tuscl

Economic question - Do you think the recession will be over sometime next year?

Saturday, June 6, 2009 3:13 PM
Just a show of hands. I can start off. I say no even though I wouldn't mind if I was wrong. I'm just wondering how bullish everyone here is.

117 comments

  • wallanon
    •
    15 years ago
    No.
  • wallanon
    •
    15 years ago
    But since I'm not big on talking anything aside from the club scene on this board, the economy won't keep me out of the clubs if I'm still inclined to go.
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    The policy decisions over the past several months (starting with the late 2008 "bailouts" and ampilified by the spending spree that got kicked off in February) have set us on an economic course that makes the current recession a relatively minor worry. It is as if those in charge were firefighters, but they are dousing the flames with gasoline...
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    No, I believe the economy will be stagnant at best for the nex 2-3 years, due to baby boomers retiring and a long term trend change away from debt fueled consumption.
  • gatorfan
    •
    15 years ago
    No
  • shadowcat
    •
    15 years ago
    The economy has not effected my spending habits. I have never been a stock market player so I have not lost any money there. I do have 1,000 shares of DAL that I got free. Now worth about $7,000. I got my $250 stimulus payment. What a joke. I typically spend that much on a single visit to a strip club.
  • Clubber
    •
    15 years ago
    Won't affect my SC habits. But I think we are quickly getting to where we were when it took about 40 years to recover the last time.
  • londonguy
    •
    15 years ago
    Guys, if some of you think you have a bad time over there you wanna see the state of things over this side of the pond. Add in the fact that a lot of politicians have been effectively stealing from the taxpayer with their expense fiddles places up shit creek without a paddle.
  • deogol
    •
    15 years ago
    The baby boomers are not going to retire. Their 401Ks and IRAs are shot to hell from the stock market. Their houses are half their all time highs. They have no money to retire on. We are in a feedback loop. We rescue "key" corporations and yet people are still thrown out on the street. People are saving and reducing credit usage. When we rescue banks, we find billions and billions of dollars leaving our shores. Globalism is a leak in the pail. Even in these hard times money continues to shed in trade deficits with other countries. Look at it like the eco-system. We have torn out a large part of the forest by globalism. If you knock down all the trees, you cannot expect the birds to be around. All kinds of things get thrown out of wack.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    The recession should end later this year, but by next year for sure.
  • KootchieKoo
    •
    15 years ago
    Hi londonguy. Last time I got my oil changed there was a guy from London working in there. Asked him how things were across the pond. "Bad and getting worse, thanks to you guys" he said sarcastically. Also said people over there don't expect it to get better for another THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    Britain's banks are in debt equal to twice the the country's GDP and it is the US's fault? Ok. The solution to the problem starts by taking responsibility for what went wrong.
  • samsung1
    •
    15 years ago
    gas prices are starting to creep up there to the $3+ range so it is a sign things are getting better. Now when I go to the gas pump I wipe out my dick and start jerking off because when I spend that kind of money I am used to cumming.
  • Dain
    •
    15 years ago
    The economy will improve a little just before the 2012 election.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "Do you think the recession will be over sometime next year?" It depends on what measure you're watching for, but yes...it'll be over within a year or so. Things are already starting to turn around slowly. "Add in the fact that a lot of politicians have been effectively stealing from the taxpayer with their expense fiddles places up shit creek without a paddle." The details of that scandal over there that I've heard of so far seem very tame compared to some of the political scandals we've had over here. Who knows...
  • londonguy
    •
    15 years ago
    It's not the opinion of the average Brit that our woes are brought about by events in the U.S. Gordon Brown tries to blame all our economic woes at the door of the U.S. to divert attention away from his own failings as chancellor and subsequentally prime minister. He and his government are morally corrupt, thieves and useless, the British people will dump him as soon as he calls an election, something he must do by 6/3/10. As some of you may have realized I am very much pro U.S.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    I do not think the current apparent turnaround will turn into sustained growth. I believe what we are seeing is the "pantry effect". When things get bad, people live off their stored goods, fill the tank at empty rather than half full, etc. This creates a exacerbated drop in consumption. We are now so to speak replenishing the pantry. Spending habits of the past 10 years are not going to be replicated for a long time.
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    It is amazing how much of a role we allow certain media to influence us. They (NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) reported as negatively as possible from 2001-2007 about all things economic, although unemployment was at record lows and growth in the economy was solid. Then the congress changed hands in January 2007, and the executive branch changed in January 2009. Steadily since late 2007, real economic problems have been mounting. Unemployment reached a 26-year high last week, and the LA Times reported on "fun-employment," making the case that these job losses are a good thing! Those media folks are transparent to some of us, but others actually give them credence. That is dangerously ignorant, and ignorance costs this country repeatedly. I wish we could institute a "Voter Aptitude Test."
  • casualguy
    •
    15 years ago
    I'm estimating 11 no's, and 3 yes's. Only 27 percent bullish. I'm not guestimating two or 3 responses. It appears to be a lot more pessimistic here from this informal survey than the 86 percent bullish reading from [view link]. I heard second hand the sentiment was that bullish now. Maybe that is just for commodities. I'm not sure. I heard the elliottwave international folks believe the Dow will revisit 1975 levels around Dow 1000. I think that is too negative. If it isn't, that will destroy millions of people's retirements and that will not be good. Plus I've read that Medicare is out of money already and Social Security will be out of money even sooner. I think I read the trust funds for both will be out of funds around 2016 or 2017 which is a joke because there is only a trust fund on paper. That money was already spent to reduce the national debt. Now Obama believes providing government health care for all by taxing those who are already paying is going to help things. I'm spending money in strip clubs as long as our money is still worth something. A couple of weeks ago, I went into one strip club and I really did feel like a fresh piece of steak in a den of hungry female lions. Fortunately some more people showed up.
  • casualguy
    •
    15 years ago
    I haven't really given it much thought what happens if our currency collapses and the US dollar is essentially almost worthless. Either way I see the US government either not paying for Medicare and Social Security eventually or vastly devaluing our currency which seems to have already begun. A way out of this mess? Tell the US government to stop spending so much. At least our money might still be worth something. Stop adding new taxes. Don't add taxes via Cap and Trade, don't add taxes to workers current health insurance plans to pay for those who aren't paying. If that happens, I'll feel robbed like a ROB does in a strip club with no recourse except to vote against anyone who supports it.
  • casualguy
    •
    15 years ago
    On the bright side I just helped out the US economy by supporting some local dancers. There were lots of other supporters working too. New stores are coming to town and I'm very busy working on a backlog of orders at work. The official employment rate went down. Note: I want the market to go up on Monday so I can get a better price. I'm thinking the market is manipulated so I'm thinking they'll push it up past a number of technical levels to make a number of the die hard bears give up. Then the sentiment reading can be over 90 percent bullish, a perfect setup.
  • casualguy
    •
    15 years ago
    I meant to say the official unemployment rate declined at a slower pace. Yeah, better times ahead. Let's go party.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    For those that think rthe econonmy will get better and that Obamaa will save the world I offer these comments. 1. We are used to growth as the baby boomers aged and consumed beyond their means for the past 20+ years. That trend has ended. 2. Globally, the flow of funds/growth has been shifting to China. Much as our industrial revolution allowed us to overtake England as the world financial leader, China will become the financial center and the U.S. will stagnate as did England in the years to come. 3. High oil prices are a result of oil becoming an international currency to replace the weak dollar, and as a result of speculation by large funds. The quickest fix to this would be to change the margin requirements on futures. Something that is never discussed. 4. Industrial production brings us out of recessions. What industry do we have to accomplish this? I still believe our economy is in bad shape and will continue to get worse for at least the next year. To add to the tax comments by Casualguy, I heard that Obama is going to tax aspirin because it is white and works. Now before people start saying that is racist, keep in mind it is a joke!
  • hogsun
    •
    15 years ago
    londonguy, how big of a story in GB is the ban of Michael Savage?
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    I read a little squib on fusion. That one high tech success could equal money raining from the sky. Many years back The Wall Street Journal had an opinion piece by a big league economist who asserted free energy had practically NO value and would only lead to cost cuts of about 15% and it would cause misery to gas workers, coal workers, sewage treatment workers, etc. Anyway, my 2 cent opinion is that the economist is brain dead and if you get free energy the whole world changes. Maybe even Peter Drucker's prediction about wealth being irrelevant could come true. :) Wealth being irrelevant means no more stripclubs??? America seems to be pretty damn good when it comes to the production of weapons. A fine industrial base, indeed! :) OK Saddam, you don't want to take U.S. dollars for your oil??? equals dead Saddam and plenty of fear for those who might be tempted to disobey the "paper" tiger. China needs dollars? Why exactly does China need dollars??? Perhaps just a strategy to keep America's warmongering a wee bit tamed? Perhaps they're desperate for American products? Perhaps they're desperate for American land? For those who love America, should keep praying that China will continue to want U.S. dollars because imagining NO Chinese products is too depressing. All those poor working class Americans who might be pushed back into the factory dungeons of the recent past and American pricing for common manufactured goods. :(
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    China doesn't need US dollars but they are being very smart by buying up all those treasuries. First of all they get to collect interest on them. Ok, it's but very much, but the bigger factors are that they own so much US debt that once China "decouples" more they will be able dictate as they like to the US under the threat of "if you don't we'll sell all your treasuries on the market, and your interest rates will soar! you'll find how much that helps your recovery so, please, do as we say."
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Those treasuries can be nationalizes or frozen fairly fast. The US government dictates the interest rates---it ain't a free market and hasn't been for a long time. The biggest joke is the US government paying interest on money it has essentially created out of thin air. Since it is phony, I guess it makes little difference if the U.S. just prints (actually it is just computer credits)it with or without interest in tow. China is trading real goods for paper. Just as GM went from almost a $100 a share to basically nothing those treasuries China holds need not be worth even a single grain of rice. Any nut job can declare China is supporting "terrorism" or not honoring U.S. intellectual property or proliferating nukes, and presto a new enemy for America. It is a beautiful formula. China needs to be afraid. Very afraid.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    About 10 years or more ago I was watching these U.S. senators bloviating about the need for revenue and taxes to pay for the all future Social Security benefits that were coming due. One senator pointed out the obvious. The revenue is irrelevant to paying Social Security benefits. The government could legislate whatever money needs to be created---it is a joke and has been for a long time. The real challenge isn't about dollars. It is about preparing for what types and goods and services and elderly population needs. Means diddley squat if each senior gets a $5,000 monthly check, if that check can't buy needed services like medical care. So if you're a legislator do you worry about a commodity that can be created endlessly? Or, do you worry about seeing that there are enough doctors and nursing homes in 20 years? Illegal immigrants are bad? Perhaps. Depends on what needs they can fill and at what price. You need people to dress, bathe, and otherwise care for an exploding elderly population. These illegals can come in quite handy. :) The other senators----totally mum. Not allowed to talk about how the government actually has an endless supply of dollars. Surprised that the one senator forgot that you don't talk about the obvious----might scare the cattle.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    The US government nationalize treasuries? Dude what the fuck are you talking about? Just stop paying them? Sure they could do that. What do you think would happen to the government's credit rating? Who would buy treasuries ever again if the government defaulted? That's the whole point of treasuries: it's as close to zero chance of default as you can get. As for the government setting interest rates on them. Not really. The bonds come with a nominal face value like $100, and a coupon like 4.5% on the 30y. They get auctioned off, however, so might sell for above or below $100 depending on demand. It's totally a free market. If the US government starting defaulting or printing money the prices of treasuries would drop, and the rates would go up. Actually, we've already seen this in the last couple of weeks. Biggest threat to recovery right now.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    The government doesn't need anyone to buy treasuries. That is the whole point. The government can and does create money with the computer and printing press all day long----on a massive scale. It has to be that way in order to pay the interest. You're familiar with the power of compounding interest? Well, somebody better be creating dollars or depression here we come. Yes, the auction. So impressive. Makes it look like creating money out of thin air is actually some market exercise. Totally non-free market. Totally a scam. A necessary scam. Just as the government can give away trillions it can create trillions to pay for whatever it desires. If the government so desires, it can create program after program to lend or give away money as it sees fit. In fact, part of this scam according to CNN is when the Federal Reserve (the bankers with muscle) start buying up this garbage i.e. US treasuries. The important thing is for the government to keep the cattle working and obedient. The government doesn't need US dollars from China. China doesn't need US dollars except to try and placate the beast----the Chinese ship goodies and perhaps the beast won't be so blood thirsty.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    Of course they need people to buy treasuries. If they don't then they have to print money and you get inflation and rising rates, neither of which are good for the economy. Needless to say, printing money also devalues the dollar, and reduces the value of existing treasuries. But they publish numbers. You can compare how much of treasury purchases are due to the Fed's quantitative easing (i.e. printing money) versus normal purchases. This year it will run aboue 300 billion QE versus 3 trillion regular purchases.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    They publish numbers. And, you expect me to trust those numbers? :) Sorry, it is a game to make it appear there is a need for people to buy treasuries. As far as devaluing the dollar, President Bush was repeatedly yapping that America wants and needs a cheap i.e. devalued dollar in order that foreigners will buy our garbage. In fact, President Obama was complaining that China is purposefully devaluing its own currency. Believe it or not some economists believe devaluing currency is a brilliant idea because then you can export more garbage i.e. we could be like China. :) No. Look at how much the money supply has increased and must increase and it should become fairly apparent that massive amounts of new money can be issued without a corresponding massive increases in inflation. Gee whiz, let's imagine big bad China actually said NO!!! China will no longer buy garbage US treasuries. Yes, some people would have you believe the wheels would fall off. However, the Federal Reserve can easily buy all those treasuries by creating money with the computer. Will anyone notice the difference in who is buying? What will China do with all its garbage U.S. dollars? Hide 'em under their bed? Buy oil? Buy American products? Buy land or businesses? Gee, maybe China could buy some GM shares. :) Here is an example. The Social Security trust fund holds "assets" in the form of government IOUs. These wonderful "assets" will require ultimately that the U.S. government create new money, raise taxes, default, and or change the terms of repayment. Anyway despite these supposed "assets" digging a deeper and deeper hole as more are accumulated there is unbelievably calls from time to time to raise taxes to purchase more of this pure garbage----in order to make Social Security strong. Really how brain dead can people be to believe this? Do you believe that Social Security accumulating these "assets" makes it strong? (Please remember the Supreme Court has ruled Congress doesn't have to honor it contracts---the issue was whether Congress had to pay in gold or was free to print money---of course, printing money ruled the day in a 5-4 opinion. :) )
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    If they keep devaluing the dollar and treasuries then people will stop buying them meaning they'll have trouble running up more debt in the future. So there's a limit to how far they can go. They're getting into trouble with this lately.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    People will stop buying treasures. Fine, let's accept that premise and what will people do with their dollars? I mean if they don't invest in treasures is there any chance the private sector might benefit from an inflow of investment dollars. Will people blow those non-treasury invested dollars on lap dances or new cars or maybe a few mansions? Maybe people will buy gold and silver? The U.S. government has criminalized the private ownership of gold in the past (until 1972?) and if necessary will do so again. So if people don't want to be criminals they'll turn in their gold and accept the dollars at whatever exchange the government demands. Basically and this can be extremely difficult for people to understand----the U.S. government doesn't need to run up debt or borrow money. The U.S. government can create as much new money as its heart desires. The problem isn't money, but one of keeping people in line. It is good for people and other countries to be "invested" in the U.S. government. So what if your investment can be repaid essentially with bank credits . . . that just means fewer trees need to be wasted. :) China holds 2 trillion in "invested" dollars and wants 'em by tomorrow morning? No problem. Here are your computer credits, now run along and be a good child. A good child will comprehend that it benefits no one to crash the world economic system---that could lead to war. Remember how nutty the U.S. government responded to the killing of 3,000 Americans? Can you imagine the fall out if China decided to engage in "economic terrorism"? Anyway, China is a little more mature than that---better to try and work together unless there is reason to believe that China is interested in war mongering. :)
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    Regarding money supply and inflation, increasing supply is not enough to cause inflation. You also need to have increased turnover (the multiplier effect). The current supply growth is to replenish balance sheets (public and private), it is not being spent. A Chinese company did just by Hummer from GM. If foreign countries stop buying our treasuries and we continue to print money instead of contolling our expenditures we will soon become like the banana republics.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    There's a million things for people to invest in beyond treasuries. How about Australian government bonds if you want a decent yield and low risk? If the US government starts printing as much money as you imagine what would happen to the price of oil and other commodities the US imports? Do you think the economy could survive that? As for the Chinese demanding their investment back. Doesn't work like that. With bonds you have to wait until maturity until the issuer has to pay you back the face value. What they could do is dump them on the market to further depress the price and trigger interest rate increases which would destroy the American recovery. I do agree that it's not in their self interest to do that, however, until they are further decoupled from the US which is why, in the short term they will continue to buy the treasuries and prop up the US economy. We better not count on that one forever, though!
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    tx: It's actually the product of money supply and velocity. So even if velocity decreases, say by 0.5, if supply tripled, there would be a net increase of 3 * 0.5 = 1.5.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Fine. Take the worthless dollars and invest overseas. What are the Austrailians going to do with these worthless dollars? Hide 'em under their beds? Use 'em as their currency? Buy US products? Gee, the US government was printing, printing, printing since WWII . . . and oil was $1.63/bbl in 1946. In 1998 it was $11.91/bbl. Whoop tee doo! From WWII to 1998 the U.S. just suffered so massively due to all the dollar printing. LOL! It is relative. The price could be $500/bbl and it could still be dirt cheap in relative terms. Yes, the U.S. government can survive and may even flourish if oil prices rocket to the moon. Depends on technology and government policy. Liquid coal may be the knew holy grail. Or, perhaps the US government will get real smart and direct funding towards fusion i.e. free energy. OK, dump 'em on the market---that doesn't change a thing. The Federal Reserve buys 'em at will using its power to create new money and presto here you go China, a bunch of freshly created bank credits. Now be a good child and toddle along. It ain't a free market and ain't been for some time. The government is King. The U.S. government could slash the number of dollars in circulation and it is possible crude oil could still surge thru the roof----depending on the supply situation and how quickly alternative energies could be brought on line.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    Dougster, Your point is valid from a pure monetarist view. However, it tends to ignore demand for products. My point was that there is decreased demand for goods/services. Until that changes I feel we have little risk of inflation.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    tx: I agree with you. In reality I'm not expecting inflation either. Although the banks have huge amounts of money to loan out now and the Fed wants them to, the demand for credit, especially for big ticket items like houses and cars, just isn't there. Prices, especially on real estate, still need to come down some more. Or the Fed needs to find other ways to cause inflation. Most likely it would be fiscal policy, but they could also try dropping money from helicopters or what not. :-)
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    I think the reason it tends to ignore the demand for products is that the typical person will spend more than they make. Thus, a dollar printed and distributed is a dollar spent. However, there is only so much food, clothes, cars, homes, etc. that a super wealthy person can consume. Before long the money needs to spent on $500,000 ash trays e.g. Donald Trump or $50 million dollar paintings that a normal person would even want in their home. The excess of dollars has a very beneficial effect (depending on your values) in that it acts as a lure for people to created new "real" goods and services. The justification, besides the confidence game, in selling treasuries would be to pull excess dollars from circulation. In this economy there is a need to pull dollars? :) Anyway, the government just spits those dollars back into the economy so so much for pulling excess dollars from circulation. The "fools" that buy 'em? My guess would be that China is well aware of the printing press as well as the risk of an uncompensated taking by the U.S. government, but is more interested in productive working relations between nations. Besides the technical know how of consumer manufacturing may inadvertently extend to helpful or critic military applications. Sorta of amusing how eager China is to work for us on the extreme cheap. :)
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    that a normal person wouldn't even want in their home.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "oil was $1.63/bbl in 1946. In 1998 it was $11.91/bbl." The $11.91, I wonder how much of that price reflected government imposed costs like taxes and regulations and lawsuits etc. compared to how much was attributable to money creation. There is also the consideration of optimum pricing that may dictate selling for more than a true free market would require. Thus, wealthier customers might also be more important to determining the final selling price than all the new dollars. To not run the money creation machine is normally, imo, the dumb position because mere lack of liquidity can keep factories idle and workers without the means to care for themselves and their families. When some talking head would mention the bugaboo of deflation, I could only laugh and think call out the military to do some productive work and start dropping some serious cash from the skies. :)
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    I had the thought some time back that the printing press/creating new money can actually LOWER prices. That is correct more dollars may in some cases actually be deflationary. To understand why is to see the printing press/creating new money as a means of achieving volume. Volume that allows for economy of scale as well as research and development leading to better and cheaper. Seem like a "free lunch"? Hardly so. There are real costs to the printing press model of economic development and ideally the "common sense" road won't be taken. Rather, the absurd should be pondered. Absurd like more money equals lower prices. Absurd like higher prices may be preferred by the typical consumer. Absurd like giving bucket loads of currency to impoverished peoples may be in our economic self-interest. Absurd like China may knowingly wish to subsidize a high standard of living for U.S. citizens. Oh well, I'm pretty much out of absurds. I had high hopes for Freakonomics, but while worth reading, imo, it didn't deliver enough freakiness/absurdness. :)
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "They (NBC, CBS, CNN, etc) reported as negatively as possible from 2001-2007 about all things economic, although unemployment was at record lows and growth in the economy was solid." That's funny, since unemplyment *rose* pretty steadily from 2001-2003...from an historical low during the Clinton adminsitration (when unemployement fell through his entire term). Also: "During the administrations of the four Democrats, real GDP expanded 4.1% per annum, 1.2 percentage points faster than the average growth during Republican administrations of 2.9% per annum. Growth over the 7.5 years that George W. Bush has been president has averaged just 2.3% per annum." When you look at history, GWB had weak economic growth at best during his term in office. [view link] [view link] "Steadily since late 2007, real economic problems have been mounting" ...due mostly to the long-term effects of GOP-sponsored deregulation. "I think I read the trust funds for both will be out of funds around 2016 or 2017 which is a joke because there is only a trust fund on paper." Not quite...SS will start paying out more money than it is taking in around that point. Also, if you think that the SS trust fund is just "paper", then you should feel the same way about all that money that's in your wallet right now, since that's just paper as well (backed up by the full faith & credit of the USA that is). "High oil prices are a result of oil becoming an international currency to replace the weak dollar" This is sheer & utter nonsense. The weak dollar (due to a horrible "conservative" monetary policy) is a key part of the high price of oil. The USA will be in some trouble if they ever start pricing oil in something other than U.S. Dollars. "Industrial production brings us out of recessions. What industry do we have to accomplish this?" The green industry, in part.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "the full faith & credit of the USA that is" LOL! Yep, the full faith & credit of the USA means an endless supply of new dollars. Praise be the lord for the USA's willingness to create money and with full faith & credit to boot! I loathe it when a government cranks out currency with full faithlessness & creditlessness. Don't these A-hole nations understand people want full faith & credit!? A lot more pertinent, imo, is that the U.S. currency declares proudly in God We Trust. Damn, that is even stronger than the full faith & credit protections. God it seems backs the U.S. dollar. Praise God. God is Great. The only thing missing from this fiat currency is a declaration of unalienable rights or how about a soldier proudly waving a U.S.A flag. :)
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    MisterGuy, Your response to my oil comment supports my statement. True the dollar is weak. In the global arena funds are invested for safety and return. In our current troubled times the flight to safety is into commodities, hence the runup in gold and oil. The fundamentals do not support high oil at this time. Oil is held as a better alternative to dollars/treasuries. It is an asset with excellent trading liquidity, hence an "international currency" or medium of exchange.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    Oil and gold will never be international currencies. They are far more volatile than the USD. Look at the ranges for the USD versus the Euro, say, in the last 10 years, compare with the ranges of oil and gold. Oil's volatility is the worse, then gold, then the USD. But even in this fantasy commodity based currency world, gold has a better chance than oil for a number of reasons. Lower storage costs for gold due to higher density; the fact that gold does not really disappear when you use it; and, related to the last, the fact controlling world wide supply of gold would be much harder. In fact there are already "systems" (e.g. GoldMoney) which try to use gold as the backing value. They do convert to a local currency on the fly, but no one ever has, nor will they, try the same with oil. While we are on the topic of the dollar though, it is definitely the preferred place for flight to safety. Just looking at the amount of money that flees to the USD and treasuries when there is chaos in the market versus the amount that flees to commodities. Hell these days, when there is chaos in the stock market, money generally leaves commodities. And, finally, let's not act like we are close to having a reasonable replacement for the USD with another currency or even group of currency. Most of the world is just as fucked up, if not more than the US. Especially those Europeans and Britons. The dollar's been falling a bit lately, but don't worry, it's gone just about as low as it will. Would be a good time to buy some!
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "In our current troubled times the flight to safety is into commodities, hence the runup in gold and oil. The fundamentals do not support high oil at this time." Sounds a lot like last year to me...lol... What's going on with oil & gasoline right now is pretty simple...well not exactly. A lot of the run-up in oil prices last year was due to irresponsible speculation...in a pretty unregulated market IMO. This year, in addition to the yearly, seasonal increases due to summer gasoline blends & the usual expected increase in demand, there's been a heck of a lot of manipulation in the market for oil & gasoline by just about every link in the chain of entities that give us our petroleum products...closing down refineries, OPEC manipulation, stockpiling of supplies, etc., etc.. All of this manipulation (which really isn't all that unusual IMO) is meant to try & "balance" the amount of supply with the expected amount of demand. The powers the be don't ever seem to want to have way "too much" supply...in order to keep prices as high as possible. Plus, there's the looming menance of Peak Oil, which many oil companies still have their heads (literally) in the sand. Oil is not an "international currency", and it never will be, period.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "due to a horrible 'conservative' monetary policy" President Bush's policies for a weak U.S. dollar was conservative monetary policy? I guess President Regan's policies for a strong U.S. dollar was also a conservative monetary policy? What is sort of amusing is the large numbers of educated and intelligent people who think that a weak currency is ideal----morally and fiscally. They believe the U.S. shipping goods to China for example is better than the U.S. receiving goods from China. Normally, the thinking seems to center around JOBS as if that is the end all be all. Oh, how lucky those sweat shop laborers are. :) So, yes if JOBS are all important then the government should force everyone to take huge pay cuts via repeated currency devaluations . . .
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "Also, if you think that the SS trust fund is just "paper", then you should feel the same way about all that money that's in your wallet right now, . . . " Doesn't seem like the same game at all. The short term risks of the "paper" appear far less risky than the long term risks. The U.S. government might be a major giant for the next 10 years, but do the trends say the same for the next 20 years? Specifically of concern is the large number of elderly compared to workers. Perhaps this isn't a real problem. Or, perhaps technology will solve it and or illegal immigrants. But, yes viewing long term paper with contempt because of a looming whirlwind while at the same time cherishing short term paper seems completely reasonable and logical. If there is 1 elderly non-working Social Security beneficiary for each worker in 2020, then is that a real concern making the U.S. full faith and credit basically turds in bowl? How about 1 elderly non-working Social Security beneficiary for 1/3 of a worker? Is that a concern or is full faith and credit to be repeated endlessly like a mantra from a dollar commune regardless of demographic changes? Who knows . . . perhaps the aging of the U.S. population will turn out to be a snoozer and all the elderly will be taken care of. Or, maybe they will cause a sudden systemic collapse. Don't worry the U.S. full faith and credit will print money, but it might not buy the figurative cup of coffee i.e. hyperinflation.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    The situation with SS is even worse than you imagine. It would be nice if the "paper" in SS was no worse than the "paper" in your wallet. But they are different. SS is, in fact, mainly invested in treasuries. That is, US government debt. The "paper" in your wallet is, at least, Federal Reserve notes already in existence as opposed to promises of such Federal Reserve notes later. So the situation is this. When the government receives your SS tax (federal reserve notes), they pay out current obligation, but then what do they do with the rest? They purchase treasuries. Thus the government takes your SS payments goes on a spending spree now, gets itself deeper into debt and promises to pay you back when you are old and the debt spending party is over. How do you like the odds you are going to see any money on that bet?
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Hi Dougster, I could be wrong, but I don't think they're actually treasuries (maybe at one time, they were). I think they're special government IOUs. Well, getting the money should be doable. More importantly what will the money purchase? That is where tech and planning ahead become so important. Imagine cheap robots that can care very well for the elderly. Maybe even robot assisted surgery so even nurses can do so of the easy routine to cutting and sewing.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "SS payments goes on a spending spree now" Some people may argue that, that spending spree is actually an investment in the future e.g. bullet trains, pharmaceuticals, genetic engineering, robotics, fusion, education, etc. HELL, some may even argue butchering people in foreign lands is an investment in the future.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    jablake: I think you're right. Looking into some more it looks these "special" treasury bonds aren't even standard ones that could be sold on the open market. Thus they only have value come redemption time. Now the situation is even worse than I imagined.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    MisterGuy, Dougster I suggest you take a broader approach in your view of the US in world markets. There has been a growing international movement to use non US dollars for the purchase of oil. A few years back, Iran tried setting up a petroeuro market, many think this was the real reason we invaded Iraq, to help keep the dollar the principal exchange currency in the region. Recently, Chavez has been drumming up support for the use of non dollars, and China has already agreed to purchase from Chavez in other currencies. While alot of the rest of the world is messed up, China is not. They are the future world growth and are just beginning to wield their big stick. As recent as April this year, Chavez began talks with major non US producers to form an international currency backed by oil reserves. The trend is beginning, as the US is seen as continually losing its stature it will gain momentum. Change is coming, it is anyones guess how long it will take.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    Yes, tx, everyone knows there has been talk that has gone absolutely nowhere about removing the reserve status of the USD. And that talk will continue to go absolutely nowhere for the reasons I mentioned above. It's just like how some have a wet dream about a return to the gold standard. Talk, talk, talk. Never going to happen. So you better learn to start loving the USD and buy 'em now while they're cheap. Won't be that way for long.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    As for China. I do agree that they have avoided many of the economic problems that the US has. But let's not kid ourselves. They have their own economic problems (e.g. getting enough food and water to their people) and they are not even close to be economic and scientific peers to the US. Probably won't be for at least a dozen more years to come. That's why when the shit really hits the fan the money allows runs back to the safety of the US. The whole Chinese political system is too oppressive to the open exchange of ideas for them to be the lead economic/scientific or engineering power. And you can bet, for that reason, no matter what the US's economic problem, also long as we retain our greater freedoms no great scientist or engineer is going to be in a rush to call China his home rather than the US. Who would want their children growing up in a country where they aren't even free to surf FaceBook or what site it was the Chinese decided to censor just a few weeks back. This "China is Utopia" non-sense is really getting out of hand. Especially from these supposedly laissze-fair marketers who really ought to be the first to know better.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Hi Dougster, Sometimes the game changes radically. Computers are a good example. The youngster next door was complaining to me that he was bored. How the hell can he be bored with the internet at his finger tips? It, for me, is like heaven. And, I think government deserves a bunch of the credit. Fusion is another game changer, if it comes. Genetic engineering? Give people an extra 40 years of healthy productive life and perhaps raising the retirement age wouldn't even be an issue. Health in a pill bottle? I don't know maybe there are miracle drugs on the way to cure the ravages of old age. Again, the fiscal picture would change radically. On CNN, years back I saw the most amazing tech piece. They showed a single small bulb brightly light a huge warehouse thru the use of tiny strategically placed mirrors you really couldn't see. It went from pitch black to like day light instantly. A relative of mine, was yapping fraud, fraud, fraud. Believing there was no way no how for such a technology to become available or even exist. It was too good. The quality of light was too good. The lack of energy consumption was too good. The size was too good. The environmental friendliness was too good. Never heard about the miracle light again, but it definitely seemed too good. Some pea brains would be concerned the revolutionary tech would slash jobs as if that was a negative. LOL---And-So-Sad.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    jablake: You're more optimistic than I am about the pace of science. I think the US had that scientific culture+drive back during the cold war. Do we still have it? I am skeptical, but I sure that I am wrong on this one and that you are right or if the scientific drive has waned that Obama can revive it. The good news, however, is that at least Obama clearly sees this as the problem. Is the population the raw material he can work with or can he import foreigners who are? Keeping my fingers crossed.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    The talk has not been going nowhere, every month more and more oil is purchased by non US dollars, leading to the continued decline of the dollar. This is a trend that will continue to grow. In the 1930's few people ever thought the pound would lose its stature as the international currency. But by the end of WW2 the dollar replaced it. IMO China will continue to grow at the expense of the US and the dollar will lose its position to something else. If you do not see the growing global movement against the US dollar and its policies you need to take off the blinders. China is only buying short term treasuries because of the risk of going long term. If you want to make money don't buy dollars, short medium to long term bonds. The only thing favoring the dollar is hope, not fundamentals or trends.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    "China is only buying short term treasuries because of the risk of going long term. " Non-sense. There is a 10y treasury auction tomorrow and a 30y auction on Thursday. Let's see if the Chinese really do not participate as you are claiming. I think they will be buying more since the dollar is low and bound to go up now. We'll let the real world results settle this one. Btw, what currency do you advocate buying instead of dollars? Which do or which group of currencies do you think will be become the new reserve currency. Let's get specific here.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    It is difficult to see the dollar as being low for a few reasons. I think historically governments have gone more than a little overboard with the printing press as it relates to creating new money. Seems unlikely the US can avoid that same fate. Social Security----when the big bill comes due is there going to be a real option other than creating new money? The China threat. Not too worried about them dumping dollars/treasuries because I think there are very effective counter-measures and it really isn't in China's interest. A greater concern, imo, is that China may wish to wean the U.S. away from dirt cheap products i.e. total giveaways. I can see China pushing a patriotic Buy America advertising campaign right here in the USA. Undervalued compared to other currencies? Perhaps. The best currency, and I'm hardly a currency guru or even that knowledgeable about other currencies, is the Swiss Franc. Gee, I'm not a fan of gold, however, I'd rather own gold than Swiss Francs. That is one tiny ass country and with high tech it, imo, is more vulnerable than ever. But why stick with currencies? I'd like to think that a person doesn't stick with dollars because the other currencies are even worse, but that may indeed be the case. Real estate? Can be highly risky depending on how the government shuffles the deck. Think rent control. Think environmental liability. Think taxes. Think demographics---the government may get tough with the illegal immigrants and send 'em home. Commodities? Same as real estate. Shares? Ugh. I may be 100% wrong, but I don't trust the propaganda about stocks. Again, I may be 100% wrong and this may be the answer as far as where to try and store value.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    One of my pet peeves is about loudmouths screaming about mortgaging our children's future. It is like that horrible scraping of nails against a chalkboard. The real risk to our children's future is giving greater concern to good accounting than is merited. Let's imagine politicians were exacting when it came financial management and basically managed government finances as if they were a conscientious breadwinners or homemakers. OK. The elderly are ready to stop working and require all manner of care. Does having storerooms of gold deliver that care? Does storerooms of foreign or domestic bonds deliver that care? It short it matters not a bit which ostensible store of value is in the storerooms. That pretty much is irrelevant. It means ZERO. What is important is who and what is available to take care of 'em. If there haven't been sufficient quality doctors trained and ready to go it is meaningless if their accounts are filled with gold, oil, food, etc. Assume that there are sufficient doctors and sufficient medicine. Are there enough grunts to do housekeeping and personal grooming and all the other chores that the elderly may not be capable of doing for themselves? For that end maybe illegal immigrants need to be granted citizenship or legal status or encouraged to labor illegally? The point is focusing of stores of value doesn't make a whole lot sense when said assets may very well be incapable of being sold or traded for the care and goods that are needed. Spending like a proverbial drunken sailor on the other hand maybe much more rational; by comparison. :) Spending on welfare, education, roads, prisons, subsidies, research, war, etc. Yep, all the aforementioned may help in actually achieving the goal of taking care of the elderly boom in the not so distant future while "stores of value" may essentially be valueless to that end. It is like what is the value of water in the middle of the desert? Will a gold bar buy even 10 gallons of water?
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "There has been a growing international movement to use non US dollars for the purchase of oil" ...and it's gone nowhere so far. "Recently, Chavez has been drumming up support for the use of non dollars" ...and virtually no one is listening to him. "While alot of the rest of the world is messed up, China is not." You should try going there first before you make such a messed up statement like this...ugh... "every month more and more oil is purchased by non US dollars, leading to the continued decline of the dollar." LOL...well, I'm sure that oil is purchased across a large swath of Europe with Euros, but the standard for the PRICE of oil is & has been the U.S. Dollar. I've already said that IF this ever changes that the USA would be in some trouble, but I see no real, sustained effort at doing this. Betting on the USA's sucess in the long-term has always been a great investment, and I see no reason now that that will change in the short-term. "IMO China will continue to grow at the expense of the US and the dollar will lose its position to something else." LOL...China is growing BECAUSE of their relationship with the U.S., not in spite of it. Without us, they are nothing but a second-world country (at best) with billions of mouths to feed & little in the way of infrastructure. "China is only buying short term treasuries because of the risk of going long term." Nonsense, China is buying U.S. securities because the return on their investment is basically guaranteed. "The only thing favoring the dollar is hope" ...and that's been the case for quite some time now, since the only thing backing up the U.S. Dollar is the full faith & credit of the USA, period.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    I actually agree with alot of what MisterGay is saying, but having gone to school with and lived in cities with large of percentages of Chinese and other Asians I am not as optimistic as he is about the US's long term chances. Comparing Western and Asian cultures from first hand knowledge, it is quite clear that Asians, on average, have the superior work ethics, appreciation of knowledge, and "respect" that is rapidly eroding in the West. The only advantage "whites" seem to have nowadays is superior "aggression" (I mean this in a business sense not in terms of violence) but that is changing too and not what is decisive in the end anyway. The West still has the lead, and I believe it will for at least another dozen years, but I see that as primarily due to how ahead it started and now inertia. China and India have come out with some wonderful mathematical papers in recent years getting results on problems that stumped western scientists for decades. To win the race though, the US really needs significant cultural transformations and/or to import hard workers from the rest of world. Perhaps a grave challenge like a great depression can bring about the requisite changes. It's just too bad that China has such an oppressive political regime otherwise it would tempting to move there and cash in on their boom. Maybe dual citizenship is the answer.
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    Socialism is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with reality. Anyone who favors socialism is either ignorant, evil, or both.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    MisterGuy, The movement away from US dollars for oil is not going away. It is growing. China listens to Chavez and buys from Chavez in non US dollars. It does not matter what the political leanings of the Chinese govt is THEY ARE WHERE THE GROWTH IS. With growth comes prosperity. They have no infrastructure and have billions of mouths to feed. Providing that, which they are doing promotes the growth. China and others are growing at our expense because we consume their production and pay for it with debt. Which is a prime reason we are where we are now. The risk of long term treasuies I am not talking about is not default risk, but price depriciation when interest rates rise. Regarding the price of oil, historically it has been in dollars, but currently more and more is purchased in non dollars, and we are in trouble, it has led to weakness in the dollar. And it was not that long ago that the US was a "third world country" relative to Britain. That changed just as the status of China will change in the years to come. Foe some reason when responding to you, my favorite Saturday Night Live quote comes to mind: MisterGuy, you ignorant slut. LOL
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    "The risk of long term Treasuries I am not talking about is not default risk, but price depreciation when interest rates rise. " Only a problem if you plan to sell before maturity or are affected by mark to market. Otherwise you get the face value regardless of what the interest rate is at the time of maturity or even any time in between. I say China's real supposed worry is that the US will just keep printing so much money that when the treasuries mature and they receive their US dollars at maturity, those dollars may have significantly deprecated relative to other currencies. (e.g. what if they someone had bought US 10y treasuries in 1999 when the USD was strong, and they cashed out now only to receive much less valuable dollars.) I say "supposed" worry for a couple of reasons:some Chinese friends of mine have pointed out to me the possibility that China may very well be aware of inevitable USD depreciation, but are still loaning to the US because of the benefits they get from the currency peg, and the political leverage of owning such a large percentage of US debt. The other reason is that I am sure the Chinese realize that, at these levels, the USD has fallen just about as much as it is ever going to.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "...and that's been the case for quite some time now, since the only thing backing up the U.S. Dollar is the full faith & credit of the USA, period." And, we all should know how well that full faith & credit worked with the legal tender Silver Certificate of the U.S. government. The U.S. government could be trusted? LOL! It is amusing people still trust it. I guess not only is a sucker born every minute, but suckers get sucked repeatedly without even realizing it. Yes, the U.S. government broke its contract with gold back bonds as well and the U.S. Supreme Court gave the thumbs up to that scam by a 5-4 vote. Yes, only thing backing those U.S. dollars or U.S. securities is hope because U.S. law is a fraud as is the U.S. government.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    BTW, I have NO doubt that China is acutely aware that the U.S. government defaulted on its past obligations and would have no qualms about doing so in the future. Of course there is a minuscule possibility that China's leaders suffer from the U.S.A. Flag Waving Syndrome. :) So why does China wish to sell it products in the U.S.A.? Ordinarily, one would respond that we must have some products that they are desperate to buy. They're desperate to buy more computer credits? :) Not likely, but trading with the U.S. is still probably a very wise deal even if China said keep your worthless computer credits---you have NO products that we wish to buy in any appreciable volume. It isn't about China gaining material goods from the U.S. on some fantasy that suddenly the U.S. will produce products that they wish to buy. I think it is about good relations not only with the U.S., but with the world. Seems like countries which have shared needs are far less likely to go to war. So the U.S. needs cheap imports from China and China needs a U.S. that isn't so eager to start dropping bombs for real or imagined or created injuries. China if you look at what they lose by giving away products to the U.S. most likely lose very little in the scheme of things. They hopefully buy some clout when people look at how much would be lost if China's products suddenly disappeared from the U.S. market.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "China listens to Chavez and buys from Chavez in non US dollars." Chavez, Chavez, Chavez...ay caramba...Chavez has been acting in this way almost solely due to the negative way the USA has treated Venezuela up until very, very recently. A simple change in our stance towards them can bring them back into the fold (so to speak), and China doesn't need to rely on Venezuelan oil at all anyways, since most of the oil that they consume comes from...China! The USA has been the "big dog" when it comes to oil consumption for quite some time now...so what we do here has a LOT more to do with the price of oil than whatever China does. "With growth comes prosperity" ...and the USA has one of the best proven track records of sustained, long-term growth in the world. China has HUGE problems to solve before they can ever hope to overtake the USA...their rapidly aging population (due to their one-child policy), a widening rural-urban income gap, horrendous environmental degradation, a lack of basic civil rights for their own people, a military that cannot really project power around the entire world, etc., etc.... "They have no infrastructure and have billions of mouths to feed." The point being that China has but a fraction of the infrastructure that the USA does. The U.S.'s GDP is over 3 times the size of China's. "China and others are growing at our expense because we consume their production and pay for it with debt." I've never been a big fan of paying a lot of attention to so-called "trade deficits". It's not as if China is screaming at the top of their lungs for more U.S. products, or else... "The risk of long term treasuies I am not talking about is not default risk, but price depriciation when interest rates rise" ...which the USA has done an excellent job (too good IMHO) at keeping this threat at bay. "Regarding the price of oil, historically it has been in dollars, but currently more and more is purchased in non dollars, and we are in trouble, it has led to weakness in the dollar." Sure, the price of oil is affected by the strength of the U.S. Dollar, but oil alone does not drive the strength of the U.S. Dollar at all. The U.S. Dollar is especially responsive to U.S. monetary/fiscal policy, which has been horrendous over the past decade or so. Once again, I doubt that the Japanese are buying all the oil that they desperately need with U.S. Dollars, but the price that they pay for their oil is determined, in part, by the U.S. Dollar, period! "And it was not that long ago that the US was a 'third world country' relative to Britain." Yea, and the 1850s were just yesterday...please... [view link]
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "Socialism is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with reality. Anyone who favors socialism is either ignorant, evil, or both." Socialism is the future, imo. And, it is completely logical as the government becomes not only more dominant and massive (sending cops undercover to get lap dances, for example), but the ability to produce increases massively. In the future it could easily be one wage slave supporting one elderly Social Security beneficiary. With the right tech it could be one wage slave supporting 100 elderly Social Security beneficiaries. Also, whimpering against socialism seems sorta empty when supposed "conservatives" support programs such as Social Security and government paid health care for the elderly. The Wall Street Journal had a few pieces that imo were wholly disgusting in that they applauded unlimited government paid medical care for the elderly, but opposed it for the wage slave under the sloganeering of that would be SOCIALISM. Forget that silliness. You want government to care for the elderly, then I damn sure want to see the wage slaves as well as the rest of the community protected. A free market in health care? What a joke. That supposed free market has been dead a long time. And, it is way past time for universal care under this already socialized system of health care. Just as more government is eagerly embraced by "conservatives" for the government's Drug Wars and its War on Terror, it is time for government programs that might actually do some good instead of spreading evil.
  • shadowcat
    •
    15 years ago
    WTF does this conversation have to do with strip clubs?
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Ultimately, I predict that the conversation would turn to what China is going to do with its dollar hoard. The best answer, imo, is that China will reward its elite with strippers and stripclubs. Thus, both the U.S. and China and strippers become winners. :)
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    Shadowcat, Sorry, I never saw the rule that said we have to discuss strip clubs. But this is an exchange of ideas by strip club patrons that appears to have resulted in many more comments than any thread about Gridget I have seen.
  • Clubber
    •
    15 years ago
    Well, FDR didn't have strip clubs to help the economy, but he did manage to keep the the recession running until Hitler and his boys bailed him out. Perhaps obama can do better or perhaps North Korea will help him out.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    Well, I must admit tx gets a bit of vindication today. The 10y auction went terribly, and we saw Russia says it getting out of some of its treasuries and into IMF bonds (out of the frying pan and into the fire?). The dollar, however, recovered a bit. Still plenty of innings left in this game.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "The more bonds lose ground, the more investors are likely to wonder whether the Federal Reserve will increase its current $300 billion program of buying Treasurys, which it launched in March to keep credit conditions loose throughout the recession-bound economy. As part of that campaign, the Fed bought $3.5 billion of Treasurys maturing from 2019 to 2026 on Wednesday and also announced its next rounds of purchases." [view link] The Fed could keep the interest rate at 1% or less if it so desired. The ability of the government to control interest rates should bode well for stripclubs, imho. Socialized stripclubs? What the heck, if government can ship a man to the moon and build the internet and fight Bin Laden . . . there is just no limits. President Obama has done a remarkable job considering what he started with, but who knows North Korea might add a little support to ending the economic decline. Perhaps the President could offer 'em free American cars for a peace deal? I'd say free American strippers, but I really don't wish to see those commies get anything of value. :)
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "Well, FDR didn't have strip clubs to help the economy, but he did manage to keep the the recession running until Hitler and his boys bailed him out. Perhaps obama can do better or perhaps North Korea will help him out." President Obama will do better than the last president. Unfortunately, for all President Obama's good points it is doubtful he supports stripclubs. Maybe he is a closet clubber? Watching CNN, it seem like maybe there is another war front opening. Domestic terrorists might need a little government ass kicking. Those scared shitless by a handful of Bin Laden's men should welcome all out war against these domestic terrorists. All out was means depriving the enemy combatants of their ability to wage war and murder innocents. Let 'em keep their guns? LOL! No guns, no trials, no prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, no right to counsel-----this is WAR!!! You let God figure out the complicated stuff once they're dead. I'm concerned that if a war against domestic terrorists does become hot, then that might hurt stripclubs. I mean customers might be afraid to go out at night. Or, maybe the dainty type strippers will be in a state of total fear and unable to service customers properly. I'm also concerned about the definition of domestic terrorist. Sure gun owners should be included unless they actively serve in government, but maybe clubbers would also be added to the list as a precaution. Not good developments, imo, as far as the health of stripclubs and stripclubbers.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    The trend has started, how much steam it picks up is anyone's guess. On the global front, countries w/surpluses are getting more and more frustrated with the US and its policies. We are solving a consumer debt problem w/govt debt. IMO it is naive to assume we will come out ahead as we always have in the past. The world is changing and we are reluctant to realize it.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    This IMO has been one of the more enjoyable threads and is made possible by strip clubs.
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    Anyone (jablake) referring to Social Security as a "conservative program" is disqualified from having his comments here considered worthy of note. Wow!
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    jablake: Yes the fed can and is buying treasuries in an attempt to keep rates low. So far it's not clear whether or it is having an effect or not. Yes, in theory the Fed could just keep expanding the program until it worked. The amount of inflation created and weakening of the dollar though are practical limits on how high they can go in reality. And don't forget that as they print more money and buy more treasuries, it actually decreases the attractiveness of treasuries due to dollar devaluation.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    tx: A very good point. The logic "it's been like this in the past, therefore it will be like this in the future" is not valid. Nations come and go from history. What if someone had said at Constantinople in 1453 "well this city has made it through every siege in the past..." Not to get overly preachy (especially on a site like this), but I think something fundamental has changed about the morality of Americans. It may account for how we got into this mess in the first place, and whether we are able to recover now.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "But this is an exchange of ideas by strip club patrons that appears to have resulted in many more comments than any thread about Gridget I have seen." LOL... "IMO it is naive to assume we will come out ahead as we always have in the past." Sure, the USA also has plenty of problems to solve, but they are *not* unsolvable by any means. Frankly, I'd rather have our problems to solve than China's. Less than a decade ago we had a federal balanced budget and were looking at surpluses for a long while to come. After getting the economy going again, a return the the fiscally responsible policies of the past will yield the exact, same results with time.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    MisterGay: "Less than a decade ago we had a federal balanced budget and were looking at surpluses for a long while to come. " The budget was balanced (ran a surplus, in fact!) but that was due to the stock market bubble not "fiscally responsible policies". Once the air was let out of the stock market bubble all hell broke lose. Think the stock market will get to those bubbly heights again? I doubt it, but if we due it will just be on the back of extreme inflation and a prelude to a crash that will make last year's look like a summer's picnic. Where is the evidence that is any return to "fiscally responsible policies" anywhere in sight?
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "Anyone (jablake) referring to Social Security as a 'conservative program' is disqualified from having his comments here considered worthy of note. Wow!" Of course, I didn't say that. Liberals create programs like Social Security and before long "conservatives" are embracing 'em as next to godliness. The Wall Street Journal's love of Medicare is a perfect example of a program created by liberals that is then embraced by "conservatives." When I hear "conservatives" in Congress and in the States calling for the immediate dismantling of these 2 monster programs, then I'd change my tune. Unfortunately, the public----including "conservatives"---are in love with these large socialistic programs. Basically, it seems like "conservatives" are mentally challenged liberals. What we need is a monster program assuring unlimited access to hot stripper babes. :) Socialism improving peoples lives with adult entertainment ---stripclubs, massage joints, escorts, etc.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "jablake: Yes the fed can and is buying treasuries in an attempt to keep rates low. So far it's not clear whether or it is having an effect or not. Yes, in theory the Fed could just keep expanding the program until it worked. The amount of inflation created and weakening of the dollar though are practical limits on how high they can go in reality. And don't forget that as they print more money and buy more treasuries, it actually decreases the attractiveness of treasuries due to dollar devaluation." The Fed can buy---directly or indirectly---via newly credited dollars (computer credits) ALL of treasuries if necessary to guarantee a low rate. Countries such as China not only don't wish to see a dollar devaluation, but supposedly devalue their own currency to be able to sell their products here. Let's take a look at what happens when China or anyone buys a U.S. debt instrument. Is that money destroyed??? No and given the economy's need for liquidity that wouldn't be too bright anyway. The money is spent. So gee, China or whoever could spend the money or the U.S. government could spend the money. And, the money needs to be spent! The auctions are just a facade that some other countries have a vested interest in supporting. The U.S. government paying interest for money it essentially creates is also a facade---I believe the government gets a rebate nowadays for the interest the Fed charges the government, but it makes diddly difference rebate or not. The whole game is a confidence racket and a very good one that helps Americans provide real goods and services. It makes no sense to have a farmer capable of producing food non-stop and then let people go hungry merely because of a shortage of exchange. Print the needed exchange (dollars) and make everyone happy. Also, all this new money creates the opportunity for other beneficial exchanges to take place! :) A shortage of money makes not a bit of sense.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Almost forgot. Printing money essentially out of thin air is like socialism on steroids, and erudite understand that socialism is the wave of the future. More importantly to this board, however, is that creating lots of new dollars is wonderful for stripclubs. A few million dollars should be dumped over club Angels as an experiment. :) Yes, the dance price might increase from the current $5, but hell when millions are being dumped even $50 or a $100 per dance ain't a bad deal. Deflation? Not necessary! Get those military copters in the air and load with dollars to be dumped on Angels. :)
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    MisterGuy, It appears to me that you feel the problems of China is oppression. While that is true, in the global marketplace China is a well managed economy for their benefit. Most comments I hear now regarding the recession is that once the world economy improves the US will begin its growth. Sounds like we are now followers, not leaders.
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    Did we actually have surpluses on the way a decade ago? No. Those projections were based on deceit. Given who was the president at that time, that's no surprise. But we did have a balanced budget. In 1994, conservatives swept into the House of Representatives, and promised to balance the budget. Newt and Co. said they could do it in about 4 years. Pres Clinton said it would take 9 or more (i.e., not on my watch). Newt and Co. did it in 2 or 3 years, the president signed their budget, and then he took credit for it! Capitalism works; socialism fails. Term limits are needed. A voter aptitude test is also needed. Liberals are trying to create more dependency on government (with themselves in charge in perpetuity), and must be stopped. But as the number of people paying no net income tax increases, those evil liberals get closer to their scheme.
  • Clubber
    •
    15 years ago
    how, RIght on, but about term limits. What if, and I know this doesn't seem possible, an honest Congressman is elected and follows (defends) the US Constitution as he swore he would. Now after say 4 or 12 years, he is gone, that would suck. Sort of like finding that perfect dancer that loves fs so much it is free and she even pays for the VIP, but wait, you are only allowed to turns with her. Now if term limits could be extended, say the Congressman would have to get 67% of the vote to remain in office. I would go with something like that.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    how: "A voter aptitude test is also needed" Are you trying to disenfranchise short bus riders like MisterGay?
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    tx + jablake: Well today we saw why yesterday's 10y auction didn't go so well. It's because everyone was saving up their money for the 30y auction today which did go well. The other good news in the bond market is that the Fed is decreasing it purchase of treasuries. Things are looking up for the greenback!
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    I must admit, the strength of the 30 yr auction surprised me. But one day does not make a trend. If we don't have voter aptitude, we should at least have voter ID.
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    Clubber, I understand the concern over term limits. In fact, I recognize the case can be made that they are unconstitutional. Similarly, presidential term limits were unconstitutional; until, of course, Americans amended the constitution to enact presidential term limits. The basic reason I support congressional term limits is that it would improve the decision calculus for every issue. Rather than "What must I do to keep my seat?" they would be asking themselves "What is the right course of action?" Further, people would not seek congressional seats for long-term power, but as a service.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    Another good thing about term limits is that it would probably significantly reduce the cost of campaigning. I remeber a study I read many years ago about how politicians signifcantly increased their net worth after getting elected. As Dougster posted earlier, our morality has changed. Most politicians are out to satisfy their peronal needs/greed.
  • Clubber
    •
    15 years ago
    how, I do not disagree at all with your assessment, but I also do not wish to throw out the ones that continue to operate by the creed, "What is the right course of action?"
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    Just to keep the thread going, we should improve how we hold them accountable. To an extent, socialism could be better than capitalism, when the leaders trully place the countries interests ahead of their own. I am thinking along the lines of Switzerland and the Scandanavian countries. Capitalism, as good as it is, tends to evolve to greed and self serving behavior.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    It's all pretty silly. There are no completely socialist countries in the world and there are no completely capitalist ones. Anyone who has matured beyond adolescent non-thinking fanaticism will realize that neither extreme would be optimal anyway. The correct question is not which is right, but where is the optimal balance?
  • how
    •
    15 years ago
    tx, you noted that "Capitalism...tends to evolve to greed and self serving behavior." I contend that capitalism starts from that point, rather than evolving to it. Ask anyone this: "You have some amount of resources, but they are limited. Do you naturally tend to first spend those resources on your own needs and those of your loved ones, or do you naturally tend to first give those resources to strangers and hope for the best?" The former option is "self serving behavior," but is not morally corrupt as a matter of course. Supply-side economics (capitalism) assumes most people behave in the former way, while demand-side economics (socialism) would only work if people behaved in the latter way. That is why capitalism always works, and socialism always fails. Capitalism is based on assumptions that are consistent with reality. It also is why capitalism can exist in harmony with liberty, while socialism requires tyranny to enforce. Capitalism and liberty = good Socialism and tyranny = bad
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    Capitalism has had failures as spectacular as socialism. There were a number of examples last year. This is exactly why no "pure" capitalist scoiety exists. It needs to be tempered by socialism to survive. (Extreme socialism is bad too, but its faults are widely known and less controversial here, so no need to discuss). balance = good fanaticism = bad
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    I was referring to degrees of greed and self serving. True, a businessman starts out to benefit himself. My point is that we have evolved to abuse the system as we have become more greedy and self serving. The recent mortgage industry mess is a perfect example of out of control greed.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    It ain't a question of holding 'em accountable, imo. Excellent, intelligent, hardworking individuals get elected to office all the time. You may not like their core values, but their intent is to do good. The problem is systemic. It doesn't take great brain power to see this, if you could just stand in their shoes for a few months. You got all manner of people depending on you to get services or pass laws and you want to do a good job not just for your supporters, but for the country. Guess what? You are in for a rude wake up call. Very rude if you were an innocent sheep whatsoever. You want the tax cuts, programs, laws, whatever? Fine. Then be prepared to deal with the devil or you definitely wont even get a chance to propose your brilliant legislation let alone have an opportunity to see it pass. Corruption rules. And, it is mainly the system is very bad. Over time even the best can be corrupted to the point where they can't even see how bad the system is especially if they worked their way up and had to cut a bunch of deals to get their current power and status.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "more greedy and self serving." I don't think it is really a question of greed in many cases. I think there is great deal of antipathy. My former employer was truly a great man. He cared about his family, his employees, and his customers. I'm not talking about empty caring. He was a man of action. He'd put his hard earned and well deserved earnings on the line to help people. More than once he extended interest free loans without any written contracts to me---the sums weren't minor. Yes, he could afford it. That isn't the point. The point is he genuinely wanted to help and be a good guy. He bought this insurance that if the business needed to shut down due to disaster his employees would be paid. He didn't have to do this. He wanted to, to protect his employees. Disaster strikes in the form of a hurricane. Does the insurance company pay? LOL! The contract was very clear. He got different opinions from experienced attorneys who said the insurance company definitely had to pay. To protect his employees he went into debt to pay their salaries. This wasn't a minor loan he could afford----this was financially extremely painful for him. :( I think almost any other man, even a very good man, would have just laid the employees off. Say, well I bought the insurance and if they don't pay then the employees have to suffer. End of story? After over 7 years in this vile corrupt court system a judge decided the insurance company didn't have to pay. You think my former employer still has the same respect for the court system or even the government? You think he still obeys the law out of the thinking that is the right thing to do? LOL! If he obeys the law, then it is out of fear and nothing more. His eyes were finally opened to the massive corruption and there is not a bit of honor in obeying the law----it is a scam game with each man out for himself. Any sack of shit who believes in the law needs to go thru what my former employer went thru and then they talk that filth and I'll respect their view. BTW, I do know a man who got royally screwed by the government and he isn't embittered and still believes in more government. After what he thru, I can very much respect his opinion of still loving America. I think most would view the country as total shit after what he went thru----of course, there is the slim, imo, chance that he was guilty. In that case, he has nothing feel anger or hatred over. He is just a very lucky duck.
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    jablake, The greed and self serving was there in your story. The insurance company sold a policy to cover a need and then thru their greed renege on their promise. It is a shame how the courts have allowed victims of disasters to get screwed by insurance companies. The insurance industry has basically evolved to the point of where you are insured as long as you do not file a claim.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    Hi txtittyfan, Yes, the greed was in my story. It didn't end there however. My former employer wasn't the same good guy when it came to deals involving the government. From being overly honest and caring, he changed when it came to any deal involving the government. He just didn't have the same good values when it came to the government---not saying he stole from 'em, but he definitely had a very different mindset---that it was the enemy; just do the very least allowable. So, let's say that my former employer got a contract with government and he found a "risk free" way of stealing left, right, and center from the government. Let's say further he was wrong about it being "risk free" and he got caught. Most would assume his theft from the government was due to greed----and, they couldn't be more wrong. The greed wouldn't have been the issue even at little. More of a question of getting a tiny bit of retribution against an evil corrupt system. People want to support this filth? Good, let 'em pay thru the nose for it. Maybe if or when they get raped they wont be so arrogant and stupid. The point is sometimes people are willing to steal big time and the reason isn't greed. That is what people may think or know, but the truth runs a lot deeper.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    It is funny, but I've pretty much always preferred small government; less money for education, transportation, military, welfare, health care, etc. After President Bush it became clear, imo, that large government was just a reality. There weren't any or at least very few "conservatives" who favored small government. Well, if large government is the only real option President Obama or actually someone a lot more liberal is, imo, the excellent answer. I mean if hundreds of billions are going to be spent on endless wars (terrorism, drugs, rogue states, etc.), then I strongly prefer the government spend much much much more on all manner of programs for everyone. Give the sugar billionaires even more billions! Tobacco farmers need some freshly printed U.S. dollars? Give 'em a few trillion. Tax cuts? Everyone gets a tax cut----but, mainly low and middle income taxpayers. The old need expensive medical care? Not, a problem even a little bit. Government has as many billions or trillions as you need. The young worker or young bum needs medical care? Same answer. There plenty of billions. No, I've got zero interest in hearing stupidity about small government or not even printed dollars----if they is enough money for endless wars and more prisons, then guess what? You got it! There is plenty of money also for all manner of government giveaways. :) Hopefully, President Obama doesn't shy away from spending whatever trillions of dollars on more government that is necessary. Funding the idiotic wars is fine by me if he delivers the bacon for the rest of those needing a large or tiny handouts. Socialism is the solution to those people like President Bush.
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    On CNN I was watching this very large police officer tasering this tiny cantankerous 72 year old lady (she had violated the speed limit). A former police officer working for CNN thought the tasering was appropriate because she didn't obey the officer. Pretty much I consider the news stations to be just propaganda centers and this segment was pretty much what I expected. The government's officer is to be so revered that he even has the right to attack little old ladies. That little old lady could have been my grandmother. Anyway that officer needed his butt handed to him so many different ways I get sick just thinking about. Anyway, then you get people calling in and giving thumbs up to attacking the little old lady. The officer/law is god and she is garbage type mentality. Well, I don't know how many people believe in attacking the little old lady----but, I can assume that with enough propaganda even this could be a divisive issue. Is there any middle ground with people who believe an officer should be so respected that he has the right to attack a disobedient little old lady? I don't see any middle ground. If they're ruling class, then that is just the current game. Maybe a different culture will arise in later generations. Like I said, I consider much of the news to be mere propaganda for training the cattle.
  • MisterGuy
    •
    15 years ago
    "It appears to me that you feel the problems of China is oppression." Well, that's *one* of their problems...for which they are decades behind us BTW. "While that is true, in the global marketplace China is a well managed economy for their benefit" ...as far as we know (when was the last time that anyone believed what info was coming out from a communist dictatorship?). A lot of their monetary "success" has been blatant rigging of their currency vs. others. "Most comments I hear now regarding the recession is that once the world economy improves the US will begin its growth. Sounds like we are now followers, not leaders." Hey, the global economy is real, but the USA is at the head of it. If you really want to "worry" about future *real* competition with the USA...worry about the European Union...they already have a bigger economy than we do... "Did we actually have surpluses on the way a decade ago?" Yes, we did, and that is a matter of historical record, as documented by the U.S. Treasury. [view link] [view link] "In 1994, conservatives swept into the House of Representatives, and promised to balance the budget. Newt and Co. said they could do it in about 4 years. Pres Clinton said it would take 9 or more (i.e., not on my watch). Newt and Co. did it in 2 or 3 years, the president signed their budget, and then he took credit for it!" Nonsense, the GOP Congress only hindered the eventual Clinton balanced budget by their ass-backwards policies: [view link] "A voter aptitude test is also needed." Yea, and while we're at it, let's bring back the poll tax as well...ugh... "The recent mortgage industry mess is a perfect example of out of control greed." Exactly. The USA has the world's most successful type of economy...a mixed economy.
  • Clubber
    •
    15 years ago
    So, how about that stripper?
  • txtittyfan
    •
    15 years ago
    The blonde one is studying for her voter aptitude test.
  • Dougster
    •
    15 years ago
    MisterGay: "A lot of their monetary 'success' has been blatant rigging of their currency vs. others." Not sure why MisterGay has "success" in quotes. There is no doubt about the reality of the strength of Chinese growth over the last 10 years and going forward. Did they benefit from the currency peg and buying of US debt? Without a doubt. By why are they out of line doing these things? Certainly there is more to their success than their currency policies. Lots of countries have tried monetary devaluation or currencies pegs without luck. I guess MisterGay would have us believe Chinese growth is not real. That's pretty gay of him, I'd say. As for the EU being a threat, they are in debt even deeper than the US, and have had not nearly the growth of China over the last decade. China is definitely the one to keep an eye on.
  • Book Guy
    •
    15 years ago
    Depends what you mean by "economy improve." Some sectors are already showing great opportunity. Others never had any trouble. It's the free-loaders who suddenly learned that the boat was getting over-loaded, that are complaining the most. If you're desperate for everything to be "everything's coming up roses" all the time, and you need for the stock market to reliably make 15% per year "just because it's the stock market," then you ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. The only real crunch, the only real problem, for someone with know-how and wits and education and common sense, and no "typical (moronic) American" debt-load, is the lack of major credit opportunity for the big borrowers. So go into tech instead of industry?
  • jablake
    •
    15 years ago
    "'typical (moronic) American'" debt-load" The Wall Street Journal opined that massive credit card debt was a blessing to companies and government. Whether it is "moronic" is an interesting question. There was this man on Miami Beach. He sort of owned a Hotel. OK, I'll try and be clearer. He did own the Hotel, but he had a rapidly expiring land lease under the Hotel. Meaning if he can't buy or extend the land lease he loses the Hotel. :) Fun so far? He was attempting and would be successful at getting a mortgage on his Hotel, which more than likely he wouldn't be the owner of because of the expiring land lease. You may ask well what is the big deal? People get mortgages all the time. Yes, but he had EIGHT (8) mortgages on this ONE (1) Hotel. And, these generally weren't small mortgages. BIG mortgages and he was hunting for number NINE (9). He was honest with the potential lenders and the lenders may have even understood what they were doing. Were these mortgages going to be repaid? LOL! Please, the answer is a firm maybe. Maybe the vile government may come to the rescue. I'm not sure how the game ultimately played out, but that Hotel owner would, imo, feel only joy at screwing the government. Did he care about people? I can't say for sure----he seemed to, but I just don't know. Maybe he's the type who'd be tasering tiny disobedient old ladies and steal every penny of their savings----I don't know. Point being I wouldn't describe the Hotel owner's debt as being moronic. A fraud? Yes. Intelligent. Yes. Anyway, just because a debt is extreme and even if the person may ultimately lose their home (property) doesn't for a second necessarily mean the debt was moronic. I looked at the debts of a buddy. HUGE debts with not a chance for her to repay unless by an act of god or government. Were her HUGE debts moronic? I'm not sure. I'd need to give it some careful thought. I *think* the answer is that it wasn't moronic-----yes, she is losing TWO (2) homes and all her equity in those homes. Maybe with a lot of luck President Obama or maybe the court system can come riding to the rescue. There is a slim chance that the court system may turn her nasty lemons into sweet tasting lemonade and she might end up with a good deal of $$$. :) That is good government for a change. :) Moronic? She could be looking pretty damn smart depending on the ruling of the government's court. :)
  • Book Guy
    •
    15 years ago
    Wasn't referring to the wheeler-dealers as the "moronic" ones. I was referring generally to the dupes who borrowed themselves into mortgages they probably knew they could never afford to reliably pay off. Or should have known. Giant McMansions for McBurger flippers. They didn't deserve 'em but for a brief while they were able to irresponsibly debt-finance them. Then the economy tanked and their own idiotic choices came home to roost. Do-gooders may complain that I'm missing the "social tragedy" behind it all. For example, in many areas, the lendors, and the lending rules, were often quasi-predatory, such that uneducated and underprivileged people might have been taken advantage of. Waa waa poor "urban" dwellers ... Ya know what? Fuck 'em. I've never over-borrowed in my life. I want my goddamned "doesn't-need-a-bail-out" bail-out. I want the US Federal Government to look at my bank accounts, my spending habits, my (fully paid off) credit card bills, and say, "Hey, this guy deserves a coupla million dollars for the fact that he NEVER THREW HIS RISK ONTO OTHER TAX-PAYERS through silly schemes. He signed up only for those things which he responsibly knew he could rightly alleviate ON HIS OWN. Let's give HIM a bail-out!" Gee thanks ...
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion