Re: 2010 Will Be Worse
climber
<Larry_Tig...@lefites.are_traitors_and.nuts> wrote:
> 2010 Will Be Worse
> By Monty Pelerin
> The year 2010 is likely to be the pivotal year where pundits stop
> referring to the recession and begin openly talking about a depression.
>
> Our economic problem is rather simple to describe: There is too much debt
> relative to income and/or wealth. Below is a single graph that depicts
> the condition of our economy. It shows total debt of the U.S. as a
> percentage of GDP from 1870 forward. The debt figure includes all private
> and public debt. It does not include liabilities associated with unfunded
> government mandates like Social Security and Medicare. (Note: according
> to the U.S. trustees of these funds, the present value of the liabilities
> is about $106 trillion. Including them would boost the ratio below to
> nearly 1,000%.)
>
> The amount of debt relative to GDP is staggering from a historical
> perspective. Several points are worth making about the graph:
>
> * The long-term "norm" for the ratio appears to be around 150%. The
> red lines band the "norm" at 130% and 170%, respectively.
> * Other than the two boom periods that commenced in the 1920s and the
> 1980s, the ratio never exceeded the upper band.
> * Each cross resulted in enormous credit-driven booms. The first
> ended in the Great Depression. The second will produce a similar if not
> bigger bust (we are merely at the beginning of this event).
> * The credit expansion that led to the Great Depression was not
> nearly as overextended as the current expansion.
> * Peak credit occurred after the Depression began. Government
> spending and the shrinkage in GDP continued to drive the ratio up early
> in the Depression.
> * Since this graph was published, today's ratio has grown to near
> 380%, about double the level when the U.S. entered the Depression.
> * While it appears as though current private borrowing may have
> peaked, funding enormous government deficits continues to drive the ratio
> up, as does GDP shrinkage.
>
> No economic theory rationalizes a proper "norm," yet intuitively, we know
> that such a number exists. Debt must not exceed some percentage of
> income, or else it cannot be serviced. Equivalent conceptual ratios for
> individuals and businesses have been used by the banking industry as
> lending criteria for more than a century. For various reasons, banks
> neglected these guidelines over the past couple of decades, contributing
> greatly to the credit bubble.
>
> The government has decided that the cure for too much debt is more debt.
> This solution cannot work, especially when credit is already so
> overextended. Income and wealth cannot support present debt levels.
> Credit will adjust back to the mean, regardless of what the government
> attempts. Whether this is via orderly payment or via default, the
> reduction in debt is inevitable.
>
> Ludwig von Mises addressed the limits of credit in The Theory of Money
> and Credit, originally published in 1912. As he expressed in later work:
>
> There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought
> about by credit [debt] expansion. The alternative is only whether the
> crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of
> further credit [debt] expansion, or later as a final and total
> catastrophe of the currency system involved.
>
> In 2009, it was not possible to finance U.S. capital requirements through
> conventional markets. Only via the Fed's explicit (and surreptitious)
> Quantitative Easing was the government able to fund its 2009 deficits.
> Discussing 2009, Zerohedge stated:
>
> There was a huge credit and liquidity crunch, and then there was
> Quantitative Easing. The last is the Fed's equivalent of band-aiding a
> zombied and ponzied corpse, better known as the US economy. It worked for
> a while, but now the zombie is about to go back into critical, followed
> by comatose, and lastly, undead (and 401(k)-depleting) condition.
>
> Zerohedge estimated that demand (financing) for U.S. fixed-income
> securities must increase elevenfold in order to fund capital needs in
> 2010. Continued shrinkage in foreign participation in U.S. fixed-income
> markets makes that increase impossible.
>
> There are only three possibilities with respect to meeting 2010 funding
> needs:
>
> * The Fed continues its QE beyond their planned cessation in March
> 2010.
> * The Fed raises interest rates to levels that would attract the
> capital necessary to fund government operations via conventional credit
> markets.
> * No Fed action is taken. That would cause the government to default
> on some of its obligations.
>
> None of these alternatives is attractive. The unpalatable choices arise
> from prior Fed and governmental policies. To avoid recessions over the
> past fifty years, the government abused and then finally exhausted all
> reasonable options. After years of mismanagement, the government is in a
> quandary of its own making from which there is no escape.
>
> All alternatives will be very painful, and none offer the possibility of
> a traditional recovery. No matter what alternative is chosen, the country
> cannot avoid a depression. At this point, "do no further harm" should
> guide policy.
>
> Of the three alternatives, what is best economically is worst
> politically. This natural conflict between good economics and good
> politics is not unusual. Economically, the country would be harmed least
> by implementing alternative 2. From a political standpoint, alternatives
> 2 and 3 are probably unacceptable. Thus, it is likely that alternative 1
> will be tried (again!). It is precisely the continual overuse of this
> alternative that has led to the current sad state.
>
> Alternative 1 cannot work. It will not avoid a depression. Worse, it will
> likely result in hyperinflation. Thus, we likely end up with the worst of
> all worlds. With hyperinflation, money will cease to be a medium of
> exchange. Markets will cease to work, except on a barter basis. The
> middle class will be wiped out. Their savings will become worthless along
> with the dollar. The end will be as Mises warned so many years ago.
>
> The possibility of losing our form of government is a real risk under any
> of the alternatives. So is civil unrest and strife. All are probably more
> likely under alternative 1 because of the corrosive effects of high
> inflation combined with a depression.
>
> Beware the turn of the calendar. Things are going to get interesting, and
> probably very quickly.
>
> --
> The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
> not first take from somebody else.
>
> ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005 ~
>
> Just words, just speeches
> Obama - 2008
Beware the Ids of March 2010.
climber
GLOBALIST
leadership , and no support.
geneo4321
"GLOBALIST" <free....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a2ba40c-2971-40cb...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals, no
> leadership , and no support.
>
Do you mean American politicians. Probally right.
Beam Me Up Scotty
free people they represent.
AZDuffman
> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals, no
> leadership , and no support.
What has no support is Obamacare. Yet despite polls showing Americans
don't want it or a so-called "public option" Dems keep pushing it.
But barely 300 days until election day and we throw them out.
Hopefully the GOP understands the message ot the Tea Patriot Movement.
Meanwhile, tea-baggers like Cahill will be wondering what happened to
Obamamania.
freeisbest
> leadership , and no support.
2010 will definitely be worse for them. Every lost job, every
foreclosed house is another 'vote' against their greed and stupidity.
AZDuffman
Only "greed" I see is on the left, wanting everybody else to pay for
their healthcare and who knows what else.
300 days until we are free of the liberal congress!
Beam Me Up Scotty
Root out the Socialism and chase it out of our government.
They hide who they are because they know the Nation isn't pro
Socialism... If you look you'll see politicians try to not tell you who
they are so they can try to appeal to as many voters as possible, we
need people that will tell us who they are and what we are voting for.
Obama chose to hide his Socialism and present an IMAGE of being a
centrist when in fact he is a Leftist.
Michael Coburn
> On Jan 3, 8:01 am, GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals, no
>> leadership , and no support.
>
> What has no support is Obamacare. Yet despite polls showing Americans
> don't want it or a so-called "public option" Dems keep pushing it.
You continue to be a lying sack of shit:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/4/821559/-Public-Option-Polls
> But barely 300 days until election day and we throw them out. Hopefully
> the GOP understands the message ot the Tea Patriot Movement.
>
> Meanwhile, tea-baggers like Cahill will be wondering what happened to
> Obamamania.
Republicans are clueless nincompoops with no plan, no sense, and just
plain "NO".
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Rod Speed
> AZDuffman wrote
>> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals, no leadership , and no support.
>>> 2010 will definitely be worse for them. Every lost job, every
>>> foreclosed house is another 'vote' against their greed and stupidity.
>> Only "greed" I see is on the left, wanting everybody else
>> to pay for their healthcare and who knows what else.
>> 300 days until we are free of the liberal congress!
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
> Root out the Socialism and chase it out of our government.
Not even possible, most obviously with public education,
the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
> They hide who they are because they know the Nation isn't pro Socialism...
Dang, didnt realise they were actually against public education,
the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
> If you look you'll see politicians try to not tell you who they are so
> they can try to appeal to as many voters as possible, we need
> people that will tell us who they are and what we are voting for.
Have fun finding even a single one that the voters are actually stupid enough to vote for.
> Obama chose to hide his Socialism and present an
> IMAGE of being a centrist when in fact he is a Leftist.
Then you had better set fire to yourself outside the White House or sumfin.
AZDuffman
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>
> > AZDuffman wrote
> >> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals, no leadership , and no support.
> >>> 2010 will definitely be worse for them. Every lost job, every
> >>> foreclosed house is another 'vote' against their greed and stupidity.
> >> Only "greed" I see is on the left, wanting everybody else
> >> to pay for their healthcare and who knows what else.
> >> 300 days until we are free of the liberal congress!
>
> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
>
> > Root out the Socialism and chase it out of our government.
>
> Not even possible, most obviously with public education,
> the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
>
> > They hide who they are because they know the Nation isn't pro Socialism...
>
> Dang, didnt realise they were actually against public education,
> the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
Maybe you should learn the difference between "socialism" and "public
services." Then you wouldn't sound like you have a 9th grade
education.
hal
<srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 3:39=A0pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>
>> > AZDuffman wrote
>> >> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >>> GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >>>> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals, no le=
>adership , and no support.
>> >>> 2010 will definitely be worse for them. =A0Every lost job, every
>> >>> foreclosed house is another 'vote' against their greed and stupidity.
>> >> Only "greed" I see is on the left, wanting everybody else
>> >> to pay for their healthcare and who knows what else.
>> >> 300 days until we are free of the liberal congress!
>>
>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>
>> > Root out the Socialism and chase it out of our government.
>>
>> Not even possible, most obviously with public education,
>> the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
>>
>> > They hide who they are because they know the Nation isn't pro Socialism=
>...
>>
>> Dang, didnt realise they were actually against public education,
>> the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
>
>Maybe you should learn the difference between "socialism" and "public
>services." Then you wouldn't sound like you have a 9th grade
>education.
Public services IS socialism, moron.
AZDuffman
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, socialism is the government owning or/and controling means of
production in profitable industries. Examples are autos, steel,
health care, and banks.
Public service is "services" like the army, cops, and firefighters.
You are clearly tyring to stretch the definition of "socialism" to
make it appear acceptable since everyone realizes it is a form of
slavery.
Rod Speed
You never will be able to manage anything like that.
You clowns are so stupid that you cant even manage to grasp that the only 'socialism'
in that sense that Obummer has ever done was end up with a chunk of GM for a while.
AndyS
dog.com> wrote:
> They hide who they are because they know the Nation isn't pro
> Socialism... If you look you'll see politicians try to not tell you who
> they are so they can try to appeal to as many voters as possible, we
> need people that will tell us who they are and what we are voting for.
>
Andy comments:
Interesting observation..... I have noticed that nearly all the
extreme lefties on this newsgroup tend to use cartoon character
names to hide their identities, while the extreme rightards usually
use their real names........ I wonder why that is...
Andy in Eureka, Texas
Rod Speed
> hal wrote
>> AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> GLOBALIST <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Of course it will be for the Party of No...they have no goals,
>>>>>>>> no leadership , and no support.
>>>>>>> 2010 will definitely be worse for them. =A0Every lost job, every
>>>>>>> foreclosed house is another 'vote' against their greed and stupidity.
>>>>>> Only "greed" I see is on the left, wanting everybody else
>>>>>> to pay for their healthcare and who knows what else.
>>>>>> 300 days until we are free of the liberal congress!
>>>> Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasyland.
>>>>> Root out the Socialism and chase it out of our government.
>>>> Not even possible, most obviously with public education,
>>>> the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
>>>>> They hide who they are because they know the Nation isn't pro Socialism.
>>>> Dang, didnt realise they were actually against public education,
>>>> the cops, fire service, the military, the roads etc etc etc.
>>> Maybe you should learn the difference between "socialism" and "public
>>> services." Then you wouldn't sound like you have a 9th grade education.
>> Public services IS socialism, moron.
> No, socialism is the government owning or/and controling means of production in profitable industries.
Thats just ONE meaning of it.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=socialism*1+0&dict=A
And they dont have to be profitable either.
> Examples are autos, steel, health care, and banks.
Banks arent one of the means of production, fool.
> Public service is "services" like the army, cops, and firefighters.
Pity about the national highway scheme.
> You are clearly tyring to stretch the definition of "socialism"
Everyone can see you are lying, as always.
> to make it appear acceptable since everyone realizes it is a form of slavery.
Like hell it is if the govt is stupid enough to own a car manufacturing operation.
AZDuffman
> > No, socialism is the government owning or/and controling means of production in profitable industries.
>
> Thats just ONE meaning of it.http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=socialism*1+0&dict=A
>
> And they dont have to be profitable either.
>
> > Examples are autos, steel, health care, and banks.
>
> Banks arent one of the means of production, fool.
Capital Formation is absolutely part of the "means of production"
fool.
> > Public service is "services" like the army, cops, and firefighters.
>
> Pity about the national highway scheme.
Pity what about it?
> > You are clearly tyring to stretch the definition of "socialism"
>
> Everyone can see you are lying, as always.
Everyone can see you are a name-calling jagoff with an IQ of 90, as
always.
Joan F (MI)
have none and can't afford it. I want everyone to have the security I have.
"AZDuffman" <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a2e7a88-4693-4398...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
toci
wrote:
> Nonsense, I am on the left and I want to pay for health care for people who
> have none and can't afford it. I want everyone to have the security I have.
>
>
> news:1a2e7a88-4693-4398...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Only "greed" I see is on the left, wanting everybody else to pay for
> their healthcare and who knows what else.
>
> 300 days until we are free of the liberal congress!
Joan, did you know you were doing heavy cross posting including a
group that has traditionally been nonpolitical? Toci
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> No, socialism is the government owning or/and
>>> controling means of production in profitable industries.
>> Thats just ONE meaning of it.
>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=socialism*1+0&dict=A
>> And they dont have to be profitable either.
>>> Examples are autos, steel, health care, and banks.
>> Banks arent one of the means of production, fool.
> Capital Formation is absolutely part of the "means of production" fool.
Not when they do most of their lending with house mortgages, fuckwit.
>>> Public service is "services" like the army, cops, and firefighters.
>> Pity about the national highway scheme.
> Pity what about it?
That its a govt owned means of production of those national highways, fuckwit.
>>> You are clearly tyring to stretch the definition of "socialism"
>> Everyone can see you are lying, as always.
<reams of your peurile name calling that any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> No, socialism is the government owning or/and
> >>> controling means of production in profitable industries.
> >> Thats just ONE meaning of it.
> >>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=socialism*1+0&dict=A
> >> And they dont have to be profitable either.
> >>> Examples are autos, steel, health care, and banks.
> >> Banks arent one of the means of production, fool.
> > Capital Formation is absolutely part of the "means of production" fool.
>
> Not when they do most of their lending with house mortgages, fuckwit.
>
> >>> Public service is "services" like the army, cops, and firefighters.
> >> Pity about the national highway scheme.
> > Pity what about it?
>
> That its a govt owned means of production of those national highways, fuckwit.
Highways are transportation, not really production and I don't think
anyone but a total idiot (like you) would call them a form of
"socialism."
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> No, socialism is the government owning or/and
>>>>> controling means of production in profitable industries.
>>>> Thats just ONE meaning of it.
>>>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=socialism*1+0&dict=A
>>>> And they dont have to be profitable either.
>>>>> Examples are autos, steel, health care, and banks.
>>>> Banks arent one of the means of production, fool.
>>> Capital Formation is absolutely part of the "means of production" fool.
>> Not when they do most of their lending with house mortgages, fuckwit.
>>>>> Public service is "services" like the army, cops, and firefighters.
>>>> Pity about the national highway scheme.
>>> Pity what about it?
>> That its a govt owned means of production of those national highways, fuckwit.
> Highways are transportation, not really production
Its clearly the production of the highways themselves, fuckwit.
Joan F (MI)
"toci" <gin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:80c84e2c-62bb-4d6d...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Poetic Justice
I'm neither far right, or anywhere near the left.
I use a Pseudonym, for personal privacy, and fun.
The name is meaningless, while the truth in the post is the only thing
of importance. I seldom read the names before I reply, I discuss issues
mostly and seldom pick on an individual name.
Gordon H
(MI)" <jjf...@removethisameritech.net> writes
solves this problem. :)
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply
Demon Buddha
Similar to republicans, only working a different angle. Seriously,
these labels mean next to nothing anymore.
seeker
> On Jan 2, 10:46 pm, Scratch
>
>
>
>
>
> <Larry_Tig...@lefites.are_traitors_and.nuts> wrote:
> > 2010 Will Be Worse
> > By Monty Pelerin
> > The year 2010 is likely to be the pivotal year where pundits stop
> > referring to the recession and begin openly talking about a depression.
>
> > Our economic problem is rather simple to describe: There is too much debt
> > relative to income and/or wealth. Below is a single graph that depicts
> > the condition of our economy. It shows total debt of the U.S. as a
> > percentage of GDP from 1870 forward. The debt figure includes all private
> > and public debt. It does not include liabilities associated with unfunded
> > government mandates like Social Security and Medicare. (Note: according
> > to the U.S. trustees of these funds, the present value of the liabilities
> > is about $106 trillion. Including them would boost the ratio below to
> > nearly 1,000%.)
>
> > The amount of debt relative to GDP is staggering from a historical
> > perspective. Several points are worth making about the graph:
>
> > * The long-term "norm" for the ratio appears to be around 150%. The
> > red lines band the "norm" at 130% and 170%, respectively.
> > * Other than the two boom periods that commenced in the 1920s and the
> > 1980s, the ratio never exceeded the upper band.
> > * Each cross resulted in enormous credit-driven booms. The first
> > ended in the Great Depression. The second will produce a similar if not
> > bigger bust (we are merely at the beginning of this event).
> > * The credit expansion that led to the Great Depression was not
> > nearly as overextended as the current expansion.
> > * Peak credit occurred after the Depression began. Government
> > spending and the shrinkage in GDP continued to drive the ratio up early
> > in the Depression.
> > * Since this graph was published, today's ratio has grown to near
> > 380%, about double the level when the U.S. entered the Depression.
> > * While it appears as though current private borrowing may have
> > peaked, funding enormous government deficits continues to drive the ratio
> > up, as does GDP shrinkage.
>
> > No economic theory rationalizes a proper "norm," yet intuitively, we know
> > that such a number exists. Debt must not exceed some percentage of
> > income, or else it cannot be serviced. Equivalent conceptual ratios for
> > individuals and businesses have been used by the banking industry as
> > lending criteria for more than a century. For various reasons, banks
> > neglected these guidelines over the past couple of decades, contributing
> > greatly to the credit bubble.
>
> > The government has decided that the cure for too much debt is more debt.
> > This solution cannot work, especially when credit is already so
> > overextended. Income and wealth cannot support present debt levels.
> > Credit will adjust back to the mean, regardless of what the government
> > attempts. Whether this is via orderly payment or via default, the
> > reduction in debt is inevitable.
>
> > Ludwig von Mises addressed the limits of credit in The Theory of Money
> > and Credit, originally published in 1912. As he expressed in later work:
>
> > There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought
> > about by credit [debt] expansion. The alternative is only whether the
> > crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of
> > further credit [debt] expansion, or later as a final and total
> > catastrophe of the currency system involved.
>
> > In 2009, it was not possible to finance U.S. capital requirements through
> > conventional markets. Only via the Fed's explicit (and surreptitious)
> > Quantitative Easing was the government able to fund its 2009 deficits.
> > Discussing 2009, Zerohedge stated:
>
> > There was a huge credit and liquidity crunch, and then there was
> > Quantitative Easing. The last is the Fed's equivalent of band-aiding a
> > zombied and ponzied corpse, better known as the US economy. It worked for
> > a while, but now the zombie is about to go back into critical, followed
> > by comatose, and lastly, undead (and 401(k)-depleting) condition.
>
> > Zerohedge estimated that demand (financing) for U.S. fixed-income
> > securities must increase elevenfold in order to fund capital needs in
> > 2010. Continued shrinkage in foreign participation in U.S. fixed-income
> > markets makes that increase impossible.
>
> > There are only three possibilities with respect to meeting 2010 funding
> > needs:
>
> > * The Fed continues its QE beyond their planned cessation in March
> > 2010.
> > * The Fed raises interest rates to levels that would attract the
> > capital necessary to fund government operations via conventional credit
> > markets.
> > * No Fed action is taken. That would cause the government to default
> > on some of its obligations.
>
> > None of these alternatives is attractive. The unpalatable choices arise
> > from prior Fed and governmental policies. To avoid recessions over the
> > past fifty years, the government abused and then finally exhausted all
> > reasonable options. After years of mismanagement, the government is in a
> > quandary of its own making from which there is no escape.
>
> > All alternatives will be very painful, and none offer the possibility of
> > a traditional recovery. No matter what alternative is chosen, the country
> > cannot avoid a depression. At this point, "do no further harm" should
> > guide policy.
>
> > Of the three alternatives, what is best economically is worst
> > politically. This natural conflict between good economics and good
> > politics is not unusual. Economically, the country would be harmed least
> > by implementing alternative 2. From a political standpoint, alternatives
> > 2 and 3 are probably unacceptable. Thus, it is likely that alternative 1
> > will be tried (again!). It is precisely the continual overuse of this
> > alternative that has led to the current sad state.
>
> > Alternative 1 cannot work. It will not avoid a depression. Worse, it will
> > likely result in hyperinflation. Thus, we likely end up with the worst of
> > all worlds. With hyperinflation, money will cease to be a medium of
> > exchange. Markets will cease to work, except on a barter basis. The
> > middle class will be wiped out. Their savings will become worthless along
> > with the dollar. The end will be as Mises warned so many years ago.
>
> > The possibility of losing our form of government is a real risk under any
> > of the alternatives. So is civil unrest and strife. All are probably more
> > likely under alternative 1 because of the corrosive effects of high
> > inflation combined with a depression.
>
> > Beware the turn of the calendar. Things are going to get interesting, and
> > probably very quickly.
>
> > --
> > The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does
> > not first take from somebody else.
>
> > ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005 ~
>
> > Just words, just speeches
> > Obama - 2008
>
> Beware the Ids of March 2010.
>
> climber- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Up in New England, most people are pessimistic about 2010.
Day Brown
>> not first take from somebody else.
>>
>> ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005 ~
countries. [bread & circuses]=[beer & football]
We'll know there's a problem if they fail to fill the Superbowl Stadium
and the ratings fall off. A problem the power elite is, is that they
cant foreclose without getting the spud off the couch.
And if he's not watching football, he might actually have time to think.
And well, we cant have that. Thinking is not something they do real
well, that demagogues tend to do for them. Next thing we know, mobs'll
start dragging the bastards out to be shot.
2010 depends on which side of the threshold you are; on one side, you
have everything, and stand to loose it, while on the other, you have
nothing, and everything to gain.
My neck of Ozark woods looks good either way. Lotsa old farts have
cashed their chips and are building McMansions here. Lotsa construction
jobs, logging, saw mills, dirtwork, even stonework for younger men. The
population is so low its hard to gather a mob, and there's lotsa woods
for local security forces ambushing to keep them out. Nobody ever talks
about this of course.
Meanwhile the trout fishing and hunting is terrific. A young man cant
make a lotta money, but there's hundreds of shacks in the woods to live
in for free. Aint no Arkansas building code, so there's no inspectors.
3877
>>> The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government
>>> does not first take from somebody else.
>>>
>>> ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005 ~
> Right. And in the case of the US government, its people in other
> countries. [bread & circuses]=[beer & football]
>
> We'll know there's a problem if they fail to fill the Superbowl
> Stadium and the ratings fall off. A problem the power elite is, is
> that they cant foreclose without getting the spud off the couch.
>
> And if he's not watching football, he might actually have time to
> think. And well, we cant have that. Thinking is not something they do
> real well, that demagogues tend to do for them. Next thing we know,
> mobs'll start dragging the bastards out to be shot.
America has never been that stupid.
> 2010 depends on which side of the threshold you are; on one side, you
> have everything, and stand to loose it, while on the other, you have
> nothing, and everything to gain.
It is never that black and white.
> My neck of Ozark woods looks good either way. Lotsa old farts have
> cashed their chips and are building McMansions here. Lotsa
> construction jobs, logging, saw mills, dirtwork, even stonework for
> younger men. The population is so low its hard to gather a mob, and
> there's lotsa woods for local security forces ambushing to keep them
> out. Nobody ever talks about this of course.
Because they have enough of a clue to have grasped that
nothing like that happened during the great depression.
Day Brown
drive them out of Washington DC.
Couple years ago, a friend got hit by a drunk on a back road. I hadda go
pick him up and take him down to the Sheriff's office at the South end
of the county to file a report... cause squad cars dont go up to the
north end of the county unless they have enuf armed cav escort in
Hummers. Generally 7 vehicles.
These woods have lotsa crazy well armed survivalists who can shoot
pretty well if they aint too drunk, but apt to be angry enuf if they are
to start something.
3877
Do not need to. They did not even have any guns.
> Couple years ago, a friend got hit by a drunk on a back road. I hadda
> go pick him up and take him down to the Sheriff's office at the South
> end of the county to file a report... cause squad cars dont go up to
> the north end of the county unless they have enuf armed cav escort in
> Hummers. Generally 7 vehicles.
That is a bare faced lie.
> These woods have lotsa crazy well armed survivalists who can shoot
> pretty well if they aint too drunk, but apt to be angry enuf if they
> are to start something.
How odd that they never did during the great depression.
And the few loons stupid enough to try it like at Ruby Ridge didn't last long.
And let us not forget what happened to the Unabomber.
Day Brown
>> Couple years ago, a friend got hit by a drunk on a back road. I hadda
>> go pick him up and take him down to the Sheriff's office at the South
>> end of the county to file a report... cause squad cars dont go up to
>> the north end of the county unless they have enuf armed cav escort in
>> Hummers. Generally 7 vehicles.
>
> That is a bare faced lie.
but way the fuck outta town amid corn/cotton/soybean fields with no
cover for any organized assault for a mile or more in every direction.
Then look at the County radio/tv/internet communications building. Its
in the center of a cluster, with the jail (re-enforced concrete) and
earth bermed right up to the roof at 8 foot above grade.
Just looking at the Google Earth shot of it should be convincing, that
they do not have the same confidence in the maintenance of civil order.
>> These woods have lotsa crazy well armed survivalists who can shoot
>> pretty well if they aint too drunk, but apt to be angry enuf if they
>> are to start something.
>
> How odd that they never did during the great depression.
Nobody knows what the fuck they did. You have friends to help you move.
these guys have friends to help them move... bodies. And there's a
zillion acres of caves, rock piles, and woods to move them to where
nobody will ever, or has ever, found anything. Nobody ever printed a
word about a dope chopper shot down either in any paper. But these hills
are fulla Vietnam vets who know how to do it.
> And the few loons stupid enough to try it like at Ruby Ridge didn't last long.
> And let us not forget what happened to the Unabomber.
Neither they, nor the Unabomber were raised in the area nor were they
able to maintain functional relationships and careers. They look pretty
much like ordinary folks. Baptist on Sunday, moonshiners the other 6
days. Its a coalition of Baptists & moonshiners that keep a cluster of
these hill counties dry so the latter has no competition.
What's begun to rock the boat is Mexican druglords coming up with
illegals to grow pot in obscure areas, equipped with the new dwarf
strains that are so small no chopper wants to get low enuf to have a
good look at it. Is there any reason to think these Mexican thugs wont
be shooting at anyone interfering with profitability?
3877
> 3877 wrote:
>>> Couple years ago, a friend got hit by a drunk on a back road. I
>>> hadda go pick him up and take him down to the Sheriff's office at
>>> the South end of the county to file a report... cause squad cars
>>> dont go up to the north end of the county unless they have enuf
>>> armed cav escort in Hummers. Generally 7 vehicles.
>>
>> That is a bare faced lie.
> Go look at the Pope County Sheriff's office. Its not in Russelville,
> but way the fuck outta town amid corn/cotton/soybean fields with no
> cover for any organized assault for a mile or more in every direction.
> Then look at the County radio/tv/internet communications building. Its
> in the center of a cluster, with the jail (re-enforced concrete) and
> earth bermed right up to the roof at 8 foot above grade.
Doesnt prove a damned thing about why they did it like that.
> Just looking at the Google Earth shot of it should be convincing, that
> they do not have the same confidence in the maintenance of civil order.
Just another of your silly little whacky weed fantasys.
>>> These woods have lotsa crazy well armed survivalists who can shoot
>>> pretty well if they aint too drunk, but apt to be angry enuf if they
>>> are to start something.
>>
>> How odd that they never did during the great depression.
> Nobody knows what the fuck they did.
Corse we do. We know about the Hatfields and the McCoys etc.
You have friends to help you
> move. these guys have friends to help them move... bodies. And
> there's a zillion acres of caves, rock piles, and woods to move them
> to where nobody will ever, or has ever, found anything. Nobody ever
> printed a word about a dope chopper shot down either in any paper.
> But these hills are fulla Vietnam vets who know how to do it.
Just another of your silly little whacky weed fantasys.
>> And the few loons stupid enough to try it like at Ruby Ridge didn't last long.
>
>> And let us not forget what happened to the Unabomber.
> Neither they, nor the Unabomber were raised in the area nor were they
> able to maintain functional relationships and careers. They look
> pretty much like ordinary folks. Baptist on Sunday, moonshiners the
> other 6 days. Its a coalition of Baptists & moonshiners that keep a
> cluster of these hill counties dry so the latter has no competition.
>
> What's begun to rock the boat is Mexican druglords coming up with
> illegals to grow pot in obscure areas, equipped with the new dwarf
> strains that are so small no chopper wants to get low enuf to have a
> good look at it.
Just another of your silly little whacky weed fantasys.
Is there any reason to think these Mexican thugs wont
> be shooting at anyone interfering with profitability?
Yeah, they might just shoot back like with Ruby Ridge etc, stupid.
Day Brown
> Day Brown wrote:
>> 3877 wrote:
>>>> Couple years ago, a friend got hit by a drunk on a back road. I
>>>> hadda go pick him up and take him down to the Sheriff's office at
>>>> the South end of the county to file a report... cause squad cars
>>>> dont go up to the north end of the county unless they have enuf
>>>> armed cav escort in Hummers. Generally 7 vehicles.
>>> That is a bare faced lie.
>> Go look at the Pope County Sheriff's office. Its not in Russelville,
>> but way the fuck outta town amid corn/cotton/soybean fields with no
>> cover for any organized assault for a mile or more in every direction.
>> Then look at the County radio/tv/internet communications building. Its
>> in the center of a cluster, with the jail (re-enforced concrete) and
>> earth bermed right up to the roof at 8 foot above grade.
>
> Doesnt prove a damned thing about why they did it like that.
3877
Some fool was mindlessly paranoid. Does not mean that that fool had any valid grounds to be that neurotic.
Day Brown
> Some fool was mindlessly paranoid. Does not mean that that fool had any valid grounds to be that neurotic.
this nuts, and we see all the trolls here, then its easy for a demagogue
to arise out of nowhere, as Machiavelli says, especially on the
Internet, and the whole corrupt system falls over just like the Berlin
Wall came down.
3877
> 3877 wrote:
>> Some fool was mindlessly paranoid. Does not mean that that fool had
>> any valid grounds to be that neurotic.
> I am not recommending revolution.
They do not happen in the great democracies and there is a reason why they do not.
But when you have a population
> this nuts, and we see all the trolls here, then its easy for a
> demagogue to arise out of nowhere, as Machiavelli says,
Not in the great democracies it is not.
especially on
> the Internet,
Fat lot of good any of them do to anything that matters.
and the whole corrupt system falls over just like the
> Berlin Wall came down.
How odd that you can not list even a single example of that in
any of the great democracies, even in the great depression.
Have a look at what happened to the black panthers,
simbionese liberation army, ruby ridge etc etc etc sometime.
Day Brown
> How odd that you can not list even a single example of that in
> any of the great democracies, even in the great depression.
as Germany.
> Have a look at what happened to the black panthers,
> simbionese liberation army, ruby ridge etc etc etc sometime.
Every culture has whackos. The question is how bad the economy will be.
Put enuf Americans out of work, and it'll collapse like a house of
credit cards. As it is, it is supported by foreigners buying treasury
notes. Which they do because their own systems are corrupt.
Geno4321
"Day Brown" <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b6e131c$0$5877$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Not bright are you?
3877
> 3877 wrote:
>> Day Brown wrote:
>>> 3877 wrote:
>>>> Some fool was mindlessly paranoid. Does not mean that that fool had
>>>> any valid grounds to be that neurotic.
>>> I am not recommending revolution.
>> They do not happen in the great democracies and there is a reason why they do not.
>> But when you have a population
>>> this nuts, and we see all the trolls here, then its easy for a
>>> demagogue to arise out of nowhere, as Machiavelli says,
>> Not in the great democracies it is not.
>> especially on
>>> the Internet,
>> Fat lot of good any of them do to anything that matters.
>> and the whole corrupt system falls over just like the
>>> Berlin Wall came down.
>> How odd that you can not list even a single example of that in
>> any of the great democracies, even in the great depression.
> You can define "great democracy" to exclude any that fell, such
> as Germany.
That is not how it is defined and germany did not have a revolution.
>> Have a look at what happened to the black panthers,
>> simbionese liberation army, ruby ridge etc etc etc sometime.
> Every culture has whackos.
Have a look at how those whackos were delt with.
> The question is how bad the economy will be.
We did not see revolution even during the great depression.
> Put enuf Americans out of work, and it'll collapse like a house of credit cards.
How odd that it did not even during the great depression.
> As it is, it is supported by foreigners buying treasury notes.
Because they know that without the american economy, they are fucked.
> Which they do because their own systems are corrupt.
They do it because their economy is doomed unless the american economy survives.
Day Brown
>>> How odd that you can not list even a single example of that in
>>> any of the great democracies, even in the great depression.
>> You can define "great democracy" to exclude any that fell, such
>> as Germany.
>
> That is not how it is defined and germany did not have a revolution.
>>> Have a look at what happened to the black panthers,
>>> simbionese liberation army, ruby ridge etc etc etc sometime.
>> Every culture has whackos.
>
> Have a look at how those whackos were delt with.
>
>> The question is how bad the economy will be.
>
> We did not see revolution even during the great depression.
>
>> Put enuf Americans out of work, and it'll collapse like a house of credit cards.
>
> How odd that it did not even during the great depression.
>
>> As it is, it is supported by foreigners buying treasury notes.
>
> Because they know that without the american economy, they are fucked.
>
>> Which they do because their own systems are corrupt.
> They do it because their economy is doomed unless the american economy survives.
As may well be. But markets and elites are not always rational; as
Greenspan put it, "irrational exuberance". Look at all the insane trolls
here. You dont need to pass a sanity test to vote, (altho that'd be a
good idea) and demagogues like Hitler sometimes emerge as a result. Not
that we've not also seen great leadership such as Tokugawa or Dion.
But either way, its a revolution, even if bloodless. The GOP screamed
bloody murder all the way thru the Great Depression about what FDR was
doing. Maybe the USA is lucky; the Euro is having problems right now
because of entitlements and employment in Greece, Spain, & Portugal.
One of the things you can see in Machiavelli, History, and Jared
Diamond's "Collapse" is how republics work as long as the resource pie
is expanding. But when that stops, you need draconian force to decide
who gets to starve. Right now, thats in the undeveloped world.
If the power elites keep enriching themselves at the expense of those in
the developed world also, revolution is inevitable.
3877
> 3877 wrote:
>>>> How odd that you can not list even a single example of that in
>>>> any of the great democracies, even in the great depression.
>>> You can define "great democracy" to exclude any that fell, such
>>> as Germany.
>>
>> That is not how it is defined and germany did not have a revolution.
> They put in Hitler to avoid a Communist revolution.
Like hell they did, they would have just killed any communists stupid enough to try it.
>>>> Have a look at what happened to the black panthers,
>>>> simbionese liberation army, ruby ridge etc etc etc sometime.
>>> Every culture has whackos.
>>
>> Have a look at how those whackos were delt with.
>>
>>> The question is how bad the economy will be.
>>
>> We did not see revolution even during the great depression.
>>
>>> Put enuf Americans out of work, and it'll collapse like a house of
>>> credit cards.
>>
>> How odd that it did not even during the great depression.
>>
>>> As it is, it is supported by foreigners buying treasury notes.
>>
>> Because they know that without the american economy, they are fucked.
>>
>>> Which they do because their own systems are corrupt.
>> They do it because their economy is doomed unless the american
>> economy survives.
> As may well be. But markets and elites are not always rational; as Greenspan put it, "irrational exuberance".
They are rational enough for that. That is why the keep buying US Treasuries.
Look at all the insane
> trolls here.
They are completely irrelevant to any country's policy.
You dont need to pass a sanity test to vote, (altho
> that'd be a good idea)
Nope, impossible to do one just before you vote and unless you do,
you will not prevent the loons with episodal insanity from voting.
and demagogues like Hitler sometimes emerge as
> a result.
Like hell they do. There are never enough of the insane to elect anyone.
Not that we've not also seen great leadership such as
> Tokugawa or Dion.
Yes, even absolute monarchies can sometimes produce someone worth having.
The problem is that you are stuck with the barking mad when they show up too.
> But either way, its a revolution, even if bloodless.
Like hell it is.
The GOP screamed
> bloody murder all the way thru the Great Depression about what FDR was
> doing.
Nothing like a revolution.
Maybe the USA is lucky; the Euro is having problems right now
> because of entitlements and employment in Greece, Spain, & Portugal.
It will survive that, just like it survived the great depression too.
> One of the things you can see in Machiavelli, History, and Jared
> Diamond's "Collapse" is how republics work as long as the resource pie
> is expanding.
Diamond could not even get the basics right with Easter Island.
But when that stops, you need draconian force to decide
> who gets to starve.
Not anymore. You now only get starvation when the place implodes
in the worst civil chaos or civil war and the US did not see starvation
during it's civil war or the great depression either.
> Right now, thats in the undeveloped world.
Nope, you now only get starvation when the place implodes in the worst
civil chaos or civil war now or let a fool like Kim Jung Il rule the roost.
> If the power elites keep enriching themselves at the expense of those
> in the developed world also, revolution is inevitable.
How odd that we have not seen one in hundreds of
years now with the power elites doing that all that time.
There is a reason why we did not.