On September 21 2011 22:52 tenacity wrote: I formly believe, however, that Europe will become even stronger and more united. The scenario stated in the WSJ article is far from being realistic. We will prove that.
hahahahahahahaha There is nearly no sign for it, EU countries are already tearing each other apart. Nice vision, but I am seeing it NOWHERE.
You should have braced yourself after reading that one of his trusted sources is Paul Krugman
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
Default and debt belong together like risk and return, that is true.
But make no mistake, the consequences of a default could make the hardships the greeks go through now look pale in comparison.
Foreign investments will stop completely fo a while, exports are unlikely to flourish without them. Tourism might be the only saving grace. And if the Drachme returns, Greek money could easily be devalued by 50%. For a country which is so dependent on imported goods that could be disastrous.
On September 21 2011 22:52 tenacity wrote: I formly believe, however, that Europe will become even stronger and more united. The scenario stated in the WSJ article is far from being realistic. We will prove that.
hahahahahahahaha There is nearly no sign for it, EU countries are already tearing each other apart. Nice vision, but I am seeing it NOWHERE.
You should have braced yourself after reading that one of his trusted sources is Paul Krugman
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
On September 21 2011 23:42 BlackFlag wrote: [quote]
hahahahahahahaha There is nearly no sign for it, EU countries are already tearing each other apart. Nice vision, but I am seeing it NOWHERE.
You should have braced yourself after reading that one of his trusted sources is Paul Krugman
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Well the Great Depression was also the first time I believe the U.S. Federal Government ran a deficit, no?
On September 21 2011 23:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: [quote] You should have braced yourself after reading that one of his trusted sources is Paul Krugman
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Well the Great Depression was also the first time I believe the U.S. Federal Government ran a deficit, no?
i don't know .. i don't think so ... i think only one president ever payed back all of the dept in the 1800.. but it was very small until the great depression thats true.
but now think of the date the FED was founded ... and you are close to the answer. (keep in mind the Drug has ofc positive effects for some decades)
On September 22 2011 02:00 tenacity wrote: [quote]
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Well the Great Depression was also the first time I believe the U.S. Federal Government ran a deficit, no?
i don't know .. i don't think so ... i think only one president ever payed back all of the dept in the 1800.. but it was very small until the great depression thats true.
but now think of the date the FED was founded ... and you are close to the answer.
Meh, I probably need a refresher on my own country's history.
On September 21 2011 23:42 BlackFlag wrote: [quote]
hahahahahahahaha There is nearly no sign for it, EU countries are already tearing each other apart. Nice vision, but I am seeing it NOWHERE.
You should have braced yourself after reading that one of his trusted sources is Paul Krugman
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Actually the Great Depression is a terrible example. It has been shown emphatically that FDR's policies did nothing more but extend the depression much longer than it should have existed. It began as a policy of the Fed which expanded credit greatly causing a massive boom. The resulting Depression was simply the credit bubble bursting. This is probably the most poorly understood and poorly taught aspect of American history, at least in the US. I have no idea about it overseas.
On September 21 2011 23:51 jdseemoreglass wrote: [quote] You should have braced yourself after reading that one of his trusted sources is Paul Krugman
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Actually the Great Depression is a terrible example. It has been shown emphatically that FDR's policies did nothing more but extend the depression much longer than it should have existed. It began as a policy of the Fed which expanded credit greatly causing a massive boom. The resulting Depression was simply the credit bubble bursting. This is probably the most poorly understood and poorly taught aspect of American history, at least in the US. I have no idea about it overseas.
and what i read was the complete opposite .. the FED did nothing at the beginning of the depression....
and please don't learn such stuff in comic books ... makes me sick.
edit: sorry you are ofc right that this whole mess started with the FED (in america) and thats my point... FDR just tried what he could do in this money system without changing it.
On September 22 2011 02:00 tenacity wrote: [quote]
1. @jdseemoreglass: Why do you consider Paul Krugman as not being a trustworthy source?
2. @Blackflag: We can have different opinions and judgments on the subject but I'd rather be an optimist that hopes that Europe will stand strong than a pessimist that is right. And yes, I am trying to face reality. I am well aware of the fact that it will be very tough, especially for Greece, but all other countries will not default. It's high time for substantial laws regulating the fiscal policies of some, if not all member states. This is a sensitive topic but something needs to be done. The biggest concern I have right now is that the leaders in the biggest countries, especially Germany, do not take any risk and shut down any speculation that may arise from the markets. Clear signals have to be send out that countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland will never default because they are backed up by everybody else.
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Actually the Great Depression is a terrible example. It has been shown emphatically that FDR's policies did nothing more but extend the depression much longer than it should have existed. It began as a policy of the Fed which expanded credit greatly causing a massive boom. The resulting Depression was simply the credit bubble bursting. This is probably the most poorly understood and poorly taught aspect of American history, at least in the US. I have no idea about it overseas.
and what i read was the complete opposite .. the FED did nothing at the beginning of the depression.
and please don't learn such stuff in comic books ... makes me sick.
Comic books?
Terrible example of going cold turkey. There couldn't be a time in history that could be described any more the opposite of cold turkey than the Great Depression.
On September 22 2011 02:07 BlackFlag wrote: [quote]
Everyone of these countries (germany too) will default, the question is not if, but when. Greece is bankrupt basically, they are just winning time by throwing money at the country so the french and german banks can pull out because they are in it with billions. The debt will and can't be payed back by no European country (and btw. the USA will never pay back their debt too), this isn't pessimism. They interesting question is what'll come out of this and after this.
(My opinion)
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Actually the Great Depression is a terrible example. It has been shown emphatically that FDR's policies did nothing more but extend the depression much longer than it should have existed. It began as a policy of the Fed which expanded credit greatly causing a massive boom. The resulting Depression was simply the credit bubble bursting. This is probably the most poorly understood and poorly taught aspect of American history, at least in the US. I have no idea about it overseas.
and what i read was the complete opposite .. the FED did nothing at the beginning of the depression.
and please don't learn such stuff in comic books ... makes me sick.
Comic books?
Terrible example of going cold turkey. There couldn't be a time in history that could be described any more the opposite of cold turkey than the Great Depression.
what happened immediatly after the great crash of 1929 ? a cold turkey... no state or FED saved any buisness ... that lead into the great depression.
the reason ofcourse and i am not denying but insisting on it was the huge money(dept) creation out of nothing by the FED... and thats what you are saying.. isn't it ?
Eh, I'm not willing to concede that the US will default yet. If republicans are voted into office en masse next year (which is looking very likely), they will hack and slash government spending -- especially the entitlement programs -- and put the US on a better fiscal trajectory.
At the expense of those Americans who are already poor or barely above the poverty line. In 2010, 46.2 million people were in poverty. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/tables.html)
I'm not sure that it would be that bad. Nonetheless, it doesn't really matter. The state can't afford it, so changes and cuts have to be made. We might as well put a gun to our heads if we're not going to make the changes and cuts.
What will happen is that your GDP will shrink with your cuts (70% consumption wont stay that way if people get poor) and making every saving effort useless ... dept is always measured in gdp/dept... if both sink it does not change the equation.
look at greece... they cut the hell right know ... but i won't help because of that reason .... their GDP drops faster than the money they can save. And their spending cuts are extreme.
default is the only way... and i'ts not the end of the world for fucks sake... default if done the correct way is a new and fresh start.
It's like a drug addict, where the drugs government funded malinvestment: Sure the high feels good for a short period of time, but it cannot and will not last. The amount of drugs needs to be increased continuously. Eventually, one will run out of drugs and rehab will commence. The withdrawal symptoms will be terrible, often worse feeling then being the drug addict itself, but once the drugs work their way out of the system, the opportunity for a new life and good health are available. The only question is how long until we start rehabbing and how bad the withdrawal will be; it will be worse the longer we wait.
i could not agree more ... and i am not argueing for just more drugs .. = more dept
there are different ways than cold turkey (the great depression was exactly that).. money reform... basically redsitribution of wealth on a more gentle way than plain bankruptcy of all banks and with em most of our buissness and start from scratch... thats what would happen.
But if you start to learn how banks work... where our money comes from... that today all our money equals dept... you realize that we need a dicussion about exactly that... what our money is today and where it comes from. If we don't do that we will just get addicted again.
and one has to realize that our dept problem is also a problem of hoarding money assets (especially distribution) that require dept. (someone has to pay the interest, right?)
Actually the Great Depression is a terrible example. It has been shown emphatically that FDR's policies did nothing more but extend the depression much longer than it should have existed. It began as a policy of the Fed which expanded credit greatly causing a massive boom. The resulting Depression was simply the credit bubble bursting. This is probably the most poorly understood and poorly taught aspect of American history, at least in the US. I have no idea about it overseas.
and what i read was the complete opposite .. the FED did nothing at the beginning of the depression.
and please don't learn such stuff in comic books ... makes me sick.
Comic books?
Terrible example of going cold turkey. There couldn't be a time in history that could be described any more the opposite of cold turkey than the Great Depression.
what happened immedietly after the great crash of 1929 ? a cold turkey... no state of FED saved any buisness ... that lead into the great depression.
No, what that lead into was a recession where the malinvested capital from a credit bubble was starting to get redistributed to market investments. The Fed is responsible for the first place because of the credit bubble.
Let me use a real world example of what happened:
There was a stimulus recently (free credit essentially). One of the beneficiaries of this was Solyndra, which received $533 million dollars. The issue is, this company would never has survived or grown without this government intervention. It was a malinvestment.
What has happened? Two years later it is insolvent. One thousand jobs have been lost and a huge tech business has gone insolvent. This is a microcosm of what leads to a recession. What you are suggesting is government intervention to stop this microcosmic recession from happening. However, it is the DIRECT result of government intervention and credit policies in the first place that this business that would never have existed in the first place employed 1000 people with malinvested money.
This is the same thing you are saying for the Great Depression. However, all that intervention for propping up malinvestments does is prolong the anti-market structure for a period of time, until the money runs out. At this point this will recess and the capital (human and money) will be redistributed according to the market.
In order for an economy to recover, this capital must be allowed to redistribute. This redistribution is called a recession. Once this capital is being used again for market viable uses, what happens it is called economic growth ie. recovery from a recession.
A recession is not a bad thing in the long run. In fact it is inevitable and necessary. Much as withdrawal symptoms are for a drug addict.
these free credits are not the reason but just a mean to push the inevitable further into the future ... exactly what you say ... but the reason for the problem is much deeper ... and that is basically how money is created in our central banking system... created in america by the FED.
edit:
and please don't put words in my mouth ... it's sad that you seem to have such a polarised mind that you naturally assume that i must be for goverment spending if i am not agreeing that cutting goverment spending is the solution to all the economic problems.
On September 22 2011 06:55 Gaga wrote: read my edited part ...
these free credits are not the reason but just a mean to push the inevitable further into the future ... exactly what you say ... but the reason for the problem is much deeper ... and that is basically how money is created in our central banking system... created in america by the FED.
It's useless debating such points with people like that, it's revisionist history taken to the extreme under the guise of "I know I'm right even though the vast majority of academic literature disagrees with me, either partially or in total, but here's a book that proves everyone else is wrong".
On September 22 2011 06:55 Gaga wrote: read my edited part ...
these free credits are not the reason but just a mean to push the inevitable further into the future ... exactly what you say ... but the reason for the problem is much deeper ... and that is basically how money is created in our central banking system... created in america by the FED.
It's useless debating such points with people like that, it's revisionist history taken to the extreme under the guise of "I know I'm right even though the vast majority of academic literature disagrees with me, either partially or in total, but here's a book that proves everyone else is wrong".
The fun thing about it is we shall in our lifetimes see who is right and who isn't.
Austrians or Keynesians? So far, the Keynesians sure have fucked things up. t he question is simply how much will the lesson and answer hurt.
Oh, and the vast majority of literature is written by Keynesians and if you follow their literature trail from their inception until now, they are the ones who are constantly revising their positions, theory and explaining away why it doesn't work (the Great Depression being a prime example.) Austrians are essentially the same from the beginning (although there is some expansion over time.)
On September 22 2011 06:55 Gaga wrote: read my edited part ...
these free credits are not the reason but just a mean to push the inevitable further into the future ... exactly what you say ... but the reason for the problem is much deeper ... and that is basically how money is created in our central banking system... created in america by the FED.
edit:
and please don't put words in my mouth ... it's sad that you seem to have such a polarised mind that you naturally assume that i must be for goverment spending if i am not agreeing that cutting goverment spending is the solution to all the economic problems.
I never meant to say that you were for government spending. I apologize if I came over that way. Your previous post did say that you though the Fed didn't do enough in the Great Depression to keep businesses afloat. I attempted to respond to that point.
I also agree with the issue of how money is created, however, that seems to be more a mean that allows more malinvestment rather than the policy or theory behind it.
On September 21 2011 05:52 domovoi wrote: Part of it is self-fulfilling, no doubt. But it's more than just that. It's not like people suddenly woke up and decided Italy was in danger of defaulting. Given the inaction of the ECB and its catering to the core Eurozone countries, it makes sense that people have grown more pessimistic about Euro debt.
That's the key point from Krugman's piece. If these countries had currency independence, or an ECB willing to keep the Eurozone intact instead of just sucking up to Germany all the time, then none of this would be happening.
How is the ECB "sucking it up" to Germany? The resignations of two Germans (Jürgen Stark&Axel Weber) who held top positions at the ECB suggest otherwise.
I'm not sure what those resignations suggest, but I do know the ECB would rather keep inflation at very low levels that is better suited for healthy economies rather than raise it to help out the struggling ones.
On September 22 2011 06:55 Gaga wrote: read my edited part ...
these free credits are not the reason but just a mean to push the inevitable further into the future ... exactly what you say ... but the reason for the problem is much deeper ... and that is basically how money is created in our central banking system... created in america by the FED.
It's useless debating such points with people like that, it's revisionist history taken to the extreme under the guise of "I know I'm right even though the vast majority of academic literature disagrees with me, either partially or in total, but here's a book that proves everyone else is wrong".
The fun thing about it is we shall in our lifetimes see who is right and who isn't.
Austrians or Keynesians? So far, the Keynesians sure have fucked things up. t he question is simply how much will the lesson and answer hurt.
Oh, and the vast majority of literature is written by Keynesians and if you follow their literature trail from their inception until now, they are the ones who are constantly revising their positions, theory and explaining away why it doesn't work (the Great Depression being a prime example.) Austrians are essentially the same from the beginning (although there is some expansion over time.)
Austrians want a return to the gold standard. We already tried that. Every country that went off of hard money during the Great Depression immediately recovered.
Keynesians no longer exist. Every mainstream economist is basically a Monetarist for all intents and purposes, though most will call themselves New Keynesians.
EPT![[image loading]](http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_debt_200.png)
