U.S. Shutdown, no agreement

[Pat494]

In the material and well-being sense (not "money") most people have a better life than their children, much better than their grandchildren and much, much better than their great grandchildren. If that's what all those evil Governments have led us to then bring it on I say.

Did you mean to say that ?
You may be meaning most children have a better life than their parents. Or do you mean things are getting worse ?

 

[barjon]

Did you mean to say that ?
You may be meaning most children have a better life than their parents. Or do you mean things are getting worse ?

oh yes got my knickers in a twist - people today have a better standard of life than their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers etc.

it's all that thinking about sound money turned my head

thx for pointing it up, pat

 

[WR1]

its always been the same (apparently)
big business and capitalism not paying there fair share and US weapon funding and wars has primarily ruined American and each time they cry wolf the less the world will care

a country who wont pay for the very poorest for health care is a very sorry state
one could ask what the US citizens get for all their taxes, more weapons ? more spying power and being terrorised by their own country

something will give but unfortunately possibly not in our life times

quite a good program on the early US industrial revolution was the men who built America, soon to be repeated on History for those that did nt see the first run,
and was no different then in the days of the real JP Morgan

http://www.history.com/shows/men-who-built-america

http://www.unsealedfiles.com/the-conspiracy-files
as looks like congress don't really rule anyway

 

[Splitlink]

oh yes got my knickers in a twist - people today have a better standard of life than their fathers, grandfathers, great grandfathers etc.

it's all that thinking about sound money turned my head

thx for pointing it up, pat

Well, they may have a better standard, now, but I am not sure how long it will last.

I heard on the radio, today, how the young do not have , anywhere near, the knowledge that their peers in South Corea have., whereas the reverse was the case 30 years ago.

Wake up, Europeans, the Asiatics are hungry for our quality of life!

The report said that the older generation tends to obtain and keep jobs more than the younger one does because the latter does not have the skills.

One would be employer said that, on one occasion, a teenager was consulting his cellphone while being interviewed!

 

[Purple Brain]

While the position in the USA could be considered indefensible, it has to be remembered that a spending bill was passed which funded the government for an additional 2 months - part of the funding package required a cut in funding to Obamacare. One person's 'playing politics' is anothers checks & balances.

It's a sorry state to be sure, but the same situation has occurred on occasion between the Commons and the Lords in the UK.

 

[Pat494]

Been watching Obama on TV.
He claims to have cut the deficit by half in his term of office so far ! Is that true ? I thought it was still rising !

 

[Purple Brain]

Been watching Obama on TV.
He claims to have cut the deficit by half in his term of office so far ! Is that true ? I thought it was still rising !

More or less. 35% reduction YoY 2012/13. Partly due to the incredible levels it rose to in 2008 and partly due to the massive increase in domestic gas production - mostly through fracking.

I can't identify any specific legislation or policy enacted during his tenure that has in any way directly contributed to that reduction - basically, it wold have happened whoever was sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Purple Brain]

Jon, are you implying that debt built America?

America was built on Capitalism, freedom and most importantly, sound money. Socialism, The Federal Reserve system and abandoning the gold standard are among the things that have ruined it.

Many of the 'sound money' proponents state or imply that leaving the gold standard was the straw that broke the camel's back and that inflation is due primarily to dollar deflation rather than goods & services inflation.

I wish I could point them all to the inflation graphs which clearly illustrate inflation has damped since 1971. The spikes and runs we saw prior to 1971 have, save for a couple of fairly obvious exceptions, completely been removed.

Debt does not cause inflation. Central banks issue base money - not debt. They facilitate the acceptance of debt.

Inflation is the decline of absolute value of money in comparison to Gold. Gold could become incredibly precious and buy only a fraction of what it did 10 years back, but a dollar could still buy a dollar's worth of service and product. Leaving the gold standard facilitated a free market - not hindered it.

 

[counter_violent]

So, Obama goes on telly to address the nation. 1hr of absolutely nothing, stock markets paused a while, then continued the sell off. He talked about a minority trying to hold the country to ransom. From where I stand, they are trying to hold the govt to acct.
He must try harder me thinks!

 

[Purple Brain]

He hasn't been the most charismatic or useful of presidents.

USA's answer to Gordon Brown.

 

[Pat494]

The Chinese are really worried that the US may default on those trillions of debt. They should never have lent all that money to a country that only knows massive spending. Austerity there - I think not.

We all look on, perhaps not realizing the enormity of the crisis if they default. The knock-on affect will break other countries according to the pundits. Remember little Thailand's problems - well their knock-on effect was surprisingly large.

The politicians aren't imo doing their jobs properly just letting the crisis fester. Heads should roll.

 

[darktone]

Many of the 'sound money' proponents state or imply that leaving the gold standard was the straw that broke the camel's back and that inflation is due primarily to dollar deflation rather than goods & services inflation.

Hmmm, I no comprendo this bit. Did you mean devaluation?

I wish I could point them all to the inflation graphs which clearly illustrate inflation has damped since 1971. The spikes and runs we saw prior to 1971 have, save for a couple of fairly obvious exceptions, completely been removed.

Id like to see these graphs if you could post em up. From what ive looked at the only reason it could be claimed that theres no spikes is because they are all heading up, in parabolic fashion.

Debt does not cause inflation. Central banks issue base money - not debt. They facilitate the acceptance of debt.

All as i understand it:
Central banks issue base money (which they create with no limit from nothing) by buying securities,,, Debt! In the not so bad old days it used to be gov bonds, but i think they buy any old ****e the private banks want rid of now. This base money makes up a fraction of the total money supply, was 3ish% but i think its nearer 85 with all the recent QE.
Inflations primary source imo is the over issuance (and acceptance) of money (debt). The housing market is a nice example.


I dont know if youve ever had discussions and tried to reason with a hardline goldbug before (or a debt based proponent for that matter). But in my experience it is a fruitless endeavour. Unless you like being insulted, ignored, told you are of course completely wrong in all your musings, then youll enjoy whats to come,,,from a certain someone! :whistling

All the best
D

 

[Pat494]

The Chinese are really worried that the US may default on those trillions of debt. They should never have lent all that money to a country that only knows massive spending. Austerity there - I think not.

We all look on, perhaps not realizing the enormity of the crisis if they default. The knock-on affect will break other countries according to the pundits. Remember little Thailand's problems - well their knock-on effect was surprisingly large.

The politicians aren't imo doing their jobs properly just letting the crisis fester. Heads should roll.

It really looks like it comes down to 2 men whether they plunge the world into a new Depression and worse. And they are Boehner versus Obama. It should never have been allowed to be decided by just 2 men. The US system should be radically overhauled as soon as possible. They are the classic example of " too big to fail."

 

[darktone]

It really looks like it comes down to 2 men whether they plunge the world into a new Depression and worse. And they are Boehner versus Obama. It should never have been allowed to be decided by just 2 men. The US system should be radically overhauled as soon as possible. They are the classic example of " too big to fail."

I think its all theatre, just another distraction.
I remember the last, or was it before last? debt ceiling nonsense. So much was made of it that an audit of the Fed (first since of its kind since its inception as i understand) was completely missed by the mainstream media. How very convenient!

 

[Purple Brain]

US treasuries are used as collateral for over 30% of all (Global) overnight financing. It won't take an outright failure to agree on a new debt ceiling itself for it to start to increase the amount of collateral required or even indeed, the type of collateral required. All it takes is the increase in risk and that is exactly what is happening right now.

The US's creditworthiness is already under assault and it will take a lot more time to bring it back into the fold than it took for it to leave it.

The debt ceiling should be abolished. One less thing for a split senate/house of representatives to tangle about.

The Republicans are using the situation to attempt to repeal already legally passed legislation. It won't be forgiven. A better way to have handled their dislike of Obamacare would have been to wait until 2016 and get full control of the legislature and then repeal it. If it needs repealing of course. Given its current structure it'll more likely blow itself out of the water soon enough.

 

[new_trader]

Well, if you refuse to believe Government played no part in fostering, facilitating and leading the charge (which flies against the facts I think) then they must, at the very least, have cast a benign eye over it.

Maybe you can educate me then Jon. The Government can only TAX and Regulate. They 'subsidise', but that is nothing more than redistribution of the money they taxed. Like Ronald Reagan famously said:

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it."

So, please Jon, convince me, what are the "FACTS" that prove Government fostered and facilitated Capitalism.

 

[new_trader]

Many of the 'sound money' proponents state or imply that leaving the gold standard was the straw that broke the camel's back and that inflation is due primarily to dollar deflation rather than goods & services inflation.

No. For a start, "goods & services inflation" doesn't even make sense. Inflation is an increase in the money supply and the consequence can and often does lead to rising prices. You will only get rising prices if the supply in money increases at a rate faster than the rate certain goods and services can be produced. This is why food and energy prices rise long before consumer electronics, for example. This is also why Governments invented 'Core' inflation which is most often calculated by taking the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and excluding certain items from the index, usually energy and food products. This conceals the true inflation.

I wish I could point them all to the inflation graphs which clearly illustrate inflation has damped since 1971. The spikes and runs we saw prior to 1971 have, save for a couple of fairly obvious exceptions, completely been removed.

Yes, like most left wing economists you want to show a pretty Government created chart. The US was founded long before 1971 and in fact, the greatest period of economic growth in USA's history was while it was on a classic gold standard, not the gold exchange standard.

Debt does not cause inflation. Central banks issue base money - not debt. They facilitate the acceptance of debt.

Inflation is the decline of absolute value of money in comparison to Gold. Gold could become incredibly precious and buy only a fraction of what it did 10 years back, but a dollar could still buy a dollar's worth of service and product. Leaving the gold standard facilitated a free market - not hindered it.

Government-established central banks can artificially lower interest rates by increasing the supply of money (and thus the funds banks have available to lend) through the banking system. This is supposed to stimulate the economy. What it actually does is mislead investors into embarking on an investment boom that the artificially low rates seem to validate but that in fact cannot be sustained under existing economic conditions. Investments that would have correctly been assessed as unprofitable are falsely appraised as profitable, and over time the result is the squandering of countless resources in lines of investment that should never have been begun.

If lower interest rates are the result of increased saving by the public, this increase in saved resources provides the material wherew.ithal to see the additional investment through to completion. The situation is very different when the lower interest rates result from the Central Bank's creation of new money out of thin air. In that case, the lower rates do not reflect an increase in the pool of savings from which investors can draw. Central Bank tinkering, in other words, does not increase the real stuff in the economy. The additional investment that the lower rates encourage therefore leads the economy down a path that is not sustainable in the long run. Investment decisions are made that quantitatively and qualitatively diverge from what the economy can support. The bust must come, no matter how much new money the central bank creates in a vain attempt to stave off the inevitable day of reckoning.

 

[barjon]

Maybe you can educate me then Jon. The Government can only TAX and Regulate. They 'subsidise', but that is nothing more than redistribution of the money they taxed. Like Ronald Reagan famously said:

“Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it."

So, please Jon, convince me, what are the "FACTS" that prove Government fostered and facilitated Capitalism.

I think that embracing capitalism has rather more to it than simply taxation and regulation.

Did capitalism thrive? - Yes. Could Government curb it? - Yes (assuming such a Government could get voted in). Did they? - No, aside from its worst excesses. Did Government adopt policies consistent with a capitalist system? - Yes. Did Government foster the interests of American business throughout the world? - Yes. Did Government protect the interests of American business? - Yes. etc, etc, etc.

Unlike the Kings and Queens of England who taxed their people primarily for their own personal enrichment. the Government taxes in the interests (perceived ) of its people in order that all may share in the fruit that the capitalist system has delivered. That. after all, is the job of Government - to facilitate an enormous number of people to live together in reasonable harmony and well-being.

 

[new_trader]

I think that embracing capitalism has rather more to it than simply taxation and regulation.

Did capitalism thrive? - Yes. Could Government curb it? - Yes (assuming such a Government could get voted in). Did they? - No, aside from its worst excesses. Did Government adopt policies consistent with a capitalist system? - Yes. Did Government foster the interests of American business throughout the world? - Yes. Did Government protect the interests of American business? - Yes. etc, etc, etc.

Are you serious Jon? Asking questions and then answering 'yes' to them is hardly an argument and doesn't prove anything at all. Can terrorists blow up the Boeing factory? Yes. Did they? No. So therefore terrorists fostered and facilitated the production of the new 787 Dreamliner...etc...etc...

Unlike the Kings and Queens of England who taxed their people primarily for their own personal enrichment. the Government taxes in the interests (perceived ) of its people in order that all may share in the fruit that the capitalist system has delivered. That. after all, is the job of Government - to facilitate an enormous number of people to live together in reasonable harmony and well-being.

Government is a necessary evil. They should be there to protect individual rights and private property. They have, over the years, meddled more and more with the economy and mostly to buy the votes of the majority. The result has always been a disaster. There isn't a single person I speak to over the age of 60 who thinks that the UK economy is better now than it was in the 1960's...only you..."We used to make things" is what everyone says!

You haven't proven a thing.

 

[barjon]

............You haven't proven a thing...........

Well, if it's not obvious to you then I suggest you spend the next year or so going through all the economic related legislation, policy, initiatives etc taken by their Government over the last couple of hundred years to find out.

Alternatively, you might prove to me how they have been anti-capitalist.

I didn't say that our economy was better now than in the 60's. What I did say was that peoples' material well-being is better today than it was then. Or are you going to ask for a long list of things to prove that too