More proof that GM is not an American car company

Kashmir

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
15,647
Reaction score
19,522

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
44,390
Part of the reason that Bretton Woods (a highly flawed system as well) fell apart and Nixon cut the strings to gold, was because US spending was out of control do to war and welfare spending. Our foreign partners, competitors and investors got skittish about whether or not we actually had enough gold or economic strength to make good on our debts.

There's a chance, a pretty good chance of similar fears and emotions driving people away from the USD as the global currency and from buying our bonds. The Chinese could begin dumping US Treasuries tomorrow and cause a panic...OPEC and other countries could band together and decide on a basket of currencies to replace the USD...any number of things could happen...maybe far fetched, probably unlikely (hopefully), but if something like that did happen....BOOM the house of cards collapses.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,662
What is the economy?

It is the summation of all the private sector business transactions. One would hope that operators in the private sector would know far better how to deal with the day to day operations than a congressman who thinks an island will tip over if everyone rushes to one side.

I said they should be on the public payroll, not that they should be members of Congress. That makes this "point" of yours another red herring.

One of my biggest problems is that the 7 Governors of the Fed are appointed by the US President for 14 year terms. That is much too long and potential for abuse.

That's part of the problem, agreed. But that's a smaller part of the problem, in my view. What heightens the potential for abuse is the ties these executives are permitted to keep with private financial institutions. This is why I want them placed under Civil Service law. As matters stand right now, twelve banks control the economy of the country, more or less.

That is an untenable state of affairs. The economy would seem to fall under the rubric of the general welfare mission assigned to the government in the Constitution.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
44,390
A ridiculous article. Other than what Romney says he'll accomplish (which is feasibly impossible) that article talks about a tax plan no one has seen. Ryan has said the plan will be released at a later date. That only means it either doesn't exist or that they don't want the voters to see it until after Romney is elected (which will not happen).


You didn't read the Princeton Economists paper on the plan then? We know that broadening the base, simplifying the tax code and flattening it works...we have historical evidence of it working. The POTUS doesn't write law, he works with Congress to advance his ideas and THEY write the law...

Like the 1986 tax law...which worked. Romney's plan is based on and quite similar to the Bowles - Simpson plan...created by a bipartisan team that Obama put together. Ryan didn't vote for it, because it did nothing to solve the impending disaster which is Medicare and SS.

Nobody wants to pay more taxes...weird isn't it? The 47% who don't pay now, are not all in the military or in college or old people (btw - many of the old folks have a lot of money and they're getting the medicare and free drugs, etc.)...many of the 47% are folks that get refundable tax credits (read welfare) and many would rather collect entitlements because the gov't pays better than minimum wage.

You should educate yourself.:thumb:
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
Part of the reason that Bretton Woods (a highly flawed system as well) fell apart and Nixon cut the strings to gold, was because US spending was out of control do to war and welfare spending. Our foreign partners, competitors and investors got skittish about whether or not we actually had enough gold or economic strength to make good on our debts.


That was a part of the problem, but not as influential as you say. The real problem of Bretton Woods was pegging the dollar to a very low static gold price. Our foreign partners in Europe had a large supply of US Dollars and bought back OUR gold for dirt cheap to sell it much higher on the global market (jewelry makes up 1/2 the worlds gold demand).... and used those new dollars to exchange for cheap gold to resell again. That drained our gold supplies.

There's a chance, a pretty good chance of similar fears and emotions driving people away from the USD as the global currency and from buying our bonds. The Chinese could begin dumping US Treasuries tomorrow and cause a panic...OPEC and other countries could band together and decide on a basket of currencies to replace the USD...any number of things could happen...maybe far fetched, probably unlikely (hopefully), but if something like that did happen....BOOM the house of cards collapses.

If the Chinese dump our bonds, it means that they have buyers... that there is a demand for our bonds other than the Chinese. It has no effect on us at all as the treasuries are just trading owners.

Again just hypotheticals.... if they do this.... if they do that.... if a basket of currencies is used....

The house of cards is based largely on our GDP. That's how currency is valued on the FOREX.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
44,390
It seems to me the house of cards is based almost exclusively on the trust of the buyers/lenders in our ability to sustain growth and pay a return on their investment/keep their investment safe. Fiat currency is only valuable as long as people BELIEVE it's valuable.

* Edit...and the Chinese don't need buyers to screw us, they just need to create a panic by trying to sell them.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
....
That's part of the problem, agreed. But that's a smaller part of the problem, in my view. What heightens the potential for abuse is the ties these executives are permitted to keep with private financial institutions. This is why I want them placed under Civil Service law. As matters stand right now, twelve banks control the economy of the country, more or less.

That is an untenable state of affairs. The economy would seem to fall under the rubric of the general welfare mission assigned to the government in the Constitution.

Just changing the Fed Resv isn't a panacea. It's amusing because I find myself defending the Feds operations.... but I despise more than anything on earth are BANKS.

For anything meaningful to happen to our economy, we are first and foremost in need of harsh financial industry reform. This industry is responsible for a huge amount of our GDP, and they create.... nothing. The banks need to be caged. Fractional Reserve Banking needs to be outlawed. Derivatives and the casino effect of Wall Street need to be confronted hard. Shadow Banking has to stop. Too Big Too Fail, created by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Those changes at a minimum first and you will see a much more effective Fed Reserve, a far less threatening Fed (with shorter term limits for Fed Governors.)
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
It seems to me the house of cards is based almost exclusively on the trust of the buyers/lenders in our ability to sustain growth and pay a return on their investment/keep their investment safe. Fiat currency is only valuable as long as people BELIEVE it's valuable.

* Edit...and the Chinese don't need buyers to screw us, they just need to create a panic by trying to sell them.

Dollar values are calculated many times a day for trading. The business that follows our currency (buyers and traders), health monitor us continuously. The long term buyers of our bonds are already losing (for them) because the interest rates offered are less than inflation. They are still selling. It would be in China's worst interest to dump their bonds. It would not bode well trade wise if they tried to cause the bond market to drop. At this juncture they need us more than we need them.

I wish you would believe more in our country's strengths. We are still a top tier manufacturer (amazing), and in terms of economics, even if we are number two, it's not disastrous by any means. We do not have to sell bonds to make money. That is a political constraint put on the system.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,662
It's hard to imagine financial reform when the Fed is controlled by the banks. Whoever is chairman at the time any of those proposed steps of yours are suggested will march down to the Capitol, testify that they're "disastrous", and that's that.
 

KSG_Standard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
30,005
Reaction score
44,390
I believe in the strengths, inventiveness and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people...I believe in the free market and United States Constitution. I have almost no confidence in the United States gov't or the Federal Reserve.
 

Deus Vult

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
18,966
Reaction score
33,890
i like turtles.

and Les Pauls.

Picture020.jpg
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
It's hard to imagine financial reform when the Fed is controlled by the banks. Whoever is chairman at the time any of those proposed steps of yours are suggested will march down to the Capitol, testify that they're "disastrous", and that's that.

FDR did it in 1934. This is the second time in 100 years that the banks have royally screwed this country.... like Germany starting 2 world wars. Minimal military allowed for Germany, they can't be trusted. Minimal rights for the financial industry, they as well can not be trusted with the regulatory environment as it is.

If FDR's people had the balls to do it. We can do it. It HAS to be done. Eliminating the Fed alone or changing the currency will not stop the problem..... at all. We had a Gold Standard in 1929.
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,662
FDR did it in 1934. This is the second time in 100 years that the banks have royally screwed this country.... like Germany starting 2 world wars. Minimal military allowed for Germany, they can't be trusted. Minimal rights for the financial industry, they as well can not be trusted with the regulatory environment as it is.

If FDR's people had the balls to do it. We can do it. It HAS to be done. Eliminating the Fed alone or changing the currency will not stop the problem..... at all. We had a Gold Standard in 1929.

I'm not saying that abolishing a private Reserve is the only step needed. I think it's a necessary first step.

You cited Germany by way of analogy. To carry the analogy further, it took the dismemberment of that country, and fifty years, to extirpate its threat.

Also, I'm not arguing for a return to gold.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
I'm not saying that abolishing a private Reserve is the only step needed. I think it's a necessary first step.

You cited Germany by way of analogy. To carry the analogy further, it took the dismemberment of that country, and fifty years, to extirpate its threat.

Also, I'm not arguing for a return to gold.

That was a whole country.... we are talking about an industry, smaller but I don't underestimate its power. The reforms are needed first, then the Fed change... much smoother transition. There will be huge market repercussions.

FDR was dealing with JP Morgan... the dynasty with ultra-wealthy people on the banks sides. It still was done.
 

Kashmir

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
15,647
Reaction score
19,522
The 47% who don't pay now, are not all in the military or in college or old people (btw - many of the old folks have a lot of money and they're getting the medicare and free drugs, etc.)...many of the 47% are folks that get refundable tax credits (read welfare) and many would rather collect entitlements because the gov't pays better than minimum wage.

Everyone knows that. But those on welfare don't amount to 47%. Romney said that he's not expecting to reach 47% of the American population because they all rely on gov't money. Obviously, he meant 47% , and he insulted and alienated himself from 47% of the people.

No, I haven't read the Princeton Economists paper on the plan. Is that where the plan is published in its completion? Why are we just getting a 'spin' of it elsewhere?
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
23,539
Reaction score
33,352
You guys can debate "stimulus" and it's effects til the cows come home...and there's certainly a place and time for that discussion to happen.

WHERE that money goes and how effective it might be is altogether another issue. If we were all to agree on it's usefulness, the next question becomes "Is this the place to put our money to work that's going to make a positive difference?"

Stuff like this doesn't serve the argument as being any advantage to the broader economy:

Volt no jolt: LG Chem employees idle | WOOD TV8

Literally, your tax dollars at work. :shock::slap:
 

Thumpalumpacus

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
76,196
Reaction score
187,662
That was a whole country.... we are talking about an industry, smaller but I don't underestimate its power. The reforms are needed first, then the Fed change... much smoother transition. There will be huge market repercussions.

FDR was dealing with JP Morgan... the dynasty with ultra-wealthy people on the banks sides. It still was done.

What is the point of trimming the weed if you leave the roots in the ground?
 

Latest Threads



Top