Dow shooting for 1,400
Jerry Kraus
we are clearly in a very similar situation today. This has, of
course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
disappear. There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
doing now. This is not a good time to be rich. You are about to
become poor.
darkst...@gmail.com
Mass social unrest and suicides are an inevitability now. It's just
what is the final step that sends everybody jumping...
It's all over. America, and the civilized world, are finished as
constructed and governed.
Mike
serebel
opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
Jerry Kraus
Make all the money you want. It isn't worth anything.
By the way, I don't think civilization is about to end. Just global
Capitalism. For a while, anyway.
Rod Speed
> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their
> value, and we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
Nope, quite different actually. In spades with the govts now having
enough of a clue to at least attempt to prevent another great depression.
> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
And we'll see if it actually happens yet.
> There is no tangible product of substance to back
> up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> There will be no safe havens.
Wrong, as always.
> Not the banks. Not real estate. Not the stock market. Not cash.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the
> economic system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are doing now.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> This is not a good time to be rich.
Its an even worse time to have a minimum wage job and be renting, your job may not be around for long
and there wont be too many that will be happy to let you stay when you cant pay the rent, you watch.
> You are about to become poor.
Plenty of the rich didnt do that in the great depression.
Jerry Kraus
My predictions come true, Rod. Yours don't.
serebel
> On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, serebel <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
> Make all the money you want. It isn't worth anything.
Next time you're offered a raise, tell 'em to keep it, it's not worth
anything.
>
> By the way, I don't think civilization is about to end. Just global
> Capitalism. For a while, anyway.
Another reason I'll make money from this and you won't.
John Galt
Well, yea. I'm reviewing some numbers now, and I've never seen so many
single-digit PE's. (That's not a buy sign until 3Q earnings are
reported, but when earnings start to turn up.....)
JG
Jerry Kraus
Hard to sustain earnings without credit, don't you think?
And this credit crunch is world-wide.
Rod Speed
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
That didnt even happen during the great depression.
John Galt
Yes, but certainly not impossible. In the 90's, we used to call it
"bootstrapping", to refer to a dot-com building it's own business
without venture capital. It's a much longer process, but very doable,
and in many ways, more satisfying.
JG
Rod Speed
>> Wrong, as always.
Nope, not once. Ever.
> Yours don't.
You're lying now.
Fish
the belly of a country defined the wealth of a nation, that is, the
middle and working classes are very important. If the core problems of
current financial maladies won't be resolved - foreclosures, jobs lost
and cost of living - to save the pyramid's top heavy, the whole
economy is unbalance and its hopeful forecasts are irrelevant.
Vid...@tcq.net
it was a great buying opportunity after the crash of 1929, then again
in 1930, then again in 1931, and 32. but, they bought high, and were
forced into buying low. if the real economy is stabilized, and the
real underlying problems are solved, then you get a true snap back
like what happened after FDR came to power.
if you believe in the silly free market, that has no idea what the
real problems that are underlying the american economy, then go for
it. buy, buy, buy.
Vid...@tcq.net
correct, its the demand side, plain and simple. american workers make
to little earned income, and are way to deep into debt.
Stray Dog
The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/ms
g00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -
After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.
Rod is believed to be from Australia.
Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?
It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.
But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?
Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.
But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?
Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.
What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?
Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, wanker, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.
But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?
It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"
What is a "RodBot"?
Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.
Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?
You got it!
What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?
KillFile!
.
Stray Dog
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.philosophy
> Subject: Dow shooting for 1,400
>
> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
Since everyone else has jumped in with their opinion, I will offer my two
cents. Yes, we are, today, in a situation similar to that before the Great
Depression. According to Charles Kindleberger, in his book "World in
Depression" (I read it cover to cover, and he is not only a respected
economist but one who is easy to read, too), the Great Depression was
world-wide and the whole world was headed into a depression _before_ the
US '29 crash. Lots of people don't know this.
This has, of
> course, been predicted for years.
It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of warnings
about derivatives but I would blame the too easy credit, herd instinct in
the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was speculative), and crook loan
processes (sub-prime, killer fine print, deceptive marketing) as major
factors in the present decline.
There is no tangible product of
> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> loans.
Real estate and tangibles are part of physical reality; the only unknown
is how they will be priced in the near future.
This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> disappear.
People are all warm-fuzzy when prices for houses go up as fast or faster
than inflation (etc), but, yes, there is going to be a ton of people, in
the near future, who are going to experience that sinking feeling.
> There will be no safe havens.
People will need a roof over their heads, food, bathroom, TV or radio
while they are unemployed.
> Not the banks.
Any banking system that depends on fractional reserve banking will be very
vulnerable to bank runs (above some threshold, they become insolvent). If
the claims exceed the capacity of the Fed to force mergers with stronger
banks, or the claims eat up the FDIC boodle fund (another bailout), then
yes the banks are not safe.
> Not real
> estate.
The worst that can happen is a house burns down and there is no insurance.
If you can pay the taxes, then you can live, at least in a tent, on your
land. The alternative is under the bridge. You may have competition there
for space.
> Not the stock market.
If the company can survive, then buying cheap stock (pennies per share)
and holding it until the economy recovers might make you rich (dollars
per share).
> Not cash.
I'll bet that if you have that paper with the green ink on it, then you
will definitely be able to walk down to the local Mcdonalds and get a
burger with fries so you can eat to live.
> Nothing will be able to
> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> doing now.
The present situation (and its trend) is looking to become as bad as the
Great Depression (economies all over the world are going to hell or soon
will be). However, all of the history books and all of the economic
history books describe for the last 300-500 years periods of economic
depression and wherever there was a depression, the economy, sooner or
later, did come out of the depression.
> This is not a good time to be rich.
There are a lot of books on the Great Depression. The people who were hurt
the most were those who lost their jobs and could not find another job.
Unemployment was like 30%, depending on who you talked to, and the other
70% were, therefore, employed and spending as little as possible. Not
everyone will starve.
> You are about to
> become poor.
The people who have little or no money and who will become long term
unemployed soon are the ones who will suffer greatly. The ones who have
shakey jobs need to figure out what they will do if they lose their jobs.
The ones with good resources (eg. retirement resources) may not need to
worry quite as much unless things go so badly to hell that social security
checks become reduced, pension funds can't meet obligations, interest on
deposit accounts goes down or interest payments (or even principle) is
threatened. Or, other bad things happen (eg. civil disorder).
In which case you may need to figure out how to get chlorophyl into your
skin so you can photosynthesize your food from sunlight, or learn to chase
squirrels so you can catch them for evening dinner. Etc.
You could also pray for a miracle to happen in the near future. Otherwise,
I have a bad feeling about the near future.
John J
> It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of warnings
> about derivatives but I would blame the too easy credit, herd instinct
> in the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was speculative), and crook
> loan processes (sub-prime, killer fine print, deceptive marketing) as
> major factors in the present decline.
What part of the 1 Trillion do the defaulted home loans represent?
IMHO the machinations with derivatives caused the bubble to pop because
they all knew they were thieves and lost confidence in their collective
theft.
Les Cargill
> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
That's really not been shown.
> This has, of
> course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> disappear.
Certainly by what lights? 5% of relatively recent mortgages are
bad. That's not enough to suck the whole economy down a black hole,
excessive leverage or not.
> There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
> estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> system by printing money with no real tangible value,
Value is a perception, not a tangible thing.
> as they are
> doing now. This is not a good time to be rich. You are about to
> become poor.
>
>
>
It's not gonna be good, but it's not the end of the
world.
--
Les Cargill
Vid...@tcq.net
this is the best i have ever seen on the lead up to the depression,
and what happened during the depression.
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION:
This page features two timelines:
the first for general events of the Roaring 20s and the Great
Depression, the second for leading economic indicators.
The
importance of these timelines cannot be emphasized enough. Seeing the
order in which events actually occurred dispels many myths about the
Great Depression. One of the greatest of these myths is that
government intervention was responsible for its onset. Truly massive
intervention began only under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in
1933, who was sworn in after the worst had already hit. Although his
New Deal did not cure it, all the leading economic indicators improved
on his watch.
But don't take my word for it -- here is the raw
data:
TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS
1920s (Decade)
• During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than
tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the
budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy
invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will
see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors
of the economy.
• An average of 600 banks fail each year.
• Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually
depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually
decline.
• The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.
• Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine
Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to
75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1
million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.
• "Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as
many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-
automatic machinery.
• Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than
6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations
will control over half of all American industry.
• By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-
earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the
rich will fall throughout the decade.
• By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's
wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop
in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.
• The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.
• Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from
1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the
number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156
to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other
decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.
1922
• The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor
legislation.
1923
• President Warren Harding dies in office; his administration was
easily one of the most corrupt in American history. Calvin Coolidge,
who is squeaky clean by comparison, becomes president. Coolidge is no
less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government.
He announces to the American people: "The business of America is
business."
• Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of
Columbia.
1924
• The Ku Klux Klan reaches the height of its influence in America: by
the end of the year it will claim 9 million members. It will decline
drastically in 1925, however, after financial and moral scandals rock
its leadership.
• The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation
to the rest of the economy.
1925
• The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in
the eight decades since World War I.
• Supreme Court rules that trade organizations do not violate anti-
trust laws as long as some competition survives.
1928
• The construction boom is over.
• Farmers' share of the national income has dropped from 15 to 9
percent since 1920.
• Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks
will rise 40 percent. Trading will mushroom from 2-3 million shares
per day to over 5 million. The boom is largely artificial.
1929
• Herbert Hoover becomes President. Hoover is a staunch individualist
but not as committed to laissez-faire ideology as Coolidge.
• More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum
subsistence level.
• Annual per-capita income is $750; for farm people, it is only $273.
• Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the
year before. Public consumption markedly down.
• Freight carloads and manufacturing fall.
• Automobile sales decline by a third in the nine months before the
crash.
• Construction down $2 billion since 1926.
• Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market
crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an
annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and
personal income at 5 percent.
• Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29
"Black Tuesday." Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an
astronomical sum in those days.
• Congress passes Agricultural Marketing Act to support farmers until
they can get back on their feet.
1930
• By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate
from 6 to 4 percent. Expands the money supply with a major purchase of
U.S. securities. However, for the next year and a half, the Fed will
add very little money to the shrinking economy. (At no time will it
actually pull money out of the system.) Treasury Secretary Andrew
Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself
out: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate… values
will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from
less-competent people." (More)
• The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming
only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an
effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is
compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer
investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus
of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution
to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe. (More)
• The first bank panic occurs later this year; a public run on banks
results in a wave of bankruptcies. Bank failures and deposit losses
are responsible for the contracting money supply.
• Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate
anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how
negligible.
• Democrats gain in Congressional elections, but still do not have a
majority.
• The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment
rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
• No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
• A second banking panic occurs in the spring.
• The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9
percent.
1932
• This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression.
For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6
percent.
• Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.
• 10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929
total.
• About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.
• Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.
• GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
• Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
• Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3
of one billion since 1929.
• Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.
• International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.
• The Fed makes its first major expansion of the money supply since
February 1930.
• Congress creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (More)
• Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-
Steagall Act of 1932. (More)
• Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
• Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late.
Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election.
Democrats win control of Congress.
• At his Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt says: "I
pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."
1933
• Roosevelt inaugurated; begins "First 100 Days" of intensive
legislative activity. (More)
• A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank
Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.
• Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to
the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and
J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup
and install a fascist government. The businessmen try to recruit
General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited
financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled
when Butler reports it to Congress. (More)
• Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration,
the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(More)
• Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act
of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and
the Truth-in-Securities Act. (More)
• U.S. goes off the gold standard.
• Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the
poor, but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes'
advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
• The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1
percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1934
• Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications
Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and
Exchange Commission. (More)
• Congress passes the Securities and Exchange Act and the Trade
Agreement Act. (More)
• The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment
falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.
• Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending.
(More)
1935
• The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration to
be unconstitutional.
• Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration,
the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification
Administration. (More)
• Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social
Security Act. (More)
• Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and
unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.
1936
• The Supreme Court declares part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act
to be unconstitutional.
• In response, Congress passes the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act. (More)
• Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
• Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent;
unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
• Germany becomes the second nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression, through heavy deficit spending in preparation for war.
1937
• The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be
unconstitutional.
• Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme
Court. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
• Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government
spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an
unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation
plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0
percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
1938
• Congress passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the
Fair Labor Standards Act. (More)
• No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to
Roosevelt's weakened political power.
• The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5
percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
• Britain becomes the third nation to recover as it begins deficit
spending in preparation for war.
1939
• GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.
• The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it
borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to
1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will
have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
• The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the
coming hostilities.
• World War II starts with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
1945
• Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the
United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit
spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the size of the
GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion national debt will be
only 70 percent of the GDP!
• The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent
until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time,
America will experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known.
ECONOMIC TIMELINE
The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the
Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on
economic growth:
Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product
Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic
Product
GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product
Unemp.: Unemployment rate
Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great
Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins;
contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7
As you can see, Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending
that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some
astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent
during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent
growth during his so-called "Seven Fat Years!") When 1936 saw a
phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the
deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this
only caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above
chart shows.
I have been unable to find reliable economic growth
figures from World War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say
the economy exploded, experiencing it’s greatest growth in U.S.
history. Between 1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from
$832 billion to $1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this
occurred as deficit spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and
unsuccessfully recommended to Roosevelt.
Next Section: Summary
Return
to The Great Depression Homepage
Sources:
T.H. Watkins, The Great
Depression: America in the 1930s (New York: Little, Brown and Company,
1993)
Kevin Phillips, Boiling Point (New York: HarperCollins, 1993)
Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House,
1990)
The 1995 Grolier Encyclopedia (Entries: New Deal, Depression of
the 30s, Roosevelt, Coolidge.)
The Encyclopedia Brittanica Online
(Entries: New Deal, Great Depression.)
Donald Barlett and James
Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel,
1992)
Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who Really Pays the
Taxes? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994)
James MacGregor Fox,
Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York: Konecky and Konecky, 1956)
Elaine Schwartz, Econ 101½ (New York: Avon Books, 1995)
Peter Pugh
and Chris Garratt, Introducing Keynes (Cambridge, England: Icon Books,
Ltd., 1993)
Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W. Norton
and Company, 1994)
Online sources:
History lecture notes:
http://www.marshall.edu/history/mccarthy/hst331/lecture/greatdep.1
Gary H. Stern (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis),
"Achieving Economic Stability: Lessons From the Crash of 1929," 1987
Annual Report Essay, http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/pubs/ar/ar1987.html
Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Tables 1.2 and 10.1,
http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html
Uncle_vito
Vito
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e965cc55-eded-4101...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Uncle_vito
Sounds like BH. Must love to see his posts. Probably gets off on it. Too
bad for his live in girlfriend. Why won't she marry you BH. She lose her
welfare check?
Vito
"Stray Dog" <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.08...@sdf.lonestar.org...
darkst...@gmail.com
> Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their
> > value, and we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
>
> Nope, quite different actually. In spades with the govts now having
> enough of a clue to at least attempt to prevent another great depression.
You're on drugs, you sorry-assed motherfucker.
The governments have been openly complicit in this!! The only two
ways you can prevent another Great Depression are, and listen closely,
moron:
1) Raise taxes.
or
2) Lower the population to that which the infrastructure can support.
And you can't wait another generation to do it. You have to do it
_NOW_.
If you don't, you get what we have now -- a completely unsustainable
bubble based on institutional and personal credit which _WILL RESULT_
in mass civil unrest when The Shit Hits The Fan.
> > This has, of course, been predicted for years.
>
> And we'll see if it actually happens yet.
What would convince you, moron? A bullet between the eyes by an
Australian who has lost everything and doesn't care anymore? That
would be about a correct assessment for neo-cons like you.
> > There is no tangible product of substance to back
> > up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
You're right.
It's HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS.
The amount of these outstanding loans and bad loans and derivative
bets exceeds the ENTIRE NET WORTH OF THE _PLANET_ by AN ORDER OF
MAGNITUDE!!!!
(And another 5X -- we're talking 15-1 against the entire net worth of
the planet!)
That's why I don't think this market has a bottom, because NOTHING in
it has ANY value whatsoever.
> > This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
He's right. See above. How do you deal with a "wealth" system which
has created "wealth" 15X the entire net worth of the planet? I want
to hear this one...
> > There will be no safe havens.
>
> Wrong, as always.
There, you probably are right. But whatever safe havens there will be
will have a lot of blood near them, because a lot of blood is going to
have to be spilled to keep those "havens" "safe".
The only real prayer you have, as a neo-pig, is to get armed and
prepare to kill. Otherwise, you're a goner - and it won't matter what
country you live in, either.
> > Not the banks. Not real estate. Not the stock market. Not cash.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Nope. The banks are insolvent. All of them. ALL OF THEM.
Real Estate is multiple times its real value, and, when TSHTF, rioting
will take care of what little value much of it has left. Only guns
will retain whatever value remains.
Stock Market?? Please. You're already seeing that manifest. Most
major stock markets are down ~20% IN A MONTH.
Cash? For now, that's best, but what happens when the cash isn't
worth anything anymore?
> > Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the
> > economic system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are doing now.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
To give anything real value, the price of everything would have to go
up about 1500% -- tonight.
> > This is not a good time to be rich.
>
> Its an even worse time to have a minimum wage job and be renting, your job may not be around for long
> and there wont be too many that will be happy to let you stay when you cant pay the rent, you watch.
I think a lot of people better understand how to survive on the
streets -- otherwise, their bodies will be littering same, very damned
soon.
> > You are about to become poor.
>
> Plenty of the rich didnt do that in the great depression.
That's because the "rich" had _something_ in the Great Depression.
The "rich", this time, probably don't.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, serebel <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
> Make all the money you want. It isn't worth anything.
Yep.
> By the way, I don't think civilization is about to end. Just global
> Capitalism. For a while, anyway.
No -- I think, in many areas, the concept of civilization will be
gone, at least for a decent while. There will be a great purge in
three phases: 1) Riot. 2) Backlash. 3) Slavery.
Mike
Econotron
news:e965cc55-eded-4101...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
industry, technology, and knowledge will still hold value. So, if Dow is
$1400, the $ is worth a lot, and if the $ is worthless, then the Dow is
priceless (in $$, of course). You can not have both.
e.
Steve Campbell
> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> we are clearly in a very similar situation today. This has, of
> course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> disappear. There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
> estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> doing now. This is not a good time to be rich. You are about to
> become poor.
There's nothing to fear but fear itself.
Go ahead, bet against the free market. Next year you can complain
bitterly about the widening gap between you and the wealthy investors
who have faith in the ability of people to captain their own destinies.
Rod Speed
Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> desperately attempted to bullshit
its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Rod Speed
>>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their
>>> value, and we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
>> Nope, quite different actually. In spades with the govts now having enough
>> of a clue to at least attempt to prevent another great depression.
> You're on drugs, you sorry-assed motherfucker.
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> The governments have been openly complicit in this!!
Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim!!!!
> The only two ways you can prevent another Great Depression are, and listen closely, moron:
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> 1) Raise taxes.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
That would make one even more likely.
> or
> 2) Lower the population to that which the infrastructure can support.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Its got nothing to do with the population at all.
> And you can't wait another generation to do it. You have to do it _NOW_.
OK, do the decent thing and hang yourself.
> If you don't, you get what we have now -- a completely unsustainable
> bubble based on institutional and personal credit which _WILL RESULT_
> in mass civil unrest when The Shit Hits The Fan.
How odd that we didnt see anything like that during the great depression.
>>> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
>> And we'll see if it actually happens yet.
> What would convince you, moron?
Another great depression, child.
> A bullet between the eyes by an Australian who
> has lost everything and doesn't care anymore?
We didnt even see that during the great depression, child.
> That would be about a correct assessment for neo-cons like you.
You wouldnt know what a real neocon was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
We dont even have any of those here, child.
>>> There is no tangible product of substance to back
>>> up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> You're right.
> It's HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> The amount of these outstanding loans and bad loans and derivative bets exceeds
> the ENTIRE NET WORTH OF THE _PLANET_ by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE!!!!
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> (And another 5X -- we're talking 15-1 against the entire net worth of the planet!)
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> That's why I don't think this market has a bottom, because NOTHING in it has ANY value whatsoever.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> He's right.
Nope.
> See above.
Completely useless, as always with your mindless drug crazed rabid raving.
> How do you deal with a "wealth" system which has
> created "wealth" 15X the entire net worth of the planet?
Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> I want to hear this one...
Well you cant, you've shrieked yourself completely deaf, child.
>>> There will be no safe havens.
>> Wrong, as always.
> There, you probably are right.
No probably about it, child.
> But whatever safe havens there will be will have a lot of blood near them, because
> a lot of blood is going to have to be spilled to keep those "havens" "safe".
Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
> The only real prayer you have, as a neo-pig, is to get armed and prepare to kill.
> Otherwise, you're a goner - and it won't matter what country you live in, either.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
>>> Not the banks. Not real estate. Not the stock market. Not cash.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Nope.
Yep.
> The banks are insolvent. All of them. ALL OF THEM.
Not one of ours are, child. Not one has even had to be bailed out, child.
> Real Estate is multiple times its real value, and, when TSHTF,
> rioting will take care of what little value much of it has left.
> Only guns will retain whatever value remains.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
> Stock Market?? Please. You're already seeing that manifest.
> Most major stock markets are down ~20% IN A MONTH.
After a runup of a lot more than that, child.
> Cash? For now, that's best, but what happens when the cash isn't worth anything anymore?
Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
>>> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble
>>> to maintain the economic system by printing money with no real
>>> tangible value, as they are doing now.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> To give anything real value, the price of everything would have to go up about 1500% -- tonight.
Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
>>> This is not a good time to be rich.
>> Its an even worse time to have a minimum wage job and be renting, your job may not be around for long
>> and there wont be too many that will be happy to let you stay when you cant pay the rent, you watch.
> I think a lot of people better understand how to survive on the streets
> -- otherwise, their bodies will be littering same, very damned soon.
Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
>>> You are about to become poor.
>> Plenty of the rich didnt do that in the great depression.
> That's because the "rich" had _something_ in the Great Depression.
> The "rich", this time, probably don't.
Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
You wont be seeing Gates or Buffet out on the streets child, you watch.
Vid...@tcq.net
wrote:
the libertarians and the conservatives in power will no longer let us
bet against the free market. they took away shorting stocks. plus,
they have thrown 2-3 trillion dollars or more at the libertarian/
conservative free market warriors, the self reliant, self responsible,
rugged individuals, born with a silver spoon in their mouths as they
pull themselves up by their own bootstraps with tax payer dollars,
hogging at the troughs of tax payer money.
so the system for the moment is rigged for the free market. yet, its
still faltering. so to me that means the free market is way over
valued, and has a long way to go down yet.
if it falls to low, it may take 69 years to get your principle, plus
gains back. as id did after 1929 for investors who got into the market
before the crash of 1929.
Rod Speed
> Jerry Kraus wrote
>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and we are clearly in a very similar situation
>> today.
> Since everyone else has jumped in with their opinion, I will offer my
> two cents. Yes, we are, today, in a situation similar to that before
> the Great Depression. According to Charles Kindleberger, in his book
> "World in Depression" (I read it cover to cover, and he is not only a
> respected economist but one who is easy to read, too), the Great
> Depression was world-wide
No it wasnt. Some countrys like the USSR werent affected at all.
> and the whole world was headed into a depression _before_ the US '29 crash.
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Lots of people don't know this.
>> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
> It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of warnings about derivatives but I would blame the too
> easy credit, herd instinct in the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was speculative),
Another number straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> and crook loan processes (sub-prime, killer fine print, deceptive marketing) as major factors in the present decline.
>> There is no tangible product of substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
> Real estate and tangibles are part of physical reality; the only unknown is how they will be priced in the near
> future.
And we didnt see huge reductions in value during the great depression.
All we saw is the number of transactions drop very substantially.
>> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
> People are all warm-fuzzy when prices for houses go up as fast or
> faster than inflation (etc), but, yes, there is going to be a ton of people, in the near future, who are going to
> experience that sinking feeling.
But wont necessarily see the value of the property return to what it was even just 15 years ago.
>> There will be no safe havens.
> People will need a roof over their heads, food, bathroom, TV or radio while they are unemployed.
Quite a few who are renting may well have to do without when their jobs disappear.
>> Not the banks.
> Any banking system that depends on fractional reserve banking will be very vulnerable to bank runs
You dont necessarily get bank runs when you have an FDIC, thats the whole point of it.
> (above some threshold, they become insolvent).
But can be bailed out.
> If the claims exceed the capacity of the Fed to force mergers with stronger banks, or the claims eat up the FDIC
> boodle fund (another bailout), then yes the banks are not safe.
You never see everyone taking all their money out of the banks so you see the FDIC out of money.
>> Not real estate.
> The worst that can happen is a house burns down and there is no insurance. If you can pay the taxes, then you can
> live, at least in a tent, on your land.
Depends on the jurisdiction.
> The alternative is under the bridge. You may have competition there for space.
You dont need a bridge.
>> Not the stock market.
> If the company can survive, then buying cheap stock (pennies per share) and holding it until the economy recovers
> might make you rich (dollars per share).
>> Not cash.
> I'll bet that if you have that paper with the green ink on it, then
> you will definitely be able to walk down to the local Mcdonalds and get a burger with fries so you can eat to live.
Yep.
>> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic system by printing money
>> with no real tangible value, as they are doing now.
> The present situation (and its trend) is looking to become as bad as the Great Depression
Only if you dont have a clue about what turned the wall st crash into the great depression.
> (economies all over the world are going to hell or soon will be).
The US economy hasnt even seen a quarter of negative growth yet.
> However, all of the history books and all of the economic history books describe for the last 300-500 years periods of
> economic depression and wherever there was a depression, the economy,
> sooner or later, did come out of the depression.
Yep.
>> This is not a good time to be rich.
> There are a lot of books on the Great Depression. The people who were hurt the most were those who lost their jobs and
> could not find another job.
And who couldnt just carry on without one.
And they had nothing like modern welfare.
> Unemployment was like 30%, depending on who you talked to, and the other 70% were, therefore, employed and spending as
> little as possible. Not everyone will starve.
No one will starve if we do end up with another great depression.
We wont even see the elimination of obesity either.
>> You are about to become poor.
> The people who have little or no money and who will become long term unemployed soon are the ones who will suffer
> greatly.
Nope, because we have decent welfare systems now.
> The ones who have shakey jobs need to figure out what they will do if they lose their jobs.
Particularly the ones who are renting.
> The ones with good resources (eg. retirement resources) may not need to worry quite as much
They dont need to worry at all. They dont need a job, if they have a clue they
arent paying their house off anymore. Some may well find that the source of
their pension sinks beneath the waves, but they can still go on welfare.
> unless things go so badly to hell that social security checks become reduced, pension funds can't meet obligations,
> interest on deposit accounts goes down or interest payments (or even principle) is threatened.
In which case they can always go on food stamps etc.
> Or, other bad things happen (eg. civil disorder).
We didnt even see that during the great depression or
the lots of depressions we saw in the century before 1929.
> In which case you may need to figure out how to get chlorophyl into
> your skin so you can photosynthesize your food from sunlight, or
> learn to chase squirrels so you can catch them for evening dinner.
> Etc.
Or do basic stuff like grow your own food. Not a shred of rocket science whatever required.
> You could also pray for a miracle to happen in the near future.
> Otherwise, I have a bad feeling about the near future.
There's always plenty with neurotic fears whenever things change.
Rod Speed
> Stray Dog wrote:
>
>> It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of
>> warnings about derivatives but I would blame the too easy credit,
>> herd instinct in the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was
>> speculative), and crook loan processes (sub-prime, killer fine
>> print, deceptive marketing) as major factors in the present decline.
> What part of the 1 Trillion do the defaulted home loans represent?
Fuck all.
> IMHO the machinations with derivatives caused the bubble to pop because they all knew they were thieves and lost
> confidence in their collective theft.
The real problem is that with the shit loans getting AAA ratings, no one really
knows which of the securitized loans actually qualify for a real AAA rating.
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
> > You're on drugs, you sorry-assed motherfucker.
>
> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
No problem. But it's the only explanation I have (unless you're part
of the inside job) to explain how you can be so factually wrong.
> > The governments have been openly complicit in this!!
>
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim!!!!
Ever heard of the Project for a New American Century and the
President's Working Group on Markets?? Start with those two and then
come back and tell me straight-faced that you are still willing to
make _your_ claim that my claim is so preposterous. The proof is
there.
> > The only two ways you can prevent another Great Depression are, and listen closely, moron:
>
> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
Yo... This the RodBot, for the others??? He won't even read my
"stunningly rational line of argument" and he's posting it...
> > 1) Raise taxes.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
It's one or the other, dipshit.
> That would make one even more likely.
Bullshit. Because, frankly, you either have to significantly raise
taxes to have the social infrastructure necessary to keep order with
the current population...
> > or
> > 2) Lower the population to that which the infrastructure can support.
Choose one.
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Come on, Rod... At least _try_... At least _make an attempt_ here...
> Its got nothing to do with the population at all.
Then what does it have to do with, O Sage of the Wise??? *snork!!*
> > And you can't wait another generation to do it. You have to do it _NOW_.
>
> OK, do the decent thing and hang yourself.
Believe me, I'd have done that years ago if I didn't find it worth it
to debunk idiots like you.
FWIW, I have some doubts that whatever will pass for a ruling
authority by then will see me dead by the spring. If I'm wrong, so be
that. But I have had to confront some doubts and begin making peace
with my Maker. I suggest you do the same.
> > If you don't, you get what we have now -- a completely unsustainable
> > bubble based on institutional and personal credit which _WILL RESULT_
> > in mass civil unrest when The Shit Hits The Fan.
>
> How odd that we didnt see anything like that during the great depression.
BECAUSE THAT BUBBLE DIDN'T EXIST THEN!! (Said in all-caps for
emphasis of obviousness...)
And, not only that, but do you realize how close we came to actual
significant unrest in the Great Depression, including a Amero-Nazi-led
effort to blood-coup FDR out?
> >>> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
> >> And we'll see if it actually happens yet.
> > What would convince you, moron?
>
> Another great depression, child.
Then you should already be convinced. Real unemployment in the USA is
over 15% and skyrocketing.
Hyperinflation of Weimar levels is unavoidable.
> > A bullet between the eyes by an Australian who
> > has lost everything and doesn't care anymore?
>
> We didnt even see that during the great depression, child.
Again, different circumstances.
> > That would be about a correct assessment for neo-cons like you.
>
> You wouldnt know what a real neocon was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
You've been trying for a while, bitch. I recognize one when I see
one. And don't lie otherwise -- you lie or obfuscate everything else
you say on the Internet.
> We dont even have any of those here, child.
Liar.
> >>> There is no tangible product of substance to back
> >>> up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> >> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> > You're right.
> > It's HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Liar.
Hundreds of trillions in derivative bad loans and bets are the only
thing keeping this house of cards with the presumption of solvency.
That day is ending, and I just posted a whole host of stock numbers to
show you what that has already wrought.
> > The amount of these outstanding loans and bad loans and derivative bets exceeds
> > the ENTIRE NET WORTH OF THE _PLANET_ by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE!!!!
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Liar.
Once again, I would like to point out that, when Rod Speed says this,
he admits he has no acceptable response and admits I'm right.
> > (And another 5X -- we're talking 15-1 against the entire net worth of the planet!)
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Again, I reiterate the above and the question as to whether this is
the RodBot from the FAQ...
> > That's why I don't think this market has a bottom, because NOTHING in it has ANY value whatsoever.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Ding dong. More proof I'm right...
> >>> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> >> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> > He's right.
>
> Nope.
OK, then what wealth exists?? I'll throw that back in your lap.
EVERYTHING has been built on this derivative "shadow banking system",
and now, with it dying:
Ford has no value.
Microsoft has no value.
Google has no value.
None of the banks have any value.
No currency has value.
We're going to start losing countries this week, probably (Iceland is
perilously close to bankruptcy...).
NOTHING has value.
So what wealth exists??? Can't wait for this piece of "two-drink
minimum" comedy.
> > See above.
>
> Completely useless, as always with your mindless drug crazed rabid raving.
Who's the rabid one here? I post facts. You post drivel. They
should lock you up for the good of your community.
> > How do you deal with a "wealth" system which has
> > created "wealth" 15X the entire net worth of the planet?
>
> Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
Etc., etc., and as reiterated. At least $750T in "wealth" through the
derivatives, entire net worth about $50-60T.
> > I want to hear this one...
>
> Well you cant, you've shrieked yourself completely deaf, child.
Yep, he proves I'm right again -- choosing not to answer the question,
but to continue to pollute the Internet with his sad rants.
> >>> There will be no safe havens.
> >> Wrong, as always.
> > There, you probably are right.
>
> No probably about it, child.
Just not in the way you are thinking.
> > But whatever safe havens there will be will have a lot of blood near them, because
> > a lot of blood is going to have to be spilled to keep those "havens" "safe".
>
> Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
What's fantasy about that? You haven't lived around enough people who
have nothing to lose? You have no concept of history if you don't
think this ends in massive rioting, worldwide. We've already seen the
start of it in many jurisdictions over food, and, when the time comes,
this will make the Rodney King to-do seem like a playground game,
because there are so many people who want to start shit and fuck
people up.
I've seen them.
I've lived with them.
I know how they think.
And THEY -- DON'T -- CARE...
Read some Kunstler to get a good idea of the first phase of all this.
> We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
Different times, different society.
> > The only real prayer you have, as a neo-pig, is to get armed and prepare to kill.
> > Otherwise, you're a goner - and it won't matter what country you live in, either.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
> We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
>
> There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
What was it? I want to hear that reason, boy.
Or, maybe it would be better as you, as usual, being my bitch.
> >>> Not the banks. Not real estate. Not the stock market. Not cash.
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> >> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> > The banks are insolvent. All of them. ALL OF THEM.
>
> Not one of ours are, child. Not one has even had to be bailed out, child.
You honestly think the Australian dollar is going to hold up against
this tsunami??? On what drugs are you on? And can we have some over
here???
THE -- ENTIRE -- WORLD -- BANKING -- SYSTEM -- IS -- _G O N E_!! It
was ALL built on these shadow derivative bets. ALL OF IT!! Yours,
ours, Europe's, Japan's, China's, Russia's, ALL OF IT!!
> > Real Estate is multiple times its real value, and, when TSHTF,
> > rioting will take care of what little value much of it has left.
> > Only guns will retain whatever value remains.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
> We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
>
> There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
What was the reason, boy?
> > Stock Market?? Please. You're already seeing that manifest.
> > Most major stock markets are down ~20% IN A MONTH.
>
> After a runup of a lot more than that, child.
All built on the same bubble and paper that gave anything any real
semblence of value over the last 15-40 years. You realize we have
lost real valuation on everything every year since about 1968?
> > Cash? For now, that's best, but what happens when the cash isn't worth anything anymore?
>
> Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
> We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
>
> There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
Weimar-level hyperinflation will do that in. Monetizing all those bad
bets and debts will do that in. We never saw anything like that on
that scale during the Great Depression either -- because, for all we
did, we still had an economy that held some value, boy.
We -- DON'T -- now.
> >>> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble
> >>> to maintain the economic system by printing money with no real
> >>> tangible value, as they are doing now.
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> >> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> > To give anything real value, the price of everything would have to go up about 1500% -- tonight.
>
> Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
> We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
>
> There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
See above. Monetization of the debt and bad bets = Weimar-level
hyperinflation. Thank you for playing, clueless boy.
> >>> This is not a good time to be rich.
> >> Its an even worse time to have a minimum wage job and be renting, your job may not be around for long
> >> and there wont be too many that will be happy to let you stay when you cant pay the rent, you watch.
> > I think a lot of people better understand how to survive on the streets
> > -- otherwise, their bodies will be littering same, very damned soon.
>
> Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
> We never saw anything like that during the great depression.
>
> There might just be a reason why we didnt, child.
Oh no, we *DID* see that during the Great Depression, especially
during 1929-1932.
> >>> You are about to become poor.
> >> Plenty of the rich didnt do that in the great depression.
> > That's because the "rich" had _something_ in the Great Depression.
> > The "rich", this time, probably don't.
>
> Thats just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>
> You wont be seeing Gates or Buffet out on the streets child, you watch.
They better not be. Frankly, they'll be dead if they are seen out in
public that much -- the same "threat" can be made against any show of
riches in the near future that doesn't have an appropriate show of
force behind it.
Mike
Les Cargill
> On Oct 7, 10:29 pm, Steve Campbell <SteveCampb...@avicorcho.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 7:28 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
>>> we are clearly in a very similar situation today. This has, of
>>> course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
>>> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
>>> loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
>>> disappear. There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
>>> estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
>>> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
>>> system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
>>> doing now. This is not a good time to be rich. You are about to
>>> become poor.
>> There's nothing to fear but fear itself.
>>
>> Go ahead, bet against the free market. Next year you can complain
>> bitterly about the widening gap between you and the wealthy investors
>> who have faith in the ability of people to captain their own destinies.
>
> the libertarians and the conservatives in power will no longer let us
> bet against the free market. they took away shorting stocks.
"naked" shorts only (whutta phrase, eh?).
> plus,
> they have thrown 2-3 trillion dollars or more at the libertarian/
> conservative free market warriors, the self reliant, self responsible,
> rugged individuals, born with a silver spoon in their mouths as they
> pull themselves up by their own bootstraps with tax payer dollars,
> hogging at the troughs of tax payer money.
Them ain't free-market warriors, sir. But you knew that. The actual
free market respects no privilege. But even our hybrids have
hybrids.
> so the system for the moment is rigged for the free market. yet, its
> still faltering. so to me that means the free market is way over
> valued, and has a long way to go down yet.
Who knows? Maybe we'll *SEE* some free market now. Somehow, I
doubt it.
> if it falls to low, it may take 69 years to get your principle, plus
> gains back. as id did after 1929 for investors who got into the market
> before the crash of 1929.
>
It is hard to say. It could be just a really severe correction - there's
a lotta "up" in stocks from years past. No, this feels fundamentally
different. 1982 was a time of real crisis - even though the numbers
are more severe now, the underlying *physical* realities are much
less so. 1929 was much, much worse.
--
Les Cargill
com...@webtv.net
"panic"...the banks are AFRAID to lend, etc etc... but pretty soon it
will all go back to normal as it has many many times before.
" BARACK OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST "
com...@webtv.net
people who lived in the old soviet union how great socialism
is".....they usually threaten me after that ! BWAAA HAHHAHAHAHHAHHA
Mark Mathu
news:e965cc55-eded-4101...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> You are about to become poor.
Jerry, How soon? A date would help.
Rod Speed
<reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise.
darkst...@gmail.com
> i always tell these left wing fuckheads who promote socialism;" go ask
> people who lived in the old soviet union how great socialism
> is".....they usually threaten me after that ! BWAAA HAHHAHAHAHHAHHA
As you should be... Frankly put, we are headed for the old Soviet
Union. That's where we're going.
And the thing is, this time, it's all going down -- not just one
country, but the whole damned thing.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
> Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise.
Nothing left but abject truth, unanswered (and unanswerable!!) by the
clueless dumbfuck of the Internet, Rod's on Speed.
Mike
Rod Speed
The tragedy of balding men with long hair
> The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
I disagree. There are a lot of morons who are rich. George Bush is a
good example.
There are a lot of genius who are poor. There are a lot of smart
investors who have gone broke on the market.
I wish you luck. Just hope that your family won't be hurt if the
market keeps falling. I know the market will rebound eventually but
will it rebound enough to cover your investments?
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
> Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise.
Nothing left but abject truth, unanswered (and unanswerable!!) by the
Logician
> The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
Yes keep on buying. Bank stocks are hot now.
Logician
> On Oct 7, 5:40 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
>
> anything.
>
>
>
> > By the way, I don't think civilization is about to end. Just global
> > Capitalism. For a while, anyway.
>
Yes keep on buying. Government bonds are a good choice, especially in
the USA.
Logician
> On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, serebel <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
> in 1930, then again in 1931, and 32. but, they bought high, and were
> forced into buying low. if the real economy is stabilized, and the
> real underlying problems are solved, then you get a true snap back
> like what happened after FDR came to power.
> if you believe in the silly free market, that has no idea what the
> real problems that are underlying the american economy, then go for
> it. buy, buy, buy.
I agree, people were flooded with buying opportunities in the 1930's
but they chose war instead.
The Depression came from the USA and also the 91 recession. The time
from stock crash to recession is a few years, so this will all hit
about 2010. All thanks to the USA. Bush said again on TV the time was
now to start borrowing.
Logician
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> > we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
>
>
> > This has, of
> > course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
> > substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> > loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> > disappear.
>
> bad. That's not enough to suck the whole economy down a black hole,
> excessive leverage or not.
>
> > There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
> > estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
> > retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> > system by printing money with no real tangible value,
>
>
> > as they are
> > doing now. This is not a good time to be rich. You are about to
> > become poor.
>
> It's not gonna be good, but it's not the end of the
> world.
Is there another Hitler waiting to get power?
This whole collapse is a gift to politicians. Obama will make a lot of
use of it. But when elected he will walk into the middle of the actual
depression which will start in about two years from now.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
darkst...@gmail.com
bullshit... Hopefully, I can answer you without too much invective...
On Oct 7, 9:16 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote
>
> > Jerry Kraus wrote
> >> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and we are clearly in a very similar situation
> >> today.
> > Since everyone else has jumped in with their opinion, I will offer my
> > two cents. Yes, we are, today, in a situation similar to that before
> > the Great Depression. According to Charles Kindleberger, in his book
> > "World in Depression" (I read it cover to cover, and he is not only a
> > respected economist but one who is easy to read, too), the Great
> > Depression was world-wide
>
> No it wasnt. Some countrys like the USSR werent affected at all.
Mainly because they were already shit economically when the rest of it
started, and had been since The Revolution.
> > and the whole world was headed into a depression _before_ the US '29 crash.
>
> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
Who was going to pay off World War I, idiot??? We were still having
problems dealing with the after-effects (here and in Weimar Germany)
of World War I!!!
Stray Dog is right. The reparations which were part of the Treaty of
Versailles were necessary to rejuvenate a peace-time economy after the
war -- that is, of course, if Germany could ever pay them off in a
currency worth anything, which they could not. That's one of the
reasons why we were headed down.
> >> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
> > It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of warnings about derivatives but I would blame the too
> > easy credit, herd instinct in the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was speculative),
>
> Another number straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
No, dumbfuck (Rod again...). In fact, I can tell you from what my
friend Robert used to tell me that you are full of shit. I'll even go
above and beyond the "home as ATM" situation to the real speculative
shit...
Ever hear of a program called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"??? Basically, poor
dads worked to give something to "The Man". Rich dads, at least in
theory, had "The Man" and his money (through mortgages and the like)
working for him.
Basically, the idea was "carrying paper" (mortgages) on investment
properties (rentals of one kind or another) such that the money
received from the rentals would be worth more each month than the
payment on the mortgage. Voila!! Pocket the difference, and you're
on a yacht in a couple years...
Of course, the problem being that, especially in cities where very few
people could actually afford to live in (San Francisco being one), the
math never worked. To carry on that kind of a cycle, you need steady
jobs at a living wage, and not just on an individual basis, but on a
macroeconomic scale as well. This is because you are depending on
THEIR payments to make YOUR payment. The moment that stops...
As the real unemployment rate rockets past about 15%, I think
intelligent people like Stray Dog can see the problem with that
approach...
> > and crook loan processes (sub-prime, killer fine print, deceptive marketing) as major factors in the present decline.
Never understood how they could pull off a NINJA loan. Never
understood how a bank could get away with that shit -- I mean,
what... Don't have to declare income, don't have to even have a job,
and here's a $300,000 home... COME ON!!!
> >> There is no tangible product of substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
As reiterated before, correct.
> > Real estate and tangibles are part of physical reality; the only unknown is how they will be priced in the near
> > future.
Not for that amount of outstanding loans -- and when you add the
derivative bad bets to the discussion, now you're talking a factor of
about 15 of the entire value of EVERYTHING on the planet.
(With the stock market losing a quarter of its value in a month across
the board, that number could even be going up to 16-17 as we speak.)
> And we didnt see huge reductions in value during the great depression.
Bullshit, Rod. One of the reasons it happened -- and not even to this
degree, and not with all this toxic leveraging.
> All we saw is the number of transactions drop very substantially.
Which depresses the value in and of itself. If I can't get the
valuation for a home, that means that valuation was too high and must
come down immediately if I want to sell the home.
> >> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
> > People are all warm-fuzzy when prices for houses go up as fast or
> > faster than inflation (etc), but, yes, there is going to be a ton of people, in the near future, who are going to
> > experience that sinking feeling.
Just saw something on CNBC this morning: In one year, all retirement
plans, taken together: -20%.
> But wont necessarily see the value of the property return to what it was even just 15 years ago.
You very well might, Rod, and far worse than that. Especially if no
one wants to buy nor move in because they are geniunely concerned that
might turn into their coffin.
> >> There will be no safe havens.
> > People will need a roof over their heads, food, bathroom, TV or radio while they are unemployed.
Nope, Stray Dog. Millions and millions will be homeless.
Realistically, you're already seeing the start of this across the
nation.
Basically, about the only things people MIGHT be able to get (and I
won't go more than "might" on this, Stray Dog) are food, clothing, and
the ability to stay "warm enough" so as not to go into hypothermia.
And that assumes that a network of transportation of food will be
available to get the food from the heartland to the cities. Most,
sadly, don't see that as being able to hold up very long, and that's
where you get the Kunstlers and the survivalists making their cases.
> Quite a few who are renting may well have to do without when their jobs disappear.
A watch is right about twice a day.
> >> Not the banks.
> > Any banking system that depends on fractional reserve banking will be very vulnerable to bank runs
Yep.
> You dont necessarily get bank runs when you have an FDIC, thats the whole point of it.
The FDIC is broke, moron (Rod again...). The FDIC can't hold up when
every bank in the country is essentially insolvent.
> > (above some threshold, they become insolvent).
>
> But can be bailed out.
Now do all the others see why I call Rod a neo-con?? You can't bail
out the banks when the "money" you are using to bail them out is only
worth it for toilet paper and firewood!
> > If the claims exceed the capacity of the Fed to force mergers with stronger banks, or the claims eat up the FDIC
> > boodle fund (another bailout), then yes the banks are not safe.
Thank you, Stray Dog.
> You never see everyone taking all their money out of the banks so you see the FDIC out of money.
Uhhhh, no. Thanks for playing, you motherfucking idiot, Rod.
The only reason, bluntly, you aren't seeing a run on the banks
completely, is because I think people know what happens (as in Martial
Law) the moment that happens. Think this over: I was in a plaza,
Christmas 1999... San Francisco, CA. Christmas night, bunch of
people were being fed. Then they said they were out of food.
I knew from the murmuring that it would get violent quickly. By the
end, the ladies were fighting over the remaining kid-presents, knives
were coming out on Market Street -- this was after the table had been
tossed into the street and smashed, and more than one person present
thrown to the ground!...
Take that and multiply it on a national scale once the cash on hand
runs out.
> >> Not real estate.
> > The worst that can happen is a house burns down and there is no insurance. If you can pay the taxes, then you can
> > live, at least in a tent, on your land.
True, Stray Dog.
> Depends on the jurisdiction.
What, you have jurisdictions which basically say that if you don't
have a house on your land that it might not be your land??? I think
(and the problem is that you, Rod, do not think at all) that what
Stray Dog was implying was that the person owned the house and the
land.
> > The alternative is under the bridge. You may have competition there for space.
>
> You dont need a bridge.
There will be a lot of competition for space. In many cities, there
had been for years.
> >> Not the stock market.
> > If the company can survive, then buying cheap stock (pennies per share) and holding it until the economy recovers
> > might make you rich (dollars per share).
This is where I disagree with most of the people who believe there
will be an eventual recovery, Stray Dog...
The reason I disagree with your opinion on this is because of the
derivatives bubble, and the fact that the whole economy (probably of
the entire civilized planet!!) was built on this rickety house of
cards. Once it comes down, Ford's worth nothing, Toyota's worth a
pile of dung, Google ain't worth even that...
The real question _then_ becomes: What companies survive at all?
And that's a real question people are going to have to start asking...
> >> Not cash.
> > I'll bet that if you have that paper with the green ink on it, then
> > you will definitely be able to walk down to the local Mcdonalds and get a burger with fries so you can eat to live.
Only when the burger and fries are feasibly affordable, Stray Dog. If
the price of that jumps by an order of magnitude overnight...
> >> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic system by printing money
> >> with no real tangible value, as they are doing now.
> > The present situation (and its trend) is looking to become as bad as the Great Depression
Far worse, Stray Dog. Then, we had an economy which made things and
could make things and could put people to work. Now we do not.
> Only if you dont have a clue about what turned the wall st crash into the great depression.
And, of course, Rod's on Speed can't see that we're past that point by
a good factor of 15...
> > (economies all over the world are going to hell or soon will be).
>
> The US economy hasnt even seen a quarter of negative growth yet.
Numbers rigged. Or do you believe our election results too, moron??
One real quarter of growth in eight years, Rod.
(IF THAT)
> > However, all of the history books and all of the economic history books describe for the last 300-500 years periods of
> > economic depression and wherever there was a depression, the economy,
> > sooner or later, did come out of the depression.
The problem, here, is that the entire social infrastructure cannot
hold the economy -- couldn't then, certainly won't now.
> >> This is not a good time to be rich.
> > There are a lot of books on the Great Depression. The people who were hurt the most were those who lost their jobs and
> > could not find another job.
Still not a good time to be rich, Stray Dog. Those who are rich will
get it from both ends -- those above them wanting to take from them,
and those below them angry enough to do something drastic.
> And who couldnt just carry on without one.
Of which, Rod, there will be millions in such straits.
> And they had nothing like modern welfare.
The modern welfare system can barely handle the load they have now.
Multiply that by some factor, and it gets messy in a hurry. And you
do realize the same bastards manipulating this to financial Armageddon
want to slash the safety net.
It's only a matter of time before all Social Security recipients get
that letter -- they're being cut off.
> > Unemployment was like 30%, depending on who you talked to, and the other 70% were, therefore, employed and spending as
> > little as possible. Not everyone will starve.
>
> No one will starve if we do end up with another great depression.
Bullshit, Rod. You, again, presume that there will be an equitable
distribution of food -- or that there will even be able to be one
attempted.
> We wont even see the elimination of obesity either.
I should have to pay for drinks to hear this comedy... I'd be
surprised if I haven't lost 40 pounds in the last 4 months, idiot!!
> >> You are about to become poor.
> > The people who have little or no money and who will become long term unemployed soon are the ones who will suffer
> > greatly.
Once again, Stray Dog proves to have a clue.
> Nope, because we have decent welfare systems now.
Once again, Rod's on speed proves not to be so fortunate.
No welfare system can be sustained if the government who's paying the
checks goes broke, shit-for-brains.
> > The ones who have shakey jobs need to figure out what they will do if they lose their jobs.
>
> Particularly the ones who are renting.
I'd suggest they learn some street skills.
> > The ones with good resources (eg. retirement resources) may not need to worry quite as much
>
> They dont need to worry at all. They dont need a job, if they have a clue they
> arent paying their house off anymore. Some may well find that the source of
> their pension sinks beneath the waves, but they can still go on welfare.
Oh please...
> > unless things go so badly to hell that social security checks become reduced, pension funds can't meet obligations,
> > interest on deposit accounts goes down or interest payments (or even principle) is threatened.
>
> In which case they can always go on food stamps etc.
Do you even read for comprehension, dumb-shit???
Food stamps would already have gone away under that principle.
I'm sorry, Stray Dog.... I can't put up with any more of Rod's
bullshit. Someone really needs to lock him up, because stupidity of
that flower is dangerous to the community in which he lives.
Mike
Dancing on Milton Friedman's grave.
> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> disappear. There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
> estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> become poor.
Nomi Prins had a great take on the Stock Market. You can listen to
her interviewed by This is Hell host, Chuck Mertz. On that same
podcast, there's a great interview of Chalmers Johnson. This is Hell
is one of the best podcast out there. Just check out some of their
past guest. It reads like a who's who of politics and journalism.
ZerkonXXXX
> There is no tangible product of
> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> disappear.
This is the basic bailout, isn't it? Real money (labor) bailing out
credit money.
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:29 pm, Steve Campbell <SteveCampb...@avicorcho.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Oct 7, 7:28 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> >>> we are clearly in a very similar situation today. This has, of
> >>> course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
> >>> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> >>> loans. This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> >>> disappear. There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
> >>> estate. Not the stock market. Not cash. Nothing will be able to
> >>> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> >>> system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> >>> doing now. This is not a good time to be rich. You are about to
> >>> become poor.
> >> There's nothing to fear but fear itself.
>
> >> Go ahead, bet against the free market. Next year you can complain
> >> bitterly about the widening gap between you and the wealthy investors
> >> who have faith in the ability of people to captain their own destinies.
>
> > the libertarians and the conservatives in power will no longer let us
> > bet against the free market. they took away shorting stocks.
>
> "naked" shorts only (whutta phrase, eh?).
>
that is the story the libertarian cox at the sec says. but who
believes a randbot.
> > plus,
> > they have thrown 2-3 trillion dollars or more at the libertarian/
> > conservative free market warriors, the self reliant, self responsible,
> > rugged individuals, born with a silver spoon in their mouths as they
> > pull themselves up by their own bootstraps with tax payer dollars,
> > hogging at the troughs of tax payer money.
>
> Them ain't free-market warriors, sir. But you knew that. The actual
> free market respects no privilege. But even our hybrids have
> hybrids.
>
its what they preach. so if it walks like a duck.
> > so the system for the moment is rigged for the free market. yet, its
> > still faltering. so to me that means the free market is way over
> > valued, and has a long way to go down yet.
>
> Who knows? Maybe we'll *SEE* some free market now. Somehow, I
> doubt it.
>
a free market cannot stand on its own. not only does history prove
it. we are living it today.
> > if it falls to low, it may take 69 years to get your principle, plus
> > gains back. as id did after 1929 for investors who got into the market
> > before the crash of 1929.
>
> It is hard to say. It could be just a really severe correction - there's
> a lotta "up" in stocks from years past. No, this feels fundamentally
> different. 1982 was a time of real crisis - even though the numbers
> are more severe now, the underlying *physical* realities are much
> less so. 1929 was much, much worse.
>
we do not know where this will lead. but so far world wide no one is
addressing the real problems, and they are throwing money by the
bushel baskets at the wealthy because of friedmans wild assumptions.
so far to no avail, and its making things worse.
so world wide they are making the same mistakes that hoover and
mellon did. so, will this be worse? its hard to say. who knows,
workers that are flat on their backs broke, that cannot pay their
bills, that are being laid off in droves, being foreclosed on in
droves, will somehow start borrowing again for big ticket items.
sounds plausible correct?
> --
> Les Cargill
Vid...@tcq.net
> On Oct 8, 3:00 am, Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
>
> > On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, serebel <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
> > it was a great buying opportunity after the crash of 1929, then again
> > in 1930, then again in 1931, and 32. but, they bought high, and were
if the real economy is stabilized, and the
> > real underlying problems are solved, then you get a true snap back
> > like what happened after FDR came to power.
> > if you believe in the silly free market, that has no idea what the
> > real problems that are underlying the american economy, then go for
> > it. buy, buy, buy.
>
> I agree, people were flooded with buying opportunities in the 1930's
> but they chose war instead.
>
hitler followed keynes advise, and spent his way out of the
depression, of course it was for war. sweden followed keynes, and was
out of the depression in just a couple of years. and they stayed out
of the war, the best that they could.
> The Depression came from the USA and also the 91 recession. The time
> from stock crash to recession is a few years, so this will all hit
> about 2010. All thanks to the USA. Bush said again on TV the time was
> now to start borrowing.
i know, people still believe that this is a credit problem. its a
demand problem, and its world wide. to little earned income for the
workers, and they are deep into debt. the canaries in the coal mine
for years warned of the huge wage disparities, and the free market
ignored them, and chanted friedmanism instead.
Stray Dog
The Rod Speed FAQ (reposted below) seems to me to be more informative than
Rod Speed's "Some gutless fuckwit" post, which he reposts as a knee-jerk
response and for some vague and purposeless reason. See below RS's post
for the FAQ which I did not write.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:35:47 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.philosophy
> Subject: Some gutless fuckwit
>
> Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
> Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> desperately attempted to bullshit
> its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
>
>
>
The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/ms
g00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -
After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.
Rod is believed to be from Australia.
Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?
It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.
But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?
Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.
But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?
Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.
What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?
Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, wanker, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.
But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?
It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"
What is a "RodBot"?
Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.
Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?
You got it!
What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?
KillFile!
.
Stray Dog
(post and email)
Thank you and see below...
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 04:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
> From: darkst...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: alt.politics, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.philosophy
> Subject: Re: Dow shooting for 1,400
>
> Stray Dog, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to Rod's on Speed and his
> bullshit...
Thank you, you are kind and considerate.
Have you seen the Rod Speed FAQ? I didn't write it, but it is "right on."
You can easily find it by googling, or one of my re-posts from the website
that it came from.
> Hopefully, I can answer you without too much invective...
Most of what you wrote below is reasonable and rational and if I differ
from you then it is out of personal opinion and we all have our right to
that. I sometimes tweak people's opinion by giving a version of my own,
and with another slant. We should be thankful that we all can "vent" about
stuff without much fear of retribution (but...keep your mouth shut at work
or your [dictator] boss might fire you).
Don't let Rod Speed make you waste your time. I have the feeling he is
locked up as an inpatient in a mental institution and they give him a
computer and internet access so he doesn't hurt himself or bust up the
place. To me he has displayed symptoms of oppositional-defiance,
adult-ADHD, mild autism, and bi-polar, and maybe one or two others.
Most of his method of argumentation are described accurately in the Rod
Speed FAQ. Here is a copy...
You got it!
KillFile!
.
////////////////////////////////////
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e965cc55-eded-4101...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> > course, been predicted for years. There is no tangible product of
> > substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> > disappear. There will be no safe havens. Not the banks. Not real
> > retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> > system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> > become poor.
>
> My lean on all this is that consumer confidence is simply too established in
> this land to become another major depression. In the late 20's, this was a
> different nation, mostly agrarian, and unconnected compared to today's fast
> paced news and blueberry reality. The FED was relatively new and we didn't
> understand how to use it yet...which led to inaction; we just let the thing
> collapse, which we are already showing we are not going to do this time
> around [often govt's action is more psychological than real in impact].
> People lost faith in banks back then...but most people have holdings that
> fall within the FDIC insurance of 100 grand [to be upped to 250 grand I
> believe]. The idea of hiding money in one's mattress was a real
> consideration back in the 20's...but of course, is just a joke today. The
> volume of money shrunk during the hard times of the 20's and 30's...and FDR
> actually prolonged the depression with workfare and regulation. We'll see a
> pretty major bump in the road [Dow Jones has already lost...what...20% of
> it's peak value??]...but no depression; and certainly not another GREAT
> depression that would last nearly 30 years before we climb out.
>
> The 2000 elections said something of how stable this society is. That was
> a political furor...not so much economic, but it showed how the psychology
> underlying this nation is a solid granite foundation...not much will shake
> it. And that is all the difference in economic matters really. Watch the
> market be back within 6 months. Bargains galore for awhile though.
You are trying to turn a purely mathematical phenomenon into a purely
psychological phenomenon. The numbers don't add up. Very simple.
Wealth requires substance. There is none. It doesn't matter how
optimistic people are. It doesn't matter how optimistic you are, if
you are chained to the wall as an involuntary participant in a snuff
film. You will still die.
Vid...@tcq.net
> serebel wrote:
> > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
> single-digit PE's. (That's not a buy sign until 3Q earnings are
> reported, but when earnings start to turn up.....)
>
> JG
say galt, you and i visited that a few months ago. you stated that
the corporate balance sheets were in good shape in 1929 after the
crash, and that all it would take is the expansion of the money supply
to get things going again. i stated that a lack of demand was the real
problem back then, as now. and that corporate balance sheets would
deteriorate because of that. which they did then, and they are doing
that same thing now. even after trillions of dollars of injections.
freidman and his allies have been totally discredited. FDR was
correct, its the demand side, and the new deal corrected that, and it
also corrected the excess's of the free market.
John Galt
> On Oct 7, 7:45 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> serebel wrote:
>>> The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
>>> opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
>>> Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>> Well, yea. I'm reviewing some numbers now, and I've never seen so many
>> single-digit PE's. (That's not a buy sign until 3Q earnings are
>> reported, but when earnings start to turn up.....)
>>
>> JG
>
> say galt, you and i visited that a few months ago. you stated that
> the corporate balance sheets were in good shape in 1929 after the
> crash, and that all it would take is the expansion of the money supply
> to get things going again.
Balance sheets outside of financials remain in pretty good shape.
i stated that a lack of demand was the real
> problem back then, as now. and that corporate balance sheets would
> deteriorate because of that. which they did then, and they are doing
> that same thing now. even after trillions of dollars of injections.
That's not true, as far as I am aware. Balance sheets remain in good
shape. Credit is the problem.
> freidman and his allies have been totally discredited.
Not in the least. If Friedman had been followed by the last two
presidents, none of this would have happened.
Friedman would never:
1) Had the government in the mortgage business. Period.
2) Permitted the government to coerce lenders into making imprudent loans
3) If the government had persisted in underwriting mortgages over his
objections, he never would have supported the underwriting of imprudent
loans by those agencies.
3) Permitted an activist Fed (in fact, Friedman didn't beleive they were
necessary at all, but he wrote that before they become a fact of life
worldwide_
The government was lax in allowing markets to develop in complex
securities without reserve requirements. Granted. Friedman MAY or MAY
NOT have leaned in favor or not, it's hard to tell. But, the overriding
facts are that had the government (both parties) not spent the last 13
years using % of home ownership as a success metric, AND using the bully
pulpit to make it happen. We got here today because the government
couldn't keep it's paws out of the home business.
JG
Vid...@tcq.net
> Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 7:45 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> serebel wrote:
> >>> The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> >>> opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> >>> Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
> >> Well, yea. I'm reviewing some numbers now, and I've never seen so many
> >> single-digit PE's. (That's not a buy sign until 3Q earnings are
> >> reported, but when earnings start to turn up.....)
>
> >> JG
>
> > say galt, you and i visited that a few months ago. you stated that
> > the corporate balance sheets were in good shape in 1929 after the
> > crash, and that all it would take is the expansion of the money supply
> > to get things going again.
>
> Balance sheets outside of financials remain in pretty good shape.
>
not really. their stocks do not reflect the reality of the countries
economic conditions, and as i said, they will deteriorate, and they
are. if they cannot borrow to run their companies, what will they do,
sell more stock? some have, but with limited success. and that dilutes
the existing share holders value. then, if they cannot borrow, or sell
stock, what will they do, burn cash. that will sink them fast. and
with consumers cutting back, cash will become scarce.
> i stated that a lack of demand was the real
>
> > problem back then, as now. and that corporate balance sheets would
> > deteriorate because of that. which they did then, and they are doing
> > that same thing now. even after trillions of dollars of injections.
>
> That's not true, as far as I am aware. Balance sheets remain in good
> shape. Credit is the problem.
>
nope, balance sheets will not remain good for long. you just need to
think past today. have you ever been involved in a company that is
burning cash? if so, you will see why the fed is going to buy
corporate short term paper.
> > freidman and his allies have been totally discredited.
>
> Not in the least. If Friedman had been followed by the last two
> presidents, none of this would have happened.
>
b.s.
> Friedman would never:
>
> 1) Had the government in the mortgage business. Period.
they were not. lbj did away with that. if the government still ran
fannie, freddie, we may not be talking about this today.
> 2) Permitted the government to coerce lenders into making imprudent loans
baloney, pure free market, right wing crap. its right wing
revisionism that has you captured.
> 3) If the government had persisted in underwriting mortgages over his
> objections, he never would have supported the underwriting of imprudent
> loans by those agencies.
you ignore what the free market really did, fraud.
> 3) Permitted an activist Fed (in fact, Friedman didn't beleive they were
> necessary at all, but he wrote that before they become a fact of life
> worldwide_
>
he wanted control of the printing press's so bad, that he encouraged
nixon to spend like a drunken sailor to decouple the dollar from gold.
> The government was lax in allowing markets to develop in complex
> securities without reserve requirements.
that would not be enough to over come the trillions of dollars of
unregulated bad bets.
Granted. Friedman MAY or MAY
> NOT have leaned in favor or not, it's hard to tell. But, the overriding
> facts are that had the government (both parties) not spent the last 13
> years using % of home ownership as a success metric, AND using the bully
> pulpit to make it happen. We got here today because the government
> couldn't keep it's paws out of the home business.
>
that goes back to reagan, who deregulated credit cards, so to replace
wages with cheap credit. he said when he signed the act, i think we
struck pay dirt.
Michael Coburn
Nicely done..........
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
Sean
a couple of quotes from avg joe fyi
September 15th, 2008 5:43 pm
Out of the Peak - you hit a chord today.
I find that I am continually "at a loss" to try and describe to many of my
friends (who don't continually read these blogs) why the bottom is nowhere
near. The movie "Babel" comes to mind.
I have friends that are actually closing on houses in the next few weeks.
Condos, even. Here in the Orange County / Irvine area.
"Rates are fantastic. And the market's picking up. The last 5 properties we
bid on turned into bidding wars with investors! And I'm getting a super
deal!"
A few are even convinced that they will see significant appreciation in
these properties within a year or two!
Like you said, they're not looking at the real, underlying
fundamentals...just on the immediate-term stuff that realtors will use to
sell the idea of a bottomed-out market.
I know they're delusional, but how do you get someone to see the light???
I remember the phrase, something along the lines of "A man can't be made to
hear the truth, if his conviction that he will make a lot of money hinges
upon him not hearing it." JP Morgan?
Seriously -- this thing is SO BIG, requiring such a fundamental "paradigm
shift" in people's perceptions, that it simply may be more than most are
capable of grasping. Or want to grasp. The mass media does not help the
case, that's for sure!
And so I try to warn them, but end up instead, sitting and watching my
friends happily board and sail on the Titanic into the next group of
icebergs...!
What do you do?
Take care of yourselves!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------
September 23rd, 2008 3:33 pm
This implosion is massive, across all socio-economic boarders, business
lines and industries. I don't think that the "average" american (general
public) really, truly has good grasp of the gravity of this situation. I am
by no means above "average," I am not an expert in economics, finance or
advanced anything. I just happen to work in the finance industry so I am
exposed to housing, finance, economic #'s, etc. on a daily basis and I have
become a self proclaimed "junkie" to this information. When I speak to
friends and family about the current economic state (macro and micro), they
are citing articles by "Cramer" calling the housing bottom right now and the
"talking heads" and cheerleading gov't officials on the nightly news
continuing to describe the current state of the economy and world markets a
"subprime crisis." I am livid about this. This is not a subprime crisis -
this is a world economic crisis. They don't realize how it will affect them
today or how it is going to affect them for years to come. The mass of this
implosion is beyond scope. The misinformation (sloppy & irresponsible
journalism, spin, intentional mis-truth's) by the main stream media, public
company executives, "experts" and government officials is blasphemous.
Currently, I am not worried at this point about paying increased taxes to
cover this mess. I am worried about being homeless, standing in a soup
kitchen line and uable to provide for my family's most basic needs due to
the economic state of the US. I am not all doom and gloom, but seriously how
can we wake up the "average american (general public)? I am at a loss..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
September 23rd, 2008 4:51 pm
Amen Carrie! re: getting the average american to wake up - they do not want
to - I have been trying to explain to anyone who would listen, to be careful
for over a year, and all I have to show for it is side long glances, being
called doom and gloom, etc. the average american cannot believe the party is
over, and still believe there is a magic pill to fix it. I shut up about it
about 3 or 4 months ago. I wonder what these people I tried to warn are
thinking now? I understand no one likes a buzz kill, but jeeze if a friend
sees a speeding train coming should you not give a shout out? We have become
such a selfish and greedy society we simply ignore what we do not like and
then blame someone for not fixing it for us. We do need to wake people up,
to stop accepting this crap from Washington, Wall st. and the media that
loves to promote the "bottom"! I am at a loss too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
September 23rd, 2008 9:33 pm
By Anthonty Freed:
Liars, and the Lying Lies They Are Telling YouLike a lot of folks who are
completely flabbergasted by the Government's repeated efforts to whitewash
and gloss-over the all of the gross negligence, malpractice and criminality
of this - The Worst Financial and Constitutional Crisis in Our Nation's
History - I decided last night I would look up some of what the guys and
gals at the Federal Reserve, Treasury, SEC, and FDIC were up to between 1997
and 2007, and how it is they could not have seen any of this coming until
apparently this week.
I say apparently because the bureaucrats and sycophants are all maintaining
that this whole fiasco is as big a surprise to them as it is to poor
Mom-and-Pop getting foreclosed upon in their Golden Years.
I know they are lying, and you know they are lying.
So once again we will play the cat and mouse game of "who knew what and
when" as the Crooks all disappear into retirement with their $Trillions of
stolen loot, the Politicians will blowhard and achieve little or nothing,
and the whole thing will fade away from the headlines with time and the
advantage of a short American attention span
BRILLIANT!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
thx fyi
Michael Coburn
This is not a demand problem. It is a problem of oversupply and wealth
disparity. That is not the same thing as a "demand" problem. Most
people in the USA are pretty well off compared to what the case was in
the 30's. The answer to our current dilemma is an injection of money
into the bottom of the economy, but the reason for that injection is not
to increase the demand for more "goods". The reason for the injection is
to increase wages to the point where only half the people need to be
working (one person from each household) will need to have a job in order
to support the typical family. We have so much abundance due to the
development of real capital and the division and specialization of labor
and trade that the need for labor has been greatly diminished. To run
around now trying to increase the demand for goods and to increase the
number of jobs is wrong headed. We need a SIMPLIFICATION of American life
in the form of less "lip gloss" and a lot more family awareness. That
sounds like a depression to a lot of people and maybe it is. But there
is no reason for the hate and impoverishment of people because they are
not employed. The unemployment is a result of the mechanization.
The following is from the opening chapter of "Progress and Poverty":
At the beginning of this marvelous era it was natural to expect, and it
was expected, that labor-saving inventions would lighten the toil and
improve the condition of the laborer; that the enormous increase in the
power of producing wealth would make real poverty a thing of the past.
Could a man of the last century—a Franklin or a Priestly—have seen, in a
vision of the future, the steamship taking the place of the sailing
vessel, the railroad train of the wagon, the reaping machine of the
scythe, the threshing machine of the flail; could he have heard the throb
of the engines that in obedience to human will, and for the satisfaction
of human desire, exert a power greater than that of all the men and all
the beasts of burden of the earth combined; could he have seen the forest
tree transformed into finished lumber—into doors, sashes, blinds, boxes
or barrels, with hardly the touch of a human hand; the great workshops
where boots and shoes are turned out by the case with less labor than the
old-fashioned cobbler could have put on a sole; the factories where,
under the eye of a girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than hundreds of
stalwart weavers could have turned it out with their handlooms; could he
have seen steam hammers shaping mammoth shafts and mighty anchors, and
delicate machinery making tiny watches; the diamond drill cutting through
the heart of the rocks, and coal oil sparing the whale; could he have
realized the enormous saving of labor resulting from improved facilities
of exchange and communication—sheep killed in Australia eaten fresh in
England, and the order given by the London banker in the afternoon
executed in San Francisco in the morning of the same day; could he have
conceived of the hundred thousand improvements which these only suggest,
what would he have inferred as to the social condition of mankind?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We work too damned much in pursuit of "lip gloss".
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote
>>> Jerry Kraus wrote
>>>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value,
>>>> and we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
>>> Since everyone else has jumped in with their opinion, I will offer my
>>> two cents. Yes, we are, today, in a situation similar to that before
>>> the Great Depression. According to Charles Kindleberger, in his book
>>> "World in Depression" (I read it cover to cover, and he is not only a
>>> respected economist but one who is easy to read, too), the Great
>>> Depression was world-wide
>> No it wasnt. Some countrys like the USSR werent affected at all.
> Mainly because they were already shit economically when
> the rest of it started, and had been since The Revolution.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> and the whole world was headed into a depression _before_ the US '29 crash.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> Who was going to pay off World War I, idiot???
In the US, that would be trivial.
> We were still having problems dealing with the after-effects (here and in Weimar Germany) of World War I!!!
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Stray Dog is right.
Not on that stupid claim that the depression was word wide his source wasnt.
> The reparations which were part of the Treaty of Versailles were
> necessary to rejuvenate a peace-time economy after the war
Have fun explaining how come we managed to recover
from the much more expensive WW2 fine without them.
We could even afford the cold war and the Marshall Plan without reparations.
> -- that is, of course, if Germany could ever pay them
> off in a currency worth anything, which they could not.
So it was completely pointless crippling their economy with reparations
and putting in place the conditions for them going to war again.
> That's one of the reasons why we were headed down.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>>> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
>>> It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of warnings
>>> about derivatives but I would blame the too easy credit, herd instinct
>>> in the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was speculative),
>> Another number straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> No, dumbfuck (Rod again...). In fact, I can tell you from what
> my friend Robert used to tell me that you are full of shit.
No one gives a flying red fuck about your imaginary 'friends', child.
> I'll even go above and beyond the "home as ATM" situation to the real speculative shit...
> Ever hear of a program called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"??? Basically, poor dads
> worked to give something to "The Man". Rich dads, at least in theory, had
> "The Man" and his money (through mortgages and the like) working for him.
The real american economy was always about a hell of a lot more than just the rich and the poor, child.
> Basically, the idea was "carrying paper" (mortgages) on
> investment properties (rentals of one kind or another) such
> that the money received from the rentals would be worth
> more each month than the payment on the mortgage. Voila!!
> Pocket the difference, and you're on a yacht in a couple years...
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Of course, the problem being that, especially in cities where very
> few people could actually afford to live in (San Francisco being one),
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> the math never worked. To carry on that kind of a cycle, you need
> steady jobs at a living wage, and not just on an individual basis, but
> on a macroeconomic scale as well. This is because you are depending
> on THEIR payments to make YOUR payment. The moment that stops...
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> As the real unemployment rate rockets past about 15%,
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> I think intelligent people like Stray Dog can see the problem with that approach...
Pitys its just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
>>> and crook loan processes (sub-prime, killer fine print,
>>> deceptive marketing) as major factors in the present decline.
> Never understood how they could pull off a NINJA loan.
No surprises there.
> Never understood how a bank could get away with that shit --
> I mean, what... Don't have to declare income, don't have to
> even have a job, and here's a $300,000 home... COME ON!!!
The reason it worked was because those loans could be bundled and
securitized and given a AAA rating by fools like Standard & Poor's child.
>>>> There is no tangible product of substance to back up the tens of
>>>> trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
> As reiterated before, correct.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> Real estate and tangibles are part of physical reality; the
>>> only unknown is how they will be priced in the near future.
> Not for that amount of outstanding loans -- and when you add the
> derivative bad bets to the discussion, now you're talking a factor
> of about 15 of the entire value of EVERYTHING on the planet.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> (With the stock market losing a quarter of its value in a month across
> the board, that number could even be going up to 16-17 as we speak.)
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>> And we didnt see huge reductions in value during the great depression.
> Bullshit, Rod. One of the reasons it happened -- and not even to this degree,
Not with houses we didnt, child.
> and not with all this toxic leveraging.
>> All we saw is the number of transactions drop very substantially.
> Which depresses the value in and of itself.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> If I can't get the valuation for a home, that means that valuation was
> too high and must come down immediately if I want to sell the home.
And its completely irrelevant if you dont need to sell the house.
>>>> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
>>> People are all warm-fuzzy when prices for houses go up as fast or
>>> faster than inflation (etc), but, yes, there is going to be a ton of people,
>>> in the near future, who are going to experience that sinking feeling.
> Just saw something on CNBC this morning: In one year, all retirement plans, taken together: -20%.
Just another number straight from some fool's arse.
Didnt happen to mine. Mine went UP thanks. Because I had enough of a clue to be in cash.
>> But wont necessarily see the value of the property
>> return to what it was even just 15 years ago.
> You very well might, Rod, and far worse than that.
I meant the exact opposite, that it wont necessarily even drop to what it was 15 years ago.
> Especially if no one wants to buy nor move in because
> they are geniunely concerned that might turn into their coffin.
That last is just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>>>> There will be no safe havens.
>>> People will need a roof over their heads, food, bathroom, TV or radio while they are unemployed.
> Nope, Stray Dog. Millions and millions will be homeless.
We didnt even see that during the great depression when we had nothing like the welfare we have now.
> Realistically, you're already seeing the start of this across the nation.
How odd that the number of 'homeless' hasnt even increased at all, child.
We havent even seen a quarter of negative growth yet child.
> Basically, about the only things people MIGHT be able to get (and
> I won't go more than "might" on this, Stray Dog) are food, clothing,
> and the ability to stay "warm enough" so as not to go into hypothermia.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
The govt wont be stupid enough to allow millions to be tossed
out of their houses with those houses left empty, you watch.
Essentially because it will cost a hell of a lot more to recover from that than to avoid it happening in the first
place.
> And that assumes that a network of transportation of food will be
> available to get the food from the heartland to the cities. Most,
> sadly, don't see that as being able to hold up very long, and that's
> where you get the Kunstlers and the survivalists making their cases.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>> Quite a few who are renting may well have to do without when their jobs disappear.
> A watch is right about twice a day.
>>>> Not the banks.
>>> Any banking system that depends on fractional reserve banking will be very vulnerable to bank runs
> Yep.
Nope, thats the whole point of the FDIC, child.
>> You dont necessarily get bank runs when you have an FDIC, thats the whole point of it.
> The FDIC is broke
Nope, no govt operation is ever broke, the govt just puts in more money, child.
> The FDIC can't hold up when every bank in the country is essentially insolvent.
The FDIC only gets to pay out when a bank goes under, child.
Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that hardly any have done that.
>>> (above some threshold, they become insolvent).
>> But can be bailed out.
> Now do all the others see why I call Rod a neo-con??
You wouldnt know what a real neocon was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
> You can't bail out the banks when the "money" you are using
> to bail them out is only worth it for toilet paper and firewood!
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>> If the claims exceed the capacity of the Fed to force mergers with
>>> stronger banks, or the claims eat up the FDIC boodle fund (another
>>> bailout), then yes the banks are not safe.
> Thank you, Stray Dog.
>> You never see everyone taking all their money out of the banks so you see the FDIC out of money.
> Uhhhh, no. Thanks for playing, you motherfucking idiot, Rod.
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> The only reason, bluntly, you aren't seeing a run on the
> banks completely, is because I think people know what
> happens (as in Martial Law) the moment that happens.
How odd that we didnt see that happen during the great depression, child.
> Think this over: I was in a plaza, Christmas 1999... San Francisco, CA. Christmas
> night, bunch of people were being fed. Then they said they were out of food.
> I knew from the murmuring that it would get violent quickly.
> By the end, the ladies were fighting over the remaining kid-presents,
> knives were coming out on Market Street -- this was after
> the table had been tossed into the street and smashed,
> and more than one person present thrown to the ground!...
> Take that and multiply it on a national scale once the cash on hand runs out.
How odd that we didnt see that happen during the great depression, child.
The way the FDIC works avoids that sort of thing, child.
>>>> Not real estate.
>>> The worst that can happen is a house burns down and there is no insurance.
>>> If you can pay the taxes, then you can live, at least in a tent, on your land.
> True, Stray Dog.
>> Depends on the jurisdiction.
> What, you have jurisdictions which basically say that if you don't
> have a house on your land that it might not be your land???
Nope, that if your house burns down, they wont let you live in a tent on it, child.
Quite a few US housing associations wont even let you have house painted the
wrong color. They arent very likely to allow you to camp out in a tent, child.
> I think (and the problem is that you, Rod, do not think at all) that what
> Stray Dog was implying was that the person owned the house and the land.
Irrelevant to whether you'll be allowed to live in a tent on that land you own, child.
>>> The alternative is under the bridge. You may have competition there for space.
>> You dont need a bridge.
> There will be a lot of competition for space.
How odd that there wasnt in the great depression, child.
> In many cities, there had been for years.
Pity about outside them, child.
>>>> Not the stock market.
>>> If the company can survive, then buying cheap stock (pennies per
>>> share) and holding it until the economy recovers might make you
>>> rich (dollars per share).
> This is where I disagree with most of the people who
> believe there will be an eventual recovery, Stray Dog...
Your problem, child.
> The reason I disagree with your opinion on this is because of
> the derivatives bubble, and the fact that the whole economy
> (probably of the entire civilized planet!!) was built on this rickety
> house of cards. Once it comes down, Ford's worth nothing,
> Toyota's worth a pile of dung, Google ain't worth even that...
Plenty of fools made the same claims about the great depression, child.
> The real question _then_ becomes: What companies survive at all?
> And that's a real question people are going to have to start asking...
Have a look at what survived the great depression, child.
>>>> Not cash.
>>> I'll bet that if you have that paper with the green ink on it, then
>>> you will definitely be able to walk down to the local Mcdonalds
>>> and get a burger with fries so you can eat to live.
> Only when the burger and fries are feasibly affordable, Stray Dog.
> If the price of that jumps by an order of magnitude overnight...
How odd that that didnt happen during the great depression, child.
>>>> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble
>>>> to maintain the economic system by printing money with no real
>>>> tangible value, as they are doing now.
>>> The present situation (and its trend) is looking to become as bad
>>> as the Great Depression
> Far worse, Stray Dog.
Far better actually, essentially because govts now have enough of a clue
to not just mindlessly slash spending and make things much worse, and
in fact do the exact opposite to avoid getting a full depression at all.
> Then, we had an economy which made things and could
> make things and could put people to work. Now we do not.
Is that right ? We cant grow any food anymore eh ?
You really should give up on that whacky weed, child.
>> Only if you dont have a clue about what turned the wall st crash into the great depression.
> And, of course, Rod's on Speed can't see that we're past that point by a good factor of 15...
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
We havent even seen a quarter of negative growth yet, child.
>>> (economies all over the world are going to hell or soon will be).
>> The US economy hasnt even seen a quarter of negative growth yet.
> Numbers rigged.
Yeah, yeah, only you know the real numbers, eh child ?
> Or do you believe our election results too, moron??
I certainly believe that there are fools like you around, child.
> One real quarter of growth in eight years, Rod.
> (IF THAT)
You really should give up on that whacky weed, child.
>>> However, all of the history books and all of the economic history
>>> books describe for the last 300-500 years periods of economic
>>> depression and wherever there was a depression, the economy,
>>> sooner or later, did come out of the depression.
> The problem, here, is that the entire social infrastructure
> cannot hold the economy -- couldn't then, certainly won't now.
How odd that we managed to survive the S&L fiasco fine, child.
How odd that we managed to win WW2, child.
>>>> This is not a good time to be rich.
>>> There are a lot of books on the Great Depression.
>>> The people who were hurt the most were those
>>> who lost their jobs and could not find another job.
> Still not a good time to be rich, Stray Dog.
Even worse time to be renting with a minimum wage 'job' child.
> Those who are rich will get it from both ends -- those above them wanting to
> take from them, and those below them angry enough to do something drastic.
And those with minimum wage 'jobs' who are renting will lose
many of those 'jobs' and be out on their arses on the street, child.
We saw a hell of a lot of that during the great depression and
fuck all of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasy.
>> And who couldnt just carry on without one.
> Of which, Rod, there will be millions in such straits.
Nope, we've got decent welfare sysems now child.
>> And they had nothing like modern welfare.
> The modern welfare system can barely handle the load they have now.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> Multiply that by some factor, and it gets messy in a hurry.
How odd that it didnt in the recessions, child.
> And you do realize the same bastards manipulating this
> to financial Armageddon want to slash the safety net.
They're completely irrelevant. No one takes any notice of them now that its all come unstuck, child.
> It's only a matter of time before all Social Security recipients get that letter -- they're being cut off.
How odd that they didnt in the recessions, child.
>>> Unemployment was like 30%, depending on who you talked
>>> to, and the other 70% were, therefore, employed and
>>> spending as little as possible. Not everyone will starve.
>> No one will starve if we do end up with another great depression.
> Bullshit, Rod. You, again, presume that there will be an equitable distribution of food
Never said that.
> -- or that there will even be able to be one attempted.
Equity never happens child. We do ensure that no one starves tho.
>> We wont even see the elimination of obesity either.
> I should have to pay for drinks to hear this comedy... I'd be
> surprised if I haven't lost 40 pounds in the last 4 months, idiot!!
Thats just the effects of your furious wanking, child.
You were warned, you wouldnt listen...
>>>> You are about to become poor.
>>> The people who have little or no money and who will become long
>>> term unemployed soon are the ones who will suffer greatly.
> Once again, Stray Dog proves to have a clue.
Unlike you who have never ever had anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
>> Nope, because we have decent welfare systems now.
> Once again, Rod's on speed proves not to be so fortunate.
> No welfare system can be sustained if the government who's paying the checks goes broke,
Bet you cant actually list even a single modern first world govt that went broke during the great depression, child.
>>> The ones who have shakey jobs need to figure out what they will do if they lose their jobs.
>> Particularly the ones who are renting.
> I'd suggest they learn some street skills.
I'd suggest you do the decent thing and hang yourself.
>>> The ones with good resources (eg. retirement resources) may not need to worry quite as much
>> They dont need to worry at all. They dont need a job, if they have a clue they
>> arent paying their house off anymore. Some may well find that the source of
>> their pension sinks beneath the waves, but they can still go on welfare.
> Oh please...
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
>>> unless things go so badly to hell that social security checks become
>>> reduced, pension funds can't meet obligations, interest on deposit
>>> accounts goes down or interest payments (or even principle) is threatened.
>> In which case they can always go on food stamps etc.
> Do you even read for comprehension, dumb-shit???
Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
> Food stamps would already have gone away under that principle.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Rick
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:35:40 -0700 (PDT), serebel <sere...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> >opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> >Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
So true. But some bank stocks. Buy Bank of America because tonight at
midnight the freeze on short selling of their stock will be lifted.
Makes you sort of wonder how fair the system is when the 'special
ones' get bailed out, and others not, and some people are immune to
short selling and others not, and if you try to sell and everyone
wants to sell, they bump you out, or put curbs in, or like Russia
today, just shut down the stock market completely.
Australia cut its rate, and so the rest of the world went YEah! What a
great idea, ok everybody lets cut our rate!.,
Australia shed 50 billion dollars worth of value on their market
today.
In the last week, America has shed something like 6 trillion.
Oh yeah, buy Titanic! You know its going to go back up! Its
unsinkable!
If you actually work for a living, those are real dollars you are
investing, as opposed to other people just throwing your pension funds
in the ring and hoping for the best.
I doubt very much if very many actual people play the markets these
days. Its just people playing with your money.
Without your knowledge.
V
> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> course, been predicted for years. �There is no tangible product of
> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> disappear. � There will be no safe havens. �Not the banks. � Not real
> estate. �Not the stock market. �Not cash. �Nothing will be able to
> retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> become poor.
1,400?
I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball.
Much of the stock market was / is fueled by the proliferation of new
funds. Without the constant creation of funds to fill their portfolios
the stock market would be at lower levels.
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
But when I think of the stock market I think of Charles Ponzi. The man
credited with inventing the first pyramid scheme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi
Wall street has degenerated into a greed fueled, legalized 24 hour
crap shoot with the blessing and full faith and credit on the US of A
behind it. It is like an alcoholic that has inherited a whiskey
factory. More of their drug wont fix them - it only increases the
sickness. Same with greed. Greed is never satisfied by attainment - it
is only satisfied by contentment.
In simpler times, we had stock and bonds to invest in. Most
accountants did their jobs and earning did not have to be restated
year after year and earnings were real. EBITDA had not been invented
and our US dollar was backed by gold and later by silver.
In 1973 stock options were added to the mix. Then the late 90's
brought us internet day trading as a new way for the masses to gamble
in the privacy of our own homes.
Fast forward to 2008 and things have become much more complex when it
comes to financial gambling. We've got interest rate swaps, total
return swaps, equity swaps, forex swaps, currency swaps, constant
maturity swaps, basis swaps, volatility swaps, credit default swaps,
variance swaps and many more 'derivatives' to place our bets on.
We live in a society of compulsive gamblers and not investors. Watch
CNBC and see the Ponzi scheme in action with all the BS they throw at
you.
I marvel at the billions lost every day with the sub-prime debacle and
how it is replaced at a blink of an eye. The government doesn't have
to even print out the money, they just magnetize a silicon chip to
create billions.
We talk of living in a sustainable world, yet our actions betray our
true feelings. All we have to do is to look at the stock market to
see what happens when growth declines even a little.
Even if a company yields stable earning, but does not grow its
earnings it is looked down upon. Stability and balance is part of a
sustainable footprint, yet we shun such balance.
A good book that discusses concepts of sustainability is: 'Peak
Everything' by Richard Heinberg
America is built on debt and spending.
70% of our 'economic heath,' better termed as 'economic sickness' is
based on consumer spending. When the consumer can't compulsively spend
any longer our economy collapses...we are not a healthy country.
With one breath we talk about cutting global warming and how we have
to cut our dependence of fossil fuel.
Then with the next breath we demand no cut backs in our standard of
living, we must spend and consume above all else...build more, build
faster, build bigger.
The GDP must only go up, up and away...all the while this consumption
just increases global warming and keeps depleting the fossil fuels
faster and faster.
Sick...sick..sick mentality, buy more cars, build more houses and
monstrosities of architecture, spend more but 'cut back' to save our
dear fossil fuels.
Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way. And even if
we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take
the hit?
Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low
interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a
life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it
comes to durable goods.
All this consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our
retirement funds only go up contributes to more and more global
warming and the depletion of our natural resources.
Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures
seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make
them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it
goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW and the bill is coming due soon!
V
> On Oct 7, 7:35�pm, serebel <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great buying
> > opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
> > Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>
>
> Capitalism. �For a while, anyway.
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE TO DO A 180 J...Without compulsive spending and
conspicuous consumption funded by unaffordable debt, we would fail as
a country.
Lets say everyone becomes voluntary simplicity and frugal squirrel
devotees. Who will but all the crap that America makes and sells in
order to keep everyone employed and keeps China from starving so they
do not go back to old ways of trying to take over the world?
And on a more local level, if the consumer stops consuming, the
companies go bust, everyone loses their jobs and his or her retirement
funds will collapse.
What about more taxes?
More taxes = less for us to compulsively spend 'trying' to buy
happiness = lower earnings for the greedy corporations = raise hell
with the DOW = less cap gains tax income for the gov to squander =
everyone's retirement funds sink lower and lower = even less
compulsive spending since everyone is poorer...
America has been built on debt and spending. 70% of our 'economic
heath,' better termed as 'economic sickness' is based on consumer
spending. When the consumer can't compulsively spend any longer our
economy collapses...we are not a healthy country.
We have built a defective model for long term population support. We
can only keep on keeping on as long as the crude is free flowing and
affordable by the masses.
We must accept that we have built our world on unsustainable means - a
means built artificially on fossil fuel.
Without compulsive spending and conspicuous consumption funded by
unaffordable debt, we would fail as a country.
Witness the recent cries for Federal bankers to lower interest
rates...so the stock market can go up...fueled by spending of the
consumer.
It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can't get
away from.
Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low
interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a
life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it
comes to durable goods.
All this consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our
retirement funds only go up contributes to more and more global
warming and the depletion of our natural resources.
Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures
seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make
them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it
goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW and the bill is coming due soon!
It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning
trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means
allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But
seven billion people can't burn the trees!
We must accept that we have built our world on unsustainable means - a
means built artificially on fossil fuel.
And when we live out of balance with natures intended means there is a
price to pay to come back in balance with nature. And the price
usually extracts pain from us in the adjustment process.
It has been estimated that for the earth to sustainably support its
population without fossil fuels a 90% dieoff must occur. I don't know
if that is the right figure, but I do know humans could not live as
they do unless it was funded by artificial means via fossil fuels.
So if this dieoff happens, of course there will be great amounts of
pain in the world. But it is natures intended balancing act. It also
reminds us that nature does not bow to humans - it is humans that
always bow to nature.
Animals live within their intended balance with nature and it is only
man that destroys his environment and has to pay the price through
pain and suffering from working against nature.
Thoreau didn't think much of those that lived beyond their means.
From Walden:
"Some of you, we all know, are poor, find it hard to live, are -
sometimes, as it were, gasping for breath. I have no doubt that some
of you who read this book are unable to pay for all the dinners which
you have actually eaten, or for the coats and shoes which are fast
wearing or are already worn out, and have come to this page to spend
borrowed or stolen time, robbing your creditors of an hour. It is very
evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live, for my sight
has been whetted by the experience of others; always living on the
limits, trying to get into business and trying to get out of debt, a
very ancient slough, called by the Latin - 'Res Alienum' or 'another's
brass' for some of their coins were made of brass. Living, seeking to
curry favors, lying, dying, and buried by 'other's brass'; always
promising to pay, promising to pay, tomorrow, and dying today
insolvent." (Quote shortened)
"A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail..." ~ Ron
Paul
V
> On Oct 7, 5:28�pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value, and
> > we are clearly in a very similar situation today. �This has, of
> > course, been predicted for years. �There is no tangible product of
> > substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
> > loans. �This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly
> > disappear. � There will be no safe havens. �Not the banks. � Not real
> > estate. �Not the stock market. �Not cash. �Nothing will be able to
> > retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the economic
> > system by printing money with no real tangible value, as they are
> > doing now. �This is not a good time to be rich. �You are about to
> > become poor.
>
> what is the final step that sends everybody jumping...
>
> It's all over. �America, and the civilized world, are finished as
> constructed and governed.
>
> Mike
Yes, we are in a world of trouble. We have many areas eating away at
our survival...
Peak oil and the depletion of ALL fossil fuels including uranium.
Dwindling potable water.
Overpopulation.
A lying, delusional government that can't get to work on restructuring
our society, as it can't even admit there is a problem.
A defective model for long term population support that requires
constant consumption and unsustainable growth at the expense of sound,
long term economic practices.
Future food shortages. Food that is unhealthy and a mindset to 'poison
for profit.' Food that is unaffordable.
Global unrest and resource wars brewing.
Jerry Kraus
I enjoyed the quotation from Thoreau -- an individual with whom I
believe I have some things in common. But, when has China ever tried
to take over the world? Not that they couldn't have a go at it, these
days.
Rick
> Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures
> seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make
> them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it
> goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW and the bill is coming due soon!
Probably most of the panic in government is centered around the fact
that consumer debt has dropped last month for the first time in 10
years and there is nothing to fuel inflation.
So deflation is where the rich get poorer and the poor get richer.
No wonder they are hitting that panic button.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 7, 8:34?pm, darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 5:28?pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value,
>>> course, been predicted for years. ?There is no tangible product of
>>> substance to back up the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding
>>> disappear. ? There will be no safe havens. ?Not the banks. ? Not
>>> real estate. ?Not the stock market. ?Not cash. ?Nothing will be
>>> able to retain its value, as governments scramble to maintain the
>>> economic system by printing money with no real tangible value, as
>>> about to become poor.
>>
>> Mass social unrest and suicides are an inevitability now. ?It's just
>> what is the final step that sends everybody jumping...
>>
>> constructed and governed.
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, we are in a world of trouble. We have many areas eating away at
> our survival...
> Peak oil and the depletion of ALL fossil fuels including uranium.
Uranium aint a fossil fuel and its completely trivial to breed nuke fuel if doing that makes sense.
> Dwindling potable water.
Pure fantasy. And its completely trivial to turn seawater into potable water any time you need to do that.
> Overpopulation.
Not one modern first or second world country is even self replacing on population if you take out migration.
> A lying, delusional government that can't get to work on restructuring
> our society, as it can't even admit there is a problem.
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
> A defective model for long term population support that requires
> constant consumption and unsustainable growth at the expense
> of sound, long term economic practices.
You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.
> Future food shortages.
Thats been predicted ever since that fool Malthus started doing that.
Didnt happen. In fact we have now eliminated famine except where the
'country' has disintegrated into civil war or civil chaos or is stupid enough
to let some silly little fool like Kim Jong Il have any say in anything.
> Food that is unhealthy and a mindset to 'poison for profit.'
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
> Food that is unaffordable.
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
The real problem is that its so affordable that many americans end up grossly obese.
> Global unrest and resource wars brewing.
Just another of your pathetic little fantasys.
> "A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail..." ~ Ron Paul
How odd that we havent actually seen a single one of them fail.
Rod Speed
> On Oct 7, 8:40?pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 7:35?pm, serebel <sere...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The above whine is why morons stay poor. They won't see a great
>>> buying opportunity when it smacks them in the face.
>>> Keep up the whining, I'll make even more money.
>>
>>
>> By the way, I don't think civilization is about to end. ? Just global
>> Capitalism. ?For a while, anyway.
>
>
>
> IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE TO DO A 180 J...Without compulsive spending and
> conspicuous consumption funded by unaffordable debt, we would fail as
> a country.
>
> Lets say everyone becomes voluntary simplicity and frugal squirrel
> devotees. Who will but all the crap that America makes and sells in
> order to keep everyone employed and keeps China from starving
> so they do not go back to old ways of trying to take over the world?
China never tried to take over the world, child.
> What about more taxes?
Then you'd better do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin, child.
> Thoreau didn't think much of those that lived beyond their means.
His problem.
> From Walden:
> "Some of you, we all know, are poor, find it hard to live, are -
> sometimes, as it were, gasping for breath. I have no doubt that some
> of you who read this book are unable to pay for all the dinners which
> you have actually eaten, or for the coats and shoes which are fast
> wearing or are already worn out, and have come to this page to spend
> borrowed or stolen time, robbing your creditors of an hour. It is very
> evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live, for my sight
> has been whetted by the experience of others; always living on the
> limits, trying to get into business and trying to get out of debt, a
> very ancient slough, called by the Latin - 'Res Alienum' or 'another's
> brass' for some of their coins were made of brass. Living, seeking to
> curry favors, lying, dying, and buried by 'other's brass'; always
> promising to pay, promising to pay, tomorrow, and dying today
> insolvent." (Quote shortened)
> "A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail..." ~ Ron Paul
How odd that we havent actually seen a single one of them fail.
Rod Speed
Everyone is, actually, even the 'homeless'. We dont keep them in locked wards anymore.
> The answer to our current dilemma is an injection
> of money into the bottom of the economy,
Nope. That wont do a damned thing about the shortage of credit.
> but the reason for that injection is not to increase the demand
> for more "goods". The reason for the injection is to increase
> wages to the point where only half the people need to be
> working (one person from each household) will need to
> have a job in order to support the typical family.
We're never going to see a return to that, and there isnt any point in
having half the adult population with nothing much useful to do anyway.
> We have so much abundance due to the development of
> real capital and the division and specialization of labor and
> trade that the need for labor has been greatly diminished.
Modern first world economys have been about a hell
of a lot more than just goods for a hell of a long time now.
> To run around now trying to increase the demand for goods
> and to increase the number of jobs is wrong headed. We
> need a SIMPLIFICATION of American life in the form
> of less "lip gloss" and a lot more family awareness.
Taint gunna happen.
> That sounds like a depression to a lot of people and maybe it is.
> But there is no reason for the hate and impoverishment of people
> because they are not employed. The unemployment is a result
> of the mechanization.
We aint had a problem with unemployment for quite a while now.
So much for your mindless claims about mechanisation.
> The following is from the opening chapter of "Progress and Poverty":
> At the beginning of this marvelous era it was natural to expect, and
> it was expected, that labor-saving inventions would lighten the toil
> and improve the condition of the laborer; that the enormous increase
> in the power of producing wealth would make real poverty a thing of
> the past. Could a man of the last century-a Franklin or a
> Priestly-have seen, in a vision of the future, the steamship taking
> the place of the sailing vessel, the railroad train of the wagon, the
> reaping machine of the scythe, the threshing machine of the flail;
> could he have heard the throb of the engines that in obedience to
> human will, and for the satisfaction of human desire, exert a power
> greater than that of all the men and all the beasts of burden of the
> earth combined; could he have seen the forest tree transformed into
> finished lumber-into doors, sashes, blinds, boxes or barrels, with
> hardly the touch of a human hand; the great workshops where boots and
> shoes are turned out by the case with less labor than the
> old-fashioned cobbler could have put on a sole; the factories where,
> under the eye of a girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than hundreds of
> stalwart weavers could have turned it out with their handlooms; could
> he have seen steam hammers shaping mammoth shafts and mighty anchors,
> and delicate machinery making tiny watches; the diamond drill cutting
> through the heart of the rocks, and coal oil sparing the whale; could
> he have realized the enormous saving of labor resulting from improved
> facilities of exchange and communication-sheep killed in Australia
> eaten fresh in England, and the order given by the London banker in
> the afternoon executed in San Francisco in the morning of the same
> day; could he have conceived of the hundred thousand improvements
> which these only suggest, what would he have inferred as to the
> social condition of mankind?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then the real world moved on yet again and modern first
world economys were about a hell of a lot more than just goods.
> We work too damned much in pursuit of "lip gloss".
Speak for yourself. Cant say I have ever bothered with it myself.
com...@webtv.net
" BARACK OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST "
Doobie Keebler
> my "buy" trigger finger is getting pretty ichy.......
>
> " BARACK OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST "
Is that supposed to be a comma or a period in that number?
Michael Coburn
That is total crap.
> Friedman would never:
>
> 1) Had the government in the mortgage business. Period.
And Friedman may or may not have been wrong. The insistence that the
problem is due to Fannie and Freddie is a rightard Republican dodge in
that they want to blame Democrats for the problems by rightfully
associating Democrats with these institutions. The problem is that these
institutions did not get into difficulty until AFTER 2000. And they got
into difficulties due to the Bush/Republican "ownership society". The
institutions were operating with due regard for the lead of HUD and the
George Bush Republican home ownership initiative and the Republican
"American Dream Downpayment act", which was necessary to the support of
the fake economy that was in turn necessary to fund imperialism while
granting tax cuts to the rich. The real goal was the destruction of the
American government by debt.
> 2) Permitted the government to coerce lenders into making imprudent > >
> loans. If the government had persisted in underwriting mortgages over
> his objections, he never would have supported the underwriting of > >
> imprudent loans by those agencies.
This is probably true. The problem is that the Clinton's insistence on
retaining the CRS has nothing to do with the current problem. Granting
better interest rates than would be "prudent" in specific areas was
supposed to be offset by higher interest rates in the much larger total
area of this nation. Less than 5% of the loans granted below
"prudent" (not below prime) were granted in areas that were defined to be
problem areas. The rightards are simply lying through their teeth
attempting to "BLAME CLINTON" even though such loans are a "nit. And
recall that the Republicans they had total control over the situation
since Jan., 2001 and could have changed whatever they wanted. They
instead helped George Bush in his march toward fascism.
> 3) Permitted an activist Fed (in fact, Friedman didn't beleive they were
> necessary at all, but he wrote that before they become a fact of life
> worldwide_
> The government was lax in allowing markets to develop in complex
> securities without reserve requirements. Granted. Friedman MAY or MAY
> NOT have leaned in favor or not, it's hard to tell. But, the overriding
> facts are that had the government (both parties) not spent the last 13
> years using % of home ownership as a success metric, AND using the bully
> pulpit to make it happen. We got here today because the government
> couldn't keep it's paws out of the home business.
Perhaps you'd like to back up that claim concerning the pursuit of, and
not just the taking advantage of, the "home ownership" metric as a prima-
facia "my economy is wonderful" tool.
But perhaps you refer to:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Bill_Clinton_Families_+_Children.htm
"There is no more crucial building block for a strong community and a
promising future than a solid home.“ The Clinton Administration is
dedicated to making the dream of homeownership a reality for all
Americans. In 1995, the Administration, in partnership with 50 key public
and private sector organizations, formed a National Homeownership
Strategy with the goal of helping more Americans become homeowners.
* [Accomplishments include]:Highest Homeownership Rate in History,
67.2% in the 2nd quarter of 2000.
* Lowering Interest Rates by Paying Off the National Debt.
* Record Levels of Homeownership Assistance via 1.3 million loans
from the Federal Housing Administration.
* Helping Renters Buy Their First Home via homeownership vouchers for
50,000 families.
* Providing Incentives to Save for a Home via Individual Development
Accounts, providing incentives through federal matching funds for low-
income families to save for a first home, higher education, or to start a
new business.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Strangely missing from this list are any "no downpayment" larceny, or
calls for interest rate changes by the Fed.
Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act -----
The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies
to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of
the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe
and sound operation.
---------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing in this act that would force banks to loan money to
people who could not pay it back and the less than desirable risks were
to be underwritten by higher rates on loans in the 95% of the loans that
were not included in the target areas. That subsidy was minimal.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/pmialrt.shtm
If you put less than 20 percent down on a home mortgage, lenders often
require you to have Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). PMI protects the
lender if you default on the loan. The Homeowners Protection Act of 1998
- which became effective in 1999 - establishes rules for automatic
termination and borrower cancellation of PMI on home mortgages. These
protections apply to certain home mortgages signed on or after July 29,
1999 for the purchase, initial construction, or refinance of a single-
family home. These protections do not apply to government-insured FHA or
VA loans or to loans with lender-paid PMI.
For home mortgages signed on or after July 29, 1999, your PMI must - with
certain exceptions - be terminated automatically when you reach 22
percent equity in your home based on the original property value, if your
mortgage payments are current. Your PMI also can be canceled, when you
request - with certain exceptions - when you reach 20 percent equity in
your home based on the original property value, if your mortgage payments
are current.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation required that lenders inform the buyers that PMI was no
longer required and forced mortgage companies to stop sucking up PMI
payments once the homeowner had a 22% equity in the home. The companies
were screwing the home buyers as much as they could -- business you
understand.
But the point to be made here is that the __**VAST**__ majority of the
mortgages had PMI.
>
> FDR was
>> correct, its the demand side, and the new deal corrected that, and it
>> also corrected the excess's of the free market.
Let's compare this with the Republican/Bush initiatives with what we see
above:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html
June 18, 2002
President Reiterates Goal on Homeownership
The goal is, everybody who wants to own a home has got a shot at doing
so. The problem is we have what we call a homeownership gap in America.
Three-quarters of Anglos own their homes, and yet less than 50 percent of
African Americans and Hispanics own homes. That ownership gap signals
that something might be wrong in the land of plenty. And we need to do
something about it.
We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this
goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 --
million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half
million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a
realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard
to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the
federal government, but the private sector, as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/bush.homes/index.html
Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 1:08 PM EDT (1708 GMT
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (CNN) -- President Bush traveled Friday to New
Mexico, the state that was decided by the closest margin in 2000, where
he hailed a "growing" U.S. economy and record home ownership.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html ---
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5246/is_200403/ai_n19793121
This was an article concerning the fact that Fannie May was supporting
the Bush initiative. It has now been removed because the fascist pigs
found it embarrassing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You may see these as equivalent. But Bill Clinton nor George bush made
the laws. That is the job of the Congress, and the Congress was firmly
in the hands of the Republicans from 1995 through 2007. And that is when
the problems were created. The (P)resident can lead and inspire, but
according to my the copy of the Constitution, the (P)resident can't
create law. The Republicans created this disaster, and we will all
suffer the consequences of their lies and their actions.
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
> Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise.
Nothing left but abject truth, unanswered (and unanswerable!!) by the
clueless dumbfuck of the Internet, Rod's on Speed.
Mike
(I can play cut and paste all fucking day, moron. Now please answer a
fucking question...)
darkst...@gmail.com
> > Stray Dog, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to Rod's on Speed and his
> > bullshit...
>
> Thank you, you are kind and considerate.
Sorry. He needs to be done away with off the Internet. Seriously.
His kind of stupidity, frankly, is dangerous in this day and age.
> Have you seen the Rod Speed FAQ? I didn't write it, but it is "right on."
>
> You can easily find it by googling, or one of my re-posts from the website
> that it came from.
I saw it -- and you reposted it below. I will add comments.
> > Hopefully, I can answer you without too much invective...
>
> Most of what you wrote below is reasonable and rational and if I differ
> from you then it is out of personal opinion and we all have our right to
> that. I sometimes tweak people's opinion by giving a version of my own,
> and with another slant. We should be thankful that we all can "vent" about
> stuff without much fear of retribution (but...keep your mouth shut at work
> or your [dictator] boss might fire you).
The problem I thought I might have is that I would be so invective
toward Rod's on Speed that I would end up flaming you too. :)
> Don't let Rod Speed make you waste your time. I have the feeling he is
> locked up as an inpatient in a mental institution and they give him a
> computer and internet access so he doesn't hurt himself or bust up the
> place. To me he has displayed symptoms of oppositional-defiance,
> adult-ADHD, mild autism, and bi-polar, and maybe one or two others.
He does need to be locked up. Seriously. And I speak as one who's
been accused of same.
The level of stupidity in his "posts" really needs to be investigated,
because it's dangerous to be that dumb in a day and age like today.
It is. I speak frighteningly seriously.
He posts this juvenile drivel, refuses to answer a single question,
and basically comes across as someone I would get arrested against if
he lived within 50 miles of me. There's only two ways to get rid of
people like him (and I say this after reading of some of his ilk in
the mainstream media): Lock them up, or take them out.
> Who or What is Rod Speed?
>
> Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
> Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
> he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
> big, hard man" on the InterNet.
That only works when no one calls him on it. When someone does, he
easily shrinks.
> Rod is believed to be from Australia.
And he should be lucky at that.
> Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?
>
> It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
> what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
> personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
> unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
> away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
> more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
> also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
> place.
I'd change one word: "Unemployed". I'd go, more, "unemploy_able_".
Who'd hire that sorry-assed piece of shit?
> But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?
>
> Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
> knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
> including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
> self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
> him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
> more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
> subject matter.
See my comments above. Especially when he continually cut and pastes
"Insult #1", "Insult #2", "Insult #38"..., he comes across as someone
so idiotic that it's clear he's unsafe for the public.
> But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?
>
> Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
> taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
> credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
> shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
> example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
> view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
> opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
> simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
> himself fought against his whole life.
A simple "no" would suffice. This guy isn't an expert on whether his
own shit stinks.
> What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?
>
> Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
> other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
> responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
> instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
> much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
> harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, wanker, etc etc".
> The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
> says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.
Cut and paste. I doubt this shit-head even knows how to read... He
just approximates what he thinks he hears, and cuts and pastes
accordingly.
> But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?
>
> It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
> who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
> Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
> emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
> class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
> the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
> off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
> proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
> an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
> pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
> naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
> the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
> class. The correct response was "please report to the
> headmaster's office right NOW!"
To wit the aforementioned pupil would literally need to be thrown from
the classroom by campus security, else a confrontation with the
teacher (with, probably, ugly results) would be inevitable.
As for the rest of it: I respond to him for the same reason I still
even post to USENET after the decline and fall of same: I want
someone to be here that people can look on in 10 years and say,
"Yeah. Someone had the right idea in all this madness..."
> What is a "RodBot"?
>
> Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
> indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
> opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
> pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
> equally pithy Rod Speedism.
I'm surprised they haven't used it to do his posts for him!
> Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?
>
> You got it!
See above.
> What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?
>
> KillFile!
Some newsreaders do not have the capacity.
Mike
Rod Speed
Stray Dog
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, darkst...@gmail.com wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
> From: darkst...@gmail.com
> Newsgroups: alt.politics, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics,
> misc.invest.stocks, alt.philosophy
> Subject: Re: Dow shooting for 1,400
>
> On Oct 8, 7:01 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>>> Stray Dog, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to Rod's on Speed and his
>>> bullshit...
>>
>> Thank you, you are kind and considerate.
>
> Sorry. He needs to be done away with off the Internet. Seriously.
> His kind of stupidity, frankly, is dangerous in this day and age.
Yeah, anything along those linew would be fine with me.
>> Have you seen the Rod Speed FAQ? I didn't write it, but it is "right on."
>>
>> You can easily find it by googling, or one of my re-posts from the website
>> that it came from.
>
> I saw it -- and you reposted it below. I will add comments.
>
>>> Hopefully, I can answer you without too much invective...
>>
>> Most of what you wrote below is reasonable and rational and if I differ
>> from you then it is out of personal opinion and we all have our right to
>> that. I sometimes tweak people's opinion by giving a version of my own,
>> and with another slant. We should be thankful that we all can "vent" about
>> stuff without much fear of retribution (but...keep your mouth shut at work
>> or your [dictator] boss might fire you).
>
> The problem I thought I might have is that I would be so invective
> toward Rod's on Speed that I would end up flaming you too. :)
Nah, don't worry about that. I've been on ngs for 16 years, have all kinds
of bruises and blisters from flame wars, and I gave a few bruises and
blisters, too. ;-)
>> Don't let Rod Speed make you waste your time. I have the feeling he is
>> locked up as an inpatient in a mental institution and they give him a
>> computer and internet access so he doesn't hurt himself or bust up the
>> place. To me he has displayed symptoms of oppositional-defiance,
>> adult-ADHD, mild autism, and bi-polar, and maybe one or two others.
>
> He does need to be locked up. Seriously. And I speak as one who's
> been accused of same.
We all have our enemies, demons, and etc. Someone once said to me "If you
don't have enemies then you are not doing anything." It made me feel
better.
Another piece of wisdom from Confuscious: "He who is a friend of all is a
friend of none." Pick your friends, make alliances, live life.
> The level of stupidity in his "posts" really needs to be investigated,
> because it's dangerous to be that dumb in a day and age like today.
> It is. I speak frighteningly seriously.
Just be glad we all have free speech. We've probably got more democracy
here on the ngs than anywhere else including our homes, countries,
workplaces, etc. Be thankful for it.
> He posts this juvenile drivel, refuses to answer a single question,
> and basically comes across as someone I would get arrested against if
> he lived within 50 miles of me. There's only two ways to get rid of
> people like him (and I say this after reading of some of his ilk in
> the mainstream media): Lock them up, or take them out.
Well, be careful a little bit or else you can turn into a Hitler and you
know what he did. But, there were guys like that going way back in
history. And, tens of millions of people were killed in those wars 1800s
and before.
And, I read all your stuff below. If you can't kilfile the guy, then just
use willpower. Of course, if there are no other "exciting" posts from the
guys here that I respect, then I'll go and try to out-troll Rod Speed by
dumping some flamebait on him like a repost of the Rod Speed FAQ. That
never fails to get a knee-jerk counter-post of his "fuckwit" line.
I still think he's mentally ill.
Have a nice day.
Stray Dog
/////////////////////
Rod Speed
darkst...@gmail.com
> > Mainly because they were already shit economically when
> > the rest of it started, and had been since The Revolution.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Why do you think the Czar was overthrown with massive (under false
pretense, of course) public support???
Moran... Not just a "moron", you've graduated to "moran".
> >>> and the whole world was headed into a depression _before_ the US '29 crash.
> >> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
> > Who was going to pay off World War I, idiot???
>
> In the US, that would be trivial.
"And the whole world was headed into a depression..." Gee, one of us
read for comprehension and it wasn't you!
> > We were still having problems dealing with the after-effects (here and in Weimar Germany) of World War I!!!
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Is that "Cut and Paste Insult #1" or "Cut and Paste Insult #4"?
You again prove I'm right.
> > Stray Dog is right.
>
> Not on that stupid claim that the depression was word wide his source wasnt.
No, Stray Dog was right on precisely that aim.
> > The reparations which were part of the Treaty of Versailles were
> > necessary to rejuvenate a peace-time economy after the war
>
> Have fun explaining how come we managed to recover
> from the much more expensive WW2 fine without them.
One, because we actually seized Germany.
Two, because of the New Deal, we actually constructed an economy which
World War II could spur into heightened motion to actually sustain us
better than 25 years before.
And three, because, with FDR, we had someone with a clue.
Try again, Space Ca-det.
> We could even afford the cold war and the Marshall Plan without reparations.
Different world, different circumstances.
Read a history book. No, more correctly, have someone read it to you
and explain it to you, because you obviously cannot read.
> > -- that is, of course, if Germany could ever pay them
> > off in a currency worth anything, which they could not.
>
> So it was completely pointless crippling their economy with reparations
> and putting in place the conditions for them going to war again.
That _might_ be true, but the fact is that we should've just taken and
partitioned Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, and then Hitler has
no basis to take power.
> > That's one of the reasons why we were headed down.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
#1 or #4?
> >>>> This has, of course, been predicted for years.
> >>> It is true that in the last few years there have been a lot of warnings
> >>> about derivatives but I would blame the too easy credit, herd instinct
> >>> in the housing bubble (1/3 of house buying was speculative),
> >> Another number straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.
> > No, dumbfuck (Rod again...). In fact, I can tell you from what
> > my friend Robert used to tell me that you are full of shit.
>
> No one gives a flying red fuck about your imaginary 'friends', child.
Not imaginary at all, though I can understand how you could grasp
_that_ concept. Who could be a friend to your steaming pile of dung?
> > I'll even go above and beyond the "home as ATM" situation to the real speculative shit...
> > Ever hear of a program called "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"??? Basically, poor dads
> > worked to give something to "The Man". Rich dads, at least in theory, had
> > "The Man" and his money (through mortgages and the like) working for him.
>
> The real american economy was always about a hell of a lot more than just the rich and the poor, child.
Read -- for -- comprehension -- dipshit!!
(Of course, you're even wrong in _that_, on top of your absolute
inability to comprehend what intelligent people are trying to tell
you. The real American economy was always about just the rich and the
poor -- and, the further along this got, the more pronounced that gap
(and the impossibility with which to bridge it) becomes.
> > Basically, the idea was "carrying paper" (mortgages) on
> > investment properties (rentals of one kind or another) such
> > that the money received from the rentals would be worth
> > more each month than the payment on the mortgage. Voila!!
> > Pocket the difference, and you're on a yacht in a couple years...
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Um, no. This is proof that I'm right and that you simply cut and
paste your insults to fap off in public. You know that's illegal in
most jurisdictions, do you not??
That was exactly how the program worked. "Rich Dad" would make money
work for him, rather than the "Poor Dad" working for the money.
> > Of course, the problem being that, especially in cities where very
> > few people could actually afford to live in (San Francisco being one),
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
More cut and paste bullshit. If I'm that wrong, asshole, then I'm
afraid you're going to have to start from Grade One and explain it
all , s-l-o-w-l-y.
(Now, to the rest, I know he's incapable of that -- but I want to
force him to actually answer a question without resorting to "Cut And
Paste Insult #1" (or #4).)
> > the math never worked. To carry on that kind of a cycle, you need
> > steady jobs at a living wage, and not just on an individual basis, but
> > on a macroeconomic scale as well. This is because you are depending
> > on THEIR payments to make YOUR payment. The moment that stops...
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
OK, so how does that cycle continue without such?? You must be
working for our central bank here in America, you clueless piece of
cow dung!
> > As the real unemployment rate rockets past about 15%,
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Read the real statistics, not the shit your government feeds you (or
ours, for that matter)...
If the truth about our economy ever becomes known, The Shit Hits The
Fan.
> > I think intelligent people like Stray Dog can see the problem with that approach...
>
> Pitys its just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
No, from what I heard him post, he seems to see the problem with the
approach just fine.
> >>> and crook loan processes (sub-prime, killer fine print,
> >>> deceptive marketing) as major factors in the present decline.
> > Never understood how they could pull off a NINJA loan.
>
> No surprises there.
>
> > Never understood how a bank could get away with that shit --
> > I mean, what... Don't have to declare income, don't have to
> > even have a job, and here's a $300,000 home... COME ON!!!
>
> The reason it worked was because those loans could be bundled and
> securitized and given a AAA rating by fools like Standard & Poor's child.
No. Not even with _that_... I mean, come on.... Any homeless bum
could walk off the streets and fill out a NINJA loan and use his
welfare check to pay the teaser rate and, viola -- instant drug
house!!
Um, no.
> >>>> There is no tangible product of substance to back up the tens of
> >>>> trillions of dollars in outstanding loans.
> > As reiterated before, correct.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Actually, I must recorrect, he's off by an order of magnitude, as I
said before.
> >>> Real estate and tangibles are part of physical reality; the
> >>> only unknown is how they will be priced in the near future.
> > Not for that amount of outstanding loans -- and when you add the
> > derivative bad bets to the discussion, now you're talking a factor
> > of about 15 of the entire value of EVERYTHING on the planet.
I'm reading this as I post. I predict another C&PI. (Cut & Paste
Insult)
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
And I am right, as usual...
> > (With the stock market losing a quarter of its value in a month across
> > the board, that number could even be going up to 16-17 as we speak.)
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Read my other posts -- the numbers show the truth, and show you to be
full of shit.
> >> And we didnt see huge reductions in value during the great depression.
> > Bullshit, Rod. One of the reasons it happened -- and not even to this degree,
>
> Not with houses we didnt, child.
Houses weren't the only measure of "value" then. One of the
differences today is that the inflated "value" of houses WAS about the
only measure of "value" we had!
> > and not with all this toxic leveraging.
> >> All we saw is the number of transactions drop very substantially.
> > Which depresses the value in and of itself.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Note that he pulls the C&P before he actually thinks he "reads" the
explanation for that comment.
> > If I can't get the valuation for a home, that means that valuation was
> > too high and must come down immediately if I want to sell the home.
>
> And its completely irrelevant if you dont need to sell the house.
Problem is, what happened if, like so many...
*wait for it*
... you DID have to sell the house back then??
> >>>> This wealth does not exist, and, it will most certainly disappear.
> >>> People are all warm-fuzzy when prices for houses go up as fast or
> >>> faster than inflation (etc), but, yes, there is going to be a ton of people,
> >>> in the near future, who are going to experience that sinking feeling.
> > Just saw something on CNBC this morning: In one year, all retirement plans, taken together: -20%.
>
> Just another number straight from some fool's arse.
So if it's not from the neo-con gubmint, you consider it off some
fool's arse!
Someone really needs to punch you out. I'd do it, but I live in
America.
> Didnt happen to mine. Mine went UP thanks. Because I had enough of a clue to be in cash.
Full bit of good that will do when your cash is worth NOTHING!!
> >> But wont necessarily see the value of the property
> >> return to what it was even just 15 years ago.
> > You very well might, Rod, and far worse than that.
>
> I meant the exact opposite, that it wont necessarily even drop to what it was 15 years ago.
Actually, no, I meant just THAT -- and FAR WORSE OF A DROP!
Rioting and mass looting doesn't make for good real estate prices.
Many repos are already getting stripped of everything of value -- so
badly that many of the houses might as well be razed.
> > Especially if no one wants to buy nor move in because
> > they are geniunely concerned that might turn into their coffin.
>
> That last is just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
Ummm, no. You honestly have some faith (misplaced though it might be)
that social order can be upheld. I do not share that faith. I know
human nature far too well. Humanity is a very evil concept with many
evils deep within one's soul.
> >>>> There will be no safe havens.
> >>> People will need a roof over their heads, food, bathroom, TV or radio while they are unemployed.
> > Nope, Stray Dog. Millions and millions will be homeless.
>
> We didnt even see that during the great depression when we had nothing like the welfare we have now.
Which the neo-pigs like you want to slash -- and, on top of that fact,
there's no way the welfare system is going to hold up when the load on
said system is 10X the load we have now!
> > Realistically, you're already seeing the start of this across the nation.
>
> How odd that the number of 'homeless' hasnt even increased at all, child.
*cough* *sputter* Gee, that would only run in the face of EVERYTHING
I'M READING ON THE SUBJECT!! Reno to Vegas to Massachusetts to every
other corner of the country where discussions on the subject are
becoming reports in the media.
> We havent even seen a quarter of negative growth yet child.
If this, one real quarter of growth since the Pig in Chief took
office.
> > Basically, about the only things people MIGHT be able to get (and
> > I won't go more than "might" on this, Stray Dog) are food, clothing,
> > and the ability to stay "warm enough" so as not to go into hypothermia.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
No, bitch... I can only hope you are well armed and now which
direction to point the gun.
Other than that, I hope you're the first the masses shoot.
> The govt wont be stupid enough to allow millions to be tossed
> out of their houses with those houses left empty, you watch.
Um, yes, I think they would be that stupid. They were stupid enough
to let it get this far!
You also don't seem to get the possibility that the government has
something else in mind than the common good.
> Essentially because it will cost a hell of a lot more to recover from that than to avoid it happening in the first
> place.
What's to say they WANT "recovery"?
> > And that assumes that a network of transportation of food will be
> > available to get the food from the heartland to the cities. Most,
> > sadly, don't see that as being able to hold up very long, and that's
> > where you get the Kunstlers and the survivalists making their cases.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Read them all the time -- and that's what they are saying. Once the
trucking companies need money up front, rather than what they get now
(which probably isn't worth that much...), the "just in time" delivery
method fails.
Google "You. Will. Not. Be. Able. To. Get. Food.".
> >>>> Not the banks.
> >>> Any banking system that depends on fractional reserve banking will be very vulnerable to bank runs
> > Yep.
>
> Nope, thats the whole point of the FDIC, child.
Not when the FDIC goes bankrupt, bitch.
Unless you are talking infinite monetization, which leads directly to
immediate Weimar-level hyperinflation. Thanks for playing, moran.
> >> You dont necessarily get bank runs when you have an FDIC, thats the whole point of it.
> > The FDIC is broke
>
> Nope, no govt operation is ever broke, the govt just puts in more money, child.
You're presuming infinite monetization. YOU DO WORK FOR OUR FEDERAL
RESERVE, DON'T YOU, SHITHEAD??
> > The FDIC can't hold up when every bank in the country is essentially insolvent.
>
> The FDIC only gets to pay out when a bank goes under, child.
Why didn't it do it for Wachovia nor Washington Mutual? BECAUSE IT
COULDN'T!! That's why it had to engineer a sweetheart deal to get
Chase to "buy the deposits" of the latter...
> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that hardly any have done that.
Because, as anyone who actually has been able to read has concluded,
they couldn't.
> >>> (above some threshold, they become insolvent).
> >> But can be bailed out.
> > Now do all the others see why I call Rod a neo-con??
>
> You wouldnt know what a real neocon was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
You've been trying, and I've been trying to beat you back with truth.
> > You can't bail out the banks when the "money" you are using
> > to bail them out is only worth it for toilet paper and firewood!
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
So you actually *support* Weimar-level hyperinflation???? That's the
*ONLY* alternative!
I repeat for emphasis: THERE IS NO OTHER RESULT.
> >> You never see everyone taking all their money out of the banks so you see the FDIC out of money.
> > Uhhhh, no. Thanks for playing, you motherfucking idiot, Rod.
>
> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
Sorry -- that's about all the answer I can have after about sixteen
helpings of steaming Rod Speed Bullshit.
> > The only reason, bluntly, you aren't seeing a run on the
> > banks completely, is because I think people know what
> > happens (as in Martial Law) the moment that happens.
>
> How odd that we didnt see that happen during the great depression, child.
Different day and age. Different government that didn't openly desire
that result back then. And a different populace that at least had
some belief in social order, unlike today.
> > Think this over: I was in a plaza, Christmas 1999... San Francisco, CA. Christmas
> > night, bunch of people were being fed. Then they said they were out of food.
> > I knew from the murmuring that it would get violent quickly.
> > By the end, the ladies were fighting over the remaining kid-presents,
> > knives were coming out on Market Street -- this was after
> > the table had been tossed into the street and smashed,
> > and more than one person present thrown to the ground!...
> > Take that and multiply it on a national scale once the cash on hand runs out.
>
> How odd that we didnt see that happen during the great depression, child.
Different day and age. Different government that didn't openly desire
that result back then. And a different populace that at least had
some belief in social order, unlike today.
(I can play cut-and-paste all day too. And it's the same God-damned
answer. Now, either start answering with some logic or keep getting
your ass kicked until social order is lost, and then we can all pray
you're one of the first shot.)
> The way the FDIC works avoids that sort of thing, child.
Only if the FDIC has the money to pull it off. THEY -- D O N ' T !!!!
> >> Depends on the jurisdiction.
> > What, you have jurisdictions which basically say that if you don't
> > have a house on your land that it might not be your land???
>
> Nope, that if your house burns down, they wont let you live in a tent on it, child.
If you own the land, they have no say. That was the point which you
completely missed.
> Quite a few US housing associations wont even let you have house painted the
> wrong color. They arent very likely to allow you to camp out in a tent, child.
They would have to seize the land which...
*wait for it*
*wait*
.... the discussion presumes that you own.
Now, they won't let you camp out on someone else's land -- not that
that stops anybody, really... -- but land you own??? That would seem
to indicate that you don't own the land and never did.
> > I think (and the problem is that you, Rod, do not think at all) that what
> > Stray Dog was implying was that the person owned the house and the land.
>
> Irrelevant to whether you'll be allowed to live in a tent on that land you own, child.
Then you don't own the land. If you can produce the deed, you should
be allowed to live in a tent on _YOUR LAND_ should the circumstances
require.
If any law indicates you can't, then you don't own the land -- you are
only leasing it, essentially, from the authority enforcing the law.
If you can't live on a tent on your land, it's not your land.
We COULD get into an eminent domain argument, but I doubt you even
know what "eminent domain" means!
> >>> The alternative is under the bridge. You may have competition there for space.
> >> You dont need a bridge.
> > There will be a lot of competition for space.
>
> How odd that there wasnt in the great depression, child.
Actually, there was. They were called "Hoovervilles", moran.
It also was the basis of huge billboards in many American cities which
read:
"Umemployed Men: Move Along. We Can't Take Care of Our Own."
That doesn't even speak that we are in much worse shape as a general
economy now -- but that shit can't go unanswered.
> > In many cities, there had been for years.
>
> Pity about outside them, child.
See above, bitch.
> >>>> Not the stock market.
> >>> If the company can survive, then buying cheap stock (pennies per
> >>> share) and holding it until the economy recovers might make you
> >>> rich (dollars per share).
> > This is where I disagree with most of the people who
> > believe there will be an eventual recovery, Stray Dog...
>
> Your problem, child.
Yours too, unless you are very well-armed.
(Not a specific threat -- that's a general statement. It's going to
be everybody's problem who doesn't take the steps to defend
themselves.)
> > The reason I disagree with your opinion on this is because of
> > the derivatives bubble, and the fact that the whole economy
> > (probably of the entire civilized planet!!) was built on this rickety
> > house of cards. Once it comes down, Ford's worth nothing,
> > Toyota's worth a pile of dung, Google ain't worth even that...
>
> Plenty of fools made the same claims about the great depression, child.
The difference, AGAIN, being that we had an economy based on something
back then.
Today, it's based on only that toxic paper.
> > The real question _then_ becomes: What companies survive at all?
> > And that's a real question people are going to have to start asking...
>
> Have a look at what survived the great depression, child.
AGAIN, we had an economy back then.
Once all the toxic paper is exposed as worth nothing, NOTHING
survives. EVERYTHING is based on that toxic paper.
> >>>> Not cash.
> >>> I'll bet that if you have that paper with the green ink on it, then
> >>> you will definitely be able to walk down to the local Mcdonalds
> >>> and get a burger with fries so you can eat to live.
> > Only when the burger and fries are feasibly affordable, Stray Dog.
> > If the price of that jumps by an order of magnitude overnight...
>
> How odd that that didnt happen during the great depression, child.
Only because we didn't monetize the bad debts like we are now -- and
inflation still shot up.
> >>>> Nothing will be able to retain its value, as governments scramble
> >>>> to maintain the economic system by printing money with no real
> >>>> tangible value, as they are doing now.
> >>> The present situation (and its trend) is looking to become as bad
> >>> as the Great Depression
> > Far worse, Stray Dog.
>
> Far better actually, essentially because govts now have enough of a clue
> to not just mindlessly slash spending and make things much worse, and
> in fact do the exact opposite to avoid getting a full depression at all.
Slash spending? With what tax base are they even doing the spending
they are now?
We're adding to the national debt at $50B a day, it seems... We're
well over $10T admitted (and past $20T in reality, when you add Fannie-
Freddie and the bailout bill just passed)...
> > Then, we had an economy which made things and could
> > make things and could put people to work. Now we do not.
>
> Is that right ? We cant grow any food anymore eh ?
No, not really. Not to the point that we could sustain this economy.
And you still haven't answered what happens when the delivery system
breaks down...
> You really should give up on that whacky weed, child.
You need to be locked up for your community's safety, bitch.
> >> Only if you dont have a clue about what turned the wall st crash into the great depression.
> > And, of course, Rod's on Speed can't see that we're past that point by a good factor of 15...
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
If I were that deluded, they'd need to shoot me for the betterment of
my community.
> We havent even seen a quarter of negative growth yet, child.
Rigged statistics, moran. Every one of them. Read the real
statistics, and you realize that, at best, we have one quarter of
positive growth under W.
> >>> (economies all over the world are going to hell or soon will be).
> >> The US economy hasnt even seen a quarter of negative growth yet.
> > Numbers rigged.
>
> Yeah, yeah, only you know the real numbers, eh child ?
And those who read the real numbers where I do, yes.
You seem to forget that the mass media is nothing but an arm of the
entertainment divisions of many of these networks -- they have to lie
to your fucking faces to keep the order. If the truth ever came out,
it's all over, and instantaneously.
> > Or do you believe our election results too, moron??
>
> I certainly believe that there are fools like you around, child.
You, again, fail to answer my question.
> > One real quarter of growth in eight years, Rod.
> > (IF THAT)
>
> You really should give up on that whacky weed, child.
You need to be locked up or shot.
> > The problem, here, is that the entire social infrastructure
> > cannot hold the economy -- couldn't then, certainly won't now.
>
> How odd that we managed to survive the S&L fiasco fine, child.
Actually, that was part of the problem which led to all this. There
isn't a company out there which isn't practicing funny accounting.
> How odd that we managed to win WW2, child.
The first reason we won WW2 was that Hitler got impatient and went
after Russia too soon. If he spends that fall when he tries to take
Russia and the winter that the eastern front was literally frozen out
preparing for the invasion of Russia the following spring, Russia
falls, Europe with it, and the Nazi sympathisers in America force
capitulation and Hitler wins it in about 1942.
The only other reason we won WW2 was that we got the bomb first. I'm
not saying the bomb was a good thing -- but we lose WW2 if Japan or
Germany got it first, because, at that point, all it would've taken
was one.
We didn't win -- they lost.
> >>>> This is not a good time to be rich.
> >>> There are a lot of books on the Great Depression.
> >>> The people who were hurt the most were those
> >>> who lost their jobs and could not find another job.
> > Still not a good time to be rich, Stray Dog.
>
> Even worse time to be renting with a minimum wage 'job' child.
Exactly. But that wasn't what Stray Dog was talking about.
> > Those who are rich will get it from both ends -- those above them wanting to
> > take from them, and those below them angry enough to do something drastic.
>
> And those with minimum wage 'jobs' who are renting will lose
> many of those 'jobs' and be out on their arses on the street, child.
And they will be the ones angry enough (and with nothing to lose by
dying) to do something drastic.
> We saw a hell of a lot of that during the great depression and
> fuck all of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasy.
Because, again, we had an economy (and a President willing to stand up
to the Nazi freaks) which could deal with it. We don't now.
> >> And who couldnt just carry on without one.
> > Of which, Rod, there will be millions in such straits.
>
> Nope, we've got decent welfare sysems now child.
Nope. Not to the extent to which they will be (pardon the pun) taxed.
> >> And they had nothing like modern welfare.
> > The modern welfare system can barely handle the load they have now.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys, child.
Ever been in a welfare office?
> > And you do realize the same bastards manipulating this
> > to financial Armageddon want to slash the safety net.
>
> They're completely irrelevant. No one takes any notice of them now that its all come unstuck, child.
Then you _SHOULD_, idiot!!! Because they want to enslave some and
kill the rest...
That is, unless you're (as I suspect) one of them, or one of those who
openly supports as such.
> > It's only a matter of time before all Social Security recipients get that letter -- they're being cut off.
>
> How odd that they didnt in the recessions, child.
Ever read about the Social Security trust fund, and how we have to
raid it to keep the day-to-day operations of our government going?
> >>> Unemployment was like 30%, depending on who you talked
> >>> to, and the other 70% were, therefore, employed and
> >>> spending as little as possible. Not everyone will starve.
> >> No one will starve if we do end up with another great depression.
> > Bullshit, Rod. You, again, presume that there will be an equitable distribution of food
>
> Never said that.
I didn't say you *said* it -- you *implied* it -- in fact, that's what
has to happen for your statement to be true, dipshit.
> > -- or that there will even be able to be one attempted.
>
> Equity never happens child. We do ensure that no one starves tho.
How, if there is no equitable (or possible) distribution of food?
What happens if the delivery system breaks down and food can't get
from the heartland to Los Angeles? Then what???
> >> Nope, because we have decent welfare systems now.
> > Once again, Rod's on speed proves not to be so fortunate.
> > No welfare system can be sustained if the government who's paying the checks goes broke,
>
> Bet you cant actually list even a single modern first world govt that went broke during the great depression, child.
Different world. Different situation.
And I would presume you would not include "Weimar Germany" in the
First World.
> >>> The ones who have shakey jobs need to figure out what they will do if they lose their jobs.
> >> Particularly the ones who are renting.
> > I'd suggest they learn some street skills.
>
> I'd suggest you do the decent thing and hang yourself.
Why don't you come to California and try to shoot me, bitch?? I'd
love some target practice for my fists.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
> Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise.
Nothing left but truth, unanswered (and unanswerable) by the clueless
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> darkst...@gmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote
>>>>> Jerry Kraus wrote
>>>>>> In the the Great Depression, the Markets lost 90% of their value,
>>>>>> and we are clearly in a very similar situation today.
>>>>> Since everyone else has jumped in with their opinion, I will offer my
>>>>> two cents. Yes, we are, today, in a situation similar to that before
>>>>> the Great Depression. According to Charles Kindleberger, in his book
>>>>> "World in Depression" (I read it cover to cover, and he is not only a
>>>>> respected economist but one who is easy to read, too), the Great
>>>>> Depression was world-wide
>>>> No it wasnt. Some countrys like the USSR werent affected at all.
>>> Mainly because they were already shit economically when
>>> the rest of it started, and had been since The Revolution.
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
>> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Why do you think the Czar was overthrown with massive
> (under false pretense, of course) public support???
Because of the fiasco the war turned into for them, child.
Their economy was doing fine by the time the great depression showed up and
they saw massive industrialisation happening before Germany invaded again.
>>>>> and the whole world was headed into a depression _before_ the US '29 crash.
>>>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>>> Who was going to pay off World War I, idiot???
>> In the US, that would be trivial.
> "And the whole world was headed into a depression..."
Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
<none of the rest of your even sillier mindless pig ignorant silly shit
worth bothering with. Here goes the chain on all of the rest of it, child >
Rod Speed
Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> desperately attempted to bullshit
its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Clam Bake
>
>It has been estimated that for the earth to sustainably support its
>population without fossil fuels a 90% dieoff must occur. I don't know
>if that is the right figure, but I do know humans could not live as
>they do unless it was funded by artificial means via fossil fuels.
>
>http://dieoff.org/
>
>So if this dieoff happens, of course there will be great amounts of
>pain in the world. But it is natures intended balancing act. It also
>reminds us that nature does not bow to humans - it is humans that
>always bow to nature.
>
>Animals live within their intended balance with nature and it is only
>man that destroys his environment and has to pay the price through
>pain and suffering from working against nature.
>
>
So you are advocating a 90% reduction in human population so we can
"bow to nature"? Of course, you'll be one of the first to volunteer
to terminate your life for the good of nature, right?
Mike
> But the point to be made here is that the __**VAST**__ majority of the
> mortgages had PMI.
i've been trying to figure out the status of PMI with regard to CDOs.
were they bundling mortgages that did not have PMI insurance or has the
PMI requirement always been there on all mortgages (with less than 20%
down), and if not was there a difference in PMI requirements between
fannie/freddie & the investment banks (ie. were the investment banks
taking more risk than fannie/freddie by not requiring PMI)?
Michael Coburn
All very good questions for which I have no answer. I am speculating
that this is a major portion of the real problem. The PMI providers were
being re-insured and so on and so on. The PMI stuff was designed with
local problems in mind such as the housing market in Detroit or in
Houston when the big ruin up in oil prices in 1979 and the collapse a
couple of years later. My house went from 50k to 120k and back to 60k.
But that was not true across the nation. But get a load of this:
http://www.investingintelligently.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/
a_history_of_home_values.png
20% isn't enough when the bubble bubbles like this.
Damaeus
darkst...@gmail.com posted:
> Mass social unrest and suicides are an inevitability now.
Curious. Do you plan to engage in any activities that would involve your
participation in social unrest, or do you just assume you're the only
person on the planet who can control himself?
--
Damaeus - Damon M.
Damaeus
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> posted:
> V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Dwindling potable water.
>
> Pure fantasy. And its completely trivial to turn seawater into potable
> water any time you need to do that.
So far they seem unwilling to build desalinization plants. They say the
plants cost too much to build and maintain, so once we run out of fresh
ground water, we will all starve because nobody will want to build
desalinization plants.
> > A defective model for long term population support that requires
> > constant consumption and unsustainable growth at the expense
> > of sound, long term economic practices.
>
> You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest'
> or sumfin.
Why do you mispell those words to make yourself sound like a bootlipped
nigger? Seriously, it does affect the way you're perceived, and it's not
very nice.
> > "A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail..." ~ Ron Paul
>
> How odd that we havent actually seen a single one of them fail.
LOL America. If He shed his grace on us, He can certainly piss on us,
too.
Damaeus
Damaeus
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> posted:
> Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind the entirely appropriate
> Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> desperately attempted to bullshit
> its way out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
Nice that you prove the previous poster correct with the exact
manifestation it illustrated.
You are a worthless twit fuckwad.
John Galt
Tell Bill Clinton. Even he, when interviewed by Maria Bartiromo the week
before last, agreed that Democrats are not free of blame on the issue.
This is a bipartisan screwup; both parties have pursued policies leading
after the goal of increasingly higher levels of home ownership. In doing
so, they have muddled in the free market; and now the roosters are
coming home to roost, magnified by complex derivatives and high levels
of leverage.
The problem is that these
> institutions did not get into difficulty until AFTER 2000.
You're of the opinion that a policy set by a previous administration
cannot be impactual until the next Administration? :-) On Inaguration
Day in January, does everything then become Barack Obama's fault?
I'll leave you to your delusions, then. You're obviously one of those
leftloons who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil if it's about
the political criminals of your preference.
JG
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> V <vf...@aol.com> wrote
>>> Dwindling potable water.
>> Pure fantasy. And its completely trivial to turn seawater
>> into potable water any time you need to do that.
> So far they seem unwilling to build desalinization plants.
You really need to get out more, child. Quite a few have been built where that makes sense.
> They say the plants cost too much to build and maintain,
Only fools like you say anything like that. Others just build them.
> so once we run out of fresh ground water,
Taint gunna happen. And it aint just ground water anyway.
> we will all starve because nobody will want to build desalinization plants.
How odd that they have been built already, child.
>>> A defective model for long term population support that
>>> requires constant consumption and unsustainable growth
>>> at the expense of sound, long term economic practices.
>> You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.
> Why do you mispell those words to make yourself sound like a bootlipped nigger?
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
> Seriously, it does affect the way you're perceived,
Only by pig ignorant pizza delivery apes who never ever matter a damn.
> and it's not very nice.
Like it or lump it, child.
>>> "A debt-based society cannot prosper and is doomed to fail..." ~
>>> Ron Paul
>> How odd that we havent actually seen a single one of them fail.
> LOL America. If He shed his grace on us, He can certainly piss on us, too.
There is no 'He' child.
Rod Speed
> darkst...@gmail.com wrote
>> Mass social unrest and suicides are an inevitability now.
> Curious. Do you plan to engage in any activities that would
> involve your participation in social unrest, or do you just assume
> you're the only person on the planet who can control himself?
He's just another pathetic little neurotic that will be hiding under his bed, you watch.
Rod Speed
puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.
No surprise that the best it could ever manage is pizza delivery ape by 38.
Soon to be without any job completely once the economy turns down.
Jerry Kraus
> Damaeus <no-m...@hotmail.invalid> wrote
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> He's just another pathetic little neurotic that will be hiding under his bed, you watch.
Sounds like you might know whereof you speak, there, Rod...
Sean
I hope you are running for the US Congress next month. YOU SHOULD BE -
America needs more people like you to stand up and act on Principle and the
national interest!!!!
[ i'm not american btw, but I can see a decent intelligent human when I hear
them speak like you do. ]
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gcj9u...@news5.newsguy.com...
darkst...@gmail.com
> darkstar7...@gmail.com wrote
>
> <reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>
> Whoops, nothing left. Wota surprise.
Nothing left but truth, as evidenced in the continuing crash of
anything of perceived "value" -- unanswered (and unanswerable) by the
clueless fuckwit of the Internet, Rod's On Speed.
Mike
darkst...@gmail.com
The Rethuglipigs and primitives like Rod's On Speed probably would
like to see a significant factor of the population die at the hands of
the rest.
They don't want to be right -- they want to be left.
Mike