Does Smart Equal Liberal?. Most stupid people are Conservatives!
Robert Peffers
*cough* Canadian Alliance Party of Canada *cough* Conservative Party
of Canada is a hotbed for ignorant, common, low class, blue collar,
working class, pedestrian level, uneducated, unenlightened,
untraveled, redneck, trailer trash who also
tend to be racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, anti-
Quebec, anti-bilingual, anti-immigrant,
anti-multicultural, anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-affirmative action, anti-
women's rights, anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-science,
anti-progressive, and utterly backwards angry white males.
You've probably heard the line from John Stuart Mill that "while it is
not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is indeed true
that most stupid people are conservatives". Well, now there's a study
that seems to support this:
-Robert James (Auld Bob) Peffers
Does Smart Equal Liberal?
Friday, January 11, 2008
By Wray Herbert
Nobody thinks their own values and attitudes are foolish. It goes
against human nature. Say you meet someone who believes that a woman’s
proper place is in the home. And say, for the purposes of argument,
that you firmly believe this as well. You are going to assume that
this person who shares this core value is intelligent, that this
attitude is a reflection of reason and mental acuity. Or say you meet
someone who shares your concern for the natural environment. You will
automatically conclude that this new acquaintance must be a
sophisticated thinker. At the very least, you are not going to think,
hey, he’s a lot like me, he must be stupid.
Given that this is true, how can we ever know if some values are more
intelligent, more reasoned, or more cognitively sophisticated than
others? Put another way, does native intelligence lead to a certain
set of values, and stupidity to another worldview altogether?
Surprisingly, this fundamental question has never been examined
scientifically—until now. Psychologist Ian Deary of the University of
Edinburgh realized he could explore the link between IQ and values
using a very large existing data base on kids who were born in 1970.
These boys and girls, more than 7000 of them, had all taken IQ tests
at the age of ten, so he was able to sort out the bright kids from
their duller classmates. These kids had then been tracked and
interviewed repeatedly for two decades, so there was a rich record of
not only their education and work lives but also their basic attitudes
and beliefs: on race, gender equality, the environment, the sanctity
of marriage, and so forth. In short, Deary wanted to see what kind of
people they turned into at age 30, as they stood on the cusp of the
21st century.
Not to put too fine a point on it: The smartest kids turned into the
most broad-minded and progressive adults. For example, the most
intelligent kids turned out 20 years later to be much more tolerant of
other races. They were also much more supportive of working mothers,
rejecting the notion that pre-school children will suffer without a
stay-at-home mother. In general, the sharpest kids came to embrace
much less traditional moral values and were much more apt to challenge
authority. They were also much less cynical as adults, more trusting
that the political system can do good.
Why would native intelligence translate into a more enlightened
worldview later on? One obvious possibility is that the smarter kids
end up getting a better education; they read more books and newspapers
and are exposed to a richer culture of ideas. But the data, reported
in the January issue of Psychological Science, don’t appear to support
this explanation.
Instead, it appears to be something about the intelligent brain
itself: Smart people may have a different emotional makeup, a
personality that is more open to experience. Or it may be that high IQ
at age ten eventually leads to more complex moral reasoning: In short,
smart people alone may have the cognitive machinery that’s needed for
more flexible analysis of political and moral quandaries.
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/01/does-smart-equal-liberal.cfm
Rich
graduates of ANY president, so no, smart and liberal are not linked.
klunk
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:TdqdnYvIv64f4mLX...@giganews.com...
> No! Obama was elected with the lowest number of college and high school
> graduates of ANY president, so no, smart and liberal are not linked.
>
>
to mitigate the pain of realizing just how stupid they are... which is
particularly sad because they only make themselves appear even more stupid
when doing so... ;-)
http://www.thetartan.org/2008/11/10/news/elections
Sixty-six percent of young voters cast their ballot for Barack Obama, the
largest-ever showing for a presidential candidate in this age group. Young
people preferred Obama to John McCain by a two-to-one ratio, according to a
survey of young voters conducted by Declare Yourself, a nonpartisan
initiative dedicated to youth voters, and Luntz Maslansky Strategic
Research, a market research company, and released Nov. 6.
"Young people absolutely made the difference in this election," said Erika
Johansson, a project coordinator for Declare Yourself. "Without them, he
would have lost the election."
Les Tweed
> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
The fact that a ghost written book by Sarah Palin, (she's the one who
quit being Governor of Alaska half way into her term, to make money
off of a book) and is given away to the Conservative Book Club, does
not necessarily imply that Conservatives are literate.
Glenn Beck has written two books in the past 8 months!
In my view, both are either proliferate authors of great intelligence,
of great insight like Barry Goldwater, or they are right wing
simpletons who get people to write books on their behalf.
So far, there is no evidence of either. And of course there is no
evidence of a right wing terrorist writing Obama's book.
But then again, Bush should have made better use of his Teleprompter,
and Obama is widely criticized for using it.
Dudley Hanks
"Les Tweed" <adrast...@live.com> wrote in message
news:fa64d653-317a-4259...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Generalizations never help much...
Harper, Iggy and Trudeau all studied economics, yet Harper doesn't have near
the reputation his Liberal counterparts enjoy... Is it because of his IQ?
Or is it because his socio-religious background has merely limited his
thought process..?
Liberals just aren't as hampered by ideological baggage as RightOffs are...
Take Care,
Dudley
Les Tweed
> "Les Tweed" <adrastea2...@live.com> wrote in message
Harper was a fan of the Austrian School (or Chicago School)
He has a Masters Degree in economics.
Trudeau was a Lawyer. Harper is the first Prime Minister Canada has
ever had that is an economist.
When he blew $50 billion this year to revive our economy, he said "I
went back to the books and learned new ways".
He was referring to Keynesian.
klunk
"Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:v%LLm.52050$Db2.4428@edtnps83...
ahhhh... the byproduct of free will... to narrow one's perceptions through
ideology and become stupid, or not...
Les Tweed
It's all good. Nobody likes debt, but Harper is doing what it takes
at the moment.
Keynesian economics dictates that you save for a rainy day.
You take the surpluses and invest in lowering debt. You don't cut
taxes during good times.
Bush? He cut taxes during war time! Insane.
Supply Side Economics has never produced a surplus, or a break even.
Reagan raised taxes more than any President in 1989 to fund his tax
cuts.
President G. H. W. Bush called Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics".
It was not a compliment.
Dudley Hanks
Really?
Yes, Trudeau was a lawyer, but have you read his biography? In particular,
if you go to page 37 or 38 of "Memoirs," You'll read:
"In response to my questions, he said that our society was terribly lacking
in economic expertise. Only �douard Montpetit and Esdras Minville
represented that field of knowledge in our province. There was an urgent
need, said Laurendeau, for young people to follow in their footsteps.
That's why I took the joint degree in economics and political science. And
in that field, the internationally recognized centre of excellence was in
North America, practically on our doorstep: Harvard. Since I had always had
top marks at Br�beuf and in university, my application to Harvard was
accepted, and I have never regretted it."
As I said, RightOffs are hung up on ideological dogma...
When Trudeau was confronted with stagflation, something Keynisian economics
hadn't predicted, a condition which no ideological dogma had an antidote
for, he had to work out the solution for himself. Yes, it cost a lot of
money, but social conditions for everyone improved...
Take Care,
Dudley
Les Tweed
> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:v%LLm.52050$Db2.4428@edtnps83...
>
>
>
>
>
Harper had the guts to put his ideology aside and do what Prof. John
Kenneth Galbraith (of Iona Station Ontario) would have recommended.
Prof. John Kenneth Galbraith was also Richard M. Nixon's chief
economist.
Dudley Hanks
Yep, what he said...
Couldn't have said it better, myself...
Take Care,
Dudley
Les Tweed
> represented that field of knowledge in our province. There was an urgent
> need, said Laurendeau, for young people to follow in their footsteps.
> That's why I took the joint degree in economics and political science. And
> in that field, the internationally recognized centre of excellence was in
> North America, practically on our doorstep: Harvard. Since I had always had
> accepted, and I have never regretted it."
>
> As I said, RightOffs are hung up on ideological dogma...
>
> When Trudeau was confronted with stagflation, something Keynisian economics
> hadn't predicted, a condition which no ideological dogma had an antidote
> for, he had to work out the solution for himself. Yes, it cost a lot of
> money, but social conditions for everyone improved...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Thanks for that reference.
It's always a pleasure to learn more. You're clearly up on your
Trudeau!
I didn't support Trudeau at all. I was more a Bob Stanfield man. :)
However, like his American counterpart Nixon, who had the tanks ready
to invade Canada during the FLQ crisis of October 1970, Trudeau became
one of the toughest. Of course both thought that the other guy was a
fucker. Big hatred.
What I found funny was when Nixon went to China, but Trudeau (who had
lived in Maoist China) planned on visiting there before Nixon.
Nixon's people contacted Trudeau's people, and begged him to not go
because Nixon planned a trip.
So, Trudeau backed off. And as I said, Trudeau and Nixon hated each
other.
Nixon thought that Trudeau was an intellectual elitist (he was), and
Tricky Dick wasn't up to that!
Dudley Hanks
> represented that field of knowledge in our province. There was an urgent
> need, said Laurendeau, for young people to follow in their footsteps.
> That's why I took the joint degree in economics and political science. And
> in that field, the internationally recognized centre of excellence was in
> North America, practically on our doorstep: Harvard. Since I had always
> had
> accepted, and I have never regretted it."
>
> As I said, RightOffs are hung up on ideological dogma...
>
> hadn't predicted, a condition which no ideological dogma had an antidote
> for, he had to work out the solution for himself. Yes, it cost a lot of
> money, but social conditions for everyone improved...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Thanks for that reference.
It's always a pleasure to learn more. You're clearly up on your
Trudeau!
I didn't support Trudeau at all. I was more a Bob Stanfield man. :)
However, like his American counterpart Nixon, who had the tanks ready
to invade Canada during the FLQ crisis of October 1970, Trudeau became
one of the toughest. Of course both thought that the other guy was a
fucker. Big hatred.
What I found funny was when Nixon went to China, but Trudeau (who had
lived in Maoist China) planned on visiting there before Nixon.
Nixon's people contacted Trudeau's people, and begged him to not go
because Nixon planned a trip.
So, Trudeau backed off. And as I said, Trudeau and Nixon hated each
other.
Nixon thought that Trudeau was an intellectual elitist (he was), and
Tricky Dick wasn't up to that!
That's the thing about politics, there's always got to be a bit of
give-and-take. If only one side gets what it wants, everybody loses...
But, when enough respect exists for the system, and other actors in the
system, it can be made to work -- even in the toughest of circumstances...
Take Care,
Dudley
Les Tweed
I guess Canadian and US sports history boils down to hockey.
The Soviets were defeated by Team USA in 1980 (Miracle on Ice) and the
US went on to beat Finland for the Olympic Gold medal in the Lake
Placid NY games.
But in 1972, we took on the the Soviets in the 8 game series that
climaxed with Paul Henderson scoring the winning goal.
Americans? They know nothing about that!
The fact that the Canadians would entertain the Soviets in those days
was outrageous to an American.
When Trudeau's funeral happened, I was in Chicago with colleagues from
the USA and it was on CNN in the bar.
The first thing that a guy said was "That's Fidel Castro! Sitting
behind Jimmy Carter" in the Montreal church.
He said "Why don't you arrest him?"
It was time to teach an American colleague about Canada.
I sent him some Monte Christos for Christmas.
klunk
---
well... it's certainly flattering to him to say that his actions were guided
by "guts"... imo... his motivations are determined more by fear than
anything else... which, in this case was the fear that he would become a
supreme embarrassment who would have easily lost his crown if he hadn't put
aside his ideology in favour of navigating with a headstrong wind instead of
against it...
Pete
> well... it's certainly flattering to him to say that his actions were guided
> by "guts"... imo... his motivations are determined more by fear than
> anything else... which, in this case was the fear that he would become a
> supreme embarrassment who would have easily lost his crown if he hadn't put
> aside his ideology in favour of navigating with a headstrong wind instead of
> against it...
>
>
>
Harper should have cut taxes for the wealthy and invited every last, fucking
Republican from the USA to immigrate to Quebec after they got their butts kicked
by Obama in Nov. 2008.
Yeah! That's the ticket!
Dudley Hanks
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:inNLm.11733$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
Actually, Harper was doing the Conservativ thing... Really....
He was trying to spend his way out of a problem...
As was pointed out by somebody else earlier in this thread, Keynesian
Economics say we should TAX A BIT IN GOOD TIMES in order to save money so
that we can SPEND A BIT IN BAD TIMES. The Conservatives like the second
part of that little philosophy, because Conservative bankers get to lend
money to the state, in huge sums, which gives the banking system more
control over government policies when we get back to the good times (ie:
they can demand cuts to social programs and overall taxes). The only given,
of course, is that the level of taxation cover the basic services of a
minimal government and the loan payments to the bankers...
So, Harper hasn't departed one bit from Conservative core philosophies...
Take Care,
Dudley
Pete
> So, Harper hasn't departed one bit from Conservative core philosophies...
>
>
He has, big time.
Keynesian economics spends government money on rusisitating the economy.
Harper is a an old school "Liberal". Hayek and Von Mises style.
However, you are spot on when it comes to "Fiscal Conservatism" as done by
"Fiscal Conservatives".
They generally spend more than they earn, and think that tax cuts will generate
tax income. And that has never happened. Ever.
Pete
My dad was a flight engineer in WW2, when the war ended, he became a laborer in
constrution building the 401. A highway that was so far outside of Toronto,
that nobody "got it".
Then he went to U of T and became an engineer, worked on the ZEEP in Chalk
River, the zero output nuclear reactor. That's where the medical isotopes are
made now. My father's signature is on the approval of the CN Tower.
And when it came down to 1976, when I was old enough to cast my first vote?
I asked him. "Who did you vote for?"
He said "Son, I know that who ever I vote for, it will always be cancelled by
your mother"
We never discussed politics much after that.
Pete
>
> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:v%LLm.52050$Db2.4428@edtnps83...
> > his thought process..?
> >
> > Liberals just aren't as hampered by ideological baggage as RightOffs
> > are...
>
> ahhhh... the byproduct of free will... to narrow one's perceptions through
> ideology and become stupid, or not...
>
>
I disagree. Dudley has been quite informative and knowledgeable.
I've enjoyed our discussions about economics and politics.
He's got a level head on his shoulders. In my opinion.
Pete
> Liberals just aren't as hampered by ideological baggage as RightOffs are...
>
>
Hey! I not only voted for Mulroney twice, I voted for Mike Harris twice!
In fact, in 1993, I voted for Kim Campbell but didn't cry when Chretien won and
it was "Tory, party of two" (A Second City Skit)
I'm an acqaintance of Peter Donolo through his wife, I worked with Peter and
Nancy Mahovlich (Senator Frank's kids) in the 1980's.
But I am no more a Liberal than I am a Conservative these days.
And living in Rosedale, Toronto. St. Paul's riding, I'm not poor either.
I vote with my heart.
klunk
"Pete" <pete...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.256980fe7...@News.Individual.NET...
> klunk wrote
>>
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>> news:v%LLm.52050$Db2.4428@edtnps83...
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> > his thought process..?
>> >
>> > Liberals just aren't as hampered by ideological baggage as RightOffs
>> > are...
>>
>> ahhhh... the byproduct of free will... to narrow one's perceptions
>> through
>> ideology and become stupid, or not...
>>
>>
>
> I disagree.
okay.... but... considering the rest of your post:
> Dudley has been quite informative and knowledgeable.
>
> I've enjoyed our discussions about economics and politics.
>
> He's got a level head on his shoulders. In my opinion.
with what....?...
Canuck57
In except if you consider that Liberal Turdeau's debt-spend. If Canada
hadn't added $200 billion of debt spend, still unparalleled today,
Adding $200 billion to the interest paid, Canada would be in a whopping
net surplus today.
More than $30 billion goes to service debt each year, and that is just
Ottawa. Provinces and cities extra.
But agree in that neither parties are good for Canadians. Both are
hampered with baggage and fail to do what is right for Canadians. It is
also why I vote for neither, and I live in Harpo's riding.
Obama's book will be that he did what the Taliban couldn't.
Canuck57
Which didn't work post 1929 and will not work now.
You can't spend your way out of a debt problem. Wishfult thinking and
insanity to think so. Just makes the problem worse.
Reagan hit the problem head on, Leaving people with more of their own
money to afford cars and homes was the right answer. But at least he
had something to show for the debt he racked up. Obama has nothing to
show buy more unemployment and devaluing dollar.
You don't have to be an economics graduate to know excessive debt,
defunct debt and growing governemtn debt is not sustainable and the
depression may yet have another bad downturn coming with inflation.
Take Obama's latest numbers claiming GDP is up 3% while employment is
down. That is called inflation. Not recovery.
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reagan was an idiot. He didn't even grasp what acid rain was?
==
Canuck57
>> He was referring to Keynesian.
>
> It's all good. Nobody likes debt, but Harper is doing what it takes
> at the moment.
>
> Keynesian economics dictates that you save for a rainy day.
Trouble is, not many governments never saved for a rainy day. I suspect
few people did too.
If you haven't saved, Keynesian does not apply because you are broke.
Because debt was the cause of the depression, it isn't going to be the
solution. Keynesian does not apply here as it assumes the government is
solvant, and they are not.
The root causes of this recession/depression go back to 1982. When
interest rates soared to 17% it did so as there was a shortage of
balance in debt and equity. The system was saying hold off on more debt
or it will cost you. Thus, people and orgaizations reduced debt. Then
rates came down as there was balance.
High interest rates use to be the govenor of excessive debt as it
defered new debt until the debt to equity was in balance.
Along comes liberal-dimwit crack heads and they devise a way to prevent
higher interest rates. Let the banks leverage 100:1 if need be, which
gives atrificially and ultra low interest rates. When in 2006/07 when
interest rates fell below inflation, a recession was guaranteed as where
ever the interest return rate is lower than inflation, you don't want to
lend money. Therefore the credit crisis in 2007/08. There are no cases
on historical record where savings interest rates drop below inflation
without a recession or depression. None.
The credit crisis was the first symptom, but not the cause. Society
including government have built up enough debt they can't pay it any
more. With debt limitiations out of the way, debt grew to insane
amounts. GM is a visible bankrupt as they were more than 100:1 in debt
to equity. GM just debt welched. And now no one trusts the lending of
money. This leaves banks holding a 100:1 debt to equity ration and they
will go under if only 1% of debt becomes defunct.
And governments being the biggest debts in the world can't afford to fix
it. Because putting balance back into the system means higher interest
rates to attract a capital balance. And interest on $1.3 trillion US or
$600 billion Canadian for the feds alone, well, even government likes
cheap debt.
The alternative is currency depreciation and ever yet higher taxation
which to the average person will show up as inflation and a lower
standard of living. And it probably too late to stop since the aditional
recent government debts have likely pushed this over the top.
I invest, so I follow this carefully. There is a reason why people are
buying gold. Gold does not depreciate in value like paper fiat
currency. In 30 years, an ounce of gold will still be an ounce of gold
but the dollar will be worth a small fraction of what it is today.
Canuck57
Good to see you recognize Keynisian did not account for stagflation.
But in fairness his theory only has a shred of credibility in a constant
value currency. Trouble is, government managemes currency via the banks
and this depression has nothing to do with honest businesses out there.
It has to do with debt, debtors and people/governments not paying
their debts.
A totally different paradyme than Keynisian is trying to address. They
don't even really fit.
It gets back to spending less than your income. A age old truism. Even
mentioned in the bible, save during fat years to carry you through the
unexpected lean ones.
But far too many of our society can no longer survive to a stats and
level in which they have come to expect without cheap, easy and never
ending streams of debt. And are unwilling to accept that for an
economic system to work you must pay your debts or debt will shut down.
Which is what the system will do.
Now government can print/create all the money they want, trouble is that
our trading partners around the world will devalue out currency. And
that will be inflationary just like it was for Turdeau.
This in part is a moral breakdown, and I can now see why they once had a
debtors court. Trouble is government is now the biggest single debtor.
About 30% of our federal income tax goes to service and manage past
debt. It is like having a mortage but no house.
Call us "RightOffs", but bet many right-conservative-libertarians are
not suffering like debt ridden liberals. The lines betweeen us have
more to do with who saved and planned well, and the whiners and snivels
that didn't plan and want a piece of the others wealth.
The break down in allowing those who screwed up stealing from those that
do well is that the country no longer is a lan of opportunity, but a
nanny state like Cuba. No one works hard as it will not make a personal
difference.
Canuck57
The problem with destruction of free will is that we will all live
poorer. Take two socialist experiments, Cuba and Venezuela. And if it
continues much more, we will not have the luxuries of a social safey
net, and our standard of living will deteriorate, as is happening for
many now.
Please, read the story of "The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg". Lean on
the middle class for more taxes and more debt will certainly get us one
step closer to the poor house. As when the middle class does well, it
spills lots of taxes for government.
Society is in very dangerious turf in killing of fthe middle class that
lays the golden eggs and affords the social assistance, health care,
CPP, roads and schools. When it goes broke we will all suffer. What
you should ask is are you prepared? Because our politicians are bowing
to the naive, the stupid and the liberal denialist mentality.
Canuck57
Keynesian didn't factor in that it is debt-tax-spend. He also didn't
account for the possibility that it was government and debt as the
dysfunctional and not business itself. His theories don't really apply.
Yep, Harpo is a former member of the Young Liberals of Canada. He is
not a fiscal conservative by his actionals, a fiscal conservative would
not have commited Canada to a total of $100 billion in bailouts during
2009. $75 billion for banks, $13 billion for GM, $6 billion for
Chrysler which also was forgiven for a $500 million in back taxes. And
a host of others like Magna and and some Quebec shipbilding company that
hasn't built a ship in 10 years.
A fiscal conservative would ask Zen to pick up GM plants post bankruptcy
and produce a Canadian made vehicle, in a Canadians plant, with Canadian
labour, in a Canadian company paying dividends mostly to Canadians.
Certianly wasn't what happened. Over $20 billion sunk to the US Wall
street not employing one Canadian just for GM and Chrysler.
Banks declared profits and bonuses... for their $75 billion bailout.
There are movies about the future where corporations run the world, we
are now one gian step towards this when in 2009 marks the year where
corporation bailouts almost exceeded the entire antions personal income
tax. We in fact now are taxed for corporations big time.
Even socialists and the left should be mad as hell about this. As it is
coming out of social programs and the like sooner or later. You can't
tax the middle class 110%... not going to happen.
Canuck57
Ended the 1982 recession. Guess that makes him smarter than a liberal
democrat.
Canuck57
Maybe you should vote with your head. The one on your shoulders.
Seriously, my heart doesn't have the logic and rational to stay out of
trouble. It simply wants and would, without my head, do what the hell
it wants. Perhaps raise EI/CPP to $10,000 a month, take a loan I plan
on not paying and buy a Lamborgini.
But my head, not my heart says it isn't prudent to behave that way.
Vote with your heart with your signifigant other, when it comes to
politics, vote with your head.
So you like voting for liars?
Dudley Hanks
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ecWLm.36579$%j4.1...@newsfe18.iad...
"It is also false, in my opinion, to suggest that Harper has restored
confidence in
the economy by cutting taxes, paying down the debt and investing in the
priorities
of all Canadians. In fact it was the previous Liberal Government, with the
help of
all Canadians, that balanced the books, ended the deficit and created the
opportunity
for new investments for Canadians. What is
absolutely factual
is that it was the previous Conservative Government that left Canada with a
42 billion
dollar annual deficit and the largest national debt in the history of this
country.
Perhaps it is time to remind all Canadians that prior to 2006, the last time
a Conservative
Government actually balanced the books was in 1912.
It's fact and not fiction that should be sent out to the public. Let the
facts speak
for themselves.
Signed,
Susan Whelan"
http://susanwhelan.blogspot.com/
Canada's federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975
when it began
to explode; growing for the next 12 years at more than 20% per year.
It broke the $100-billion mark in 1981 and the $200-billion mark in 1985.
To say that Trudeau left us with the largest debt in Canadian history simply
isn't true. Not only was Trudeau not responsible for the 18 billion his
government inherited in 1968, but he was not responsible for the global
economic conditions which left every western democracy with huge public
debts during that same time frame. Further more, Conservative governments
took that 200 billion and pushed it up to over 500 billion before the
Liberals, under Chretien, started taking it back down. That means
Conservatives added, in addition to their share of the 18 billion Trudeau
inherited, over 300 billion after Trudeau turned the reins over to the
Cons...
So, Conservatives hold the record for being Canada's worst money managers...
Sorry to burst your bubble...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
The problem with touting Reagan as a master economist is that after all his
tax cuts, just before he left office, he hit Americans with the largest tax
increase in American history. He had to pay for all those tax cuts
somehow...
Even George Bush (senior) called Reagan's tactics "voodoo economics."
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Your analysis is a bit simplistic... It is purely mathematical and does not
take into consideration intangibles, such as motivation...
For instance, if there is an external threat, such as the Soviet Union,
terrorism, etc, people will willingly shoulder higher levels of debt in
order to advance the welfare of the nation. But, during times of peace,
they aren't quite so happy to pay the interest. Hence, given the same
numbers, the economics of the day might be considered a crisis under normal
circumstances, but take a back seat to something like, er, I don't know, er,
WWII? Vietnam? 9/11? Iraq?
If you want to take a purely mathematical approach, then capitalism is
flawed... It can't sustain itself, and has been proven to have such flaws
by many economists...
It is only as problems pop up and new economists find creative ways to cope
with those stresses that the system becomes more workable...
Marxist economists are the worst alarm bell bangers. But, economists like
Joseph Schumpeter have proven that this train of thought tends to under
estimate how flexible the system is. But, alas, even Schumpeter ends up
with the collapse of the system. In his opinion, because the system is just
to good at adapting to the mathematics of its own axiums without taking into
consideration the human condition...
So, to say "it's because we have too much debt," or, "it's because we fight
too many wars," or, "it's because people are basically criminals" isn't
enough...
We have to start valuing people more, and we need to find ways to account
for human needs in our economic equations -- not just the corporate need for
profit...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
and AIG have more to do with it than the home owner who was approved for
more than he or she could afford...
> A totally different paradyme than Keynisian is trying to address. They
> don't even really fit.
>
I wouldn't go quite that far...
> It gets back to spending less than your income. A age old truism. Even
> mentioned in the bible, save during fat years to carry you through the
> unexpected lean ones.
>
Too bad we couldn't just put up some big buildings and fill 'em full of
grain... Worked for Pharoh...
> But far too many of our society can no longer survive to a stats and level
> in which they have come to expect without cheap, easy and never ending
> streams of debt.
Or, perhaps, er, too low wages? High pricing policies? Insufficient
attention paid to health care service costs? Corporate greed?
And are unwilling to accept that for an
> economic system to work you must pay your debts or debt will shut down.
> Which is what the system will do.
>
See previous message about a purely mathematical analysis...
> Now government can print/create all the money they want, trouble is that
> our trading partners around the world will devalue out currency.
You make it sound like everything is just peachy-keen for the other guys...
Have you read any American / British / German / French financial reports,
lately?
And
> that will be inflationary just like it was for Turdeau.
You keep bringing up Trudeau and his contribution to our debt, but you
ignore the Mulroney fiasco which more than doubled Trudeaus little gift to
posterity...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
One problem with fiscal RightOffs is that they like to build up these big
graineries full of treasure, but don't know what to do with their booty if
times don't get tough enough. So, instead of an out of control debt, they
end up with out of control savings...
So what? Well, eventually, they have all this money they won't use (note:
I did not say CAN'T use...), and they see that their neighbour has a big
treasure trove...
Underlying all this is the general population which is curbing the natural
human instinct to acquire, so people are running around, working their butts
off like good little soldier ants, and, eventually, they wind themselves up
too tight, and something's gotta give...
Presto! Big Fight!
After the dust clears, everybody has shot their wad, quite literally, and
blown their savings, and they've even gone into debt in order to finance
their little skirmish... probably ending up with as big a debt, if not
bigger, than the debt they'd have as a nation if people had indulged
themselves a bit... After all, a good part of the $18 billion debt Trudeau
inherited in '68 was left over from the seond big skirmish... Technically,
we're still paying for that RightOff legacy because it was never fully paid
in full...
Credit is not an enemy... In fact, it's an ally of peace... As long as it
is used credibly, it can bind people within a country, even
internationally...
But, as you've pointed out, when extremes are reached, it's a lot of work to
get things back on track...
What you seem to keep missing, is that, savings aren't the answer, either.
In fact, I'd say credit does more to keep an economy ticking than does
savings...
Right now, one big problem is people aren't spending. So, the economy slows
down. People can't get what they want, and corporate greed probably the
biggest culprit in both scenarios, has fertile ground to grow and
flourish...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
By changing the States from the world's largest creditor to the world's
largest debtor?
Given he promised his government would give the rich room to work, and the
benefits would trickle down to the poor, he's a big part of the reason
nobody trusts RightOff rhetoric any more...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
Simplistic has value in itself. Overly complex government BS is that,
BS. It is simpler to say they botched it and move on to a solution, and
not denial which is currently the case. The last thing governmetn
wants, any party is for the people to realize they screwed up big time.
The backlash would be brutal.
> For instance, if there is an external threat, such as the Soviet Union,
> terrorism, etc, people will willingly shoulder higher levels of debt in
> order to advance the welfare of the nation. But, during times of peace,
> they aren't quite so happy to pay the interest. Hence, given the same
> numbers, the economics of the day might be considered a crisis under normal
> circumstances, but take a back seat to something like, er, I don't know, er,
> WWII? Vietnam? 9/11? Iraq?
Except for WW II, and WW I, the wars are more of partizan economics.
Barry Goldwater had it right, nuke Vietnam and get it over with.
War keeps people occupied. A political tool. Who knows, Obama might
pick a fight just to get home decentors in line. War is more often than
not just power. US used it to end the Great Depression of 1929.
> If you want to take a purely mathematical approach, then capitalism is
> flawed... It can't sustain itself, and has been proven to have such flaws
> by many economists...
Not really, capitalism is adaptive and forward looking. It looks beyond
the government bullshit message of the day into the hard facts of the
mater at hand. People today say it is failing, when it is in its
changing to adapt. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean
it isn't working. Just that it isn't working the way you want it to.
The environment is poluted with inefficiencies, excessive taxes coming
with inflation, people have less bucks to spend so capitalism ceases
investing and contracting to fit. Highly efficient actually. It isn't
like an insatiably growing government accumulating more waste,
captialism will adjust PDQ and right size to its economic environment.
If Ottawa wants it different, then they will have to make the
environment better and that means more money in peoples pockets to
generate the needed economic activity. Bullshit will not work, it has
to be real. I have never seen the market fail reality, it adjusts to
reality and follows it like a dog.
Capitalism is about mathematics and motivation. And is as old as
prostition and food. For a woman could offer sex for food, bear
children for food. Thus marriage, a partnership was born. While money
does not neccessarily change hands, what each other wants and needs does.
Capitalism is immutable to government manipulation and sees in time
right past BS.
> It is only as problems pop up and new economists find creative ways to cope
> with those stresses that the system becomes more workable...
Only because they are making it more complex that it is. Mostly to hide
the truth as no one wants the stark truth.
> Marxist economists are the worst alarm bell bangers. But, economists like
> Joseph Schumpeter have proven that this train of thought tends to under
> estimate how flexible the system is. But, alas, even Schumpeter ends up
> with the collapse of the system. In his opinion, because the system is just
> to good at adapting to the mathematics of its own axiums without taking into
> consideration the human condition...
Agreed. The down turn is as simple as people are spending less, so
capitalism is making less. Why waste resources making something people
are not buying for a fair price?
And pricing usually is fair if the market is in free modes. For if you
think oil isn't worht $80/barrel, then go out and make some barrels of
oil for $75! Problems do come in in monoplies like Rogers/Shaw.
The human condition IS capitalistic!!!
> So, to say "it's because we have too much debt," or, "it's because we fight
> too many wars," or, "it's because people are basically criminals" isn't
> enough...
Probably a little of all except most people are not criminals. But many
vote criminally stupid for more of the rest.
> We have to start valuing people more, and we need to find ways to account
> for human needs in our economic equations -- not just the corporate need for
> profit...
And that includes leaving workers enough to make it worth their while to
work. Including a maximum limit on how much tax an individual has to
pay in all forms. You can't just keep coming back for more, and more
and more because government screwed up with debt and corruption.
I figure this depression will last 10 to 15 years, or until a big war or
big event happens. overnments botched this really good this time. It
isn't 2001, it isn't 1990, it isn't 1982, it is 1929. Far too much debt
now to change it.
Canuck57
> Might we say: dishonest business leaders? It seems to me the folks at GM
> and AIG have more to do with it than the home owner who was approved for
> more than he or she could afford...
Yep. I would concur. GM and AIG executives are paid full time to make
sure this doesn't happen. I can't resist to say, but I find the GM and
AIG, and other banks in touble as criminally culpable and morally guilty
of gross negligence. But know that government too, was in on it.
People need to be more responsible. A person is ultimately responsible
for themselves. No one forced anyone to take out more debt than they
could handle. And if they are not wise enough to figure it out, they
have to pay the price of their indescretions. Like a child that learns
the red glow on the stove means too hot to touch.
So now they use the tax system to penalize those who did it right, to
subsidize the idiot debt junkies. That is a moral wrong and lack of
respect for good behavior. "Oh, Obama will pay for may gas and
mortgage...". No, the taxpayer is.
>> A totally different paradyme than Keynisian is trying to address. They
>> don't even really fit.
>>
> I wouldn't go quite that far...
I fail to see how it does. Keynisian didnt' factor in such rampant
unpaid debt as is the real problem today.
This isn't a capitalism problem, it is a debt and delinquency currency
problem.
>> It gets back to spending less than your income. A age old truism. Even
>> mentioned in the bible, save during fat years to carry you through the
>> unexpected lean ones.
>
> Too bad we couldn't just put up some big buildings and fill 'em full of
> grain... Worked for Pharoh...
But that can be extended to economics. If people were smart, they would
take this low interest rate period and reduce debt as fast as possible.
Every such period like this is always followed by higher and more
expensive rates. Make money grain, and it still fits.
>> But far too many of our society can no longer survive to a stats and level
>> in which they have come to expect without cheap, easy and never ending
>> streams of debt.
>
> Or, perhaps, er, too low wages? High pricing policies? Insufficient
> attention paid to health care service costs? Corporate greed?
Wages are ultimately dictated by how easily you are to replace.
Something a wise old man told me when I was young. I now see the wisdom
of it.
The corruption of corporate America, including Canada is corruption.
Corruption needs to be allowed to die or you have solved nothing.
Health care costs is a new age problem. 300 years ago, something goes
wrong they gave you cocaine for the pain. That is about all they could
do for cancer, liver, kidney etc.
Today you could, with enough money go to Safeway, pick up a roast and
keep it allive. But should you. The new age problem is how much health
care do we gve o one person before we stop due to economics. If the
maximum is $5 million, over an average lifetime they have to pay $ million.
And government would rather bailout banks, GMs, Chryslers and favorite
pet projects, even the African banks than to spend the money on health
care for you or I. I don't know why you feel so benevolent towards our
government, they are screwing you too.
> And are unwilling to accept that for an
>> economic system to work you must pay your debts or debt will shut down.
>> Which is what the system will do.
>
> See previous message about a purely mathematical analysis...
Still, if people and businesses don't profit, they don't work. This
isn't rocket science. Basic Maslow hierachy of needs stuff.
And when it comes down to it, denying the math is debial, denial isn't
going to solve the economic imbalance the greed of people for cheap debt
and governmetn for easy money has lead us all too.
>> Now government can print/create all the money they want, trouble is that
>> our trading partners around the world will devalue out currency.
>
> You make it sound like everything is just peachy-keen for the other guys...
> Have you read any American / British / German / French financial reports,
> lately?
Which other guys, the hinese or thouse not in denial of the current mess?
Chinese are worried, but making great strides in removing the dependancy
in US trade. They are making the right moves, putting a buffer to US
debt and their economy.
If you had your eyes onto this domestically as an investor, you are
making money big time. I never though deals like picking up
Tech-Cominco for $3.50 and selling at $35 in under a year would ever
happen to me. After 2007 I slowly moved may cash position up but tthe
time the market crunched. Left me with cash for the deals. But hte
credit siezing in 2007 woke me up.
> And
>> that will be inflationary just like it was for Turdeau.
>
> You keep bringing up Trudeau and his contribution to our debt, but you
> ignore the Mulroney fiasco which more than doubled Trudeaus little gift to
> posterity...
I am not a fan of either. But Turdeau was the big spender, leaving
Mulroney with two choices, raise taxes or cut bloated government. He
chose to keep government bloat and raise taxes. Turdeau was Santa
Clause using your future as his credit card.
Mulroney stinks, but not as bad as Turdeau. Turdeau set us up for
generations of lost wealth. Be it less services of government for the
money taxed or just a high wealth robbing taxation level, take your
pick, he screwed us all for big shot mentality.
And we still pay for it today. Even if it does not come back in a tax
break, think, if it were not for Turdeau's massive debt spend, you could
double todays social assistance, balance the budget and not raise taxes.
The price of debt-spend cannot be understated. The effects will echo
for generations.
Canuck57
Reagan cut taxes to the middle class. What crap are you reading?
Reagan's only mistake was that he didn't cut government spending to
match and increased national debt signifigantly. But at least he ended
the 1982 recession, unlike Obama who is still nose diving into it and
still spending like a mad bastard on all the wrong things.
Dumbshit liberals and statists can get it through their skulls, people
spend less because they have less. Debt does not work into perpetuity.
People spending less generates less economic activity. Which
generates less taxes. Which means the economy stalls as why make
something that isn't needed?
Reagan left more money in middle class American pockets. It ended the
recession because people, working middle class people had more money to
spend and generate the economic activity.
Read the "Goose That Laid the Golden egg". Government has to feed the
damned goose or it will die. Not strangle it for the next egg. In this
case, the moddle class that supports this dumb system is sick, and no
end will be had until this is fixed. Forget GM, forget Chrysler, forget
the banks, they are just dragging us all down the hole. They resemble
gangrene.
Canuck57
> One problem with fiscal RightOffs is that they like to build up these big
> graineries full of treasure, but don't know what to do with their booty if
> times don't get tough enough. So, instead of an out of control debt, they
> end up with out of control savings...
But at least you will not have to worry about me taking from you, your
or otehrs you know. Not for my ass. It is the liberals and socialists,
the mean ones you aught to worry about.
Socialist will eat their young, just remove capitalist to find out.
When USSR fell, who got taken care of? The peasants or the government
executive?
In Cuba, who lives better, the dirt famer or Castro and friends? How
about Chavez, not to may years ago he was Mr Socialist of the year. Now
his people disappear in the night.
True socialism is a rouse.
> So what? Well, eventually, they have all this money they won't use (note:
> I did not say CAN'T use...), and they see that their neighbour has a big
> treasure trove...
I wouldn't say that. Retire early and enjoy life. Maybe travel while
enough things are working and you can see things. That is my motivator
right there. While others in may peer group sat around waiting for
opportunities and government breaks, I got my own ass in gear.
> Underlying all this is the general population which is curbing the natural
> human instinct to acquire, so people are running around, working their butts
> off like good little soldier ants, and, eventually, they wind themselves up
> too tight, and something's gotta give...
>
> Presto! Big Fight!
Governments like war. Give the leaders ego boost. Prolonged wars like
Afganistan, pure waste of life and resources.
> After the dust clears, everybody has shot their wad, quite literally, and
> blown their savings, and they've even gone into debt in order to finance
> their little skirmish... probably ending up with as big a debt, if not
> bigger, than the debt they'd have as a nation if people had indulged
> themselves a bit... After all, a good part of the $18 billion debt Trudeau
> inherited in '68 was left over from the seond big skirmish... Technically,
> we're still paying for that RightOff legacy because it was never fully paid
> in full...
Yep, but $18 billion is a whole lot easier to pay off than than $220
billion.
> Credit is not an enemy... In fact, it's an ally of peace... As long as it
> is used credibly, it can bind people within a country, even
> internationally...
>
> But, as you've pointed out, when extremes are reached, it's a lot of work to
> get things back on track...
Twice the debt is 4 times the problem.
> What you seem to keep missing, is that, savings aren't the answer, either.
> In fact, I'd say credit does more to keep an economy ticking than does
> savings...
Credit allows banks to tax you. You already have the CCRA on your ass,
why add the banks?
> Right now, one big problem is people aren't spending. So, the economy slows
> down. People can't get what they want, and corporate greed probably the
> biggest culprit in both scenarios, has fertile ground to grow and
> flourish...
No, people are paying their debts trying to hold on to what maters,
their house for their families, their cars to get to work - al debt
financed. The banka nd government own their lives. And every one of
them willingly subscribed to it.
You are misguided on credit. First, banks are net consumers of wealth.
Thy provide a non-value added service of a commodity, cash. They
don't build the purchased item, nor do they ship it and deliver it.
They give you an advance.
Lets take two people, same income living on same street anywhere. Both
ant the 50" flat panel TV.
Household A buys on credit, 24% or something, 12 easy payments. They
buy the TV for $1000. At the end of the year, with interest they paid
$1200.
Household B saved $100 a month, about the same as the payment A above
made. In 10 months they buy the $1000 TV on sale for $800.
At 12 months, both have the same TV. But person B has $400 more left
over, $200 in bank fee avoidence and $200 in prudence. So they can buy
a Blue-Ray or something, employing more people to produce stuff. Not
only does B have more, they employ more.
But A has to keep up with B so they use the credit an pay for 4 more
months while B has no debt. This goes on for years. Then A says, I
have all this debt, and it is unfair that B has so much cash.
Who's fault is it? Is sure as hell isn't B's fault. It is A's fault
pure and simple so when A envies B's position, it should be ok to say to
A, you debt drunk loser, it is your fault now f'off and get to work as I
retire early.
Canuck57
Susan Whelan, what a dumb broad. Not worth the electrons to satisfy
here dilusions.
Turdeau was the one who built the foundation of debt that Ottawa has
today. He alone, even after all these years of inflation holds the
dubious record of being the prime minaster who racked up the most debt
increase of any before or after him. Liberals have BS excuses.
A legacy we live with still today. And so will your children.
Susan Whelan sounds like a debtor-loser. Maybe when the Liberals come
up with a believable debt reduction plan that is credibal without the
tax rape, I will recant, but until them, types like Susan Whelan a
whining isn't a shining example of Liberal prowes.
Does not Susan Whelan listen to Iggy, Iggy criticises Harpo for not
doing enough and not raising taxes. What a piece of work, how dumb can
a liberal be?
Dudley Hanks
>>> interest rates soared to 17% it did so as there was a shortage of
>>> balance in debt and equity. The system was
Actually, it did it because banks and credit companies thought it was easier
to loan to Third World governments, so they'd rather loan a big chunk to,
let's say Argentina, than a bunch of little loans to you and me. The banks
kinda thought governments couldn't go broke, and even if they tried, the
West's big armies could make 'em pay up. Then, all of a sudden, a whole lot
of Third World countries started to welch on their debts, and there was
nothing the banks could do about it. The balance to holdings ratio was all
messed up, so locals had to bear the cost of corporate / finance sector
short-sightedness...
saying hold off on more debt or it
>>> will cost you. Thus, people and orgaizations reduced debt. Then rates
>>> came down as there was balance.
>>>
>>> High interest rates use to be the govenor of excessive debt as it
>>> defered new debt until the debt to equity was in balance.
Ideally, but seldom in practice...>>>
>>> Along comes liberal-dimwit crack heads and they devise a way to prevent
>>> higher interest rates. Let the banks leverage 100:1 if need be, which
>>> gives atrificially and ultra low interest rates. When in 2006/07 when
>>> interest rates fell below inflation, a recession was guaranteed as where
>>> ever the interest return rate is lower than inflation, you don't want to
>>> lend money. Therefore the credit crisis in 2007/08. There are no cases
>>> on historical record where savings interest rates drop below inflation
>>> without a recession or depression. None.
>>>
>>> The credit crisis was the first symptom, but not the cause. Society
>>> including government have built up enough debt they can't pay it any
>>> more. With debt limitiations out of the way, debt grew to insane
>>> amounts. GM is a visible bankrupt as they were more than 100:1 in debt
>>> to equity. GM just debt welched. And now no one trusts the lending of
>>> money. This leaves banks holding a 100:1 debt to equity ration and they
>>> will go under if only 1% of debt becomes defunct.
>>>
>>> And governments being the biggest debts in the world can't afford to fix
>>> it. Because putting balance back into the system means higher interest
>>> rates to attract a capital balance. And interest on $1.3 trillion US or
>>> $600 billion Canadian for the feds alone, well, even government likes
>>> cheap debt.
And, bankers like a big return...
You tend to forget that the banks could have pulled the whole thing to a
stop a long time ago, if it was really in their interest to do so...
>>>
>>> The alternative is currency depreciation and ever yet higher taxation
>>> which to the average person will show up as inflation and a lower
>>> standard of living. And it probably too late to stop since the aditional
>>> recent government debts have likely pushed this over the top.
We disagree on that point...
>>>
>>> I invest, so I follow this carefully. There is a reason why people are
>>> buying gold. Gold does not depreciate in value like paper fiat
>>> currency. In 30 years, an ounce of gold will still be an ounce of gold
>>> but the dollar will be worth a small fraction of what it is today.
>>
But, you can't sustain a gold standard in a modern nation of more than 300
million people... That was proven back in the days of Nixon...
As the population grows, so must the money supply... If you can't mine the
stuff at the same rate the population grows, the presence of the standard
itself causes major inflation, since, as gold becomes scarcer in proportion
to the population, it's value increases... Great for the people who have
it, lousy for those who don't... The presence of the gold standard itself,
if left too long as the standard of currency, causes major social
discontent, eventually destabilizing the society past the breaking point...
>> Your analysis is a bit simplistic... It is purely mathematical and does
>> not take into consideration intangibles, such as motivation...
>
> Simplistic has value in itself. Overly complex government BS is that, BS.
> It is simpler to say they botched it and move on to a solution, and not
> denial which is currently the case.
So, you would have everybody go back to the gold standard? How long do you
think it would be till the financial system is in worse shape than it's
currently in?
When you have a major, technologically advanced, socially integrated series
of countries with differing ideas and similar needs, complexity is
guaranteed, whether you'll admit it or not...
The last thing governmetn
> wants, any party is for the people to realize they screwed up big time.
> The backlash would be brutal.
Like, when Britain decided to RETURN to the gold standard? greatly
contributing to the causation of the Great Depression?
It's just too easy to say, they skrewed it up; it's all their fault...
It's a bit tougher to take the time to understand ALL the contributing
factors...
>
>> For instance, if there is an external threat, such as the Soviet Union,
>> terrorism, etc, people will willingly shoulder higher levels of debt in
>> order to advance the welfare of the nation. But, during times of peace,
>> they aren't quite so happy to pay the interest. Hence, given the same
>> numbers, the economics of the day might be considered a crisis under
>> normal circumstances, but take a back seat to something like, er, I don't
>> know, er, WWII? Vietnam? 9/11? Iraq?
>
> Except for WW II, and WW I, the wars are more of partizan economics. Barry
> Goldwater had it right, nuke Vietnam and get it over with.
>
Like I've said before, you run with a compassionate crowd... If that'd
happened, I doubt we'd be here debating anything right now...
> War keeps people occupied. A political tool. Who knows, Obama might pick
> a fight just to get home decentors in line. War is more often than not
> just power. US used it to end the Great Depression of 1929.
>
Which probably wouldn't have happened had Britain not skrewed with it's
monetary system quite so radically, RIGHT?
So, what was the difference between then and now? Why would it be a good
idea to jump back on the gold standard at this particualr point in our
development, with the current rather large set of populations all fighting
for limited amounts of gold?
>> If you want to take a purely mathematical approach, then capitalism is
>> flawed... It can't sustain itself, and has been proven to have such
>> flaws by many economists...
>
> Not really, capitalism is adaptive and forward looking. It looks beyond
> the government bullshit message of the day into the hard facts of the
> mater at hand. People today say it is failing, when it is in its changing
> to adapt. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean it isn't
> working. Just that it isn't working the way you want it to.
Or, the way you want it to...
>
> The environment is poluted with inefficiencies, excessive taxes coming
> with inflation, people have less bucks to spend so capitalism ceases
> investing and contracting to fit. Highly efficient actually. It isn't
> like an insatiably growing government accumulating more waste,
No, it just needs to accumulate and exploit / impoverish a large portion of
the population... Then, it works rather nicely... But, you put everybody
on the same footing, and suddenly, it's got a few problems...
> captialism will adjust PDQ and right size to its economic environment.
>
Not the way you think it will. I agree it will adjust, but the adjustment
will come at the cost of greater social support, not less...
> If Ottawa wants it different, then they will have to make the environment
> better and that means more money in peoples pockets to generate the needed
> economic activity.
Or, maybe corporations will have to adjust their pricing strategies, labour
relations, and pay grids...
Not all change has to come at the cost of sacrifice...
Bullshit will not work, it has
> to be real. I have never seen the market fail reality, it adjusts to
> reality and follows it like a dog.
>
But, that's in your paradigm... Others have differing views... Have had
for quite some time...
> Capitalism is about mathematics and motivation. And is as old as
> prostition and food. For a woman could offer sex for food, bear children
> for food. Thus marriage, a partnership was born. While money does not
> neccessarily change hands, what each other wants and needs does.
>
That's the barter system, not capitalism... Capitalism implys that you get
more than you need, not just what you want...
> Capitalism is immutable to government manipulation and sees in time right
> past BS.
>
Not according to history...
>> It is only as problems pop up and new economists find creative ways to
>> cope with those stresses that the system becomes more workable...
>
> Only because they are making it more complex that it is. Mostly to hide
> the truth as no one wants the stark truth.
>
The sheer number of people and diversity of needs and opinions makes it
complicated, not necessarily government...
>> Marxist economists are the worst alarm bell bangers. But, economists
>> like Joseph Schumpeter have proven that this train of thought tends to
>> under estimate how flexible the system is. But, alas, even Schumpeter
>> ends up with the collapse of the system. In his opinion, because the
>> system is just to good at adapting to the mathematics of its own axiums
>> without taking into consideration the human condition...
>
> Agreed. The down turn is as simple as people are spending less, so
> capitalism is making less. Why waste resources making something people
> are not buying for a fair price?
Now, that's my pet peave... "Fair price"
... If companies would accept less, if banks would accept less, if then
consumers would have more...
There are so many actors and factors in the system, I don't know how you can
boil it down to just government... I'd say there's plenty of opportunities
to trim...
>
For if you
> think oil isn't worht $80/barrel, then go out and make some barrels of oil
> for $75! Problems do come in in monoplies like Rogers/Shaw.
That's not the only place problems kreep in. There's the tendaency to gouge
when people need something the most, but, hey, it's just business...
There's the problem of with-holding supply in order to increase demand, but,
hey, it's just business... There's the problem of cutting corners because
it's cheaper, and, hey, if somebody gets killed, well, er, it's just
business...
>
> The human condition IS capitalistic!!!
No, our system is capitalistic... There's been some pretty good arguments
that the human condition is socialistic, and capitalism is just a gliche on
the way there... I'm not gonna go that far, but I definitely believe it's a
combo of the two...
>
>> So, to say "it's because we have too much debt," or, "it's because we
>> fight too many wars," or, "it's because people are basically criminals"
>> isn't enough...
>
> Probably a little of all except most people are not criminals.
Just the politicians?
But many
> vote criminally stupid for more of the rest.
>
>> We have to start valuing people more, and we need to find ways to account
>> for human needs in our economic equations -- not just the corporate need
>> for profit...
>
> And that includes leaving workers enough to make it worth their while to
> work. Including a maximum limit on how much tax an individual has to pay
> in all forms. You can't just keep coming back for more, and more and more
We're on the same page, to this point, sort of...
because government screwed up with debt and corruption.
It's here where you lose me...
Isn't the human condition, or the capitalistic condition, what is causing
all this stupid, criminal corrupt behaviour of our politicians? I mean, are
not the politicians making their decisions the same way your average
consumers and merchants make their decisions in the market place? Or, are
politicians a completely different species making decisions based on a
completely different set of factors? At least, according to your model,
people make these choices rationally, RIGHT?
>
> I figure this depression will last 10 to 15 years, or until a big war or
> big event happens.
Nope, I'd say we're almost out of it... It was caused by arbitrary
decisions of actors who took advantage of the system, not government
officials, corporate greed, so, it's just a matter of making the adjustment
and reinstalling a sense of confidence in consumers... We're already seeing
signs of a recovery...
overnments botched this really good this time. It
> isn't 2001, it isn't 1990, it isn't 1982, it is 1929. Far too much debt
> now to change it.
But, nobody went back to the gold standard, so there's room to work...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> Might we say: dishonest business leaders? It seems to me the folks at
>> GM and AIG have more to do with it than the home owner who was approved
>> for more than he or she could afford...
>
> Yep. I would concur. GM and AIG executives are paid full time to make
> sure this doesn't happen. I can't resist to say, but I find the GM and
> AIG, and other banks in touble as criminally culpable and morally guilty
> of gross negligence. But know that government too, was in on it.
>
> People need to be more responsible. A person is ultimately responsible
> for themselves.
What ever happened to "We're all in this together!"
No one forced anyone to take out more debt than they
> could handle. And if they are not wise enough to figure it out, they have
> to pay the price of their indescretions. Like a child that learns the red
> glow on the stove means too hot to touch.
>
> So now they use the tax system to penalize those who did it right, to
> subsidize the idiot debt junkies. That is a moral wrong and lack of
> respect for good behavior. "Oh, Obama will pay for may gas and
> mortgage...". No, the taxpayer is.
>
>>> A totally different paradyme than Keynisian is trying to address. They
>>> don't even really fit.
>>>
>> I wouldn't go quite that far...
>
> I fail to see how it does. Keynisian didnt' factor in such rampant unpaid
> debt as is the real problem today.
If people, which includes the business community as well as the consumer /
tax payer, saves for the good times and spends in the bad times, that's the
heart of Keynesian economics... The numbers are arbitrary... If a certain
amount of money is borrowed in bad times to pay, it has to be replentished
(payed back) just like a depleted savings account would have to be
replentished when times get good again. If there isn't enough money with
either version, then some form of compensation has to take place, either
interest has to be paid, or the general populace faces a major depression.
Borrowing gives more opportunities for maintaining a good standard of living
for everyone as they work their way through the bad times, as long as
everyone recognizes that the money has to be paid back...
The problem comes in when some people are on the "et's save" band wagon
while others are on the "let's borrow" band wagon...
Those who want to borrow will expect the "let's save" crowd to pitch in and
help if the borrowing model is used, while the let's save crowd will exprect
the "let's save" group to endure excessive hardships if the saving model is
used...
In each of the split scenarios, the system can't handle, or at least has
difficulty handling, everone's expectation...
It's a system, and there are different ways to implement it. But, it will
work best when all the participants work together...
>
> This isn't a capitalism problem, it is a debt and delinquency currency
> problem.
>
Liberals want to help... Cons want to punish...
>>> It gets back to spending less than your income. A age old truism. Even
>>> mentioned in the bible, save during fat years to carry you through the
>>> unexpected lean ones.
>>
>> Too bad we couldn't just put up some big buildings and fill 'em full of
>> grain... Worked for Pharoh...
>
> But that can be extended to economics. If people were smart, they would
> take this low interest rate period and reduce debt as fast as possible.
> Every such period like this is always followed by higher and more
> expensive rates. Make money grain, and it still fits.
>
You're overlooking the other factors... It wasn't just saving grain in fat
years, Pharoh SOLD it back to the peasants in lean years... He worked both
sides of the equation, apparently with the blessing of God...
As is typically hardcore capitalistic approach, the rich got richer, and the
poor got poorer... The Liberal government tries to mitigate the negative
side of this scenario at the minimal cost to the positive... But, of
course, some say any cost is unacceptable... It is my God given right to
turn a profit...
>>> But far too many of our society can no longer survive to a stats and
>>> level in which they have come to expect without cheap, easy and never
>>> ending streams of debt.
>>
Or, is it that capitalism can't find cheap, easy streams of labour?
>> Or, perhaps, er, too low wages? High pricing policies? Insufficient
>> attention paid to health care service costs? Corporate greed?
>
> Wages are ultimately dictated by how easily you are to replace. Something
> a wise old man told me when I was young. I now see the wisdom of it.
>
Of course, you now have more to lose than you did back then... That same
old guy would probably hold back supply to increase demand, but lobby for
strict anti-union legislation...
> The corruption of corporate America, including Canada is corruption.
> Corruption needs to be allowed to die or you have solved nothing.
>
So, why is it corruption when the government is involved, but the invisible
hand when it's just between you and me?
> Health care costs is a new age problem. 300 years ago, something goes
> wrong they gave you cocaine for the pain. That is about all they could do
> for cancer, liver, kidney etc.
>
> Today you could, with enough money go to Safeway, pick up a roast and keep
> it allive. But should you. The new age problem is how much health care
> do we gve o one person before we stop due to economics. If the maximum is
> $5 million, over an average lifetime they have to pay $ million.
And, before the cocain, they bled you... And, before the bleeding, you
grinned and bore the pain, or just wandered off and offed yourself... I
think today's system has the benefit of giving us a chance to improve
treatments and expand our life expectancy... I like that...
>
> And government would rather bailout banks, GMs, Chryslers and favorite pet
> projects, even the African banks than to spend the money on health care
> for you or I. I don't know why you feel so benevolent towards our
> government, they are screwing you too.
>
Nobody says I'm benevolent..; I'm just realistic. I've spent a number of
years studying politics, more so than business, so I know that pleasing
people isn't easy...
You have all these nice trite solutions, but you just don't realize the
consequences would be worse for you than the way things are right now...
I remember back in the early '80s, when interest rates were going through
the roof...
A co-worker was on the verge of losing his house, and he said to me, "I've
hid my rifle. If they take all I've got, I'm gonna go out and shoot me a
cow, throw it in the back of the truck and my buddy will butcher it for me
for a hind quarter...
Desperate people take desperate action... Do you think your gold will
protect you for long against a few 10s of million of desperate, starving
people?
I know enough about economics to know that capitalism is great at moving
wealth up the pyramid, yes, the pyramid... The guys at the top fair well,
so they don't want to lose what they've got, even if they can't use it
all...
The guys at the bottom, always NEED more, not want, and if the gap gets too
wide, shit happens...
The more people in the pyramid, the more unstable it becomes, because nobody
wants to hold still and keep his part of the pyramid steady...
Hence, government needs to recycle some of the extra off the top and feed it
back into the bottom...
What the guys at the top don't recognize is that there's lots more coming
back up, as long as the system functions semi-smoothly...
But, if the health and well-being of the bottom tiers is negatively impacted
too far, for whatever reason, there's usually hell to pay...
What makes you think capitalism is immune to that kind of reality, today?
>> And are unwilling to accept that for an
>>> economic system to work you must pay your debts or debt will shut down.
That depends entirely on how the system is structured... If it's structured
by the "let's save" folks, then, yes it will. But, if it's structured by
the "let's borrow" people, there's more room to maneuver...
>>> Which is what the system will do.
That's what all the government and corporate haggling is working to avoid...
>>
>> See previous message about a purely mathematical analysis...
>
> Still, if people and businesses don't profit, they don't work. This isn't
> rocket science. Basic Maslow hierachy of needs stuff.
>
> And when it comes down to it, denying the math is debial, denial isn't
> going to solve the economic imbalance the greed of people for cheap debt
> and governmetn for easy money has lead us all too.
>
And, investors looking for a good return aren't part of the equation? They
should get while everybody else has to pay?
>>> Now government can print/create all the money they want, trouble is that
>>> our trading partners around the world will devalue out currency.
>>
>> You make it sound like everything is just peachy-keen for the other
>> guys... Have you read any American / British / German / French financial
>> reports, lately?
>
> Which other guys, the hinese or thouse not in denial of the current mess?
Nope, our trading partners. The ones who are going to devalue our
currency...
>
> Chinese are worried, but making great strides in removing the dependancy
> in US trade. They are making the right moves, putting a buffer to US debt
> and their economy.
Because they can exploit tons of people... Basic requirement for a good
capitalistic economy... This is the reality you keep overlooking...
If we want our global order to function, the living standard of all has to
be acceptable, and the system has to accomodate a more uniform distribution
of wealth... Capitalism has a tough time with that...
>
> If you had your eyes onto this domestically as an investor, you are making
> money big time. I never though deals like picking up Tech-Cominco for
> $3.50 and selling at $35 in under a year would ever happen to me. After
> 2007 I slowly moved may cash position up but tthe time the market
> crunched. Left me with cash for the deals. But hte credit siezing in
> 2007 woke me up.
>
>> And
>>> that will be inflationary just like it was for Turdeau.
>>
>> You keep bringing up Trudeau and his contribution to our debt, but you
>> ignore the Mulroney fiasco which more than doubled Trudeaus little gift
>> to posterity...
>
> I am not a fan of either. But Turdeau was the big spender, leaving
> Mulroney with two choices, raise taxes or cut bloated government. He
> chose to keep government bloat and raise taxes. Turdeau was Santa Clause
> using your future as his credit card.
>
Nope, he was facing the same realities every other country was facing...
Population exploding... Baby boomers coming into the work place...
Increased costs military and infrastructure... And, above all, that
blossoming instant communication where everybody knew what everybody else
was doing and how they were living... Those internal behaviours that
capitalism is purported to explain and predict so well are what caused the
big debt for Canada, and every other country, not Trudeau...
> Mulroney stinks, but not as bad as Turdeau.
Trudeau debt = about $182 billion...
Mulroney debt = about $360 billion ...
Turdeau set us up for
> generations of lost wealth. Be it less services of government for the
> money taxed or just a high wealth robbing taxation level, take your pick,
> he screwed us all for big shot mentality.
>
Technically, we still pay for the major war debts too...
> And we still pay for it today. Even if it does not come back in a tax
> break, think, if it were not for Turdeau's massive debt spend, you could
> double todays social assistance, balance the budget and not raise taxes.
> The price of debt-spend cannot be understated. The effects will echo for
> generations.
But, where would we be?
Yeah, the rich would have a few more bucks in their accounts...
But, our infrastructure would be inferior to the rest of the world, our life
span would be shorter than everybody elses, our education institutions would
be second class, so our corporations would have a less talented work force
to draw from, sour companies would be less profitable... Hey, I'm not so
sure you'd have more in your account...
Take Care,
Dudley
klunk
this probably the most succinct description of the two ideologies... at
least as they currently manifest themselves...
Canuck57
>>>> The root causes of this recession/depression go back to 1982. When
>>>> interest rates soared to 17% it did so as there was a shortage of
>>>> balance in debt and equity. The system was
>
> Actually, it did it because banks and credit companies thought it was easier
> to loan to Third World governments, so they'd rather loan a big chunk to,
> let's say Argentina, than a bunch of little loans to you and me. The banks
> kinda thought governments couldn't go broke, and even if they tried, the
> West's big armies could make 'em pay up. Then, all of a sudden, a whole lot
> of Third World countries started to welch on their debts, and there was
> nothing the banks could do about it. The balance to holdings ratio was all
> messed up, so locals had to bear the cost of corporate / finance sector
> short-sightedness...
Ah, so now we like to blame other countries? This recesin/depression is
100% made at home this time. Argentina, Peru, others, learned their
leasons decade or more ago. Most too tried the spend out of deb and
when it got bad enough and th government was broke, they praciced fiscal
prudence. A decade later their economies, many of them are in better
shape that ours.
Nope, this time it is North American debt.
>>>> High interest rates use to be the govenor of excessive debt as it
>>>> defered new debt until the debt to equity was in balance.
>
> Ideally, but seldom in practice...>>>
Worked longer than any other. Everything needs a balance or it falls
apart. This included equity and debt. There are so many examples of
this balance I would not know where to start.
Something has to govern debt in a balanced way but from 1990 or so up
until this depression, debt has no balance.
Lets go to an extreme. Say we all stayed at home, did nothing but
borrow money. Need money, borrow it to no end in sight. Ho is going to
make food? Slaves that can't borrow?
Debt is not a way of life, it is a means to an end. Debt needs to be
considered carefully and paid off. If not paid off then the currency is
baseless and no one will want to invest and hold it. Kind of what is
happeing now.
>>>> And governments being the biggest debts in the world can't afford to fix
>>>> it. Because putting balance back into the system means higher interest
>>>> rates to attract a capital balance. And interest on $1.3 trillion US or
>>>> $600 billion Canadian for the feds alone, well, even government likes
>>>> cheap debt.
>
> And, bankers like a big return...
Of course, but no one has to use them. Not really. But the smell of an
easy loan for the mentally lazy is enticing. After awhile you become
debt-enslaved to the bank on your own volition.
> You tend to forget that the banks could have pulled the whole thing to a
> stop a long time ago, if it was really in their interest to do so...
Why would banks want to stop the massive cash flow coming its way?
First and foremost te problem stems from people not paying what they
owe. Government told banks to overextend.
>>>> The alternative is currency depreciation and ever yet higher taxation
>>>> which to the average person will show up as inflation and a lower
>>>> standard of living. And it probably too late to stop since the aditional
>>>> recent government debts have likely pushed this over the top.
>
> We disagree on that point...
Government can stem inflation by canceling the currency it created in
the past, but to do that it has to have cash, sort of tax it back and
cancel it. By not putting it back in circulation the currency in
circulation has more value.
Cash is like grain, sand, water -- just a commodity like every other.
>>>> I invest, so I follow this carefully. There is a reason why people are
>>>> buying gold. Gold does not depreciate in value like paper fiat
>>>> currency. In 30 years, an ounce of gold will still be an ounce of gold
>>>> but the dollar will be worth a small fraction of what it is today.
>
> But, you can't sustain a gold standard in a modern nation of more than 300
> million people... That was proven back in the days of Nixon...
They didn't want to is more like the truth. Basing a currency on a
fixed value has many advantages. But the disadvantage is that debt
cannot be debased and devalued without payment.
Look at inflation is a deliberate attempt by governments to tax wealth.
It is also why there is a tax break for capital gains, gains are not
really gains if the gail is below inflation rates.
So wat if I get 1% on a savings account if a year later 6% inflation has
hit. I am then 5% poorer in value and also have ot pay taxes on the 1%.
It is also why buying real-estate is so historically good.
Real-estate holds it's value against inflation and does not depreciate
like currency.
> As the population grows, so must the money supply... If you can't mine the
> stuff at the same rate the population grows, the presence of the standard
> itself causes major inflation, since, as gold becomes scarcer in proportion
> to the population, it's value increases... Great for the people who have
> it, lousy for those who don't... The presence of the gold standard itself,
> if left too long as the standard of currency, causes major social
> discontent, eventually destabilizing the society past the breaking point...
Agreed. But your premise is that if the population grows the money
suply needs to be proportial.
However the real fact of the maters is that government has printed 30
times this amount, and in fact currently operates only because it can
print excess money. USA has near trippled it's money float since Sept
2008 and that represents a lot of inflation.
More people could also mine more gold. And likely wood, keeping mining
busy so they can buy equipment to mine more.
>>> Your analysis is a bit simplistic... It is purely mathematical and does
>>> not take into consideration intangibles, such as motivation...
>> Simplistic has value in itself. Overly complex government BS is that, BS.
>> It is simpler to say they botched it and move on to a solution, and not
>> denial which is currently the case.
>
> So, you would have everybody go back to the gold standard? How long do you
> think it would be till the financial system is in worse shape than it's
> currently in?
Probably not, we could afford to at ths point. But clearly, the world
needs an immutable valued currency. One that our banks and governmetns
can putz with. One that has strict immutable rules on rates, lending
and creation. It's value needs to be pegged to an unchanging basket of
commodities.
Idealistic as getting so many crooked banks and politicians to do this
isn't going to happen. Those who manage the herds of people ike the
idea of putzing with currency. For example, Ottawa will say give
CPP/OAS a 10% raise. Sounds good, until you see in the same period that
20% inflation struck. So in fact CCP/OAS is 10% less in value.
Deceptive, but it is the way they play us.
> When you have a major, technologically advanced, socially integrated series
> of countries with differing ideas and similar needs, complexity is
> guaranteed, whether you'll admit it or not...
>
> The last thing governmetn
>> wants, any party is for the people to realize they screwed up big time.
>> The backlash would be brutal.
>
>
> Like, when Britain decided to RETURN to the gold standard? greatly
> contributing to the causation of the Great Depression?
Actually, Britania was silver. But same idea.
The great depression had the same causes as today. People would debt up
on the newly creatd ponzi currency, as it was debased to gold in 1913
(?). With all this debt, they invested in stocks, real-estate, stuff,
businesses and had a roaring 20's. Until someone didn't pay their debt.
When the debt wasn't apid, they had to sell stuff and came up short,
causing others to do the same. Next you know the leveraged people got
wiped out.
Very similar to today. Very, very similar. Read a good book on it.
> It's just too easy to say, they skrewed it up; it's all their fault...
> It's a bit tougher to take the time to understand ALL the contributing
> factors...
Why is it too easy? Need a disertation f 5000 pages to say it? That is
turd polishing.
Gotta go...
Need to pay my 50% to government like a good little sheeples...
Canuck57
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:T65Mm.11956$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>>> Might we say: dishonest business leaders? It seems to me the folks at
>>> GM and AIG have more to do with it than the home owner who was approved
>>> for more than he or she could afford...
>> Yep. I would concur. GM and AIG executives are paid full time to make
>> sure this doesn't happen. I can't resist to say, but I find the GM and
>> AIG, and other banks in touble as criminally culpable and morally guilty
>> of gross negligence. But know that government too, was in on it.
>>
>> People need to be more responsible. A person is ultimately responsible
>> for themselves.
>
> What ever happened to "We're all in this together!"
That was never true, society has givers and takers. Trouble is society
now has far too many takers for its own good.
Losers want to share the pain, winners want to get on with life.
> If people, which includes the business community as well as the consumer /
> tax payer, saves for the good times and spends in the bad times, that's the
> heart of Keynesian economics... The numbers are arbitrary... If a certain
> amount of money is borrowed in bad times to pay, it has to be replentished
> (payed back) just like a depleted savings account would have to be
> replentished when times get good again. If there isn't enough money with
> either version, then some form of compensation has to take place, either
> interest has to be paid, or the general populace faces a major depression.
> Borrowing gives more opportunities for maintaining a good standard of living
> for everyone as they work their way through the bad times, as long as
> everyone recognizes that the money has to be paid back...
It might be, but liberals only tout Keynesian in bad times and squander
in good times, further bankrupt the system. Forcing tax slavery onto
working people. Of you overspend $100 billion in one year in bad times,
only makes sense you save $100 billion in good times.
But that is one huge reason why I say bullshit. The second being that a
depression is to teach a lesson to the wasters in our society. Like
balance of debt versus equity, like spend crazy and prudence.
> The problem comes in when some people are on the "et's save" band wagon
> while others are on the "let's borrow" band wagon...
No, the problem is debtors live high on the hog, then when the balloon
breaks they envy those that have saved. And like selfish entitlists
justify screwing the good people over.
> Those who want to borrow will expect the "let's save" crowd to pitch in and
> help if the borrowing model is used, while the let's save crowd will exprect
> the "let's save" group to endure excessive hardships if the saving model is
> used...
No, they want a free pass for their screwups so they can do it again.
Without the pain of the results, they will not learn. We don't give
gold medals to last place do we? Or straight "A"s to kids disturbing
the class and failing tests?
> In each of the split scenarios, the system can't handle, or at least has
> difficulty handling, everone's expectation...
Not everyone is going to be in first place. That is reserved for the
best and the rest will have to live with it.
> It's a system, and there are different ways to implement it. But, it will
> work best when all the participants work together...
In theory yes, in practice no. Teams in your context always break down
when the greed wins and lack of respect for others hard work ends. A
break down of morals in a team only needs one selfish bastard screwing
the otheres to end team work. It is usually the cheater, the short cut
taker or the egomaniac that does it.
>> This isn't a capitalism problem, it is a debt and delinquency currency
>> problem.
>
> Liberals want to help... Cons want to punish...
Let me fix that for you.
Liberals want to help themselves to our money. Liberals are scum, can't
even pay their bills. It isn't that Cons are so good, it is that the
Liberals are worse.
> You're overlooking the other factors... It wasn't just saving grain in fat
> years, Pharoh SOLD it back to the peasants in lean years... He worked both
> sides of the equation, apparently with the blessing of God...
A good capitalist. Think, if he didn't they would have died of starvation!!
Why should he not profit by saving their asses? But bet they didn't
look at the alternative of starvation as their only other option. If he
didn't take the investment risk and storage risk, their sorry asses
would be food for the wolves.
> As is typically hardcore capitalistic approach, the rich got richer, and the
> poor got poorer... The Liberal government tries to mitigate the negative
> side of this scenario at the minimal cost to the positive... But, of
> course, some say any cost is unacceptable... It is my God given right to
> turn a profit...
It is the only way that has stood the test of time. The rest is
bullshit. It is how the herds of humans behave. You can deny it, you
can wish for it to be different as much as you like. But it isn't going
to change the behavior of the herd of humans in some 50-75 years of one
personals life. Humans herds are incapable of evolving that fast
without some catclismic event to force the issue.
>>>> But far too many of our society can no longer survive to a stats and
>>>> level in which they have come to expect without cheap, easy and never
>>>> ending streams of debt.
>
> Or, is it that capitalism can't find cheap, easy streams of labour?
Just the same as if someone pays more they move on and in the employers
counter perspective could be "the ungrateful SOB"...
Why the hell should an employer pay more than the cost to replace you?
If you were on their end of the stick, I guarantee God as my witness you
would do precisly the same. Just that you are not mature enough to
realise it. And don't give me the holyier than thou crap here, there
are billions of examples out there every day.
> Of course, you now have more to lose than you did back then... That same
> old guy would probably hold back supply to increase demand, but lobby for
> strict anti-union legislation...
That is the only reason why I am civil on this issue, is that I have
more to loose. Someone takes it all from me, someone will die.
While government can steal from me, I don't have to worship their asses
for it. I have contempt for them as government has become out of
control. Just another form of repression.
>> The corruption of corporate America, including Canada is corruption.
>> Corruption needs to be allowed to die or you have solved nothing.
>>
> So, why is it corruption when the government is involved, but the invisible
> hand when it's just between you and me?
Government should serve all people equaly and limit its activites to
common good for all, bind to sex, blind to religion, blind to race and
blind to union status and GM/bank affiliations.
It isn't, more than 1/2 of Ottawa spending is secular. Look it up.
>> Health care costs is a new age problem. 300 years ago, something goes
>> wrong they gave you cocaine for the pain. That is about all they could do
>> for cancer, liver, kidney etc.
>>
>> Today you could, with enough money go to Safeway, pick up a roast and keep
>> it allive. But should you. The new age problem is how much health care
>> do we gve o one person before we stop due to economics. If the maximum is
>> $5 million, over an average lifetime they have to pay $ million.
>
> And, before the cocain, they bled you... And, before the bleeding, you
> grinned and bore the pain, or just wandered off and offed yourself... I
> think today's system has the benefit of giving us a chance to improve
> treatments and expand our life expectancy... I like that...
In rality, you should have a maximum limit given to you the day you are
born. Once exausted you are on your own. Make it a generious $500,000
and index it to inflation. That way if you could live 3 years longer
but need 2 months at $2 million to do it, you need to raise the $1.5M.
Or give people the choice, at 18 you have to elect how much coverage you
want and pay accodingly. And you can only up the coverage if you pay
arrears with interest there after. Otherwise you have to live with your
limits.
Any system managing herds of people has to be designed with preventative
measures against abuse or it will become a costly farce. Like liberal
Ottawa today.
>> And government would rather bailout banks, GMs, Chryslers and favorite pet
>> projects, even the African banks than to spend the money on health care
>> for you or I. I don't know why you feel so benevolent towards our
>> government, they are screwing you too.
>>
> Nobody says I'm benevolent..; I'm just realistic. I've spent a number of
> years studying politics, more so than business, so I know that pleasing
> people isn't easy...
I do not consider your views on humanity and economics realistic. If
you don't understand the following, you are an arm chair critic at best.
Government cannot produce wealth.
Government is a net consumer of wealth.
Government can only redistrubute wealth minus consumable cost of it's
existance.
If you don't undersand and agree with above, you know shit of economics.
Do you understand the meaning of government pays for nothing, the people do?
> You have all these nice trite solutions, but you just don't realize the
> consequences would be worse for you than the way things are right now...
Basic conservativism trits lost so long people don't know it when they
hear it. It is old school economics.
> I remember back in the early '80s, when interest rates were going through
> the roof...
>
> A co-worker was on the verge of losing his house, and he said to me, "I've
> hid my rifle. If they take all I've got, I'm gonna go out and shoot me a
> cow, throw it in the back of the truck and my buddy will butcher it for me
> for a hind quarter...
I am surprised we haven't seen more of that in this depression. But it
is far from over yet. Wait until January, February for some real bad
news. Will make Octobers 22% US unemployment look like an improvement.
That usually migrates north in 6-8 months, historically.
> Desperate people take desperate action... Do you think your gold will
> protect you for long against a few 10s of million of desperate, starving
> people?
Don't need to, the bank has alarms on the safe. Let the police worry
about it.
But who knows, if you can't trust the banks I might move it to sit right
beside the Remington. If society deteriorates that much, the system
isn't going to worry about a few dead crooks.
> I know enough about economics to know that capitalism is great at moving
> wealth up the pyramid, yes, the pyramid... The guys at the top fair well,
> so they don't want to lose what they've got, even if they can't use it
> all...
The pyramid is just like a horse race, as you eliminate the once from
behind, there are fewer ahead.
> The guys at the bottom, always NEED more, not want, and if the gap gets too
> wide, shit happens...
It is also why society works at all. Most people are too lazy to make
it to the top. Ever read Maslow's hiracy of needs? Starvation or the
threat of it is a hell of a motivator. And most people are strong on
envy and weak in commitment, even to themselves.
> The more people in the pyramid, the more unstable it becomes, because nobody
> wants to hold still and keep his part of the pyramid steady...
Problem is the pyramid is inverted. Too many at the top are not
contributing. Reessions/depressions correct this. Shakes the fat off
the top.
> Hence, government needs to recycle some of the extra off the top and feed it
> back into the bottom...
No arguement there. Government has never been fater, never been more
expensive in the history of mankind. They need a little belt tighting
for a change. Trouble is they have too much power of the herd of sheep.
But as they fleace more, a revolution will be born. History will repeat.
> What the guys at the top don't recognize is that there's lots more coming
> back up, as long as the system functions semi-smoothly...
>
> But, if the health and well-being of the bottom tiers is negatively impacted
> too far, for whatever reason, there's usually hell to pay...
>
> What makes you think capitalism is immune to that kind of reality, today?
It isn't immune, it is the driver of it. You cluelessly miss this.
Captitalism says it isn't worth making more jobs for more product that
no one will buy for a break even, much less a profit. They call it a
recession/depression.
Capitalism is the cheta of the economy. It is maximizing efficiency and
reduction of wasted resources. Resources cost money including people,
why keep them unless you can profit by them? Or worse yet, keep them
and loose money doing it.
Would you hire someone with your own (and not government money) to stand
around and do nothing but cost money? You are not being realistic if
you say you would as you would not.
>>> And are unwilling to accept that for an
>>>> economic system to work you must pay your debts or debt will shut down.
>
> That depends entirely on how the system is structured... If it's structured
> by the "let's save" folks, then, yes it will. But, if it's structured by
> the "let's borrow" people, there's more room to maneuver...
You only "save" folks if at the end you can profit. If a business sees
a 2 month small loss in keeping people on, then followed by profit, they
might carry the folks because replacing them incures time and training.
But the bottom line for an employee or a business is the same. At the
end of the day after taxes what is in there for ME!
> That's what all the government and corporate haggling is working to avoid...
>>> See previous message about a purely mathematical analysis...
>> Still, if people and businesses don't profit, they don't work. This isn't
>> rocket science. Basic Maslow hierachy of needs stuff.
>>
>> And when it comes down to it, denying the math is debial, denial isn't
>> going to solve the economic imbalance the greed of people for cheap debt
>> and governmetn for easy money has lead us all too.
>>
> And, investors looking for a good return aren't part of the equation? They
> should get while everybody else has to pay?
Why not? The only people who inves in losers are losers. It is why
some have money and others do not. Ina non-corrupt scenario, money is
attracted to those who know how to manage it.
If you can't manage your own money, think someone shuld hire you to
manage theirs?
>> Which other guys, the hinese or thouse not in denial of the current mess?
>
> Nope, our trading partners. The ones who are going to devalue our
> currency...
Over time, inevitable. There is a trade imbalance. Of course, not
right away. but in time, yes.
>> Chinese are worried, but making great strides in removing the dependancy
>> in US trade. They are making the right moves, putting a buffer to US debt
>> and their economy.
>
> Because they can exploit tons of people... Basic requirement for a good
> capitalistic economy... This is the reality you keep overlooking...
Nope. My guess is they are just like us but speak cantonese or
mandarin. Many a politicians, and naive people always love to belitle
and hate the others for their ineptness and failings.
Blame the other guy, not me. Not humble, ego bigger than reality types,
Liberals for a synonomous types.
> If we want our global order to function, the living standard of all has to
> be acceptable, and the system has to accomodate a more uniform distribution
> of wealth... Capitalism has a tough time with that...
Living standard will only be acceptable if all produce acceptably.
Even two people living beside each other. Same education, same street,
same employer, same job, they even work together and make exactly rhe
same money. They even have children weeks appart and are the same age.
Now one saves $10,000 at 20 years of age defering a European trip for 2.
Puts it in an investment account at 7% per year.
At 55 they both have good pensions. Both have paid their mortgages off
at 45 and saved for 10 years for early retirement.
Now the person who saved $10,000, after these years has $106,780 more
than the other.
Now who's fault is that?
You reap what you sew. And at 50 or 60, if you haven't grown up to
realise many decisions we make early in life will come back to haunt
you,, but you choose to blame or envy the other guy, then you ae mature.
>> I am not a fan of either. But Turdeau was the big spender, leaving
>> Mulroney with two choices, raise taxes or cut bloated government. He
>> chose to keep government bloat and raise taxes. Turdeau was Santa Clause
>> using your future as his credit card.
>>
> Nope, he was facing the same realities every other country was facing...
Nope, a frechman loose with a huge credit card. Bad mix fire sure.
> Population exploding... Baby boomers coming into the work place...
> Increased costs military and infrastructure... And, above all, that
> blossoming instant communication where everybody knew what everybody else
> was doing and how they were living... Those internal behaviours that
> capitalism is purported to explain and predict so well are what caused the
> big debt for Canada, and every other country, not Trudeau...
>
>> Mulroney stinks, but not as bad as Turdeau.
Get them both in the same room and cockroaches will run.
> Trudeau debt = about $182 billion...
> Mulroney debt = about $360 billion ...
Bullshit.
Stop reading Liberal utinalism. Ge the facts an stop being a pathetic
sheep. And learn to think clearly for yourself. #1 key to success
actually.
> Turdeau set us up for
>> generations of lost wealth. Be it less services of government for the
>> money taxed or just a high wealth robbing taxation level, take your pick,
>> he screwed us all for big shot mentality.
>>
>
> Technically, we still pay for the major war debts too...
Yep. But $200 billion or $18 billion, Canada could pay off the debt in
6 or 7 months of interest on the prior plus accumulation. Canada cranks
$33 billion each year on Ottawa debt.
>> And we still pay for it today. Even if it does not come back in a tax
>> break, think, if it were not for Turdeau's massive debt spend, you could
>> double todays social assistance, balance the budget and not raise taxes.
>> The price of debt-spend cannot be understated. The effects will echo for
>> generations.
>
> But, where would we be?
What are you asking? If you asking where we would be if government
balanced the budget during the Turdeau years and it heald until today?
About 1/3 of your Ottawa income taxes would not be needed for your
entire working career. And that is a lot of tax paid money!
> Yeah, the rich would have a few more bucks in their accounts...
Only if you were too stupid and spend it. If you saved it, invested it
for yourself, they would call you rich.
Most people are selfish and short sighted, they blow it. How many
people win the lotto just to be in debt and broke in 1 2 or 3 years?
Most end up that way, too undiciplined and dumb.
> But, our infrastructure would be inferior to the rest of the world, our life
> span would be shorter than everybody elses, our education institutions would
> be second class, so our corporations would have a less talented work force
> to draw from, sour companies would be less profitable... Hey, I'm not so
> sure you'd have more in your account...
Funny, those with the least health problem, with the longest lives live
simple, honest and in isolated areas from the main societies.
But for North America, it grew when there was no income tax, prospered
and grew to the who content and no government at all in the new
terrirories. It was only in the early 1900's that income tax came in.
Yet before that there were schools, doctors, fire deparments/brigades
and the like.
Income tax was for war, and government liked it so much they expanded it
to tax-enslavement. Magna Carta, Boston Tea Party, Amrerican Revolution
all happened for much less than what the government takes today. Loan
sharks even asked less as did the mafia.
The only diffence between the mafia and government is the perception of
lgitimacy and government costs more.
Canuck57
>> Ended the 1982 recession. Guess that makes him smarter than a liberal
>> democrat.
>
> By changing the States from the world's largest creditor to the world's
> largest debtor?
Better than doing nothing constructive and making the nation even more
of a debtor than ever before. At least reagan had 50 cents of benefit
for the debt. Obama has zip, squat.
> Given he promised his government would give the rich room to work, and the
> benefits would trickle down to the poor, he's a big part of the reason
> nobody trusts RightOff rhetoric any more...
And it did. No mony in peoples hands means few jobs. I know, Liberals
can't understand that basic concept.
It bugs me what you said about us all being in this together.
If you want us all together, you had better hope the weight of
government does not crush the backbone middle class taxpayer, or their
will be no social assistance as the system collapses. No CPP for either
of us.
And as it sits, 1929, 1982, the debt wasn't anywhere like it is today,
not in dollars or percentages. This is going to be a big, big
depression. Took 15 years of liberalism to build, it isn't going away
in 8 or 14 months.
In fact, I am pulling some US profits out of the market. Getting ready
fo rthe next downturn.
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>> The root causes of this recession/depression go back to 1982. When
>>>>> interest rates soared to 17% it did so as there was a shortage of
>>>>> balance in debt and equity. The system was
>>
>> Actually, it did it because banks and credit companies thought it was
>> easier to loan to Third World governments, so they'd rather loan a big
>> chunk to, let's say Argentina, than a bunch of little loans to you and
>> me. The banks kinda thought governments couldn't go broke, and even if
>> they tried, the West's big armies could make 'em pay up. Then, all of a
>> sudden, a whole lot of Third World countries started to welch on their
>> debts, and there was nothing the banks could do about it. The balance to
>> holdings ratio was all messed up, so locals had to bear the cost of
>> corporate / finance sector short-sightedness...
>
> Ah, so now we like to blame other countries?
Nope, but I understand your paradigm automatically causes you to blame the
guy who COULDN'T pay...
If you read what I wrote, and if you have paid any attention to my usual
attitude / opinion, you wouldn't say I'm blaming other countries... I'm
blaming the managers of international banks and investment funds for being
too lazy to process smaller domestic loans instead of putting all their eggs
in a few massive loans to Third World countries....
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_debt_crisis
This recesin/depression is
> 100% made at home this time. Argentina, Peru, others, learned their
> leasons decade or more ago. Most too tried the spend out of deb and when
> it got bad enough and th government was broke, they praciced fiscal
> prudence.
Actually, they were trying to modernize, not spend their way out of
anything... The West's economies were out-producing theirs, and they wanted
to be competitive, so they were borrowing in order to build factories and
connecting infrastructure...
A decade later their economies, many of them are in better
> shape that ours.
>
> Nope, this time it is North American debt.
Because, those countries now have the infrastructure plus an exploited work
force, so they are better able to beat us at the capitalistic game we
invented...
>
>>>>> High interest rates use to be the govenor of excessive debt as it
>>>>> defered new debt until the debt to equity was in balance.
Social conditions govern everything... Mathematic analysis too simple...
>>
>
> Worked longer than any other. Everything needs a balance or it falls
> apart. This included equity and debt. There are so many examples of this
> balance I would not know where to start.
>
> Something has to govern debt in a balanced way but from 1990 or so up
> until this depression, debt has no balance.
>
> Lets go to an extreme. Say we all stayed at home, did nothing but borrow
> money. Need money, borrow it to no end in sight. Ho is going to make
> food? Slaves that can't borrow?
>
> Debt is not a way of life, it is a means to an end. Debt needs to be
> considered carefully and paid off. If not paid off then the currency is
> baseless and no one will want to invest and hold it. Kind of what is
> happeing now.
Kind of, but you're forgetting that the biggest factor in this is not the
householder who took on more than he can chew... It is corporate greed,
exactly like back in the debt crisis of the early '80s...
Only, instead of loaning more money to Third World countries than they could
pay back, the corporate RightOffs loaned it to domestic home owners, 180
degree turn around from the '80s, but the same mistake...
This is what you and the more severe RightOffs keep missing...
Capitalism is a pyramid... People produce wealth, which capitalists need to
reinvest in order to make the system keep growing...
If any of the wealth is consumed, the growth cycle is slowed, so consumption
is discouraged... Investment causes growth, which, if reinvested, causes
more growth, more reinvestment, more growth...
But, at some point, if the PEOPLE producing are ignored, then, they end up
producing soooo much stuff (which is gathered together by the capitalists)
but have no funds themselves to buy any of what they have produced... So,
the capitalists have nowhere to sell / invest... So, the whole system comes
to a screeching halt...
I'm not going so far as to say that this will result in communism, as other
economists ultimately end the scenario, but I will say that more emphasis
has to be placed on lowering the expectations, not of the bottom end
producers, but of the upper end investers...
Lower returns on investments is what I see happening, not lower living
standards for the poor...
There's a hell of a lot more room to lower from the top, than from the
bottom...
And, if done correctly, the pyramid becomes an awful lot more stable...
The Great Depression, in reality, was the ultra right trying to teach the
working class a lesson... "If you don't behave like good little workers and
produce for us, we're gonna withhold all your luxuries, or at least most of
your staples, so you'll really have to suffer for a while..."
The numbers and technologies favoured the upper elites, so it largely
worked... But, we're not living in that world any longer...
>
>>>>> And governments being the biggest debts in the world can't afford to
>>>>> fix it. Because putting balance back into the system means higher
>>>>> interest rates to attract a capital balance. And interest on $1.3
>>>>> trillion US or $600 billion Canadian for the feds alone, well, even
>>>>> government likes cheap debt.
See what I mean, you automatically assume the invester's world is
sacrosanct... Nothing can change there... No lowering of investers
expectations, only lowering of workers' living standards...
But, look at the numbers... Way more workers than investers...
>>
>> And, bankers like a big return...
>
> Of course, but no one has to use them. Not really. But the smell of an
> easy loan for the mentally lazy is enticing. After awhile you become
> debt-enslaved to the bank on your own volition.
Bankers / investers -- different sides of the same coin...
>
>> You tend to forget that the banks could have pulled the whole thing to a
>> stop a long time ago, if it was really in their interest to do so...
>
> Why would banks want to stop the massive cash flow coming its way?
>
> First and foremost te problem stems from people not paying what they owe.
> Government told banks to overextend.
and, investers never over-extend? Ever heard of the "tech bubble"?
>
>>>>> The alternative is currency depreciation and ever yet higher taxation
>>>>> which to the average person will show up as inflation and a lower
>>>>> standard of living. And it probably too late to stop since the
>>>>> aditional recent government debts have likely pushed this over the
>>>>> top.
>>
>> We disagree on that point...
>
> Government can stem inflation by canceling the currency it created in the
> past, but to do that it has to have cash, sort of tax it back and cancel
> it. By not putting it back in circulation the currency in circulation has
> more value.
Or, the global system can proceed with lower expectations of returns...
>
> Cash is like grain, sand, water -- just a commodity like every other.
>
>>>>> I invest, so I follow this carefully. There is a reason why people
>>>>> are buying gold. Gold does not depreciate in value like paper fiat
>>>>> currency. In 30 years, an ounce of gold will still be an ounce of gold
>>>>> but the dollar will be worth a small fraction of what it is today.
>>
>> But, you can't sustain a gold standard in a modern nation of more than
>> 300 million people... That was proven back in the days of Nixon...
>
> They didn't want to is more like the truth. Basing a currency on a fixed
> value has many advantages. But the disadvantage is that debt cannot be
> debased and devalued without payment.
As noted previously, gold doesn't work, because we have too many people and
too few kilos of gold... The more people get into the market, the higher
the value of gold creeps -- inflation without doing anything. Great for
those who have it, not so great for those who don't...
>
> Look at inflation is a deliberate attempt by governments to tax wealth.
It's an inherent factor in the gold system...
> It is also why there is a tax break for capital gains, gains are not
> really gains if the gail is below inflation rates.
>
> So wat if I get 1% on a savings account if a year later 6% inflation has
> hit. I am then 5% poorer in value and also have ot pay taxes on the 1%.
> It is also why buying real-estate is so historically good. Real-estate
> holds it's value against inflation and does not depreciate like currency.
>
I once bought a condo for $63,000 which was worth about $42,000 three years
later... Real estate goes in cycles too... The reason why it's got such
good returns, at present, comes back to population demographics... er,
people...
Lots of young baby-boomer kids leaving the nest... But, if those kids take
a while to have kids, or don't have any at all, what do you think the
market's going to look like in about 20 - 30 years??? Let's hope the
government hires some good bureaucrats to staff the Department of
Immigration... They're gonna have a lot of number crunching to do in the
next few decades...
>> As the population grows, so must the money supply... If you can't mine
>> the stuff at the same rate the population grows, the presence of the
>> standard itself causes major inflation, since, as gold becomes scarcer in
>> proportion to the population, it's value increases... Great for the
>> people who have it, lousy for those who don't... The presence of the
>> gold standard itself, if left too long as the standard of currency,
>> causes major social discontent, eventually destabilizing the society past
>> the breaking point...
>
> Agreed. But your premise is that if the population grows the money suply
> needs to be proportial.
>
Only if the society is to remain stagnant...If it is to progress, the supply
has to increase disproportionately in order to account for all the extra
economic activity taking place... My point was, simply, that merely the
growth of the society's populace causes inflation with the gold standard,
regardless of any other existing conditions... Of course, there will be
other aggrivating factors, so the actual inflation rate of a given society
using the gold standard will be higher than a comprable society not on that
standard... Assuming the population is large enough that the gold supply
grows slower than the population...
> However the real fact of the maters is that government has printed 30
> times this amount, and in fact currently operates only because it can
> print excess money. USA has near trippled it's money float since Sept
> 2008 and that represents a lot of inflation.
Actually, it represents a lot of economic activity... checked the GDP
during that time period?
The inflation rate hasn't grown quite that fast...
Well, alright, it's a combo of inflation and the GDP...
>
> More people could also mine more gold. And likely wood, keeping mining
> busy so they can buy equipment to mine more.
>
My premis was that the supply of gold cannot keep pace with population
growth...
Assuming there's more gold to mine...
Of course, once the supply runs out, there's a flurry of activity as people
can't believe it's all in use, but, tons of problems after that...
While we're still mining gold, I think we've already past the point where
the supply can keep up with either the general growth in population or the
exponential explosion of economic activity...
>>>> Your analysis is a bit simplistic... It is purely mathematical and
>>>> does not take into consideration intangibles, such as motivation...
>>> Simplistic has value in itself. Overly complex government BS is that,
>>> BS. It is simpler to say they botched it and move on to a solution, and
>>> not denial which is currently the case.
>>
>> So, you would have everybody go back to the gold standard? How long do
>> you think it would be till the financial system is in worse shape than
>> it's currently in?
>
> Probably not, we could afford to at ths point. But clearly, the world
> needs an immutable valued currency. One that our banks and governmetns
> can putz with. One that has strict immutable rules on rates, lending and
> creation. It's value needs to be pegged to an unchanging basket of
> commodities.
>
Nope, won't work... Population and economic growth just too incompatible...
> Idealistic as getting so many crooked banks and politicians to do this
> isn't going to happen. Those who manage the herds of people ike the idea
> of putzing with currency. For example, Ottawa will say give CPP/OAS a 10%
> raise. Sounds good, until you see in the same period that 20% inflation
> struck. So in fact CCP/OAS is 10% less in value.
>
It's not a matter of Ottawa just deciding on a whim to give a raise to
public employees / pension recipients; pressure on the government results
in the decision... And, yes, the working stiff usually comes out on the
short end of the stick, but, hey, just like the corporate sector...
> Deceptive, but it is the way they play us.
Just like a boss...
>
>> When you have a major, technologically advanced, socially integrated
>> series of countries with differing ideas and similar needs, complexity is
>> guaranteed, whether you'll admit it or not...
>>
>> The last thing governmetn
>>> wants, any party is for the people to realize they screwed up big time.
>>> The backlash would be brutal.
>>
>>
>> Like, when Britain decided to RETURN to the gold standard? greatly
>> contributing to the causation of the Great Depression?
>
> Actually, Britania was silver. But same idea.
>
Got me there; too much talk about gold standard... :)
> The great depression had the same causes as today. People would debt up
> on the newly creatd ponzi currency, as it was debased to gold in 1913 (?).
> With all this debt, they invested in stocks, real-estate, stuff,
> businesses and had a roaring 20's. Until someone didn't pay their debt.
> When the debt wasn't apid, they had to sell stuff and came up short,
> causing others to do the same. Next you know the leveraged people got
> wiped out.
Ok, but who's to blame, the people who borrowed? Or, the people who wanted
them to pay it back so they could lend it out again and make some more
profit / dividends? The semi-logical assumption is to blame it on the
(lower educated) consumer who wasn't fulfilling the contract he signed than
to blame it on the ideolistic, higher educated execs who CHOSE to bring the
whole system to a screeching halt rather than lower THEIR expectations and
help the (less educated) consumers renegotiate their credit line to
something more affordable and keep the capital flowing... There's always
two side to every crisis... But, usually, each side only recognizes one...
>
> Very similar to today. Very, very similar. Read a good book on it.
>
Once again, agreed, but I think the stakes are higher this time, so there is
a greater recognition that maybe the creditors may have to lower their
expectations as well as the defaultors... The creditors are running out of
demographics to loan to...
>> It's just too easy to say, they skrewed it up; it's all their fault...
>> It's a bit tougher to take the time to understand ALL the contributing
>> factors...
>
> Why is it too easy? Need a disertation f 5000 pages to say it? That is
> turd polishing.
>
Nope, I just want to see some recognition that all the players are at fault
/ risk, so they all need to work towards a solution...
> Gotta go...
>
> Need to pay my 50% to government like a good little sheeples...
Yep, this is getting close to the heart of the matter...
Any way we can break it up into more manageable chunks...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>>> insanity to think so. Just makes the problem worse.
>>>
>>> Reagan hit the problem head on, Leaving people with more of their own
>>> money to afford cars and homes was the right answer. But at least he
>>> had something to show for the debt he racked up. Obama has nothing to
>>> show buy more unemployment and devaluing dollar.
>>>
>>> You don't have to be an economics graduate to know excessive debt,
>>> defunct debt and growing governemtn debt is not sustainable and the
>>> depression may yet have another bad downturn coming with inflation.
>>>
>>> Take Obama's latest numbers claiming GDP is up 3% while employment is
>>> down. That is called inflation. Not recovery.
>>
>> The problem with touting Reagan as a master economist is that after all
>> his tax cuts, just before he left office, he hit Americans with the
>> largest tax increase in American history. He had to pay for all those
>> tax cuts somehow...
>>
>> Even George Bush (senior) called Reagan's tactics "voodoo economics."
>>
>
>
Like I said, Reagan's not the best to hold up as a shining light of tax
policy ideals for Cons...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
You're very good at giving only part of the story...
You are forgetting, conveniently, that the interest the bank earns is leant
again to somebody else who then spends it, as well as paying part of the
loan back as interest, so the net result of the scenario is that additional
monetary resources are created for the system as a whole... That's not even
including the extra profit the merchants earn off of the sales of the
on-credit purchases, which are then put back into his business, or spent to
satisfy his own personal whims... Assuming, of course he doesn't just put
the profit in a vault and let it rot...
And, of course, a certain percentage of the loan are paid back with
devalued, inflationary dollars, so the actual spending discrepancy isn't
quite as dramatic as you make it sound...
And, of course, maybe that big screen TV helped the kids to keep up with the
bosses kids, so they got a bit of experience networking, building up
contacts and improving interpersonal / employable skills, so they end up
with better jobs when they enter the workforce, and generate more tax
dollars for the community...
And, of course, you keep jumping back and forth between government and
private debt -- treating them as if they are one and the same...
Let's say that the government takes out a loan to pay a disability
pension...
The government borrows a certain amount to pay a disabled person an
allowance which almost lets him / her live a normal life... The person
meets a significant other, if one hasn't already been found, and the two tie
the knot. The non-disabled partner works, paying taxes, partially, if not
completely off-setting the government's investment in his / her disabled
partner...
The couple has kids; the kids grow up, and they get a good education,
possibly using student loans to pay for their education, which funds, the
government, of course, borrows and lends to the students at a favourable
rate...
After graduation, the kids have higher paying jobs, and can afford to put
their kids through a better school, etc, etc...
In the long run, is the society as a whole better or worse off for the
government borrowing money to pay for the social services?
It's not exactly like you or I borrowing to pay for a big-screen TV,
although it's so nice and simple to trot out that little analogy, RIGHT?
Take Care,
Dudley
klunk
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BcJMm.52308$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>>> Ended the 1982 recession. Guess that makes him smarter than a liberal
>>> democrat.
>>
>> By changing the States from the world's largest creditor to the world's
>> largest debtor?
>
> Better than doing nothing constructive and making the nation even more of
> a debtor than ever before. At least reagan had 50 cents of benefit for
> the debt. Obama has zip, squat.
>
>> Given he promised his government would give the rich room to work, and
>> the benefits would trickle down to the poor, he's a big part of the
>> reason nobody trusts RightOff rhetoric any more...
>
> And it did. No mony in peoples hands means few jobs. I know, Liberals
> can't understand that basic concept.
>
> It bugs me what you said about us all being in this together.
the fact that it bugs you is merely a symptom of some deeply unresolved
issues... as much as you might like to believe yourself to be a solitary
island and replete unto yourself... the fact of the matter is that the
"we're all in this together" mindset is a recognition that we do indeed,
need each other and that we do indeed, "feed each other"... iow... you don't
get what you have by materializing it out of thin air through magical
abilities... everything you have, as much as you may have toiled to accrue
for yourself, is a by-product of the toils of others...
even your own work depends upon others to need what you have to offer and
you need to be compensated for your efforts by someone else... and the odds
are that you rely on others in order to be able provide your offerings in
the first place... in fact, the fact that you invest in u.s. markets is an
act of dependency upon the efforts of others... your cynicism however,
impels you to make decisions and adopt attitudes that only leave you blind
to those parts of the bigger picture which bug you...
an example of your bias leads to a contradiction in your thinking I'm quite
certain you're not aware of because you speak above of "No money in peoples
hands means few jobs" but this is entirely an example of a simplistic view
you've received as a criticism before...
iow... what exactly do you mean by it....?... is it money in the average
consumers' hands so that they go out and spend that money in order to
generate demand to grow the economy... or is it money in the hands of the
same capitalists who have destroyed the economy by becoming so greedy
they've squeezed purchasing power from the consumers they rely on which has
created a domino effect of spiralling down availability of capital...?...
in my past criticisms of this attitude of yours, I've identified this as
meaning "more money in your hands"... iow... your greed... and as much as I
still believe this to be the crux of your philosophy, your expressions of
late have demonstrated a form of struggle to grasp those portions of the
larger picture you've become frustrated at not being able to see...
all of which is of course.... a simplistic depiction of the symptoms I
referred to above of some deeply unresolved issues of yours...
> If you want us all together, you had better hope the weight of government
> does not crush the backbone middle class taxpayer, or their will be no
> social assistance as the system collapses. No CPP for either of us.
this paragraph also represents that contradiction because you criticize
government at the same time as you express fear of the loss of services it
provides...
> And as it sits, 1929, 1982, the debt wasn't anywhere like it is today, not
> in dollars or percentages. This is going to be a big, big depression.
> Took 15 years of liberalism to build, it isn't going away in 8 or 14
> months.
and this paragraph represents your ideological blindness because, no matter
how much you want to continue to blame liberals debt mismanagement, the fact
of the matter is that it has been conservative mismanagement which has been
responsible for the greatest amount of debt accrual... and for the greatest
amount of government bloating...
> In fact, I am pulling some US profits out of the market. Getting ready fo
> rthe next downturn.
well... there certainly will be another downturn if some of the systemic
problems aren't corrected... and these systemic problems can only be
corrected through greater and more effective government intervention by
appropriate legislation and regulation... and history has shown us that
downturns are exacerbated by conservative ideology, not liberal...
Dudley Hanks
Instead of continuing to say, "Trudeau laid the foundation ...", why not
show us your math? Explain how $182 billion > $360 billion (even after
inflation adjusted... ?
Also, you continue to ignore global conditions in the sixties and
seventies... Your, "No Spending" policy would have left us WAY behind other
Western democracies, and we'd REALLY be paying for that today... RIGHT?
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
> "Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:HfyMm.20336$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>>> The root causes of this recession/depression go back to 1982. When
>>>>>> interest rates soared to 17% it did so as there was a shortage of
>>>>>> balance in debt and equity. The system was
>>> Actually, it did it because banks and credit companies thought it was
>>> easier to loan to Third World governments, so they'd rather loan a big
>>> chunk to, let's say Argentina, than a bunch of little loans to you and
>>> me. The banks kinda thought governments couldn't go broke, and even if
>>> they tried, the West's big armies could make 'em pay up. Then, all of a
>>> sudden, a whole lot of Third World countries started to welch on their
>>> debts, and there was nothing the banks could do about it. The balance to
>>> holdings ratio was all messed up, so locals had to bear the cost of
>>> corporate / finance sector short-sightedness...
>> Ah, so now we like to blame other countries?
>
> Nope, but I understand your paradigm automatically causes you to blame the
> guy who COULDN'T pay...
>
> If you read what I wrote, and if you have paid any attention to my usual
> attitude / opinion, you wouldn't say I'm blaming other countries... I'm
> blaming the managers of international banks and investment funds for being
> too lazy to process smaller domestic loans instead of putting all their eggs
> in a few massive loans to Third World countries....
I read your post. But like people, contries don't have to borrow and
deal with bankers that way. The banker is providing a service, but does
not mean you have to partake and mortgage the future for today.
I blame the short sighted politicians and the people who supported their
short term thinking.
> see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_debt_crisis
Good synopsis of the time. But not very detailed. Brazil for example
couldn't afford the credit to buy oil they needed so they developed and
internal ethanol business. Later credited for much of its recovery due
to keeping balance of trade and economic activity inside of Brazil for
its production.
At the time, NA in it's hypocracy was accusing Brazil of chopping down
the rain forrests for cane plantations and farming. Not unlike what we
do near and in the rocky mountains.
> This recesin/depression is
>> 100% made at home this time. Argentina, Peru, others, learned their
>> leasons decade or more ago. Most too tried the spend out of deb and when
>> it got bad enough and th government was broke, they praciced fiscal
>> prudence.
>
> Actually, they were trying to modernize, not spend their way out of
> anything... The West's economies were out-producing theirs, and they wanted
> to be competitive, so they were borrowing in order to build factories and
> connecting infrastructure...
It is always easy to find or manuacture an excuse to borrow. Let free
enterprise modernize. Trouble was their economies were often marist
state owned, highly inefficient to a point where they could not generate
the profits to modernize.
So instead of intrinsic gowth, they borrowed for it and it didn't work.
Look at 1900 NA, a period of booming growth, very low taxation,
lightweight government doing only the basics, no income tax. Inventions
all over the place, cars, telephone, wireless, electricity,
manufacturing, medicine, rail, high immigration as jobs were plenty.
Almost no unemployment. That was intrisic growth that make NA (North
America) the economic engine of the century. Government debt wasn't an
issue. Currency was regulated 1:1 - no leverage. A bank could ot lend
what it didn't have on deposit.
It ended when banks had runs on withdrawls. As bankers started
leveraging and some failed. So the US Federal Reserve was started.
Ever since a slow decline in innovation and free spirit has occured, and
income tax is an opposite barometer to this.
> A decade later their economies, many of them are in better
>> shape that ours.
>>
>> Nope, this time it is North American debt.
>
> Because, those countries now have the infrastructure plus an exploited work
> force, so they are better able to beat us at the capitalistic game we
> invented...
But it turned out to nearly bankrupt them. While borrowing money gives
the short term appearance of wealth, it isn't wealth. It is a mortgage
on your future.
>>>>>> High interest rates use to be the govenor of excessive debt as it
>>>>>> defered new debt until the debt to equity was in balance.
>
> Social conditions govern everything... Mathematic analysis too simple...
Unfortunately. And it creates wars and kills people, WW I and WW II are
good examples of this. People think with misguided hearts and emotions
and not the realistic facts. Government stear hate of the situation
towards others. As Adolph and others, teach them to hate some other
entity, and they will hate you less. Works in a grade school the same
ways as a whole country.
>> Worked longer than any other. Everything needs a balance or it falls
>> apart. This included equity and debt. There are so many examples of this
>> balance I would not know where to start.
>>
>> Something has to govern debt in a balanced way but from 1990 or so up
>> until this depression, debt has no balance.
>>
>> Lets go to an extreme. Say we all stayed at home, did nothing but borrow
>> money. Need money, borrow it to no end in sight. Ho is going to make
>> food? Slaves that can't borrow?
>>
>> Debt is not a way of life, it is a means to an end. Debt needs to be
>> considered carefully and paid off. If not paid off then the currency is
>> baseless and no one will want to invest and hold it. Kind of what is
>> happeing now.
>
> Kind of, but you're forgetting that the biggest factor in this is not the
> householder who took on more than he can chew... It is corporate greed,
> exactly like back in the debt crisis of the early '80s...
I never denied that. All had a part. But corporate greed is
particularly nasty as by all rights bankruptcy should have been allowed
to run it's course for GM, Chrysler and the banks. What really happened
here is political back room corrupt people didn't want to take the burn
for investing in poorly run companies. And government bowed to them.
What people fail to realize is GM jobs are already gone. If you keep
GM, FOrd, Honda, Toyo will not keep as many people. Efficiencies go
down. So unless you plan on parking new unsold vehicles on the
Whitehouse and Parliament Hill for storage...people one way or anoter
will get laid off.
Say GM went under. Then surviving companies would have more market
share and be able to retain more people efficiently. Perhaps generating
a profit for their own solvancy. As it is Ford is struggling and could
use a 5% market share pop to make them viable. That is, by saving GM,
you will have more corporate welfare coming. The industry has excess
capacity.
> Only, instead of loaning more money to Third World countries than they could
> pay back, the corporate RightOffs loaned it to domestic home owners, 180
> degree turn around from the '80s, but the same mistake...
And if the do, they should get a bailout. Neither party. Bailouts are
synonomous of corruption.
> This is what you and the more severe RightOffs keep missing...
Funny how people on the right tend to accumulate money while people on
the left tend to consume it.
> Capitalism is a pyramid... People produce wealth, which capitalists need to
> reinvest in order to make the system keep growing...
Nope, capitalism can shrink. It is called a recession. Money leaves
investment for safe havens. Away from unions, excessive government
taxation and losses. Capitalism is working just fine, much to the
dismay of leftists.
The real enemy is corruption, and that can happen to lefties or the
right. Lefties opened the door for big government and high taxation,
the corrupt now leverage it for expensive corporate welfare. And right
capitalists are running scared as they know this isn't good. Why stay
in a burning house?
> If any of the wealth is consumed, the growth cycle is slowed, so consumption
> is discouraged... Investment causes growth, which, if reinvested, causes
> more growth, more reinvestment, more growth...
Yes, but reinvestment will only occur if there are profits to reinvest.
If the existing businesses are sucking cash, there isn't new money to
invest.
If government can't set the environment for profit, economic growth and
more money in middle class peoples hands, then economic recovery will
not occur. That is why Obamanomics is guaranteed to fail. People don't
get jobs but Obama sending $100 billion into a GM black hole to never
been seen again. Cheaper to pay people to do nothing (EI).
> But, at some point, if the PEOPLE producing are ignored, then, they end up
> producing soooo much stuff (which is gathered together by the capitalists)
> but have no funds themselves to buy any of what they have produced... So,
> the capitalists have nowhere to sell / invest... So, the whole system comes
> to a screeching halt...
Isn't capitalism wonderful! It is efficient. More stuff means cheaper
too. The $5 kitchen utensil that everyone can afford. If you just
hired people without regard to economics the same $5 item would cost
$500 and fewer could enjoy hoving one. There is a thing called
elasticity of the market. In a nut shell, it is a bell curve. Profit
is maximized in the middle. If priced too high no one can afford it and
thus much fewer are made and profit decreases. On the low end, if you
sell it too cheaply, while everyone can afford it you can't make money
to stay in business.
And by keeping GM alive, you have upset the elasticity balance for all
the others. Pretty ahrd to compete against a company that has a $60,000
subsidy from the governmetn for every unit sold. In this environment it
is only a mater of time before they all are in trouble.
> I'm not going so far as to say that this will result in communism, as other
> economists ultimately end the scenario, but I will say that more emphasis
> has to be placed on lowering the expectations, not of the bottom end
> producers, but of the upper end investers...
Upper end investors are naturally limited. If I can produce a wigit for
$500 profit per item. And my competition can do the same for $300, he
will undercut me and my profits will come in line. Competition supplies
diverity, balance of supply/demand, innovation and cost cutting to fair
market value.
Government interferances upset that. And almost never benefit anyone
when all is said and done. CBC only needed a few bucks, now it is a $2
billion dollar a year permanent corporate welfare junkie.
> Lower returns on investments is what I see happening, not lower living
> standards for the poor...
Poor will ultimately hurt teh most. As the middle class dwindles, so
does the tax revenue that supports the poor. Eventual government
collapse is immenent.
Government can't keep living beyond it's means any more than GM could.
Who is going to bail them out? It will come from a cut in services with
high taxes. It already has began.
> There's a hell of a lot more room to lower from the top, than from the
> bottom...
Doesn't mater, it will be fixed.
That is what depressions do, kick the fat off the top.
Have to go, needy government wants 50% of my earnings today. And being
a middle class grunt, no bailouts to date, I still work. Let everyone
fight for it!
Canuck57
>> Who's fault is it? Is sure as hell isn't B's fault. It is A's fault pure
>> and simple so when A envies B's position, it should be ok to say to A, you
>> debt drunk loser, it is your fault now f'off and get to work as I retire
>> early.
>
> You're very good at giving only part of the story...
No, it was the whole story. While people are denialists, they are more
the masters of their fuures than they know. Ok, some exceptions exist,
but 99% of the itme, we as a species like to blame others for our own
screwups. Denying that we could have dones beter for ourselves. It is
always someone elses fault!
> You are forgetting, conveniently, that the interest the bank earns is leant
> again to somebody else who then spends it, as well as paying part of the
> loan back as interest, so the net result of the scenario is that additional
> monetary resources are created for the system as a whole... That's not even
> including the extra profit the merchants earn off of the sales of the
> on-credit purchases, which are then put back into his business, or spent to
> satisfy his own personal whims... Assuming, of course he doesn't just put
> the profit in a vault and let it rot...
Are we talking loans or credit cards? They work differently. Credit
card are easy to understand, the credit card company gets a percentage
of each transaction. This way the retailer does not have to count,
handle and deposit the physical cash. Or take the risks of robbery.
They do get a service for it. Participation is optional, but most
retailers do. Imagine Costco, if they were paid 100% in cash by
everyone they would have to hire armed guards just to watch the
cumbersome pile of cash.
Bank debt is far more complex, and if far from simple. It starts with a
deposit. Say say $1000. Now the bank can create leverage to loan it
out a say 100:1. So the bank can lend out $100,000. Person needs a
mortgage, they borrow it and owe the bank. The central bank is owed
$99,000 for the difference.
Now it could be GM, Chrysler welchers, or a home mortgage owner that
defaults. And say the bank can only recover 1/2, $50,000.
So with the $50,000 they owe the depositor $1000 but can only repay the
central bank $49,000 of the $99,000 they owe. Which makes the bank,
bankrupt as it carries net debt it realistically cannot pay.
The higher the leverage, the more at risk the banking is. 10:1 less
less risk than 20:1 etc.
Why was this allowed to happen is simple as government stupidity an greed!!
If leverage were not allowed, 1:1 on deposts for loans, banks would have
to attract people to save. They would have to pay a fair interest rate,
say 7% and loan it out at 10% so thy get 3% for their efforts. I would
then deposit $100,000 and then they could loan $100,000.
By allowing the bank to leverage, they require less on depositors for
the same amount loaned out. This redues interest rates as the need for
solvant depositors is reduced. Thus cheap easy debt for debt up to
your eyeballs government and criminally operated business like GM.
It is a ponzi scheme started with the federal banking acts in the early
1900's, but Carter and more liberalism into the banking system in the
1990's allowed the leverage to rise to avoid higher interest rates.
Higher interest rates is a govenor on debt, removed it allowed people,
governments to borrow themselves right into the "Greate Government/Debt
Depression of 2008-20xx".
The prudent thing s to reduce leverage, but doing that will include
paying people a fair interest rate for their deposits.
Here is the risk we curently have. People have a lot of cash on the
sidelines, this can be levered by the banks. But as thy withdraw it
leaves bnks exposed... further economic collapse is pending if this
debt/savings imbalance isn't addressed as the sideline cash is not
commited to debt. Similar situations have caused runs on banks in the past.
In reality, the government and banks are in bankruptcy. We just don't
say that as it hurts our feelings and does not feed our needs for denial.
At some point this will drive a collapse of the currency and inflation
as the currency isn't worth a crap if the debts are not paid. And
clearly, North America is short some $30+ trillion or more of net debt
and it is growing out of control. I am including civic, state,
provncial, federal debts.
And I believe it is too late this ime to stop it. Unlike 1982, the debt
today is huge in comparison. And we have already exceeded 1982
unemplyment with trend indicators showing it going deeper.
Read up on how banks do debt, there are lots of good videos. Look up
the ones with "fiat currency" and "ponzi debt".
Once you realize how it really works, you will have to agree that
government and banks are feeding us real bullshit on this mater.
Because the people do not want to hear the real truth.
> And, of course, maybe that big screen TV helped the kids to keep up with the
> bosses kids, so they got a bit of experience networking, building up
> contacts and improving interpersonal / employable skills, so they end up
> with better jobs when they enter the workforce, and generate more tax
> dollars for the community...
Look at the economy as a fixed amount of wealth generation. The more
well equiped people go in, the more fierce the competition. Don't get
me wrong, any self respecting parent should help their children go in
better equipped. I love it when my kid pulls off something good that I
didn't. BTW, she was once a liberal, now a independant business owner
and a conservative libertarian. She decided it wasn't going to happen
unless she shook her own ass. How that came about is a long story, but
it did.
> And, of course, you keep jumping back and forth between government and
> private debt -- treating them as if they are one and the same...
Debt is debt. Government debt isn't differnet than you debt, debt is debt.
> Let's say that the government takes out a loan to pay a disability
> pension...
They shouldn't but they in reality already have. So a taxpayer probably
has to pay $2 to get a $1 into your pocket. First, government GA is 25
1/2% Then their is debt from past government sins.
US accounts for social security shortfalls as part of it's national
debt. Canada does not report CCP shortfalls as debt. If Canada did
account the same way, most agree Canada is $1.4 trillion in debt, not
the liberalize feel good bullshit number we get.
> The government borrows a certain amount to pay a disabled person an
> allowance which almost lets him / her live a normal life... The person
> meets a significant other, if one hasn't already been found, and the two tie
> the knot. The non-disabled partner works, paying taxes, partially, if not
> completely off-setting the government's investment in his / her disabled
> partner...
If I had my way, governemnt would not be allowed to borrow moneys ever.
If they need more money, they would have to make special assessments
on their citizens. That is pay now for serives now. Debt just is
enslavement of you children, the people who will pay for that debt.
Borrowing money like that is enslaving your children for a lifetime of
high taxation, or tax slaves if you will. It is selfish not to realise
this. Deny all you want, but it is your attitude that support saddling
your kids with taxes for your debt. God isn't going going to be in denial.
> The couple has kids; the kids grow up, and they get a good education,
> possibly using student loans to pay for their education, which funds, the
> government, of course, borrows and lends to the students at a favourable
> rate...
This is good use of debt, as you have an asset, your better developed
brain. But if I put up a pie chart of student debt against other debt,
you wouldn't even see the line for student debt it is so small.
Governmetn is good at justifying debt and taxes and misappropriating it.
Hey, we need more debt, and then pork it into something else leaving
just enough for public perception to feed their denialism and support it.
> After graduation, the kids have higher paying jobs, and can afford to put
> their kids through a better school, etc, etc...
And if they pay off the debt ASAP, they will benefit. In this case debt
was a trade of sorts. Voluntary debt enslavement to get an education
then pay it off leaving the profit to the borrower. A gambit of sorts,
but used right the student can win big time. As one the debt is paid
off, the student is left with the mind to make profit (more wages).
> In the long run, is the society as a whole better or worse off for the
> government borrowing money to pay for the social services?
Worse. It is a pozi scheme of sorts. Should read, "Mortgaing your
childs future for today!".
> It's not exactly like you or I borrowing to pay for a big-screen TV,
> although it's so nice and simple to trot out that little analogy, RIGHT?
I haven't borrowed money snce 1993. I would rather retain the bank
interest for the benefit of my future and not the banks. And if
diciplined, once ahead of the game it just gets easier, and easier and
easier. Except that the liberal grubs want to now take it from you even
though early on in life you skipped the fancy cars, you skipped the debt
treadmill and were smarter, does not seem to mater to a liberal. They
want your wealth.
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>>> Who's fault is it? Is sure as hell isn't B's fault. It is A's fault
>>> pure and simple so when A envies B's position, it should be ok to say to
>>> A, you debt drunk loser, it is your fault now f'off and get to work as I
>>> retire early.
>>
>> You're very good at giving only part of the story...
>
> No, it was the whole story. While people are denialists, they are more
> the masters of their fuures than they know. Ok, some exceptions exist,
> but 99% of the itme, we as a species like to blame others for our own
> screwups.
Look in the mirror... Read your posts out loud, and listen...
Denying that we could have dones beter for ourselves. It is
> always someone elses fault!
>
Look in the mirror... Read your posts out loud, and listen...
>> You are forgetting, conveniently, that the interest the bank earns is
>> leant again to somebody else who then spends it, as well as paying part
>> of the loan back as interest, so the net result of the scenario is that
>> additional monetary resources are created for the system as a whole...
>> That's not even including the extra profit the merchants earn off of the
>> sales of the on-credit purchases, which are then put back into his
>> business, or spent to satisfy his own personal whims... Assuming, of
>> course he doesn't just put the profit in a vault and let it rot...
>
Doesn't matter, credit is credit...
> Are we talking loans or credit cards? They work differently. Credit card
> are easy to understand, the credit card company gets a percentage of each
> transaction. This way the retailer does not have to count, handle and
> deposit the physical cash. Or take the risks of robbery. They do get a
> service for it. Participation is optional, but most retailers do.
> Imagine Costco, if they were paid 100% in cash by everyone they would have
> to hire armed guards just to watch the cumbersome pile of cash.
Not really...
>
> Bank debt is far more complex, and if far from simple. It starts with a
> deposit. Say say $1000. Now the bank can create leverage to loan it out
> a say 100:1. So the bank can lend out $100,000. Person needs a mortgage,
> they borrow it and owe the bank. The central bank is owed $99,000 for the
> difference.
>
Once again, you are messing up your own scenario... You start by saying
that two ordinary folks who live next door to each other will end up in
different situations, just because one uses credit and one doesnt. But, you
ignore the social implications of credit use within those situations -- you
use a purely mathematical analysis.
Then, when I say that they can benefit, themselves, from using credit, you
immediately jump to the problems bankers face from the way their institution
is structured...
Apples and oranges...
> Now it could be GM, Chrysler welchers, or a home mortgage owner that
> defaults. And say the bank can only recover 1/2, $50,000.
>
> So with the $50,000 they owe the depositor $1000 but can only repay the
> central bank $49,000 of the $99,000 they owe. Which makes the bank,
> bankrupt as it carries net debt it realistically cannot pay.
>
> The higher the leverage, the more at risk the banking is. 10:1 less less
> risk than 20:1 etc.
>
> Why was this allowed to happen is simple as government stupidity an
> greed!!
We always blame others...
>
> If leverage were not allowed, 1:1 on deposts for loans, banks would have
> to attract people to save. They would have to pay a fair interest rate,
> say 7% and loan it out at 10% so thy get 3% for their efforts. I would
> then deposit $100,000 and then they could loan $100,000.
>
But, the system is slowed down; it becomes less able to cope with high
levels of economic activity...
> By allowing the bank to leverage, they require less on depositors for the
> same amount loaned out. This redues interest rates as the need for
> solvant depositors is reduced. Thus cheap easy debt for debt up to your
> eyeballs government and criminally operated business like GM.
>
> It is a ponzi scheme started with the federal banking acts in the early
> 1900's, but Carter and more liberalism into the banking system in the
> 1990's allowed the leverage to rise to avoid higher interest rates.
>
And, let's not forget the high levels of economic activity...
> Higher interest rates is a govenor on debt, removed it allowed people,
> governments to borrow themselves right into the "Greate Government/Debt
> Depression of 2008-20xx".
>
> The prudent thing s to reduce leverage, but doing that will include paying
> people a fair interest rate for their deposits.
>
> Here is the risk we curently have. People have a lot of cash on the
> sidelines, this can be levered by the banks. But as thy withdraw it
> leaves bnks exposed... further economic collapse is pending if this
> debt/savings imbalance isn't addressed as the sideline cash is not
> commited to debt. Similar situations have caused runs on banks in the
> past.
>
It may not be addressed to your satisfaction... hope you don't mind...
> In reality, the government and banks are in bankruptcy. We just don't say
> that as it hurts our feelings and does not feed our needs for denial.
>
Or, maybe they just don't operate the way you want them to...
> At some point this will drive a collapse of the currency and inflation as
> the currency isn't worth a crap if the debts are not paid. And clearly,
> North America is short some $30+ trillion or more of net debt and it is
> growing out of control. I am including civic, state, provncial, federal
> debts.
>
Watch and learn...
> And I believe it is too late this ime to stop it. Unlike 1982, the debt
> today is huge in comparison. And we have already exceeded 1982
> unemplyment with trend indicators showing it going deeper.
>
> Read up on how banks do debt, there are lots of good videos. Look up the
> ones with "fiat currency" and "ponzi debt".
>
It's alright, already have credit in International Political Economy courses
at university level...
> Once you realize how it really works, you will have to agree that
> government and banks are feeding us real bullshit on this mater. Because
> the people do not want to hear the real truth.
Nope, you're just about 100 years behind the times in economic theory... A
normal RightSight problem...
>
>> And, of course, maybe that big screen TV helped the kids to keep up with
>> the bosses kids, so they got a bit of experience networking, building up
>> contacts and improving interpersonal / employable skills, so they end up
>> with better jobs when they enter the workforce, and generate more tax
>> dollars for the community...
>
> Look at the economy as a fixed amount of wealth generation.
That's your problem, the economy is NOT fixed...
The more
> well equiped people go in, the more fierce the competition. Don't get me
> wrong, any self respecting parent should help their children go in better
> equipped. I love it when my kid pulls off something good that I didn't.
> BTW, she was once a liberal, now a independant business owner and a
> conservative libertarian.
You have my condolences...
She decided it wasn't going to happen
> unless she shook her own ass. How that came about is a long story, but it
> did.
>
>> And, of course, you keep jumping back and forth between government and
>> private debt -- treating them as if they are one and the same...
>
> Debt is debt. Government debt isn't differnet than you debt, debt is
> debt.
>
So, credit card debt is different because it is structured simply, the way
you like it...
Banking debt is different because it is structured differently, the way you
don't like it...
But, they are all the same if debt isn't used for what you approve of...
RightThink...
>> Let's say that the government takes out a loan to pay a disability
>> pension...
>
> They shouldn't but they in reality already have. So a taxpayer probably
> has to pay $2 to get a $1 into your pocket. First, government GA is 25
> 1/2% Then their is debt from past government sins.
So, paying disabled people is a sin? Should not be done? Disabled should
die in the streets?
>
> US accounts for social security shortfalls as part of it's national debt.
> Canada does not report CCP shortfalls as debt. If Canada did account the
> same way, most agree Canada is $1.4 trillion in debt, not the liberalize
> feel good bullshit number we get.
>
>> The government borrows a certain amount to pay a disabled person an
>> allowance which almost lets him / her live a normal life... The person
>> meets a significant other, if one hasn't already been found, and the two
>> tie the knot. The non-disabled partner works, paying taxes, partially,
>> if not completely off-setting the government's investment in his / her
>> disabled partner...
>
> If I had my way, governemnt would not be allowed to borrow moneys ever. If
> they need more money, they would have to make special assessments on their
> citizens. That is pay now for serives now. Debt just is enslavement of
> you children, the people who will pay for that debt.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, heard it before...
Glad you don't get your way...
> Borrowing money like that is enslaving your children for a lifetime of
> high taxation, or tax slaves if you will. It is selfish not to realise
> this. Deny all you want, but it is your attitude that support saddling
> your kids with taxes for your debt. God isn't going going to be in
> denial.
So, God's a banker?
What you don't realize is that we look at things differently...
It takes resources to run a community... Business RightOffs don't want to
pay the social costs... They want it all in their bank accounts...
If the business / wealthy sectors would contribute more, without adding
their ideological strings, society MIGHT be able to function closer to the
way you want... But, business / rich are too selfish, so government has to
LEVERAGE resources from those sectors in order to keep societies functioning
smoothly... Debt is the easiest and most efficient way of getting the
leverage...
Society is the better for it...
Ever wonder why the Libs balanced the budget? It's because we were getting
close to the limit... But, not the way you look at the limit...
There is a point where too much debt becomes close to the demon you point it
out to be, but too little turns "prudent" fiscal management into a monster
itself, one with just as nasty social consequences as too much debt...
Running the economy with just enough debt to keep things running smoothly
without straining confidence is the art to master...
The Libs brought the debt problem back in line, and the Cons are now taking
us back up to the limit... It will take the Libs to get things back under
control again...
But, through it all, you just villify debt... continually ignoring the
social roots the whole idea of economics is rooted in... To you, it's all
just math....
That's what makes you such a sad waste of activated carbon...
>
>> The couple has kids; the kids grow up, and they get a good education,
>> possibly using student loans to pay for their education, which funds, the
>> government, of course, borrows and lends to the students at a favourable
>> rate...
>
> This is good use of debt, as you have an asset, your better developed
> brain. But if I put up a pie chart of student debt against other debt,
> you wouldn't even see the line for student debt it is so small.
You're missing my point...
>
> Governmetn is good at justifying debt and taxes and misappropriating it.
> Hey, we need more debt, and then pork it into something else leaving just
> enough for public perception to feed their denialism and support it.
>
Did you have your heart surgically removed and replaced with one of those
mechanical thinggies??
>> After graduation, the kids have higher paying jobs, and can afford to put
>> their kids through a better school, etc, etc...
>
> And if they pay off the debt ASAP, they will benefit. In this case debt
> was a trade of sorts. Voluntary debt enslavement to get an education then
> pay it off leaving the profit to the borrower. A gambit of sorts, but
> used right the student can win big time. As one the debt is paid off, the
> student is left with the mind to make profit (more wages).
You're missing the social side, again...
Did anybody ever tell you that economics is the "art of managing a
household"? That means more than just money and math; it means social and
interpersonal skills.. -- building trust and relationships.
>
>> In the long run, is the society as a whole better or worse off for the
>> government borrowing money to pay for the social services?
>
> Worse. It is a pozi scheme of sorts. Should read, "Mortgaing your childs
> future for today!".
>
Already have... It presents one side of the story, but ignores too many
other factors...
>> It's not exactly like you or I borrowing to pay for a big-screen TV,
>> although it's so nice and simple to trot out that little analogy, RIGHT?
>
> I haven't borrowed money snce 1993. I would rather retain the bank
> interest for the benefit of my future and not the banks. And if
> diciplined, once ahead of the game it just gets easier, and easier and
> easier. Except that the liberal grubs want to now take it from you even
> though early on in life you skipped the fancy cars, you skipped the debt
> treadmill and were smarter, does not seem to mater to a liberal. They
> want your wealth.
They want the WHOLE community to have a good life...
Liberals want to help; Cons want to punish...
Liberals think; Cons react...
Liberals manage; Cons control...
Liberals suggest; Cons dictate...
Liberals innovate; Cons entrench...
Liberals nurture; Cons exploit...
Take Care,
Dudley
Canuck57
I could, but I am not a math tracher. But will atempt a simplified
view. The detailed view you would have to understand arithmetric
prgressions as loans and progresive savings are based on it.
In a nutshell and a simplified view, each time you borrow money to add
to existing debt, it becomes increasingly hard to pay off. That is, a
person $20,000 in debt is going to find it much harder than twice the
effort to pay it off than the $10,000 debtor. Debt is not linear. The
further in the hole you go, the less likely you will ever get out. Debt
is a mortage on your future. The more the debt, the longer the bank
gets income from you.
Global bullshit. Adolph has Germans thinking they could rule the world.
It isn't the first time a mass of people heads down the garden path to
hell.
I didn't say no spending, I said live inside your means. The selfish
bastards supporting debt are myopic, self serving and full of dilusional
behavior. As I said, "Government debt is mortgaging our childrens
future for todays selfish bastards."
Canuck57
I have a susinct feeling I am getting no where in getting some sense
into you.
Dudley Hanks
In order to get rid of public debt, you have to address the causes of it,
not just the math...
And, no, it's not just selfishness... way to simple an outlook...
But, you excel at simple...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> I have a susinct feeling I am getting no where in getting some sense into
> you.
Nope, I'm just not buying that RIGHTeousRheteric...
I place more emphasis in people than math...
Take Care,
Dudley
klunk
> pay the social costs... They want it all in their bank accounts...
the saddest part of the irony in such an attitude is the lack of realization
that not paying "social costs" (ie: investing in social improvements)
actually costs society more in the long run...
klunk
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MwlNm.39705$%j4.1...@newsfe18.iad...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> I have a susinct feeling I am getting no where in getting some sense into
> you.
lol.... actually... you're only proving yourself impervious to
well-articulated reason.... ;-)
Canuck57
No big deal. Had a good day on the market. When the USD and CAD fall
that will create hyper-inflation, remember there are those of us who
trust that the government will do the right thing for them, and not the
right thing for us. I sincerely hope you do well.
Canuck57
I laugh at you. The hammer is coming and you can't see it coming. LMAO.
Canuck57
Agreed.
> And, no, it's not just selfishness... way to simple an outlook...
>
> But, you excel at simple...
But only a dumbshit thinks they can spend their way out of debt.
klunk
"Canuck57" <Canu...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:qwmNm.17254$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
sure... you go ahead and continue to tell yourself that all the way to your
deathbed and then you can die laughing that I still can't see the hammer as
it continues to come down.... lol... how unfortunately sad it is for you
that your retort only demonstrates how inured you are to the truth in my
post... ;-)
Dudley Hanks
"klunk" <kl...@theothershoo.org> wrote in message
news:P2mNm.17248$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
I pity you...
Your outdated ideology is in for a big shakeup...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
If he had a conscience, he wouldn't be laughing, even if he was right....
But, Cons don't have a shred of conscience, that's why they try to justify
exploitation with hardhearted axioms they hope everyone else will accept as
the gospel truth...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
It's just too bad you can't see the difference between public vs. private
spending... There's a world of difference between drawing up a corporate
budget and drawing up one for a government...
Take Care,
Dudley
Roy
> "Canuck57" <Canuc...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:CxmNm.17255$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dudley Hanks wrote:
> >>news:oulNm.39703$%j4....@newsfe18.iad...
> >>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
==
Well, in Alberta our PC government TRIES to run its various dept's as
if they were businesses. Needless to say they screw up royally when it
comes to the Education and Health dept's. They set unrealistic levels
and unattainable objectives in their budgets and then blame the
consumer (the public) for department deficits. Its the same old song
and dance, year after year. Talks and squawks of cut-backs and user
pay, early retirements and decreased service. Oh, how they would love
to "privatize" everything and get out of the business of governimg.
Just to grab the pay and bonuses and blow as much money as possible
untill the next session rolls around would be their ideal way of
governing.
==
klunk
"Roy" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53d20cd1-031d-4fb5...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
I'd say the misconception that government = business is one of the worst and
most dangerous misconceptions that reichtoids have cultivated because the
correlation between administration for government and for business is
superficial at best... it is entirely misleading and creates dangerously
long-term and far-reaching negative consequences for any failures to meet
expectations...
for example, the criticisms levelled at obama's role as a community
developer being insufficient experience was a rather sad one because the
role of government actually IS community development... government isn't in
the business of developing strategies for increasing bottom-line profits,
but it does have the responsibility to cultivate healthy communities which
can result in remarkably unpredictable accomplishments... if anything,
government's lesser acknowledged but more important roles are to empower,
enable and facilitate in addition to the more well-recognized roles of
regulation, legislation and the provision of basic services and
infrastructures...
Pete
Shit. Bush invested over $580 billion on infrastructure. He tossed $550
Billion away on ?The drug plan�. He spent $600 billion on farm subsidies.
Per Year!
Then, before he left office last year? He blew $1 trillion on Wall St.
So fuck the assholes who criticize Obama.
Roy
> "Roy" <wila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many business people can't differentiate between public service and
"self-service" which in most cases are mutually exclusive. Its a mind-
set that is hard to shake.
==
gordo
wrote:
It is the same thing in BC with the Gordon Campbell liberal
neo-conservative govt. They have no business calling themselves
liberal and the Alberta neo conservatives and BC liberals are clones.
klunk
"Pete" <pete...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.257126846...@News.Individual.NET...
that's another difference reichtoids don't comprehend... the one between
pissing away money on cultivating material riches within their incestuous
cabal and investing in the long-term good of the country and all its
people...
klunk
"Roy" <wil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1414c0d-08cd-49e4...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
ya... the exchanges between anti-canuck and dudley are a good example of how
entrenched some people can be within their idiotologies... and how
impervious they are to objective reasoning...
Pete
> >
> > Shit. Bush invested over $580 billion on infrastructure. He tossed $550
>
> that's another difference reichtoids don't comprehend... the one between
> pissing away money on cultivating material riches within their incestuous
> cabal and investing in the long-term good of the country and all its
> people...
>
>
When I went to U of T, Professor Herbert Marshall McLuhan was one of the ones.
And when I studied economics, John K. Galbraith was known.
When dad became a Professional Engineer following WW2? He was a major twit.
But that will not stop me from preventing my daughter from being up there.
Kids? Who can complain!
I just don?t like lies. It intrudes on the debate.
Pete
> It's just too bad you can't see the difference between public vs. private
> spending... There's a world of difference between drawing up a corporate
> budget and drawing up one for a government...
>
Don?t blame me. I Voted for McCain and Palin.
Canuck57
>> But only a dumbshit thinks they can spend their way out of debt.
>
> It's just too bad you can't see the difference between public vs. private
> spending... There's a world of difference between drawing up a corporate
> budget and drawing up one for a government...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Nope, just that government thinks it is above the laws of economics.
And it isn't.
Eventually it will collapse like Iceland, but will actually be worse
because if its size.
Did you know re-openings of Ontario and BC bonds in the last few weeks
didn't fill and they are running out of cash to pay he bills? And that
our local economy is inclreasng going underground?
Canuck57
Not from what I hear. Sounds like a cluster f'ck from what people tell
me. #1 cause is far too much management and not enough work.
Politicians and management knee jerks hourly.
Roy
>
> - Show quoted text -
When your esteemed drunken bum Premier Ralph was in power he regarded
the Legislative Assembly as a waste of time and would have been just
as happy to just legislate by "Orders in Council". The whole "work" of
government was so onerous on his shoulders. People like that should
not be elected
==
Dudley Hanks
> and most dangerous misconceptions that reichtoids have cultivated because
> the correlation between administration for government and for business is
> superficial at best... it is entirely misleading and creates dangerously
> long-term and far-reaching negative consequences for any failures to meet
> expectations...
>
> for example, the criticisms levelled at obama's role as a community
> developer being insufficient experience was a rather sad one because the
> role of government actually IS community development... government isn't
> in the business of developing strategies for increasing bottom-line
> profits, but it does have the responsibility to cultivate healthy
> communities which can result in remarkably unpredictable
> accomplishments... if anything, government's lesser acknowledged but more
> important roles are to empower, enable and facilitate in addition to the
> more well-recognized roles of regulation, legislation and the provision of
> basic services and infrastructures...
>
>
>
Well said...
To understand what happens when government focuses too strictly on business,
read Dickens...
I like the Liberal ideal of, in addition to the basic traditional services,
the role of government is to nurture an environment within which all have
equal opportunities...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>>> But only a dumbshit thinks they can spend their way out of debt.
I'm not so sure that's been proven...
> > It's just too bad you can't see the difference between public vs.
> > private spending... There's a world of difference between drawing up a
> > corporate budget and drawing up one for a government...
>>
> Nope, just that government thinks it is above the laws of economics. And
> it isn't.
>
> Eventually it will collapse like Iceland, but will actually be worse
> because if its size.
>
> Did you know re-openings of Ontario and BC bonds in the last few weeks
> didn't fill and they are running out of cash to pay he bills? And that
> our local economy is inclreasng going underground?
No difference?
I guess, if you want to abdicate any and all social responsibility on the
part of government, there would only be a minimal difference.
But, if that approach is sooo good, why have so many Con ggovs tried it and
changed course?
Reagan thought it would work; he changed his mind. Mulroney thought it was
a great idea; he couldn't shake the social ill affects... Thatcher was the
Iron Lady, and she couldn't get it to work either...
There are no such things as "economic laws," only axioms and theories.
As for the bond issues going unfulfilled, it's not the first time, won't be
the last. RightOff financers tend to withhold resources when they want to
prove a point...
But, those financers are the first ones to complain bitterly that we need
stricter anti-union legislation...
It is my interpretation of the Ontario issue that the low interest rate
Ontario offered is a large part of the reason the issue didn't completely
sell. But, Knuck, I thought you'd like that... After all, it is Ontario's
attempt to take advantage of the economic environment and get some low buck
financing to offset some of the high interest rates it's had to accept over
the last five or ten years from those same cut-throat financers...
Take Care,
Dudley