PDA

View Full Version : Economics The Deficit


Calcountry
09-21-2010, 04:24 PM
I have a serious question, that seems to be coming into play a lot these days. What is the primary root cause of budget deficits as they pertain to the government? Perhaps, they are the cause of any budget deficit whether it be personal, or organizational.

Are they (A), a result of runaway reckless spending, as if spending is a totally independent function that occurs with no regard to the revenue stream whatsoever.

Or perhaps, they are a result of (B), irresponsible tax policy, that is to say, taxes are so low, that their ability to generate any appreciable and substantial stream of revenue is unlikely.

Or maybe yet a third option, (C), they are a result of bad luck, the economy is down, and therefore revenue streams will necessarily be coming in at lower rates and levels than when the good times rolled.

What are your thoughts in regard to "the Deficit"?

ROYC75
09-21-2010, 04:26 PM
A). Plus the corruption on Capital Hill. Been going on for the last 40 years I know of, most likely longer.

Stewie
09-21-2010, 04:28 PM
When you can print money out of thin air, the temptation is always the path of least resistance. Print more money.

FishingRod
09-21-2010, 04:36 PM
I would go with 85-90% A with a little of C. I would say that it is in large part our own fault. As a group whenever something happens or needs to be done people look to the Gov to fix it. We have a great deal of wasted money as well. For anyone that lives in the Kansas city area, I'm sure you have noticed the huge concrete walls that have been and continue to be built between the highways and the residential neighborhoods so the people don't have to deal with the traffic noise. The thing is that the people bought these very same homes at a discounted rate 5-10-20-30 years ago due to their proximity to the highway. Now our taxes are fixing the "problem" for them. It irks me.

talastan
09-21-2010, 04:44 PM
Mostly A and a little of C. The fact is that if we would first balance the freaking budget and consider even making a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget you'd have a majority of the problems fixed. Then you could systematically begin to cut spending and bring not just the deficit down but also the debt itself. As for option C with a balanced budget we'd be in a much more stronger position to deal with the unexpected when it does happen. The debt and the deficit is a National Security issue and should be addressed just as much as any other Security issue that the Federal Government is responsible for according to the Constitution. Instead they are neglecting this and violating their Constitutional responsiblities by putting us at higher risk of collapse, economically, through lack of budget and deficit spending.

Stewie
09-21-2010, 04:50 PM
Mostly A and a little of C. The fact is that if we would first balance the freaking budget and consider even making a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget you'd have a majority of the problems fixed. Then you could systematically begin to cut spending and bring not just the deficit down but also the debt itself. As for option C with a balanced budget we'd be in a much more stronger position to deal with the unexpected when it does happen. The debt and the deficit is a National Security issue and should be addressed just as much as any other Security issue that the Federal Government is responsible for according to the Constitution. Instead they are neglecting this and violating their Constitutional responsiblities by putting us at higher risk of collapse, economically, through lack of budget and deficit spending.

WILL NEVER HAPPEN! That's what a fiat currency is all about. That's why the dollar is tied to nothing but other worthless paper. It's a race to the bottom.

talastan
09-21-2010, 04:52 PM
WILL NEVER HAPPEN! That's what a fiat currency is all about. That's why the dollar is tied to nothing but other worthless paper. It's a race to the bottom.

I agree that it is highly unlikely to happen, but it still needs to happen IMO.

Stewie
09-21-2010, 04:53 PM
I agree that it is highly unlikely to happen, but it still needs to happen IMO.

So, you think we should go back to the gold standard? It forces balanced budgets.

Calcountry
09-21-2010, 04:58 PM
So, you think we should go back to the gold standard? It forces balanced budgets.Sane fiscal policy, leads to a stable currency, which leads to an overall greater level of consumer and investor confidence. "Confidence", seems to be in short supply these days.

Calcountry
09-21-2010, 05:01 PM
Mostly A and a little of C. The fact is that if we would first balance the freaking budget and consider even making a Constitutional Amendment to require a balanced budget you'd have a majority of the problems fixed. Then you could systematically begin to cut spending and bring not just the deficit down but also the debt itself. As for option C with a balanced budget we'd be in a much more stronger position to deal with the unexpected when it does happen. The debt and the deficit is a National Security issue and should be addressed just as much as any other Security issue that the Federal Government is responsible for according to the Constitution. Instead they are neglecting this and violating their Constitutional responsiblities by putting us at higher risk of collapse, economically, through lack of budget and deficit spending.Truely, the problem is not an all or nothing, "zero sum" situation.

Neither should the public be looking at the problem, as if, one fix(spending cuts) could or should be carried out as if spending is an independent function. Spending affects consumers attitudes, and investors confidence. When policies are proposed, and then enacted, peoples behavior "changes" to suit their own vested interests with respect to each new government action.

Stewie
09-21-2010, 05:04 PM
Sane fiscal policy, leads to a stable currency, which leads to an overall greater level of consumer and investor confidence. "Confidence", seems to be in short supply these days.

Politicians are the laziest of the lazy... especially in an economic crisis. We're way beyond fiscal policy at this point unless you consider trillion$+ deficits a policy. The Fed said today it's going to print money (again) to resolve the problem. Quantitative Easing Part II! Hang on to your wallet! The dollar fell off a cliff when the Fed made that announcement.

Calcountry
09-21-2010, 05:39 PM
Politicians are the laziest of the lazy... especially in an economic crisis. We're way beyond fiscal policy at this point unless you consider trillion$+ deficits a policy. The Fed said today it's going to print money (again) to resolve the problem. Quantitative Easing Part II! Hang on to your wallet! The dollar fell off a cliff when the Fed made that announcement.They vote for health care, because it is "historical". They are more concerned with their standing in history, than how the legislation will affect the economy. Heck, we couldn't afford that thing in a good economy much less the fragile egg shells we are walking right now.

To be fair, Bush's medicare drug thing was a disaster as well. Run the deficit up for "free drugs" for seniors.

alnorth
09-21-2010, 07:21 PM
The economy doesn't help, but we cant blame it on that, there are good times and bad times.

We are basically spending too much money. Not counting interest on the debt, the lion's share of our spending is Defense, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those 3 will soon be joined by paying for Health Insurance for the poor.

Everything should be trimmed at least a bit, including defense. As far as income goes, if I were given a rock-solid guarantee that a temporary tax hike would go to paying down the debt I'd be all in, but in the real world increased taxes will be made permanent and will go to new spending. So, we pretty much need cuts.

mlyonsd
09-21-2010, 08:14 PM
Government workers on average make more in the same jobs then their private sector counterparts. I see no reason not to cut pay across the board for white collar government jobs. More for contractors.

alnorth
09-21-2010, 08:19 PM
Government workers on average make more in the same jobs then their private sector counterparts. I see no reason not to cut pay across the board for white collar government jobs. More for contractors.

That might sound nice, but government salaries and pensions are mostly a state problem in some of the more out of control states like CA and NY with their state pension systems.

As far as the federal govt goes, the salaries and pensions (most are 403b these days) dont amount to much at all for the national debt.

mlyonsd
09-21-2010, 08:22 PM
That might sound nice, but government salaries and pensions are mostly a state problem in some of the more out of control states like CA and NY with their state pension systems.

As far as the federal govt goes, the salaries and pensions (most are 403b these days) dont amount to much at all for the national debt.

I'm not saying by any means it solves the problem. But I also see no reason government jobs should pay more than the private sector.

alnorth
09-21-2010, 08:23 PM
I'm not saying by any means it solves the problem. But I also see no reason government jobs should pay more than the private sector.

true. They get a lot of job security for which they give up.... pretty much nothing these days.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 08:39 PM
Sane fiscal policy, leads to a stable currency, which leads to an overall greater level of consumer and investor confidence. "Confidence", seems to be in short supply these days.

Sane fiscal policy can lead to stable currency and confidence, but a gold standard doesn't really equate to sane fiscal policy.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 08:43 PM
There's alot of reasons, but I think the most fundamental one is that Republicans realized that fighting hard to contain entitlement programs was unpopular and would cost them elections, and Democrats realized that fighting hard to increase taxes and/or contain military spending was unpopular and would cost them elections.

So both sides lost their conscience and agreed to let the deficit grow to the point where it is structural and self-sustaining and with the genie out of the bottle they are finding it very hard to stuff it back in even if they wanted to. And the fact is they aren't willing to pay the political price to want to.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 08:45 PM
I'm not saying by any means it solves the problem. But I also see no reason government jobs should pay more than the private sector.

Some should, where the jobs aren't comparable. FBI agents should probably be better paid than any law enforcement or private security service, etc.

But the public pension system is a massive albatross around the neck of all levels of government in nearly every country in the Western World.

Amnorix
09-21-2010, 08:56 PM
WILL NEVER HAPPEN! That's what a fiat currency is all about. That's why the dollar is tied to nothing but other worthless paper. It's a race to the bottom.

Can one of you gold standard guys explain something to me -- the worldwide production of gold in the entire world is about 50 million troy ounces per year. At 1,000 bucks an ounce, you're looking at $50,000,000,000. $50 billion dollars. Or 10% of the budget of the Pentagon.

The US economy alone was $14.6 trillion, give or take, in 2008. Or more than 200x the annual production, WORLDWIDE, of gold.

Worldwide GDP is about 57 trillion.

How in the HELL are you going to float that on the back of $50 billion/year of gold production?

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2010, 09:38 PM
It's pretty simple, really:

American citizens demand more government than they are willing to pay for.

And Congress refuses to pay for that which they create in order to win votes.

Bottom-line: American citizens are, in general, irresponsible; and Congress reflects that irresponsibility in order to stay in office.

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 12:02 PM
It's pretty simple, really:

American citizens demand more government than they are willing to pay for.

And Congress refuses to pay for that which they create in order to win votes.

Bottom-line: American citizens are, in general, irresponsible; and Congress reflects that irresponsibility in order to stay in office.


You should have said the lazy, irresponsible American citizens ..... Not all as your post insinuated. Bottom line, Not ALL are as you posted. Just a large select group that needs to be rehabilitated, not provided for by government.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 12:07 PM
Can one of you gold standard guys explain something to me -- the worldwide production of gold in the entire world is about 50 million troy ounces per year. At 1,000 bucks an ounce, you're looking at $50,000,000,000. $50 billion dollars. Or 10% of the budget of the Pentagon.

The US economy alone was $14.6 trillion, give or take, in 2008. Or more than 200x the annual production, WORLDWIDE, of gold.

Worldwide GDP is about 57 trillion.

How in the HELL are you going to float that on the back of $50 billion/year of gold production?

You're making it more complex than it needs to be. The way we should go about it, is to only PRINT, what you have BACKED up in Gold or Silver or any other commodity that we see fit as the monetary standard. You can't print what you don't have, which is why the economy is in shambles. More and more people realize money is only a piece of paper and not worth squat, which is why we are seeing precious metals soar in price.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 12:15 PM
You're making it more complex than it needs to be. The way we should go about it, is to only PRINT, what you have BACKED up in Gold or Silver or any other commodity that we see fit as the monetary standard. You can't print what you don't have, which is why the economy is in shambles. More and more people realize money is only a piece of paper and not worth squat, which is why we are seeing precious metals soar in price.


I'm pretty sure an economist woudl blow you out of the water on this. Makes no sense to me. 99% or whatever of the world's weath are just numbers on a ledger somewhere--no actual dollars in circulation are directly tied to it.

So what good is your fix except to screw up commodities markets, giving supremely inflated value to some commodity because THAT is what is standing behind your currency?

Oh, and a boon to the owners of whatever companies and countries produce those commodities, of course. That is a great result.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm pretty sure an economist woudl blow you out of the water on this. Makes no sense to me. 99% or whatever of the world's weath are just numbers on a ledger somewhere--no actual dollars in circulation are directly tied to it.

So what good is your fix except to screw up commodities markets, giving supremely inflated value to some commodity because THAT is what is standing behind your currency?

Oh, and a boon to the owners of whatever companies and countries produce those commodities, of course. That is a great result.

Do you think it's a coincedence that while fiat money is losing strength, precious metals are going up?

You see commodities have an inherent value. Paper with fancy printing is still only PAPER, when it isn't backed with anything.

Hug it Out Dan
09-22-2010, 12:25 PM
there's a vast majority in capitol hill that thinks "them first" then the people.

this is for both rep and dem parties.

they're nothing but sellouts. things need to change. I'm not putting all the blame on one particular party, because it's a fact that both played a part in this.

for too long this govt has been spending taxpaying dollars on shit that is completely unecessary. there are too many govt funded programs that do not see any money in return. the govt is not in place to make $$$. Just about every govt funded program loses money. A lot like when someone buys a lemon. Just keep putting more an more money into a bad losing situation.

Now the Chinese won' buy anymore of our paper or bonds. Shit's going to hit the fan bigtime prob in the next 20 yrs. Our money system has failed completely. At some point we're going to have to find another currency. That's just a fact. People don't realize it but America's completely broke to a point they can't recover.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 12:44 PM
Do you think it's a coincedence that while fiat money is losing strength, precious metals are going up?

You see commodities have an inherent value. Paper with fancy printing is still only PAPER, when it isn't backed with anything.

Nope, not a coincidence at all. But that doesn't mean going back to a commodity back standard is desirable or necessary.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 12:47 PM
Now the Chinese won' buy anymore of our paper or bonds. Shit's going to hit the fan bigtime prob in the next 20 yrs. Our money system has failed completely. At some point we're going to have to find another currency. That's just a fact. People don't realize it but America's completely broke to a point they can't recover.

China is back to buying bonds.

Stuff will hit the fan in the next 20 years if there isn't some pretty serious change in a number of economic policies, and that isn't gold driven.

And the America's completely broke thing is pretty silly.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 12:54 PM
Nope, not a coincidence at all. But that doesn't mean going back to a commodity back standard is desirable or necessary.

It's a neccessity, IMO. Otherwise, they print money out of thin air, DEVALUING it in the process. They then take that money and loan it back to us at INTEREST.

A system based on debt, can NEVER be paid off. NEVER. Because the interest exceeds the amount of money in existence. It's a Ponzi Scheme, manufactured by a PRIVATE GROUP OF BANKERS, that aren't even part of our government.

Food for thought... a silver DOLLAR, was once just a regular dollar, used in circulation, for purchasing. It would be equivilent of a dollar bill today, as far as being American money and have the same FACE VALUE.
However, they are NOT valued the same. That same silver dollar is worth at least $20.00 TODAY and yet, it is considered a ONE DOLLAR FACE Value. That should clearly show how much our money has actually been devalued and keep in mind, we only went off the gold standard less then 80 years ago.

2bikemike
09-22-2010, 01:03 PM
there's a vast majority in capitol hill that thinks "them first" then the people.

this is for both rep and dem parties.

they're nothing but sellouts. things need to change. I'm not putting all the blame on one particular party, because it's a fact that both played a part in this.

for too long this govt has been spending taxpaying dollars on shit that is completely unecessary. there are too many govt funded programs that do not see any money in return. the govt is not in place to make $$$. Just about every govt funded program loses money. A lot like when someone buys a lemon. Just keep putting more an more money into a bad losing situation.

Now the Chinese won' buy anymore of our paper or bonds. Shit's going to hit the fan bigtime prob in the next 20 yrs. Our money system has failed completely. At some point we're going to have to find another currency. That's just a fact. People don't realize it but America's completely broke to a point they can't recover.

Rep! This is exactly it right here! The Govt. spends more money on crap that keeps costing taxpayers more and more each year. We have gotten so far away from the original intent of Govt. its sickening. Amtrak is a perfect example of something that is a huge financial burden that the Govt. should not be doing. If it can't support itself from the revenue it generates then it has no business existing.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 02:56 PM
Sane fiscal policy can lead to stable currency and confidence, but a gold standard doesn't really equate to sane fiscal policy.If you will note, I stopped short of supporting a return to the gold standard.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 03:04 PM
It's a neccessity, IMO. Otherwise, they print money out of thin air, DEVALUING it in the process. They then take that money and loan it back to us at INTEREST.

A system based on debt, can NEVER be paid off. NEVER. Because the interest exceeds the amount of money in existence. It's a Ponzi Scheme, manufactured by a PRIVATE GROUP OF BANKERS, that aren't even part of our government.

Youv'e been reading too many "the Federal Reserve is the work of the debil!" websites lately.

Food for thought... a silver DOLLAR, was once just a regular dollar, used in circulation, for purchasing. It would be equivilent of a dollar bill today, as far as being American money and have the same FACE VALUE.
However, they are NOT valued the same. That same silver dollar is worth at least $20.00 TODAY and yet, it is considered a ONE DOLLAR FACE Value. That should clearly show how much our money has actually been devalued and keep in mind, we only went off the gold standard less then 80 years ago.

Inflation always exists, and has always existed (though not in every year. It's also better than deflation, which occurred at times under the gold standard and was absolutely horrendous for everyone.

You paint a picture of some kind of idyllic life under the gold standard. As if everyone prospered. The fact is that the standard of living is so much higher than it has ever been, and prosperity so much better spread across all of society, that it's not even comparable.

There were regular panics on Wall Street, leading to recessions/depressions, every few years back in the 1800s. They invariably occurred in the fall, when gold flowed out of banks to the farmers who had cashed in their crops, and money was tight. Stupid stuff like a ship with a load of gold from San Francisco would be the tipping point that set off a massive Panic and years of recession (1857). That's the kind of system you want to go back to.

And obviously any monetary unit that has precious metals in it render it far more valuable than the face value of the currency. So what?

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 03:10 PM
My comments from another thread .......

Food for thought ....... Since all of this campaign reform, finances are out of whack, On a side note ( it will never pass ) what about for ever dollar spent to campaign a candidate, 1/2 of that goes to National Deficit. Seriously, the millions, billions spent every election cycle is just plain crazy.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/sources/transparent2.gif

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 03:17 PM
People want programs but don't want to pay for any of them.

Our top marginal tax rate is 57% lower than it was 60 years ago, and 37% lower than it was 30 years ago.

Combine that with a growing government, and an increasingly aging population, and a military system that acts as a public subsidy of high technology industry, and you have a budgetary disaster.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 03:19 PM
My comments from another thread .......

Food for thought ....... Since all of this campaign reform, finances are out of whack, On a side note ( it will never pass ) what about for ever dollar spent to campaign a candidate, 1/2 of that goes to National Deficit. Seriously, the millions, billions spent every election cycle is just plain crazy.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/sources/transparent2.gif

The amount spent on the presidential campaign is significantly less than the cost of a B2.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 03:27 PM
Can one of you gold standard guys explain something to me -- the worldwide production of gold in the entire world is about 50 million troy ounces per year. At 1,000 bucks an ounce, you're looking at $50,000,000,000. $50 billion dollars. Or 10% of the budget of the Pentagon.

The US economy alone was $14.6 trillion, give or take, in 2008. Or more than 200x the annual production, WORLDWIDE, of gold.

Worldwide GDP is about 57 trillion.

How in the HELL are you going to float that on the back of $50 billion/year of gold production?Why, silver of course. We can sail to South America, enslave people, force them to mine it, so that we can be rich the way the Spanish did back in the day. :evil:

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 04:11 PM
Sorry, man, but sticking with Paper backed by NOTHING is a fool's game. We've lost 20 times what we had with our buying power in less than 80 years. A silver dollar from the past 80 years is worth 20 times what it was-that's insanity, plus we pay interest.

On your point about my reading too many FED sites. Dispute anything I mentioned about the FEDERAL RESERVE. I spoke in FACTS, regarding them. I also spoke in fact, about how much our dollar has DEPRECIATED, not inflated. Prices have inflated or otherwise, the dollar's buying power has DEFLATED.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 04:18 PM
It's a neccessity, IMO. Otherwise, they print money out of thin air, DEVALUING it in the process. They then take that money and loan it back to us at INTEREST.

A system based on debt, can NEVER be paid off. NEVER. Because the interest exceeds the amount of money in existence. It's a Ponzi Scheme, manufactured by a PRIVATE GROUP OF BANKERS, that aren't even part of our government.

Food for thought... a silver DOLLAR, was once just a regular dollar, used in circulation, for purchasing. It would be equivilent of a dollar bill today, as far as being American money and have the same FACE VALUE.
However, they are NOT valued the same. That same silver dollar is worth at least $20.00 TODAY and yet, it is considered a ONE DOLLAR FACE Value. That should clearly show how much our money has actually been devalued and keep in mind, we only went off the gold standard less then 80 years ago.Understand all you Paulies, the Fed can take money OUT of thin air too. In other words, they can make money disappear. They have before, and they can in fact, do it again.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 04:25 PM
Understand all you Paulies, the Fed can take money OUT of thin air too. In other words, they can make money disappear. They have before, and they can in fact, do it again.

I understand that, but there is no way on God's green Earth, that I can support a private entity DICTATING to us, the terms on our OWN MONEY. It's a freakin' scam and I can't believe more Americans aren't raising Holy Hell about it. The system is an utter joke. It's paper backed by NOTHING. The emperor has no clothes.

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 04:26 PM
The amount spent on the presidential campaign is significantly less than the cost of a B2.

I don't mean for it to be the only way to reduce it, you still have tax dollars to use.

But to curb some of this out of control campaign finance, why not. You want to throw a cool million at a party, make it 2 or suffer for 500 K.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 04:31 PM
People want programs but don't want to pay for any of them.

Our top marginal tax rate is 57% lower than it was 60 years ago, and 37% lower than it was 30 years ago.

Combine that with a growing government, and an increasingly aging population, and a military system that acts as a public subsidy of high technology industry, and you have a budgetary disaster.Therefore, notwithstanding the weakness of the economy, you believe that sane fiscal policy would entail taxing the rich?

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 04:37 PM
Sorry, man, but sticking with Paper backed by NOTHING is a fool's game. We've lost 20 times what we had with our buying power in less than 80 years. A silver dollar from the past 80 years is worth 20 times what it was-that's insanity, plus we pay interest.

On your point about my reading too many FED sites. Dispute anything I mentioned about the FEDERAL RESERVE. I spoke in FACTS, regarding them. I also spoke in fact, about how much our dollar has DEPRECIATED, not inflated. Prices have inflated or otherwise, the dollar's buying power has DEFLATED.What did a soda jerk make per hour 80 years ago? The current day equivalent, entry level employee at a fast food place, makes about $8.00/hour in Ca. So, in a manner of speaking, we are just trading higher dollar amounts?

What was rent 80 years ago? Did they have cars and television? DVD's? Ipods? Nanobots?(do we have those yet, or are they still just science fiction). I digress.

The point is, even the min wage people can save up, and buy ipods. In the 70's, we use to have to have 5 different components in a "system", could cost more than a thousand dollars to do what an ipod and a set of bose speakers can pull off now, for less than 300 bucks.

Stewie
09-22-2010, 04:38 PM
People want programs but don't want to pay for any of them.

Our top marginal tax rate is 57% lower than it was 60 years ago, and 37% lower than it was 30 years ago.

Combine that with a growing government, and an increasingly aging population, and a military system that acts as a public subsidy of high technology industry, and you have a budgetary disaster.

Hardly anyone paid income tax 60 years ago. If you had a family you didn't pay any income tax unless you had a really high income. The marginal rates can't be compared because meaningful deductions have all but disappeared.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 04:44 PM
I understand that, but there is no way on God's green Earth, that I can support a private entity DICTATING to us, the terms on our OWN MONEY. It's a freakin' scam and I can't believe more Americans aren't raising Holy Hell about it. The system is an utter joke. It's paper backed by NOTHING. The emperor has no clothes.I didn't say that I support the Fed having the authority and power to do so, however, congress gave them that authority and power back in the day. So, it would take the American people getting more edumacated about economics, and demanding it of their representatives for anything to "change", we can only "hope".

Stewie
09-22-2010, 04:47 PM
Understand all you Paulies, the Fed can take money OUT of thin air too. In other words, they can make money disappear. They have before, and they can in fact, do it again.

They should, but they don't have the balls. Quantitative Easing to the MOOOOON!!!

Can you imagine what would happen to this economy if the policy was to raise rates? They can't and they know it. It's absolutely NOT an option.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 04:48 PM
Hardly anyone paid income tax 60 years ago. If you had a family you didn't pay any income tax unless you had a really high income. The marginal rates can't be compared because meaningful deductions have all but disappeared.The marginal income tax system is an abomination.

The single most destructive policy for job creation.

Government should rely on other taxation methods, for more effective revenue generation. Something with greater inelasticity, like taxing beer, cigarattes, and football viewing.

I mean, Amnorix would pay a dollar tax to be sure to see the Patriots.

Hamas, would pay a dollar tax to see the Chiefs. They can't do without that.

lmao.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 05:24 PM
Hardly anyone paid income tax 60 years ago. If you had a family you didn't pay any income tax unless you had a really high income. The marginal rates can't be compared because meaningful deductions have all but disappeared.

1950? You got a source for this, because I call BS.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 05:27 PM
Sorry, man, but sticking with Paper backed by NOTHING is a fool's game. We've lost 20 times what we had with our buying power in less than 80 years. A silver dollar from the past 80 years is worth 20 times what it was-that's insanity, plus we pay interest.

On your point about my reading too many FED sites. Dispute anything I mentioned about the FEDERAL RESERVE. I spoke in FACTS, regarding them. I also spoke in fact, about how much our dollar has DEPRECIATED, not inflated. Prices have inflated or otherwise, the dollar's buying power has DEFLATED.

Then why do people have far, FAR more stuff than they've ever had before? Sure, a haircut is $10 bucks instead of $0.10, but practically everyone has multiple TVs, computers, cars, etc. The value of a single dollar is less than what it was, but people make far more dollars than they ever did, and average household purchasing power is way ahead of what it was in 1870 or whatever the hell year you've got in mind.

Garcia Bronco
09-22-2010, 05:28 PM
It's simple...look at what we spend our money on....Pensions, Healthcare and defense spending. All the healthcare, including SS,VA,Medicare, CHIP, and Medicaid are the biggest line item at 48 percent. The defense spending comes in at like 45 percent. That doesn't leave a who lotta cheese for education and infrastructure which have to be kept up to keep people going to work.

Amnorix
09-22-2010, 05:29 PM
Here you go. Median household income adjusted for inflation, 1967 to 2009.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2009.png

Garcia Bronco
09-22-2010, 05:30 PM
So, you think we should go back to the gold standard? It forces balanced budgets.

No it wouldn't. It doesn't matter what the currency is or what its tied too. In Italy the currency used to be cheese. The only thing that matters is the perceived value.

Garcia Bronco
09-22-2010, 05:32 PM
Can one of you gold standard guys explain something to me -- the worldwide production of gold in the entire world is about 50 million troy ounces per year. At 1,000 bucks an ounce, you're looking at $50,000,000,000. $50 billion dollars. Or 10% of the budget of the Pentagon.

The US economy alone was $14.6 trillion, give or take, in 2008. Or more than 200x the annual production, WORLDWIDE, of gold.

Worldwide GDP is about 57 trillion.

How in the HELL are you going to float that on the back of $50 billion/year of gold production?

The can't. Which is why Nixon wisely moved us off the Gold standard in the 70's.

Garcia Bronco
09-22-2010, 05:35 PM
It's a neccessity, IMO. Otherwise, they print money out of thin air, DEVALUING it in the process. They then take that money and loan it back to us at INTEREST.

A system based on debt, can NEVER be paid off. NEVER. Because the interest exceeds the amount of money in existence. It's a Ponzi Scheme, manufactured by a PRIVATE GROUP OF BANKERS, that aren't even part of our government.

Food for thought... a silver DOLLAR, was once just a regular dollar, used in circulation, for purchasing. It would be equivilent of a dollar bill today, as far as being American money and have the same FACE VALUE.
However, they are NOT valued the same. That same silver dollar is worth at least $20.00 TODAY and yet, it is considered a ONE DOLLAR FACE Value. That should clearly show how much our money has actually been devalued and keep in mind, we only went off the gold standard less then 80 years ago.

Wht you are advocating is poverty. We have to be able to up the supply in currency to keep people producing. Other wise they get poor, they get pissed, then then come to take you and your money.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 05:36 PM
They should, but they don't have the balls. Quantitative Easing to the MOOOOON!!!

Can you imagine what would happen to this economy if the policy was to raise rates? They can't and they know it. It's absolutely NOT an option.Raising rates right now, would be asinine.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 05:51 PM
No it wouldn't. It doesn't matter what the currency is or what its tied too. In Italy the currency used to be cheese. The only thing that matters is the perceived value.There are more than one important coeficients attached to the "value", or worthfulness of "money".

1- It must be a usefull store of value
2- It must be fungible, a medium of exchange.

Calcountry
09-22-2010, 05:52 PM
Wht you are advocating is poverty. We have to be able to up the supply in currency to keep people producing. Other wise they get poor, they get pissed, then then come to take you and your money.Just dumping currency out of a helicopter will not keep people from being poor.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 06:16 PM
Wht you are advocating is poverty. We have to be able to up the supply in currency to keep people producing. Other wise they get poor, they get pissed, then then come to take you and your money.

Here's what I said, that you quoted..."It's a neccessity, IMO. Otherwise, they print money out of thin air, DEVALUING it in the process. They then take that money and loan it back to us at INTEREST.

A system based on debt, can NEVER be paid off. NEVER. Because the interest exceeds the amount of money in existence. It's a Ponzi Scheme, manufactured by a PRIVATE GROUP OF BANKERS, that aren't even part of our government.

Food for thought... a silver DOLLAR, was once just a regular dollar, used in circulation, for purchasing. It would be equivilent of a dollar bill today, as far as being American money and have the same FACE VALUE.
However, they are NOT valued the same. That same silver dollar is worth at least $20.00 TODAY and yet, it is considered a ONE DOLLAR FACE Value. That should clearly show how much our money has actually been devalued and keep in mind, we only went off the gold standard less then 80 years ago."


How you get what I said as being the prescription for poverty is beyond me.

My post clearly shows the value of the dollar has taken a huge nose dive, evidenced by the buying power of now versus then. It has ZERO to do with poverty. Zilch.

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 06:21 PM
Then why do people have far, FAR more stuff than they've ever had before? Sure, a haircut is $10 bucks instead of $0.10, but practically everyone has multiple TVs, computers, cars, etc. The value of a single dollar is less than what it was, but people make far more dollars than they ever did, and average household purchasing power is way ahead of what it was in 1870 or whatever the hell year you've got in mind.

It's easy explanation. We buy from countries that EXPLOIT SLAVE LABOR, thus keeping cost down. We also buy CHEAP SHIT, that doesn't have near the quality, as it used to. Let's also not forget that reproducing widgets in repetition should become more cost productive as workers become more refined at their job description. Also the standard of living increased, but don't confuse that with it still having equal buying power, because it's doesn't. In fact, it's only 1/20th of what it was.

I think that's an ample counter for now.

Amnorix
09-23-2010, 06:16 AM
Raising rates right now, would be asinine.

While I don't necessarily disagree, did you advocate raising rates in 2005/06? If not, why not? Is there ever a time to raise rates in your mind?

Amnorix
09-23-2010, 06:20 AM
It's easy explanation. We buy from countries that EXPLOIT SLAVE LABOR, thus keeping cost down. We also buy CHEAP SHIT, that doesn't have near the quality, as it used to. Let's also not forget that reproducing widgets in repetition should become more cost productive as workers become more refined at their job description. Also the standard of living increased, but don't confuse that with it still having equal buying power, because it's doesn't. In fact, it's only 1/20th of what it was.

I think that's an ample counter for now.

Yes, the buying power of a single dollar is 1/20th of what it was. That we agree. SO WHAT? The average American is FAR wealthier in every meaningful measurement of monetary wealth that you can devise. Unless you were hoarding your money under your bed, it doesn't much matter that a single dollar was devalued by X so long as your income/purchasing power has kept up rises in cost.

Would you rather make $5 when $5 buys $5 worth of stuff, or make $100, when $100 buys $10 worth of stuff? You're arguing the former, which makes no sense.

Oh, and regarding slave labor -- what's your solution? It's not really technically slave labor in many cases, it's just people willing to accept a hell of a lot less because their standards of living are so much lower. But anyway -- what are you going to do about it? Just insulate your economy? Good luck with that, that path has rarely led to increased wealth for the country that closes its borders.

The Mad Crapper
09-23-2010, 09:17 AM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Burn_Tax_Dollars_Obama_250.jpg

BigChiefFan
09-23-2010, 10:58 AM
You're missing the point... here maybe this will help...

Taken from Wikipedia which backs my points in many ways...

Price
The standard 4-seat open tourer of 1909 cost $850[29] (equivalent to $20,513 today), when competing cars often cost $2,000-$3,000 (equivalent to $48,267-$72,400 today);[citation needed] in 1913, the price dropped to $550 (equivalent to $12,067 today), and $440 in 1915 (equivalent to $9,431 today). Sales were 69,762 in 1911; 170,211 in 1912; 202,667 in 1913; 308,162 in 1914; and 501,462 in 1915.[24] In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay.[24]

By the 1920s, the price had fallen to $290 (equivalent to $3,258 today) because of increasing efficiencies of assembly line technique and volume. Henry employed vertical integration of the industries needed to create his cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

That explains how mass production brought cost down and it shows how OVERPRICED things were for the times, you own a car in the early 1910s-20s, you probably don't own much more than that.


Let's also not forget the impact that unions had on bringing up the standard of living back in the day. For God's sake we had KIDS working without laws for their well-being. It took a fire in a warehouse killing many kids, before anything was done about it. Hence we used slave labor in the past, as well.

Your changing the topic, by saying what am I going to do about it? Ha. I'm merely explaining why our current system is fucked and you keep letting it fall on deaf ears. The fiat sysytem is a joke, sorry you can't see that, but I've tried to help you realize, how crumby it really is. Money based on nothing, is just that...NOTHING but paper.

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 01:21 PM
While I don't necessarily disagree, did you advocate raising rates in 2005/06? If not, why not? Is there ever a time to raise rates in your mind? I think the fed was slow to see the bubble bursting, slow in responding to it, too gradual with the easing.

Hind sight is 20 20.

Certainly the high interest rates in the 70's were necessary to reign in the double digit inflation. There are a whole generation of posters here that don't know what that is like.

Whenever the governement interferes in the free markets, less than desirable, or should I say, lesser than desirable outcomes happen.

GM failing, although shitty, and sad, would have led to a lot of productive assets being sold off to more productive enterprises, that would have made better use of them.

Chief Henry
09-23-2010, 01:31 PM
I think the fed was slow to see the bubble bursting, slow in responding to it, too gradual with the easing.

Hind sight is 20 20.

Certainly the high interest rates in the 70's were necessary to reign in the double digit inflation. There are a whole generation of posters here that don't know what that is like.

Whenever the governement interferes in the free markets, less than desirable, or should I say, lesser than desirable outcomes happen.

GM failing, although shitty, and sad, would have led to a lot of productive assets being sold off to more productive enterprises, that would have made better use of them.

The union members would have burned down Detroit if that would have happened.

I hope we never see the 70's again...but I do like alot of the music from the 70's .

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 01:35 PM
You're missing the point... here maybe this will help...

Taken from Wikipedia which backs my points in many ways...

Price
The standard 4-seat open tourer of 1909 cost $850[29] (equivalent to $20,513 today), when competing cars often cost $2,000-$3,000 (equivalent to $48,267-$72,400 today);[citation needed] in 1913, the price dropped to $550 (equivalent to $12,067 today), and $440 in 1915 (equivalent to $9,431 today). Sales were 69,762 in 1911; 170,211 in 1912; 202,667 in 1913; 308,162 in 1914; and 501,462 in 1915.[24] In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months' pay.[24]

By the 1920s, the price had fallen to $290 (equivalent to $3,258 today) because of increasing efficiencies of assembly line technique and volume. Henry employed vertical integration of the industries needed to create his cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T

That explains how mass production brought cost down and it shows how OVERPRICED things were for the times, you own a car in the early 1910s-20s, you probably don't own much more than that.


Let's also not forget the impact that unions had on bringing up the standard of living back in the day. For God's sake we had KIDS working without laws for their well-being. It took a fire in a warehouse killing many kids, before anything was done about it. Hence we used slave labor in the past, as well.

Your changing the topic, by saying what am I going to do about it? Ha. I'm merely explaining why our current system is ****ed and you keep letting it fall on deaf ears. The fiat sysytem is a joke, sorry you can't see that, but I've tried to help you realize, how crumby it really is. Money based on nothing, is just that...NOTHING but paper.One of the things that caused this current banking crises, when Lehman was failing, was a whole lot of very wealthy people realizing that the digits on the computer in the bank weren't worth very much if the system crashed. So they panicked and withdrwew, electronically(sorry wonderful life fans, no lines at the bank on this run), enough cash to make banks insolvent.

I am sure it made Hank Paulson shit his pants when the data showed up on his puter. He had to save his buddies at Goldman.
Lehman, ahhh , fug em if they can't take a joke.

Glass Stegall should have never been repealed. I remember how "good" the times were rolling when they did that, and my eyebrow wend up for a second. My thoughts were, do you all really think you are smarter than the people that lived through that mess back in the 30's? Just because you have Mac's?

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 01:37 PM
The union members would have burned down Detroit if that would have happened.

I hope we never see the 70's again...but I do like alot of the music from the 70's .A lot of them would have been hired by the new owners of the assets, at more realistic compensation packages than they are currently enjoying at tax payer expense.

Calcountry
09-23-2010, 01:38 PM
The union members would have burned down Detroit if that would have happened.

I hope we never see the 70's again...but I do like alot of the music from the 70's .I have been hearing a lot of that on the radio lately.

The only thing that is different, is that we can buy all the gas we want right now, and inflation hasn't taken off yet.

Back then, we had inflation and high unemployment.

Chief Henry
09-23-2010, 01:48 PM
I have been hearing a lot of that on the radio lately.

The only thing that is different, is that we can buy all the gas we want right now, and inflation hasn't taken off yet.

Back then, we had inflation and high unemployment.

Bank CD yields were 12-17 %.....Borrowing money cost both arms and one leg. That peanut farmer from georgia sure knew what he was doing didn't he ?

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 07:30 PM
Yes, the buying power of a single dollar is 1/20th of what it was. That we agree. SO WHAT? The average American is FAR wealthier in every meaningful measurement of monetary wealth that you can devise. Unless you were hoarding your money under your bed, it doesn't much matter that a single dollar was devalued by X so long as your income/purchasing power has kept up rises in cost.

Would you rather make $5 when $5 buys $5 worth of stuff, or make $100, when $100 buys $10 worth of stuff? You're arguing the former, which makes no sense.

Oh, and regarding slave labor -- what's your solution? It's not really technically slave labor in many cases, it's just people willing to accept a hell of a lot less because their standards of living are so much lower. But anyway -- what are you going to do about it? Just insulate your economy? Good luck with that, that path has rarely led to increased wealth for the country that closes its borders.

This isn't the result of incomes increasing faster than inflation. It's the result of technology moving the supply curve.

Mr. Kotter
09-23-2010, 10:50 PM
Jamal needs more carries, and Cassel (to this point) sucks??? :shrug:

Just sayin.... :hmmm:

The Mad Crapper
09-24-2010, 09:13 AM
It's pretty simple, really:

American citizens demand more government than they are willing to pay for.

Who are these "citizens"? I don't know anybody who wants "more government". Everybody I know wants the government to get the hell out of his or her life.

Amnorix
09-24-2010, 11:40 AM
This isn't the result of incomes increasing faster than inflation. It's the result of technology moving the supply curve.

So if we'd stayed on the gold standard we'd all be 20x wealthier than we are now in REAL terms? You going to try to argue that?

The Mad Crapper
10-06-2010, 02:35 PM
Each month, tens of billions more dollars go out of the United States than come into it. In other words, every single month the United States gets poorer.

Recently, the U.S. trade deficit has been coming in at around 40 to 50 billion dollars a month. About half of that is with communist China.

Calcountry
10-06-2010, 02:45 PM
So if we'd stayed on the gold standard we'd all be 20x wealthier than we are now in REAL terms? You going to try to argue that?Perhaps there would have been no housing bubble bursting, and the cascading effects that resulted would have been avoided.(Not necessarily saying I am for GS, just positing one positive that would result from the whole country not being ass deep in debt).

Amnorix
02-15-2011, 07:09 AM
Perhaps there would have been no housing bubble bursting, and the cascading effects that resulted would have been avoided.(Not necessarily saying I am for GS, just positing one positive that would result from the whole country not being ass deep in debt).


BS. There have always been bubbles and bursts, both with and without gold standard etc. Tulips for chrissakes.

The Mad Crapper
03-04-2011, 04:28 PM
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/Gunkadink/ObamemptysuitPROMPTERcopy.jpg

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2011, 07:51 PM
Who are these "citizens"? I don't know anybody who wants "more government". Everybody I know wants the government to get the hell out of his or her life.

That's because you are the biggest out-of-touch unemployed douchebag on the friggin' Planet....

Seriously. Just sayin'. Congrats. :thumb:

The Mad Crapper
03-05-2011, 07:48 AM
That's because you are the biggest out-of-touch unemployed douchebag on the friggin' Planet....

Seriously. Just sayin'. Congrats. :thumb:

Look on the brightside, Kotter...

We'll both have identical pensions. :thumb:

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Change_Asshole_160.gif

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 07:15 AM
The conclusion is that the government deficit has to be reduced in a major way. Unfortunately, that's a problem too. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has recently passed a resolution reducing spending $61 billion over the last seven months of the current fiscal year, a pro-rated annual drop of about $100 billion from the 15% of budget that doesn't include entitlements or defense. While that's only small part of the total deficit, a Goldman Sachs economist has concluded that even that reduction would reduce 2nd and 3rd quarter GDP by 1.5%-to-2.0% annualized. In addition Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi says that the resolution would cost 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012 and reduce GDP by 0.5% this year and 0.2% next.

So there you have it. We can continue spending and do nothing and go over the cliff, or we can balance the budget and endure a period of slow growth (if we're lucky) with a resulting reduced living standard for a long time to come. And we didn't even touch upon the problem of how, at the same time, we maintain our infrastructure and raise our currently inadequate educational system.

In sum, there is no easy way out of the dilemma. If there were, someone would have come up with a solution by now.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-headwinds-just-became-a-hurricane-2011-3#ixzz1GIQr6Xkz

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 07:38 AM
The conclusion is that the government deficit has to be reduced in a major way. Unfortunately, that's a problem too. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has recently passed a resolution reducing spending $61 billion over the last seven months of the current fiscal year, a pro-rated annual drop of about $100 billion from the 15% of budget that doesn't include entitlements or defense. While that's only small part of the total deficit, a Goldman Sachs economist has concluded that even that reduction would reduce 2nd and 3rd quarter GDP by 1.5%-to-2.0% annualized. In addition Moody's Analytics Chief Economist Mark Zandi says that the resolution would cost 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012 and reduce GDP by 0.5% this year and 0.2% next.

So there you have it. We can continue spending and do nothing and go over the cliff, or we can balance the budget and endure a period of slow growth (if we're lucky) with a resulting reduced living standard for a long time to come. And we didn't even touch upon the problem of how, at the same time, we maintain our infrastructure and raise our currently inadequate educational system.

In sum, there is no easy way out of the dilemma. If there were, someone would have come up with a solution by now.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-economic-headwinds-just-became-a-hurricane-2011-3#ixzz1GIQr6Xkz


Holy crap. This is an intelligent post. Well done.

There is no doubt that either tax hikes or spending cuts when crawling (literally) out of a very serious recession is risky as it may lead to hte proverbial double dip.

My preferred approach would be to adopt a long temr plan to address our structural deficit situation. Unfortunately, government is horribly bad at long term planning.

Saul Good
03-11-2011, 08:33 AM
My preferred approach would be to adopt a long temr plan to address our structural deficit situation. Unfortunately, government is horribly bad at long term planning.

The Democrats have laid out a great plan for this. It's called kicking that shit down the road.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 09:02 AM
The Democrats have laid out a great plan for this. It's called kicking that shit down the road.

The republicans and Bush are just as guilty. They laid the groundwork for the idea that deficits were ok.

FishingRod
03-11-2011, 09:49 AM
Obviously B, we are not paying enough Taxes. If the Government chooses to spend money then we the people, Big Business , and Evil Oil companies are just going to stop being selfish and kick in whatever they want.. If one combines State local, sales, real estate, and the various other taxes the US government is still only taking in a little less than 50% of the GNP of this country. How could we expect them to operate on such a pittance?

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 10:35 AM
Obviously B, we are not paying enough Taxes.

Don't worry, after Obama gets re-elected you'll be paying more than enough taxes.

Amnorix
03-11-2011, 10:35 AM
Politicians in Washington have laid out a great plan for this. It's called kicking that shit down the road.

FYP.

I agree Republicans seem to be doing something right now, but it's akin to Democrats trying to raise taxes -- a unilateral, DOA approach that doesn't even solve the problem, it just attempts to move the ball solely at the cost of the other side, to speak.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 11:09 AM
The republicans and Bush are just as guilty. They laid the groundwork for the idea that deficits were ok.

Truth. :clap:

Hey, head to the OT (26th and Sycamore) for happy hour, and I'll buy your first...look for a black golf shirt and a goatee.

:toast:

Chief Faithful
03-11-2011, 11:16 AM
The republicans and Bush are just as guilty. They laid the groundwork for the idea that deficits were ok.
The idea that deficit spending was a healthy activity started a long long time before Bush. It really started with LBJ.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 11:19 AM
The idea that deficit spending was a healthy activity started a long long time before Bush. It really started with LBJ.What I meant was, once a republican bought into it like Bush did the dems really had a green light. Hence the 2009 boondoggle stimulus to nowhere and Obamacare.

mlyonsd
03-11-2011, 11:20 AM
Truth. :clap:

Hey, head to the OT (26th and Sycamore) for happy hour, and I'll buy your first...look for a black golf shirt and a goatee.

:toast:

Heh, I work in SC. Kind of a long drive. Thanks for the offer though.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 11:55 AM
Heh, I work in SC. Kind of a long drive. Thanks for the offer though.

Raincheck, then.

Calcountry
03-11-2011, 02:24 PM
BS. There have always been bubbles and bursts, both with and without gold standard etc. Tulips for chrissakes.Yes, the tulip thing is true, but when do we part company with the crowd?

The herd is going off the cliff with the deficit spending and runaway Kenesian economics, at some point, very real economic game changing events such as hyperinflation will take place. Gravity can not be denied its quarry. Neither can the law of Supply and Demand.

The only reason it has held so far, is the world wilde demand for a supply of dollars to be used as a reserve currency. That is all about to change though. What will be the very real and lasting economic impact of the Dollar no longer being the world reserve currency? We certainly won't be able to export our inflation to other countries anymore.

The Mad Crapper
03-11-2011, 02:30 PM
Yes, the tulip thing is true, but when do we part company with the crowd?

The herd is going off the cliff with the deficit spending and runaway Kenesian economics, at some point, very real economic game changing events such as hyperinflation will take place. Gravity can not be denied its quarry. Neither can the law of Supply and Demand.

The only reason it has held so far, is the world wilde demand for a supply of dollars to be used as a reserve currency. That is all about to change though. What will be the very real and lasting economic impact of the Dollar no longer being the world reserve currency? We certainly won't be able to export our inflation to other countries anymore.

Hyperinflation is right around the corner. Once gas prices go up to $4/$5 dollars a gallon, people will cut down their use, but that won't have any effect on supply and demand, because commercial businesses still need to transport goods and services.

So food prices will continue to rise, and the costs of shipping those goods will increase. Then when it hits a critical point, panic will set in and consumers will start to hoard food. And then the whole shithouse unravels just like Wiemer Germany.

This is already in play, and nothing consumers or the government (what a joke) does at this point is going to stop this dynamic from playing out. Red flag after red flag was speeded by like a 25 MPH sign, and now it's too late. Enjoy the hope and change.

Calcountry
03-11-2011, 02:41 PM
Hyperinflation is right around the corner. Once gas prices go up to $4/$5 dollars a gallon, people will cut down their use, but that won't have any effect on supply and demand, because commercial businesses still need to transport goods and services.

So food prices will continue to rise, and the costs of shipping those goods will increase. Then when it hits a critical point, panic will set in and consumers will start to hoard food. And then the whole shithouse unravels just like Wiemer Germany.

This is already in play, and nothing consumers or the government (what a joke) does at this point is going to stop this dynamic from playing out. Red flag after red flag was speeded by like a 25 MPH sign, and now it's too late. Enjoy the hope and change.I am mad, that I only bought TWO cans of coffee a couple of weeks ago, it is already up 2 bucks a can, dammit, I hate being right.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2011, 02:44 PM
Stagnant markets, and restrained consumber spending are more likely than hyperinflation. You can't get blood from the turnip that the middle class is becoming. It's a trend that may be hard to reverse, anytime soon.