Yes. There are too many people with their fingers in the cookie jar and no one paying attention to solid monetary policy. Regardless of what spin you get from Washington.
Yes and they are huge fingers in a negative cookie jar.
Actually, since you're not an American citizen, your words/opinion/perspective/perception or however else you want to describe it, is meaningless and of no value.
You cannot possibly add any value to the conversation because you cannot vote in our elections. Get my drift?
Hence, you offer nothing of value. And, just so you know, I'm not trying to invade your right to voice your opinion, because you do have it...I'm just letting you know it is valueless to Americans.
Because I am not an American citizen what I say is meaningless - get a life!
If you don't like what I say then either argue or leave it, piss or get off the pot as we say out here in the real world. Petty introverted abuse is the last resort of those with no argument.
On a serious note - you think your vote matters to the next guy who will be ripping you off ?
"Petty introverted abuse is the last resort of those with no argument."
Oh really? YOU might want to keep that in mind, sir.
Oh really - so you are another avatar of cagsil ?
Do you deny that you yourself resort to petty name calling on a regular basis?
You sound as though you think America is in a hermetically-sealed bubble and totally isolated from the rest of the world.
A lot of the issues we're discussing in this topic don't just apply to America, but to quite a few other countries as well. Or had that not occurred to you?
Where are the manufactoring jobs that helped to make the USA rich? Mostly gone to other countries where cheap labor makes our labor at home worth little or nothing. What is the dollar value doing on the world market? Dropping... while the Euro rises. Where are those who truely believe, "In God We Trust"? Not concentrated in Washington I bet!
How can we prosper when our homeless issues can't be resolved? When places like Detroit are planning on bulldozing up to a fourth of their city because police patrols and fire department activities are too far beyond local tax dollar support to maintain. When fiat money is floating around like crazy.
Nations come and nations go. Usually not in one generation, so it seems to "creep" upon the people effected. But history has taught us no man made government has ever been sustained. So how can we be so arrogant as to assume our nation or economy is indistructable?
I have a friend who lost close to a hundred thousand dollars in the stock market last year. Her broker is with a very well respected firm, and gave her no warning! Another friend saw much of her 401k (which she had worked close to 30 years to acclumulate), simply vanish into thin air last year. Does this sound like a healthy economy? Not to me.
Do I have any answers as to how to "fix" things? Not a one.
I believe this economy will collapse.
A lot of reasons will contribute to it under this debt system.
First, The bankers do not want to lose the power of creating debt dollars on your promise to pay. The interest they collect on loans is immense, and they have been collecting it for many decades. One needs only to look at how our national debt, cost of living and taxes have grown over those decades, to see that this system doesn't work.
Second, Our politicians have their hands in the banker's pockets through the bankers lobbyists. They love that reelection campaign money. Their dedication to the federal reserve chairman is obvious when one observes their demeanor when people like Greenspan and Bernanke are speaking. They sure know how to kiss the backsides of these entities that have abused the privilege of controlling our monetary system.
Why doesn't the fed res get audited every year? They are afraid the public will learn the truth.
Third, The masses do not even come close to realizing that they are being ripped off.
When it is explained to them, they become apathetic, or express fear of reprisal from TPTB.
Fourth, Most people, even when it is explained to them, cannot seem to think of money creation in any other manner than through indebtedness. They can't think in terms of wealth.
It seems that they feel their belief system is being destroyed.
Fifth, Other nations are really starting to have second thoughts about buying our debt. The value of our dollar had decreased immensely since the passage of the federal reserve act.
Sixth, Our foreign trade deficit is out of control. There is definitely an imbalance in foreign trade. Our inability to compete on the international markets is obvious. We have, and are still, losing high paying jobs to the cheap labor of our foreign competitors. Our companies are moving to those countries, and yet expect to sell their products to Americans that have been displaced, and have taken lower paying jobs.
Seventh, We are rapidly losing our manufacturing base. We have become mainly a service provider economy. We don't manufacture much anymore. We have allowed this debt building system to foster the gradual killing of our own markets.
Eighth, This system was designed for most businesses and people to eventually fail. Many individuals and businesses have resorted to ponzi schemes. Fraud is rampant. Unaccounted for government tax dollars, such as the disappearance of 8 billion in one hundred dollar bills in Iraq. I am sure there are more instances. Think of all the corporate fraud and bailouts.
Finally, this system will build debt to the point that just servicing the interest on total debt, will surpass total gross consumer income. At that time, man will not be able to afford to pay his taxes. Government will not be able to honor it's contracts with corporate America. The stock market will crash.
The IRA's, 401K's and pension plans invested, will go down the drain.
Timetable: Unless the government finds another type of stimulous package to delay the inevitable, I believe that collapse will come before 2015.
Just my 2 cents worth.
It is not your companies moving as in packing up and going, they are slipping away bit by bit through International trading, of their goods and their share ownership etc. - most big companies are International anyway and are only notionally fixed or part of any country - mainly for protection of one kind or another from the areas they have under aggressive economic attack. They have no financial dependency on the country of their origin and therefore no patriotism or 'home' there. Most of the big names are already invested heavily outside America with your money - Dick Cheney among them.
Countries may fall in an economic collapse but the Companies will be largely immune.
China man, My 2 cents worth was intended to show how our fractional debt monetary system, and for that matter, most countries in the world that have central bankers, are teetering on the brink of economic collapse.
While I realize that most corporations have no allegiance to any nation, it seems that they have no trouble in knowing where to beg for bailout monies.
You can bet that AIG, Bear Stearns, Enron, BofA, Citigroup, and many others had international offices or at the very least, international ties.
They knew where to come to beg however.
How many companies must we bail out? Chrysler twice, and now GM.
These entities are international in scope. I do not for one minute, believe your statement that, "Countries may fall in an economic collapse but the companies will be largely immune". I believe that a great many of the stalwarts will fall.
Why did we have to bail out so many banks? What happened to Lehman Brothers? While a lot of the corporate world is intertwined, it may be that the health of any corporation will be only as good as it's counterpart's health.
If the economies of the world were working properly, we wouldn't be going through the upheavals that the PIIGS are going through. It is obvious that their businesses are not weathering the economic storms of the world, so they cannot be immune. More bailouts on the horizon for this nation's credit card?
I agree generally with all you are saying -
my point is that Companies like AIG, Bear Stearns, Enron, BofA, Citigroup are not the people who own them, and the people who own them can either slide their 'portfolio' to another company if the 'name' goes down and buy the remainings from a.n.other company - or split big companies into 'divisions' that are based in other countries. Most of these companies should be owned by the taxpayer as the taxpayer has paid for them, some of them several times. The people with the big money are invested in 'foreign' companies all over the world and can play a country for cash, as I believe has happened with Bush and Cheney corp.
Most economists say that the American economy is recovering after nearly collapsing thanks to Wall Street Bankster excesses, regulatory failures and a variety of moral lapses and bad business judgment in the mortgage and construction industry.
Here's a link from this morning's paper to an interesting article on Lehman's failure--
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/busin … f=business
Ups and downs ? the excesses you are describing are simply passing money or assets up to the very rich whether they go up or down - only the middle players and the tax payer get burned.
IF there is a winner, there has to be a loser. If there is a buyer, there has to be a seller.
You are correct when you say that only the middle players and tax payer get burned.
The privileged few are the ones benefiting. That is why I say that we are killing our own markets. The money gravitates to the wealthy under this debt system. The middle players and tax payers end up with less expendable income. If we can't buy, they can't sell. this sets off a series of cost cutting measures. First, cutting quality, followed by wage and benefit cuts, then hours worked cut, then outsourcing and/or moving company to another country. Now they can make their products cheaper, but they have cut the ability of their target consumers to purchase, through the cost cutting measures mentioned above.
The privileged few can only purchase so much. It is this debt system that is to blame.
We would do well to insulate ourselves now from the big correction coming for China's economy.
At the same time that the Toyota recall scandal broke Japan bought huge amounts of TBills from China. Japan is now our largest creditor.
Why would Japan buy our debt?
Japan, like China, buys your debt because your economy would collapse if they didn't. Making profit can only happen if goods are being sold and bought, if you guys stop buying then there is no-one to sell to.
On top of that, if they allowed your economy to really crash, as happened in the 30's, you have a habit of going to war and you still have the most 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' as far as I am aware.
Because we are the world's largest economy. It is a safe place to keep $
How many conspiracy theorist can there be in one forum? Go get your aluminium foil hats on...
The situation is, that you haven't anything to contribute to honest debate.
That is why people like you resort to comments such as yours above?
If you are so brilliant, please enlighten us with your assessment of how our economy has achieved the unsustainable amount of debt over the decades. Please explain how this debt monetary system works, in detail,
from money being created to money being extinguished, and the effects of interest on the masses.
We anxiously await your pearls of wisdom. Now don't run away.
None of our best economists have said that our debt is unsustainable. It was higher at the end of World War II as we were going into a sustained period of full employment, economic growth and prosperity. What is the basis for your assertion that our debt is unsustainable. I might agree that continuing to INCREASE the debt at the current rate of increase is unsustainable, but that's not what's going to happen.
At the end of that war there was such a huge world-wide re-building programme and markets were expanding so that all the economic models worked. In a contracting market the models do not work - we need new models because the only way to force the model on the world is another war, and this has been the pattern in the past where the face of war is one thing but the underlying reason is economics.
Ralph, You say that you might agree that continuing to INCREASE the debt at the current rate of increase is unsustainable, but that's not what's going to happen.
Please explain why our debt has grown by trillions.
Please explain why, in most cases, one breadwinner cannot support a family.
Please explain why the average person or family is so deeply in debt to their credit cards, and why their share of our nations debts are so high.
Please explain how you can pay down debt with dollars that are created as debt.
Aren't we simply just transfering our debts to someone else under this debt system?
Please explain to us what is going to happen, if we continue to operate under this same monetary system, where without more indebtedness, we would be without a medium of exchange.
You seem to think we will not collapse economically. Why? How do we pay down debt? How do we compete and still service our debts, on an uneven playng field?
Our debt has grown for several reasons:
1. Bush tax cuts for the rich and failure to collect taxes owed by corporations and others.
2. New Bush programs adopted without money to pay for them--e.g., the give-away to the drug companies in Medicare.
3. Cost of stupid, unnecessary war in Iraq $711 billion.
4. Cost of questionable war in Afghanistan to date--$259 billion and growing--
5. Escalating unfunded cost of Medicare due to a variety of factors including the growing prevalence of "for profit medicine" where doctors make money from ordering unnecessary tests and surgical procedures some of which are actually harmful to patients.
6. The popularity of government services and the unpopularity of taxes to pay for them.
7. The escalating military budget despite the fact that the Cold War ended 20 years ago.
8. Government waste and Congressional pork.
9. And most recently the economic recovery (stimulus) program which has prevented a deeper, longer recession or possibly a depression.
All of this has no doubt contributed, but the debt started escalating long before Bush (I know I keep banging on about my graph but if you look at it you'll see that things really took off debt-wise in about 1980).
In any Western country you'll find that a large proportion of government spending (and hence debt) is on things like welfare benefits and pensions (whether pensions for public sector workers or State pensions (= Social Security in America?)). Regardless of whether you agree with such spending, you have to admit that there's no "return on investment" on it, unlike with - say - roads or education.
Like I've said elsewhere, a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._ … Y_2007.png
You hope. Personally, I have my doubts.
Your're right the debt started to go up around 1980 thanks to Reagan's tax cuts and star wars expenditures. It continued up under Bush I and then declined under Clinton and resumed it's upward climb under Bush II and Obama.
Note how much higher it was in 1945 after the huge debt incurred during World War II. This debt didn't sink our ship however, and the nation entered an era of unprecedented prosperity, aside from a period under Carter when inflation got out of control, that continued pretty much until 1980.
Aaaargh... You're STILL doing that "debt as a percentage of domestic product" thing. I would rather look at a graph that gave me the ACTUAL debt (albeit corrected for inflation) than one giving debt as a percentage of an artifical construct.
Ralph, I will go along with much of what you attribute to the increase of our indebtedness.
I however believe that you still cannot get past money being created as debt to the people as the main problem.
I have in my possession, letters from the treasury, the federal reserve, and the library of congress, that explains that all money is created through the (EXTENSION OF CREDIT) from private commercial banks.
This means interest bearing loans, with no money created to pay the interest on the loans, unless someone else borrows more, and spends the debt principal of their loan into circulation, making it available for others to capture through commerce, enabling them to pay their interest to the bankers. This system forces more and more borrowing, just to have a medium of exchange. The contraction of credit by the bankers was the cause of the 1929 crash. That alone proves that if we do not borrow, we begin an immediate collapse.
Other borrowing is done by congress. They can borrow on the credit of the people of this country.
All money is debt!
Even the economic stimulous that supposedly saved us from depression, was laid on the backs of the people. The stimulous didn't actually accomplish anything more than transfer the debt of the bailed out businesses, on to the people.
Every cent we have in circulation, in checking, in savings, invested in pension plans, etc., is debt to someone. If there is a winner, there has to be a loser under this system.
Federal reserve notes, are just that, (NOTES). A note is an IOU. An IOU is not final payment. That is why I say that we do not pay off debt, but just transfer it to others, who have had to borrow, making the money available for us to pay our bills.
Can you accept that this is the way this fractional banking debt system works? Can you tell me how we can pay debt with debt? If it's possible, why hasn't our national debt been paid? Why has the government put a nearly 3 trillion IOU in the social security fund?
So far as I know the government hasn't defaulted on its debt and is not expected to in the forseeable future. That's why other countries buy it as the best safe haven in the world for their money. Now, I'm not saying that in the future if we don't stop spending so much more than we're taking in in taxes, either by cutting expenses (two wars? military budget? government waste?, unnecessary or non-cost-effective programs) or raising taxes or a combination of the two our credit won't be damaged. None other than Michael Kinsley expressed doubts about this and whether the goldbugs may be right in this month's Atlantic. We should be pay attention to what the bipartisan Concord Coalition headed by Pete Peterson and Bob Kerry is saying.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/d … ional-debt
Ralph, No the government has not defaulted on it's debt yet. We however, are facing higher and higher taxes to just service the interest on that indebtedness.
We don't pay down the debt, so how long, at the current rate of expansion of debt, will it be before servicing the interest on that debt becomes impossible?
Remember, no money was created to pay the interest on all of that borrowing, and more money has to be borrowed and spent into circulation, so it exists for people to capture in their paycheckis, enabling them to pay those increased taxes to service that debt interest.
jerryl, are you aware that U.S. taxes are among the lowest and most regressive of the advanced industrialized countries?
Ralph, Many of those countries have national healthcare plans. Start factoring in the necessary facts. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Most people I know, complain about their taxes. A good share of the taxes have been pushed off onto the states. We may see a tax break on the federal level, only to find that the burden has been shifted to somewhere else.
What will congress do when soc sec goes belly up? The IOU's they put into the soc sec account are useless. They have no money to pay back.
Where are they going to borrow from next?
I don't see where people figure that just maintaining the interest payments will stop the upcoming collapse, when the debt keeps growing.
Look at PIIGS, They are on the verge of collapse. They are under central banking debt monetary systems also. What is going to save them?
They are looking toward more borrowing to put their version of a temporary bandaid on their gaping economic wounds. There never seems to be any other solution except more borrowing under this system.
Wake up and smell the roses. Why is it so hard for you to admit that we are under a debt building system? Does that destroy your belief system?
If I were wrong, I would readily admit it. The evidence is there. We do not create money as evidence of wealth to the people, but as evidence of indebtedness to the people. When the banks make loans on your promise to pay, they are always creating a debt greater than the amount of debt dollars created to spend into circulation. That's because of usury interest. It is usury, because no money is created to pay the interest, which forces more borrowing.
No amount of manipulation can change that fact.
No, it wasn't:
Scroll down to the graph with the red bars.
Felicity, I am confused. No it wasn't what? What is it that you are referring to? Is it Ralph's post?
It was in response to Ralph saying "None of our best economists have said that our debt is unsustainable. It was higher at the end of World War II."
You're not looking at this in the abominable "Threaded" view, are you? Switch to "Chronological" - you'll get a better idea of who said what in response to whom.
Felicity, I guess I was looking at it wrong. I did read that revealing link you supplied. Keep up the good work. If more people would do the research, it would be great.
All of my research comes from the treasury, the fed res, the library of congress, bankers and economics professors themselves.
With the bankers and professors, it usually comes after we have them up a tree during an extended debate.
The weird thing is that I consider myself to be very unlettered when it comes to economics - I've just read bits here and there on the Internet, plus one or two books by people like Murray Rothbard. And yet when I watch pundits on the TV news or read the papers (even the so-called "quality" papers) I can spot some of the howlers a mile off. How is it possible that someone can study economics to PhD level and get a university job in the subject, and yet not be aware of the stuff that you and a couple of other people here are talking about?
ou should not be too surprised about that - economists talk economics and politicians talk anything to get what they want.
It is the same with philosophy, philosophers often cannot see the wood for the trees, just like anyone else deeply into their subject. I have given lectures on all the different languages used by different disciplines - using over 20 to explain a fairly simple point - and all still in English. These guys are often oblivious to things anyone can see.
Too look with common sense often is to see the King without his clothes. I see the phrases they use mostly, like 'negative growth', these apparently simple words mean that for any of their models to work economies must be expanding, or growing, all the time as the base line. someone wrote a book more than 20 years ago about this and they predicted this crash as inevitable and maybe the end of the economic models we use.
On another note I see things here in China that make me realise how much unneccessary profit added value there is in everything western from a visit to Hospital here. I got a possibly malignant mole checked, removed and on my way home in less than 90 minutes from walking in without an appointment. In the UK the tiers of unneccessary people and appointments take 3 or 4 months just to get through if the specialist can be dragged from the golf course in his rolls Royce. Also here, they rang me 3 days later to tell me it was benign, no fuss, no appointment, just a simple phone call.
If you remember the name of the book or its author, give us a shout.
Do you have to pay for healthcare in China?
The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book modeling the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies, commissioned by the Club of Rome. Its authors were Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The book used the World3 model to simulate the consequence of interactions between the Earth's and human systems. The book echoes some of the concerns and predictions of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798).
Yes it is a pay-for system. For my possible carcinoma an instant diagnosis, immediate surgical removal, testing the tissue for cancer and telephoning me 3 days later with the result = 230 Yuan, around 22 GBP, 30 dollars in a dedicated cancer hospital.
Every job carries Health Isurance, my job here does and I got refunded from the school. Anyone without insurance gets treated first and given the bill after - This would be a lot of money for some people here but there is a strong family system and people help each other, many of the poorest people still find the thousands of Yuan to send their kids to University and College somehow, around 7000 Yuan per semester, and everyone seems to get the treatment they need.
"Anyone without insurance gets treated first and given the bill after - This would be a lot of money for some people here but there is a strong family system and people help each other, many of the poorest people still find the thousands of Yuan and everyone seems to get the treatment they need."
"a 1972 book "
I wonder if there is a chapter on the impending Ice Age? LOL!
"Rapidly growing world population". *Groan*. Sorry, I don't think I'll be reading this. The problems we're experiencing in the West are population decline, not growth - these are masked by immigration but that's the underlyling trend. The fact is that if you have good medical care and nutrition then you tend to have fewer children, hence the decline in population. If other countries in the world also become reasonably affluent then they'll experience the same phenomenon. The "population explosion" thing is a myth.
Only put it there cos you asked for it bro !! the only interesting thing for this topic is that it predicts this economic crisis from 30 years ago and that it may the final showdown for old style economics and politics, otherwise nothing interesting really, just a few graphs and figures, evidence and stuff.
"On another note I see things here in China that make ..."
Felicity, Have you ever given much thought to (WHO DECIDES WHAT GOES INTO THE BOOKS ON ECONOMICS THAT ARE USED TO TEACH OUR STUDENTS)?
You would be surprised at how many economics professors cannot think of money in terms of being an evidence of wealth to the people. They can however, completely understand that money must be an evidence opf debt to the people.
My friends and I have had many debates with these so-called experts. It doesn't take us long to have them at bay, up a tree, not knowing how to answer our questions. When this happens, they usually demand that we leave their offices. It's like we are destroying their belief systems.
Many politicians are actually afraid for their physical safety. They have told us so.
I would like to send you a link that deals with this topic, created by some of my friends that have been studying this topic for 25 years, and lobbying for monetary change for at least 14 years. However, hubpages has rules against that sort of thing. If there was a way to get it to you, I would.
In response to the idea that this is conspiracy theory - - -
This is not conspiracy theory - it is economics. Let me put it in simple words for you -
The US and most of west has bought more than it has sold for over twenty years - if this was you, you would be deep in debt, you probably are like many others.
So your country is in deep doo-doo and can only operate because China and Japan are lending you the money to bail you out.
But you cannot compete with any outside manufacturer - sorry I used long words, I meant to say - US can't make stuff cheaper so you will stay in deep doo-doo.
The huge countries that make up the Asian economies are going to be top dog, together they already are in many ways. So you will have to learn to live poor.
It seems you don't understand economics much either
What is your answer to our financial problems?
Others are elaborating, or at least trying, why not you?
Is the economy going to collapse? Why or why not?
I want to be able to better understand your position on this topic.
He is ok - he has a credit card to keep him safe
"What is your answer to our financial problems? "
If I knew that would I be here chatting with you? It's not so simple that this thread is going to solve it. But don't worry, it's not going to "collapse."
Sab Oh, You say "But don't worry, it's not going to collapse".
Now you try to turn it around on me. I knew you wouldn't answer. Well'
read on. Now is your chance to show your stuff.
I will take your word for that, if you can explain how to stop this nation's debt from growing? Even during the Clinton years, we didn't even balance the budget. We in essence, boprrowed from Peter to pay Paul.
How are you going to pay off our debts with debt dollars?
I have given my solution to our economic problems on another thread.
(PLACE THE BLAME FOR OUR ECONOMIC WOES WHERE IT BELONGS).
Now, where is your solution? Give us some quotes we can look up, to verify your statements. Do you have any documentation?
Lets hear it
Jerryl you are wasting your time talking to a troll with no ideas of its own, no ability to reason and no life experience. You should just ignore it and talk to the people on here who will discuss the issue rather than reply to the troll's pointless baiting.
You are making all your well thought out points with clarity and detail, it is not necessary to have to repeat yourself - the troll is not trying to think or argue, just making smart ass comments for reasons of its own.
"and no life experience."
There you go again. Insecurity
China man, You are absolutely right. I will ignore this illiterate shill for the banking interests. I believe it is his intention to screw up any meaningful thread. Keep posting, I look forward to your thoughts.
Ok, CL, tell me exactly when it will "collapse" so we can congratulate you on your foresight when it does. I'll make it easy on you - just give us the year. You can do that, can't you?
Like you I question economics experts and professors, they seem to behave more like the religious experts and professors that I get to talk to just as frequently. Some of them even use the same phraseology and refer to 'faith' in this or that. Maybe it is because the issue is at a fundamental level in the reasoning, they cannot imagine any system that is not profit based. It is after all how they earn their dollars.
China man, I have a friend named Byron, who is one of the most brilliant people that I know when it comes to this topic. He and I disagree on only a couple things.
One is my assertion that quite a few people, that I refer to as TPTB, have knowledge about the fraud being perpetrated on the masses by this debt system.
He disagrees. He doesn't think that very many people understand this mess we call our monetary system.
We however, have both written articles and submitted them to newspapers, to no avail. Most radio talk shows do not want to touch the topic. The same goes for television. For people that he thinks do not understand, there sure seems to be a concerted effort to conceal the truth from reaching the masses. I truly believe that TPTB control the media when it comes to this topic.
I would have to go with your friend on this. The refusal to engage with any 'outside' ideas is just normal behaviour unless something brings it to the front of public attention. Also there is a vested interest in ass licking when it comes to do with money. A banker is just an office worker who deals with money - or he would be paid normal wages like any other office worker.
A basic issue is that economics deals with people as categories, numbers, grades etc., you are asking human questions of a mathematical system. My own opinion is that logic plays a part - I have a hub in the making about the faults of using logic in everyday thinking - maybe I will put it up even though I haven't really tested what I say properly yet.
What gets me is that people fall for titles, hook, line and sinker.
Professor comes to mind. To profess, means they profess to have some skill or knowledge. In many cases, people gain those credentials by memorizing the text books that someone else published, and pass tests on that topic. I wonder how many economics professors have actually researched the effects of interest on debt to it's depths?
Very few I would expect. most professors we have questioned, have no clue as to how money is created.
This is not confined to economics professors and experts, most experts are narrowly confined to their field. In a working world the government would take advice from them and do the other part of the job to assess the effect on the human numbers and act accordingly. When government just started working for the super-rich they stopped bothering about the fact that their numbers are people. They know they can put any drivel into the media system and idiots will follow it along, like not bothering to even cover their lying about WMD in Iraq.
Nothing new - the first modern case were the enclosure acts that peaked in use around 1750 driving people off their land and out of their villages, Sheep were more profitable.
"You say "But don't worry, it's not going to collapse"."
That's right, it's not. The sky isn't falling, although I know it's much more exciting to think it is.
The debt model is designed to collapse on itself. It's not sustainable.
Who collapses first? The EU or the United States?
It's all coming. Nothing is being done to prevent it. As those who control the debt model are unwilling to share the wealth.
Unfortunately what is happening is those people are acquiring title to all the hard assets and property. So when it does finally collapse they will legally own everything. So when it's rebuilt after the collapse they will still be at the top.
It's always been this way and it will always be this way.
A friend of mine has been lobbying our state legislature for monetary change.
One of the legislators is a banker by profession. My friend brought a ficticious financial statement to him for advice on whether he could get a loan with his current finances.
The banker/legislator read the financial statement and told my friend that he had no chance of getting a loan. He said my friend was so far in debt that it was hopeless.
My friend then told that legislator to (CHANGE THE THOUSANDS, TO BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS), and he would have the financial statement of the USA.
The legislator still would not support monetary change, unless the bankers would give him the OK.
For those who don't understand how the money supply works and who controls it... take a moment to do a little reading:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=10489
It's not about Bush or Obama or programs. It's the system itself. The Fractional Reserve Banking System is not sustainable.
Mike, I would like to get a link to you also. I know you would appreciate the work that has gone into the site that my friends put up.
While lengthy, it is very informative.
I know you understand the problems, but you may get even more incite from the site.
Let me know how I can get it to you. I have no other motives than revealing the truth about this fraud by deception, and educating as many people as possible. That is the only way we can rescue this nation, unless it's too late already.
THE ECONOMY AND HEALTHCARE REFORM BILL DISCUSSION
The ECONOMY and HEALTHCARE Reform Special Live From WASHINGTON
on Saturday 3/20/10 EXCLUSIVLY on Fox News cable at 10:00am to 12:00 ET time
NO OTHER PLACE BUT FOX NEWS
A program regarding healthcare reform '' LIVE AND UNCUT '' direct from Washington , hosted by Neil Cavuto.
BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE? Try not to miss it. Will congress pass a bill against the will of the people? Will it be the party or the people if a vote is taken?
The program is only on FOX NEWS and wondering if excerpts will be shown or even discussed on the main street media .The only question remains if Pelosi got the votes required to pass the bill? Either way, it should be an interesting program.
I have little or no interest in anything put forth by FOX NEWS.
Fox is not fair and balanced! Any debates I have seen on Fox has usually been extreme right wing politics. Their pundits have their say, then shout over opposition, no matter what their political leanings, demo or independent.
I would watch most any other network, albeit, with a huge grain of salt.
I consider most media as controlled by TPTB.
In my opinion, they are just furthering the gladiator games to keep the masses dumbed down. More smoke screens. They will dodge the real issue, (WHY IS IT WE HAVE TO BORROW TO HAVE A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE)?
I've been to the US (NYC) and China (Wuhan). I'd say the US is in big trouble. The Chinese are getting an education, their companies are rapidly moving up the value chain. Americans are largely sitting around watching American Idol and waiting for the next government handout.
It's not just China the US should fear - look at the number of successful hubbers from India. Look at the traffic this site gets from India. Money is moving East.
The Chinese and Indians have started off doing our manual/boring jobs. But they are learning to think, to stand on their own feet.
Capitalism has been pretty resilient. But it's no where near as stable as economists like to imagine.
There was a lot of nonsense that national financial institutions like the Fed had finally found the tools to tame the business cycle and that markets were now 'perfect' in their ability to price goods and services. The housing bubble and the near collapse of the banking system proved that was an illusion.
The greatest threats in the longer and medium term though are environmental. Resource issues like food shortages, oil price spikes, water shortages, climate change can and probably will destabilize whole countries and markets. Political fallout like job losses, stock market panics can amplify every issue.
When you hear politicians talking about 'living in an uncertain world', 'the challenges ahead' etc they are more than just cliches.
We have been fortunate to live through a period of great stability since WW2 that, historically speaking, is very rare.
I agree with you about resources Will.As countries like China, India, Brazil and so on get richer basic commodities like oil, gas, food and so on will have to get much more expensive. I can't remember the exact statistic but if everyone consumed resources at the rate America does now we would need something like 10 or 20 planets to sustain it.
So if those emerging economies keep growing - which it looks like they will - the established economies of America, Europe etc will end up with a smaller piece of the pie. It's just not possible for them to get much richer without us getting poorer because of the inescapable limit on certain resources.
It is technically possible to create a sustainable world economy that will give everyone a decent standard of living. The problem is that the established energy giants and creators of our life styles have been very successful so far at blocking the change over. They would be the great losers.
Governments understand the issues well enough but cannot bring the changes we need in the face of entrenched interests.
If change can happen now or at least soon, our civilization could have an unlimited future.
The bubble will burst AND WE SHOULD NOT SURPRISED because our government is not telling the American people the truth about the deficit and the national debt.
Unemployment of 14.9 million people isn't filling the treasury as projected.
thats a high unemployment figure to work with - and if the bubble has burst, I hate to suggest it, but maybe it was the past government that let the bubble be blown up until it was almost at breaking point and checks and balances should or could have been put in place earlier.. you cant blame Obama for George.
Also, if you keep bagging the man whose been given the clean up job, your not going to get far and you might end up with someone worse than George.
Sometimes such times are the beginning of new industries and better lifestyle choices.
it is apart from an economic system, a belief system.. do you believe it will collapse, well, you can help create that outcome, or you can look for ways it can work.
Economics can be a reflection of current social values.. Look at what you value and you will find if you fit that in as a variable to your economic thinking and you might come up with an answer.
What type of country do you want to create?
Salt, Good post, However, nothing can be accomplished until the government comes up with a monetary system that allows money to be created as an evidence of wealth to the people, rather then an evidence of indebtedness. This will never happen while the federal reserve and it's fractional banking system is in charge of our money.
We have to first earn money, then spend it into circulation. Currently, all M1 money in existence, has been borrowed by someone, at interest, and then spent into circulation. No money has been created to pay the interest on the billions of loans. That interest cost has to go somewhere.
It usually shows up in higher taxes and cost of living.
While I applaud your idea of looking for ways to make things work, it is impossible to pay debt with debt, and monetized debt is all we have to use as our medium of exchange. We are mortgaging to death our future productivity, and leaving the mess for our children and grandchildren.
The answer is to educate as many people as possible to the fraud by deception that is being perpetrated upon them by our current system.
Most people have no clue as to how money is created and how it gets
into circulation. If they knew the facts, there would be a lot of angry voters out the incumbent puppets of the bankers.
There is an answer, but nothing will change until we break the hold over our elected officials that the banking lobby has on them.
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
Is there anyone reading who can explain the global economic crisis simply and objectively in just a few paragraphs? When I try to find information to understand what's going on with the Euro and with the US economy,...
by jomine6 years ago
Most American companies sell their products to the third world. But indigenous companies are mushrooming in third world, and finally a stage will reach that the markets will be saturated and there won't be any space to...
by James Smith4 years ago
Modern conservatives claim that their ideology rests on these principles: individual liberty, small government, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence and the rule of law. I'd just like to focus on the small...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess...
by Holle Abee7 years ago
WHY are we helping to bail out Greece when we're broke? I mean, I feel sorry for the Greek citizens, but can we really afford this right now?
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
Most people agree that regulations are needed. What would the regulations and safeguards be based on? How can they be implemented? What are the excesses?Should States get more involved?Should the Fed deal with whatever...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.