Rising inflation, ballooning gas rates, soaring cost of flour and other basic necessities, the collapse of the housing market, mortgage loaning companies on the verge of collapse... sounds like we're pretty screwed, huh?
Some particularly scary paragraphs from the yahoo article:
"The administration and the Federal Reserve announced an emergency rescue plan Sunday to bolster Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages — almost half of the nation's total.
The plan would temporarily increase a long-standing Treasury line of credit that could be provided to either company. Treasury also said it would, if necessary, buy stock in the companies to make sure they have enough money to operate.
The Fed also announced that it would allow Fannie and Freddie to get loans directly from the Fed — a privilege previously granted only to commercial banks until this March, when the Fed extended the borrowing to investment banks to deal with the collapse of Bear Stearns."
The impact of this was seen across the board, including silver, gold, oil, stocks and the US dollar. (see link below)
So on a scale of 1-10, how scared are you about the future of our economy? Have you already started to feel the pinch? Is the threat of recession overstated, or are we really screwed?
i have no outstanding debt, i'm a grad student so my job isn't in jeopardy for the next 4.5 years, and i can just pull money from my investments if i need cash not too worried we'll weather the storm
I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it.
I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner.
On July 16 2008 00:59 nA.Inky wrote: I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it.
I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner.
Like the old Tool song says, "learn to swim."
Wow you are so fucking bad ass.
ROME IS BURNING (and other epic quotations signifying an awesome stance on crumbling economies or "empires")
I'm just an realistic optimist, that's all. We can all mourn the fact that we will all die one day, or be glad to be alive today. I'm excited to be alive at such a crazy point in the history of the world. Happy to be a witness to it.
there was an 18-page article in the Economist about the future of banking a few months back(when bear stearns collapsed) and it said that there will be always such downfalls simply because of the universal model of fair-value economy that has been used for quite some time now. im no expert on the matter but according to the Economist everything will be ok as soon as the regulators and the government put some effort in it, which by the look of it is happening right now. so since the feds have stepped up and are willing to bail Fannie and Freddie out of the crisis , the risks of an all-out economy collapse are quite low.
GeometryB - I agree with you about the candidates. I disagree with your economics professors though. Economics in general is a highly conservative field, and there is a strong belief in not only the status quo, but also that science can master the world. Time and time again we see that change is constant and that science does not master the world - science consistently produces unintended consequences or miscalculates.
Economics is too far out of touch with ecology. Also, the numbers economists are using may themselves reflect profound bias, as, for example, when GW decided to reclassify fast food jobs as manufacturing jobs. In my own economics education, I learned unemployment numbers are very far off the mark (unemployment is much higher than represented).
I'll concede that I don't expect a violent crash of civilization as you might see in some awesome movie. I expect it will be more recession like, just gradually getting a little worse at a time, then a little better, then a bit worse, then a little better.... Course, there is enough crazy stuff going on, that I really have no idea. But I do think that the way people have been doing things, particularly those of us in the US, is going to be coming to an end over the coming decades.
On July 16 2008 00:59 nA.Inky wrote: I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it.
I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner.
Like the old Tool song says, "learn to swim."
I agree for the most part, but I'm not too happy about the uncertainty in the future, haha. I don't think we're gonna collapse into a third world country by any means, but we certainly aren't going to be the untouchable superpower in any sense--military, economy, etc--and will have to actually give a shit about our surroundings and our fellow man. We're gonna have to think things out instead of being the stereotypical American cowboys and charging into everything.
This will effect the global economy. I hope for a gentle shrinking of the US economy. For two reasons depletable resources and environment. This is no problem if the wealth is better distributed. Over 50 Celcius in densely populated areas by the end of the century. (source Dutch reputable newspaper) but I digress.
On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being in panic mode stocking my shelves with water and canned food and pulling all money from banks, and 1 being throwing my money into high risk stock investments.. I am about a 3.
In other words. Not worried at all, but also not so comfortable I am going to do anything stupid. My job is safe, the area I live in (Austin) has been on every sites 'top 10 recession proof cities', and I didn't have any risky investments to lose.
The biggest worry I have is the decline of the dollar making consumer goods more expensive. But really; that isn't something that keeps me awake at night.
Actually scratch that. Biggest worry is McCain going into office and giving another round of tax cuts to the top 1% and screwing everyone else.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
anyways, i don't think any of the candidates knows how to fix the problem even though they say they do. =\
No one does, it's a social science.
Inky, many economists are actually fairly liberal about that. What the government does and what economists think are totally separate issues. Many have taken issue with GDP because it does not account for pollution and other negative costs that can hurt a country.
There's always ups and downs. I make enough money to not worry about supporting myself with rising costs. It just means you may have to budget a little bit better or bringing your lunch into the office twice a week to negate the gas increases.
My day to day has changed very little from 4 years ago to now.
I saw on the news today that GM stock is on the rise for the first time in God knows how long. As a Canadian I worry a lot about the US economy because it directly effects us as you are our biggest trading partner. Not only that my city is the Car capital of Canada and all North American cars have been blowing ass lately so my city has really gone down hill. I don't think massive poverty and homelessness will take over the states but I think the standard of living will be much lower when all is said and done. I hope to god no Americans will face a health problem while your country is in this state. =\
When the oil market does crash, like the housing and stock markets did, it'll likely be a tremendously good thing for our economy.
The oil drop today seems like more of a correction than anything. With the way the prices had been inflating over the last few months, a drop to a more realistic number was a matter of time.
But I really can't see how the oil market would crash, unless we suddenly got a new, viable source of energy that didn't cost a gazzilion dollars? If anything, it seems like it would just continue going up, or at best, come down a lttle and stabalize
On July 16 2008 00:59 nA.Inky wrote: I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it.
I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner.
Like the old Tool song says, "learn to swim."
Wow you are so fucking bad ass.
ROME IS BURNING (and other epic quotations signifying an awesome stance on crumbling economies or "empires")
Nero did nothing and blamed others...sound familiar?
not really. cycling of recession was inevitable, although i didnt expect it for a little longer. inflation is gonna happen, and with the USA's overconsumption of power and fuel, the oil was gonna start drying up and the major market in it was gonna start affecting everything else.
so ya, its something to worry about, but im not gonna worry about it
On July 16 2008 01:05 nA.Inky wrote: Thanks InControl, you are so fucking badass too!
I'm just an realistic optimist, that's all. We can all mourn the fact that we will all die one day, or be glad to be alive today. I'm excited to be alive at such a crazy point in the history of the world. Happy to be a witness to it.
here's an idea live forever using biotechnology problem solved
actually life extentionist therapies are set to come about in the next 10 years or so according to this guy who i forget whom advocates these therapies
As for the economy, it's screwed. It's been screwed for a while, and trying to keep everything afloat is just going to throw us deeper down the gullet. I'm going to be a university student though, and possibly pre-med, so idc.
But Obama and Mccain are going to f*ck up the economy no matter who wins. One will make everybody poor and support foreign regimes, the other will oust foreign regimes and make everybody poor. The best government is one that doesn't do anything and leaves us alone.
and anyone that blames the great depression on market forces clearly hasn't examined all of the government interference that led to the credit boom. Same with the 1980's crisis, and now today.
edit: there is still a shit load of oil out there. There's like, 4.6 trillion barrels in the North American landmass alone, and the only reason we haven't gotten that far yet is b/c we're a few steps short of technology that will get over it.
I'd also like to point out that market forces favor environmentalism. People tend to buy from more "eco-friendly" companies, even if it costs a little bit more, so thus companies will lean towards being eco-friendly and the environment will improve overall. What damages the environment? Government subsidies to allow companies to get away with damaging the environment, and overzealous environmentalists that hail a "solution" (i.e. biofuels. Oh wait, why do we suddenly have a water shortage in California and a food shortage in Europe?).
So the US gov't, which is already trillions of dollars in debt thanks to Bush's 2 terms, is now giving or lending out money to these mortgage companies which are also in debt or heading towards it?
On July 16 2008 02:23 Bill307 wrote: Let me see if I understand this...
So the US gov't, which is already trillions of dollars in debt thanks to Bush's 2 terms, is now giving or lending out money to these mortgage companies which are also in debt or heading towards it?
Yeah, that's why I bolded it. It fucks us, I'm pretty sure the result of not doing it would completely fuck out country in a way that couldn't be repaired for a long time. Half of the country's mortgages would be bad.
and anyone that blames the great depression on market forces clearly hasn't examined all of the government interference that led to the credit boom. Same with the 1980's crisis, and now today.
edit: there is still a shit load of oil out there. There's like, 4.6 trillion barrels in the North American landmass alone, and the only reason we haven't gotten that far yet is b/c we're a few steps short of technology that will get over it.
Yep. That plus more people will begin looking for oil if the price is right.
I'd also like to point out that market forces favor environmentalism. People tend to buy from more "eco-friendly" companies, even if it costs a little bit more, so thus companies will lean towards being eco-friendly and the environment will improve overall. What damages the environment? Government subsidies to allow companies to get away with damaging the environment, and overzealous environmentalists that hail a "solution" (i.e. biofuels. Oh wait, why do we suddenly have a water shortage in California and a food shortage in Europe?).
Agreed.
It's really up to Congress and the Fed not to fuck up the economy and halt a recovery, not the next president. And I trust the Fed far, far more than I trust Congress.
I'm not worried at all, because in people didn't realize, the US's economy is miles ahead of every other nation out there, and incase you didn't realize, the US is run by friggin geniuses. If anybody actually thinks that the government is run by the president, then I guess you really don't know much about how countries are run. America just invaded a country and did what they wanted to do regardless of what any other country said, including the United Nations. The US just wants you to think that the "stupid" George W. Bush , or the president actually runs the country. In reality, the President does little at all as far as the country is concerned. He is just a figurehead, just like the King or Queen of England.
Also note, I'm not directing this at anyone, so please nobody take offense to this.
The entire system is run by debt and confidence. As long as people believe the money is there then they will happily get get themselves into debt and keep buying things and powering the economy. The problem is that not all the money is there. When banks go under and shares plummet the lie disappears and everyone stops spending and starts saving. And that makes the economy grind to a halt. What this cash injection is doing is filling the banks with enough money to maintain the lie which will keep the public believing in the lie which will keep consumer spending high and therefore the economy growing. Public deficit economics are a mess and the less everyone knows about them the better it works (provided that some very intelligent people are running it). Unregulated you get a wall street crash. But having a central bank filled with genius economists the system works.
caller i agree biofuels are dumb, on another point though how can a customer verify a products claimed eco-friendliness without government regulations?
--------
regarding the OP: i kind of agree with inky in so far as i am excited at the prospect of some much needed turnover - but i'm very sobered by my worry about myself and my family being able to make ends meet, going forward. pinch hasn't hit me too hard yet but i suspect it will reach here soon enough =/
-----
himurakeshin - for me anyways i've never doubted the 'intelligence' of the US government. what i doubt is their sanity.
On July 16 2008 03:00 a-game wrote: caller i agree biofuels are dumb, on another point though how can a customer verify a products claimed eco-friendliness without government regulations?
--------
regarding the OP: i kind of agree with inky in so far as i am excited at the prospect of some much needed turnover - but i'm very sobered by my worry about myself and my family being able to make ends meet, going forward. pinch hasn't hit me too hard yet but i suspect it will reach here soon enough =/
-----
himurakeshin - for me anyways i've never doubted the 'intelligence' of the US government. what i doubt is their sanity.
If you had asked that 40 years ago, the answer would be you're right. If you ask that now, we have the internet. More importantly, how do we know what the government regulators are seeing, i.e. corruption?
On July 16 2008 01:09 SwaY. wrote: I'm a hippy, therefore I am more worried about global warming.
I don't know if you're serious or not, but so am I. Worried about large particle pollution, emissions, the ozone layer, carbon dioxide, diminishing natural resources, as well as trash.
Sooner or later, all of the debt is going to vanish. It's inevitable when the government gets to say what is and isn't a dollar that they will take advantage of it by promising people money in the future and then redefine money so they don't have to pay it in any way that matters to them.
When this happens in other countries and in the past, commerce breaks down. The economy falls apart because nobody can figure out how to trade without money.
But that's not going to happen in the USA. There will be some emergency measures, and a general mess for a few months (during which nobody will actually starve), and after that, people will have switched over to an electronic system for trading diverse valuables such as commodities and stocks.
Meanwhile, the American government will have printed up as many worthless dollars as it needs for itself, and given away as many dollars as its citizens need for everybody to get out of debt. It has always held this option in reserve, and it will exercise it when it is necessary or advantageous.
In the end, the US economy will be working better than ever, on a sound rational basis and starting from a debt-free clean slate, and the world will quickly follow the new model (places such as the EU and Canada will make the transition in an orderly fashion, without the temporary emergency in the US).
The technology's there. We don't need fiat money anymore. All we need is a crisis to force the transition. The crazy universal debt spiral can end, and the sooner it does, the better.
I am optimistic that we are approaching that time.
It just sucks that US Economy problems mean world economy problem :/ But I'm not really worried about that. It's sad a lot of people will suffer because of others fauls...
I don't care at all. The economy while getting crappier will never become crap enough that our lives (my life at least) will never be in true jeopardy unless we do some ridiculous, risky stuff.
On July 16 2008 00:59 nA.Inky wrote: I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it.
I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner.
On July 16 2008 06:38 suresh0t wrote: we survived the great depression and i doubt this will be anything near that catastrophic. This is a recession and shit will balance out eventually.
Yep, things will be worse for a while, but eventually we will be fine.
You shouldn't be too worried unless you have major capital. For me personally I'm not worried, but I have to deal with the free fall of the dollar. I have a large amount in Dollars and this will just keep getting less and it really frustrates me
I am fairly worried on one hand, but on the other hand I am not. The short term situation looks dire, and long term fine.
The situation with Fannie and Freddie is my main short term concern, though the rest of the major investment banks being shorted isn't particularly nice. The rescue package suggested by the administration is rather meh to me, like many said, that's just shoving more money into companies we know to have been completely shielded from reality having a dose of the said reality. Additional protection on Fannie and Freddie is necessary, considering that they are now a cornerstone of the US economy, but to make it so explicit is questionable. Of course, Paulson and Bernanke addressed that fear, but it is unlikely that they will be able to make this aid an implicit confidence booster, which is unlikely to work if the implicit guarantees thus far hasn't been enough.
Long term, however, things are bound to bounce back [provided we don't vote Obama into the office] (I jest, but I don't want him in the office anyway). We aren't doing anything amazingly stupid to antagonize the market forces, and a recession is really just a timing for us to go for long term investments, which most would do being risk-aversive. If this fiscal with the oil doesn't warn the automakers about the necessity of seeking alternatives in the long term, I would be quite surprised. In all, something like this is a good lesson to all of us, and nothing we can't recover from in the long term.
Yea, but what cured the Depression last time was a World War, which stimulated our economy into production and job availability. Whats it going to take to get us out of this recession? I'm curious if anyone here has any educated suggestions.
On July 16 2008 07:01 DanceCommander wrote: Yea, but what cured the Depression last time was a World War, which stimulated our economy into production and job availability. Whats it going to take to get us out of this recession? I'm curious if anyone here has any educated suggestions.
A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence.
On July 16 2008 07:01 DanceCommander wrote: Yea, but what cured the Depression last time was a World War, which stimulated our economy into production and job availability. Whats it going to take to get us out of this recession? I'm curious if anyone here has any educated suggestions.
A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence.
Why would something like that happen? I am not sure as to why you think that will be a key in getting out of the recession. You might as well as say that if we discover Fusion Containment we'll get lightsabers and unlimited energy. Sure, there is a vast amount of benefits in terms of switching to sustainable energy assuming we can do it at a good enough efficiency, but there is no motivation to do that barring the kind of scientific breakthrough that wins one Nobels.
Our last few recessions were dealt with as market forces stablized and people came to their senses, it is unlikely that the recovery of this one will deviate from that norm. While the improvement of technology is certainly benefitial to the economy, to bank on that to get out of a recession is quixotic.
On July 16 2008 07:01 DanceCommander wrote: Yea, but what cured the Depression last time was a World War, which stimulated our economy into production and job availability. Whats it going to take to get us out of this recession? I'm curious if anyone here has any educated suggestions.
A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence.
What you say is true, but a full conversion to green energy will be extremely difficult as well as inconvenient for most people in the US. But I'm sure you realize this. Personally I think its time to nationalize some oil companies
On July 16 2008 07:01 DanceCommander wrote: Yea, but what cured the Depression last time was a World War, which stimulated our economy into production and job availability. Whats it going to take to get us out of this recession? I'm curious if anyone here has any educated suggestions.
A full scale conversion into green energy. There's a huge demand for manufacturing capacity and new experts in sustainable building. A boom in that area could be thrice beneficial: economically, environmentally, and energy independence.
What you say is true, but a full conversion to green energy will be extremely difficult as well as inconvenient for most people in the US. But I'm sure you realize this. Personally I think its time to nationalize some oil companies
I'm sure there's plenty of ideas cooking for green energy, but they won't really become viable for the common guy for another 10-20 years. But I'd agree, that's probably how we un-fuck this whole thing. A war isn't gonna do shit for us, because we don't manufacture most of our stuff in country anymore like the 40s
On July 16 2008 07:42 mahnini wrote: What the fuck does "green energy" have anything to do with reviving the economy?
it creates jobs... wind/solar/etc all need workers to manufacture/install/maintain alternative energy systems - if it was fully embraced by the country it would create a massive industry (it's already a notable industry in places like california and in the wind corridor (texas etc.) i believe?).
i'm surprised you haven't heard of the theory before - it's a plank in obama's platform too btw. (creating green energy jobs - not a wholesale green energy conversion)
The green energy schemes are stupid and cost-ineffective. Biofuels? Please.
Nuclear energy, now we're getting somewhere. But noooo, its radioactive and the terrorists will bomb it T_T
i bet that if we stopped spending money on government waste and inefficencies and started spending it on other things like nuclear research we would be living in a world of infinite energy through fusion. Well not infinite, but close to it.
i also think if we spent 1/10th of the energy and money and time going into foreign aid into medical research we would've discovered cures to everything and live forever.
On July 16 2008 07:42 mahnini wrote: What the fuck does "green energy" have anything to do with reviving the economy?
it creates jobs... wind/solar/etc all need workers to manufacture/install/maintain alternative energy systems - if it was fully embraced by the country it would create a massive industry (it's already a notable industry in places like california and in the wind corridor (texas etc.) i believe?).
i'm surprised you haven't heard of the theory before - it's a plank in obama's platform too btw. (creating green energy jobs - not a wholesale green energy conversion)
I do hate Obama so.
In economic terms though, I can apply "green energies" to nearly anything. The core is that government will lead a movement for such an industry, and then the industry will prosper as private companies start to go in on what is perceived to be a profitable business. That doesn't mean that Green Energy is the key to recovering from a recession, but that government support leading to a creation of a new, good market will be beneficial to the economy. Green energy simply fits in the rest of his policies.
EDIT - Caller, biofuel is an alternative energy source, but not a part of green energy afaik.
On July 16 2008 00:59 nA.Inky wrote: I'm not worried about it at all - infact I am basically happy about it.
I do think the economy as we know it is screwed. We've built everything on oil and the oil is running out. That and we live insanely out of balance with the rest of the world (the environment, I mean). And the US is an empire, and like all empires, it must fall sooner or later. I think it will be sooner.
Like the old Tool song says, "learn to swim."
I agree for the most part, but I'm not too happy about the uncertainty in the future, haha. I don't think we're gonna collapse into a third world country by any means, but we certainly aren't going to be the untouchable superpower in any sense--military, economy, etc--and will have to actually give a shit about our surroundings and our fellow man. We're gonna have to think things out instead of being the stereotypical American cowboys and charging into everything.
On July 16 2008 08:05 Caller wrote: The green energy schemes are stupid and cost-ineffective. Biofuels? Please.
Nuclear energy, now we're getting somewhere. But noooo, its radioactive and the terrorists will bomb it T_T
i bet that if we stopped spending money on government waste and inefficencies and started spending it on other things like nuclear research we would be living in a world of infinite energy through fusion. Well not infinite, but close to it.
i also think if we spent 1/10th of the energy and money and time going into foreign aid into medical research we would've discovered cures to everything and live forever.
Unfortunately, we have government.
For one, foreign aid has the potential to be as helpful to world health as research. There is AIDS and Cancer, neither of which is going to be solved by throwing money at it. On the other hand, diseases like malaria can be helped by implementing the most basic health measures in poor countries.
The corruption in the process is regrettable, but those people are well and truly fucked if their stuck with thugs warlords and no aid. It also isn't as though our foreign aid numbers are overwhelming.
If you want to start cutting off fat, start with the military.
Also, fusion isn't going to be solved by throwing money at it.
I agree with you that nuclear is a good option in the intermediary, but it alas is not renewable, so we can't switch to nuclear and expect that we'll be covered for the rest of history. There is also the sticky problem of what to do with the waste (though the waste is much less dangerous than many anti-nuclear advocates make it out to be).
You're wrong about biofuels by the way. Please look into alternative energy before you knock it. Corn based ethanol is a ridiculous sham and one of the must destructive policies the Bush administration has pursued, and this is the coming from the administration of anti-science, Katrina and Iraq.
However, you can't let the taint of corn spread into the goode biofuels. Sugarcane is working wonders in Brazil at the very moment, as the Brazilians on this board will attest. While the USA isn't in position to grow prodigious amounts of Sugarcane, we're certainly better off importing some than wasting valuable corn crop space on ethanol. Really we should be importing it from the Caribbean, where we will be both helping the local economy while helping our energy situation. However, agribusiness in this country has millions to spend buying conressmen.
Another promising possiblity is algae. Algae is capable of generating 30x the energy of corn per acre (in biodiesal), it can be grown on otherwise useless land in greenhouses, uses salt water, and is a carbon neutral fuel (the carbon released in burning the diesal was taken out of the air by the algae in the first place).
Celluslostic ethanol is the holy grail of biofuels. It will allow us to convert useless crops such as switchgrass and agricultural leftovers to fuel. The problem with this is that there has been no effecient method of breaking down celluose on a large scale yet discovered.
I don't have more time to type now, but I'll address geothermal, solar, and wind when I get back.
Basically, I think a balanced approach of solar, wind, bio, geothermal, nuclear and clever tricks can make us 100% based on non-fossil energy inside of 30 years.
Im hurting enough as is...Well not really just I spend poorly a half of the year and then I budget well the other half...The 1st page of this thread kinda explains it well...
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried, and I'm even more worried about Obama. The major problem with Obama's policy regarding the economy is the raising of tax. This is a bad time to start raising tax. He is suggesting a huge increase in tax for business owners. Business owners never eat the cost. That money comes from somewhere else such as their employees. People will get laid off.
I'm all for revolutionary changes, but these kind of changes help no one except makes the situation worse. Obama needs a better economist adviser.
I am not extremely worried in the long run, but it is hurting a little right now. The value of my house has dropped about 5% every year for the past 3 years, and I currently owe more on it than it is worth. My 401k is down about 7% YTD. So my only real investments are at a significant loss, and I am stuck in my house until I can get some money out of it. The week economy is hurting the industry I work in, which is impacting my annual raises, which are just keeping up with the cost of living at this point. My credit card debt and interest rates are steadily climbing, and I am contemplating starting to ride my bike to work, for I drop a tear everytime I put gas in my tank. I should be able to maintain my current situation for several more years at it's current state, but if there are any major things that happen ( for example I just dropped $3000 dollars on dental work for my daughter that had to be partially financed) than I will be in some trouble. If things start to pick over the next couple years, I have no long term worries about my personal finances.
On July 16 2008 07:42 mahnini wrote: What the fuck does "green energy" have anything to do with reviving the economy?
it creates jobs... wind/solar/etc all need workers to manufacture/install/maintain alternative energy systems - if it was fully embraced by the country it would create a massive industry (it's already a notable industry in places like california and in the wind corridor (texas etc.) i believe?).
i'm surprised you haven't heard of the theory before - it's a plank in obama's platform too btw. (creating green energy jobs - not a wholesale green energy conversion)
Umm, so the idea is to invest in inefficient forms of energy and create jobs that are based on these inefficient sources and hope that this will bail the economy out or entice corporations to invest in them?
On July 16 2008 07:42 mahnini wrote: What the fuck does "green energy" have anything to do with reviving the economy?
it creates jobs... wind/solar/etc all need workers to manufacture/install/maintain alternative energy systems - if it was fully embraced by the country it would create a massive industry (it's already a notable industry in places like california and in the wind corridor (texas etc.) i believe?).
i'm surprised you haven't heard of the theory before - it's a plank in obama's platform too btw. (creating green energy jobs - not a wholesale green energy conversion)
I do hate Obama so.
In economic terms though, I can apply "green energies" to nearly anything. The core is that government will lead a movement for such an industry, and then the industry will prosper as private companies start to go in on what is perceived to be a profitable business. That doesn't mean that Green Energy is the key to recovering from a recession, but that government support leading to a creation of a new, good market will be beneficial to the economy. Green energy simply fits in the rest of his policies.
EDIT - Caller, biofuel is an alternative energy source, but not a part of green energy afaik.
It's quite obvious that currently alternative energy sources are not profitable, otherwise, we'd already be using them practically.
I don't think MORE government spending is what we want at the moment, especially on very unsure things like new energies.
generalstan the problem with biofuels like sugarcane is they take up crop space that can be used for food right? that's why i'm opposed to them.
mahnini at the rate oil's been going up how long do you think it's going to be before renewable energy is profitable? if government just stepped in right now and kickstarted the switch i don't see the risk there at all, it's inevitable that the price of oil is only going to go up unless you kill off a bunch of population. and the price of renewable energy can only go down from where it is now as the technologies become cheaper and more honed.
anyways like others said other than an energy revolution what else will kickstart the economy? world war 3?
EDIT: i'm always open to being informed or politely corrected
The overall impact of sugarcane fuel on Brazilian crop growing is small in comparison to the amount of land cleared for soy production.
Soy production in Brazil is being spurred by increased demand as US farmers switch to corn for ethanol production.
I say again, corn ethanol is an unadulterated sham with nothing but disastrous downsides and one recent human activity that has driven global warming to a precipitious edge.
The Amazon is going down for biofuels, but its American biofuels. Their sugarcane ethanol industry is an example worthy of admiration.
Instead of corn in this country, we could do well to grow hemp for the manufacture of hemp seed oil for conversion to ethanol. The advantages are three fold - Hemp is an excellent source of textiles, hemp seed husks are useful livestock feed, we get ethanol out of it, and the damn stuff can be grown in otherwise unfarmable land.
Corn is a dirty pathetic joke and a betrayal of the potential of biofuels.
No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in.
I don't disagree that there is a great necessity for the exploration of alternative fuels, but to hail that as being able to drive the economy into moving forward is far-fetched. Ultimately one part of the economy is being dug up to aid the other.
People should keep in mind that the current price of oil is artificial and more of a byproduct of inflation and a weak dollar rather than an issue with supply, that alone makes a full pursual of alternative fuels unsound without a large support in form of government. We haven't needed a kickstart during the 70s, we won't need it now. What we need to get out of this particular recession is a correction of price sensitivity and common sense (oh God SUVs eat up gas, gas costing $4 a gallon, maybe we shouldn't bother with them). The kind of projects being called for to 'jumpstart' the economy is like the kind of works of Roosevelt, many of them proving to be monsters in the long run.
and guys... its just a recession. i think theres too big of a deal thats caused by sensational news crap. like a year ago, global warming was a big issue and everyone was whining and anticipating, but global warming is like a past trend now. Society tends to find new things to worry about.
I'm finally in the phase of my life when I'm making some money which I can invest, and everything is on sale! You'd be hard pressed to find a company that is over valued right now.
If these companies were pairs of jeans, people would be flooding to the malls to buy them, but because they are investments with (very arbitrarily) fluctuating values, they freak out.
The level headed and patient investors will make a killing in this market. Just keep your chin up and buy buy buy.
On the flip side, if you're a borrower with tons of debt, interest rates are bottoming out at early 2000 levels. Fucking sweet if you ask me.
The only people that get screwed in these markets are the old affluent who were heavily invested in over priced securities when the bottom came out. Sucks for them. Great for us.
On July 16 2008 10:24 Ecael wrote: No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in.
I don't disagree that there is a great necessity for the exploration of alternative fuels, but to hail that as being able to drive the economy into moving forward is far-fetched. Ultimately one part of the economy is being dug up to aid the other.
People should keep in mind that the current price of oil is artificial and more of a byproduct of inflation and a weak dollar rather than an issue with supply, that alone makes a full pursual of alternative fuels unsound without a large support in form of government. We haven't needed a kickstart during the 70s, we won't need it now. What we need to get out of this particular recession is a correction of price sensitivity and common sense (oh God SUVs eat up gas, gas costing $4 a gallon, maybe we shouldn't bother with them). The kind of projects being called for to 'jumpstart' the economy is like the kind of works of Roosevelt, many of them proving to be monsters in the long run.
I defy you to point to an example where building solid infastructure has been an onus later down the line.
And don't hold out hope that Gas is going down without a significant reduction in demand. It's true that the increases for now are the result of speculation, but it isn't idle speculation - the rise of Indian and Chinese car cultures are a good reason for demand to be increasing dramatically soon. There is no extra supply to alleviate increased demand, so high prices are here to stay.
On July 16 2008 10:32 ManaBlue wrote: The only people that get screwed in these markets are the old affluent who were heavily invested in over priced securities when the bottom came out.
On July 16 2008 10:24 Ecael wrote: No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in.
I don't disagree that there is a great necessity for the exploration of alternative fuels, but to hail that as being able to drive the economy into moving forward is far-fetched. Ultimately one part of the economy is being dug up to aid the other.
People should keep in mind that the current price of oil is artificial and more of a byproduct of inflation and a weak dollar rather than an issue with supply, that alone makes a full pursual of alternative fuels unsound without a large support in form of government. We haven't needed a kickstart during the 70s, we won't need it now. What we need to get out of this particular recession is a correction of price sensitivity and common sense (oh God SUVs eat up gas, gas costing $4 a gallon, maybe we shouldn't bother with them). The kind of projects being called for to 'jumpstart' the economy is like the kind of works of Roosevelt, many of them proving to be monsters in the long run.
I defy you to point to an example where building solid infastructure has been an onus later down the line.
And don't hold out hope that Gas is going down without a significant reduction in demand. It's true that the increases for now are the result of speculation, but it isn't idle speculation - the rise of Indian and Chinese car cultures are a good reason for demand to be increasing dramatically soon. There is no extra supply to alleviate increased demand, so high prices are here to stay.
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am agreeing with the necessity of alternative fuel source, but I am disagreeing with the method of pursuing the said source. Even if the high prices are here to stay, which is arguable considering that we have been unable to tap into the production of Russia proper for crude, it isn't a huge deal. In fact, that would be a good thing, with a high price here to stay the incentive would be made without the necessity of a surety in government protection and interference. To reiterate, I do want the movement from oil as an energy source, but I have nothing but dislike for the idea of it being propelled by the government. There are cases where governmental encouragement is necessary, this isn't one of them, let common sense rise and do the work without the additional pointless spending of the government.
As for Roosevelt, it should be pretty obvious I wasn't talking about infrastructure, but the kind of programs devised to serve the purposes of the middle class.
Manablue, some will argue that Freddie and Fannie are both still overvalued right now
On July 16 2008 10:24 Ecael wrote: No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. You can see this now in the car industry, diesel cars, biodiesel, hydrogen, advanced weight saving design and material all designed and implemented by private companies. When market requires a service or product, private companies will always exploit that need.
If we are talking about new energy sources to replace coal factories and such, good luck. As far as I know nothing comes close the the efficiency of coal burning energy except for nuclear plants. You can invent and put up all the windmills, solar panels, and geothermal do-thingies you want, they will be more expensive and produce less power than what is being used now. Spending for the sake of spending is not necessary.
On July 16 2008 10:24 Ecael wrote: No, in terms of new energies, we absolutely need government spending. Even if I don't agree with Obama's ideas and platform, he is right in that matter. Without a surety in government sponsorship and creation of a market, it is highly unlikely for us to see private companies pitching in.
I don't disagree that there is a great necessity for the exploration of alternative fuels, but to hail that as being able to drive the economy into moving forward is far-fetched. Ultimately one part of the economy is being dug up to aid the other.
People should keep in mind that the current price of oil is artificial and more of a byproduct of inflation and a weak dollar rather than an issue with supply, that alone makes a full pursual of alternative fuels unsound without a large support in form of government. We haven't needed a kickstart during the 70s, we won't need it now. What we need to get out of this particular recession is a correction of price sensitivity and common sense (oh God SUVs eat up gas, gas costing $4 a gallon, maybe we shouldn't bother with them). The kind of projects being called for to 'jumpstart' the economy is like the kind of works of Roosevelt, many of them proving to be monsters in the long run.
I defy you to point to an example where building solid infastructure has been an onus later down the line.
And don't hold out hope that Gas is going down without a significant reduction in demand. It's true that the increases for now are the result of speculation, but it isn't idle speculation - the rise of Indian and Chinese car cultures are a good reason for demand to be increasing dramatically soon. There is no extra supply to alleviate increased demand, so high prices are here to stay.
To reiterate, I do want the movement from oil as an energy source, but I have nothing but dislike for the idea of it being propelled by the government. There are cases where governmental encouragement is necessary, this isn't one of them, let common sense rise and do the work without the additional pointless spending of the government.
That is absolutely right and the opposite of what i quoted before.
As a college student graduating in two years and with an eye toward moving into the Financial sector, I am very worried because that is the one sector that is getting hit the hardest.
Mahnini, the first quote was concerning the situation at hand and Obama's platform. If he really wants the kind of change in the energy sector, he would need to invest heavily into it with government sponsorship and guarantee of customers considering the scale necessary for larger operations involving alternative fuels. The latter is my personal opinion and why I dislike Obama/am not voting for him, that such government interference is ultimately pointless as market forces will do the work with the proper need at hand much more efficiently that the government could.
Solar panels are quite useful in Cali for private use, and I would imagine for corporate use as well. Wind energy has demonstrated efficiency, if not as high as nuclear, in Germany and various European countries. However, a key thing to keep in mind in regards to investment in them is that the energy industry are subsidizing private solar panels, much like they encourage saving energy. When the market is good enough the private sector will move in on its own, the government should be more concerned with getting out of their way than trying to create their vision of what the market should be, which invariably screws up.
On July 16 2008 00:53 Hawk wrote: Rising inflation, ballooning gas rates, soaring cost of flour and other basic necessities, the collapse of the housing market, mortgage loaning companies on the verge of collapse... sounds like we're pretty screwed, huh?
1) we eat rice mostly 2) we rent apartment atm 3) we have little/none mortage, only 1 on car atm
I think my family is at a stable income to not be affected too much. Those of lower income gonna get hit hard imho.
On July 16 2008 14:31 Ecael wrote: Solar panels are quite useful in Cali for private use, and I would imagine for corporate use as well. Wind energy has demonstrated efficiency, if not as high as nuclear, in Germany and various European countries. However, a key thing to keep in mind in regards to investment in them is that the energy industry are subsidizing private solar panels, much like they encourage saving energy. When the market is good enough the private sector will move in on its own, the government should be more concerned with getting out of their way than trying to create their vision of what the market should be, which invariably screws up.
I wholeheartedly agree. I also learned something from wikiing wind turbines. : ]
If worse come to the worst California declaires independency and gg. wee~~ terminator president ftw. but more seriously I am very happy that those energy efficient bulbs are being promoted. Great step forward imo. And on the radio while driving today I heard several advise on don't drive too fast to save gas, which I am very happy too.
On July 16 2008 14:42 decafchicken wrote: i've been raping at like 8% for the last three years with my mutual fund...and this is the first quarter i've lost money
lol, I read an article like 2 weeks ago about how this is reality, and the market we have had up until this point even following the collapse of dot com has been so much better than what we should be expecting.
Actually, 8% is pretty much moving with the market average, although the last three years has probably been slower so the fund probably out-preformed if I remember correctly.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
this is true. but please dont tell me you want mccain
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
this is true. but please dont tell me you want mccain
I want McCain to win, though Obama coming from a racist background toward Caucasians is...eh, lol. As Asian I can hardly care, better that he gets into some idea of removing affirmative action, as unlikely as that is, if we have to suffer Obama being president :p
As for loyalty toward the US, who cares, as long as he can do his job right, I have more of a problem regarding that. It isn't like he will be selling out the US if he can do his job right, who cares about minor detail like saluting the flag.
Klogon, I assume we are talking about purely domestic funds, right? Nothing insane like foreign (cough China cough Latin America) funds.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
this is true. but please dont tell me you want mccain
I want McCain to win, though Obama coming from a racist background toward Caucasians is...eh, lol. As Asian I can hardly care, better that he gets into some idea of removing affirmative action, as unlikely as that is, if we have to suffer Obama being president :p
eh i dislike them both. a lotttt. i'm just pessimistic
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
Shit posts like this are despicable. I rarely engage in political debates on here but this is so below the belt it's staggering. I'd really love to hear you defend this inflammatory bullshit to a reasonable audience.
Subsidies are not inherently bad. Many technologies and industries were born of government subsidies. Jet aircraft developed with military R&D expenditures led to modern commercial airliners. The Internet was the result of publicly funded links among computers in government laboratories and research institutes.
Public support has been important. A study by Norberg-Bohm found that, of 20 key innovations in the past 30 years, only one of the 14 they could source was funded entirely by the private sector and nine were totally public.
check out this report on specifically handling government involvement in energy technology
On July 16 2008 14:41 evanthebouncy! wrote: And on the radio while driving today I heard several advise on don't drive too fast to save gas, which I am very happy too.
What? You're supposed to drive even slower? The NJ "Express" Way was hardly bareable as it is. Those speeds would get you killed on the Autobahn.
But on a serious note, 65 mph is already pretty much the optimal speed regarding gas consumption. Better drive more efficient cars.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
this is true. but please dont tell me you want mccain
I want McCain to win, though Obama coming from a racist background toward Caucasians is...eh, lol. As Asian I can hardly care, better that he gets into some idea of removing affirmative action, as unlikely as that is, if we have to suffer Obama being president :p
As for loyalty toward the US, who cares, as long as he can do his job right, I have more of a problem regarding that. It isn't like he will be selling out the US if he can do his job right, who cares about minor detail like saluting the flag.
Klogon, I assume we are talking about purely domestic funds, right? Nothing insane like foreign (cough China cough Latin America) funds.
china doesnt need american funds lol. the money going from the US to china, its all used to purchase merchandise...we arent giving china free money...we ARE however giving north korea supplies.
Im not worried. We had a huge boom for a stupid amount of time. Now we are going to have a big recession its just the way things work.
If anything its a lesson to stupid banks they cant lend money out willy-nilly.
The biggest problem is a massive loss in consumer confidence due to irresponsible newspaper reporting etc. That could easily turn this recession into a depression.
On July 16 2008 14:41 evanthebouncy! wrote: If worse come to the worst California declaires independency and gg. wee~~ terminator president ftw. but more seriously I am very happy that those energy efficient bulbs are being promoted. Great step forward imo. And on the radio while driving today I heard several advise on don't drive too fast to save gas, which I am very happy too.
What good would that do? California is like the poster child of the subprime mortgage fiasco.
I know personally I graduated as a chemist like 2-3 months ago and I can't get a job in my field, even with the help of a job placement company. Someone who graduated from the same school 3 years ago told me that was basically unheard for someone at my college in the chemistry program to not be able to find work, but at least half of us looking to acquire a job hadn't gotten one by graduation. And I know I'm not the only one still having problems.
Fortunately I'm not exactly hard pressed to get a job at the moment, but I feel sorry for people who are. :/
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
If you honestly believe Obama is going to make any difference at all... I mean, just bend over and get it over with, man. The man has zero concept of economics and what he does have is rooted in mystical Keynesian theory which, as an economic theory, seems about as sensible as rain dancing to address the issue of poor weather.
The problems in America have not been caused by people voting for the wrong guy - they've both been the wrong guy, every time, for pretty much the entire 20th and 21st century. The only effective contribution at this point is getting people to realise it because nothing will change until that happens. So long as smooth-talking guys like Obama continue to succeed in deluding people with nonsense and popular rhetoric there can be no change.
On July 16 2008 14:41 evanthebouncy! wrote: And on the radio while driving today I heard several advise on don't drive too fast to save gas, which I am very happy too.
What? You're supposed to drive even slower? The NJ "Express" Way was hardly bareable as it is. Those speeds would get you killed on the Autobahn.
But on a serious note, 65 mph is already pretty much the optimal speed regarding gas consumption. Better drive more efficient cars.
Haha, where the hell in NJ were people driving slow??
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
If you honestly believe Obama is going to make any difference at all... I mean, just bend over and get it over with, man. The man has zero concept of economics and what he does have is rooted in mystical Keynesian theory which, as an economic theory, seems about as sensible as rain dancing to address the issue of poor weather.
Are you fucking kidding me? First of all, his circle consists of monetarists and Keynesian economists, and neither are unsensible. Let me guess, you've read a Ron Paul book and the introduction to a Hayek book and now "realize" Austrian is the greatest thing ever.
And again, the President really doesn't have the capability to fix the economy and it's not his job. You can vote for who you think is more beneficial (I'm not convinced with Obama, but McCain's economics knowledge is essentially non-existent) but in reality it comes down to Congress and the Federal Reserve.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
Shit posts like this are despicable. I rarely engage in political debates on here but this is so below the belt it's staggering. I'd really love to hear you defend this inflammatory bullshit to a reasonable audience.
rpf lost his shock value with stupid posts ages ago. He'd have to say what he really feels (i.e. the less politically correct words that you KNOW are the reason he won't vote for Obama) to make me go, 'WOW! rpf has reached a new level of stupidity!'
On July 16 2008 22:25 Hawk wrote: rpf lost his shock value with stupid posts ages ago. He'd have to say what he really feels (i.e. the less politically correct words that you KNOW are the reason he won't vote for Obama) to make me go, 'WOW! rpf has reached a new level of stupidity!'
What less politically correct reasons?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, because his lapel pin was crooked.
On July 16 2008 14:41 evanthebouncy! wrote: And on the radio while driving today I heard several advise on don't drive too fast to save gas, which I am very happy too.
What? You're supposed to drive even slower? The NJ "Express" Way was hardly bareable as it is. Those speeds would get you killed on the Autobahn.
But on a serious note, 65 mph is already pretty much the optimal speed regarding gas consumption. Better drive more efficient cars.
Haha, where the hell in NJ were people driving slow??
You have to put this into perspective. Over here you are not even allowed on the road if you can't go faster than 40 mph. You'll get screamed at for driving 70 mph. You better get out of the way of other drivers if you go only 90 mph. Below 100 mph you will just not be respected as a driver. For entertainment:
It's actually called the Atlantic City Express Way, my bad. There is nothing "express" about it though.
But my main point was that 65 mph is already very sensible towards gas consumption, you really don't need to lower this.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
I'm worried that you're voting for Obama.
You're voluntarily voting for a man who openly and admittedly refuses to acknowledge the symbol and song of loyalty of the United States of America, comes from a racist background toward Caucasians, and has begun playing rhetoric games?
The last man who should be in office is one who doesn't even salute his own fucking flag.
this is true. but please dont tell me you want mccain
I want McCain to win, though Obama coming from a racist background toward Caucasians is...eh, lol. As Asian I can hardly care, better that he gets into some idea of removing affirmative action, as unlikely as that is, if we have to suffer Obama being president :p
As for loyalty toward the US, who cares, as long as he can do his job right, I have more of a problem regarding that. It isn't like he will be selling out the US if he can do his job right, who cares about minor detail like saluting the flag.
Klogon, I assume we are talking about purely domestic funds, right? Nothing insane like foreign (cough China cough Latin America) funds.
china doesnt need american funds lol. the money going from the US to china, its all used to purchase merchandise...we arent giving china free money...we ARE however giving north korea supplies.
are u trying to get drafted?
You make it sound like someone in their first run has the political capital to be able to get away with a draft.
As for investing in China, what's wrong with that? I'll take my money where I can get it. It is only evitable that capital flows to where more capital may be generated, the foolish protectionism has to go.
And what's this about speeding in NJ, all I ever see there is the congestion leading to the Outer Bridge Crossing :p
This is just the ebb of the economy's natural ebb-and-flow. Honestly, I think that a lot of good will come out of it. Sure there will be hard times, but most Americans are living WAY beyond their means right now anyway. Our culture of credit cards and paying on installments is unhealthy for everyone. This will be a slap in the face to wake people up.
"Necessity is the mother of invention." It's about time we start heavily pursuing non-oil means of power. Oil prices will force that.
The media is full of crap. Seriously. They take any negative angle they can spin on a story and blow it out of proportion. Why? Because tragedy sells. It's all about ratings for them. The housing market is not really that bad. In fact, in many places it's already bottomed out.
So again, I'm not worried. We're in for some uncomfortable times, but we're due them. Look back at the Depression and every recession since then. The way our economy works, people always weather the storm and come bouncing back stronger than ever.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
Just because the Economy has slipped due to rising oil prices, and other unnatural causes doesnt mean you have to vote democrat.
Think about what you just said. Plus he'll be assassinated especially in Virginia, its like KKK capital bro. Then if that happens to happen during his term, wouldnt stating what you said be pointless?
Aside the point, everything has to be looked at ten years prior. I assume 50% of everyone blames Bush for the War in Iraq. Ok, you're entitled to your opinions. Now look ten years ago, during Clintons administration. In 1994 when we were fighting Saddam Huessin for the first time, we were aiding Osama Bin Laden with weapons and money to help us fight against his regime. So in turn, wasnt Clinton aiding a known terrorist who had affiliation with the 1st WTC Bombing in 1992, and then again his bombings in 1998?
If you're truly going to cry over rising gas prices, then leave the country. God made man a creature of choice and survival. You choose whether or not you want to survive, and if you do choose too survive, you figure it out.
So dont try and say "only 18 year olds" can post in this thread. Because in fact, when you begin to age past 21+, the ones who posted in this thread younger than 18, will be 18, and will be able to act as you did. But they have the right to voice their opinions.
So first of all, there is no recession by definition (two consecutive quarters of negative growth), but the economy is certainly weakening. The Federal Reserve system needs major rebalancing. They are the only private group in the country with direct and special ties to the government, and cannot be audited by anyone. And because they have direct access to the Treasury, if they need additional money they can get it printed freely, which drives up inflation, essentially making inflation a "Federal Reserve tax".
I am not really worried at all at the moment, because I am young with no debt and work for a really strong company called Wells Fargo. A lot of banks in the country are struggling really bad which make us look really good. In the other hand, It's an awesome time to purchase a home in Utah, because prices stayed stable and they will go back up so I can start building some equity.
A lot of stocks have been going down this past year, and they will go back up for sure when the economy gets back on their feet. I just barely started my 401 K retirement plan, Wells Fargo matches 100% of my contribution each pay check.
I am not really worried I think... Gas prices do worry me though, so expensive zomg! Damn Venezuela
On July 17 2008 01:33 InfeSteD[rA] wrote: I am not really worried at all at the moment, because I am young with no debt and work for a really strong company called Wells Fargo. A lot of banks in the country are struggling really bad which make us look really good. In the other hand, It's an awesome time to purchase a home in Utah, because prices stayed stable and they will go back up so I can start building some equity.
A lot of stocks have been going down this past year, and they will go back up for sure when the economy gets back on their feet. I just barely started my 401 K retirement plan, Wells Fargo matches 100% of my contribution each pay check.
I am not really worried I think... Gas prices do worry me though, so expensive zomg! Damn Venezuela
lol, speaking of Wells Fargo, they did manage to post a record high revenue even if net income dropped, opening pretty strong today.
I'm worried. I don't know what i'm goin to do after I graduate fom college, and my family is already living pretty tightly. I need to get a job and stop being such a degenerate.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
If you honestly believe Obama is going to make any difference at all... I mean, just bend over and get it over with, man. The man has zero concept of economics and what he does have is rooted in mystical Keynesian theory which, as an economic theory, seems about as sensible as rain dancing to address the issue of poor weather.
Are you fucking kidding me? First of all, his circle consists of monetarists and Keynesian economists, and neither are unsensible. Let me guess, you've read a Ron Paul book and the introduction to a Hayek book and now "realize" Austrian is the greatest thing ever.
And again, the President really doesn't have the capability to fix the economy and it's not his job. You can vote for who you think is more beneficial (I'm not convinced with Obama, but McCain's economics knowledge is essentially non-existent) but in reality it comes down to Congress and the Federal Reserve.
Yeah, Hayek... Rothbard, Adams - I've even read Keynes' General Theory, so you can't really accuse me of ignorance. I confess that I'm a physicist by trade and not an economist, but I'm hardly ill read on the subject. And I agree that the President doesn't have the capability to fix the economy, nor is it his job - the problem with guys like Obama is that they seem to think that they can, and that it is. He's also just as corrupt (or at least corruptible) as the rest of them and has no qualms about lying through his teeth and resorting to bait-and-switch campaigning to win.
I agree that the US Congress *in theory* has the power to actually get things done, but let's be honest - when was the last time, aside from the odd anomaly, have you ever seen an American Congressman who wasn't just sucking at the teat of democracy with a thumb up his arse?
On July 16 2008 00:53 Hawk wrote: Rising inflation, ballooning gas rates, soaring cost of flour and other basic necessities, the collapse of the housing market, mortgage loaning companies on the verge of collapse... sounds like we're pretty screwed, huh?
1) we eat rice mostly 2) we rent apartment atm 3) we have little/none mortage, only 1 on car atm
I think my family is at a stable income to not be affected too much. Those of lower income gonna get hit hard imho.
The price of rice has nearly tripled as well...
It used to be at around ~$8 for a 20lb bag on a good day...now they're like $18+ :\
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
On July 17 2008 02:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote: China-USA effect.
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
But yeh we will see what future brings...
So 5 is done in order to completely negate 1~4 and devalue 6?
On July 17 2008 02:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote: China-USA effect.
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
But yeh we will see what future brings...
So 5 is done in order to completely negate 1~4 and devalue 6?
could be, its just a guess. Most likely China will stop lending and rebuild its own country more up to standards.
I am not sure how remimbi (chinese currency) and dollar functions but I heard its fixed rate still to dollar. Because international pressure China might have to release currency (because now its too cheap).
But China won't do that because their economy would go down, so they just keep lending money, but day will come when they want money back...
On July 17 2008 02:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote: China-USA effect.
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
Not really.
1) China's political elite's greed finally outweighs their insecurity and xenophobia. 2) They herd the oppressed peasantry into foreign factories as slave labor (which is actually better treatment than they were receiving before) and rent out the countryside as an industrial toilet. 3) China being China, the domestic profits mostly go into government coffers and the pockets of corrupt officials rather than enterprising businessmen or competent investors. 4) These bozos have no idea what to do with their money, so they pile up what they're receiving in payment: US currency, and it's closest "investment" equivalents: US government bonds and US dollar debt packages.
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
But yeh we will see what future brings...
5.5) China's exports fall, foreign investors pull out, and it's economy crashes. China faces mass starvation and desperately needs money to import food from agricultural powerhouses such as the USA so its people don't revolt. 7) China ends up having to sell long-term securities for pennies on the dollar and spend the money on American corn.
A lot of China "lending" to the USA is actually China buying things like packaged mortgage debts. During a housing bubble. (Not to mention long-term, low interest government bonds during a time of loose monetary policy and high inflation.)
Now what is going to happen to these packaged up mortgage debts? Well, a lot of mortgages are going to foreclose. The houses are going to be sold for well under the mortgage debt. There will be a lot of affordable homes on the US market, and the people who bought the mortgage debts are going to get screwed.
In short, this kind of investment was a big stupid gift of money to American land owners and home builders. The housing bubble was driven in no small part by this kind of naive foreign investment. The banks who made the loans didn't worry about whether the buyers would be able to make their payments, because they were turning around and selling the debts for immediate profit to people who just didn't know any better.
Everyone who's saying, "Oh, the bumbling corrupt lapsed communists who have failed over and over and over again while making grandiose claims of superiority, this time they have it all figured out and are going to win!" is engaging in fantasy. They're the exact same sort of people who believed in communism the first time around.
The USA can survive an end of trade with China with small inconvenience. To China, it would be an economy-destroying disaster. China holds US currency as precious and saves as much as it can for the sake of its own security. The USA has little interest in Chinese currency or assets in China beyond their immediate uses. These things should tell you which country holds the power in that relationship.
On July 17 2008 01:33 InfeSteD[rA] wrote: I am not really worried at all at the moment, because I am young with no debt and work for a really strong company called Wells Fargo. A lot of banks in the country are struggling really bad which make us look really good. In the other hand, It's an awesome time to purchase a home in Utah, because prices stayed stable and they will go back up so I can start building some equity.
A lot of stocks have been going down this past year, and they will go back up for sure when the economy gets back on their feet. I just barely started my 401 K retirement plan, Wells Fargo matches 100% of my contribution each pay check.
I am not really worried I think... Gas prices do worry me though, so expensive zomg! Damn Venezuela
lol, speaking of Wells Fargo, they did manage to post a record high revenue even if net income dropped, opening pretty strong today.
On July 16 2008 09:36 a-game wrote: mahnini at the rate oil's been going up how long do you think it's going to be before renewable energy is profitable? if government just stepped in right now and kickstarted the switch i don't see the risk there at all, it's inevitable that the price of oil is only going to go up unless you kill off a bunch of population. and the price of renewable energy can only go down from where it is now as the technologies become cheaper and more honed.
anyways like others said other than an energy revolution what else will kickstart the economy? world war 3?
EDIT: i'm always open to being informed or politely corrected
I'm going to assume we are talking about replacing gasoline here. There is simply nothing at the moment that could match the infrastructure of the gas market, there are literally gas stations everywhere.
What do you propose the government do to kickstart the adaptation of renewable energies? It's very easy when you put it that way, but you are failing to realize that there are already tons of private companies investing in alternative forms of energy. The problem is not in the intent but the implementation of the idea. You simply cannot, cannot, cannot have the government do something like this without expecting it to take years for any result, not to mention they are already behind the private sector. If global, multi-billion dollar companies cannot find a way to profit off of alternative energies, what chance does a government with zero motivation have?
Subsidies are not inherently bad. Many technologies and industries were born of government subsidies. Jet aircraft developed with military R&D expenditures led to modern commercial airliners. The Internet was the result of publicly funded links among computers in government laboratories and research institutes.
Public support has been important. A study by Norberg-Bohm found that, of 20 key innovations in the past 30 years, only one of the 14 they could source was funded entirely by the private sector and nine were totally public.
check out this report on specifically handling government involvement in energy technology
these lead me to believe that your point is debatable
EDIT: again i'm here to learn as much as anything, so if anyone wants to inform please do. i'm not under any delusions of grandeur here
Subsidies are completely different from actual government intervention in effect. Most government developments are probably the result of government investment into private companies who want some sort of government contract. I'm not completely opposed to that, however, I still maintain that government investment in a creating a new segment in the market for alternative energies is a complete waste of money. If it could be done for profit, it already would have been or is being done.
I don't understand it when people are saying that we're running out of oil.
NO WE'RE NOT.
America has not even actively started pumping their own oil yet. Plus Canada and Venezuela possesses sand oil enough to feed the entire continents for decades. They will start outsourcing from 2010 I think. Also we have technology to extract oil from plastic.
When people are talking about oil crisis, it's never the extinguishment of oil in next 100 years, it's talking about supply not meeting the demands. So get your facts right.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
If you honestly believe Obama is going to make any difference at all... I mean, just bend over and get it over with, man. The man has zero concept of economics and what he does have is rooted in mystical Keynesian theory which, as an economic theory, seems about as sensible as rain dancing to address the issue of poor weather.
Are you fucking kidding me? First of all, his circle consists of monetarists and Keynesian economists, and neither are unsensible. Let me guess, you've read a Ron Paul book and the introduction to a Hayek book and now "realize" Austrian is the greatest thing ever.
And again, the President really doesn't have the capability to fix the economy and it's not his job. You can vote for who you think is more beneficial (I'm not convinced with Obama, but McCain's economics knowledge is essentially non-existent) but in reality it comes down to Congress and the Federal Reserve.
Yeah, Hayek... Rothbard, Adams - I've even read Keynes' General Theory, so you can't really accuse me of ignorance. I confess that I'm a physicist by trade and not an economist, but I'm hardly ill read on the subject. And I agree that the President doesn't have the capability to fix the economy, nor is it his job - the problem with guys like Obama is that they seem to think that they can, and that it is. He's also just as corrupt (or at least corruptible) as the rest of them and has no qualms about lying through his teeth and resorting to bait-and-switch campaigning to win.
I agree that the US Congress *in theory* has the power to actually get things done, but let's be honest - when was the last time, aside from the odd anomaly, have you ever seen an American Congressman who wasn't just sucking at the teat of democracy with a thumb up his arse?
Well, I suppose you should look at the other ways they can affect (not fix) the economy, like war for instance. Which of the two is the bigger war hawk and willing to send us out again? Which of the two seems less likely to support the right types of next-gen fuel (not e85)? Or do you think a gas tax will be beneficial at all?
I don't think any president is going to have much to do with the oil crisis anymore, unless they open up Alaska. It's up to private investors at this point.
From what I've read, Obama has surrounded himself with academics and I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but McCain has surrounded himself with corporate chairs.
I'm worried that if the economy does continue to derail, people will blame the president instead of Congress.
And to the poster above, we are in a recession. Two quarters of negative growth is not the definition the BEA uses. And the Fed is both public and private.
Just an FYI for you guys, 8% return a year anywhere in the period of 02 to 06 isn't good at all. The years between the fallout of 9/11 and the mortgage crisis of the summer of 07 were the best years of the past 2 decades.
Even moderate mutual funds (2/3 equities, 1/3 bonds/fixed income) should have been generating 10% a year (average) over that period.
8% isn't horrible, but it was basically impossible to make less than that during that time period.
On July 17 2008 02:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote: China-USA effect.
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
Not really.
1) China's political elite's greed finally outweighs their insecurity and xenophobia. 2) They herd the oppressed peasantry into foreign factories as slave labor (which is actually better treatment than they were receiving before) and rent out the countryside as an industrial toilet. 3) China being China, the domestic profits mostly go into government coffers and the pockets of corrupt officials rather than enterprising businessmen or competent investors. 4) These bozos have no idea what to do with their money, so they pile up what they're receiving in payment: US currency, and it's closest "investment" equivalents: US government bonds and US dollar debt packages.
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
But yeh we will see what future brings...
5.5) China's exports fall, foreign investors pull out, and it's economy crashes. China faces mass starvation and desperately needs money to import food from agricultural powerhouses such as the USA so its people don't revolt. 7) China ends up having to sell long-term securities for pennies on the dollar and spend the money on American corn.
A lot of China "lending" to the USA is actually China buying things like packaged mortgage debts. During a housing bubble. (Not to mention long-term, low interest government bonds during a time of loose monetary policy and high inflation.)
Now what is going to happen to these packaged up mortgage debts? Well, a lot of mortgages are going to foreclose. The houses are going to be sold for well under the mortgage debt. There will be a lot of affordable homes on the US market, and the people who bought the mortgage debts are going to get screwed.
In short, this kind of investment was a big stupid gift of money to American land owners and home builders. The housing bubble was driven in no small part by this kind of naive foreign investment. The banks who made the loans didn't worry about whether the buyers would be able to make their payments, because they were turning around and selling the debts for immediate profit to people who just didn't know any better.
Everyone who's saying, "Oh, the bumbling corrupt lapsed communists who have failed over and over and over again while making grandiose claims of superiority, this time they have it all figured out and are going to win!" is engaging in fantasy. They're the exact same sort of people who believed in communism the first time around.
The USA can survive an end of trade with China with small inconvenience. To China, it would be an economy-destroying disaster. China holds US currency as precious and saves as much as it can for the sake of its own security. The USA has little interest in Chinese currency or assets in China beyond their immediate uses. These things should tell you which country holds the power in that relationship.
An excellent write up.
I'd like to pose an alternate reality to you
Chinese government nationalizes all holdings in China. Simultaneously they dump their holdings of US Dollars. The Dollar free fall plummets, but the Chinese don't care because they aren't trading with us anymore. They also get more return out of the factories they've just acquired than the loss of the currency. They turn to providing goods to the rest of the planet. They do not fear US military retaliation since a) they have tons of factories b) US currency and economic shock prevents the US from assuming a total war stance with any real vigor c) they're all the way across the Pacific ocean, they have one of the worlds top militaries (including a Navy that is consistently closing the gap with ours), and they can outlast US
On July 17 2008 02:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote: China-USA effect.
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
Not really.
1) China's political elite's greed finally outweighs their insecurity and xenophobia. 2) They herd the oppressed peasantry into foreign factories as slave labor (which is actually better treatment than they were receiving before) and rent out the countryside as an industrial toilet. 3) China being China, the domestic profits mostly go into government coffers and the pockets of corrupt officials rather than enterprising businessmen or competent investors. 4) These bozos have no idea what to do with their money, so they pile up what they're receiving in payment: US currency, and it's closest "investment" equivalents: US government bonds and US dollar debt packages.
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
But yeh we will see what future brings...
5.5) China's exports fall, foreign investors pull out, and it's economy crashes. China faces mass starvation and desperately needs money to import food from agricultural powerhouses such as the USA so its people don't revolt. 7) China ends up having to sell long-term securities for pennies on the dollar and spend the money on American corn.
A lot of China "lending" to the USA is actually China buying things like packaged mortgage debts. During a housing bubble. (Not to mention long-term, low interest government bonds during a time of loose monetary policy and high inflation.)
Now what is going to happen to these packaged up mortgage debts? Well, a lot of mortgages are going to foreclose. The houses are going to be sold for well under the mortgage debt. There will be a lot of affordable homes on the US market, and the people who bought the mortgage debts are going to get screwed.
In short, this kind of investment was a big stupid gift of money to American land owners and home builders. The housing bubble was driven in no small part by this kind of naive foreign investment. The banks who made the loans didn't worry about whether the buyers would be able to make their payments, because they were turning around and selling the debts for immediate profit to people who just didn't know any better.
Everyone who's saying, "Oh, the bumbling corrupt lapsed communists who have failed over and over and over again while making grandiose claims of superiority, this time they have it all figured out and are going to win!" is engaging in fantasy. They're the exact same sort of people who believed in communism the first time around.
The USA can survive an end of trade with China with small inconvenience. To China, it would be an economy-destroying disaster. China holds US currency as precious and saves as much as it can for the sake of its own security. The USA has little interest in Chinese currency or assets in China beyond their immediate uses. These things should tell you which country holds the power in that relationship.
First, they would fall apart from within in if they tried to nationalize everything again. The quality of life would diminish and as history teaches us, rich people (or at least the middle class and up) don't put up with that.
They also still rely heavily on imports and exports, as all modern countries do. If they kill the US dollar, then their exports shrink dramatically and again, people will get poorer. They're still producing far more than they're buying, so they still needs big buyers and none are bigger than Americans.
On July 17 2008 02:58 Too_MuchZerg wrote: China-USA effect.
1) USA buys a lot of chinese products. 2) Chinese now have a lot of money from USA but they need someone to buy those stuff, so 3) they loan USA banks money back (goes to customers eventually) 4) USA gets more and more dept to China
Not really.
1) China's political elite's greed finally outweighs their insecurity and xenophobia. 2) They herd the oppressed peasantry into foreign factories as slave labor (which is actually better treatment than they were receiving before) and rent out the countryside as an industrial toilet. 3) China being China, the domestic profits mostly go into government coffers and the pockets of corrupt officials rather than enterprising businessmen or competent investors. 4) These bozos have no idea what to do with their money, so they pile up what they're receiving in payment: US currency, and it's closest "investment" equivalents: US government bonds and US dollar debt packages.
still to come 5) China releases its currency fully to market, most likely it value goes up 2-3 times and dollar falls 6) China wants money back from USA.
But yeh we will see what future brings...
5.5) China's exports fall, foreign investors pull out, and it's economy crashes. China faces mass starvation and desperately needs money to import food from agricultural powerhouses such as the USA so its people don't revolt. 7) China ends up having to sell long-term securities for pennies on the dollar and spend the money on American corn.
A lot of China "lending" to the USA is actually China buying things like packaged mortgage debts. During a housing bubble. (Not to mention long-term, low interest government bonds during a time of loose monetary policy and high inflation.)
Now what is going to happen to these packaged up mortgage debts? Well, a lot of mortgages are going to foreclose. The houses are going to be sold for well under the mortgage debt. There will be a lot of affordable homes on the US market, and the people who bought the mortgage debts are going to get screwed.
In short, this kind of investment was a big stupid gift of money to American land owners and home builders. The housing bubble was driven in no small part by this kind of naive foreign investment. The banks who made the loans didn't worry about whether the buyers would be able to make their payments, because they were turning around and selling the debts for immediate profit to people who just didn't know any better.
Everyone who's saying, "Oh, the bumbling corrupt lapsed communists who have failed over and over and over again while making grandiose claims of superiority, this time they have it all figured out and are going to win!" is engaging in fantasy. They're the exact same sort of people who believed in communism the first time around.
The USA can survive an end of trade with China with small inconvenience. To China, it would be an economy-destroying disaster. China holds US currency as precious and saves as much as it can for the sake of its own security. The USA has little interest in Chinese currency or assets in China beyond their immediate uses. These things should tell you which country holds the power in that relationship.
An excellent write up.
I'd like to pose an alternate reality to you
Chinese government nationalizes all holdings in China.
Okay, so now they have factories for a lot of third-rate consumer goods, and no customers. gj China
Simultaneously they dump their holdings of US Dollars.
...and they lose their savings for a fraction of their value.
The Dollar free fall plummets, but the Chinese don't care because they aren't trading with us anymore. They also get more return out of the factories they've just acquired than the loss of the currency.
End scenario, begin fantasy.
They turn to providing goods to the rest of the planet.
Trade sanctions. No first world country would do business with them for a decade after they pull that shit.
They do not fear US military retaliation since a) they have tons of factories b) US currency and economic shock prevents the US from assuming a total war stance with any real vigor c) they're all the way across the Pacific ocean, they have one of the worlds top militaries (including a Navy that is consistently closing the gap with ours), and they can outlast US
What then?
The USA suffers some temporary inconvenience, and China regresses to the economic condition it enjoyed in the 1960s.
People really overestimate the power China's dollars give them, to the point of crazy internet conspiracy theory. Even if they dump everything overnight, the main thing that will happen is that they will take a huge loss. Investors would acquire those dollars at a fraction of their value, then store them away as their own savings, and once the dust had settled, it would just have been a huge transfer of wealth away from China to whoever they sold to. It would cause a temporary dip that would mostly hurt their own trade, not a "free fall plummet".
And I described earlier in the thread my opinion of what will happen in the USA in the case of catastrophic dollar inflation. I don't think it would be a bad thing at all in the long term. I think it would be no more than a few months of hand-wringing and belt-tightening, followed by a new and superior system of commerce.
If the situation gets fatal, it won't be long until will see another war to stimulate the economy. Maybe US will bomb Sanfrancisco Bridge this time and blame Taliban for it? Mark my words, this will happen within couple of years if all fails.
While Funchuck's scenario is on the extreme side in terms of the balance of power goes, GeneralStan, yours is another extreme, except it is much farther off from reality. Jibba raised the most obvious and important points, you get away with that when everyone is poor. When you have an emerging middle class and high consuming citizens earning from private industry, the very idea of nationalizing on a scale like that will lead to revolts.
While I don't think that the scenario is as good as Funchuck has described it, for China to even think of attacking America in that way is suicide to them. As an economy that has built much on the export of cheap goods and with America as the main trade partner in mind, the scenario you are describing might as well as be described as kamikaze, except America has a much better infrastructure and economic foundation to take the hit with, whereas China is just starting to catch up. You don't start a war of attrition when you don't have an advantage that will play out in the long run.
1tym, because the war in Iraq has stimulated the economy so much, we want another war?
more worried about the inevitable war with Iran thats right around the corner, personally. Everyday I hear something new about what bullshit they're gonna feed us when it goes down. It's gonna happen.
On July 17 2008 10:59 Ghost151 wrote: more worried about the inevitable war with Iran thats right around the corner, personally. Everyday I hear something new about what bullshit they're gonna feed us when it goes down. It's gonna happen.
On July 17 2008 10:30 1tym wrote: If the situation gets fatal, it won't be long until will see another war to stimulate the economy. Maybe US will bomb Sanfrancisco Bridge this time and blame Taliban for it? Mark my words, this will happen within couple of years if all fails.
On July 17 2008 10:53 Ecael wrote: While Funchuck's scenario is on the extreme side in terms of the balance of power goes, GeneralStan, yours is another extreme, except it is much farther off from reality. Jibba raised the most obvious and important points, you get away with that when everyone is poor. When you have an emerging middle class and high consuming citizens earning from private industry, the very idea of nationalizing on a scale like that will lead to revolts.
While I don't think that the scenario is as good as Funchuck has described it, for China to even think of attacking America in that way is suicide to them. As an economy that has built much on the export of cheap goods and with America as the main trade partner in mind, the scenario you are describing might as well as be described as kamikaze, except America has a much better infrastructure and economic foundation to take the hit with, whereas China is just starting to catch up. You don't start a war of attrition when you don't have an advantage that will play out in the long run.
1tym, because the war in Iraq has stimulated the economy so much, we want another war?
Oh yes trust me I don't know about you but US government certainly does. Have you heard about Operation Northwoods? They don't hesitate to sacrifice some of their own in order to achieve what they think is greater purpose.
On July 17 2008 10:30 1tym wrote: If the situation gets fatal, it won't be long until will see another war to stimulate the economy. Maybe US will bomb Sanfrancisco Bridge this time and blame Taliban for it? Mark my words, this will happen within couple of years if all fails.
On July 16 2008 01:02 iLjh wrote: i'm worried, that's why im voting for obama
and for all of you that are worried also, dont just complain without contributing, if you're over 18 register to vote because we can make a difference
If you honestly believe Obama is going to make any difference at all... I mean, just bend over and get it over with, man. The man has zero concept of economics and what he does have is rooted in mystical Keynesian theory which, as an economic theory, seems about as sensible as rain dancing to address the issue of poor weather.
Are you fucking kidding me? First of all, his circle consists of monetarists and Keynesian economists, and neither are unsensible. Let me guess, you've read a Ron Paul book and the introduction to a Hayek book and now "realize" Austrian is the greatest thing ever.
And again, the President really doesn't have the capability to fix the economy and it's not his job. You can vote for who you think is more beneficial (I'm not convinced with Obama, but McCain's economics knowledge is essentially non-existent) but in reality it comes down to Congress and the Federal Reserve.
Yeah, Hayek... Rothbard, Adams - I've even read Keynes' General Theory, so you can't really accuse me of ignorance. I confess that I'm a physicist by trade and not an economist, but I'm hardly ill read on the subject. And I agree that the President doesn't have the capability to fix the economy, nor is it his job - the problem with guys like Obama is that they seem to think that they can, and that it is. He's also just as corrupt (or at least corruptible) as the rest of them and has no qualms about lying through his teeth and resorting to bait-and-switch campaigning to win.
I agree that the US Congress *in theory* has the power to actually get things done, but let's be honest - when was the last time, aside from the odd anomaly, have you ever seen an American Congressman who wasn't just sucking at the teat of democracy with a thumb up his arse?
Well, I suppose you should look at the other ways they can affect (not fix) the economy, like war for instance. Which of the two is the bigger war hawk and willing to send us out again? Which of the two seems less likely to support the right types of next-gen fuel (not e85)? Or do you think a gas tax will be beneficial at all?
I don't think any president is going to have much to do with the oil crisis anymore, unless they open up Alaska. It's up to private investors at this point.
From what I've read, Obama has surrounded himself with academics and I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but McCain has surrounded himself with corporate chairs.
I'm worried that if the economy does continue to derail, people will blame the president instead of Congress.
And to the poster above, we are in a recession. Two quarters of negative growth is not the definition the BEA uses. And the Fed is both public and private.
Well, I don't see Obama as being any less of a threat in terms of what wars they may start. Obama talks the language of diplomacy but he doesn't convince me for one minute that he means it. He's not even done campaigning and already he's twisting his previous words and changing his tune on Iraq, nevermind Iran. It's a game of good-cop/bad-cop, and although Obama is playing the role of the good-cop, you'd have to be a fool to think his policy decisions will be anything but in line with the unwavering direction of imperialist US foreign policy that has continued for nearly a century now.
It's like Clinton - everyone loved him, but while they were all inspecting his dick for signs of lipstick everyone seemed to miss the fact that he was funding radical Islamic terrorists in Kosovo to fight a proxy war of conquest in the Balkans. Just because the average American is ignorant of this doesn't mean the rest of the world hates the US any less for what they perceive as blatantly obvious acts of aggression - and all under the rule of the "Democratic Saint". Bullshit - Clinton was an imperialst and Obama is one no less.
I don't think the president should be "supporting" alternative fuels at all. It's not his job. He doesn't know enough about it and I fully expect that the academics he surrounds himself with also don't know enough about it. Hell, I'm a professional physicist - my job IS working in alternative energy - I make next-gen flexible, polymer solar cells and, at this point, also being keen on keeping up with other technologies in the industry, I don't think it's possible to predict which energy technologies are going to pay off and which won't. How some Great Decider should have better knowledge than the experts is beyond my comprehension.
The only difference between Obama and McCain is the intent of their reforms, not the means, and my objection is firmly to their means and not their ends. Obama's support comes because the ends he espouses sound more appealing, but the means he intends to use are no different than those used by previous administrations - namely coercion, collusion with industry, and massive interference in the natural development of things, almost always with results counterproductive to the intended goals. By this I mean to say that typical post-Keynesian logic completely ignores praxeological effects. It works like a chess player who never thinks more than one move ahead - the concept of unintended consequences is practically unknown to these people and their policies, more often than not, have unintended consequences of sufficient magnitude to significantly nullify the positive effects of legislation while causing even more problems in the wake of the political collateral damage.
It's like students in France having a bitch of a time to find work because the state decided that employers should not be able to just casually hire and fire employees, but makes it a torturous process to sack a relatively new and unproductive worker. Hire them and you're stuck with them - so nobody hires. Wow. Didn't that help out young people, eh. Or in the UK now young women are finding it very difficult to get work and there are wide reports of recruiters simply binning CVs from women of child-bearing age. This because they are forced to give them paid leave for maternity and nobody wants to hire someone who they will have to support for several years while they raise children. Result? Women go back to the kitchen. Yay progressive government! I could go on - example after example of policies with good intentions and poor judgement f**king up the lives of everyday people on account of some self-righteous god-figure who has the audacity to think that they are intelligent enough and somehow mandated to direct the whole of society.
I quote:
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
--Adam Smith
As for who to blame, yes the Congress certainly deserves a good dose of it, but neither the President nor the Congress can fuck anything up unless they both agree, and if the Democratic Congress has been any indication of the policies which Obama would pursue, then the forecast is dim indeed.
Yes, this is key. Everyone likes to cite the tar sands and very-deep oil, etc, but what everyone seems to forget is that this sort of oil, while plentiful, is very, very expensive to extract.
In the good old days of the Texas oil boom, in the first half of the 20th century, a typical oil well had an EROEI (Eneregy Return Over Energy Invested) of about 30 to 1. This means that the well was full and pumping was easy - you had to use about one barrel of oil to run all of the equipment and do all the work of pumping out thirty barrels of oil. Net profit on one barrel of oil would be 29 barrels of oil. This makes that oil very cheap. The easy oil to pump is also the lightest - the high quality sweet crude that is most valuable for making gasoline and other fuels.
These days most of those oil wells have run dry - US oil production has been in decline since the 1970s as a result. Most wells these days pump at an EROEI of about 10:1, which means, as above, the net energy return on one barrel of oil is now only about nine barrels instead of twenty nine. This deeper oil tends to be heavier crude as well, which means that it can't produce as much refined fuel as a barrel of light crude. Clearly, it is getting harder to get oil out of the ground and, as a result, the price has to go up - especially in light of skyrocketing demand.
Now we consider things like Canada's tar sands and the situation is dire - the EROEI of the tar sands is between 1.5 and maybe 3 to 1, at best, which means the net profit per barrel of oil invested is only about a half to two barrels of oil - not nine and not twenty nine. It's literally squeezing oil out of sand. Imagine trying to do that with water - scoop up huge amounts of sand to squeeze the water out of it. Compare that to pumping it out of a nice, spring fed well - clearly, the former is an act of desperation. Now consider that the oil that comes out of the tar sands is horrible bituminous crap. To even make useful fuel out of it you need to consume huge amounts of natural gas to hydrogenate the excess carbon and that is NOT cheap. The process also consumes huge amounts of water - another commodity soon to be under considerable threat.
In all cases, and so long as you continue to extract oil, the EROEI of each individual well continues on a downward trend, each bucket of oil becoming more difficult to extract, until you reach the point where the EROEI becomes less than 1 - at that point you can continue to extract oil from the well but, critically, you must burn more oil to get it out of the ground than you end up with when you're finished. You would start the morning with a barrel of oil, put it into your machines, and run them all day to end up with 80% of a barrel of oil by the end of the shift. This oil well would produce oil, but it would consume more than it produced, so even though the oil is there in the ground there is no way to get it out.
I guess the point is, as you say, that all oil is not created equal. We have lots of oil, but it is very labour intensive to extract and is impossible to make anywhere near as cheaply as in the golden days of beautiful light crude just bubbling out of the ground.
On July 17 2008 06:23 1tym wrote: I don't understand it when people are saying that we're running out of oil.
NO WE'RE NOT.
America has not even actively started pumping their own oil yet. Plus Canada and Venezuela possesses sand oil enough to feed the entire continents for decades. They will start outsourcing from 2010 I think. Also we have technology to extract oil from plastic.
When people are talking about oil crisis, it's never the extinguishment of oil in next 100 years, it's talking about supply not meeting the demands. So get your facts right.
Heh, if you think gas costs are high now, wait until shale oil (which the vast majority of the oil on American soil is, and which is still too expensive to drill and process) is the only type available. It'll be effectively used just to keep the industry going, not for consumers.
On July 17 2008 06:23 1tym wrote: I don't understand it when people are saying that we're running out of oil.
NO WE'RE NOT.
America has not even actively started pumping their own oil yet. Plus Canada and Venezuela possesses sand oil enough to feed the entire continents for decades. They will start outsourcing from 2010 I think. Also we have technology to extract oil from plastic.
When people are talking about oil crisis, it's never the extinguishment of oil in next 100 years, it's talking about supply not meeting the demands. So get your facts right.
Heh, if you think gas costs are high now, wait until shale oil (which the vast majority of the oil on American soil is, and which is still too expensive to drill and process) is the only type available. It'll be effectively used just to keep the industry going, not for consumers.
I never mentioned any cost nor affordability, I stated simple fact that we're not running out of oil, literally.
Since you've mentioned it, I believe that demand creates technology. We've come long way with oil production, evolving from primary to secondary to tertiary recovery, aka Enhenced Oil Recovery which could allow up to 30~60% of original oil.
Canada and Venezuela alone at the moment posseses tar sand almost equivalent to total conventional crude oil reservoir, not to mention US, EMEA and Russia. Canada's tar sand oil production now takes up about 50% of the entire Canadian oil production. There are talks of Countries like India investing up to 10 billion US dollars in Canadian tar sand industry, and Korea has recently purchased rights to extract 35,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 25 years beginning 2010. Sure there will be initial sturggle and hurdle, but it will only be a matter of time until the whole process stabilizes. Some argue that we have already deployed a system where we can profitably and affordabily extract and distribute oil from the sand.
Don't underestimate the power of human technology.
I add as a caveat to this video that I personally think monetary inflation is only part of the story, but it's a very important and significant part of the story nevertheless.
On July 17 2008 06:23 1tym wrote: I don't understand it when people are saying that we're running out of oil.
NO WE'RE NOT.
America has not even actively started pumping their own oil yet. Plus Canada and Venezuela possesses sand oil enough to feed the entire continents for decades. They will start outsourcing from 2010 I think. Also we have technology to extract oil from plastic.
When people are talking about oil crisis, it's never the extinguishment of oil in next 100 years, it's talking about supply not meeting the demands. So get your facts right.
Heh, if you think gas costs are high now, wait until shale oil (which the vast majority of the oil on American soil is, and which is still too expensive to drill and process) is the only type available. It'll be effectively used just to keep the industry going, not for consumers.
I never mentioned any cost nor affordability, I stated simple fact that we're not running out of oil, literally.
Since you've mentioned it, I believe that demand creates technology. We've come long way with oil prodcution, evolving from primary to secondary to tertiary recovery, aka Enhenced Oil Recovery which could allow up to 30~60% of original oil.
Canada and Venezuela alone at the moment posseses tar sand almost equivalent to total conventional crude oil reservoir, not to mention US, EMEA and Russia. Canada's tar sand oil production now takes up about 50% of the entire Canadian oil production. There are talks of Countries like India investing up to 10 billion US dollars in Canadian tar sand industry, and Korea has recently purchased rights to extract 35,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 25 years beginning 2010. Sure there will be initial sturggle and hurdle, but it will only be a matter of time until the whole process stabilizes. Some argue that we have already deployed a system where we can profitably and affordabily extract and distribute oil from the sand.
Don't underestimate the power of human technology.
I just don't think its worth the effort or technology to try to squeeze blood from a rock when investing in another form of energy will allow us to do away witht he worry of ever running out of fuel.
On July 17 2008 06:23 1tym wrote: I don't understand it when people are saying that we're running out of oil.
NO WE'RE NOT.
America has not even actively started pumping their own oil yet. Plus Canada and Venezuela possesses sand oil enough to feed the entire continents for decades. They will start outsourcing from 2010 I think. Also we have technology to extract oil from plastic.
When people are talking about oil crisis, it's never the extinguishment of oil in next 100 years, it's talking about supply not meeting the demands. So get your facts right.
Heh, if you think gas costs are high now, wait until shale oil (which the vast majority of the oil on American soil is, and which is still too expensive to drill and process) is the only type available. It'll be effectively used just to keep the industry going, not for consumers.
I never mentioned any cost nor affordability, I stated simple fact that we're not running out of oil, literally.
Since you've mentioned it, I believe that demand creates technology. We've come long way with oil prodcution, evolving from primary to secondary to tertiary recovery, aka Enhenced Oil Recovery which could allow up to 30~60% of original oil.
Canada and Venezuela alone at the moment posseses tar sand almost equivalent to total conventional crude oil reservoir, not to mention US, EMEA and Russia. Canada's tar sand oil production now takes up about 50% of the entire Canadian oil production. There are talks of Countries like India investing up to 10 billion US dollars in Canadian tar sand industry, and Korea has recently purchased rights to extract 35,000 barrels of oil per day for the next 25 years beginning 2010. Sure there will be initial sturggle and hurdle, but it will only be a matter of time until the whole process stabilizes. Some argue that we have already deployed a system where we can profitably and affordabily extract and distribute oil from the sand.
Don't underestimate the power of human technology.
I just don't think its worth the effort or technology to try to squeeze blood from a rock when investing in another form of energy will allow us to do away witht he worry of ever running out of fuel.
I wish it was that simple.. No one with right mind would regard Tar sand nor plastic oil as permanent answer to replacing fuel.
However, we need to buy time. We all realise plan A, another form of energy is the way to go, but with current technology it's just not feasible. It's time consuming and risky business. We implement plan B, which is relatively safer and easier to adopt, which will allow us more time to research and analyse, and then there will be phased implementation of plan A.
I won't go into too much detail, but some of the possible answers to Petroleum; Bio-diesel, Bio-ethanol, and hydrogen is not a feasible answer to petrol with current technology, To mention a few, for Bio-diesel production we would need a land size of a 370,000,000 hectares only planting sunflower seeds and rape. I'll leave it to your imagination how big that is.
According to Minnesota University's research, even if the entire corns from corn field in US was made into ethanol, it would only make up to 12% of current fuel usage in US. Not to mention there will not be any corns for consumption.
If we're to use Brazillian sugar cane, we require something like 320,000,000 hectares of land. Note that the entire farming field in Brazil is about 60,000,000 hectres.
Both electronic and hydrogenic charged car relies on electric motor. The difference is electronic car is charged by simply putting the plug into consent and re-charges whereas the latter charges by opposite of the theory you learnt back in high school -> H20 electronically dissected into O2 and H. Oxygen is abundunt so it's not a problem, but what about hydrogen? There are number of techniques, one is water and the other is hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbon is extracted through fossil fuel - which will ultimately lead to extintion of the another type of resource.
One other method mentioned, which is to electronically segregating (can't think of better term) the water. Do you see the irony? You dissect the water, and create oxygen and hydrogen, and put that hydrogen back in to create water and electricity. It would circulate, but the problem is that the energy required to segregate oxygen and hydrogen is 3 times more than what the hydrogenic motor would eventually generate.
To generate 1kg worth of hydrogen, we need something like 65kWh. To accompany the demand of this energy just in Great Britain alone, it would require something like 90,000 wind power generators more than 100M tall.
As I said I believe demand creates technology, and over time we will be coming up with more effective and stable plan. We just need some time.
to add to your point about biofuels 1tym, even non-edible fuel crops would still be taking up massive fieldspace that could be used for foods right? sounds pretty unethical to me
they change the debt of "illions" from "m" to "b" to "t" so rapidly, it's like a desensitization scheme. don't expect quads and quints to be far away if we don't stop all this spending, borrowing and then printing (inflating) the dollar. restraining the government from doing what it's not supposed to be doing would prevent so many problems...
fun fact. the FED created 3 trillion dollars since 2005.
you think that kind of inflation won't debase the currency or drive prices up? but noo... it's a magical mysterious cause, that just happens accidentally. the FED is a benevolent, wise, and altruistic institution that doesn't operate for private profits and they know best how to solve the inflation problem: with more inflation.
But apparently, unless you devote your life to a subject, you don't have any right to question. "what? how dare you disagree, do you have an economics degree? oh you do? are you the head of a bank? oh you are? are you ben bernanke. right. so shut up."
it's not hard to understand inflation. everyone understnads counterfeiting. and when theres more money created, it circulates, and when people receive it, they perceive it as increased demand, and as the ripples of this extra money floats around, the laws of supply and demand will say that prices will increase. but KEY is that it increases in a ripple fashion, with the movement of the new credit. who benefits most? the ones who get to use it first, before prices increase.
another fun fact: the FED has printed and expanded the credit via straight up printing as well as the fractional reserve system, since it's birth, the amount of currency has increased more than 25 times in a century.
5 cents used to equal a dollar.
and i've been watching the great brainy anime akagi (about mahjong), in which whenever money is mentioned, they always correct for inflation. i.e "back then, 100,000 yen would be equivalent to presently 1,000,000 yen"
look at other currencies, and always, the past is always worth more than the present. governments never reduce their size and power on their own, as ronald reagan said. the temptation to print money is quite hard to resist. proof? say you had a money printing machine, and funds are tight. i'll give you a million bucks if you can resist. oh wait, you can just print it xp. it's not a magical mystery. they're printing more money, and the poorest and the last to spend lose their purchasing power, while the ones who spend it first gain. if they taxed you 90%, there would be an outrage. but if they spread the tax with direct taxing combined with the more subtle tax, printing, most people will think of the abstract, and not fully understood concept of "the economy" rather than "the government is taking all the fruits of our labor!"
On July 18 2008 03:28 crabapple wrote: they change the debt of "illions" from "m" to "b" to "t" so rapidly, it's like a desensitization scheme. don't expect quads and quints to be far away if we don't stop all this spending, borrowing and then printing (inflating) the dollar. restraining the government from doing what it's not supposed to be doing would prevent so many problems...
fun fact. the FED created 3 trillion dollars since 2005.
you think that kind of inflation won't debase the currency or drive prices up? but noo... it's a magical mysterious cause, that just happens accidentally. the FED is a benevolent, wise, and altruistic institution that doesn't operate for private profits and they know best how to solve the inflation problem: with more inflation.
But apparently, unless you devote your life to a subject, you don't have any right to question. "what? how dare you disagree, do you have an economics degree? oh you do? are you the head of a bank? oh you are? are you ben bernanke. right. so shut up."
it's not hard to understand inflation. everyone understnads counterfeiting. and when theres more money created, it circulates, and when people receive it, they perceive it as increased demand, and as the ripples of this extra money floats around, the laws of supply and demand will say that prices will increase. but KEY is that it increases in a ripple fashion, with the movement of the new credit. who benefits most? the ones who get to use it first, before prices increase.
another fun fact: the FED has printed and expanded the credit via straight up printing as well as the fractional reserve system, since it's birth, the amount of currency has increased more than 25 times in a century.
5 cents used to equal a dollar.
and i've been watching the great brainy anime akagi (about mahjong), in which whenever money is mentioned, they always correct for inflation. i.e "back then, 100,000 yen would be equivalent to presently 1,000,000 yen"
look at other currencies, and always, the past is always worth more than the present. governments never reduce their size and power on their own, as ronald reagan said. the temptation to print money is quite hard to resist. proof? say you had a money printing machine, and funds are tight. i'll give you a million bucks if you can resist. oh wait, you can just print it xp. it's not a magical mystery. they're printing more money, and the poorest and the last to spend lose their purchasing power, while the ones who spend it first gain. if they taxed you 90%, there would be an outrage. but if they spread the tax with direct taxing combined with the more subtle tax, printing, most people will think of the abstract, and not fully understood concept of "the economy" rather than "the government is taking all the fruits of our labor!"
it's an invisible tax.
im too busy with my exams to really answer you, but you are hilarious!
On July 18 2008 04:17 jgad wrote: ^ his diatribe is canned, sure, but moral hazard is still a serious issue that really is not spoken of in any sort of public circle.
Well, insurance companies don't quite work without having at least some study of it. Not a topic we see in every day economics talk, though.
By canned, you mean copied from somewhere? I could swear I've seen the same exact sermon before, on TL no less...or that all these rants look the same :p
EDIT - Rereading it, he actually doesn't mention any reason that should be a problem, so nevermind, it probably isn't the same sermon. The sky might still be falling though.
I'm not worried at all, cause its an unstoppable process. George W. completely screwed the macro situation and kind of destroyed all the profits of the B.C.'s contra-recession policy, not to mention that the Bank of China is not binded to the dollar anymore
On July 18 2008 04:17 jgad wrote: ^ his diatribe is canned, sure, but moral hazard is still a serious issue that really is not spoken of in any sort of public circle.
Well, insurance companies don't quite work without having at least some study of it. Not a topic we see in every day economics talk, though.
By canned, you mean copied from somewhere? I could swear I've seen the same exact sermon before, on TL no less...or that all these rants look the same :p
EDIT - Rereading it, he actually doesn't mention any reason that should be a problem, so nevermind, it probably isn't the same sermon. The sky might still be falling though.
crabapple = gwho
gwho got banned for making another Zeitgeist thread I think.
The U.S economy is absolutely screwed. In fact it has been due for a serious recession for more then a decade these days. They got around this by using monetary policy. This basically means that when the economy slows you put interest rates down so people borrow and spend borrow and spend and the economy speeds back up again. Now using this policy as a short run tool to deal with fluctuations in the business cycle is fine but if the problem fundamentally is long run then the downturn will happen again and again until that problem is solved.
The consequence of this is that if you actually look at interest rates in the US over about 20 years you see that they go down then up, down further then up, down further than up. A clear downward trend is apparent. This is because as you use expansionary monetary policy your level of debt rises as people borrow more. Thus when you need to use expansionary monetary policy again you need even lower rates to have the same effect as people are less willing to take on debt. Also more and more money is going to repay that debt so another slow down is even more likely. You will inevitably come to a point where your rates are effectively 0 and thus you cannot lower them further Japan had this for some time in the 90's and there are analysts today who think that the US may see a 0% cash rate by next year.
What is the actual underlying problem that is causing this? Well it is basically just a fundamental weakness in the demand side of the economy. It is the foreseeable consequence of the incompetence of the Bush administrations economic policy's who sped the process up significantly, but it is a process which has been continuing for decades. There are two ways which this weakness in demand occurs the first is Federal expenditure. Take for example a dollar given in education expenditure, that dollar gets spend on repairing a roof, it goes into the pocket of the maintenance worker who intern spends it at the super marker. The money cycles through the economy. If you take that dollar from education and give it in a tax cut to the rich it ends up in a Liechtenstein bank account (the infamous bush tax cuts did this, Mcain says he will keep them Obama says he wont, this i think is possibly the most important aspect of the election in my opinion). Or invested in China or so on. In short it does not cycle through the US economy.
This is all done under the principle of 'Supply side economics' this basically means give as much money as you possibly can to the rich. The rich then spend it on the big things like factories and the money trickles down. Well this can theoretically work but in practice it does not as it is invested where return is highest, China India and so on. That money is forever lost to the American people and their economy.
Another factor is Laizes faire which basically means fairs fair, if your a worker getting $3 an hours that's what you deserve. Paying your workers poorly again equates to weakness in demand and thus weakness in the economy over all.
The solution to this problem is quite simple all you have to do is good old fashion expansionary fiscal policy just like what brought us out of the great depression. Using real government spending on heath care, education, social security and so on to boost the economy. But when your running the biggest budget deficit in the history of mankind it is difficult to increase spending like this. It must be payed for through tax increases but not to the people but to corporations who effectively do not pay any tax, and taxes to the rich. These guys are so rich a small increase is all that's needed.
Problems in financial markets are blamed on poor market regulation and while this is to an extent true it was the weakness of the economy which caused this. The problem basically is that the poor have grown too poor, it is no coincidence that the part of the financial system that started this collapse is that which lends to poor people. All the financial markets have done is make the problem may be happen much much faster and spread all around the globe in a heart beat.
While the US economy could easily be fixed and quite quickly the policy makers have thus far not only done nothing beneficial but actually taken steps which may make matters worse,(If you do something and it doesn't work do it EVEN MORE that's the solution) but they wont make it better. American may well need to brace themselves for a deep recession lasting the better part of a decade, they are long overdue. The price of oil is coincidental to this but it will only make matters worse.
To BottleAbuser yeah something like that but its effect in terms of economic policy is basically as i described. Id also like to point out another thing which has in my opinion screwed the US over and that is that they have effectively maintained a total war economy since around 1941, now they said we will win the cold war because the Soviets will go broke first, and they were right but they apparently did not consider the fact that if they maintain a total war economy they will go broke second. This is to a large extend why the US is going broke today. Further more i see people talking about how this isnt that bad and they arent worried and so on well let me just point out that while i predict a relatively small slow down in the US then a recovery followed by a deep recession lasting a decade or so after that i will also point out that if the price of oil continues to rise. Which it will, this will lead to a global recession and also massive stagflation. This will feel very similar to the great depression but the great depression was much simpler to solve all you gotta do is expansionary fiscal policy. This time all you gotta do is completely restructure the global economy from the ground up. And as oil pushes inflation higher and higher any given nations capacity to actually make these changes quickly dries up. In the depression there was no realistic chance of downfall of global civilization this time however if we don't play our cards right we could quickly end up in the dark ages and that's not even to mention climate change. Going around saying that oil is not running out, and running around spending all your money on defense and threatening nations who have done nothing to you and effectively telling Russia and China that Americas gonna take oil by force if necessary only makes matters more difficult to solve becuase really you can do one of two things you can restructure your economy painfully from the ground up, or you can fight ww3 the US is sending the clear signal they want war and Russia and China have no say in the matter they have no choice but to spend huge amounts on defence (defence spending in China and Russia doubles every 3-4 years). Keep a close eye on the price of oil, when it passes $200 a barrel know that we could literally over the space of a week see the collapse of the global economy you no doubt think i'm over dramatising this and so on well i wish that was the case but whatever. Ill just be thankful that i live in Australia, then ill go have a bbq, drink some beer play some Starcraft and watch the news, laughing all the while at the folly of mankind. And by the way i'm actually quite optimistic about all of this Crisis is a catalyst for change, our job is to do our best to make that change for the better. At the end of the day whatever will happen shall happen so we might as well not worry.
^ Thus the ultimate failure of the Keynesian ideology. Both sides of the debate you've presented are both predicated on the idea that, through sufficient knob-twiddling and micromanagement, a single body can somehow regulate an entire economy. Be it supply side economics that wants to funnel money into the pockets of the rich, or demand side that wants to drop helicopters of money onto people, the ultimate premise is the same - the central authority believes itself competent to operate the business of the entire nation by means of wealth redistribution. But nevermind tax cuts - consider the Fed itself. Its continued willingness to bail out irresponsible investors is nothing less than subsidising the snake-oil salesman. An entire industry of bankers created huge piles of mortgages they knew to be worthless and sold them off in such a deliberately obfuscated manner that one is forced to conclude that they were acutely aware of the swindle they were pulling.
But did any of them go to prison?
Were any of their assets seized to pay their debts?
Did they have to face up to the consequences of their actions?
No - because the Fed is all too happy to be the insulator between risk and rich assholes. What does he care? All he has to do is shave the coins of the commoners and pass on the winnings to his rich asshole friends. If you or I tried to pull anything like the banks did with the MBS scandal we would be put in prison for fraud and probably a host of other accessory charges. But these guys just get away with it. The problem isn't so much who is or isn't giving money to whom - it's a problem of corruption and fundamental justice. The man behind the curtain is robbing shit blind and putting on a lame pantomime of evening-news politics to explain it all away.
Central planning is essentially doing to the US what Mussolini and Hitler did in their respective regimes. Massive debt is being paid for by inflation to fuel the huge military-industrial complex. This is essentially fascism, but done with a sleight of hand that cleverly disguises its mechanism. Rather than use an iron fist to take the peoples' wealth and direct it into the national war machine, these guys can just move numbers around on ledgers and *poof*, suddenly another five percent of the nations efforts are being expended in the military sector. When you can print the money the sky's the limit. Society is no longer a thing to be regulated by general principles and the collective disinterest, but a pawn of the Great Leader to be put to work towards whatever ends said leader chooses.
But when did this happen? Whatever happened to life, liberty, and equality? Whatever happened to individual freedom - the right to live your life as you see fit and employ your capitals to achieve your own goals? When did being a citizen in a free country become being a slave to a self-righteous gang of oligarchs? History is pretty consistent on this matter - when such men gain concentrated power then corruption goes nuts and everything gets fucked, and all because nobody else has the power and intelligence to stop them.
But so long as we're happy to continue debating Obama vs McCain or supply-side vs demand-side, then nothing is ever going to change. Sit back, debate the morsels which have been fed to you, and otherwise be quiet while these gangsters rob the world blind - that's exactly what everyone has been doing since the bankers bought up all the significant news organisations in 1917, and the same scam has been working ever since. The people need to start putting these white-collar criminal cocksuckers in prison rather than electing them to various offices of supreme ultimate power. And it's not just a matter of one President - you'd have to systematically comb through the entire government/banking/corporate structure and root out a huge chunk of the network of colluding parties. Organised criminals have taken over and it's up to the people to grow some balls and put an end to this protection-money style racket because I absolutely guarantee you that an elected official is not going to change the system in a million years. It would be like waiting for a dragon to slay itself.
Well ofcourse what your saying is largely true. Ill point out that while command economic policies in Germany and others ultimately were used to fuel the war machine the general people did also feel significantly benefit to this economic surge, further more command economic policies are not inherintly used for war they may be used for the betterment of people generally and this is really what needs to be done to create significant change.
With regard to bailing out risk taking investors well this is a bad thing to do as it effectively instills risk taking within the fabric of your system with terrible consequences but the government and fed are basically stuck if you don't bail them up then the system collapses and causes serious problems in its own right. Now the woeful state of the US economy which is as you note largely because nobody has the power or intelligence to stop them. Well the US were very wise in creating this system. On the one hand you have a poor education system so people have no clue whats actually going on, and on the other hand you have a terrible media which basically tells people nothing worth hearing, thus the people are easy to push around as you see fit.
Another fundamental problem in American society is this attitude that its the land of opportunity is you try hard enough you will become rich, thus if you aren't rich then that is your own fault and why should the rich help you out. Thus the poor give the least assistance to their people than any other western country since the french revolution.
The problem is that the system created by the rich for their greedy self benefit relies upon the economic system for their prosperity just like everyone else. If you want to take from the poor and give to the rich or vice versa that's fine its a value judgment. But if you push this too far (in either direction) then the system becomes unsustainable and begins to collapse. We are seeing this collapse in action. Perhaps the powers that be are wise enough to see this and take steps to rectify it but don't hold your breath. As you comment no elected official will change the system they simply cannot. Its the rich who pay for their election campaign and thus they must do as the rich tell them too.
Frankly a collapse in the US is a long time coming and its hard to say they don't deserve it, but of course it is the poor who suffer the most and they have done nothing to deserve this really.
Choros, I think you're making a couple of incorrect assumptions. The economic polarity is not nearly as great in America as you seem to believe and it's improving, not getting worse. Rich people don't stick their money in banks, they invest it wherever it is profitable. Sometimes it's China or India or South Korea, but much of it is also back into the US. Look at what T. Boone Pickens just bought up or what Berkshire Hathaway is investing in.
Blame the media and American education? It's a convenient excuse, but the media isn't that poor, especially when it comes to money, and please call me when Australian grade schools teach macroeconomics.
Part of the difficulty is that contractionary policy would be devastating to the public at the moment and the Fed is just trying to keep things stable. Bush's off shore drilling lift may actually be a saving grace when it kicks in, if Congress keeps vying for stimulus packages. I'm not sure how the rich and greedy are at fault for "designing the system" (aside from the fact that educated politicians and economists are wealthy, but not super wealthy), when laisse faire would be much more beneficial to them.
We expect the lives of our children to be better than our own, and we've gotten careless in searching for that end, combined with some terrible spending by our government causing uncertainty and collapses.
Its the rich who pay for their election campaign and thus they must do as the rich tell them too.
Whether you believe he will be a good candidate or not, about half of Obama's donations have come from small, first time donations of under $200.
jgad, central planning is also what Japan and South Korea did in the 1970s and 1990s, respectively. It can be both good and bad, so there is no way to know the right answer ahead of time. The Fed operates on a pretty long delay which is the cause of many of their problems, but I don't think this is backroom politics to make the rich richer. Expansionary policies improves the lives of current and near future citizens.
Well you make some valid points including one that i make myself. I did economics in high school and thought it the best economics course i have done so far (i'm doing economics at university) but hardly anyone actually does economics i think it would be far more beneficial to people than English (our final year compulsory subject) so when the press and politicians talk about economics they can have some idea when its accurate and when it simply is not. When i blame the media a problem that the US and Australia share (though you gotta admit your media has some serious issues tho) and i'm assuming most of the rest of the world also has it as well. Your mainstream audience generally don't understand economics so why even mention it in depth at all. There are media sources in Australia who do talk about such things and they may be in the United States also but the fact is that as long as the main stream media offers effectively no real economic discussion at all it will remain a hinderence to effective economic policy.
With regard to Obama i am in fact aware that a lot of his donations come from small sources and thank god for that too, perhaps there is hope yet. I have no idea really how competent he will be its very difficult to hear policy amongst the rhetoric but one thing i have heard is that he will cancel the bush tax cuts. Very important, if your gonna have a war and jack up expenditures fine but you do not give tax cuts out at the same time its just stupidity, traditionally taxes would rise.
With regard to spending of rich being ineffectual your right they don't just put it in banks but it is vare indeed that profitability in the United States would outway oportunity in the boom towns of Asian and even eastern Europe and South America. Just say 50% of rich investment went into the US that is still a long shot from the near 100% which would result from increases in expenditure on services, capital works, welfare and so on if that money was in federal hands (and spend properly). Or if it was in the hands of workers in Australia the minimum wage for workers is something like $14 and hour, in Canada its around 8ish varies from province to province in the United States it also varies according to state but the highest is 8 right down to no minimum at all. This is why you have people working for $5 an hour dubbed the working poor. How did this come to past well largely because the US successfully de-unionized and while i'm sure some unions still remain well they do not really have any power. Thus poor wages hurting demand and standard of living. I dunno if you are saying laisse faire is good but it certainly is not.
Also ill point out that while economists design the tools used in economic policy i.e reserve banks fiscal policy etc it is not they who have created the US system but the 'real' rich who's faces never grace our television sets.
Any economic policy you care to mention will work some times and not work other times, we can learn from the past to make educated guesses about the effect that will have and although we can never know for sure well such is life we must do as best we can with what we have, The main point about macroeconomic policy in the United States is simply that monetary policy will not work in this instance, American debt is far too high for people to seriously consider taking on more debt. Thus the only real thing to do now is expansionary fiscal policies i never ment to say they should be contractionary maybe there was a typo or something and as long as the economic managers try to rely on monetary policy the situation will deteriorate. In Australia we have a serious problem where our reserve bank is doing contractionary policy when its inappropriate.
We are in a very bad situation for reserve bankers world wide right now however because as the economy slips requiring expansionary policy, inflation is rising too requiring contractionary policy. The result is this kind of limbo, the Federal reserve doesn't really seem to know what to do neither does our own reserve bank in Australia. What must be done is significantly expansionary policies this is the only way we can overcome our infrastructure bottlenecks and capacity constraints in Australia and fundamental weakness in demand in the US this will cause inflation to rise in the short term but hey this is why they call economics the dismal science.
On July 19 2008 13:56 Choros wrote: Well ofcourse what your saying is largely true. Ill point out that while command economic policies in Germany and others ultimately were used to fuel the war machine the general people did also feel significantly benefit to this economic surge, further more command economic policies are not inherintly used for war they may be used for the betterment of people generally and this is really what needs to be done to create significant change.
I disagree with that entirely, and on almost every level. I don't think economic fascism is the road to prosperity - it creates change alright, and, in the case of modern governments, ostensibly for this ill-defined "public good" (whatever that is), I will give you that. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the Fascist nations of the early 20th century were anything but dystopian nightmares. It's like trying to make an argument for communism by pointing to the economic collapse of Russia post-capitalism, I think. Both are examples of how commanded change was central to the the failures of the state. The benevolent dictator is a fantasy, or at best a transient rarity so scarce that to build a nation on a system of government which relied on conferring absolute power to some such dictator is obvious foolishness.
The problem is that this concept of "the betterment of people" is incredibly subjective. Better for whom? Human endeavour is incredibly complex - there's not just one state of "better" that everyone can agree on, and yet in a command economy you, ipso facto, have to pick a direction to improve society in. The US suffers particularly from this general sense of "Something's got to be done, we all agree", but at the same time nobody can typically agree what that something is. Hakek called it like a group of people convinced that they need to go on vacation together, but who can't agree on where to go. Everyone ends up going where most people probably didn't want to end up. Tough luck. I mean, a dictator sounds like a great idea when he shares your goals and ideals, but no matter what those are the decisions will have to be arbitrary. It's an affront to the concept of fundametal justice - something I'd think actually would be on the list of things common to "the public good".
With regard to bailing out risk taking investors well this is a bad thing to do as it effectively instills risk taking within the fabric of your system with terrible consequences but the government and fed are basically stuck if you don't bail them up then the system collapses and causes serious problems in its own right. Now the woeful state of the US economy which is as you note largely because nobody has the power or intelligence to stop them. Well the US were very wise in creating this system. On the one hand you have a poor education system so people have no clue whats actually going on, and on the other hand you have a terrible media which basically tells people nothing worth hearing, thus the people are easy to push around as you see fit.
Well, exactly - this whole fiasco is the product of command-economy thinking and I cite it as direct support of the above. I mean, if you're happy with rich criminals stealing with impunity then I guess it may be your idea of a utopian future, and I grant you the right to that, but I think that's probably such a unique fetish that I'm sure you can see how forcing an entire nation to operate under it "for the public good" is not the way to go. To do good in the public name the power of money creation was casually granted to these people with little consideration for the consequences and now how do you get it back? Not screwing things up means needing to recognise bad sitations **before** they happen. It's already too late for the McCain/Obama election - the time has passed and society failed the test once again, predictably gravitating towards the intended candidates instead of exercising their brains.
Another fundamental problem in American society is this attitude that its the land of opportunity is you try hard enough you will become rich, thus if you aren't rich then that is your own fault and why should the rich help you out. Thus the poor give the least assistance to their people than any other western country since the french revolution.
This is because people like to again confuse concepts. If it was a truly free society then, yes, I would absolutely agree with the statement that you are what you make of yourself, but the US, and most all other countries, are not free countries. Far from it. It is in fact this monumental intereference in the economic activities of their citizens that is largely responsible for this poverty. Taxes, licences, fees, forms, registrations, reporting - a hundred miles of red tape suffocates a normal person attempting to take up enterprise for themselves and otherwise the economic rules are rigged in favour of old money. The land of opportunity nonsense is just another (albeit old) tired propaganda line - it pulls on the classic sense of nationalism to essentially justify an unjust system and then audaciously does so by citing the very virtues of a free society whose removal it is intended to disguise. It's the goof of all time.
The problem is that the system created by the rich for their greedy self benefit relies upon the economic system for their prosperity just like everyone else. If you want to take from the poor and give to the rich or vice versa that's fine its a value judgment. But if you push this too far (in either direction) then the system becomes unsustainable and begins to collapse. We are seeing this collapse in action. Perhaps the powers that be are wise enough to see this and take steps to rectify it but don't hold your breath. As you comment no elected official will change the system they simply cannot. Its the rich who pay for their election campaign and thus they must do as the rich tell them too.
By the rich for the rich - I won't disagree with that, but wealth redistribution on top of that is just the nail in the coffin, imo. If the rich can't be trusted with the money supply, what makes you think they should be trusted to redistribute wealth in any sort of equitable way, if such a thing is even possible? Surely once you put the power of monetary creation AND wealth redistribution out there you are handing the world away on a silver plate.
If you want to take from the poor and give to the rich or vice versa that's fine its a value judgment.
I wouldn't say it's a value judgement at all - it's demonstrably unjust. I think there's an illusion, however, that social welfare programs are an act of compassion or giving - they're not. By means of their monetary powers the rich are stealing more from the poor BY FAR than the poor are getting back in socialist measures. The net effect of this system is that the rich take all and then ration out what *they* feel people deserve. Socialism is not compassion - it just tugs at the heartstrings of the naive until they're so emotionally worked up they can't tell giving from taking.
Frankly a collapse in the US is a long time coming and its hard to say they don't deserve it, but of course it is the poor who suffer the most and they have done nothing to deserve this really.
jgad, central planning is also what Japan and South Korea did in the 1970s and 1990s, respectively. It can be both good and bad, so there is no way to know the right answer ahead of time. The Fed operates on a pretty long delay which is the cause of many of their problems, but I don't think this is backroom politics to make the rich richer. Expansionary policies improves the lives of current and near future citizens.
I won't argue that it's an effective way to get something done, but there are very clear social and economic controls in South Korea and Japan that would, even considering Starcraft, would preclude me ever wanting to move there and live there. I don't think that central planning is ever the best solution - it's always *a* solution, of course.
On July 20 2008 00:23 Choros wrote: Well you make some valid points including one that i make myself. I did economics in high school and thought it the best economics course i have done so far (i'm doing economics at university) but hardly anyone actually does economics i think it would be far more beneficial to people than English (our final year compulsory subject) so when the press and politicians talk about economics they can have some idea when its accurate and when it simply is not. When i blame the media a problem that the US and Australia share (though you gotta admit your media has some serious issues tho) and i'm assuming most of the rest of the world also has it as well. Your mainstream audience generally don't understand economics so why even mention it in depth at all. There are media sources in Australia who do talk about such things and they may be in the United States also but the fact is that as long as the main stream media offers effectively no real economic discussion at all it will remain a hinderence to effective economic policy.
With regard to Obama i am in fact aware that a lot of his donations come from small sources and thank god for that too, perhaps there is hope yet. I have no idea really how competent he will be its very difficult to hear policy amongst the rhetoric but one thing i have heard is that he will cancel the bush tax cuts. Very important, if your gonna have a war and jack up expenditures fine but you do not give tax cuts out at the same time its just stupidity, traditionally taxes would rise.
With regard to spending of rich being ineffectual your right they don't just put it in banks but it is vare indeed that profitability in the United States would outway oportunity in the boom towns of Asian and even eastern Europe and South America. Just say 50% of rich investment went into the US that is still a long shot from the near 100% which would result from increases in expenditure on services, capital works, welfare and so on if that money was in federal hands (and spend properly). Or if it was in the hands of workers in Australia the minimum wage for workers is something like $14 and hour, in Canada its around 8ish varies from province to province in the United States it also varies according to state but the highest is 8 right down to no minimum at all. This is why you have people working for $5 an hour dubbed the working poor. How did this come to past well largely because the US successfully de-unionized and while i'm sure some unions still remain well they do not really have any power. Thus poor wages hurting demand and standard of living. I dunno if you are saying laisse faire is good but it certainly is not.
Also ill point out that while economists design the tools used in economic policy i.e reserve banks fiscal policy etc it is not they who have created the US system but the 'real' rich who's faces never grace our television sets.
Any economic policy you care to mention will work some times and not work other times, we can learn from the past to make educated guesses about the effect that will have and although we can never know for sure well such is life we must do as best we can with what we have, The main point about macroeconomic policy in the United States is simply that monetary policy will not work in this instance, American debt is far too high for people to seriously consider taking on more debt. Thus the only real thing to do now is expansionary fiscal policies i never ment to say they should be contractionary maybe there was a typo or something and as long as the economic managers try to rely on monetary policy the situation will deteriorate. In Australia we have a serious problem where our reserve bank is doing contractionary policy when its inappropriate.
We are in a very bad situation for reserve bankers world wide right now however because as the economy slips requiring expansionary policy, inflation is rising too requiring contractionary policy. The result is this kind of limbo, the Federal reserve doesn't really seem to know what to do neither does our own reserve bank in Australia. What must be done is significantly expansionary policies this is the only way we can overcome our infrastructure bottlenecks and capacity constraints in Australia and fundamental weakness in demand in the US this will cause inflation to rise in the short term but hey this is why they call economics the dismal science.
I think I agree with almost all of this, which is why I've been bitching about Congress so much lately. And I also agree macroeconomics is a hugely important class, along with Logic, and both should be taught in highschools, but we're far away from that point.
The media is bad, but like anything else with capitalism, when top dollar is involved the coverage is much better.
I do think most unions are no longer useful and are actually hurting their members, as we've seen in Michigan with the UAW.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://www.8ball.co.uk/productimages/33066-2.jpg)
