The Long Cold Winter

[can't sit still]

Neither,, they're too polluted. Here's an alternative;
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=33930

[can't sit still]

Well, as I mentioned in the "survival" thread, Dunn and Bradstreet down rated 80,000 companies and said that 36,000 were in danger if imminent collapse. Most people believed the "green shoots" BS. Most people want to believe that this is a run-of-the-mill recession.
We're falling into deflation. A lot of people ran to commodities as a safe haven. That hasn't worked so well.
http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/ ... plunk.aspx

The banks aren't lending a penny. Corporate bond sales are the worst in 70 years. There's no money moving. We're on track for a repeat of '29. It's like a "neutron bomb" for the economy. All the buildings are standing but, nothing is moving.
GOV pays 29% of the wages in this country. GOV thought that they could cause some inflation by doubling GOV salaries. GOV desperately needs to inject money into the economy. The banks refuse to loan. It didn't work outside the beltway.

Originally, only the GOV could create money. Then, the central bank was allowed to create money. Then the big banks were allowed to create money. The, the investment houses were allowed to create "pseudo money" "Money" was created at 6 times the rate of increase in the GDP. All this money really got the economy humming.
That money was, for the most part, electronic money. It wasn't even paper. When hyperinflation of paper money takes place, there is an over supply of paper running up the price of goods. More paper competing for fewer goods.

Just imagine if that paper money could be made to turn to dust in your wallet. That's what happened to your IRA and 401K. Paper money at least has an existence. GOV has plans for what's left of your retirement;
http://sovereignsociety.com/2010/06/01/ ... ment-plan/

GOV likes inflation because people have to invest to keep even. Bank interest is nothing. People run to bonds and equities to try to outrun inflation. Once they're in equities, it's very easy to steal their money. That's why GOV hates Gold. It outpaces inflation and can't be stolen,,, easily.
Gov is trying to inflate away the debt. The banks are "destroying" money much faster. Anyone who pays off a loan is "destroying' money. The system MUST have a growing debt / credit base to function. The banks create the principle. The interest must be taken from the pool of future loans. Gov and some consumers are borrowing to service interest. GOV pays $ 600 million a day in interest. The amount of money in circulation is shrinking. We will [in the aggregate] run out of money.

Here's a good article form The International Forcaster. they have a great track record.

http://theinternationalforecaster.com/I ... ng_To_Come

This article has some great graphs and a good explanation of deflation in action;
http://www.24hgold.com/english/contribu ... r=Ron+Hera

Keep your cash in the house. Argentina is a good example of what happens when you keep your money out of reach.

[1durphul]

Keep your cash in the house. Argentina is a good example of what happens when you keep your money out of reach.

Sorry if you don't mind the quick history lesson... what happened in Argentina?

Edited: found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1940533.stm

The U.S. has never taken steps like that before have we?

[can't sit still]

1durphul, Wiki has a pretty good writeup;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_ ... 80%932002)
Argentina ran up huge debts and then passed them on to the public. They nationalized the pensions, defaulted on bonds, and generally screwed up the whole country.
The IMF specializes in loaning too much money to irresponsible GOVs and then pillaging the country when they can't repay. Argentine used to be very wealthy. Like Iceland, they transferred private bank debt to the public treasury. Like Iceland, it made everybody poor.

After the IMF is done with a country, it has been stripped of it's assets. This is necessary to maintain our standard of living here... at least the banker's standard of living.
This wealth transfer is being carried out here. All the crapola was transferred to the treasury,,, you and me.
Bob Chapman reports that the FED believes that the banks here will implode by November. They will have to close and re ?organize? Only small withdrawals will be allowed if historical precedent is followed. Retirement accounts will be transfered to GOV control. Bond maturity dates will be pushed forward.
GOV is already working to prevent people from taking their money out of the country.

In the end, markets will dictate the outcome. GOV is trying all kinds of controls. They won't work.

[1durphul]

Bob Chapman reports that the FED believes that the banks here will implode by November. They will have to close and re ?organize? Only small withdrawals will be allowed if historical precedent is followed. Retirement accounts will be transfered to GOV control. Bond maturity dates will be pushed forward.
GOV is already working to prevent people from taking their money out of the country.

In the end, markets will dictate the outcome. GOV is trying all kinds of controls. They won't work.

What evidence is there that the banks are going to close?

[Trishntek]

Bob Chapman reports that the FED believes that the banks here will implode by November. They will have to close and re ?organize? Only small withdrawals will be allowed if historical precedent is followed. Retirement accounts will be transfered to GOV control. Bond maturity dates will be pushed forward.
GOV is already working to prevent people from taking their money out of the country.

In the end, markets will dictate the outcome. GOV is trying all kinds of controls. They won't work.

What evidence is there that the banks are going to close?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The red gets bigger and the green gets smaller, how can they not fail?

[1durphul]

What evidence is there that the banks are going to close?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The red gets bigger and the green gets smaller, how can they not fail?[/quote]

You know... part of me believes that the Bush administration ran up the national debt on purpose just so that when the Democrats eventually took control again they'd have be unable to enact any of the social welfare programs they wanted to enact.

That same part of me says "fuck it. Enact the programs anyway, run the debt up higher, and win the Republicans are in control again they can finally be forced to deal with the mess they've created."

Before you argue you with me, take a look at these facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

You'll notice that every democrat since Roosevelt has decreased the GDP to debt ratio, and every Republican has increased it since Ford.

[Trishntek]

The presidents have little or nothing to do with what spending takes place. I don't have the time right now, but it would be interesting to know which party was in control of congress during those administrations. Congress holds the purse strings not the executive branch.

It is worth pointing out, that the worst attack on U.S. soil and the worst natural disaster in U.S. history happened under the Bush administration. Just fact, not defending spending by any stretch.

[Trishntek]

From 1954 - 1994 Democrats dominated both houses of Congress. Except the Senate in 1980-1984.

The Republicans took over the both houses in 1994 through 2007.

I'm just saying the President cannot spend money without the Congress allowing it and funding it. Johnson, if I recall had the most successful administration at getting his agenda passed by Congress. His "Great Society" legislation has contributed to the unfunded liabilities faced by our country today. But most of that is due to the spending of those funds by a congress unwilling to allow Social Security and Medicare to fund themselves. Hence we have unfunded liabilities because those funds were put in the General Fund instead of dedicated savings. Madoff has nothing on these guys,,,, jus' sayin'



By the looks of it, GDP to debt ratio shrank during the mid 1990's into the early 2000's.

[1durphul]

The presidents have little or nothing to do with what spending takes place. I don't have the time right now, but it would be interesting to know which party was in control of congress during those administrations. Congress holds the purse strings not the executive branch.

The same party was in charge of congress during the Clinton and the first 3/4's of the W Bush years.

Presidents have more to do with budgets than you're letting on.

Edited: and ask and you shall receive!
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovern ... sion_2.htm

It would appear there is low correlation between control of the House of Reps (congress) and the debt. Control of the senate is moderately correlated, but the presidency shows a near perfect correlation of presidential party increase/decrease the debt to GDP ratio.

[Trishntek]

This is all assuming an immediate action to consequence outcome. There has to be some kind of latent consequence timing. When tax cuts/increases and programs are approved, the consequence is not necessarily evident within months or even years after the act is implemented.

I would contend that the Carter years had a negative affect on most of Reagan's first term and that Bush 41 enjoyed benefits from Reaganomics. Certainly I cannot prove that, but I do wonder such things.

[Trishntek]

Here is a source with more recent information. That slope at the end is steep enough for anything to cause the loss of traction!



Notice the expenses in Treasury for interest payments,,,, and that is with interest rates at record low! What would happen if interest was increased by even 1 percentage point? Servicing public debt would be the largest expense in our government's budget!

[1durphul]

This is all assuming an immediate action to consequence outcome. There has to be some kind of latent consequence timing. When tax cuts/increases and programs are approved, the consequence is not necessarily evident within months or even years after the act is implemented.

I would contend that the Carter years had a negative affect on most of Reagan's first term and that Bush 41 enjoyed benefits from Reaganomics. Certainly I cannot prove that, but I do wonder such things.

Here you go, I updated the wikipedia article with control of house and senate to the table in that article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

As you can see there is little correlation between which party controls the house/senate and the GDP/debt ratio. However there is high correlation when it comes to Presidents.

Presidents set budgets by creating priorities, requests, and popular sentiment, and have the power to veto.

[1durphul]

Here is a source with more recent information. That slope at the end is steep enough for anything to cause the loss of traction!

Graph slopes don't involve monster trucks trying to climb them. In addition you should take note that the steep part of that is mainly because of the affects of the debts interest. Also, amazingly the debt starts falling in the last half of the Clinton administration.

And you'll note from that graph that the GDP increase enough that the budget increase under Clinton didn't make a difference.

You'll also notice that the GDP debt ratios really started their rise under Regan/BushI and then began to fall again under Clinton.

[Trishntek]

You'll also notice that the GDP debt ratios really started their rise under Regan/BushI and then began to fall again under Clinton.

But you must also consider Reagan/Bush1 was with a Democratic congress and Clinton was with a Republican congress.

Reagonomics doubled the tax revenues and the Democratic congress increased the spending proportionately.

If Hilary-care had been approved during the Clinton years, we can only imagine what might have happened to the economy then. It was the Republican congress that prevented that and it was the Republican congress, along with Clinton that appears to have balanced a budget.

[ygmir]

You'll also notice that the GDP debt ratios really started their rise under Regan/BushI and then began to fall again under Clinton.

But you must also consider Reagan/Bush1 was with a Democratic congress and Clinton was with a Republican congress.

Reagonomics doubled the tax revenues and the Democratic congress increased the spending proportionately.

If Hilary-care had been approved during the Clinton years, we can only imagine what might have happened to the economy then. It was the Republican congress that prevented that and it was the Republican congress, along with Clinton that appears to have balanced a budget.

It's so refreshing, to hear a voice, other than from the left..........

[1durphul]

You'll also notice that the GDP debt ratios really started their rise under Regan/BushI and then began to fall again under Clinton.

If Hilary-care had been approved during the Clinton years, we can only imagine what might have happened to the economy then. It was the Republican congress that prevented that and it was the Republican congress, along with Clinton that appears to have balanced a budget.

Actually Hillary-care would've resulted in a HUGE burden of providing health insurance being removed from the private sector. Most large corporations have to have an entire team to handle that. Not to mention the cost savings of only having one system of paperwork to fill out. In the end it would've been much cheaper for the government to run it than for the every corporation having to have to pay people to run it, plus having multiple insurance corporations with their own massive bureaucracies.

You're really stretching, as you can see in that table there is a -clear- correlation between the party of the president and the debt to GDP ratio. Let's not forget that something like 50% of our peacetime budget is the military, and the Republicans love love love war, and beefing up the military. Causing that portion of the budget to inflate even more.

If you look what we could have paid for in the way of infrastructure instead of going to war in Iraq... it's really shocking. You PERSONALLY have spent $7000 dollars on the Iraq war. How's that working out for you? Did you get your 7k worth? I didn't. http://costofwar.com/

[ygmir]

You'll also notice that the GDP debt ratios really started their rise under Regan/BushI and then began to fall again under Clinton.

If Hilary-care had been approved during the Clinton years, we can only imagine what might have happened to the economy then. It was the Republican congress that prevented that and it was the Republican congress, along with Clinton that appears to have balanced a budget.

Actually Hillary-care would've resulted in a HUGE burden of providing health insurance being removed from the private sector. Most large corporations have to have an entire team to handle that. Not to mention the cost savings of only having one system of paperwork to fill out. In the end it would've been much cheaper for the government to run it than for the every corporation having to have to pay people to run it, plus having multiple insurance corporations with their own massive bureaucracies.

You're really stretching, as you can see in that table there is a -clear- correlation between the party of the president and the debt to GDP ratio. Let's not forget that something like 50% of our peacetime budget is the military, and the Republicans love love love war, and beefing up the military. Causing that portion of the budget to inflate even more.

If you look what we could have paid for in the way of infrastructure instead of going to war in Iraq... it's really shocking. You PERSONALLY have spent $7000 dollars on the Iraq war. How's that working out for you? Did you get your 7k worth? I didn't. http://costofwar.com/

are there any statistics, as to which party/prez was in power when we got into wars and conflicts, during the last century, or so? How about the same for getting us out?

if, as it seems, you are socialist, then, of course, Hillary-care would seem wonderful....give the gov. more power over us........
but, is the gov. ever better at that sort of thing, than, private enterprise?

I still blame lawyers for most of what's wrong:
they run both houses of congress........so, write, enforce, and interpret, the law....

[1durphul]

Hey Trichntek, just one more link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ral_budget

The federal budget actually originates as a proposal from the President's office according to that.

[1durphul]

are there any statistics, as to which party/prez was in power when we got into wars and conflicts, during the last century, or so? How about the same for getting us out?

I found this http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/american-wars.html and it was pretty neat. It does appear that Democrats have started more wars than Republicans. What numbers I think would be more interesting would be proposed military budgets under each president.

if, as it seems, you are socialist, then, of course, Hillary-care would seem wonderful....give the gov. more power over us........
but, is the gov. ever better at that sort of thing, than, private enterprise?

Well, you need to consider that healthcare is too expensive for the general public to pay for without a group plan of some sort. I make great money and could afford my general maintenance healthcare (checkups, occasional visits) but if I ever had an emergency, or need for surgery, that is something that would bankrupt me and probably 95% of Americans.

If you are willing to concede the point that 90-95% of Americans need a group health plan in order to have meaningful medical coverage than we are left with two choices: corporations (in any form) or government.

Corporations (Blue Shield and Blue Cross) worked well at one time, back in the early days of health insurance when they accepted everybody. But then new corporations started that offered cheaper health insurance to the healthy and excluded anybody who had a pre-existing condition. The result of that healthy people moved to these cheaper plans, and left Blue Shield/Blue Cross with a pool of unhealthy people, making it impossible for them to effectively provide health insurance.

We've only done medicare and the VA in this country when it comes to gov't run plans. They've worked pretty well actually, with the exception of the VA during the W. Bush years. While Kaiser is a private organization they are representative of what a nationwide all-inclusive gov't run program would look like if we had one.

The health care bill that passed recently does away with pre-existing conditions and levels the field again for the corporations, so there may well be an actual improvement in health insurance as a result. We'll see.

[Trishntek]

WWI - Wilson, Democrat

WWII - Roosevelt, Democrat

Korea - Truman, Democrat (our presence has been there since then)

Cuba - Kennedy, Democrat (our presence has been there since then)

Viet Nam - Kennedy/Johnson, Democrats (though initial involvement, some would argue, was under Eisenhower, Republican).

Lebanon - Reagan, Republican

Iraq - Bush 41, Republican (our presence has been there since then)

Afghanistan - Clinton, Democrat (our presence has been there since then)

Somalia - Clinton, Democrat ,,,, NOT,,,, was Bush41, Republican

Bosnia - Clinton, Democrat

[1durphul]

Somalia - Clinton, Democrat

Somalia was started under Bush I actually.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Trishntek]

Okay, cool,,,, I was just trying to recall off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other conflicts I completely forgot about,,,,,

What was that little island called? Ummmmmm starts with a "G". Anyway Reagan sent in troops to rescue some U.S. students,,,,, shit can't think of it,,,, was it Granada? Yeah I think so,,,,,

[ygmir]

Well, you need to consider that healthcare is too expensive for the general public to pay for without a group plan of some sort. I make great money and could afford my general maintenance healthcare (checkups, occasional visits) but if I ever had an emergency, or need for surgery, that is something that would bankrupt me and probably 95% of Americans.

If you are willing to concede the point that 90-95% of Americans need a group health plan in order to have meaningful medical coverage than we are left with two choices: corporations (in any form) or government.

Corporations (Blue Shield and Blue Cross) worked well at one time, back in the early days of health insurance when they accepted everybody. But then new corporations started that offered cheaper health insurance to the healthy and excluded anybody who had a pre-existing condition. The result of that healthy people moved to these cheaper plans, and left Blue Shield/Blue Cross with a pool of unhealthy people, making it impossible for them to effectively provide health insurance.

We've only done medicare and the VA in this country when it comes to gov't run plans. They've worked pretty well actually, with the exception of the VA during the W. Bush years. While Kaiser is a private organization they are representative of what a nationwide all-inclusive gov't run program would look like if we had one.

The health care bill that passed recently does away with pre-existing conditions and levels the field again for the corporations, so there may well be an actual improvement in health insurance as a result. We'll see.

yeah, I'll go with a lot of that.........(other than your penchant for blaming all the ills of the world on Bush, and the republicans.)

What I don't see much of, is, reducing the cost of medical care..........
why, does it cost 100 bucks (or so) to go see a doc?
I know, there are a myriad of reasons......but, if medicine were brought in line with other things.......the insurance, if even necessary, would be much cheaper.

I put a lot of the blame on the litigious society we live in.
The costs of insurance, related to being in the medical field, I bet, are horrendous.
And, Docs make a lot of money, Nurses, (from what I've seen, and compared to me), make a damn good wage, too...........techs..........
all but the lowest "grunts" make a good wage in medicine related fields.

And, well, what is your life, and health, worth to you?
I'm not saying it should cost so much, but, I think that's a valid question.
Medical care, is not a "right", to be provided.
I see it, if coming from the gov. as a benefit, to be handled as possible.
(uh oh, the "right vs benefit" thread.....)

[1durphul]

And, well, what is your life, and health, worth to you?
I'm not saying it should cost so much, but, I think that's a valid question.
Medical care, is not a "right", to be provided.
I see it, if coming from the gov. as a benefit, to be handled as possible.
(uh oh, the "right vs benefit" thread.....)

I do view it as a right.

[Trishntek]

And, well, what is your life, and health, worth to you?
I'm not saying it should cost so much, but, I think that's a valid question.
Medical care, is not a "right", to be provided.
I see it, if coming from the gov. as a benefit, to be handled as possible.
(uh oh, the "right vs benefit" thread.....)

I do view it as a right.

Dammit ygmir, ya couldn't let it be couldya?

As you can see by the graphs above, health and human services are among the top most budget priorities.

While I agree the lawyers and insurance agencies are parasites on society, it is a good thing someone actually has actual assets to pay the bills. You can have every "right" under the sun and not get them due to lack of funds. I think we can all agree the gubmint is breaking our society's ability to sustain status quo. When I say "gubmint" I speak of all parties and most elected officials since 1870's.

I'm curious too,,,, why the labor department's budget has almost doubled since last year. I'm thinking that is where another "right" is being supplied by supporting the unemployed indefinitely.

"When the people find out they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

[1durphul]

I'm curious too,,,, why the labor department's budget has almost doubled since last year. I'm thinking that is where another "right" is being supplied by supporting the unemployed indefinitely.

The labor dept's budget has probably doubled because the Bush admin was probably not allocating enough funds to them so that they could do their job. The Bush admin were smart bureaucrats in some ways and knew how to get around legal requirements. Underfunding was one of them.

PBS' Frontline had a great piece about how over the last couple of decades we've managed to make OSHA toothless:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... lace/osha/

You know, one of the problems we have in our society is that corporations are NOT responsible entities. They are not responsible to anybody but their shareholders. It is legally required for them to do the best they can to make the most money at the lowest cost. That sounds great, until you look at the societal consequences of a corporation that did just that. In the Gulf of Mexico we have a prime example of what happens when you don't have strong government regulation. Had BP been required to put better equipment in place, or at the least prove they have the ability to shut off the well in an emergency, we would not only have an oil free Gulf right now, we'd still have shareholders in BP who weren't about to get bankrupt themselves.

And the problem of course is that *EVERY* large corporation does stuff like this. So let's say all of BPs competitors learn their lesson and put in better equipment from now on. Then we have hundreds, or thousands, of other (non-oil well drilling) corporate activities that have yet to turn into a disaster but are waiting to.

While I can't think of every possible disaster out there that the government is currently doing little to stop, I can think of three right off the top of my head: BPA in plastics used to hold food and liquids, ecoli in factory farm foods, industrial sludge pits/ponds.

In fact, in the case of the ecoli we've watched several packaging companies go bankrupt over this, and they STILL haven't bothered to figure out how to clean up their processes.

We cannot wait for everything to become a disaster before the corporations "learn their lesson" from watching one of their competitors go bankrupt we have to have regulation, and regulators to uphold the regulations. Some things we know are dangerous. Some things are dangerous and cost a lot extra to fix. Without regulation you can be sure that most corporations will factor out the expensive fix and just continue producing as though the danger didn't exist. We're seeing that in BPA plastics, in Ecoli in the farms, deep water oil wells, and industrial sludge pits/ponds.

Pretend all you want that government has no place in this incredibly complex world of multinational corporations. The problem is that without government we are completely and 100% at the mercy of a merciless beast called the Corporation.

Edit: thought of another examples, the current financial crisis stems for a lack of regulation.

[ygmir]

good points.
not that I disagree, I don't.
But,
do you see gov. as benevolent, and, only out for our best interests?............

[1durphul]

good points.
not that I disagree, I don't.
But,
do you see gov. as benevolent, and, only out for our best interests?............

definitely not.

[1durphul]

good points.
not that I disagree, I don't.
But,
do you see gov. as benevolent, and, only out for our best interests?............

definitely not.

In fact when it comes to providing health care as a right, I see that as a limited right for a basic level of preventative and emergency care.

While I haven't fully thought out what that would include I'd probably include the following:
1. Annual checkups with a Nurse Practitioner.
2. Urgent care clinics for urgent but non-emergency medical care. (illness, initial investigation of possible tumors)
3. emergency care (broken bones, life threatening emergency illness, organ failure.)
4. surgical intervention for realistically treatable cases.
5. generic prescription drugs where over the counter analogs are not available.