PING: Some thoughts for Economist Olson [long]
Mr. Jaggers
future of the economy, not only that of the U.S., but that of the entire
world. I classify this as "problem finding."
Now I seek solutions to the problems, which I name "problem solving."
Perhaps you can be instrumental in this process as well.
1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
"worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become "worth
less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply, which is
contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and continue, or
perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of paper assets, making
them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today. We have certainly
experienced this over the course of our lives, and have learned to
compensate and adjust. We have even had a couple of periods of fairly rapid
decline, and we obviously survived those.
But "worthless," the word I see you using, is an entirely different
situation. That means that all the fiat money in the world would not buy a
piece of bubble gum, and all investments that consist of 0s and 1s in a
computer somewhere would be deleted and the hard drive wiped. Each of us
would be reduced to the real estate and personal property at our immediate
disposal. Even those would have no "value," other than what we could
exchange them, or barter them, for. It would take a long time, I believe,
for any kind of stable system of exchange to become established. How many
stuffed teddy bears, for example, equal a quart of milk?
2) A situation that resulted in total worthlessness of all paper financial
instruments, as well as all the fiat coinage, would certainly wreak instant
hardship on anyone who did not have an alternative. Those people will need
to eat today - and tomorrow, and the next day. The numbers of the destitute
would increase rapidly and exponentially, and we could easily see half the
U.S. population desperate within just one short week. We are not going to
have a stable society by any stretch of the imagination under such
circumstances. We can talk about stockpiling firearms and ammunition to
deal with the occasional intruder upon our property, bent on stealing what
we have, but there are few of us who could hold off attack by a mob of, say,
even twenty-five persons. Sure, we can blow away a few of them, but not all
of them. We are talking ultimate desperation here, and such people will not
be deterred by the fall of a few of their compatriots. Law enforcement,
which would have already been decimated by layoffs and retrenchment of
budgets, would be virtually powerless to protect the collective population.
Those who survived the day would live to face an even larger threat the
next. And the next. And the next. This would even necessarily include the
CEOs and Rush Limbaugh.
3) Of course, all this neglects the effects on world stability. The worst
threat is some nuclear states and other entities, having even less to lose
than they do at present, would feel eminently justified in blowing away a
few million of their imagined enemies, "just because." If and when this
happens, we can be absolutely certain that the world will be changed
bigtime, and permanently. Everything will be assessed in its terms. Petty
day-to-day concerns will also become "worthless" when compared to the Event.
3) Faced with your doomsday scenario, which I have amplified and extended
in detail, how does an individual prepare himself for survival? There are
only so many caves around, and those are mighty uncomfortable. As you have
often counselled, precious metals are the key to survival. But how much PM,
and in what form? How would the exchange value of a 1946-D Roosevelt dime,
for example, be determined? How would I get change for a $20 Liberty, and
in what form? What about a silver bullion bar? What good is that going to
do me? Most of the population has long forgotten what the economy was like
under a hard money standard, and answers to these questions would be long
and hard in coming.
Mormons are known to have raw wheat stockpiled in 40 gallon containers in
their basements. Some people stockpile tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and
ammunition, to be used as barter. Even toilet paper has been suggested as
something that would skyrocket in exchange value. Fresh water could
suddenly become liquid gold. How much of any of that would guarantee
long-term survival?
4) What should government(s) do more of, or less of, to prevent the
Ultimate Crisis? Should it do anything at all? Do we understand the
fallout that may ensue from the disappearance of GM, for instance, or a
second Great Depression? Is your crystal ball really crystal clear, or is
yours, like those of everyone else, including big-name economists, rather
foggy at best?
5) Finally, what are you yourself doing that will assure your own long-term
survival? Buying a couple Roosies at a flea market and stashing them away,
which you reported in another post, is fine, but still, hardly even a finger
in the dike.
I await your thoughtful commentary.
James
Michael Benveniste
> 1) You (we) need to distinguish between our paper assets becoming
> "worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become
> "worth less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply, which is
> contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and continue, or
> perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of paper assets, making
> them "worth less" tomorrow than they were today.
In my wallet today is a 50 billion dollar "special agro-cheque" issued
by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe on 15-May-2008. At today's spot price
and exchange rate to USD, the note is worth about about 2.67 _trillionths_
of a gram of gold. That's well less than a dollar per atom of gold.
The inflation rate in Zimbabwe is around 10% a day. That works out
to an inflation rate of about 128,330,558,000,000,000 percent.
That's real life proof that "worth less" can deteriorate into worthless.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.
Arizona Coin Collector
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gnems...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Hello
There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
this.
Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
these two pieces of legislation.
1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.
2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
started going up. It went up ever year from that
point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
swaps that the government now has to buy.
The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
repealed.
When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
would not worry about that. We are in a period of
deflation, not Inflation.
The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
been covering the United States federal deficits these
last eight years.
Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
the United States will get involved in a future conflict
remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
some four million young men in the military. It would not
only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
place the United States in a better position to deal with
any conflict that will be coming up.
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gnems...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> Hello
>
> There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
> and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
> how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
> this.
>
> Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
> 1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
> to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
> these two pieces of legislation.
So, are we still blaming Clinton for Original Sin as well? I'm just
sayin'...
> 1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
> December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
> Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
> was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.
The appeal? Please define.
> 2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
> two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
> default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
> a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
> may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
> started going up. It went up ever year from that
> point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
> swaps that the government now has to buy.
Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life, which
began considerably longer ago than 2001.
> The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
> least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
> repealed.
>
> When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
> the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
> would not worry about that. We are in a period of
> deflation, not Inflation.
Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?
> The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
> foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
> U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
> to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
> That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
> bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
> or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
> been covering the United States federal deficits these
> last eight years.
Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it? They're
just folks, too.
> Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
> in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
> years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
> the United States will get involved in a future conflict
> remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
> start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
> some four million young men in the military. It would not
> only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
> place the United States in a better position to deal with
> any conflict that will be coming up.
Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a Great
City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.
If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note at the
top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have a discussion
about doing your own original thinking, and not claiming somebody else's
ready-to-wear opinion as your own.
James
PC
"Arizona Coin Collector" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:SYGdnXZ9C8aZZwfU...@earthlink.com...
>
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gnems...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> Hello
>
> There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
> and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
> how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
> this.
>
> Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
> 1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
> to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
> these two pieces of legislation.
>
> 1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
> December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
> Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
> was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.
>
The repeal (I think you mean) of Glass-Steagall did not kick down barriers
that prevented the current economic mess from happening. Where do you get
that idea? In December of 1999 banks were already in the investment
business and investment companies were already in the banking business. The
law passed by Clinton actually put some standards around what they can and
can not do. If anything this may have prevented things from being even
worse.
> 2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
> two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
> default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
> a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
> may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
> started going up. It went up ever year from that
> point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
> swaps that the government now has to buy.
>
Republicans loved it at the time. The Enron loophole was crafted by Phil
Gramm. Carl Levin, a Democrat, in 2007 proposed closing this loophole
specifically in reposnse to the record high oil prices that were part of a
larger energy crisis. Bush vetoed it.
*the rest snipped*
Arizona Coin Collector
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> Arizona Coin Collector wrote:
>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>> news:gnems...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> There is no disagreement on how bad both the U.S.
>> and global economy truly is. I am more concern about
>> how to correct the pass mistakes that have lead to
>> this.
>>
>> Two piece of legislation by the congress in December of
>> 1999, and in December of 2000, I feel very strongly lead
>> to were we are now. President Bill Clinton sign both of
>> these two pieces of legislation.
>
> So, are we still blaming Clinton for Original Sin as well? I'm just
> sayin'...
I would blame Senator Phil Gram of Texas. He was the one
that authored both bills back in 1999, and 2000. He was
Senator John McCain economic adviser during his run for
President. (Remember Phil Gam calling Americans
"Wieners" in mid 2008 during the job losses?). President
Bill Clinton came out publicly and said he had regrets
on appealing the 1933 Glass-Steagall act. If the congress
Of 1999 and 2000 knew what would happen eight years
later, both the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall act,
and the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act may
not have happen back then.
>
>> 1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
>> December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
>> Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
>> was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.
>
> The appeal? Please define.
That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
that appealed the remaining parts of the
1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
of Texas authored the bill.
>> 2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
>> two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
>> default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
>> a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
>> may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
>> started going up. It went up ever year from that
>> point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
>> swaps that the government now has to buy.
>
> Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life, which
> began considerably longer ago than 2001.
Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
of 2008)
>
>> The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
>> least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
>> repealed.
>>
>> When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
>> the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
>> would not worry about that. We are in a period of
>> deflation, not Inflation.
>
> Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?
OOOPS, "TARP" no "TART".
>
>> The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
>> foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
>> U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
>> to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
>> That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
>> bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
>> or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
>> been covering the United States federal deficits these
>> last eight years.
>
> Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it? They're
> just folks, too.
I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
the ones the United States had during most of
the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
spending policy since they started the spending
deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
on this as well. They could have shut down the
Federal Government if they shown some backbone
to get the budget balance.
>
>> Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
>> in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
>> years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
>> the United States will get involved in a future conflict
>> remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
>> start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
>> some four million young men in the military. It would not
>> only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
>> place the United States in a better position to deal with
>> any conflict that will be coming up.
>
> Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a Great
> City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.
>
You should have seen my mom back in the 1970's
when I got my draft card in the mail. I though
she was going to break down and cry. My dad was
drafted and served from 1943 through 1946. My
dad viewed anyone joining the reserves as a
low life "draft dodger".
> If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note at the
> top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have a discussion
> about doing your own original thinking, and not claiming somebody else's
> ready-to-wear opinion as your own.
>
> James
It would seem you have your own "READY TO WEAR" opinions James.
Arizona Coin Collector
"PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
news:gnf18c$86t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
>
> The repeal (I think you mean) of Glass-Steagall did not kick down barriers
> that prevented the current economic mess from happening. Where do you get
> that idea? In December of 1999 banks were already in the investment
> business and investment companies were already in the banking business.
> The law passed by Clinton actually put some standards around what they can
> and can not do. If anything this may have prevented things from being
> even worse.
PC - Check out the link below from Wikipedia. It will expane and
answer your questions above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
>
>> 2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
>> two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
>> default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
>> a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
>> may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
>> started going up. It went up ever year from that
>> point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
>> swaps that the government now has to buy.
>>
>
> Republicans loved it at the time. The Enron loophole was crafted by Phil
> Gramm. Carl Levin, a Democrat, in 2007 proposed closing this loophole
> specifically in reposnse to the record high oil prices that were part of a
> larger energy crisis. Bush vetoed it.
>
> *the rest snipped*
It was Arizona Public Service (here in Arizona), that fingered Enron
to the Feds when California was having POWER BROWN OUTS
created by Enron back in 2001. Phil Gramm and George W Bush got
a great deal of distance from Enron CEO when the crimal charges
were filed. The rest is history.
PC
>
> "PC" <P...@Minneapolis.mn.us> wrote in message
> news:gnf18c$86t$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>>
>> The repeal (I think you mean) of Glass-Steagall did not kick down
>> barriers that prevented the current economic mess from happening. Where
>> do you get that idea? In December of 1999 banks were already in the
>> investment business and investment companies were already in the banking
>> business. The law passed by Clinton actually put some standards around
>> what they can and can not do. If anything this may have prevented things
>> from being even worse.
>
> PC - Check out the link below from Wikipedia. It will expane and
> answer your questions above.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
>
It seems to reinforce what I wrote. Copied directly from the link you
provided:
"Prior to the Act, most financial services companies were already offering
both saving and investment opportunities to their customers."
and
"Also prior to the passage of the [Gramm-Leach-Bliley] Act, there were many
relaxations to the Glass-Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier,
commercial Banks were allowed to get into investment banking, and before
that banks were also allowed to get into stock and insurance brokerage"
Mr. Jaggers
If one man, Phil Gram or whoever, can bring down the entire world economy,
then Heaven help us. To me it sounds more as if the responsibility should
be spread over a much wider group of individuals.
>>> 1) The appeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act back in
>>> December of 1999. This kept Commercial Banking,
>>> Investment Banking, and Insurance separated. This
>>> was a fix for the Great Depression of the 1930's.
>>
>> The appeal? Please define.
>
> That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
> that appealed the remaining parts of the
> 1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
> of Texas authored the bill.
Don't you mean REpeal, not APpeal?
>>> 2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
>>> two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
>>> default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
>>> a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
>>> may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
>>> started going up. It went up ever year from that
>>> point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
>>> swaps that the government now has to buy.
>>
>> Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life,
>> which began considerably longer ago than 2001.
>
> Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
> than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
> and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
> eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
> of 2008)
If I read that correctly, you are saying that the rise from 1961 to 2001 is
smaller in terms of speed and sharpness than the rise from 2001 to date.
The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 1961 was around $0.29. In 2001 it
was around $1.45, as you point out. That's a fivefold increase over the
period in question.
The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 2001 was around $1.45. On
February 17, 2009 I just filled up my tank for $1.86 a gallon. That's
slightly more than a one-fourth fold increase over the period in question.
>>> The 1933 Glass-Steagall Act should be restored and at
>>> least the "Credit Default Swap" should be removed or
>>> repealed.
>>>
>>> When it comes to the fear of massive inflation from
>>> the "TART BILL", and the "STIMULS" (jobs bill), I
>>> would not worry about that. We are in a period of
>>> deflation, not Inflation.
>>
>> Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?
>
> OOOPS, "TARP" no "TART"
Thank goodness we caught that in time! 8>).
>>> The real economic terrorism lies with China, and other
>>> foreign governments that hold over 1.7 trillion dollars in
>>> U.S. Treasury bills. All they have to do is sell them back
>>> to the United States and flush this country will dollars.
>>> That is the REAL INFLATION fear. Not the job spending
>>> bill that Obama will sign into law this Tuesday in Denver,
>>> or the TARP bill money. These foreign governments have
>>> been covering the United States federal deficits these
>>> last eight years.
>>
>> Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it? They're
>> just folks, too.
>
> I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
> the ones the United States had during most of
> the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
> Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
> spending policy since they started the spending
> deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
> Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
> through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
> this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
> on this as well. They could have shut down the
> Federal Government if they shown some backbone
> to get the budget balance.
Just exactly how could they have done that?
>>> Every global recession has lead to terrible upheavals
>>> in the world. Wars will break out within the next four
>>> years. History is a very good at repeating itself. Weather
>>> the United States will get involved in a future conflict
>>> remains to be seen. I for one would like the see Congress
>>> start funding Selected Service again and start drafting
>>> some four million young men in the military. It would not
>>> only dry up the labor market for a short time, but would
>>> place the United States in a better position to deal with
>>> any conflict that will be coming up.
>>
>> Yeah, it takes a lot of soldiers to counterbalance the nuking of a
>> Great City. Let me guess - you're beyond draft age.
>>
>
> You should have seen my mom back in the 1970's
> when I got my draft card in the mail. I though
> she was going to break down and cry. My dad was
> drafted and served from 1943 through 1946. My
> dad viewed anyone joining the reserves as a
> low life "draft dodger".
I guessed correctly about your age then. You might canvass the attitudes of
people under 35 to see how many agree with you on the draft issue.
>> If you turned this essay in to an English teacher, you'd get a note
>> at the top that said "See me." Then you and the teacher would have
>> a discussion about doing your own original thinking, and not
>> claiming somebody else's ready-to-wear opinion as your own.
>>
>> James
> It would seem you have your own "READY TO WEAR" opinions James.
Very little of what I have expressed, either in the OP or in either of my
responses to you, could reasonably be classified as "opinion." Please go
back and read what I wrote once again. You will find most of it either
asking questions or pointing out the obvious. As for my English teacher
prediction, let's just say that a third of a century in the classroom taught
me to separate out certain papers for further "analysis."
James
oly
Mon vieux professeur,
Since the first day of January, 2008, the common stocks of the
following American companies (each an economic icon in their own
right) have become totally worthless or now stand at 99% below their
2007 high prices:
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) ("Fannie Mae") (America's
primary secondary mortgage market maker)
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) ("Freddie Mac")
(America's #2 secondary mortgage market maker)
American International Group, Inc. (AIG) (formerly the world's largest
insurance company)
Bear Sterns (formerly in the top five American "Investment Banks")
Lehman Brothers (formerly in the top five American "Investment Banks")
Countrywide Mortgage (formerly the largest private mortgage company)
Merrill Lynch (broker) (formerly "Bullish on America")
The following iconic companies have lost more than 90% of their 2007
high stock price:
Citigroup (Banking and Insurance)
Bank of America (Banking, also acquired Merrill Lynch)
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
There are more examples for each of the above two categories.
In January 2008, if anybody had said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
would have failed within nine months, that person would have been
treated like a pariah.
We are busy today (take a look at fdic.gov and you might guess why).
I will expand on "worthlessness" later. I do mean worthless, not
"worth less".
oly
mazorj
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:648d43e0-c568-40fc...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
...
< We are busy today (take a look at fdic.gov and you might
guess why).
Your job must be a growth industry right now.
< I will expand on "worthlessness" later. I do mean
worthless, not "worth less".
Please do.
PC
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Does the TART bill have anything to do with legalizing prostitution?
>>
>> OOOPS, "TARP" no "TART"
>
> Thank goodness we caught that in time! 8>).
>
I actually started to read with a lot more interest until now...
:-(
Mr. Jaggers
A legitimate question might be, "At what point in the descent would it be
reasonable to change the designation from "worth less" to "worthless"?
James
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gnfig...@enews5.newsguy.com...
Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
purchasing power.
I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit
frugally).
Try doing that today!
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
news:gnfldk$md$1...@news.motzarella.org...
In 1962 I lived on $78 per month, before taxes and the obligatory
contribution to my Unit Fund as well as the Savings Bond thingy. Of course
the three meals and a bunk were priced right, but I had to pay for my own
laundry and dry cleaning. And the occasional beer. So, let's see. That
left about $50 for laundry and beer. Hell, I had it better than I do today!
Mr. Jaggers
I could make big progress in my coin collection with $100 a week, even
today.
James
Mr. Jaggers
So, tell us why you wasted any of that on laundry. 8>)
James
dsybok
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
news:gnfldk$md$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Someone said when the largest denomination bill no longer has any
> purchasing power.
> I'd have to say $100 ain't what it used to be!
> In 1969 I earned $100/week and managed to live on that (albeit frugally).
> Try doing that today!
If it were true that $100 is not what it used to be then why do fast food
restaurants, and many stores refuse to accept $100 bills? Because a hundred
bucks still buys you plenty of goods and services that's why.
$100 is not worth what it used to be for sure, but it is far from worthless.
D
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
They wouldn't let you have beer in the brig.
RWF
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:2XIml.8051$i42....@newsfe17.iad...
That undercuts your long running argument about US currency retaining
its value.
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Not after you took out for rent, food, clothes, beer and cigarettes!
RWF
"dsybok" <dsy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yd6dnSXJM4f8wAbU...@earthlink.com...
I didn't say it was worthless, dipshit, I implied that it was worth
less.
Arizona Coin Collector
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>>
>> That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
>> that appealed the remaining parts of the
>> 1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
>> of Texas authored the bill.
>
> Don't you mean REpeal, not APpeal?
Yes Repeal... As if you have never ever made a mistake
in your life?
>
>>>> 2) Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The
>>>> two worse parts of this bill was allowing the credit
>>>> default swaps, and allowing crude oil to be traded as
>>>> a single commodity instead of a fix rate price. You
>>>> may have notice starting back in 2001 gas prices
>>>> started going up. It went up ever year from that
>>>> point on. The NOW toxic assets are the credit default
>>>> swaps that the government now has to buy.
>>>
>>> Gas prices have gone up steadily over the entire course of my life,
>>> which began considerably longer ago than 2001.
>>
>> Gas prices from 2001 to now have risen faster and sharper
>> than it did in the last 40 years. I remember the late 1970's
>> and 1980's jump. It was not to the elevated levels of the last
>> eight years. ($1.45 a gallon in 2000 / $4.00 a gallon in July
>> of 2008)
>
> If I read that correctly, you are saying that the rise from 1961 to 2001
> is smaller in terms of speed and sharpness than the rise from 2001 to
> date.
>
> The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 1961 was around $0.29. In 2001
> it was around $1.45, as you point out. That's a fivefold increase over
> the period in question.
> The price of gas here in North Lugburz in 2001 was around $1.45. On
> February 17, 2009 I just filled up my tank for $1.86 a gallon. That's
> slightly more than a one-fourth fold increase over the period in question.
>
You are basing your response to the current price
And not the overall long term price. Gas prices
were much more stable and predictable from
1960 through 2000. While the price of gas did go
up, it was never the wild price swings within a
12-month period from 2001 through 2008. Each year
it went higher in price faster than the last
40-years.
From 2001 through 2008 gas prices have had a
much wider swings in prices. Overall, the yearly
increase has been greater from 2001 through
2008. The difference was created from the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Crude oil is
now allowed to be traded as a single commodity.
It was not allowed on the futures trade before.
>
>>> Well, somebody had to do it. You'd prefer that the Saudis do it?
>>> They're just folks, too.
>>
>> I would respond by saying a BALANCE BUGETS like
>> the ones the United States had during most of
>> the 1990's, would have been a better choice. The
>> Republican party lost the moral ground on physical
>> spending policy since they started the spending
>> deficits before the terrorist attach of 9-11. The
>> Republican controlled house, and senate from 2001
>> through 2006 bare the biggest responsibility for
>> this. I am not letting the Democrats off the hook
>> on this as well. They could have shut down the
>> Federal Government if they shown some backbone
>> to get the budget balance.
>
> Just exactly how could they have done that?
A filibuster in the U.S. Senate. The Republicans did not have
the 60 votes to stop the Democrats from doing a Filibuster on
the Senate Floor from 2001 through 2006. The Democrats
could have shut down the Federal Government and force a
balance budget. It would have made them look bad politically
with the rest of the nation if they did a Filibuster on the Senate
floor. The mood of the people was much different then. The
Democrats went along with the Republicans.
Remember the Democrats got three Republicans to go along on
the Senate version of the current Stimulus Bill. Otherwise, the
Republicans would kill it with a Filibuster. One party needs 60
members in the U.S. Senate to block the other party from doing
a Filibuster on a piece of Legislation.
Mr. Jaggers
Not being a smoker, I already use my cig money on coins!
James
Mr. Jaggers
Who, exactly, is on first?
James
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gnf6e...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>>>
>>> That would be the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
>>> that appealed the remaining parts of the
>>> 1933 Glass-Steagall act. Again Senator Phil Gram
>>> of Texas authored the bill.
>>
>> Don't you mean REpeal, not APpeal?
>
> Yes Repeal... As if you have never ever made a mistake
> in your life?
I make mistakes all the time. Where did I say that I hadn't?
Sorry, your initial proposal did not include such detail. I took what you
said at face value, silly me. Now that you have been called out, you wish
to factor in all sorts of additional variables. That would get you thrown
out of any debate conducted according to traditional rules. But if you want
to talk oil stability and predictability, let's talk the oil embargo of the
1970s and the effect it had on our economy. On second thought, let's not.
I don't have time to build a case, so you're in luck.
I'm happy to see that you understand that basic fact of legislation. But
filibusters are not automatic, and I would hesitate to speculate as to why
no filibuster was used at that time. You would be well advised to hesitate
as well, unless you have documentation.
James
Mr. Jaggers
And don't you dare answer, "Exactly!" 8>)
James
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I don't give a damn.
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
Can't let it die, eh?
Peter
wrote:
> For quite some time now, you have been making dire predictions about the
> future of the economy, not only that of the U.S., but that of the entire
> world. I classify this as "problem finding."
>
> Now I seek solutions to the problems, which I name "problem solving."
> Perhaps you can be instrumental in this process as well.
>
> "worthless" and their becoming "worth less." That they would become "worth
> less" is understandable; an increase in the money supply, which is
> contemplated by the government, will be inflationary, and continue, or
> perhaps even accelerate, the decline in the value of paper assets, making
Not being the addressee of this topic, I still read it with interest.
If I were to answer, perhaps this is the best I can do at the moment:
1. You mentioned a … need to distinguish between our paper assets
becoming "worthless" and their becoming "worth less."
My broad impression is that the ‘science’ of economics has some odd
features. Among them, it seems that when seeking to verify by
experiment a theory, the theory might be confirmed or rejected by
simply making a statement. For example, the observation that there is
a need to decide how the value of paper is behaving. An analysis that
sooths will if widely accepted help moderate any loss of value,
whereas an analysis that alarms might be sufficient to cause
speculation (or especially leveraged speculation) that leads to more
rapid weakening of the value.
Perhaps this is dancing around the question of a runaway inflation and
a worthless currency. That may be in the future somewhere and who
knows, our magnificent politicians may stumble onto that path. Even
so, it is at best a gleam in someone’s eye so far as I can see.
2 (& first 3). Having the world’s reserve currency become worthless
would have consequences, but perhaps not so severe as you suggest.
Long before degeneration into anarchy, folks would probably find a
work around and avoid the worst. The USA is pretty well run and its
people are underestimated by your scenario, I think. Pain would be
more felt in the US if the Euro or some other assumed the role of a
reserve currency, but the world could still avoid general nuclear
war. Also, the US is more nearly self-sufficient in labor, skills,
and natural resources than most countries; its pain would be real, but
limited.
(second)3. I think preparation for a general disaster of the scale you
outline is a bit too pessimistic. Some Mormons do advocate this and
Howard Ruff has written books on the subject (not bad advice if you
think you need it). I’m a skeptic. If things get so bad prayer might
be a better choice. Guns in the vicinity of a mob, is a very bad
approach.
Temporary interruptions of service are another matter. A full tank of
gas is usually a good idea. Some water and some money on hand in case
the credit cards or the ATM won’t work are good advice. Precious
metals have a role here but not precisely in a context like
Armageddon. They are of almost no use in case of general destruction
and are not nourishing, but somewhat heavy and need protection; they
are a useful hedge in more settled times against too rapid an
inflation or loss of confidence in the currency.
4. I have an opinion, but not a definite answer. My opinion is that
governments and assemblies of experts are inclined to make errors.
Economic panics arise from errors. My inclination is that governments
should try to do as little as possible to remedy panics. Their
actions are bound to take effect very late and the lateness may be
beyond their control and planning.
What has sometimes ended financial panics (besides financial prudence)
has been innovation (e.g., the advent of the railroad, radio, TV, the
automobile, air travel & etc.). Personally, I don’t see an innovative
solution on the horizon (perhaps nuclear power; or perhaps not?). I’d
love to hear a better solution.
dsybok
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gnfu3...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Mr. Jaggers wrote:
>>> RWF wrote:
>>>> "dsybok" <dsy...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Yd6dnSXJM4f8wAbU...@earthlink.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gnfldk$md$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>
>
You're kind of a dick aren't you?
D
Mr. Jaggers
> becoming "worthless" and their becoming "worth less."
>
> My broad impression is that the 'science' of economics has some odd
> features. Among them, it seems that when seeking to verify by
> experiment a theory, the theory might be confirmed or rejected by
> simply making a statement. For example, the observation that there is
> a need to decide how the value of paper is behaving. An analysis that
> sooths will if widely accepted help moderate any loss of value,
> whereas an analysis that alarms might be sufficient to cause
> speculation (or especially leveraged speculation) that leads to more
> rapid weakening of the value.
I appreciate your putting the word "science" in quotes here, as I have
always been skeptical that the study of economics is truly amenable to a
laboratory experience. I believe that you correctly observe that the
mindset, or analysis, is often responsible for one's outlook on life. Thus
government is loathe to tell us that we are headed for the dumper, lest its
prophecy become self-fulfilling.
> Perhaps this is dancing around the question of a runaway inflation and
> a worthless currency. That may be in the future somewhere and who
> knows, our magnificent politicians may stumble onto that path. Even
> so, it is at best a gleam in someone's eye so far as I can see.
No problem, go ahead and dance away. That's what everyone does, it seems.
Except oly.
> 2 (& first 3). Having the world's reserve currency become worthless
> would have consequences, but perhaps not so severe as you suggest.
> Long before degeneration into anarchy, folks would probably find a
> work around and avoid the worst. The USA is pretty well run and its
> people are underestimated by your scenario, I think. Pain would be
> more felt in the US if the Euro or some other assumed the role of a
> reserve currency, but the world could still avoid general nuclear
> war. Also, the US is more nearly self-sufficient in labor, skills,
> and natural resources than most countries; its pain would be real, but
> limited.
One can certainly hope that your scenario is the accurate one, but that was
not my point. My point was, if the dollar becomes truly worthless (not just
worth less), doesn't that mean economic chaos? What do I have of value
under such circumstances? Certainly not my good looks.
> (second)3. I think preparation for a general disaster of the scale you
> outline is a bit too pessimistic. Some Mormons do advocate this and
> Howard Ruff has written books on the subject (not bad advice if you
> think you need it). I'm a skeptic. If things get so bad prayer might
> be a better choice. Guns in the vicinity of a mob, is a very bad
> approach.
Whoa, I haven't heard the name Howard Ruff in over a quarter of a century!
I remember him painting the very doomsday scenario as does oly, but back in
the 1970s. His books were just a small part of the total number of books
with titles in the spirit of "The Coming Collapse of the Dollar", titles
which it seems to me, were chosen not to solve problems, but to sell books.
In recent visits to bookstores, I see that the spirit remains alive and
well.
> Temporary interruptions of service are another matter. A full tank of
> gas is usually a good idea. Some water and some money on hand in case
> the credit cards or the ATM won't work are good advice. Precious
> metals have a role here but not precisely in a context like
> Armageddon. They are of almost no use in case of general destruction
> and are not nourishing, but somewhat heavy and need protection; they
> are a useful hedge in more settled times against too rapid an
> inflation or loss of confidence in the currency.
That's good advice under any circumstances, but I fear inadequate in the
case of a total meltdown, which is what oly is predicting. I'm trying my
best to imagine life under those circumstances, which was my motivation for
appeal to the one who brought it up. A great deal of his ensuing exchange
with other rcc posters has so far consisted of little more than volleys of
arrows flying back and forth while we watch. I seek something more
constructive and substantive.
> 4. I have an opinion, but not a definite answer. My opinion is that
> governments and assemblies of experts are inclined to make errors.
> Economic panics arise from errors. My inclination is that governments
> should try to do as little as possible to remedy panics. Their
> actions are bound to take effect very late and the lateness may be
> beyond their control and planning.
A lot of people share that view. A lot of people do not. They expect
government to perform miracles. Occasionally it does. But confidence is
so tenuous and easily eroded. Our public opinion arena of today seems to me
to be much nastier than it was even 20 years ago, perhaps made worse by 24/7
media that have so much time to fill with something, anything, to get people
to watch, and then add in the radio talkers who bar no holds.
> What has sometimes ended financial panics (besides financial prudence)
> has been innovation (e.g., the advent of the railroad, radio, TV, the
> automobile, air travel & etc.). Personally, I don't see an innovative
> solution on the horizon (perhaps nuclear power; or perhaps not?). I'd
> love to hear a better solution.
Innovations, by definition, do not make a habit of sitting on the horizon or
anywhere else where we can see them. I had a fifth-grade teacher in the
1950s who spoke of handheld devices that would allow us to communicate all
over the world, but she was an exception, and her prediction was realized
almost too far out to be of much real use in that era.
In any event, thanks for your thoughtful commentary. It's what I came here
looking for.
James
RWF
oly
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
(break time)
Mr. Ruff is still around, he was just on CNBC last week. He is in his
late 70s, about the same age as my dad. I am sure that he has a new
book out.
IMHO, Economics is not a true "science" and the actual practice of
current-day economics is almost entirely expressed in advanced
mathematics and statistical analysis, looking for statistical
"correlations" and such. Present day economics disregards both
classical economic theory and frowns on anecdotal evidence. Labeling
me as an economist is probably 95% or more inaccurate. My personal
paranoia is driven by the study of history and classical economic
theory.
oly
"Just because you're paranoid, it DOESN'T mean that they're not out to
get you!"
Mr. Jaggers
[much palaver snipped[
> (break time)
>
> Mr. Ruff is still around, he was just on CNBC last week. He is in his
> late 70s, about the same age as my dad. I am sure that he has a new
> book out.
>
> IMHO, Economics is not a true "science" and the actual practice of
> current-day economics is almost entirely expressed in advanced
> mathematics and statistical analysis, looking for statistical
> "correlations" and such. Present day economics disregards both
> classical economic theory and frowns on anecdotal evidence. Labeling
> me as an economist is probably 95% or more inaccurate. My personal
> paranoia is driven by the study of history and classical economic
> theory.
Economics has always seemed like mumbo-jumbo to me since I first encountered
it as a senior in high school way back in nineteen mumbly four. If it does
indeed depend on advanced math and stat analysis, no wonder there's nobody
who can explain it. But I labelled you as an "economist" anyway, since your
predictions have a distinct economic flavor to them.
Now then, two days after I made the OP, I continue to await your detailed
response to what I posted.
James
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gnh0s...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Peter wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 10:59 am, "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com>
>> wrote:
...
> I appreciate your putting the word "science" in quotes here, as I
> have
> always been skeptical that the study of economics is truly amenable
> to a
> laboratory experience.
Many people forget that the Dismal Science is a social science, not a
hard physical science like physics or chemistry. Think in terms of
psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. or you'll be disappointed.
As with any social science, economics has its charts and graphs and
hard data, but unlike atoms and falling apples, people don't always
behave as predicted, or even the same way twice. You have to get
pretty far out into the fringes of the hard sciences before experts
start disagreeing on exotic things like string theory or the exact
origins of the universe. In social sciences there is enough play in
the system ("human behavior") that disagreement can start with the
most basic and central theories.
Mr. Jaggers
I had many rather heated discussions with an erstwhile colleague in the
social studies (yes, that's what I insisted it be called, much to the
consternation of my interlocutor) department where I taught. That doesn't
mean that effort should not be made in the direction of understanding,
classifying, and documenting the issues in those disciplines, but rather we
should realize, as you correctly counsel, that there is a lot of room for
their theories to slosh around. Let's see now, where exactly does
numismatics fit in to this dichotomy?
James
dsybok
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I don't give a damn.
>>
>>
>> You're kind of a dick aren't you?
>
> PLONK
So, that would be a yes then.
D
oly
>
>
> I had many rather heated discussions with an erstwhile colleague in the
> social studies (yes, that's what I insisted it be called, much to the
> consternation of my interlocutor) department where I taught. That doesn't
> mean that effort should not be made in the direction of understanding,
> classifying, and documenting the issues in those disciplines, but rather we
> should realize, as you correctly counsel, that there is a lot of room for
> their theories to slosh around. Let's see now, where exactly does
> numismatics fit in to this dichotomy?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
IMHO, Numismatics is both a combination of social studies and certain
hard physical sciences. Frankly, the present day importance of
numismatics to scholars depends on the exact human societies that one
wishes to study.
I borrow from a very good book:
"[From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment], ancient, primarily
Roman, coins were collected for two reasons: as moral exemplars and
as sources of information about the classical past. Both aspects can
be illustrated by the Italian poet Petrarch, who presented coins with
the portraits of the Roman emperors to the emperor Charles IV and
encouraged him to gaze upon and study the features of those whom he
had suceeded and wished to emulate. Petrarch and other scholars used
coins to help their understanding of classical texts and their
reconstruction of the classical world." - written by Andrew Burnett,
Chapter 11 ("the King Loves Medals"), from "Enlightenment, Discovering
the World in the 18th Century" The British Museum (dated 2003),
edited by Kim Sloan.
Oly personally expounds (badly):
But, as western man has uncovered the many formerly lost texts and
inscriptions of various societies, numismatics often becomes an
auxiliary aide to historical understanding of the traditional western
world. Today, coins still provide a primary source for societies like
Celtic, pre-Roman Britain. Such a society has left only a small
amounts of textual material, while the meaning of archaeological
materials is often doubtful; and this uncertainty enhances the
educational value of the coins. But coins are secondary sources
(largely supporting and confirming) for a society like ancient Rome or
a more recent society like France under the Bourbon Restoration, where
texts, inscriptions, letters, etc. can tell us far more than the coins
(and medals) alone can tell.
Numismatics remains an important science today, but probably not quite
as important as it was to scholars from the Renaissance to the First
World War.
This situation in Numismatics reminds me of how the study of Latin
used to be one of the primary expected requirements of any educated
person (for more than five hundred years), but it fell out of the
common curriculum of American schools between 1950 and 1980.
Vale Magister!
oly
oly
P.S. I am thinking about the reply to the OP. Last weekend was a
five day weekend with much time to read and goof off. Now I am busy
and exhausted.
Mr. Jaggers
On attend.
Prof
Mr. Jaggers
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Belgae...
Iacobus
oly
> Iacobus- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Illinois est omnis divisia in partes tres, and that's even if you push
Chicago into the lake...
Olav
Mr. Jaggers
Heh heh, good one! No way I'll top that.
James