Ruh roh
trav...@aol.com
SS is now in seemingly perpetual deficit.
Meanwhile Bama is bowing to every world leader, embarrassing not only
himself but the japanese Emperor to whom nobody else bowed, not even
non heads of state.
Last President of the US? Maybe he wants it that way, seems to hate
America anyhow. Wants to bow down before everybody just to show how
feudal dictators and despots are better than we. He's a Pacific
President, wtfever that means. Just anything but American. Bc that
would be awful.
What a bumbling clown, no wonder his approval rating is below 50%.
Worst performance in history.
Trav
hal
Hardly fuckhead. He's got a long, long way to go before he does that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml
And I know you hope for his failure and it is obvious why.
>
>Trav
trav...@aol.com
Easily.
The guy is a clueless buffoon. He can read straight from a
teleprompter, but little else. He's so eager to prove that he "knows
something" about culture that he makes a complete ass out of himself.
In doing so, he shows that he knows nothing about it. It's like he's
the typical dumb American. Someone who goes in and butchers a
language or tries to immerse themselves in culture as a tourist by
doing something stupid that they THINK is hip. Like tourists do.
> And I know you hope for his failure and it is obvious why.
Really it has more to do with the fact that people like you like him.
I root for your failure and the failure of anything you like,
associate with, or have any connection to. Because you are the
biggest piece of shit on the planet. You taint everything by
association with it.
Trav
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Hardly fuckhead. =A0He's got a long, long way to go before he does that.
>
>Easily.
>
>The guy is a clueless buffoon. He can read straight from a
>teleprompter, but little else. He's so eager to prove that he "knows
>something" about culture that he makes a complete ass out of himself.
>In doing so, he shows that he knows nothing about it. It's like he's
>the typical dumb American. Someone who goes in and butchers a
>language or tries to immerse themselves in culture as a tourist by
>doing something stupid that they THINK is hip. Like tourists do.
You're a pathetic egomaniac who can't cope with the fact that a black
man is so much smarter than you. You are completely out of touch with
reality you narcissistic freak.
Shuurai
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:05:52 -0800 (PST), "travis...@aol.cominyrface"
>
> <travis...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Hardly fuckhead. =A0He's got a long, long way to go before he does that.
>
> >Easily.
>
> >The guy is a clueless buffoon. He can read straight from a
> >teleprompter, but little else. He's so eager to prove that he "knows
> >something" about culture that he makes a complete ass out of himself.
> >In doing so, he shows that he knows nothing about it. It's like he's
> >the typical dumb American. Someone who goes in and butchers a
> >language or tries to immerse themselves in culture as a tourist by
> >doing something stupid that they THINK is hip. Like tourists do.
>
> You're a pathetic egomaniac who can't cope with the fact that a black
> man is so much smarter than you.
No... he had it pegged the first time. Obama is frankly the most
overrated fad candidate in history; he simply does not live up to the
hype. Which is exactly why his numbers are dropping faster than any
American president in modern history. Every single day more and more
people realize that he's an empty suit at best.
His first year in office has completely validated my previous
estimation of him: He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
biggest mistakes in American political history.
> You are completely out of touch with reality you narcissistic freak.
You are the one who is seemingly unable to grasp reality. Everything
you believe is based on what your Party masters tell you to believe.
You lack the intelligence or even the interest to think for yourself.
trav...@aol.com
> man is so much smarter than you. You are completely out of touch with
> reality you narcissistic freak.
There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter than I am.
The percentages of that would be infinitesimal. Are you aware of how
many sigmas to the right of mean a black would have to be to exceed my
intelligence?
No, I guess you're not, because you inhabit the fat part of the curve.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> overrated fad candidate in history; he simply does not live up to the
> hype. Which is exactly why his numbers are dropping faster than any
> American president in modern history. Every single day more and more
> people realize that he's an empty suit at best.
Totally true. I've had several people who are dipshit liberals
confide in me that they have total buyer's remorse at this point.
NeO is already the butt of probably more JOKES than Busch was. Wait
till things get really bad.
Hopefully this fad's death takes Yo MTV culture with it because it
sure as shit came from the same place.
> His first year in office has completely validated my previous
> estimation of him: He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
> unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
> biggest mistakes in American political history.
Tourists should lay low, not go around like gringos trying to speak
fucked up spanish very loudly. That's what Bama did to the Jap
Emperor. The dude is a clown. A minor bow would have been fine,
sure, respectful, etc. But a housekeeper's bow?? From the President
of the US??? When guys like Putin and MINOR heads of state were erect
and handshaking? You fucking embarrass EVERYbody with that shit.
Oh, but he reiterated China's sovereignty over Taiwan...lol. Wind
Ruxpin up and pop in the tape I guess. Now he'll go see the Dalai
Lama, a completely fucking IRRELEVANT nuisance of a joke who has any
notoriety SOLELY because of the delusional infatuation HOLLYWOODERS
have with him. WTF. The Dalai Lama??? WTF authority does THIS clown
have? Bama needs to spend his time on real issues not fucking cult
"spiritual" leaders. The fact that Hollywood is enamored of him means
that you should stay WELL the fuck away.
Trav
Sam the Bam
> >You're a pathetic egomaniac who can't cope with the fact
> >that a black man is so much smarter than you. You are
> >completely out of touch with reality you narcissistic freak.
>
> There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter
> than I am.
>
> The percentages of that would be infinitesimal. Are you
> aware of how many sigmas to the right of mean a black
> would have to be to exceed my intelligence?
He's half white...
Sam
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 4:10=A0pm, hal wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:05:52 -0800 (PST), "travis...@aol.cominyrface"
>>
>> <travis...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Hardly fuckhead. =3DA0He's got a long, long way to go before he does t=
>hat.
>>
>> >Easily.
>>
>> >The guy is a clueless buffoon. =A0He can read straight from a
>> >teleprompter, but little else. =A0He's so eager to prove that he "knows
>> >something" about culture that he makes a complete ass out of himself.
>> >In doing so, he shows that he knows nothing about it. =A0It's like he's
>> >the typical dumb American. =A0Someone who goes in and butchers a
>> >language or tries to immerse themselves in culture as a tourist by
>> >doing something stupid that they THINK is hip. =A0Like tourists do.
>>
>> You're a pathetic egomaniac who can't cope with the fact that a black
>> man is so much smarter than you. =A0
>
>No... he had it pegged the first time. Obama is frankly the most
>overrated fad candidate in history; he simply does not live up to the
>hype. Which is exactly why his numbers are dropping faster than any
>American president in modern history. Every single day more and more
>people realize that he's an empty suit at best.
>
>His first year in office has completely validated my previous
>estimation of him: He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
>unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
>biggest mistakes in American political history.
>
You're full of shit of course. They said all the same things about
FDR. And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
presidents. Obama hasn't even been in office a year, and considering
the shit sandwich he was handed by Bush he has accomplished a lot.
He's done more good in a year than Bush did in eight.
>> You are completely out of touch with reality you narcissistic freak. =A0
>
>You are the one who is seemingly unable to grasp reality. Everything
>you believe is based on what your Party masters tell you to believe.
>You lack the intelligence or even the interest to think for yourself.
You clearly ignore reality, because the fact is this country was in a
complete free fall when Bush left office. Obama stopped the crash,
propped up the markets, and got at least some jobs going.
Unfortunately it's a case of too little too late. But all your kind
and do is bitch and piss and moan and cry, clearly because you are
scared shitless, and horribly conflicted because you are dependent
upon a black man to save your worthless asses.
It infuriates me to see worthless trash like you blame the black man,
because you can't cope with the facts, but the fun part is going to be
watching you people melt down. It's gonna be a hell of a show.
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You're a pathetic egomaniac who can't cope with the fact that a black
>> man is so much smarter than you. =A0You are completely out of touch with
>> reality you narcissistic freak. =A0
>
>There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter than I am.
BWWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA !!!!
hal
<samth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >You're a pathetic egomaniac who can't cope with the fact
>> >that a black man is so much smarter than you. =A0You are
>> >completely out of touch with reality you narcissistic freak. =A0
>>
>> There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter
>> than I am.
>>
>> The percentages of that would be infinitesimal. =A0Are you
>> aware of how many sigmas to the right of mean a black
>> would have to be to exceed my intelligence?
>
>
>He's half white...
Yea, he got his brains from his mom, and his..... you know what...
from his dad. Why do you think Michelle looks so happy all the time?
>
>Sam
>
>
trav...@aol.com
> FDR. And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
> presidents. Obama hasn't even been in office a year, and considering
> the shit sandwich he was handed by Bush he has accomplished a lot.
> He's done more good in a year than Bush did in eight.
Name it.
Be specific.
> You clearly ignore reality, because the fact is this country was in a
> complete free fall when Bush left office. Obama stopped the crash,
> propped up the markets, and got at least some jobs going.
The unemployment rate has continued to climb.
> Unfortunately it's a case of too little too late. But all your kind
> and do is bitch and piss and moan and cry, clearly because you are
> scared shitless, and horribly conflicted because you are dependent
> upon a black man to save your worthless asses.
Who the hell would ever depend on a black man???
> It infuriates me to see worthless trash like you blame the black man,
> because you can't cope with the facts, but the fun part is going to be
> watching you people melt down. It's gonna be a hell of a show.
You suck black dick.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
His mom was dumb enough to go coalburning, so I feel pretty confident
in my assessment of his genetics.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> from his dad. Why do you think Michelle looks so happy all the time?
You're a racist cuckold
Trav
Rabid Weasel Lawson
> Why do you think Michelle looks so happy all the time?
'Cuz now she's got the entire country by the balls and not *just* her
husband.
(IH)
Rabid Weasel Lawson
> No, I guess you're not, because you inhabit the fat part of the curve.
Wait a sec. You didn't just say hal is all the way up to "average" did
you?!?! Based on what he posts, that's both highly optimistic and
egregiously generous.
No. He's in the "skinny" part of the curve; the skinny part on the WAY
FAR LEFT side.
(IH)
Deadrat
9b49-405d-836...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
What you know about genetics would have fit in Greor Mendel's navel with
room left over for his last crop of peas.
Herbert Cannon
"Sam the Bam" <samth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9aa04257-f01b-412e...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
He's half white...
I dont like that half either which proves I am not a racist. Heh heh.
Herbert Cannon
>
> You're full of shit of course. They said all the same things about
> FDR. And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
> presidents.
But Hal he is forcing all those American troops in Afghanistan to commit all
those terrible atrocities and making them into war criminals. He has even
sent more combat brigades to kill innocent Afhganis and called it a "war of
necessity." He is killing all those defenseless innocent Afghani civilians
women and children. You said so yourself.
So how can he be our greates president?
Herbert Cannon
"Rabid Weasel Lawson" <lawson@NO14163SPAM+dayton.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.19.00.45.34.460213@NO14163SPAM+dayton.net...
Greendistantstar
> There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter than I am.
LOFL!!
GDS
"Let's roll!"
hal
<trav...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Yea, he got his brains from his mom, and his..... =A0you know what...
>> from his dad. =A0 Why do you think Michelle looks so happy all the time?
>
>You're a racist cuckold
>
>Trav
hal
no, that's the curve for where you are for adult male height.
>(IH)
>
Rabid Weasel Lawson
Please stop fantasizing about my adult male bulges.
(IH)
trav...@aol.com
Seen the salaries her gigantic staff takes home??? JFC, talk about
easy street, plus you can shut the city down during rush hour to go
buy arugula
Trav
trav...@aol.com
You lookin for another go'round for a bitchslap, dudrot?
Trav
trav...@aol.com
+dayton.net> wrote:
I stand corrected. First time ever.
Trav
Deadrat
df47-4686-89e...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
You're just terrifyin', Tiny.
Fraser Johnston
"Greendistantstar" <Greendis...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:avadnc5Cw6W9C5nW...@westnet.com.au...
> trav...@aol.cominyrface wrote:
>
>> There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter than I am.
>
> LOFL!!
Or as modest.
Fraser
trav...@aol.com
> "Greendistantstar" <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:avadnc5Cw6W9C5nW...@westnet.com.au...
>
> > travis...@aol.cominyrface wrote:
>
> >> There's no black man who's ever been born who is smarter than I am.
>
> > LOFL!!
>
> Or as modest.
>
> Fraser
Or as good-looking and cool.
Trav
Shuurai
> >His first year in office has completely validated my previous
> >estimation of him: He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
> >unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
> >biggest mistakes in American political history.
>
> You're full of shit of course. They said all the same things about
> FDR. And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
> presidents.
Obama is no FDR. Not by a wide margin. And while FDR was
substantially better than Obama, whether or not he was "one of our
greatest" is subject to debate. A lot of the mess we're in can be
blamed on what FDR set in motion.
> Obama hasn't even been in office a year, and considering
> the shit sandwich he was handed by Bush he has accomplished a lot.
> He's done more good in a year than Bush did in eight.
What has he accomplished? Pushing a stimulus package that did more
harm than good, to the point where they have to make up numbers of
"jobs saved" in an attempt to save face? What else is there, really?
> >You are the one who is seemingly unable to grasp reality. Everything
> >you believe is based on what your Party masters tell you to believe.
> >You lack the intelligence or even the interest to think for yourself.
>
> You clearly ignore reality, because the fact is this country was in a
> complete free fall when Bush left office. Obama stopped the crash,
> propped up the markets, and got at least some jobs going.
He did nothing of the sort. What he did was bail out the Wall Street
elites. He didn't stop any crash, and he hasn't propped up any
markets. There is absolutely no evidence that the market situation
would be any different than it is now without his so called stimulus.
Nor is there any evidence that he saved any significant number of
jobs. The numbers we're getting from his administration are obviously
false; and deliberately so.
> Unfortunately it's a case of too little too late. But all your kind
> and do is bitch and piss and moan and cry, clearly because you are
> scared shitless, and horribly conflicted because you are dependent
> upon a black man to save your worthless asses.
Oh, look... the race card. I was wondering when you'd pull that
one. The last resort of liberals everywhere; when you can't hold an
argument on evidence or reason, pull the race card.
As to your point, you couldn't be more wrong (that's just a figure of
speech, I'm sure that YOU can always find a way to be more wrong). I
am not dependent on Obama's brand of government; in fact I'd be better
off without it. He isn't going to "save" me or anyone else; he's
actually making a bad situation worse.
> It infuriates me to see worthless trash like you blame the black man,
It makes me laugh to see worthless idiots like you pull the race card
because you have nothing else. I really couldn't give a flying fuck
less what color Obama is. He could be green for all care. What
bothers me about him is that he's a liar and a fraud; that he's an
arrogant, inexperienced, and unqualified buffoon who has demonstrated
beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is in over his head.
You don't have an answer to ANY of that, so you of course fall back on
the race card. Because it's only card you have, and you know it. You
are utterly incapable of defending the man with facts and reason.
> because you can't cope with the facts, but the fun part is going to be
> watching you people melt down. It's gonna be a hell of a show.
What facts would those be, exactly?
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >His first year in office has completely validated my previous
>> >estimation of him: =A0He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
>> >unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
>> >biggest mistakes in American political history.
>>
>> You're full of shit of course. =A0They said all the same things about
>> FDR. =A0And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
>> presidents. =A0
>
>Obama is no FDR. Not by a wide margin. And while FDR was
>substantially better than Obama, whether or not he was "one of our
>greatest" is subject to debate.
Right wingers like you hated FDR as much as you hate Obama. And
wingers like you tried desperately, and pathetically, (like you) to
blame all of the country's problems on socialism and FDR. Now history
proves it was Hoover's mess, just like this one is Bush's mess, and
Obama is trying to deal with the most badly trashed economy in over 70
years.
>A lot of the mess we're in can be
>blamed on what FDR set in motion.
Such as?
>
>> Obama hasn't even been in office a year, and considering
>> the shit sandwich he was handed by Bush he has accomplished a lot.
>> He's done more good in a year than Bush did in eight. =A0
>
>What has he accomplished? Pushing a stimulus package that did more
>harm than good, to the point where they have to make up numbers of
>"jobs saved" in an attempt to save face? What else is there, really?
>
What else would you suggest? Doing nothing? That's what Hoover did,
and history judges that to be a dismal failure. The stimulus stopped
the free fall the economy was in when Obama took office. If he
had'nt done that you'ld be pissing your pants with rage. So make up
your mind.
>> >You are the one who is seemingly unable to grasp reality. =A0Everything
>> >you believe is based on what your Party masters tell you to believe.
>> >You lack the intelligence or even the interest to think for yourself.
>>
>> You clearly ignore reality, because the fact is this country was in a
>> complete free fall when Bush left office. =A0Obama stopped the crash,
>> propped up the markets, and got at least some jobs going.
>
>He did nothing of the sort. What he did was bail out the Wall Street
>elites. He didn't stop any crash, and he hasn't propped up any
>markets. There is absolutely no evidence that the market situation
>would be any different than it is now without his so called stimulus.
>Nor is there any evidence that he saved any significant number of
>jobs. The numbers we're getting from his administration are obviously
>false; and deliberately so.
Wow. "Reality, what a concept." Robin Williams.
>
>> Unfortunately it's a case of too little too late. =A0But all your kind
>> and do is bitch and piss and moan and cry, clearly because you are
>> scared shitless, and horribly conflicted because you are dependent
>> upon a black man to save your worthless asses.
>
>Oh, look... the race card. I was wondering when you'd pull that
>one. The last resort of liberals everywhere; when you can't hold an
>argument on evidence or reason, pull the race card.
>
>As to your point, you couldn't be more wrong (that's just a figure of
>speech, I'm sure that YOU can always find a way to be more wrong). I
>am not dependent on Obama's brand of government; in fact I'd be better
>off without it. He isn't going to "save" me or anyone else; he's
>actually making a bad situation worse.
And what do you suggest? More laissez faire do nothing government?
Your pretend libertarianism? More of the same let the rich screw
anybody they want all they want and hope for a few crumbs of bread?
You think more of doing absolutely nothing is actually going to help?
I mean, I know you're that stupid, but really.
Sam the Bam
> > >>There's no black man who's ever been born who is
> > >>smarter than I am.
>
>
> Or as good-looking and cool.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2138544128/tt0062589
You lose...
Sam
trav...@aol.com
Maybe these:
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....
Obama arrived on (Osan Air) base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern
Standard Time), and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in
camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to
snap pictures.
"You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.
Standing on a riser wearing a blue suit and red tie, with a cluster of
troops and a large American flag behind him, Obama expressed "the
gratitude of the American public" and said his meetings in four
countries over eight days in Asia will help deliver a "safer more
prosperous world for all of us."
He got a huge cheer when he told them he was increasing military pay.
"That's what you call an applause line," he said, before boarding his
jet and taking off at 4:11 p.m.""
What a freaking clown. Teleprompter must've been off.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
WTF is that, a chia pet??
Trav
Shuurai
> >Obama is no FDR. Not by a wide margin. And while FDR was
> >substantially better than Obama, whether or not he was "one of our
> >greatest" is subject to debate.
>
> Right wingers like you hated FDR as much as you hate Obama. And
> wingers like you tried desperately, and pathetically, (like you) to
> blame all of the country's problems on socialism and FDR.
I don't hate either of them; I strongly disagree with them. Just
because you are incapable of disagreeing with someone without making
it personal doesn't mean everybody else is that way. It speaks
volumes about your intellectual and emotional shortcomings.
Second, I don't blame all of the country's problems on FDR and
socialism; mainly just those that are specifically related to the
government stealing money and resources from productive members of
society in order to fund massive entitlement programs that drag down
the economy.
> Now history proves it was Hoover's mess, just like this one is Bush's mess, and
> Obama is trying to deal with the most badly trashed economy in over 70
> years.
History has proven nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary; FDR
created what amount to massive pyramid schemes that have dragged down
the economy for decades and which are now poised to collapse.
> >A lot of the mess we're in can be
> >blamed on what FDR set in motion.
>
> Such as?
FDR kicked off the era of entitlements.
> >What has he accomplished? Pushing a stimulus package that did more
> >harm than good, to the point where they have to make up numbers of
> >"jobs saved" in an attempt to save face? What else is there, really?
>
> What else would you suggest? Doing nothing?
Same old straw man bullshit, as usual. The only people who keep
pushing "nothing" as an option is liberals, in their attempts to build
straw men. Because it's all you have.
He should have incentivized the private sector to create jobs via tax
cuts and targeted subsidies.
He should have started targeted investment into the energy
infrastructure; not just throwing out billions of dollars in the hopes
that companies would spend them in ways that were generally positive,
but with an actual overriding plan complete with specific goals and
guidelines. We absolutely, positively NEED to update our energy
infrastructure.
Imagine the numbers of people you could put to work building upgraded
transmission lines, solar arrays, wind farms, nuclear plants; and the
jobs created to support all of those builders. And these would have
been LONG term jobs; many of them permanent.
You could do the same thing with other areas of the American
infrastructure. Roads and bridges, water supplies, hospitals and
schools, you name it.
Yes, a lot of stimulus money *is* going to those things, but it's
largely unguided. There is no plan. Basically they just threw a lot
of money at various people and hoped they'd do something good with it;
which is why a lot of that money is currently unaccounted for. In
short, instead of zipping a massive amount of money through Congress
without ever reading it, he should have demanded a thoughtful,
deliberate, and focused series of programs.
This would have allowed us to spend less money, while ensuring that
what money was spent would give us the greatest return possible. It
would have actually created jobs - and long term jobs - and it would
have allowed people to actually see a plan in action, which would have
raised public confidence.
Finally, he should NOT have funneled hundreds of billions of dollars
to bank executives, which did nothing except pad their own accounts.
> That's what Hoover did, and history judges that to be a dismal failure.
So you actually believe that the ONLY two options in any situation are
massive government spending, or nothing?
> The stimulus stopped the free fall the economy was in when Obama took office.
Not really. We're basically on the same track that was projected
whether the stimulus passed or not. There are arguments on both
sides; some believe that the stimulus helped, others believe that it
hurt. But very few outside of the Obama administration believe that
it singlehandedly "stopped" anything. Aside from their loyal
cheerleaders.
> If he had'nt done that you'ld be pissing your pants with rage. So make up
> your mind.
Wrong. If he hadn't done it I would have supported that decision. I
said from the beginning that I was against the stimulus package, as
well as the bailout that passed under Bush. I believe that both of
them were misguided and wrong, and I stand by that. YOU are the one
who changes his beliefs based on which political party is involved.
> >He did nothing of the sort. What he did was bail out the Wall Street
> >elites. He didn't stop any crash, and he hasn't propped up any
> >markets. There is absolutely no evidence that the market situation
> >would be any different than it is now without his so called stimulus.
> >Nor is there any evidence that he saved any significant number of
> >jobs. The numbers we're getting from his administration are obviously
> >false; and deliberately so.
>
> Wow. "Reality, what a concept." Robin Williams.
If you have evidence, present it. But you don't - and you won't.
> >As to your point, you couldn't be more wrong (that's just a figure of
> >speech, I'm sure that YOU can always find a way to be more wrong). I
> >am not dependent on Obama's brand of government; in fact I'd be better
> >off without it. He isn't going to "save" me or anyone else; he's
> >actually making a bad situation worse.
>
> And what do you suggest? More laissez faire do nothing government?
We haven't had anything close to laissez faire government for nearly a
century; so you can drop that straw man. And no, I don't want the
government to do nothing; I simply want them to show some fiscal
responsibility, and start putting the good of the people they
represent ahead of their own careers.
Take the current health care reform; the stated goals are to lower
costs, increase choice, improve care, expand coverage, and reduce the
risk of financial ruin for people who get sick. Those are all noble
goals; I completely agree with every single one of them.
Problem is, the plan being offered does none of them. None. It
raises the cost of insurance. It reduces choice. It restricts care.
It only slightly expands coverage; but in the process eliminates
jobs.
And do you know why? Because the two major political parties are so
obsessed with making sure that the other side is left out of the
process, that they can't agree on anything that will actually PASS
without it being so completely full of concessions, exemptions, and
loopholes that it will be ultimately worthless.
> Your pretend libertarianism? More of the same let the rich screw
> anybody they want all they want and hope for a few crumbs of bread?
> You think more of doing absolutely nothing is actually going to help?
Again with this straw man. Nobody is suggesting anything of the
sort.
> I mean, I know you're that stupid, but really.
And I know that you've got your head so far up Obama's ass that facts
and common sense don't matter to you.
Herbert Cannon
<hal> wrote in message news:4b059041...@news.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:40:39 -0800 (PST), Shuurai
> <shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> >His first year in office has completely validated my previous
>>> >estimation of him: =A0He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
>>> >unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
>>> >biggest mistakes in American political history.
>>>
>>> You're full of shit of course. =A0They said all the same things about
>>> FDR. =A0And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
>>> presidents. =A0
>>
>>Obama is no FDR. Not by a wide margin. And while FDR was
>>substantially better than Obama, whether or not he was "one of our
>>greatest" is subject to debate.
>
> Right wingers like you hated FDR as much as you hate Obama.
Actually, until Pear Harbor, FDR and his Sec of War were getting booed by
everyone in movie theatres when Movietone News came on. The feeling in the
country was that no one wanted to fight to perserve the British Empire are
any European empire. FDR was getting very discouraged in his second term
because many of his programs were not working ( watch the American
Experience on Public TV sometime). He had also been told NO by the nation
when he tried to stack the Supreme Court.
And
> wingers like you tried desperately, and pathetically, (like you) to
> blame all of the country's problems on socialism and FDR. Now history
> proves it was Hoover's mess,
History proves no such thing, you stupid fuck, so quit trying to re write
it; and go read a real history book. I have recommended " Freedom From Fear"
many times to you. It is a Pulitzer Prize winning book.
You have told so many lies and made up so mucn fictional bullshit, I rather
doubt you can sort out the truth anymore.
just like this one is Bush's mess,
Bush is gone and has been gone - this is Obama's solutions and economy now -
sorry the blame it on Bush card does not work anymore either. Write three
letters.
Herbert Cannon
> And what do you suggest? More laissez faire do nothing government?
> Your pretend libertarianism? More of the same let the rich screw
> anybody they want all they want and hope for a few crumbs of bread?
It is not the rich's fault either nor the joos..
Herbert Cannon
<trav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1ea9d73-3d32-49c7...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
I demand a death match between you. A death duel. Better get yourself a
1911 brain boy. Otherwise, you are going to get bammed.
Shuurai
> Obama arrived on (Osan Air) base 3:19 p.m. local time (1 a.m. Eastern
> Standard Time), and received a rousing welcome from 1,500 troops in
> camouflage uniforms, many holding cameras or pointing cell phones to
> snap pictures.
>
> "You guys make a pretty good photo op," the president said.
Which was his only reason for going in the first place.
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Obama is no FDR. =A0Not by a wide margin. =A0And while FDR was
>> >substantially better than Obama, whether or not he was "one of our
>> >greatest" is subject to debate.
>>
>> Right wingers like you hated FDR as much as you hate Obama. =A0And
>> wingers like you tried desperately, and pathetically, (like you) to
>> blame all of the country's problems on socialism and FDR. =A0
>
>I don't hate either of them; I strongly disagree with them. Just
>because you are incapable of disagreeing with someone without making
>it personal doesn't mean everybody else is that way. It speaks
>volumes about your intellectual and emotional shortcomings.
No, you hate him. You hate the man and what he stands for. Your
distrust, and slandering of him goes way, way beyond reasonable, lucid
critique of his policies. You hate him and everything he stands for.
>
>Second, I don't blame all of the country's problems on FDR and
>socialism; mainly just those that are specifically related to the
>government stealing money and resources from productive members of
>society in order to fund massive entitlement programs that drag down
>the economy.
Prove it. In case you haven't figure it out entitlement programs
gives Americans money to spend on stuff like rent, food, clothes, pay
their utilities. You know, stuff that keeps the economy GOING !!!!!
It doesn't drag on the economy, moron, it fuels it. It puts money
directly into hands of people who SPEND IT IN AMERICA !!!!!!!
>
>> Now history proves it was Hoover's mess, just like this one is Bush's mes=
>s, and
>> Obama is trying to deal with the most badly trashed economy in over 70
>> years.
>
>History has proven nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary; FDR
>created what amount to massive pyramid schemes that have dragged down
>the economy for decades and which are now poised to collapse.
Only because they haven't been funded properly and their funding has
been raided because too many people like you have wanted it to fail.
>
>> >A lot of the mess we're in can be
>> >blamed on what FDR set in motion.
>>
>> Such as?
>
>FDR kicked off the era of entitlements.
Yea, nasty shit that did stuff like feed people and provide medical
care for the elderly. Just where do you think we'ld be without all
those programs? I'll tell you: we'ld be a banana republic with an
utltra opulent upper class then a poor class living in filth and dying
from easily curable disease.
>
>> >What has he accomplished? =A0Pushing a stimulus package that did more
>> >harm than good, to the point where they have to make up numbers of
>> >"jobs saved" in an attempt to save face? =A0What else is there, really?
>>
>> What else would you suggest? =A0Doing nothing? =A0
>
>Same old straw man bullshit, as usual. The only people who keep
>pushing "nothing" as an option is liberals, in their attempts to build
>straw men. Because it's all you have.
You never have anything.
>
>He should have incentivized the private sector to create jobs via tax
>cuts and targeted subsidies.
The private sector has been exporting all our jobs for decades, which
is exactly what you people wanted for some odd reason.
>
>He should have started targeted investment into the energy
>infrastructure;
he's trying to do that, and guess who is opposing him? The energy
industry. Oh, the irony.
> not just throwing out billions of dollars in the hopes
>that companies would spend them in ways that were generally positive,
>but with an actual overriding plan complete with specific goals and
>guidelines. We absolutely, positively NEED to update our energy
>infrastructure.
No duh, yet you have nothing at all that will get private industry to
want to improve infrastructure. That clearly will have to be a
socialist program funded by the government.
>
>Imagine the numbers of people you could put to work building upgraded
>transmission lines, solar arrays, wind farms, nuclear plants; and the
>jobs created to support all of those builders. And these would have
>been LONG term jobs; many of them permanent.
>
>You could do the same thing with other areas of the American
>infrastructure. Roads and bridges, water supplies, hospitals and
>schools, you name it.
Then get your moron conservative bootlicker friends to push for such a
thing, but industry is against all that stuff so so are the
conservatives. Look it up.
>
>Yes, a lot of stimulus money *is* going to those things, but it's
>largely unguided. There is no plan. Basically they just threw a lot
>of money at various people and hoped they'd do something good with it;
>which is why a lot of that money is currently unaccounted for. In
>short, instead of zipping a massive amount of money through Congress
>without ever reading it, he should have demanded a thoughtful,
>deliberate, and focused series of programs.
You're retarded. Just because you're clueless doesn't mean everybody
else has to ber.
>
>This would have allowed us to spend less money, while ensuring that
>what money was spent would give us the greatest return possible. It
>would have actually created jobs - and long term jobs - and it would
>have allowed people to actually see a plan in action, which would have
>raised public confidence.
>
>Finally, he should NOT have funneled hundreds of billions of dollars
>to bank executives, which did nothing except pad their own accounts.
When Obama and the Democrats tried to put strict restrictions on
compensation and accounting for tarp funds, guess who screamed bloody
murder and government interference? Hmmmmmm?
>> That's what Hoover did, and history judges that to be a dismal failure. =
>=A0
>
>So you actually believe that the ONLY two options in any situation are
>massive government spending, or nothing?
You do, because all you got is nothing. You've not once come up with
any suggestion that has any hope whatsover of helping.
Shuurai
> >I don't hate either of them; I strongly disagree with them. Just
> >because you are incapable of disagreeing with someone without making
> >it personal doesn't mean everybody else is that way. It speaks
> >volumes about your intellectual and emotional shortcomings.
>
> No, you hate him. You hate the man and what he stands for. Your
> distrust, and slandering of him goes way, way beyond reasonable, lucid
> critique of his policies. You hate him and everything he stands for.
Not at all. It actually takes a hell of a lot to get me to hate
somebody; I don't even hate you. I actually feel sad for you.
Something about your life must really suck for you to be such a
miserable asshole all the time.
As for Obama, I do hate his agenda; and I certainly don't trust him.
Then again, I don't trust the government in general. I think the vast
majority of them are scum.
> Prove it. In case you haven't figure it out entitlement programs
> gives Americans money to spend on stuff like rent, food, clothes, pay
> their utilities. You know, stuff that keeps the economy GOING !!!!!
> It doesn't drag on the economy, moron, it fuels it. It puts money
> directly into hands of people who SPEND IT IN AMERICA !!!!!!!
Where do you think that money comes from, moron? You're basically
stealing money from one segment of society, adding massive government
overhead, and then giving it out to other people.
Granted, there are people who NEED help, and we as a society should
help them. The problem is that the term "help" keeps being stretched
further and further. Take social security; what was originally
intended as a safety net has become the primary means of support for
almost everyone. It's unsustainable, and it's dragging the economy
down.
> >History has proven nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary; FDR
> >created what amount to massive pyramid schemes that have dragged down
> >the economy for decades and which are now poised to collapse.
>
> Only because they haven't been funded properly and their funding has
> been raided because too many people like you have wanted it to fail.
LOL! Only you would argue that the problem with a pyramid scheme was
that it wasn't funded properly.
> >FDR kicked off the era of entitlements.
>
> Yea, nasty shit that did stuff like feed people and provide medical
> care for the elderly.
Nothing wrong with those things; the problem is that they keep getting
expanded beyond what is sustainable. Someone has to PAY for these
things, even if it's "the government" that's directly providing them.
> Just where do you think we'ld be without all
> those programs? I'll tell you: we'ld be a banana republic with an
> utltra opulent upper class then a poor class living in filth and dying
> from easily curable disease.
Hate to break it to you junior, but that's where we are NOW and it's
BECAUSE of those programs. Those programs steal money from the
productive end of society; they funnel money to the folks on top and
steal it from the folks on the bottom.
When the government steals my money, it leaves me less money with
which to hire people, and less money with which to pay the people I
hire; which in turn increases the number of people who are dependent
on the government; which prompts the government to steal even more.
And the spiral continues.
> >Same old straw man bullshit, as usual. The only people who keep
> >pushing "nothing" as an option is liberals, in their attempts to build
> >straw men. Because it's all you have.
>
> You never have anything.
And yet, you're the one erecting the straw man. Strange.
> >He should have incentivized the private sector to create jobs via tax
> >cuts and targeted subsidies.
>
> The private sector has been exporting all our jobs for decades, which
> is exactly what you people wanted for some odd reason.
Actually, I am pretty strongly against the exportation of jobs, and
I've long believed that the government should use taxes to discourage
the practice. It's one of the few areas in which I actually support
raising taxes.
I find it somewhat hypocritical of you (you being a hypocrite, what a
shock!) that you condone illegal immigration but then condemn shipping
jobs overseas. What's the difference? In either case, Americans lose
out on jobs and the only people who benefit are the corporate types.
But... maybe I'm being too harsh in calling you a hypocrite... maybe
you're just too dumb to see the connection...
> >He should have started targeted investment into the energy
> >infrastructure;
>
> he's trying to do that, and guess who is opposing him? The energy
> industry. Oh, the irony.
Complete bullshit. On many levels.
First, he hasn't tried to do any such thing; he's basically given lip-
service to it, but that is the extent of it. What money has been put
into energy has been thrown around seemingly at random; there is no
overriding plan to any of it. Basically it's just throwing a lot of
money around and hoping that people do the right thing with it.
Second, as has been pointed out to you many times, energy companies
are some of the largest investors in alternative energy research -
actually surpassing the government. This whole notion that energy
companies are against alternative energy is fucking ridiculous. The
fact of the matter is, along with being environmentally and
economically sound, alternative energy is good business and highly
profitable.
> > not just throwing out billions of dollars in the hopes
> >that companies would spend them in ways that were generally positive,
> >but with an actual overriding plan complete with specific goals and
> >guidelines. We absolutely, positively NEED to update our energy
> >infrastructure.
>
> No duh, yet you have nothing at all that will get private industry to
> want to improve infrastructure. That clearly will have to be a
> socialist program funded by the government.
It doesn't have to be a "socialist" program, but yes something like
that would require government involvement. And it has nothing to do
with private industry "wanting" to do it - it's mainly a matter of
coordination and money. Unfortunately, the government has shown no
real interest in even addressing it. Seems they'd rather stick to the
current model of throwing money around at random.
> >Imagine the numbers of people you could put to work building upgraded
> >transmission lines, solar arrays, wind farms, nuclear plants; and the
> >jobs created to support all of those builders. And these would have
> >been LONG term jobs; many of them permanent.
>
> >You could do the same thing with other areas of the American
> >infrastructure. Roads and bridges, water supplies, hospitals and
> >schools, you name it.
>
> Then get your moron conservative bootlicker friends to push for such a
> thing, but industry is against all that stuff so so are the
> conservatives. Look it up.
Who, specifically, is against this? Cite.
> >Yes, a lot of stimulus money *is* going to those things, but it's
> >largely unguided. There is no plan. Basically they just threw a lot
> >of money at various people and hoped they'd do something good with it;
> >which is why a lot of that money is currently unaccounted for. In
> >short, instead of zipping a massive amount of money through Congress
> >without ever reading it, he should have demanded a thoughtful,
> >deliberate, and focused series of programs.
>
> You're retarded. Just because you're clueless doesn't mean everybody
> else has to ber.
What's this? Hal throws out an ad hominem when he has nothing else?
What a shock!
But then, if you acted any differently I guess you wouldn't "ber" Hal.
> >Finally, he should NOT have funneled hundreds of billions of dollars
> >to bank executives, which did nothing except pad their own accounts.
>
> When Obama and the Democrats tried to put strict restrictions on
> compensation and accounting for tarp funds, guess who screamed bloody
> murder and government interference? Hmmmmmm?
Who wrote the language in the bill that GUARANTEED executive bonuses?
I'll give you a hint: It's the same people who feigned outrage after
those bonuses were paid.
> >So you actually believe that the ONLY two options in any situation are
> >massive government spending, or nothing?
>
> You do, because all you got is nothing. You've not once come up with
> any suggestion that has any hope whatsover of helping.
I've suggested that you kill yourself. I think you seriously
underestimate the good that would do.
trav...@aol.com
> wingers like you tried desperately, and pathetically, (like you) to
> blame all of the country's problems on socialism and FDR. Now history
> proves it was Hoover's mess, just like this one is Bush's mess, and
It DOES? Which fucking history is this?
The GD1 was traced to the doorstep of the FEDERAL RESERVE, you fucking
jackass ignoramus. Where you get your history from, you fucking
clown, a cracker jack box?
> >A lot of the mess we're in can be
> >blamed on what FDR set in motion.
>
> Such as?
WHAT IS THE OP ABOUT, you RETARD?
> What else would you suggest? Doing nothing? That's what Hoover did,
Instead we went FURTHER into debt to try to prop up something that
MUST eventually collapse.
YES, let it fail!
FDR did EVERYTHING and it didn't stop the Depression at ALL. The
fucking WAR did. TENS OF MILLIONS DIED.
> and history judges that to be a dismal failure. The stimulus stopped
> the free fall the economy was in when Obama took office. If he
> had'nt done that you'ld be pissing your pants with rage. So make up
> your mind.
You must get your history from ACORN. Because no serious student of
history or historian believes a fucking THING that you say is true.
> Wow. "Reality, what a concept." Robin Williams.
Yeah, you should try it some time.
LOOK AT THE BONUSES ON WALL STREET, you stupid FUCK, then look at the
unemployment rate!
> >As to your point, you couldn't be more wrong (that's just a figure of
> >speech, I'm sure that YOU can always find a way to be more wrong). I
> >am not dependent on Obama's brand of government; in fact I'd be better
> >off without it. He isn't going to "save" me or anyone else; he's
> >actually making a bad situation worse.
>
> And what do you suggest? More laissez faire do nothing government?
> Your pretend libertarianism? More of the same let the rich screw
> anybody they want all they want and hope for a few crumbs of bread?
> You think more of doing absolutely nothing is actually going to help?
>
> I mean, I know you're that stupid, but really.
The government should GET OUT before it collapses US ALL.
Trav
Sam the Bam
> >Obama is frankly the most overrated fad candidate
> >in history; Which is exactly why his numbers are
> >dropping faster than any American president in modern
> >history. Every single day more and more
> >people realize that he's an empty suit at best.
>
> >He is an arrogant, inexperienced, and frankly
> >unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
> >biggest mistakes in American political history.
>
> FDR. And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
> presidents.
His disastrous policies prolonged the recovery
from the contraction, by years. But he had to
DO SOMETHING! A classic example of cutting
off your leg, to escape coyote ugly...
> Obama hasn't even been in office a year, and
> considering the shit sandwich he was handed
> by Bush he has accomplished a lot.
Yes, he grew the shit sandwich by a trillion $$...
that's accomplishment, in your eyes...
> He's done more good in a year than Bush did in eight.
From the dean of Harvard Medical:
http://tinyurl.com/wsj-h-care
quote: "... I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever
its shape, the final legislation will markedly accelerate
national health-care spending rather than restrain it.
Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do
little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's
dysfunctional delivery system. "
Perversely, that IS your idea of good... a faster
ride down into the socialist cesspool...
> You clearly ignore reality, because the fact is this country was
> in a complete free fall when Bush left office. Obama stopped
> the crash, propped up the markets, and got at least some
> jobs going.
Gov't make work jobs... give everybody a
shovel, tell them to dig holes, they're WORKING!
Getting a paycheck!
How'd that work out in the Soviet Union?
Sam
Greendistantstar
FFS! Let's say Obama took the Libertarian path and let it all go to shit (bearing in mind that was
*Bush's* play which he never took). Do you have any idea what sort of carnage that would have
created? Most people don't have a clue what those consequences would have been. If you think the
metrics that are coming out now are bad , they are NOTHING compared to the consequences of systemic
collapse. Even the venerable Trav didn't grasp what total credit collapse entailed. Credit isn't
just 'loans' like car loans and mortgages etc. We're talking TRADE credit, without which cap flows
simply don't happen. Eg Wal-Mart can't import any foreign goods because their banks won't extend
bill lines because they and the counterparties are fucked. Multiply that into EVERY business that
trades goods and you get an inkling of what would have happened both in the US and elsewhere.
Do I support the bailouts? Not really, but the alternative was simply too catastrophic to contemplate.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
John Galt
Yes. Unemployment probably would have gone to Depression-era levels. The
government would have rightly invested their money in the people, rather
than Wall Street. For a FRACTION OF THE COST of TARP+Bailout,
unemployment insurance would have been enhanced and extended, and there
would have been government funded soup kitchens all over the place. BUT,
this entire thing would have been over in a couple of years, rather than
the decade long L-shaped stagflation-type "recovery" we're now looking
forward to.
You do know this is a consumer-driven recession, right? You DO know that
15% of ALL MORTGAGES, as of today, are in arrears or foreclosure? You DO
know, do you not, that unemployment will continue to rise until we
CREATE 150K jobs per month, not just get to zero? That an 11% number is
now all but inevitable? That as long as unemployment rises, foreclosures
will continue to rise, and the prospect of a "Son of TARP" is now
probable due to the increasing stress on the system?
Most people
> don't have a clue what those consequences would have been.
See above.
If you think
> the metrics that are coming out now are bad , they are NOTHING compared
> to the consequences of systemic collapse.
That is correct. HOWEVER, systemic collapse is also a form of what
Shumpeter called "creative destruction." THe objective is to clear the
deadwood as fast as you can so capital can rush in and fill the void.
This is what, historically, America is very good at -- putting money to
work when opportunity presents itself. What we appear to be BAD at,
considering that the Depression lasted 12-13 years, is letting the
government "fix" it.
Even the venerable Trav didn't
> grasp what total credit collapse entailed. Credit isn't just 'loans'
> like car loans and mortgages etc. We're talking TRADE credit, without
> which cap flows simply don't happen. Eg Wal-Mart can't import any
> foreign goods because their banks won't extend bill lines because they
> and the counterparties are fucked.
The solution, however, does not HAVE to be an infusion of capital. You
CAN let contraction occur. In the case of WM (and a LOT of our large
enterprises) there are some pretty sizeable war chests that would have
worked with the contraction to find balance and then move ahead from there.
My friend, you're not seeing past the initial shock to the system. When
Lehman failed. the credit markets froze, because the counterparties
didn't trust one another. Guess what? Eventually, the counterparties
HAVE to trust one another (at least cautiously) else even the
counterparties go broke. It was inevitable that without government
intervention that the capitalistic machine would start to grind again.
It would have sputtered, groaned, and crawled along the ground for
awhile, no question, leading to human misery that the government quite
rightly would have moved to mitigate. But the machine would have healed
itself a lot faster than it will today, with the government CONTINUING
TO CREATE MORAL HAZARD AND DEBASING THE CURRENCY AS IT ATTEMPTS TO
RE-INFLATE A BUBBLE THAT NEEDS TO STAY DEFLATED. (If you're a Keynesian,
keep in mind what Keynes said about debasing the currency. To say the
least, he would not have considered doing so a solution to anything.)
Multiply that into EVERY business
> that trades goods and you get an inkling of what would have happened
> both in the US and elsewhere.
It would have sucked, granted. It would have massively sucked for a
couple of years. Instead, we're going to have Death By A Thousand Paper
Cuts
>
> Do I support the bailouts? Not really, but the alternative was simply
> too catastrophic to contemplate.
I contemplated it. We would have gotten through it cheaper and faster, IMO.
JG
>
> GDS
>
> "Let's roll!"
L.Roberts
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
See now I thought it was all just a game, you know, and like, the
economy is something the money grubbing bastards of the world have got
down to a science, and, not only can they make it run like a well
maintained engine, they can make it run as good or ill ass they please
whilst getting to explain any problems. Seems if things can go great
for a while, a bunch of fools can be separated from their money when
the engine 'gets a little out tune', kinda like musical chairs with a
whole lot of losers.
trav...@aol.com
> *Bush's* play which he never took). Do you have any idea what sort of carnage that would have
> created? Most people don't have a clue what those consequences would have been. If you think the
> metrics that are coming out now are bad , they are NOTHING compared to the consequences of systemic
> collapse. Even the venerable Trav didn't grasp what total credit collapse entailed. Credit isn't
Horseshit. Don't put fucking words in my mouth. I know EXACTLY what
the collapse entailed, the destruction of the fiat creditmoney ponzi
currency system.
I WANT THAT.
Those who INSIST that we cannot live without THESE banks are the true
fools. Money can be printed AT WILL. We do NOT need the Fed, the
banks we have or any of this other bullshit. This is like someone
who's lived in a cave his whole life insisting that the daylight will
kill him.
Listen, dude, Argentina, USSR, MANY nations have collapsed. Shit
still RUNS THERE. The water is on, the lights are on. Fuck this
bullshit banker mantra that we can't exist but/for them! We were
doing JUST FINE without these goddamned parasitic leeches. Fuck them
AND their credit.
> just 'loans' like car loans and mortgages etc. We're talking TRADE credit, without which cap flows
> simply don't happen. Eg Wal-Mart can't import any foreign goods because their banks won't extend
> bill lines because they and the counterparties are fucked. Multiply that into EVERY business that
> trades goods and you get an inkling of what would have happened both in the US and elsewhere.
The disruption would have been TEMPORARY. And the world better for
it.
Real Bills Doctrine provides an alternative system. The US Congress
and the government could have stepped in and PRINTED money then taxed
it out of existence. The way the system was FRAMED to work. No more
FED.
Debtmoney ponzis cannot last forever, and when they go, they go. The
math of compounding interest CANNOT be cheated.
> Do I support the bailouts? Not really, but the alternative was simply too catastrophic to contemplate.
>
> GDS
Then, dude, you're a damned fool. HOW is the DEBT for the bailouts
EVER going to be repaid?
It's physically fucking impossible. This is coming whether we want it
or not. It cannot be forestalled forever. Collapse of creditmoney
and fiat paper is INEVITABLE.
It has happened; it will happen.
Trav
trav...@aol.com
> economy is something the money grubbing bastards of the world have got
> down to a science, and, not only can they make it run like a well
> maintained engine, they can make it run as good or ill ass they please
> whilst getting to explain any problems. Seems if things can go great
> for a while, a bunch of fools can be separated from their money when
> the engine 'gets a little out tune', kinda like musical chairs with a
> whole lot of losers.
No. What has happened is that the entire existence of money is debt
that must be repaid plus interest. The interest represents a share of
future growth.
Oil supply has peaked, and with it production. The future that would
pay the interest on the loans of today will not exist to pay them. We
are at an epoch here, a retracement of the entire industrial
revolution is inevitable. Let's hope it's a shallow one.
Without a growable energy supply, production in the aggregate CANNOT
grow. PERIOD. There is no way around this.
The creditmoney system was a growth mandate. It must be gotten rid of
as soon as possible and plans made for a sustainable future. That
means a need to destroy both political parties and purge the system of
traitors like politicians and bankers. We need at this time real
leadership, not empty suits, not neocon warhawks, not more fucking
ponzi socialists. They will merely speed our collapse.
This is like population overshoot...you either head it off before it
happens or you suffer massive, catastrophic collapse. The debts must
be defaulted upon. That means the US Gov't must declare bankruptcy.
No more running like rats on treadmills to serve paper claims on our
production levied by our use of money.
Trav
L.Roberts
wrote:
Hey that's capitalism dude, so, cover your ass financially or die, who
gives a flying fuck?
Greendistantstar
>> FFS! Let's say Obama took the Libertarian path and let it all go to shit (bearing in mind that was
>> *Bush's* play which he never took). Do you have any idea what sort of carnage that would have
>> created? Most people don't have a clue what those consequences would have been. If you think the
>> metrics that are coming out now are bad , they are NOTHING compared to the consequences of systemic
>> collapse. Even the venerable Trav didn't grasp what total credit collapse entailed. Credit isn't
>
> Horseshit. Don't put fucking words in my mouth.
Previously when I've pointed out the effect on trade credit, you stated such a thing was NOT what
you were talking about, as though the very subject did not exist...until I mentioned it.
> I know EXACTLY what
> the collapse entailed, the destruction of the fiat creditmoney ponzi
> currency system.
>
> I WANT THAT.
I know.
> Those who INSIST that we cannot live without THESE banks are the true
> fools.
Which banks are 'THESE' banks? There's still plenty of financial insitutions that weren't drinking
the kool-aid, and they're doing quite well, so not THEM, I presume? Just the greedy vampires at GS
et al?
> Money can be printed AT WILL. We do NOT need the Fed, the
> banks we have or any of this other bullshit. This is like someone
> who's lived in a cave his whole life insisting that the daylight will
> kill him.
Oh, you're just talking about the US, right?
> Listen, dude, Argentina, USSR, MANY nations have collapsed. Shit
> still RUNS THERE. The water is on, the lights are on. Fuck this
> bullshit banker mantra that we can't exist but/for them! We were
> doing JUST FINE without these goddamned parasitic leeches. Fuck them
> AND their credit.
Last time I looked, Argentina had banks. Credit per se isn't evil, any more than that whiskey is
dead-drunk in the bottle. Unless you can find a way for people to get shit before they pay for it,
get everyone to pay on due date and find plenty of depositors prepared to accept no return on
deposits, there will ALWAYS be credit and interest.
>> just 'loans' like car loans and mortgages etc. We're talking TRADE credit, without which cap flows
>> simply don't happen. Eg Wal-Mart can't import any foreign goods because their banks won't extend
>> bill lines because they and the counterparties are fucked. Multiply that into EVERY business that
>> trades goods and you get an inkling of what would have happened both in the US and elsewhere.
>
> The disruption would have been TEMPORARY. And the world better for
> it.
Possibly, but could you even begin to imagine the outcry if either Bush or Obama had taken this
path? Libertarian inaction would have been viewed as a gross abandonment of leadership, something
that could have been prevented that wasn't. I'm not saying that it *shouldn't* have happened, just
that it would have been WAY worse than most can believe. That it will be even worse down the track
is quite possible, perhaps inevitable given even more debt.
> Real Bills Doctrine provides an alternative system. The US Congress
> and the government could have stepped in and PRINTED money then taxed
> it out of existence. The way the system was FRAMED to work. No more
> FED.
>
> Debtmoney ponzis cannot last forever, and when they go, they go. The
> math of compounding interest CANNOT be cheated.
>
>> Do I support the bailouts? Not really, but the alternative was simply too catastrophic to contemplate.
>>
>> GDS
>
> Then, dude, you're a damned fool.
Not at all. Politically it was never going to happen, electoral seppuku on the grandest possible
scale wasn't on Bush's agenda and it's not on Obama's.
>HOW is the DEBT for the bailouts
> EVER going to be repaid?
It would take a comeback bigger than Lazarus'.
> It's physically fucking impossible.
No it's not, but for all practical purposes, it might as well be.
>This is coming whether we want it
> or not. It cannot be forestalled forever. Collapse of creditmoney
> and fiat paper is INEVITABLE.
>
> It has happened; it will happen.
Poppycock. The decline of the *abuse* of credit creation is inevitable.
What's more likely is that as peak energy/money/oil converge, large swathes of humanity will have to
accept a reduced standard of living, including services many have come to take for granted.
A 'steady-state' economy is the only one that is sustainable, but whether it is *achievable* is the
essential issue.
I don't disagree with much of your take on this BTW, just matters of degrees and timing.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
YumYumPandaburger
wrote:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/article/oct-sstf-report-we-are-now-living-in...
>
> SS is now in seemingly perpetual deficit.
>
> Meanwhile Bama is bowing to every world leader, embarrassing not only
> himself but the japanese Emperor to whom nobody else bowed, not even
> non heads of state.
>
> Last President of the US? Maybe he wants it that way, seems to hate
> America anyhow. Wants to bow down before everybody just to show how
> feudal dictators and despots are better than we. He's a Pacific
> President, wtfever that means. Just anything but American. Bc that
> would be awful.
>
> What a bumbling clown, no wonder his approval rating is below 50%.
> Worst performance in history.
>
> Trav
You want the people to elect the president directly? If so, don't
complain that the some charismatic guy with possibly little other
skill wins the media contest. Same issue in France w/ Sarkozy.
trav...@aol.com
> gives a flying fuck?
No, what we have is not capitalism.
Trav
Herbert Cannon
"YumYumPandaburger" <theorig...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:574a9760-78ab-4da2...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
One did.
Same issue in France w/ Sarkozy.
?
trav...@aol.com
> you were talking about, as though the very subject did not exist...until I mentioned it.
Reference the discussion. Cuz I'm sayin that shit never happened.
> I know.
So then why did you just say I didn't contemplate it?
> Which banks are 'THESE' banks? There's still plenty of financial insitutions that weren't drinking
> the kool-aid, and they're doing quite well, so not THEM, I presume? Just the greedy vampires at GS
> et al?
There weren't plenty of institutions. Nearly everyone had material
losses. The banks that were not overlevered would have survived and
taken over where the BK banks died. For example, TD bank did not
materially participate in CDO conduiting and therefore was in a
fantastic capital position during the crisis. They would have taken
over for the rest of them.
That's how it works. You purge the system of dead wood and new blood
comes in.
> Oh, you're just talking about the US, right?
You might want to look at the FX swap lines...we have one with your
central bank as well. The Fed IS the world's banking system. Too
many foreigners sourced dollar-denominated loans and had a sudden need
for dollars that their own CBs could not print. So we instituted swap
lines. The whole notion of borrowing against fiat FX credit is
absurd.
> Last time I looked, Argentina had banks. Credit per se isn't evil, any more than that whiskey is
> dead-drunk in the bottle. Unless you can find a way for people to get shit before they pay for it,
> get everyone to pay on due date and find plenty of depositors prepared to accept no return on
> deposits, there will ALWAYS be credit and interest.
Credit is not evil, compounding interest is. And, the larger issue is
when the very monetary system itself exists as a credit animal,
monopolized by banks.
> Possibly, but could you even begin to imagine the outcry if either Bush or Obama had taken this
> path? Libertarian inaction would have been viewed as a gross abandonment of leadership, something
Do you honestly think I give a shit about what "the masses" say or
think?
> that could have been prevented that wasn't. I'm not saying that it *shouldn't* have happened, just
> that it would have been WAY worse than most can believe. That it will be even worse down the track
> is quite possible, perhaps inevitable given even more debt.
There is no escape once interest costs exceed receipts. Compound
interest against a nongrowing economy make that inevitable. And the
collapse is FAR more spectacular.
> Not at all. Politically it was never going to happen, electoral seppuku on the grandest possible
> scale wasn't on Bush's agenda and it's not on Obama's.
Then the clown car will go off a cliff. It's as simple as that.
> It would take a comeback bigger than Lazarus'.
So why cheerlead for giving a dead person a hit from the paddles?
> Poppycock. The decline of the *abuse* of credit creation is inevitable.
Abuse? There was no abuse, dude. You haven't been listening.
The synthetic economy was intentional and necessary. We ran out of
REAL growth to service the debtmoney's need for exponential expansion
> What's more likely is that as peak energy/money/oil converge, large swathes of humanity will have to
> accept a reduced standard of living, including services many have come to take for granted.
They will have to accept a reduced AND reducing standard.
> A 'steady-state' economy is the only one that is sustainable, but whether it is *achievable* is the
> essential issue.
>
> I don't disagree with much of your take on this BTW, just matters of degrees and timing.
>
> GDS
ok, so then why call me out as not understanding the implications of
my own theory?
Trav
Greendistantstar
>> Previously when I've pointed out the effect on trade credit, you stated such a thing was NOT what
>> you were talking about, as though the very subject did not exist...until I mentioned it.
>
> Reference the discussion. Cuz I'm sayin that shit never happened.
That will take some time, but my recollection is quite clear, so I'll do it if you think I'm
imagining it.
>> I know.
>
> So then why did you just say I didn't contemplate it?
You will recall I was saying that it was the funding that businesses require to make up cash-flow
timing differences that was critical.
>> Which banks are 'THESE' banks? There's still plenty of financial insitutions that weren't drinking
>> the kool-aid, and they're doing quite well, so not THEM, I presume? Just the greedy vampires at GS
>> et al?
>
> There weren't plenty of institutions.
Were and are.
> Nearly everyone had material
> losses. The banks that were not overlevered would have survived and
> taken over where the BK banks died. For example, TD bank did not
> materially participate in CDO conduiting and therefore was in a
> fantastic capital position during the crisis. They would have taken
> over for the rest of them.
You're just talking the USA.
> That's how it works. You purge the system of dead wood and new blood
> comes in.
>
>> Oh, you're just talking about the US, right?
>
> You might want to look at the FX swap lines...we have one with your
> central bank as well.
And????
> The Fed IS the world's banking system.
Pig's arse.
> Too
> many foreigners sourced dollar-denominated loans and had a sudden need
> for dollars that their own CBs could not print.
WTF are you talking about?
> So we instituted swap
> lines. The whole notion of borrowing against fiat FX credit is
> absurd.
There's no connections here.
>> Last time I looked, Argentina had banks. Credit per se isn't evil, any more than that whiskey is
>> dead-drunk in the bottle. Unless you can find a way for people to get shit before they pay for it,
>> get everyone to pay on due date and find plenty of depositors prepared to accept no return on
>> deposits, there will ALWAYS be credit and interest.
>
> Credit is not evil, compounding interest is.
Compounding interest is no more evil than the exponential function or gaussian distribution.
The *abuse* of these concepts in nature or practice *might* be considered evil by some.
> And, the larger issue is
> when the very monetary system itself exists as a credit animal,
> monopolized by banks.
>
>> Possibly, but could you even begin to imagine the outcry if either Bush or Obama had taken this
>> path? Libertarian inaction would have been viewed as a gross abandonment of leadership, something
>
> Do you honestly think I give a shit about what "the masses" say or
> think?
Only insofar as their decisions might affect you....
>> that could have been prevented that wasn't. I'm not saying that it *shouldn't* have happened, just
>> that it would have been WAY worse than most can believe. That it will be even worse down the track
>> is quite possible, perhaps inevitable given even more debt.
>
> There is no escape once interest costs exceed receipts.
That interest costs must inevitably exceed receipts is not a certainty.
> Compound
> interest against a nongrowing economy make that inevitable. And the
> collapse is FAR more spectacular.
Again, not immutable. In a negatively amortising society, you'd be right, but that's not where we're
at yet and not likely to be any time soon. Perhaps.
>> Not at all. Politically it was never going to happen, electoral seppuku on the grandest possible
>> scale wasn't on Bush's agenda and it's not on Obama's.
>
> Then the clown car will go off a cliff. It's as simple as that.
I see a long, slow decline, not an apocalyptic scenario.
>> It would take a comeback bigger than Lazarus'.
>
> So why cheerlead for giving a dead person a hit from the paddles?
IF the USA could regain its manufacturing competitiveness it could earn sufficient income to
eventually right its economic ship. It would have to produce and sell products that the emerging
economies of the world such as China and India will want and/or need. If decoupling is truly a myth,
then best make the most of the relationship. Decades ago, the USA built cars, refrigerators and all
manner of useful shit the rest of the world wanted, so it has to do it again. What will those
products or services be? Dunno. Perhaps 'green' technology, nanotech stuff, stuff that should be
born from all that intellectual capital that the USA has. But to do it, you'll have to be
competitive, and that means your labour costs have to come down. It won't be easy or fun, but 30
years of spending beyond one's means means some big payback.
>> Poppycock. The decline of the *abuse* of credit creation is inevitable.
>
> Abuse? There was no abuse, dude. You haven't been listening.
> The synthetic economy was intentional and necessary. We ran out of
> REAL growth to service the debtmoney's need for exponential expansion
Debt expands due to demand, not just ability to supply; the current de-leveraging is proof of that.
>> What's more likely is that as peak energy/money/oil converge, large swathes of humanity will have to
>> accept a reduced standard of living, including services many have come to take for granted.
>
> They will have to accept a reduced AND reducing standard.
Eventually, unless we discover some new power source, get fusion going etc.
>> A 'steady-state' economy is the only one that is sustainable, but whether it is *achievable* is the
>> essential issue.
>>
>> I don't disagree with much of your take on this BTW, just matters of degrees and timing.
>>
>> GDS
>
> ok, so then why call me out as not understanding the implications of
> my own theory?
I think I've already answered that.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
YumYumPandaburger
> "YumYumPandaburger" <theoriginald...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sarkozy = Most charismatic guy wins the media competition
a...@abc.com
@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, trav...@aol.com says...
>
> I WANT THAT.
>
> Those who INSIST that we cannot live without THESE banks are the true
> fools. Money can be printed AT WILL. We do NOT need the Fed, the
> banks we have or any of this other bullshit. This is like someone
> who's lived in a cave his whole life insisting that the daylight will
> kill him.
>
> Listen, dude, Argentina, USSR, MANY nations have collapsed. Shit
> still RUNS THERE. The water is on, the lights are on. Fuck this
> bullshit banker mantra that we can't exist but/for them! We were
> doing JUST FINE without these goddamned parasitic leeches. Fuck them
> AND their credit.
>
Without the Fed, don't we become Argentina very quickly? How is the
govt going to stop getting into debt?
trav...@aol.com
> imagining it.
Well even so, just because that was not what I was talking about does
not mean I didn't know it existed.
> You will recall I was saying that it was the funding that businesses require to make up cash-flow
> timing differences that was critical.
Businesses should not operate with dependency upon credit markets then
or else they should issue bills that are discounted. Simple.
> You're just talking the USA.
The ponzi is everywhere. Yes, even in Canada and Australia.
> And????
There's a reason the Aus CB has a swap FX line with the Fed. Think
about it.
> Pig's arse.
Do you REALLY honestly want me to get into this with you? 75% of debt
in the world is dollar-denominated. That makes the Fed the world's
CB. The Fed lent to foreign CBs to fill their dollar needs. That is
what a gd'd swap line IS.
> WTF are you talking about?
Are you muffuggin DENSE, dude? WTF do you mean WTF am I talking
about???? I am talking about USD denominated debt ALL over the
world! I am talking about dollar liquidity crises in euro and asian
currency zones. I'm talking about $300B or more worth of FX swap
because foreign CBs could not print dollars needed for redemption!
> Compounding interest is no more evil than the exponential function or gaussian distribution.
It is when a monetary system contains it.
> Only insofar as their decisions might affect you....
We GOT what the masses wanted...a more spectacular collapse coming.
> That interest costs must inevitably exceed receipts is not a certainty.
Oh yes, it is. It very much is, young skywalker. It is inevitable.
Interest has no growth constraints, reality does.
> Again, not immutable. In a negatively amortising society, you'd be right, but that's not where we're
> at yet and not likely to be any time soon. Perhaps.
Sooner than you think. Much sooner.
> I see a long, slow decline, not an apocalyptic scenario.
I hope so too. That is what I pray for. But I doubt it. Hasn't
seemed to ever work that way.
> IF the USA could regain its manufacturing competitiveness it could earn sufficient income to
> eventually right its economic ship. It would have to produce and sell products that the emerging
> economies of the world such as China and India will want and/or need. If decoupling is truly a myth,
> then best make the most of the relationship. Decades ago, the USA built cars, refrigerators and all
> manner of useful shit the rest of the world wanted, so it has to do it again. What will those
> products or services be? Dunno. Perhaps 'green' technology, nanotech stuff, stuff that should be
> born from all that intellectual capital that the USA has. But to do it, you'll have to be
> competitive, and that means your labour costs have to come down. It won't be easy or fun, but 30
> years of spending beyond one's means means some big payback.
Wrong and wronger. It doesn't matter what we do. Oil has peaked.
We invent fusion or else everybody competes for the energy to run
those factories making shit that people have no freakin oil to use!
JFC, man...build cars? With OIL. To burn OIL somewhere else? There
isn't the energy anymore to supply growth in the aggregate.
> Debt expands due to demand, not just ability to supply; the current de-leveraging is proof of that.
Without expansion, the system's behavior is implosive. Deleveraging
happens very suddenly. Creditmoney systems have collapses.
> Eventually, unless we discover some new power source, get fusion going etc.
Bingo. Listen, you are a person of at least mediocre intelligence and
have some experience in the banking and accounting fields.
So YOU discount the future. Do it. It decides for you what you
should do NOW. If you see a future with no ability to repay your
loan, you won't make it! You will sell and deleverage!
Trav
trav...@aol.com
>
>
>
> > I WANT THAT.
>
> > Those who INSIST that we cannot live without THESE banks are the true
> > fools. Money can be printed AT WILL. We do NOT need the Fed, the
> > banks we have or any of this other bullshit. This is like someone
> > who's lived in a cave his whole life insisting that the daylight will
> > kill him.
>
> > Listen, dude, Argentina, USSR, MANY nations have collapsed. Shit
> > still RUNS THERE. The water is on, the lights are on. Fuck this
> > bullshit banker mantra that we can't exist but/for them! We were
> > doing JUST FINE without these goddamned parasitic leeches. Fuck them
> > AND their credit.
>
> Without the Fed, don't we become Argentina very quickly? How is the
> govt going to stop getting into debt?
We're ALREADY Argentina in so many ways. You think the Fed can save
us from not producing more than we consume?
Trav
Greendistantstar
>> That will take some time, but my recollection is quite clear, so I'll do it if you think I'm
>> imagining it.
>
> Well even so, just because that was not what I was talking about does
> not mean I didn't know it existed.
You seemed to deny the importance of it. An implosion of trade credit would cripple every economy.
>> You will recall I was saying that it was the funding that businesses require to make up cash-flow
>> timing differences that was critical.
>
> Businesses should not operate with dependency upon credit markets then
> or else they should issue bills that are discounted. Simple.
Which is exactly the point. The vast majority of businesses don't have cash positions that allow
them to pay up front for everything. That's what Letters of Credit are for, and have been so since
the Dutch mercantile traders used them for the spice trade. It's what credit cards USED to be about;
managing short-term cash flow gaps for consumers. Once you've decided to use short-term debt to
fund on-going cash-flow shortfalls or long term debt that should be P&I and *in reduction*, you're
fucked. Those who understand compound interest and become its master can use it productively. Those
who do not understand it are bound to become its slaves.
>> You're just talking the USA.
>
> The ponzi is everywhere. Yes, even in Canada and Australia.
I think you stretch the definition too far.
>> And????
>
> There's a reason the Aus CB has a swap FX line with the Fed. Think
> about it.
They have to, but again, so what? It's not a line of Ponzi infection if that's what you're suggesting.
>> Pig's arse.
>
> Do you REALLY honestly want me to get into this with you?
Sure.
> 75% of debt
> in the world is dollar-denominated.
I'm not so sure that % is correct. Most of the debt is USD denominated because the debt is owed by
the US to others. The US is no no longer a debtor nation, Trav.
> That makes the Fed the world's
> CB. The Fed lent to foreign CBs to fill their dollar needs. That is
> what a gd'd swap line IS.
The US doesn't need currency swaps on debt denominated in USD.
>> WTF are you talking about?
>
> Are you muffuggin DENSE, dude? WTF do you mean WTF am I talking
> about???? I am talking about USD denominated debt ALL over the
> world!
I know, but you seem confused as to who the creditors and the debtors are.
> I am talking about dollar liquidity crises in euro and asian
> currency zones. I'm talking about $300B or more worth of FX swap
> because foreign CBs could not print dollars needed for redemption!
That's a US Fed liquidity problem. Asian countries are flush with sovereign reserves. In USD, yes,
and for whom that will be a problem is currently being sorted out. It could lead to a collapse of
the US bond market.
>> Compounding interest is no more evil than the exponential function or gaussian distribution.
>
> It is when a monetary system contains it.
Logarithms aren't evil.
>> Only insofar as their decisions might affect you....
>
> We GOT what the masses wanted...a more spectacular collapse coming.
I hope not.
>> That interest costs must inevitably exceed receipts is not a certainty.
>
> Oh yes, it is. It very much is, young skywalker. It is inevitable.
> Interest has no growth constraints, reality does.
Of course interest has growth constraints. US personal debt is currently enjoying the largest
contraction in decades. Interest growth has no constraints and you're talking deleveraging in the
same breath? FFS pass that fat-boy around, dude...
>> Again, not immutable. In a negatively amortising society, you'd be right, but that's not where we're
>> at yet and not likely to be any time soon. Perhaps.
>
> Sooner than you think. Much sooner.
Again, I hope you're wrong.
>> I see a long, slow decline, not an apocalyptic scenario.
>
> I hope so too. That is what I pray for. But I doubt it. Hasn't
> seemed to ever work that way.
Yes, history shows that to be so. Maybe we can learn from history?
>> IF the USA could regain its manufacturing competitiveness it could earn sufficient income to
>> eventually right its economic ship. It would have to produce and sell products that the emerging
>> economies of the world such as China and India will want and/or need. If decoupling is truly a myth,
>> then best make the most of the relationship. Decades ago, the USA built cars, refrigerators and all
>> manner of useful shit the rest of the world wanted, so it has to do it again. What will those
>> products or services be? Dunno. Perhaps 'green' technology, nanotech stuff, stuff that should be
>> born from all that intellectual capital that the USA has. But to do it, you'll have to be
>> competitive, and that means your labour costs have to come down. It won't be easy or fun, but 30
>> years of spending beyond one's means means some big payback.
>
> Wrong and wronger. It doesn't matter what we do.
I don't buy that. It defies logic to suggest that all courses of action will have identical outcomes.
> Oil has peaked.
Yes, so everything will be become more expensive.
> We invent fusion or else everybody competes for the energy to run
> those factories making shit that people have no freakin oil to use!
Quite possible.
> JFC, man...build cars? With OIL. To burn OIL somewhere else? There
> isn't the energy anymore to supply growth in the aggregate.
Depends on the rate of growth. We still hear shills saying 'we have enough oil for 40 years at
current rates of consumption' defying all available data which shows a long-term trend of ~7% pa.
The concrete wall at the end of this tunnel is a doubling time of 10 years, and that just won't
happen. What then?
>> Debt expands due to demand, not just ability to supply; the current de-leveraging is proof of that.
>
> Without expansion, the system's behavior is implosive.
I disagree. It can and does implode, but that isn't a mathematical certainty under different
constraints.
> Deleveraging
> happens very suddenly. Creditmoney systems have collapses.
Of course they do, a la Minsky.
>> Eventually, unless we discover some new power source, get fusion going etc.
>
> Bingo. Listen, you are a person of at least mediocre intelligence and
> have some experience in the banking and accounting fields.
I have a date tonight, thanks anyway.
> So YOU discount the future. Do it. It decides for you what you
> should do NOW. If you see a future with no ability to repay your
> loan, you won't make it! You will sell and deleverage!
I have no debt.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
trav...@aol.com
I don't accept the connection between a bank meltdown and an absence
of trade credit. Trade is trade, real things for real things.
Mechanisms exist for this. The problem was never extension of credit
for goods it was that counterparties were insolvent.
> Which is exactly the point. The vast majority of businesses don't have cash positions that allow
> them to pay up front for everything. That's what Letters of Credit are for, and have been so since
> the Dutch mercantile traders used them for the spice trade. It's what credit cards USED to be about;
> managing short-term cash flow gaps for consumers. Once you've decided to use short-term debt to
> fund on-going cash-flow shortfalls or long term debt that should be P&I and *in reduction*, you're
> fucked. Those who understand compound interest and become its master can use it productively. Those
> who do not understand it are bound to become its slaves.
And I assert that because letters of trade credit have been around
since before the New World, that there would not have been anything
more than a transient issue with respect to them. What would have
collapsed were a lot of banks that deserved to and the ponzi
derivatives markets.
> I think you stretch the definition too far.
No, I really do not.
> They have to, but again, so what? It's not a line of Ponzi infection if that's what you're suggesting.
It services the ponzi. Dollar debt is everywhere. Any nation having
a FX swap with the Fed is using the Fed as a defacto world CB. They
have the swap because they have a dollar problem.
> I'm not so sure that % is correct. Most of the debt is USD denominated because the debt is owed by
> the US to others. The US is no no longer a debtor nation, Trav.
wrong. You need seriously to do some research into this. Most of the
DEBT worldwide is denominated in dollars. Not the US's debt, but ALL
debt. It's all over the world.
> The US doesn't need currency swaps on debt denominated in USD.
WE didn't, YOU did!
> I know, but you seem confused as to who the creditors and the debtors are.
LOL...man, sorry, it's hard for me to take this seriously. Most of
the DEBT, by people, corporations, etc., is in DOLLARS! They borrowed
in DOLLARS instead of local currency! JFC, man, PBR and the Nation of
Brazil just did a DOLLAR debt issue. It was not priced in Reais, it
was in DOLLARS. Venezuela did one too! They're all over.
So long as the dollar is the reserve currency, it makes sense in many
cases to denominate in it as a settlement vehicle. And the ponzi was
everywhere. So when deleveraging occurred, all of the dollar
debtholders all over the world, the ones who OWED dollar debts, were
in serious trouble.
> That's a US Fed liquidity problem. Asian countries are flush with sovereign reserves. In USD, yes,
> and for whom that will be a problem is currently being sorted out. It could lead to a collapse of
> the US bond market.
Asian countries were not the place the problem was, and they did NOT
step in to provide dollar liquidity. I assert that they should have.
The opportunity was there to stand in for the Fed and become another
dollar source. However, that is not what occurred.
> Logarithms aren't evil.
Monetary systems with interest are.
> Of course interest has growth constraints. US personal debt is currently enjoying the largest
> contraction in decades. Interest growth has no constraints and you're talking deleveraging in the
> same breath? FFS pass that fat-boy around, dude...
A contraction of credit=deflation. This is basic monetarism.
> Again, I hope you're wrong.
I do too, but I haven't been yet. Interestingly, you'll recall I
called for Japan's sovereign default in 2009 as a result of the end of
the yen carry. I have begun to read other authors talking now about
the same thing, though 2009 was obviously premature. The Japan CDS
spreads have begun to march upward. And I talked about this YEARS
ago.
> Yes, history shows that to be so. Maybe we can learn from history?
That it repeats? That we are a minority who recognize trouble in an
exponential curve? I can point you to psychology experiments where
they show an inherent HUMAN defect in ability to grasp exponential
curves. I've talked about it. It's a flaw with most humans.
> Yes, so everything will be become more expensive.
It won't become more expensive it will become more unavailable.
> Depends on the rate of growth. We still hear shills saying 'we have enough oil for 40 years at
> current rates of consumption' defying all available data which shows a long-term trend of ~7% pa.
> The concrete wall at the end of this tunnel is a doubling time of 10 years, and that just won't
> happen. What then?
I don't care what shills say. They are fools. The future to pay
today's debts does not exist. It's as simple as that.
> I disagree. It can and does implode, but that isn't a mathematical certainty under different
> constraints.
Eventually, deflative collapse occurs when interest costs exceed
receipts.
> I have a date tonight, thanks anyway.
My dick is bigger.
> I have no debt.
Can you like treat it as an analogy instead of literally? JFC.
Trav
Sam the Bam
> >>> Obama is frankly the most overrated fad candidate
> >>> in history;
> >>> unqualified buffoon, and he will go down in history as one of the
> >>> biggest mistakes in American political history.
> >
> >> You're full of shit of course. They said all the same things about
> >> FDR. And he turned out to be one of our country's greatest
> >> presidents.
>
> > His disastrous policies prolonged the recovery
> > from the contraction, by years. But he had to
> > DO SOMETHING! A classic example of cutting
> > off your leg, to escape coyote ugly...
>
> >> Obama hasn't even been in office a year, and
> >> considering the shit sandwich he was handed
> >> by Bush he has accomplished a lot.
>
> > Yes, he grew the shit sandwich by a trillion $$...
> > that's accomplishment, in your eyes...
>
> >> in a complete free fall when Bush left office. Obama stopped
> >> the crash, propped up the markets, and got at least some
> >> jobs going.
>
> > Gov't make work jobs... give everybody a
> > shovel, tell them to dig holes, they're WORKING!
> > Getting a paycheck!
>
> > How'd that work out in the Soviet Union?
>
> FFS! Let's say Obama took the Libertarian path and let it
> all go to shit. Do you have any idea what sort of carnage
> that would have created? If you think the metrics that are
> coming out now are bad , they are NOTHING compared to
> the consequences of systemic collapse. Credit isn't
> just 'loans' like car loans and mortgages etc. We're talking
> TRADE credit, without which cap flows simply don't happen.
> Eg Wal-Mart can't import any foreign goods because their
> banks won't extend bill lines because they and the
> counterparties are fucked. Multiply that into EVERY business that
> trades goods and you get an inkling of what would have
> happened both in the US and elsewhere.
The addict is sick, going through withdrawal...
"We can't worry about theory, we'll deal with
tomorrow when it comes! Give hin his fix NOW,
he's in awful shape, it's the only treatment..."
> Do I support the bailouts? Not really, but the alternative
> was simply too catastrophic to contemplate.
You are ill, and given a choice: a lingering
malaise lasting months, or sweat it out feverishly
in one night. Which do you choose?
Sam
trav...@aol.com
And when it fails, insist that you just didn't do ENOUGH of the shit
that failed.
The answer to a debt problem is obviously more debt, and to too much
spending is obviously MORE spending. The answer is always more.
> You are ill, and given a choice: a lingering
> malaise lasting months, or sweat it out feverishly
> in one night. Which do you choose?
>
> Sam
Better to kick the can so it doesn't happen "on your watch."
Trav
Greendistantstar
And if/when the USD collapses, having debt denominated in USD will hurt whom?
>> The US doesn't need currency swaps on debt denominated in USD.
>
> WE didn't, YOU did!
And interestingly enough, this is all changing.
>> I know, but you seem confused as to who the creditors and the debtors are.
>
> LOL...man, sorry, it's hard for me to take this seriously. Most of
> the DEBT, by people, corporations, etc., is in DOLLARS! They borrowed
> in DOLLARS instead of local currency! JFC, man, PBR and the Nation of
> Brazil just did a DOLLAR debt issue. It was not priced in Reais, it
> was in DOLLARS. Venezuela did one too! They're all over.
Nothing new here.
> So long as the dollar is the reserve currency, it makes sense in many
> cases to denominate in it as a settlement vehicle. And the ponzi was
> everywhere. So when deleveraging occurred, all of the dollar
> debtholders all over the world, the ones who OWED dollar debts, were
> in serious trouble.
Uh? If the USD crashes, you'd *want* to have debt in USD, provided your currency didn't decline
parri passu. Go ask all the mugs in former Eastern-bloc countries who denominated their debt in
Swiss francs.
>> That's a US Fed liquidity problem. Asian countries are flush with sovereign reserves. In USD, yes,
>> and for whom that will be a problem is currently being sorted out. It could lead to a collapse of
>> the US bond market.
>
> Asian countries were not the place the problem was, and they did NOT
> step in to provide dollar liquidity. I assert that they should have.
> The opportunity was there to stand in for the Fed and become another
> dollar source. However, that is not what occurred.
>
>> Logarithms aren't evil.
>
> Monetary systems with interest are.
I just don't agree that in essence they are.
>> Of course interest has growth constraints. US personal debt is currently enjoying the largest
>> contraction in decades. Interest growth has no constraints and you're talking deleveraging in the
>> same breath? FFS pass that fat-boy around, dude...
>
> A contraction of credit=deflation. This is basic monetarism.
>
>> Again, I hope you're wrong.
>
> I do too, but I haven't been yet. Interestingly, you'll recall I
> called for Japan's sovereign default in 2009 as a result of the end of
> the yen carry. I have begun to read other authors talking now about
> the same thing, though 2009 was obviously premature. The Japan CDS
> spreads have begun to march upward. And I talked about this YEARS
> ago.
>
>> Yes, history shows that to be so. Maybe we can learn from history?
>
> That it repeats? That we are a minority who recognize trouble in an
> exponential curve? I can point you to psychology experiments where
> they show an inherent HUMAN defect in ability to grasp exponential
> curves. I've talked about it. It's a flaw with most humans.
Agree 100%, and Bartlett in his now famous lecture says exactly this - "Humanity's greatest
shortcoming is an inabilty to understand exponential function."
The trick is understanding what represents exponential growth and what doesn't.
>> Yes, so everything will be become more expensive.
>
> It won't become more expensive it will become more unavailable.
Simple supply and demand factors mean expensive first.
>> Depends on the rate of growth. We still hear shills saying 'we have enough oil for 40 years at
>> current rates of consumption' defying all available data which shows a long-term trend of ~7% pa.
>> The concrete wall at the end of this tunnel is a doubling time of 10 years, and that just won't
>> happen. What then?
>
> I don't care what shills say. They are fools. The future to pay
> today's debts does not exist. It's as simple as that.
Not quite. Anyone (individual, company or country) can pay future debts given various constraints.
If those constraints are unfeasible, you're correct.
>> I disagree. It can and does implode, but that isn't a mathematical certainty under different
>> constraints.
>
> Eventually, deflative collapse occurs when interest costs exceed
> receipts.
>
>> I have a date tonight, thanks anyway.
>
> My dick is bigger.
>
>> I have no debt.
>
> Can you like treat it as an analogy instead of literally? JFC.
I wasn't sure what you meant.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
trav...@aol.com
You missed the transition. This isn't about the USD collapsing. It's
about an inability to service dollar debt. This is why we are making
dollars so cheap.
> And interestingly enough, this is all changing.
Sure, everybody is buying gold. The outcome is somewhat invetiable.
Debtmoney works as a promise against the future.
> Nothing new here.
Certainly is, because they were put in last year.
> Uh? If the USD crashes, you'd *want* to have debt in USD, provided your currency didn't decline
> parri passu. Go ask all the mugs in former Eastern-bloc countries who denominated their debt in
> Swiss francs.
Why the hell are you talking about the USD crashing when the issue was
dollar denominated debt? You've changed the subject. It was
deleveraging, now it's dollar collapse.
All fiat debtmoney currencies are going to collapse.
> I just don't agree that in essence they are.
You're entitled to be wrong.
> Agree 100%, and Bartlett in his now famous lecture says exactly this - "Humanity's greatest
> shortcoming is an inabilty to understand exponential function."
>
> The trick is understanding what represents exponential growth and what doesn't.
Debt does. Very clearly.
> Not quite. Anyone (individual, company or country) can pay future debts given various constraints.
In the motherfucking AGGREGATE. JFC, why do you bring up an
INDIVIDUAL in response to a general premise?!
Countries cannot because they face the same resource constraints as
everyone else.
Trav
Greendistantstar
>> And if/when the USD collapses, having debt denominated in USD will hurt whom?
>
> You missed the transition. This isn't about the USD collapsing. It's
> about an inability to service dollar debt. This is why we are making
> dollars so cheap.
That doesn't help anyone whose currency has declined relative to the USD. Your dollars are cheap
because (inter alia) your inflation-adjusted interest rates are ~0. Ours are expensive because
inflation-adjusted interest rates are high relative to the rest of the world. Look at the yield
curves of US bonds as a guide.
>> And interestingly enough, this is all changing.
>
> Sure, everybody is buying gold. The outcome is somewhat invetiable.
How many people do you know who've got rich owning precious metals?
> Debtmoney works as a promise against the future.
All debt does, as does income. If you wanted to assess your true financial wealth, you'd not only
look at your assets, but do a NPV on your future income stream. You bet that against the debt stream
if income > debt. This is no different for individuals than it is in aggregate for whole economies.
What's intrinsically wrong with debt being repaid over time? The interest fraction?
Fine, charge no interest...now find me the investors who will accept zero return.
Alternatively, take the Islamic approach, be charged no interest but be prepared to share the spoils
of capital appreciation with your new partner, your bank. Debt or equity...which do you prefer?
In extremis, let the debt fail and someone else gathers the residual equity, which is exactly what
your govt is doing. Eventually, y'all will have to pay for the shortfall.
>> Nothing new here.
>
> Certainly is, because they were put in last year.
>
>> Uh? If the USD crashes, you'd *want* to have debt in USD, provided your currency didn't decline
>> parri passu. Go ask all the mugs in former Eastern-bloc countries who denominated their debt in
>> Swiss francs.
>
> Why the hell are you talking about the USD crashing when the issue was
> dollar denominated debt? You've changed the subject. It was
> deleveraging, now it's dollar collapse.
Different aspects of the same, core issue.
> All fiat debtmoney currencies are going to collapse.
>
>> I just don't agree that in essence they are.
>
> You're entitled to be wrong.
As are you.
>> Agree 100%, and Bartlett in his now famous lecture says exactly this - "Humanity's greatest
>> shortcoming is an inabilty to understand exponential function."
>>
>> The trick is understanding what represents exponential growth and what doesn't.
>
> Debt does. Very clearly.
Now do we use an aggregate or individual case to discuss this?
>> Not quite. Anyone (individual, company or country) can pay future debts given various constraints.
>
> In the motherfucking AGGREGATE. JFC, why do you bring up an
> INDIVIDUAL in response to a general premise?!
Fine, we'll stick with the aggregate. Show me metrics of long-term aggregate debt whose gradients
exhibit exponential characteristics.
> Countries cannot because they face the same resource constraints as
> everyone else.
So resource constaints are the underlying cause of debt being necessarily exponential?
Is this your position?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
trav...@aol.com
> because (inter alia) your inflation-adjusted interest rates are ~0. Ours are expensive because
> inflation-adjusted interest rates are high relative to the rest of the world. Look at the yield
> curves of US bonds as a guide.
Dude, I know we are at ZIRP. Much of the world is forced into a rate
raise to fight another carry bubble, this time with the reserve
currency.
> How many people do you know who've got rich owning precious metals?
WTF is "rich"? You have a lot of paper wealth? The issue with gold
is not riches it is preservation.
> All debt does, as does income. If you wanted to assess your true financial wealth, you'd not only
> look at your assets, but do a NPV on your future income stream. You bet that against the debt stream
> if income > debt. This is no different for individuals than it is in aggregate for whole economies.
Exactly. The NPV of income for the world is decreasing.
> What's intrinsically wrong with debt being repaid over time? The interest fraction?
Nothing is wrong with it...the problem is when it must be repaid with
INTEREST, the MONETARY system is that way. I don't care about private
debts although interest has been banned during much of history and is
discouraged by 2 of the world's major religions. That
notwithstanding, a monetary system containing an interest component is
a disaster waiting to happen.
> Fine, charge no interest...now find me the investors who will accept zero return.
Those aren't fucking INVESTORS. They are fucking lenders. Investors
risk their own assets.
> Alternatively, take the Islamic approach, be charged no interest but be prepared to share the spoils
> of capital appreciation with your new partner, your bank. Debt or equity...which do you prefer?
Equity. Become an investor, not a lender who gets the personal
property of the businessperson as collateral for the loan.
Put it this way man, how many "investors" do you know who make
unsecured loans?
> Different aspects of the same, core issue.
Not at all.
> As are you.
I never avail myself of that entitlement.
> Now do we use an aggregate or individual case to discuss this?
Aggregate. Use any monetary regime with a central bank.
> Fine, we'll stick with the aggregate. Show me metrics of long-term aggregate debt whose gradients
> exhibit exponential characteristics.
Any monetary aggregate does.
> So resource constaints are the underlying cause of debt being necessarily exponential?
HUH?
No, interest is the reason that debt is exponential!
> Is this your position?
>
> GDS
No.
Trav