economic theory have repeatedly shown themselves to fail. Keynesian economic policy supports the central bankers and banking system at the expense of the serf (taxpayer), that's the reason it is touted and used by our bought-and-paid-for government. The central bankers, the Fed, are the enemies.

There are other economic schools of thought like Austrian economics. Or, perhaps, we can just use logic and common sense, and just allow inefficient and bankrupt businesses, and investments, to expire as they should. In a true free market system, more efficient and stronger businesses will quickly replace them if they have faith that the free market risk/reward system still exists.....and no, the world will not come to an abrupt end, and if there are tanks in the street it will be because the serfs have refused to accept any further tyranny and debt enslavement from our central bank owned government. IMO

J

Sev
08-07-2011, 06:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is hard sometimes to find negative evidence.

However, no economist of any description (this side of Art Laffer, anyway, or Jude Wanniski), including any legit economist even of the right, can be found saying anything but that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Sure, it's a bit of an argument from authority, but these are authorities, and they reference all the historical experiments as to this question, accurately, from all I've seen.

All the supply siders' most wild-eyed advocates can point to is that after tax cuts, the tax revenues EVENTUALLY got back to where they were, and then went ahead of where they were. Years later, of course, with a growing work population which almost always, even in recession years, throws off more revenue every year. (WHEN didn't it? In recession years, in which tax cuts had occurred. Reagan's, and George W's recessions. W's wonderfully effective tax cuts (but I joke, of course), didn't see the return of the same level of tax revenues from the income tax as 2000 until 2006, and that wasn't in inflation adjusted dollars, but nominal dollars.)

It's as if I thought mowing the grass caused the grass to grow, simply because eventually it got as high or higher than before. Most of us would know from experience, if I had only let the grass continue to grow without cutting it, the grass would be far higher at that time it finally caught up to where it was before cutting it, had I not cut it. </div></div>

Actually mowing the grass and the pruning of plants stimulates growth.

Soflasnapper
08-07-2011, 07:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jimmyg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The funny thing is the only alternative with support is Keynesian style tax cuts, financed the same way, except those supporting it claim against all evidence that they pay for themselves.

It would be better to realize at least to stop doing the very most ineffective Keynesian stimulus, in favor of the full strength variety. Instead we have the critics of Keynesian demand side, pushing strongly for more of THEIR weak beer version. </div></div>

I realize that you qualified your remark "only alternative" with "with support", but, pleasee tell me that you don't really believe that there are no other alternatives.

Yes, we realize that the "official" US economic policy is Keynesian, the entire thesis of the original article is that Keynesian policies and economic theory have repeatedly shown themselves to fail. Keynesian economic policy supports the central bankers and banking system at the expense of the serf (taxpayer), that's the reason it is touted and used by our bought-and-paid-for government. The central bankers, the Fed, are the enemies.

There are other economic schools of thought like Austrian economics. Or, perhaps, we can just use logic and common sense, and just allow inefficient and bankrupt businesses, and investments, to expire as they should. In a true free market system, more efficient and stronger businesses will quickly replace them if they have faith that the free market risk/reward system still exists.....and no, the world will not come to an abrupt end, and if there are tanks in the street it will be because the serfs have refused to accept any further tyranny and debt enslavement from our central bank owned government. IMO

J </div></div>

If one wanted to argue that the fractional reserve banking system ought to be ended (wholly, not just the Fed's seat at its apex around OUR parts of the world, not to mention, the master octopus extensions over the last 500 years from Europe), I would (provisionally) agree.

However, that grand project confronts several insurmountable problems: currently, the only extant alternative is Sharia finance (no usury, meaning no interest charges at all, not just no overly large interest charges), plus the little detail that the owners and beneficiaries of this central banking scam are the wealthiest and most powerful forces in this world. They can marshal essentially unlimited propaganda through their purchase and control of all media in the world (5 companies control 95% of all media worldwide). If the propaganda isn't enough, they have crack paramilitary mercenaries to make a more forceful message to their opponents, including the use of synthetic terror. ('The Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins, explains their serial methods.)

Since the realistic chances of changing this centuries-old system, which has insinuated itself into all power arrangements and now bestrides the world with no effective opposition (Castro and Chavez are the besieged remnants of the former opposition), are minimal, a more realistic discussion will focus not on that system, but which of the policies possible within that system are best, by being less harmful if nothing else.

As the god Mammon is in charge of the world until The Return, we might all best fervently pray for that event. But that isn't an economic plan.

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is hard sometimes to find negative evidence.
</div></div>

So in one post you have went from claiming you have "ALL EVIDENCE" backing you to admitting there is "NO EVIDENCE" at all to back you ... yet you still claim to be right?

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[the only extant alternative is Sharia finance (no usury, meaning no interest charges at all, not just no overly large interest charges)</div></div>

Why do you cling to such mythology?

Islamic banking claims to have zero interest by using what we would call here "RENT TO OWN" instead.

As an example, with simplified numbers, let's assume Akhmed has his home for sale for $100K and Omar wants to buy it ... but Omar hasn't the $100K.

So ... he goes to the Bank of Allah and asks for a loan to buy it.

According to the western myth of Islamic banking, in the west Omar would have 360 payments of $1K each and the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> capitalist banker would have a gross profit of $260K ... while in Sharia banking, Omar would have an interest free loan of $277.77 a month.

Back to reality ... that ain't what happens.

In the great leftist tradition of calling one thing something else and thereby declaring that the one thing doesn't exist ... here's what happens in Islamic banking.

Omar goes to the bank, which then buys the house from Akhmed for the $100K. The bank then sells the house to Omar for $360K at 0% interest ... while retaining ownership deed of the property until every last Dinar is repaid.

So instead of charging Omar $260K of "INTEREST" ... they charge him $260K of "PROFIT" instead.

Although Islamic banking claims to be full reserve banking, that mirage dissipates upon even the most basic of examinations.

jimmyg
08-08-2011, 08:53 AM
Quote jimmyg: I realize that you qualified your remark "only alternative" with "with support", but, pleasee tell me that you don't really believe that there are no other alternatives.

Yes, we realize that the "official" US economic policy is Keynesian, the entire thesis of the original article is that Keynesian policies and economic theory have repeatedly shown themselves to fail. Keynesian economic policy supports the central bankers and banking system at the expense of the serf (taxpayer), that's the reason it is touted and used by our bought-and-paid-for government. The central bankers, the Fed, are the enemies.

There are other economic schools of thought like Austrian economics. Or, perhaps, we can just use logic and common sense, and just allow inefficient and bankrupt businesses, and investments, to expire as they should. In a true free market system, more efficient and stronger businesses will quickly replace them if they have faith that the free market risk/reward system still exists.....and no, the world will not come to an abrupt end, and if there are tanks in the street it will be because the serfs have refused to accept any further tyranny and debt enslavement from our central bank owned government. IMO
J [/quote]

Quote Soflsnapper} If one wanted to argue that the fractional reserve banking system ought to be ended (wholly, not just the Fed's seat at its apex around OUR parts of the world, not to mention, the master octopus extensions over the last 500 years from Europe), I would (provisionally) agree.

However, that grand project confronts several insurmountable problems: currently, the only extant alternative is Sharia finance (no usury, meaning no interest charges at all, not just no overly large interest charges), plus the little detail that the owners and beneficiaries of this central banking scam are the wealthiest and most powerful forces in this world. They can marshal essentially unlimited propaganda through their purchase and control of all media in the world (5 companies control 95% of all media worldwide). If the propaganda isn't enough, they have crack paramilitary mercenaries to make a more forceful message to their opponents, including the use of synthetic terror. ('The Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins, explains their serial methods.)

Since the realistic chances of changing this centuries-old system, which has insinuated itself into all power arrangements and now bestrides the world with no effective opposition (Castro and Chavez are the besieged remnants of the former opposition), are minimal, a more realistic discussion will focus not on that system, but which of the policies possible within that system are best, by being less harmful if nothing else.

As the god Mammon is in charge of the world until The Return, we might all best fervently pray for that event. But that isn't an economic plan. [End quote]

<span style="color: #3366FF">Well, my friend, you seem extremely comfortable in your shackles constructed of government and central banking tyranny, and debt enslavement. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

Seriously, fractional reserve banking is certainly a major fault in our current banking system, one that does serve the central bankers very well. But, as Thomas Jefferson knew all too well, having foreign and private bankers in control of the creation and issuance of the currency of the United States amounts to nothing less than the ultimate and future destruction of the freedoms and independence of the United States and it's citizens.

History reveals a long record of man's successful battles against government and financial tyranny. Pages are filled with men's sacrifices to free himself, his family, and his countrymen of the restraints of these injustices. France, England, the United States, and most recently the taking to the streets against debt enslavement by the citizens of Europe.

Resigning oneself to the tyranny, oppression, loss of freedoms, and financial theft of two dozen international, Anglo/American central bankers, sitting in a 24K gold plated office somewhere atop Brussels simply because that's the way it has been, would make past patriots throught the world roll over in their graves. Just because it is, doesn't mean that it remain that way forever. IMO.

J </span>

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is hard sometimes to find negative evidence.
</div></div>

So in one post you have went from claiming you have "ALL EVIDENCE" backing you to admitting there is "NO EVIDENCE" at all to back you ... yet you still claim to be right?

</div></div>

All the evidence required is that your side has no evidence.

And nobody willing to even claim there is, as to the general proposition that any typical tax cut causes so much more in receipts as to pay for itself (or more). Even bona fide supply-side proponents former Reagan Treasury officials are on record admitting this point, as well as every major economics adviser any GOP president has ever had (any SecTreasury, any Asst. SecTreasury, their heads of the CEA, e.g.).

The exception to this is for cap gains tax rate cuts, because people have the option as to when to realize the gain or hold it unrealized. Sometimes, reducing that rate has increased tax receipts due to that category of tax, as people then decide to take the lower rate and realize the gain for tax purposes.

But there is no showing of any similar effect for regular income tax rate cuts.

Nor would it be consistent, if it were true, with the 'starve the beast' alibi offered as an explanation of why cutting tax rates is a good idea. For, if cutting always brought gushers of extra tax revenues, or at least, the same levels of revenues, there could be no starving of the beast of government spending that resulted from it.

You'd have to regard that well known and oft-stated claim as wholly wrong.

What is mixed up is like the effect of a sale. If some goods are put on sale, one would expect a higher volume of units sold (but not necessarily a higher or even the same profit). If that latter worked, not only would everything always be on sale, but by the same reasoning, every greater cut in price would lead to still greater profits. You know that doesn't work in reality.

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 10:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[the only extant alternative is Sharia finance (no usury, meaning no interest charges at all, not just no overly large interest charges)</div></div>

Why do you cling to such mythology?

Islamic banking claims to have zero interest by using what we would call here "RENT TO OWN" instead.

As an example, with simplified numbers, let's assume Akhmed has his home for sale for $100K and Omar wants to buy it ... but Omar hasn't the $100K.

So ... he goes to the Bank of Allah and asks for a loan to buy it.

According to the western myth of Islamic banking, in the west Omar would have 360 payments of $1K each and the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> capitalist banker would have a gross profit of $260K ... while in Sharia banking, Omar would have an interest free loan of $277.77 a month.

Back to reality ... that ain't what happens.

In the great leftist tradition of calling one thing something else and thereby declaring that the one thing doesn't exist ... here's what happens in Islamic banking.

Omar goes to the bank, which then buys the house from Akhmed for the $100K. The bank then sells the house to Omar for $360K at 0% interest ... while retaining ownership deed of the property until every last Dinar is repaid.

So instead of charging Omar $260K of "INTEREST" ... they charge him $260K of "PROFIT" instead.

Although Islamic banking claims to be full reserve banking, that mirage dissipates upon even the most basic of examinations. </div></div>

However one wishes to quibble about the details, it still remains the fact that Sharia financing, whatever it amounts to, is the alternative that exists to Western banking. Which was my point, not whether how they work around not charging interest amounts to charging interest or not.

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 10:37 AM
jimmyg: While I will join in if the people ever get around to storming the barricades, I am not leading this effort ahead of time. Although government has indeed been suborned to this treachery, c. 1914, it was only government with the strength to have once dissolved this foreign influence (Andrew Jackson).

The problem with this kind of action right now is that literally no one is supporting it. Even those who call for the end of the Fed (Ron Paul, maybe a Kucinich) don't strike the root of the problem and suggest all fractional reserve banking is the problem (at all). Just that the Fed is a big problem (true, but so is that entire system).

Even the more modest proposals, that the Fed be ended, or disempowered by changing its ownership and what they're allowed to do independently, causes their proponents to be labeled fringe kooks.

As for my comfort level, not exactly true, as I have been making contingency plans for my protection and the protection of my family to relocate out of the country. I am blessed to have such resources that make it possible.

But I will point to your investment activities in what you know to be a corrupted and phony marketplace. Do you spend your time trying to reform that system, or do you spend your time trying to profit from that system?

That's all I'm trying to do, which is get by, under whatever system is in place. I am not a hero, nor do I play one on the internet.

jimmyg
08-08-2011, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">jimmyg: While I will join in if the people ever get around to storming the barricades, I am not leading this effort ahead of time. Although government has indeed been suborned to this treachery, c. 1914, it was only government with the strength to have once dissolved this foreign influence (Andrew Jackson).

The problem with this kind of action right now is that literally no one is supporting it. Even those who call for the end of the Fed (Ron Paul, maybe a Kucinich) don't strike the root of the problem and suggest all fractional reserve banking is the problem (at all). Just that the Fed is a big problem (true, but so is that entire system).

Even the more modest proposals, that the Fed be ended, or disempowered by changing its ownership and what they're allowed to do independently, causes their proponents to be labeled fringe kooks.

As for my comfort level, not exactly true, as I have been making contingency plans for my protection and the protection of my family to relocate out of the country. I am blessed to have such resources that make it possible.

But I will point to your investment activities in what you know to be a corrupted and phony marketplace. Do you spend your time trying to reform that system, or do you spend your time trying to profit from that system?

That's all I'm trying to do, which is get by, under whatever system is in place. I am not a hero, nor do I play one on the internet. </div></div>

I can respect your reply. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

As for my (attempted) investment activities; while some are geared towards profit, others are geared towards preservation.

No heros on this side of the keyboard either, but I will not go willingly. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

J

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:17 PM
If it is an alternative, you should have no problem explaining how it is substantively different?

Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat.

cushioncrawler
08-08-2011, 06:10 PM
"....There are other economic schools of thought like Austrian economics. Or, perhaps, we can just use logic and common sense, and just allow inefficient and bankrupt businesses, and investments, to expire as they should. In a true free market system, more efficient and stronger businesses will quickly replace them if they have faith that the free market risk/reward system still exists.....and no, the world will not come to an abrupt end, and if there are tanks in the street it will be because the serfs have refused to accept any further tyranny and debt enslavement from our central bank owned government. IMO....."
Frayed knot. In a true free market system, more efficient and stronger countrys will quickly replace theusofa.
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-08-2011, 06:13 PM
".....Yes, we realize that the "official" US economic policy is Keynesian, the entire thesis of the original article is that Keynesian policies and economic theory have repeatedly shown themselves to fail....."

Frayed knot. I dont know of any country that haz uzed Keynes. Certainly theusofa haz never and duznt ever and will never.
Keynes sayd u needed a nonfunded deficit. A funded deficit iznt keynes.
mac.

LWW
08-09-2011, 01:07 AM
What is the cause of the world's current financial issues if it isn't unfunded deficits?

cushioncrawler
08-09-2011, 01:37 AM
Unfunded meens not funded. Funded meens funded by borrowing, ie bonds etc, ie which havtabe payd back later.
Faux (funded) deficits do not help employment.

All the same, the prezent faux financial issues exist only in krappynomicyst's heads.
The real issues???? -- Krappynomicysts dont much talk about real issues.
mac.

LWW
08-09-2011, 01:42 AM
Our bonds are never repaid ... we merely add additional debt to give the naive the impression that they were paid.

That is what Keynes meant ... debt should be monetized.

cushioncrawler
08-09-2011, 01:55 AM
If u sell bonds u suck money out of the system, which negates the gov spending.
Alltho if say the Chineze buy some bonds then that goze partway towards what Keynes sayd woz needed.
mac.

Soflasnapper
08-09-2011, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it is an alternative, you should have no problem explaining how it is substantively different?

Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. </div></div>

For the purposes of my claim in chief, it actually works better if it is not at all dissimilar, and therefore, there are NO alternatives.

So, while I still don't think that is a fair characterization, nonetheless, as it is irrelevant even if you are right, and still more helpful to my case if you are right, argue on ad libitum, please.

A completely side issue.

jimmyg
08-09-2011, 01:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it is an alternative, you should have no problem explaining how it is substantively different?

Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. </div></div>

For the purposes of my claim in chief, it actually works better if it is not at all dissimilar, and therefore, there are NO alternatives.

So, while I still don't think that is a fair characterization, nonetheless, as it is irrelevant even if you are right, and still more helpful to my case if you are right, argue on ad libitum, please. A completely side issue. </div></div>

Those Soflasnappers....really hard to catch...very crafty breed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

J

LWW
08-09-2011, 04:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jimmyg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If it is an alternative, you should have no problem explaining how it is substantively different?

Calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat. </div></div>

For the purposes of my claim in chief, it actually works better if it is not at all dissimilar, and therefore, there are NO alternatives.

So, while I still don't think that is a fair characterization, nonetheless, as it is irrelevant even if you are right, and still more helpful to my case if you are right, argue on ad libitum, please. A completely side issue. </div></div>

Those Soflasnappers....really hard to catch...very crafty breed. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

J </div></div>

Keep watching ... has entire universes he has created in the theater of the mind to "PROVE" he and the the regime are always right.