OT-Social Security $28 billion in the hole
azotic
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.
Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/economy/social_security_bailout.fortune/index.htm
Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
Best Regards
Tom.
Ignoramus17710
Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.
I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.
The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.
So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.
Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.
It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.
i
John R. Carroll
Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.
--
John R. Carroll
azotic
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:HNGdnbi2SIvEDfHW...@giganews.com...
Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how much
revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.
Best Regards
Tom.
Wes
>Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
>The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will now
>be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
>The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
>to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes can
>go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.
>
Are those the FICA taxes? As in making withdrawls from my 401K that has defered income
taxes only subject to the income tax?
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
>> The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
>> will now be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
>> The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
>> needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
>> money. Taxes can go up and benefit payments can be reduced but
>> that's about it.
>>
> Are those the FICA taxes? As in making withdrawls from my 401K that
> has defered income taxes only subject to the income tax?
>
I suppose. Disbursements from your 401K are hardly tax free, however, if you
make them early.
There was talk last year of passing a law to allow 401K distributions tax
free in distressed situations ut it didn't go anywhere.
Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and delay the
onset of benefit payments to an older age.
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and delay the
>onset of benefit payments to an older age.
You know that one is coming. Reagan (R) and Tip O'Neal (D) cut a deal on that one.
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and
>> delay the onset of benefit payments to an older age.
>
> You know that one is coming. Reagan (R) and Tip O'Neal (D) cut a
> deal on that one.
What's most likely coming is growth of the work force.
Neither taxes or benefits paid are particularly out of line as far as SS is
concerned.
What's whacky is the ratio of old farts not working to whipper snappers like
you who are.
--
John R. Carroll
Bill McKee
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:HNGdnbi2SIvEDfHW...@giganews.com...
SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been blown
by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.
Wes
>SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
>government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
>that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been blown
>by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
>borrowed from the taxpayers.
>
I knew my 401K was at risk.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
John R. Carroll
Huntress might have some idea. One thing you'd have to do is look at the
number of jobs exports create as an offset.
You can't just say revenues are down because jobs have been lost through
trade policy.
The actual number of jobs is a lot less important that the tax base erosion.
The US is probably looking at a net gain.
You'd probably be surprised at that number. It's large.
Manufacturing exports, for instance, have risen prety steadily.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> "Bill McKee" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of
>> the US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all
>> the extra money that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that
>> money has already been blown by Congress, so we will get tax
>> increases to pay back the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.
>>
>
> I knew my 401K was at risk.
>
> "That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
> "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Those IOU's are treasury bills Wes, the worlds best and most reliable paper.
The risk to your 401K is as large or small as the assets it contains, not
the assets contained in the SS Trust Fund.
Believe me, the day you can't take a Savings Bond, which is basically what
is in the SS Trust Fund, to the window and get money we'll all have bigger
problems than Social Security.
Think about it for a minute. When the SS Trust Fund buys a T-Bill, it's one
less that has to be sold to the Chinese.
In the absence of enough cash on hand at Treasury, the Federal Reserve will
jus print money.
That, my friend, is exactly how WWII was financed and if economic outcome
looks like that, you and Tom will both be shitting in the tallest cotton on
earth. We all will be.
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"azotic" <azo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Ci1bn.28238$fu3....@newsfe12.iad...
You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless arguments.
This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.
The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:HNGdnbi2SIvEDfHW...@giganews.com...
>> azotic wrote:
>>> A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
>>> first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
>>> than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
>>> rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
>>> biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
>>> checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
>>>
>>> Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
>>> which ends Sept. 30.
>>>
>>>
>>
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/economy/social_security_bailout.fortune/index.htm
>>>
>>> Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
>>
>> Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
>> The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
>> will now
>> be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
>> The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
>> needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
>> money. Taxes can
>> go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.
>>
>>
>
> US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the
> extra money that SS had over the years.
No, they can't.
They can't require anything.
See my response to Wes.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
The subject is a killer. There really isn't any clear data. There are lots
of anecdotes, but not enough to give you the big picture. Not even many
little ones, except in isolation.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Bill McKee" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b_-dnYU-1ofnMfHW...@earthlink.com...
But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b6cb1e4$0$22515$607e...@cv.net...
>
>>
>> Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
>> much revenue
>> in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
>> i havent been
>> able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Tom.
>
> You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
> arguments.
>
> This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
> first attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that
> it will take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I
> have anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear
> answer, even then.
>
> The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
> going both ways.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.
b.w.
Wes
>But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
>start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
>hear about the "trust fund."
>
And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.
I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.
John R. Carroll
Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:hkicg7$15h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
>>start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
>>hear about the "trust fund."
>>
>
> And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how
> FICA was used
> to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.
>
> I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.
>
> Wes
With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just didn't
pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted back in the
'80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA rate to Congress.
This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly well, and
it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most people don't bother
to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and paranoid about the whole
thing.
There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress generally
keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's unfortunate in
several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's given the Tea Partiers
a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.
I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're counting
on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how they get people
worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of baloney, playing on their
suspicions and their lack of understanding. That's what creates paranoia.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort of past
time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can watch it
together.
LOL
A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be, true.
She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.
OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap her
head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.
--
John R. Carroll
cavelamb
>
>
> you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
> massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
> started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.
>
> b.w.
>
>
Kinda scary, isn't it...
--
Richard Lamb
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
And the bottom line is that the dollars were spent, as they had to be.
There's no sock to put them in. There is no big pot of money. There's
nothing else to do with them except to use them to pay down the national
debt.
Which Clinton did, to a modest degree. What drives me crazy is that Bush II
and Reagan kept spending in deficit even when the economy was climbing!
--
Ed Huntress
azotic
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>
> My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort of past
> time.
> She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can watch it
> together.
> LOL
> A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
> He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
> unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
> Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
> how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be,
> true.
> She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
> reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.
>
> OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
> from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap
> her
> head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
> Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
> unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
>
Just curious, did beck explain how he came up with $75 trillion dollars ?
Best Regards
Tom.
John R. Carroll
No.
He just attributed the shortfall to the unfunded portion of SS obligations.
The truth is that SS is funded in real time and he must certainly know that.
The excess beyond that amount can only be used to do one thing - buy
T-Bills.
The reasoning was to prevent the distortion of markets while hedging
against inflation and to do so with risk limited to the maximum extent
possible.
The issue is completely separate from deficit spending or deficits at all
for that matter.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Now, THAT's entertainment. <g>
> A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
> He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
> unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
> Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
> how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be,
> true.
> She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
> reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.
Your mom, as you've described her, is smart. Most people are plenty smart
enough to get it. But they get their information from people with an agenda,
who play on the fact that studying balance sheets isn't fun for anyone, so
hardly anyone does it.
That "Turkeys Voting for Christmas" piece was one of the most depressing
things I've heard lately. But I don't blame people for not looking into
these things for themselves. Many of them have become so complicated, as has
the world. That makes us vulnerable to the polemicists -- even the fairly
ignorant and transparent ones, like Beck.
>
> OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
> from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap
> her
> head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
They should, and they can. But they don't.
> Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
> unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.
Beck has a shtick that makes him a lot of money. Wes has a full-time job.
But Wes watches C-Span, which I can rarely bring myself to do. What seems to
get lost is the background and perspective. It requires quite a bit of
study.
For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt is
insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was 120% of GDP
after WWII and was followed by two decades of high average growth, they look
immediately for a reason this couldn't be true, rather than trying to figure
out why it IS true.
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
17710.invalid> wrote:
> On 2010-02-05, azotic <azo...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
> > in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
> > on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
> > has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
> > the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
> > taxpayer bailout.
>
> > Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
> > Sept. 30.
>
>
> > Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
>
> Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
> associated with exporting jobs.
>
> I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
> Obama.
>
> The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
> capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
> going to the lowest suitable builder.
>
> So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
> and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
> goes and we cannot do much about it.
>
> Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
> still stay in the US.
>
> It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
> borrowing.
>
> i
Not yet that is.
China is working very hard to become a viable airplane exporter.
In the future you will be driving a Chinese car.
And flying in a Chinese airplane.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hkicg7$15h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
Hey Ed...did you hear less than 600 people have shown up for the Tea
Party National Convention.
I wonder how many came for the free T-shirt?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Ed Huntress wrote:
> > "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >news:hkicg7$15h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good luck with your mom.
It sounds like she has a good son.
TMT
co_f...@yahoo.com
>
> Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
> Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
> column A to column B and back again.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
You are absolutely correct, John. The FICA money goes directly to the
US Treasury via the IRS. Not a penny goes to the SSA. On the other
side, the SSA does not disburse a single penny. They tell the US
Treasury to disburse so much money to some recipient. All the SSA does
is keep records and print reports.
The FICA money used to purchase Treasury Notes is just a book keeping
system and nothing more, since Treasury also issues/sells the notes.
No money ever changes hands in the transaction, just changes account
numbers.
Paul
F. George McDuffee
<wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
<snip a bunch of good stuff>
>> The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
>> going both ways.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>>
>
>you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
>massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
>started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.
========
Currently we [the U.S.] are importing about 1.52$US for every
1.00$US we export according to the Treasury department numbers,
however book cooking through "transfer pricing" and other tax
evasion scams by the transnational corporations may have
significantly distorted this data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
Imports $1.570 trillion c.i.f. (2009)
Exports $1.035 trillion f.o.b. (2009)
===============================
$0.535 trillion deficit
or about $1.52 in imports for every $1.00 of exports.
The largest single import commodity by dollar volume remains
petroleum and petroleum products, however a major concern is that
the U.S. products imported tend to be high labor content/high
value added such as consumer electronics, automotive vehicles and
textiles/shoes while the exports tend to be very low labor
content/very low value added products such as raw agricultural
products, scrap iron, and waste paper.
http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reports/2008/asset_upload_file595_14552.pdf
This distribution of import and export products is a disaster
because the import products tend to be in high economic
multiplier sectors while the export products appear to be in the
low economic multiplier sectors, thus the aggrigate economic
impact is far worse than the 1:1.52 ratio would indicate.
From a state and local tax basis this is also a bad situation as
the taxes possible to collect from agricultural land/operations
are minimal compared to the taxes paid by large manufacturing
enterprises, and the consequential tax revenue generated through
the employee income and sales taxes.
One area of question is the assumption that somehow "government"
and/or "business" are monolithic. This does not appear to be the
case, rather shared interests tend to move everyone in the group
in the same direction.
What you describe as an experiment does not in fact appear to be
one, but rather the combined result/outcome of a more-or-less
independent group of transnational companies, including banks and
financial services, maximizing their short term profits through
what ever means available, including changes in the regulatory
environment through political influence. This should not be
considered any type of moral judgement as this is just what
business does.
Note that in many cases, these [import] profits were "skimmed,"
through excessive executive compensation, bonuses, stock options,
etc. and were never distributed to the real owners
[stockholders]. In other cases these profits have been placed
outside U.S. [tax] jurisdiction through transfer pricing and are
beyond tracking.
While the immense scale is new, the situation is not. One
example on a smaller scale is commercial fishing, where entire
species have been repeatedly wiped out and fisheries collapsed
because of greed and over fishing for short run profit. Thus the
problem appears to be a long-standing one dating back millennia,
requiring a mental health professional and not an economist...
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
John R. Carroll
>
> Good luck with your mom.
>
> It sounds like she has a good son.
>
The opposite is true.
I've got a good Mom.
A little nuts, but otherwise OK.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:AL-dnfxDdfZHIfHW...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hkicg7$15h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're
>>> counting on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how
>>> they get people worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of
>>> baloney, playing on their suspicions and their lack of
>>> understanding. That's what creates paranoia.
>>
>> My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort
>> of past time.
>> She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can
>> watch it together.
>> LOL
>
> Now, THAT's entertainment. <g>
She's funny.
I haven't cross connected her new DVR to the new big screen yet so she's
limited in how much material she can store.
I swear Ed, watching her select an episode of Beck's show to erase in order
to make space is painful <G>
>
> For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt
> is insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was
> 120% of GDP after WWII and was followed by two decades of high
> average growth, they look immediately for a reason this couldn't be
> true, rather than trying to figure out why it IS true.
You ought to use a more current example Ed.
I've had people respond that "things are different now" which is the
equivelant of "doesn't count".
LOL
When Belgium entered the EU they were a 240 percent of GDP, IIRC.
Today, they enjoy a higher standard of living than American's do.
That does count.
--
John R. Carroll
Beryl
Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162
A $110,000 airplane
"By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved
US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced."
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Yeah, but I avoid using European countries as examples when I'm talking to
self-styled "fiscal conservatives."
The whole issue is whether you can grow your way out of the debt. We have in
the past, and there are plenty of examples from around the world to show
what the economic pattern is that makes it happen.
And the final point is this: If we can get a good rate of growth going,
we'll wonder before long what we were worried about. If we can't get it
going, we're screwed anyway. The best shot at getting it moving, now that
monetary controls have crapped out and we're at near-zero interest, if
deficit spending. National debt won't matter much if we stall out, like
Japan did for over a decade, and like it's doing again.
If that happens, we'll all be on tenterhooks -- the US, Europe, and Japan --
hoping that we don't have a sharp downturn in the middle of it. The only way
out of that, should you have a big downturn while the debt is piled up, is
to inflate your way out (problematic, if the economy is slumping to begin
with) or to default. Neither one is a happy option.
So we should be doing everything possible to stimulate growth. It's looking
fairly good, except now we're entering the 1937 moment: Conservatives are
saying to stop the deficit spending now that GDP has flattened out. That's
just what they said in '37, which we did, and which whip-sawed us into the
second phase of the Depression.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
>>> i
>>
>> Not yet that is.
>>
>> China is working very hard to become a viable airplane exporter.
>>
>> In the future you will be driving a Chinese car.
>>
>> And flying in a Chinese airplane.
>>
>> TMT
>
> Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162
>
> A $110,000 airplane
> "By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved
> US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced."
It looks like they have addressed the nasty flat spin issue by a small
change to CG/CL relationship and redesign of the vertical surfaces.
And the matched hole tooling should reduce labor costs.
Cessna has never tried that before.
But Richard VanGrunsven has developed it to a fine art for the
amateur built market.
Considering that Cessna is currently selling the 1960's design 172 for a
quarter million, this is not a bad price for a brand new Light Sport
production aircraft.
On the other hand ---
I'd never willingly ride in an Airbus!
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip>
>> For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt
>> is insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was
>> 120% of GDP after WWII and was followed by two decades of high
>> average growth, they look immediately for a reason this couldn't be
>> true, rather than trying to figure out why it IS true.
=======
It is indeed likely that if we could return to the culture and
economy existing in the U.S. after WWII we could indeed "grow"
our way out of debt, however that was then and this is now.
Operationally that country no longer exists, and for sure the
circumstances/conditions/environment/society/culture/policies are
now completely different.
The demographics are swamped by the retirees/boomers, and low
skill legal and illegal immigrants make up increasing fractions
of the population.
Glass-Steagall has been repealed and the bulk of corporate profit
now comes from "financial services," thus the tail is again
wagging the dog.
A major problem is that there are no longer any "American"
corporations, only transnational corporations with their
headquarters located in the U.S., more-or-less as an accident of
history.
Welcome to the 21st century....
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:_tadnW5xOvhecPHW...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:AL-dnfxDdfZHIfHW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hkicg7$15h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>> You ought to use a more current example Ed.
>> I've had people respond that "things are different now" which is the
>> equivelant of "doesn't count".
>> LOL
>> When Belgium entered the EU they were a 240 percent of GDP, IIRC.
>> Today, they enjoy a higher standard of living than American's do.
>> That does count.
>>
>
> talking to self-styled "fiscal conservatives."
>
> The whole issue is whether you can grow your way out of the debt. We
> have in the past, and there are plenty of examples from around the
> world to show what the economic pattern is that makes it happen.
>
> And the final point is this: If we can get a good rate of growth
> going, we'll wonder before long what we were worried about. If we
> can't get it going, we're screwed anyway. The best shot at getting it
> moving, now that monetary controls have crapped out and we're at
> near-zero interest, if deficit spending. National debt won't matter
> much if we stall out, like Japan did for over a decade, and like it's
> doing again.
>
> If that happens, we'll all be on tenterhooks -- the US, Europe, and
> Japan -- hoping that we don't have a sharp downturn in the middle of
> it. The only way out of that, should you have a big downturn while
> the debt is piled up, is to inflate your way out (problematic, if
> the economy is slumping to begin with) or to default. Neither one is
> a happy option.
>
> So we should be doing everything possible to stimulate growth. It's
> looking fairly good, except now we're entering the 1937 moment:
> Conservatives are saying to stop the deficit spending now that GDP
> has flattened out. That's just what they said in '37, which we did,
> and which whip-sawed us into the second phase of the Depression.
It isn't just Republican's Ed.
I posted my analysis of the worlds debt position here a while back and it's
coming to fruition.
I said we ought to get in and root out all of the crappy derivative products
before they had our lunch and that the cost, whatever it was, would look
like peanuts to the alternative of not doing so. The world might well be in
deep poo 90 or 120 days or so from now.
My guess is that the world is about to shed 30 trillion dollars of equity
and debt combined. That will take about 9 months or so to accomplish and it
won't be as "orderly" as the 2008 beating either financially or socially.
The "Great Cull" that Gunner prays for won't happen but there is going to be
a great deal of the culling he's become a part of. It's a 50/50 thing in my
estimation but the odds against don't improve. Doing nothing or making no
descision is really a decision in itself and that seems to be the path we
are on.
I'd get another trillion dollars or more in the pipeline today if it were up
to me.
--
John R. Carroll
Bill McKee
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> Wes wrote:
>> "Bill McKee" <bmckee...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of
>>> the US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all
>>> the extra money that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that
>>> money has already been blown by Congress, so we will get tax
>>> increases to pay back the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
>> "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
>
> Those IOU's are treasury bills Wes, the worlds best and most reliable
> paper.
> The risk to your 401K is as large or small as the assets it contains, not
> the assets contained in the SS Trust Fund.
> Believe me, the day you can't take a Savings Bond, which is basically what
> is in the SS Trust Fund, to the window and get money we'll all have bigger
> problems than Social Security.
>
> Think about it for a minute. When the SS Trust Fund buys a T-Bill, it's
> one
> less that has to be sold to the Chinese.
> In the absence of enough cash on hand at Treasury, the Federal Reserve
> will
> jus print money.
> That, my friend, is exactly how WWII was financed and if economic outcome
> looks like that, you and Tom will both be shitting in the tallest cotton
> on
> earth. We all will be.
> LOL
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
>
>
Unfortunately for you. Is that T-bill when it is cashed in requires money
being paid. And since the government does not have any extra money to buy
back the bill, they either have to print more, causing inflation or tax the
people for the money.
Bill McKee
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> Bill McKee wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> azotic wrote:
>>>> A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
>>>> first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
>>>> than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
>>>> rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
>>>> biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
>>>> checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
>>>>
>>>> Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
>>>> which ends Sept. 30.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
>>>
>>> The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
>>> will now
>>> be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
>>> The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
>>> needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
>>> money. Taxes can
>>> go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the
>> extra money that SS had over the years.
>
> They can't require anything.
> See my response to Wes.
>
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
>
>
Yes they can. They could most likely get a court to order the government to
pay the money. As Ed says, that is why we laugh when they say the ss trust
fund.
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Jeez, there's a lot of apocalyptic thinking going around. <g> Maybe it's
time to dig out my copy of _How To Live In the Woods on Pennies a Day_.
Bradford Angier, wasn't it? He used to be an ad copywriter, too...
Anyway, maybe, and I'm really curious to see what would happen if we let all
of the derivatives and hot air out of the balloon. It's like standing on an
ice flow in the Bering Sea and wondering what would happen if it started to
break into little pieces.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Duh...yeah, that's where the government gets its money. It's either taxes or
the printing press. (Or we could steal it from other countries, but we don't
do that anymore.) It's been that way forever.
As for the old monetarist idea that printing more money causes inflation --
we've been printing it like crazy, adding about $140 Billion since the
middle of 2008:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=CURRENCY&s[1][range]=5yrs
But where's the inflation? Glenn Beck said it would be roaring away six
months ago:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=CPIAUCSL&s[1][range]=5yrs
Hmm...it looks like we had more inflation BEFORE we started printing all
that money. Strange, huh?
Maybe it's because of this:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&s[1][id]=MULT&s[1][range]=5yrs
If Glenn Beck and his fellow idiots understood money multipliers and
velocity, maybe they wouldn't be misleading so many people to believe we're
on the road to perdition.
But probably not. It wouldn't serve their purposes to have their audience
actually *understand* this stuff. They'd stop watching. It would mean the
end of the Tea Party, and where would people go to show their posters of
Obama painted as Hitler? It would kill off an important source of American
Primitive political art.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
<snip a bunch of good stuff>
>It isn't just Republican's Ed.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/232878
How many more of these are in our legislatures and congress?
{makin' laws for all mankind}
>I posted my analysis of the worlds debt position here a while back and it's
>coming to fruition.
>I said we ought to get in and root out all of the crappy derivative products
>before they had our lunch and that the cost, whatever it was, would look
>like peanuts to the alternative of not doing so.
This is much like treating a boil or carbuncle. Until it is
lanced and the core/pus removed it will never heal, albeit this
may be very painful and even debilitating for a few days.
>The world might well be in
>deep poo 90 or 120 days or so from now.
>My guess is that the world is about to shed 30 trillion dollars of equity
>and debt combined. That will take about 9 months or so to accomplish and it
>won't be as "orderly" as the 2008 beating either financially or socially.
>The "Great Cull" that Gunner prays for won't happen but there is going to be
>a great deal of the culling he's become a part of.
Gunner may have found his niche is the only area of growth in
U.S. economy, the liquidation and salvaging of manufacturing and
other industrial assets as part of the non-cash/informal sector
ala much of the third world.
>It's a 50/50 thing in my
>estimation but the odds against don't improve. Doing nothing or making no
>descision is really a decision in itself and that seems to be the path we
>are on.
Most unfortunately, you appear to be entirely correct in your
analysis.
*ALL* the objective/hard data points this direction as well as
the objective/soft data and financial analysis from people I
trust. My only demur is that it may well be that the ship hits
the rocks at the end of the current quarter [01 April] rather
than drifting for 90 days before sinking.
Some areas of particular concern are the bursting of the U.S.
municipal bond bubble, in spite of the "Build America" extension,
and/or the bursting of the commodities bubbles. Another area is
the total lack of honesty/transparency of governmental
accounting, which unfortunately is not limited to Greece, e.g.
the secret ledgers of the U.S. FRB.
It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
recoup their losses.
>
>I'd get another trillion dollars or more in the pipeline today if it were up
>to me.
One the one hand this may be correct, on the other hand it may
well be sending good money after bad.
We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.
Ed Huntress
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:Ax2bn.79094$CM7....@newsfe04.iad...
>
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b6cb1e4$0$22515$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>
>>>
>>> Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
>>> much revenue
>>> in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
>>> i havent been
>>> able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Tom.
>>
>> You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
>> arguments.
>>
>> This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
>> first attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that
>> it will take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I
>> have anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear
>> answer, even then.
>>
>> The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
>> going both ways.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>>
>
> you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet
> another massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology
> when they started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn
> out.
It's theory. It begins with the theory of comparative advantage (it's not
what most people think -- don't confuse it with *absolute* advantage, as the
terms are used in economics).
Then they can show pretty good correlations between growth of GDP and trade
liberalization -- at least, among equally developed countries. Then they can
show job growth in a free-trade regime.
If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
there's much more to account for.
It's complicated.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
This a particularly good place to start. "Comparative advantage"
assumes that the means of production are fixed within a country,
and the question is what should these means of production be used
to produce. As soon as the means of production,[manpower,
machinery, material, methods and money] especially capital are
free to move, "comparative advantage" disappears and only
absolute advantage remains. It should be noted that one of the
shibboleths of the "brave new world order" is the free flow of
capital, thus it is an oxymoron to invoke "comparative advantage"
in the current conditions.
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
<snip>
Ricardo explicitly bases his argument on an assumed immobility of
capital:
" ... if capital freely flowed towards those countries where
it could be most profitably employed, there could be no
difference in the rate of profit, and no other difference in the
real or labour price of commodities, than the additional quantity
of labour required to convey them to the various markets where
they were to be sold."[3]
He explains why from his point of view (anno 1817) this is a
reasonable assumption: "Experience, however, shows, that the
fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the
immediate control of its owner, together with the natural
disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his
birth and connexions, and entrust himself with all his habits
fixed, to a strange government and new laws, checks the
emigration of capital."
<snip>
Other problems with traditional analysis of "comparative
advantage" are the shift from counter trade to money, and the
existence of three trading partners, one of which "hogs" all the
benefits. FWIW -- in physics a three body problem is
indeterminate.
For my analysis of why "comparative advantage" does not apply in
the current milieu see pages 200-211
http://mcduffee-associates.us/dissertation/compdsrt.pdf
>
>Then they can show pretty good correlations between growth of GDP and trade
>liberalization -- at least, among equally developed countries. Then they can
>show job growth in a free-trade regime.
Who gives a flying flip about GDP/GNP? The increasing GINI
coefficient clearly shows the rich are getting richer and poor
are getting poorer.
>
>If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
>all there is.
In a nutshell the high skill high pay manufacturing jobs are
replaced by low skill low pay service jobs to reduce direct
costs. Then legal and illegal immigrants are admitted in large
numbers to do the low skill/low pay service jobs to keep the
wages/costs down. The problem is that your high skill / high
wage employees are some one else's customers (and taxpayers), and
when everyone does this, they kill the goose that laid the golden
eggs.
>The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
>the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
>there's much more to account for.
Loss of benefits and shift to contract/temp work are also a
factor. Loss of job security and forced career change/relocation
are other major problems.
>
>It's complicated.
Indeed it is, but follow "Deep Throat's" advice, "follow the
money," and cut the crap.
azotic
>
> Anyway, maybe, and I'm really curious to see what would happen if we let
> all of the derivatives and hot air out of the balloon. It's like standing
> on an ice flow in the Bering Sea and wondering what would happen if it
> started to break into little pieces.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
Corporate war games:
Scenario, deratives cause a major meltdown. The government decides to let
wallstreet sort out thier own mess, approves total deregulation. Wallstreet
is on its own.
No infusion of taxpayer money to wallstreet. Government bails out people and
extends unemployment pay indefinitely at 90%
of the workers base pay until they find work. Federal usury law passed
limiting intrest to 5% a year, fees and penalties for late
payments are outlawed. Executive compensation is limited to no more than 1
million dollars a year total.
Speculate ????
Best Regards
Tom,.
John R. Carroll
A better analogy would be human flight absent an airplane.
You think flapping the feathered contraption strapped to your arms will have
you soaring like an eagle and it looks impressive.
In fact, you might even think you are really flying for a while after
jumping from a high enough perch. That's where we are today, point and laugh
time.
The trouble comes when the realities of gravity and contact with Mother
Earth intrude. That's where we are headed. Gasp, cringe and turn.
Our financial system is just like that right now Ed.
What I haven't had anyone explain in terms of the underlying fundamentals is
why Citi, AIG, BofA and all of our other publicly traded banks and financial
institutions aren't trading where they ought to be - at ZERO.
Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They aren't
worth a thing.
AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common equity and
the list just goes on and on.
Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had to be
so and it will.
Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm flapping
will prevent it.
S.P.L.A.T.
The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9 million
dollar bonus payment.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:19:00 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> <snip a bunch of good stuff>
>
> U.S. economy, the liquidation and salvaging of manufacturing and
> other industrial assets as part of the non-cash/informal sector
> ala much of the third world.
Unfortunately for him, he can't monetize it.
The velocity, for him, is zero.
>
>> It's a 50/50 thing in my
>> estimation but the odds against don't improve. Doing nothing or
>> making no descision is really a decision in itself and that seems to
>> be the path we are on.
> Most unfortunately, you appear to be entirely correct in your
> analysis.
>
> *ALL* the objective/hard data points this direction as well as
> the objective/soft data and financial analysis from people I
> trust. My only demur is that it may well be that the ship hits
> the rocks at the end of the current quarter [01 April] rather
> than drifting for 90 days before sinking.
Ask yourself what you'd pay for shares of either Citi or AIG if you were
forced to put all of your money in either, or both.
Any number higher than zero will land you in the corner wearing a pointy
hat.
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
Or some of each coupled with a benefit adjustment.
Inflation wouldn't be a given. Like Samual Colt once said - "Velocity
matters".
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
>If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
>all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
>the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
>there's much more to account for.
========
In this context you may find the following article of interest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pratt___whitney_jobs;_ylt=Ap_gsmCYL5U70fMs9eUOXIGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyZXRna2ViBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjA2L3VzX3ByYXR0X19fd2hpdG5leV9qb2JzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2p1ZGdlcHJhdHRjYQ--
<snip>
HARTFORD, Conn. � A federal U.S. judge ordered jet engine maker
Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of
Connecticut and to Japan, Singapore and the state of Georgia.
U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a
permanent injunction, stopping the company's plans to shift the
jobs.
The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United
Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union
contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in
the state.
<snip>
Bill Martin
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:19:00 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
> <snip a bunch of good stuff>
>
>
>
> municipal bond bubble, in spite of the "Build America" extension,
> and/or the bursting of the commodities bubbles. Another area is
> the total lack of honesty/transparency of governmental
> accounting, which unfortunately is not limited to Greece, e.g.
> the secret ledgers of the U.S. FRB.
>
> It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
> institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
> zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
> direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
> counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
> gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
> recoup their losses.
>> I'd get another trillion dollars or more in the pipeline today if it were up
>> to me.
> One the one hand this may be correct, on the other hand it may
> well be sending good money after bad.
>
> We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
> capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
> Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
> caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.
>
>
wwm
F. George McDuffee
<w...@wwmartin.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
>> capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
>> Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
>> caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.
>>
>>
>It's really hard to stop looters in police uniforms...
>
>wwm
Its even harder when they do not see themselves as looters, but
rather as "doing god's work" for which they make a little money.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece
http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11
This is not anything new. See the following quote from 1902.
�The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected
and cared for�not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian
men to who God in His infinite wisdom has given the control of
the property interests of this country. . .�
George F. Baker of Philadelphia and Reading Coal & Iron says July
17 as he continues to attempt to break the coal miners
union/strike.
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Because investors are confident they'll be bailed out. That's part of what's
keeping interest rates low for large-corporation bonds and loans. Moral
hazard at work, helping to stimulate investment.
>
> Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They aren't
> worth a thing.
> AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common equity
> and
> the list just goes on and on.
> Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
> That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had to be
> so and it will.
> Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm
> flapping
> will prevent it.
> S.P.L.A.T.
> The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9 million
> dollar bonus payment.
I suspect that Treasury and the Fed are trying to accomplish a gradual
unwinding and liquidation, without killing the host. The trick is to allow
things to collapse in smaller steps. That's what the bailouts are about.
Whether it will work is an open question. If it doesn't, we'll be right back
where we were in late 2008, which would have caused a complete collapse of
the worldwide credit system if they hadn't been bailed out.
Who knows? A lot of it is guesswork at this point. The people in charge of
financial operations in the US government are among the smartest and most
knowledgeable financial people in the world. Unfortunately, they see
everything through a banker's eyes.
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>The opposite is true.
>I've got a good Mom.
>A little nuts, but otherwise OK.
>
Not often I agree with TMT but if you sit and watch Beck with her, you have to be a good
son. I've been known to watch HGTV with my mom.
Wes
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:pe5qm5p0435j84hbg...@4ax.com...
That's a great explanation of comparative advantage, George. I think I've
said that to you before. <g>
Anyway, you know that there is one group of economists who try to embellish
Ricardo's idea, and another group who try to find out more about the
patterns that it describes, which have often been supported. In the latter
category are the Heckscher-Ohlin model, the New Trade Theory that won
Krugman his Nobel, and the New New Trade Theory...all based on a Ricardian
outcome. Now the job is to explain why it keeps happening, despite all of
the complications.
>
>>
>>Then they can show pretty good correlations between growth of GDP and
>>trade
>>liberalization -- at least, among equally developed countries. Then they
>>can
>>show job growth in a free-trade regime.
>
> Who gives a flying flip about GDP/GNP? The increasing GINI
> coefficient clearly shows the rich are getting richer and poor
> are getting poorer.
It may be of more interest to you (and to me, which is why I'm working on
it) but that has little to do with growth in GDP.
>>
>>If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
>>all there is.
> In a nutshell the high skill high pay manufacturing jobs are
> replaced by low skill low pay service jobs to reduce direct
> costs. Then legal and illegal immigrants are admitted in large
> numbers to do the low skill/low pay service jobs to keep the
> wages/costs down. The problem is that your high skill / high
> wage employees are some one else's customers (and taxpayers), and
> when everyone does this, they kill the goose that laid the golden
> eggs.
Mostly myth. The numbers don't hold up, George. That's why it's a dilemma. I
spent months with it already, a few years ago, and all of those theories
were undercut at every turn.
In fact, to say it simply, not much has happened to change those
relationships at all -- at least, none that isn't explained by rather large
improvements in productivity.
Ed Huntress
"azotic" <azo...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ub9bn.90927$kQ5....@newsfe08.iad...
I wouldn't even try. <g> Interesting ideas, though.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:00:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
>>all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
>>the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
>>there's much more to account for.
> <snip>
> ========
> In this context you may find the following article of interest.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pratt___whitney_jobs;_ylt=Ap_gsmCYL5U70fMs9eUOXIGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyZXRna2ViBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjA2L3VzX3ByYXR0X19fd2hpdG5leV9qb2JzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2p1ZGdlcHJhdHRjYQ--
> <snip>
> Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of
> Connecticut and to Japan, Singapore and the state of Georgia.
>
> U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a
> permanent injunction, stopping the company's plans to shift the
> jobs.
>
> The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United
> Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union
> contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in
> the state.
> <snip>
>
> Unka George (George McDuffee)
Aha. I'll bet they're sorry they signed *that* contract. It's hard to
believe, though, that they'd have lower prices in Japan. Maybe Singapore --
much more business-friendly. And Georgia -- well, if they can make turbines
in the Third World, Ok. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:04:35 -0800, Bill Martin
> <w...@wwmartin.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
>>> capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
>>> Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
>>> caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.
>>>
>>>
>>It's really hard to stop looters in police uniforms...
>>
>>wwm
> ==========
> Its even harder when they do not see themselves as looters, but
> rather as "doing god's work" for which they make a little money.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece
> http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11
>
> This is not anything new. See the following quote from 1902.
> "The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected
> men to who God in His infinite wisdom has given the control of
> the property interests of this country. . ."
> George F. Baker of Philadelphia and Reading Coal & Iron says July
> 17 as he continues to attempt to break the coal miners
> union/strike.
Jeez. When I read that quickly, it came out "the Christian men who own
God..." d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:MPSdnTkkd4zi0fDW...@giganews.com...
>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:8Iqdncqn4_CMYfHW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>> news:_tadnW5xOvhecPHW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:AL-dnfxDdfZHIfHW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:hkicg7$15h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>>>>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Our financial system is just like that right now Ed.
>> What I haven't had anyone explain in terms of the underlying
>> fundamentals is
>> why Citi, AIG, BofA and all of our other publicly traded banks and
>> financial
>> institutions aren't trading where they ought to be - at ZERO.
>
> Because investors are confident they'll be bailed out.
That was true as recently as last August but not today.
Investors, and the public, can see that the programs in place are expiring
and the government supports withdrawn.
>That's part of
> what's keeping interest rates low for large-corporation bonds and
> loans. Moral hazard at work, helping to stimulate investment.
What is keeping interest rater low is the tremendous pool of liquidity
pumped into the system that's otherwise idle.
IOW, supply and demand.
>
>>
>> Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They
>> aren't worth a thing.
>> AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common
>> equity and
>> the list just goes on and on.
>> Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
>> That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had
>> to be so and it will.
>> Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm
>> flapping
>> will prevent it.
>> S.P.L.A.T.
>> The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9
>> million dollar bonus payment.
>
> I suspect that Treasury and the Fed are trying to accomplish a gradual
> unwinding and liquidation, without killing the host. The trick is to
> allow things to collapse in smaller steps. That's what the bailouts
> are about.
Chinese water torture is the actual result, however.
What's happened is the creation of a conviction that there is no real
bottom.
The steps have been to small. Investors are becoming convinced that one step
forward, followed by two back, has become a permanent feature of economic
and financial life.
>Whether it will work is an open question. If it doesn't,
> we'll be right back where we were in late 2008, which would have
> caused a complete collapse of the worldwide credit system if they
> hadn't been bailed out.
We'll never return to late 2008 Ed.
What is becoming increasingly obvious at large, and what I've always
believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd expected, was a
reckoning with that reality.
I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an orderly
manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.
The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a regrouping
or counter attack.
--
John R. Carroll
Larry Jaques
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> scrawled the following:
>On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:00:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
>>all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
>>the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
>>there's much more to account for.
><snip>
>========
>In this context you may find the following article of interest.
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pratt___whitney_jobs;_ylt=Ap_gsmCYL5U70fMs9eUOXIGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyZXRna2ViBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjA2L3VzX3ByYXR0X19fd2hpdG5leV9qb2JzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA2p1ZGdlcHJhdHRjYQ--
><snip>
>HARTFORD, Conn. � A federal U.S. judge ordered jet engine maker
>Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of
>Connecticut and to Japan, Singapore and the state of Georgia.
>
>U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a
>permanent injunction, stopping the company's plans to shift the
>jobs.
>
>The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United
>Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union
>contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in
>the state.
><snip>
I wonder how many more years P&W would have been problem-free if all
those workers weren't overpaid union guys.
<nomex=ON>
--
We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves
after a journey that no one can take for us or spare us.
-- Marcel Proust
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never. They
seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming and
going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
government involvement in business.
<sigh....>
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip a bunch of good stuff>
>Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never. They
>seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
>anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming and
>going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
>government involvement in business.
>
><sigh....>
>
>--
>Ed Huntress
====================
Some of the highest return on investment you can get is for
lobbying/bribery.
Now that the boogieman of a governmental single payer system has
been vanquished, its back to business as usual, and time to
recoup the lobbying and bribery costs.
As California goes, so goes the nation...
http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/2516013.html
<snip>
010 - 8:35 am
LOS ANGELES -- Anthem Blue Cross has told some customers it will
raise their health insurance premiums as much as 39 percent
beginning March 1.
The increases, reported Friday by the Los Angeles Times, involve
as many as 800,000 customers who buy individual coverage. People
with group coverage aren't affected.
In a statement, the Woodland Hills-based insurer declined to
specify the size of the rate changes or how many people will be
affected. The company - which is the largest for-profit health
insurer in California - blames the increases on rising health
care costs. It says its prices may be adjusted more frequently
than its typical annual increases.
<snip>
Unka George (George McDuffee)
Ed Huntress
And awaaaay we go! Now we'll start to see the consequences of not putting
health insurance companies into a straightjacket. Let the free market
reign -- it's runaway insurance inflation for everyone!
The reason group coverage isn't affected yet is that group policies are the
one remaining competitive sector of the market, and it's done on longer-term
contracts. And as far as Fortune 500 companies go, most of them are
self-insured, anyway. The insurance company name on your card is just the
management and consulting firm. The big companies pay for their employees'
insurance claims, one by one. Blue Cross/Blue shield, etc., are just along
for the ride -- and a healthy fee.
The insurance companies now will bleed the individual policy holders as much
as they can, until there is some kind of rebellion.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
A perfectly good crisis wasted but take heart Ed.
What's just around the corner is going to be a lulu and won't be.
I could be mistaken, of course, but I called this year's Super Bowl.
I watched it with my brother and a group of very smart and clever people.
They went to their stats and if you only look at the possible outcome
through that prism, the Colts were the hands down odds on favorite.
I told them that Indiana had recently won, the Saints never had and Drew
Brees would want to show up the Chargers, who basically fired him. You can't
really quantify those things but that was my reasoning.
It's the same reasoning I'm using to predict a real melt down.
We are just due.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Ha. A sports picker who bets on players' emotions. I'll bet you were
sweating before the Saints pulled off that onside kick, however. That's
always a real crapshoot. <g>
Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great Cull.
The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no chance of
winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Well, I couldn't believe the dumb shits took Bush out of the game every time
they got to the red zone.
The fourth down shtick was also pretty stupid but when the third quarter
began with an onside that was recovered, I was pretty sure N.O. had regained
the momentum necessary.
> That's always a real crapshoot. <g>
>
> Well, I hope your meltdown prediction goes the way of Gunner's Great
> Cull. The good thing about your wager, though, is that you stand no
> chance of winding up on death row. Gunner may not be so lucky. d8-)
There is little downside to pessimism Ed.
I have the satisfaction of being correct 80 percent of the time and
pleasantly surprised the other twenty.
LOL
Keep in mind that I called Obama months before he entered the race.
Actually, what I said was that if he ran he'd beat Hillary and go on to be
our next President regardless his opponent.
I've also pretty consitently gotten the last couple of years doings in the
financial services and banking sector right, even down to the timing. At
least roughly. There wasn't, however, any real genius in that. All you had
to do was accept that greed and avarice, freed from regulation, would
produce the result it always has. That's just common sense.
I did misfire on the NJ Governors contest, however.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
You would have had to be here to feel the momentum. It's probably a lot like
the feeling in California, though. There's a real sense of desperation here
about taxes, and our new clod...er, governor got away with promising to fix
it without saying how. There is no "how." We're just going to have to ride
it out. The thing is, it feels to me like we'll be riding it out on the back
of a jackass.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip a bunch of good stuff>
>> believed, is that nothing was actually "saved".
>> The collapse had occurred. What didn't happen, and what I'd expected, was
>> a
>> reckoning with that reality.
>> I'd thought that the purpose of this delaying tactic was to allow a
>> restructuring of the mechanisms to deal with that collapse in an orderly
>> manner. Clearly, on the evidence, I was mistaken.
>>
>> The tactical retreat made isn't being followed up with either a regrouping
>> or counter attack.
>
>Not yet. But I believe in the power of lobbies, so it's maybe never.
only function when the congress/legislature, administration or
regulators can effect the outcome. For example once Hurricane
Katrina hit, not matter how much political influence or suction
the people or corporations in New Orleans had, it made no
difference. We appear to be rapidly approaching this point.
>They
>seem to have frightened Congress into inaction. And they've worked the
>anti-socialism angle exceedingly well. They've got the Tea Party coming and
>going: they want to put a lid on bank bailouts, but not if it means more
>government involvement in business.
============
The only thing that the astronomical global governmental deficits
over the last few years appears to have accomplished is to buy
some very expensive time by postponing the crash.
It is well to remember that the individual tax payers in the
European countries and Japan are just as much "on the hook"
[possibly more] as the individual American taxpayers.
The available data clearly shows that the current explosion in
public debt did *NOT* start with the collapse of Lehman Brothers
on 15 September 2008, albeit it considerably accelerated from
that point [or was at least forced to the surface and onto the
books].
Clearly the current financial/fiscal/monotary [regulatory]
environment is not sustainable and is rapidly becoming
disfunctional/unstable.
It has been about 18 months since Lehman Brothers ate the bullet.
We still have not:
(1) Enacted a new Glass-Steagall-Volker act to prevent federally
insured banks from speculating with the deopsitors/taxpayers
money.
(2) Repealed the CFTC Modernization Act of 2000 to again allow
[require] regulation of derivatives and the regulation of
commodity trading, including energy. [Think Enron, Gray Davis and
the California electricity screw job.]
(3) Enacted "small enough to fail" capital and market share caps
for financial institutions including banks/quasi-banks and
insurance companies.
The only question is not *IF*, but rather the exact sequence and
timing of the defaults that will result in a global credit
collapse, as nothing has been done to prevent it and the
conditions remain exactly the same as when the last one occurred.
While the direct liability of the Euro zone PIIGS [Portugal,
Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Spain] sovereign debt is enormous,
unfortunately this liability has been significantly amplified
through investor/speculator "leverage" and most critically
through the creation and wide sale of unregulated, and indeed
uncontrolled/unregistered, derivatives such as credit default
swaps [CDS].
It now appears that a significant portion of the capital
[taxpayer liabilities] made available by the US Federal Reserve
and Treasury has been used to inflate the sovereign debt bubble
rather than investing in domestic [US] high value added
operations, as the paper rates of return were much
quicker/higher.
It should be noted that much of the exposure/liability of the
major US and other financial institutions to the sovereign debt
bubble has been masked, in that they did not directly
invest/speculate but instead loaned the funds at high interest to
the he/bond funds and other institutions that did. Another
source of liability is counterparty risk from the CDSs, ala AIG,
or the loss of the "insurance" when the counterparty cannot or
will not make good on the credit guarantee, driving the asset
value of the bonds/CDSs held or acquired to zero.
azotic
Indeed the euro is in deep doodo this morning.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE61704V20100208
The vortex is sucking in Japanese stocks.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-08/japan-stocks-fall-on-weak-euro-kirin-drops-as-merger-talks-end.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKW00680220100208
Looks like we are stuck in a endless loop until congress steps in and hits
the reset button with some legistation. It will be to little to late as
usual.
Apparentley we have reached critical mass and are only waiting for the
trigger to start the chain reaction.
Best Regards
Tom.
John R. Carroll
Speaking of Jackassery.
LMFAO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
>Indeed the euro is in deep doodo this morning.
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE61704V20100208
>
>The vortex is sucking in Japanese stocks.
>
>http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-08/japan-stocks-fall-on-weak-euro-kirin-drops-as-merger-talks-end.html
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKW00680220100208
>
>Looks like we are stuck in a endless loop until congress steps in and hits
>the reset button with some legistation. It will be to little to late as
>usual.
Don't confuse an endless loop with a "death spiral."
>Apparentley we have reached critical mass and are only waiting for the
>trigger to start the chain reaction.
====================
When you play with fire, sooner or later you will get burned.
{Where are the responsible adults???}
This just in from the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7182739/Greek-Ouzo-crisis-escalates-into-global-margin-call-as-confidence-ebbs.html
For the third time in 18 months the global financial system risks
spinning out of control unless political leaders take immediate
and radical action.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 5:46PM GMT 07 Feb 2010
<snip>
Flow data shows an abrupt withdrawal of German and Asian capital
from Club Med debt markets. The EU's refusal to offer Greece
anything beyond stern words and a one-month deadline for harsher
austerity � while admirable in one sense � is to misjudge how
fast confidence is ebbing. Greece's drama has already
metastasised into a wider systemic crisis. The world risks a
replay of the Lehman collapse if this runs unchecked, this time
involving sovereign dominoes.
Barclays Capital says the net external liabilities of Greece are
87pc of GDP, or �208bn (�182bn). Spain is worse at 91pc (�950bn),
and Portugal worse yet at 108pc (�177bn); Ireland is 68pc
(�123bn), Italy is 23pc, (�347bn). Add East Europe's bubble and
foreign debts top �2 trillion.
The scale matches America's sub-prime/Alt-A adventure and
assorted CDOs and SIVS of the Greenspan fling. The parallels are
closer than Europe cares to admit. Just as Benelux funds and
German Landesbanken bought subprime debt for high yield with AAA
gloss, they bought Spanish Cedulas because these too had a safe
gloss � even though Spain's property boom broke world records.
==>They thought EMU had eliminated risk: it merely switched
exchange risk into credit risk. <==
A fat chunk of Club Med debt has to be rolled over soon. Capital
Economics said the share of state debt maturing this year is even
higher in Spain (17pc) than in Greece (12pc), though Spain's
Achilles' Heel is mortgage debt.
<snip>
---------
Be sure to at least scan the comments. I find it noteworthy that
California's budget problems seem to be as well known
internationally as Greece's.
F. George McDuffee
>Indeed the euro is in deep doodo this morning.
>
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE61704V20100208
>
>The vortex is sucking in Japanese stocks.
>
>http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-08/japan-stocks-fall-on-weak-euro-kirin-drops-as-merger-talks-end.html
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTKW00680220100208
This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
Information continues to bubble to the surface as to just how
badly the books have been cooked. In this particular case with
the help of Goldman-Sachs. [Apparently there are many other banks
playing the same games, most using the taxpayers' bailout money]
From Germany
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,676634,00.html
02/08/2010
Greek Debt Crisis
How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt
By Beat Balzli
<snip>
Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government to mask the true extent
of its deficit with the help of a derivatives deal that legally
circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit rules. At some point the
so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and swell the
country's already bloated deficit.
<snip>
Creative accounting took priority when it came to totting up
government debt.Since 1999, the Maastricht rules threaten to slap
hefty fines on euro member countries that exceed the budget
deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic product. Total
government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.
The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt
limit, and they only adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling
with the help of blatant balance sheet cosmetics. One time,
gigantic military expenditures were left out, and another time
billions in hospital debt. After recalculating the figures, the
experts at Eurostat consistently came up with the same results:
In truth, the deficit each year has been far greater than the
three percent limit. In 2009, it exploded to over 12 percent.
Now, though, it looks like the Greek figure jugglers have been
even more brazen than was previously thought. "Around 2002 in
particular, various investment banks offered complex financial
products with which governments could push part of their
liabilities into the future," one insider recalled, adding that
Mediterranean countries had snapped up such products.
Greece's debt managers agreed a huge deal with the savvy bankers
of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the start of 2002. The
deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which government
debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for a
certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original
currencies at a later date.
<snip>
But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a special kind of
swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece to
receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10
billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly
arranged additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.
This credit disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt
statistics. Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively
record transactions involving financial derivatives. "The
Maastricht rules can be circumvented quite legally through
swaps," says a German derivatives dealer.
In previous years, Italy used a similar trick to mask its true
debt with the help of a different US bank. In 2002 the Greek
deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed
the data in September 2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7
percent. According to today's records, it stands at 5.2 percent.
<snip>
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her hand was
a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for the Q&A period;
she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt to remember them, then
wha??
Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.
I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at the phenomenon
itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right about that. One hopes
that the phenomenon follows the rest of his prescription: that they figure
out what it is they want, and how to accomplish it. That's where the Tea
Party is going to run into trouble. They're going to find out about the law
of unintended consequences.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
>> LMFAO
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html
>
> It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her hand was
> a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for the Q&A period;
> she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a prompt to remember them, then
> wha??
>
> Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.
> I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just look at the phenomenon
> itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was right about that. One hopes
> that the phenomenon follows the rest of his prescription: that they figure
> out what it is they want, and how to accomplish it. That's where the Tea
> Party is going to run into trouble. They're going to find out about the law
> of unintended consequences.
>
I doubt it, Ed.
the playing field has become entirely too complex.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
John R. Carroll
There isn't anything either complex or subtle about it Richard.
Tancredo's acclaimed statement during his address that we ought to again
have a civics literacy test before you can vote revealed the true character
of the Tea Party, Tom Tancredo, Sarah Palin and the lot of them.
Here is the exact quote:
"And then, something really odd happened, mostly because I think that we do
not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country."
We had these sorts of tests in America until 1965. Everyone, including Tom
Tancredo, understood then, and understands now, the purpose of those tests.
These are the same ignorant, white trash, red neck hillbilly's that were
stringing people up not long ago and harkening back to those days is a sure
prescription for a bad end. They will be absorbed back into the Republican
mainstream after extracting their pound of flesh.
It's likely their political activism will lead to the loss of the middle of
the road independent voters completely so what they will end up doing is
costing the "conservative" candidates they espouse support for and real
chance. IOW, they will be radioactive, politically speaking.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:DPadnd-_ecAfn-zW...@earthlink.com...
What do you think will happen?
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
I have no idea, Ed.
But I'd suspect more smoke and mirrors.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."
cavelamb
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:DPadnd-_ecAfn-zW...@earthlink.com...
>>>>> LMFAO
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-sirucek/did-palin-use-crib-notes_b_452458.html
>>>>>
>>>> It was funny. What was especially funny is that all she had on her
>>>> hand was a few words about three core subject areas (apparently for
>>>> the Q&A period; she spoke from prepared notes). If she needs a
>>>> prompt to remember them, then wha??
>>>>
>>>> Oh, well. This is a nutty thing going on with the Tea Party and
>>>> Sarah Palin. I'm trying to back away from it emotionally and just
>>>> look at the phenomenon itself. Populist anger is good; Jefferson was
>>>> right about that. One hopes that the phenomenon follows the rest of
>>>> his prescription: that they figure out what it is they want, and how
>>>> to accomplish it. That's where the Tea Party is going to run into
>>>> trouble. They're going to find out about the law of unintended
>>>> consequences.
>>>>
>>> I doubt it, Ed.
>>> the playing field has become entirely too complex.
>>
>> What do you think will happen?
>>
>
>
> I have no idea, Ed.
> But I'd suspect more smoke and mirrors.
>
>
>
And CITI bank will lead us out of this darkness!
(yee haw!)
Ed Huntress
Hey, they're wising up. They've just remembered which side their bread is
buttered on. They've switched their political contributions to the
Republicans!
They're working hard for eight more years of Bushonomics, Making Our Streets
Safe for Wall Street Billionaires. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
<snip>
>It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
>institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
>zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
>direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
>counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
>gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
>recoup their losses.
<snip>
More s**t floats to the top of the financial septic tank...
Reuters article indicates that *DIRECT* US bank [US taxpayer]
exposure to the Euro zone sovereign debt bubble totals 176
Billion $US.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0911899120100209
<snip>
The FFIEC data shows that 10 U.S. banks -- Bank of America
(BAC.N), Citigroup (C.N), JPMorgan, Wells Fargo (WFC.N), Bank of
New York (BK.N), State Street (STT.N), Goldman Sachs (GS.N),
Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and the U.S. branches of Deutsche Bank
(DBKGn.DE) and HSBC (HSBA.L) -- hold 96 percent of the risk,
Barclays said.
The banks have $86 billion in exposure to Ireland, $68 billion to
Spain, $18 billion to Greece and $9 billion to Portugal, Barclays
said.
<snip>
==========
A major problem is that the amount of CDS counterparty liability
is unknown [think AIG], as is the amount loaned to bond/hedge and
other funds/speculators, where the main or only collateral is
Euro zone sovereign debt bonds. The amount of US Pension funds
invested in these bonds is also unknown but the higher returns
and high ratings [when sold] would have caused many pension fund
managers to load up.
cavelamb
almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie
because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it
might be true.
People�s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it
is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only
rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth.
� The Wizard's First Rule
F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 00:53:27 -0600, F. George McDuffee
><gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
><snip>
>>It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
>>institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
>>zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
>>direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
>>counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
>>gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
>>recoup their losses.
><snip>
========
If anyone is interested, here is yet more information on this
latest financial debacle.
It is worthwhile to remember that while the 1929 stock market
crash in the U.S. was the result of a domestic bubble, the "Great
Depression" occurred roughly 1 year later when the European
economic system imploded, resulting in numerous U.S. bank
failures and a catastrophic contraction in the national/global
money supply leading to global hyper-deflation.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679-11df-bf44-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 20:17:40 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
><nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
><snip>
>>> For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt
>>> is insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was
>>> 120% of GDP after WWII and was followed by two decades of high
>>> average growth, they look immediately for a reason this couldn't be
>>> true, rather than trying to figure out why it IS true.
><snip>
>=======
>
>It is indeed likely that if we could return to the culture and
>economy existing in the U.S. after WWII we could indeed "grow"
>our way out of debt, however that was then and this is now.
>
>Operationally that country no longer exists, and for sure the
>circumstances/conditions/environment/society/culture/policies are
>now completely different.
=======
I got several emails on this asking for some examples.
One example is the ratio between CEO compensation and the
compensation for the median or average worker. In the 1950s the
CEO got about 20 times the median or average worker's annual
compensation. Currently the typical CEO gets about 200 times
[and frequently more] their corporation's median or average
employees annual compensation.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/pay/
Another example is the source of corporate profits. In the last
several years, 40% or more of all corporate profits have been
generated by the financial services sector. Because of the
proliferation of non-bank bank operations within other sectors,
this figure could be and most likely is even higher. Thus the
U.S. economy appears to have shifted from operations creating
wealth from "high value added" operations in the 1950s and 1960s
to wealth transfer and extraction, i.e. zero-sum activities in
that what one person gains, another person loses.
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"azotic" <azo...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:Ci1bn.28238$fu3....@newsfe12.iad...
>>
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>> news:HNGdnbi2SIvEDfHW...@giganews.com...
>>> azotic wrote:
>>>> A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
>>>> first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
>>>> than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
>>>> rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
>>>> biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
>>>> checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.
>>>>
>>>> Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
>>>> which ends Sept. 30.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/economy/social_security_bailout.fortune/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
>>>
>>> Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
>>> The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
>>> now
>>> be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
>>> The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
>>> needs
>>> to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
>>> can
>>> go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> John R. Carroll
>>
>> Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
>> much revenue
>> in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
>> havent been
>> able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Tom.
>
>You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless arguments.
>
>This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my first
>attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
>take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
>anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
>even then.
>
>The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
>going both ways.
==========
The following WSJ article should be of interest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059424289353714.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews
Many Jobs Gone Forever, Economists Say
Increased Automation, Relocations Overseas Mean Workers Will Find
Different Employment Mix When Recession Ends
By PHIL IZZO
About a quarter of the 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the
recession began won't be coming back and will ultimately need to
be replaced by other types of work in growing industries,
according to economists in the latest Wall Street Journal
forecasting survey.
<snip>
It isn't just weak growth that's damping job growth. "Companies,
in the name of making money, substitute against labor through
outsourcing or technology," said Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics. Wages and benefits make workers "so expensive that who
wants to hire them? As a result, the displaced workers won't be
rehired unless we have double the growth rate we're expecting."
<snip>
===========
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:cef9n5hiu8j342b8n...@4ax.com...
That is interesting, George. There's a similar article in, I think, this
month's _Atlantic Monthly_.
I've mentioned before that I've always been a pessimist about jobs as we
come out of recessions, but my pessimism may finally be coming to pass. I
really don't see where the jobs will be coming from.
There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and computers
were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we wouldn't need a
lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that we would simply
shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time. But capital
doesn't like to be spread around. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
>
> There's some serious questioning going on about the premises of the
> free-market model, but we went through that in the '30s, too. So I don't
> make too much of it. But I had a feeling about reaching this moment in
> history 'way back in the early '70s. I was covering automation and computers
> were just starting to get involved. It looked then like we wouldn't need a
> lot of people in the future. My thoughts then were that we would simply
> shorten the work week, like France was doing at the time. But capital
> doesn't like to be spread around. <g>
>
Welcome to the 21st Century
Ed Huntress
Well, yeah, I have a calendar, but it doesn't tell me what's going to happen
to our economy. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
Ed, I can appreciate that.
But can you appreciate how much you position had changed in the last year?
You were a true believer.
A true optimist.
You had faith in "the system".
It was all going to be - okay.
I loved you for that.
It gave me hope.
But now here we are...
The inmates have taken over the asylum,
and here we are...
Ed Huntress
Richard, I couldn't begin to explain my thoughts on economics, work, and
policy in 1,000 messages here. I do indeed believe that everything is going
to be Ok. My concern about jobs goes back 35 years -- it's a concern with
the economic system, not with the long-term well-being of the country. I saw
a train wreck ahead with saturating markets, low-cost Asian manufacturing,
large gains in productivity, and our growing dependency on big, historic
technological breakthroughs to give employment and the economy as a whole a
periodic boost.
It's just never looked sustainable to me. But those breakthroughs kept
coming, and they've dominated economic growth during our adult lifetimes.
Now the breakthroughs have slowed down and we've become dependent on
bubbles.
What's next? A denouement of sorts: a recognition that the chain of
breakthrough technologies isn't enough to sustain adequate growth under our
present model, and a further recognition that bubbles are chimeras that do
more harm than good.
Our economy is based on private consumption, and it is far and away the most
mature, and saturated, such economy in history. I don't think the
traditional growth models apply to it very well. Between replacement (think
agriculture and underwear <g>), and the growth that comes from continuous
improvement (cars, PCs, cameras), my gut feeling is that we can produce no
more than 3% growth per year. Possibly even less. Anything over that is
direct and indirect effects of big technological developments (mass
production of steel; the railroad; the automobile; civilian air transport;
microelectronics; personal computers -- all in the past tense -- and
possibly energy breakthroughs in the future tense) or bubbles. Again, the
former cannot be counted on, even if they occasionally apply a positive
punctuation to the basic economic model.
Without a shot at sustainable 4+% growth, we'll have a hell of a time
digging out of future recessions. So I see some changes coming in the
operating model. Don't ask me what they are; I don't have a clue. I can
hypothesize some things but they're just guesses.
As for why I think things will be Ok -- eventually -- we have the means to
produce a very nice standard of living. Recessions don't change that. Other
highly developed countries are headed for a worse funk than we are. At some
point we'll do a new Bretton Woods and come up with a sustainable model. We
all have the means.
We aren't going to commit suicide, and our productive capacity, housing
stock, transportation and communication are not going to disappear. So
there's good reason to be optimistic. We do need to adjust to slower growth,
and we need to make sure that all growth accrues to the well being of the
large majority of citizens.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
You had me worried there for a moment...
(VBG)
cavelamb
I just don't see that in the political mess.
dca...@krl.org
> It's just never looked sustainable to me. But those breakthroughs kept
> coming, and they've dominated economic growth during our adult lifetimes.
> Now the breakthroughs have slowed down and we've become dependent on
> bubbles.
>
> Without a shot at sustainable 4+% growth, we'll have a hell of a time
> digging out of future recessions. So I see some changes coming in the
> operating model. Don't ask me what they are; I don't have a clue. I can
> hypothesize some things but they're just guesses.
>
We do need to adjust to slower growth,
> and we need to make sure that all growth accrues to the well being of the
> large majority of citizens.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
The brightest spot that I can see is biotech. Still lots going on
there. Look at companies as Monsanto, Illuminati. But I do not see
much for the high school graduate. There is going to be much less
demand for low skilled labor.
Dan
F. George McDuffee
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> and we need to make sure that all growth accrues to the well being of the
>> large majority of citizens.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>The brightest spot that I can see is biotech. Still lots going on
>there. Look at companies as Monsanto, Illuminati. But I do not see
>much for the high school graduate. There is going to be much less
>demand for low skilled labor.
==========
One of the major problems appears to be continuing to apply
assumptions, theories, metrics and logic to situations/conditions
where these are no longer operational, particularly when these
are tacit and/or subliminal.
One example, how is U.S. economic well-being measured by a metric
such as the Dow that is grossly affected by internal/domestic PRC
fiscal/financial policy changes?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/us_wall_street
Stocks swoon after China brakes lending again
By STEPHEN BERNARD and TIM PARADIS, AP Business Writers Stephen
Bernard And Tim Paradis, Ap Business Writers � 26 mins ago
NEW YORK � Stocks skidded Friday after China said for the second
time in a month it would force its banks to reduce their lending.
The Dow Jones industrial average fell 105 points in midday
trading after China said it would require banks to increase
reserve levels. The surprising move comes a day after a tame
inflation report raised hopes that China wouldn't have to further
tighten its monetary policy or take other steps to put the brakes
on its supercharged economy.
Chinese regulators are trying to contain rapid economic growth
there to prevent speculative investment bubbles. Investors worry
that a slowdown in China could disrupt a U.S. recovery by hurting
exports and profits of companies that do business there.
A similar action to curb bank lending nearly a month ago in China
spooked the market and helped start a slide that has brought
major indexes down for four straight weeks. As of late morning
the Dow was trading just above 10,000 and barely in the black for
the week.
<snip>
===========
Other areas of concern include the fact that there are no longer
any American companies, only transnational corporations that are
domiciled in the U.S., including biotech.
Any advances/developments that in the past would have generated
domestic [U.S.] investment and jobs with high value-added
operations and high economic multipliers are now immediately
exported to countries with low wages/taxes and lax environmental
and other standards, including worker safety, in spite of the
fact that the products and methodology may have been developed
with governmental [tax payer] funds.
It should also be noted that "only" a high school education does
not automatically equate to low skills/knowledge nor does a
college degree necessarily equate to any useful skill or
knowledge for gainful employment.
The fact that it is now generally considered necessary for an
individual to invest 4 or more years of their lives and
100,000$U.S. to prove they are "worthy" [of employment and full
participation in society] says more about the problems of the
current U.S. socio-economic/political milieu than it does about
the individual. Increasingly, even after the "investment" of
large amounts of time and money, the individual is still unable
to find reasonable/suitable employment, and is burdened with
crippling student loan repayment.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703822404575019082819966538.html?KEYWORDS=%22college+education%22
<snip>
One problem he sees with the estimates: They don't take into
account deductions from income taxes or breaks in employment. Nor
do they factor in debt, particularly student debt loads, which
have ballooned for both public and private colleges in recent
years. In addition, the income data used for the Census estimates
is from 1999, when total expenses for tuition and fees at the
average four-year private college were $15,518 per year. For the
2009-10 school year, that number has risen to $26,273, and it
continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation.
<snip>
------------
It should be crystal clear that the only alternative to the
current corporate kamikaze pilot dive to the economic bottom is
the forcing of the corporations to more equitably share their
advances in productivity with their employees by reducing the
standard work week, possibly to 30 hours with current pay and
benefits, with draconian penalties for evasion.
Additionally the very high earners, for example those earning
more than 10 times the median US income, [currently
704k$US/family] *SHOULD* pay much higher taxes, including social
security, as much of this income was the result of their
decisions to, or at least the aiding and abetting in, export U.S.
jobs, which would have paid taxes in the past.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/guidance/SMI75FY09.pdf
One useful place to start is the removal of the current social
security earnings tax cap, currently 106,800$. In and of itself,
this would resolve the projected SS "shortfall" for several
years.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/americans_agree_on_how_to_fix_social_security/
When we don't get what we want, we get what we deserve...
Ed Huntress
>I guess the problem that I have is that you are a rational man.
> I just don't see that in the political mess.
>
I'm going mostly on history, Richard. And the numbers.
There are all kinds of surprising facts in the numbers. For example, the
percentage of employed adults now is higher than it was in the '50s.
Manufacturing output in the US, except for the recessionary downturn, has
been on a steady climb for decades.
These things don't mean that everything is really Ok. They do mean that our
problems are structural.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:27187a27-4b02-4aea...@m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, biotech continues to look like the next big thing, but it's been flat
for a while now. Nanotech is another one that's yet to realize its
potential. And there are a few others.
But they're like hopping from one lover to another. I still can't believe
it's a long-term, sustaining thing. The possible exception for long-term,
heavy-duty stimulus is alternative energy.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
I'm suspicious that Mark Twain's comment about lies, damn lies, and statistics
may be invoked there, Ed.
For example, the percentage of employed adults now is higher than it was in the
'50s could be simply that women are working now.
It takes two?
To maintain the desired standard of living?
Or that more families have broken apart and There are more single parent families?
There are more ways to interpret that, but you get my drift?
The numbers are interesting - and compelling.
But what do they really mean to us?
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I do indeed believe that everything is going
>to be Ok. My concern about jobs goes back 35 years -- it's a concern with
>the economic system, not with the long-term well-being of the country. I saw
>a train wreck ahead with saturating markets, low-cost Asian manufacturing,
>large gains in productivity, and our growing dependency on big, historic
>technological breakthroughs to give employment and the economy as a whole a
>periodic boost.
>
>It's just never looked sustainable to me. But those breakthroughs kept
>coming, and they've dominated economic growth during our adult lifetimes.
>Now the breakthroughs have slowed down and we've become dependent on
>bubbles.
================
This may describe part of the problem:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601108&sid=a3OkrdITAZtA
<snip>
His campaign to drag the ==>$605 trillion over-the-counter
derivatives market<== out of the shadows is designed to lower
spreads between buyers and sellers and make it easier for new
competitors to enter the market, ultimately depriving banks of
billions of dollars in profit.
<snip>
Maximize Bonuses
Gensler said in an interview that he was trying to make clear at
the bankers� lunch that their interests are to maximize the
profits of their shareholders and �to maximize their own
individual compensation. We shouldn�t confuse that it�s set up
for the taxpayers.�
<snip>
Big Five
The five biggest U.S. players in derivatives -- Goldman Sachs,
Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup Inc. and Morgan
Stanley -- had $52.83 billion in revenue from trading derivatives
and cash securities in the first nine months of 2009, according
to Federal Reserve reports. Goldman Sachs was the largest with
revenue of $19.8 billion, followed by Bank of America�s $10.64
billion and JPMorgan�s $9.34 billion. Citigroup showed revenue of
$6.84 billion and Morgan Stanley, $6.21 billion.
<snip>
Ed Huntress
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:ufOdnSXms6ZJYenW...@earthlink.com...
>>> I guess the problem that I have is that you are a rational man.
>>> I just don't see that in the political mess.
>>>
>>
>> I'm going mostly on history, Richard. And the numbers.
>>
>> There are all kinds of surprising facts in the numbers. For example, the
>> percentage of employed adults now is higher than it was in the '50s.
>> Manufacturing output in the US, except for the recessionary downturn, has
>> been on a steady climb for decades.
>>
>> These things don't mean that everything is really Ok. They do mean that
>> our problems are structural.
>>
>
>
> I'm suspicious that Mark Twain's comment about lies, damn lies, and
> statistics
> may be invoked there, Ed.
>
> For example, the percentage of employed adults now is higher than it was
> in the '50s could be simply that women are working now.
Of course, but not to the extent you seem to imply. The point is, there are
just as many jobs per capita as there were then.
>
> It takes two?
> To maintain the desired standard of living?
Is that something you know, something you've heard, or something you made up
on your own? What is the "desired standard of living" that you're referring
to?
Question all popular slogans, bromides, and speculations.
>
> Or that more families have broken apart and There are more single parent
> families?
Are you asking, suggesting, or just tossing out herrings?
>
> There are more ways to interpret that, but you get my drift?
There are answers to your questions. They don't exist in your head. They
don't exist in news editorials. They don't exist in political slogans.
If you want to know the answers, you can find them.
>
> The numbers are interesting - and compelling.
>
> But what do they really mean to us?
First, find out what they *are*. Then you can think about what they mean.
--
Ed Huntress
dca...@krl.org
> Unka George (George McDuffee)
Can not agree with most of what you said.
A few people will succeed without a college education, and a larger
number will not be helped by a college education. But most productive
people will be more productive for having a college education. And
most people with only a high school education will struggle to
succeed. Manual labor is being replaced by machines. And menial
white collar work is also being replaced by machines. I do not see
anything that can change that.
>Other areas of concern include the fact that there are no longer
>any American companies, only transnational corporations that are
>domiciled in the U.S., including biotech.
Get used to it. The world is where we live now. You are still
thinking in terms of just the US.
And now you complain about people investing in education and then want
to increase taxes so it is even harder to repay student loans. We
should not be decreasing the hours in the work week. We should be
increasing the hours in the education week.
>It should be crystal clear that the only alternative to the
>current corporate kamikaze pilot dive to the economic bottom is
>the forcing of the corporations to more equitably share their
>advances in productivity with their employees by reducing the
>standard work week, possibly to 30 hours with current pay and
>benefits, with draconian penalties for evasion.
Now there is a sure fire way to have jobs go out of the country.
>One useful place to start is the removal of the current social
>security earnings tax cap, currently 106,800$. In and of itself,
>this would resolve the projected SS "shortfall" for several
>years.
I assume you are not planning on being fair and increasing the maximum
Social Security Payments. Another incentive for bright people to
move overseas. Currently on the average Social Security takes more
money from people than they will collect. That is a great system.
Dan
cavelamb
ED!
If I have to "think about what they mean"...
then there are no solid answers.
We are probably not asking the right questions.
What's really important, what we area all asking is
what dos all this mean to me and mine...