The Dollar is about to get SPANKED

[willseeker]

The solution that never will happen is this. First: simultaneously eliminate the Federal Reserve, arrest every high-level banker from Bernanke on down, and repudiate the US national debt in its entirety - every last dollar of it. The US government then can, and should, issue its own money (US Notes) backed by petroleum. What petroleum? Arab petroleum. Since 18 out of the 19 alleged hijackers involved in the attacks of 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia the US should immediately invade and take toital control of that country. 100% of that country's petroeum should become US government property and become the backing for our national currency. If Russia, Iran, or Pakistan takes issue with it, then we offer to launch half of our Minuteman IIIs into those countries. They'll all back down. The US would immediately once again become the strongest nation economically. It would take about a month to do this. But, it never will happen because most of our politicans are corrupt.

But, but, but...I thought Bernanke just got the "mafia of the y...I mean "man of the year" award!?

Yes, Pistolero, oust the hucksters!




Short of blowing the world to kingdom come...I agree with your post.

 

[Gunner3456]

Our public debt (as a % of GDP) is still well within safe historical levels. Ignore the chicken littles. The US is, by far, the wealthiest, most productive, and most economically powerful country in the world. We live in complicated and interesting times, but the US dollar is still seen as a safe refuge - it will take a very mighty blow to slow this machine down.

If you talk about our "admitted" debt - the figures you see on the news, it's no worse than it was at the end of WWII as a percentage of GDP. It's around 12 trillion - bad enough though.

However, if you look at our real debt it's more like $100 trillion and that will break us. We can't pay it. Our official national debt figures don't include the unfunded liabilities for Social Security where the gov't has raided all of the funds ever paid in and now has to face the upcoming baby boomers with NO money set aside. The same is true for Medicare and Medicaid - big promises and no money.

If they would be honest and add those figures to the national debt, it would be about seven times our GDP of $14 trillion, or seven times bigger than ever before as a percentage of GDP and seven times more than admitted.

We can't pay it. We will crash.

Also, at the end of WWII consumers didn't carry large debt. No Visa/Mastercard, home loans were made for very short terms... Now the consumer and the Fed are all maxed out.

Stand by.

 

[bugeye]

You understand nothing about my religion. And please, detail for us exactly your experience in derivative markets? I'll gladly post my resume.

If you wish to dispute anything I said about dervatives trading please do so. If you don't agree that this trading represents a level of unsustainable insanity that makes Ponzi look like a piker, then please do so.

 

[bugeye]

I can't believe I'm reading these things. Woodrow Wilson should have been hanged for allowing a system which meddles with capitalism and creates phony money, as our Federal Reserve does today.

Those criminals who ruined our banking system and Wall Street and who sold those derivative packages should have been hanged for fraud. The criminals who caused Freddy/Fannie to make fake loans to people who couldn't afford them should be hanged for fraud.

None of that is an indictment of capitalism. It is an indictment of greed and corruption. Even socialism has corruption and greed.

Only capitalism gives the individual the incentive to produce more, create good jobs, and create new wealth.

What have we come to?

Derivates traders and investment banks didn't do anything illegal, so hanging them would represent a nasty precedent. You see these way too clever weasels gave themselves a legal playing field to engage in gambling on a cosmic level.

So, we can't hang them, instead we have rewarded them! The flow of free money from the Fed to these institutions has continued, they were given money and other considerations, and now they and the stock market have recovered. Now they can give themselves huge bonus payments, while they have changed nothing in the way they do business, and represent just as much of a threat as they did a year ago.

I agree about capitalism, but it requires regulation, just like the derivatives trade does, and the gov has the means as it makes the laws. Our system also needs dissent from the public because our representatives have been bought by the money. I heard a commedian recently, can't remember, who said they should be wearing corporate log0s on their suits just like NASCAR drivers.

This of course is nothing new, a very old joke (nearly chicken and egg vintage) goes, 'We have the finest congress money can buy".

I've said this before but it still amazes me that the Consitution fails to mention the most powerful branch of our government, as a matter of fact the word 'Lobby' fails to appear in the text even once.


Our gov

 

[Gunner3456]

Derivates traders and investment banks didn't do anything illegal, so hanging them would represent a nasty precedent. You see these way too clever weasels gave themselves a legal playing field to engage in gambling on a cosmic level.

So, we can't hang them, instead we have rewarded them! The flow of free money from the Fed to these institutions has continued, they were given money and other considerations, and now they and the stock market have recovered. Now they can give themselves huge bonus payments, while they have changed nothing in the way they do business, and represent just as much of a threat as they did a year ago.

I agree about capitalism, but it requires regulation, just like the derivatives trade does, and the gov has the means as it makes the laws. Our system also needs dissent from the public because our representatives have been bought by the money. I heard a commedian recently, can't remember, who said they should be wearing corporate log0s on their suits just like NASCAR drivers.

This of course is nothing new, a very old joke (nearly chicken and egg vintage) goes, 'We have the finest congress money can buy".

I've said this before but it still amazes me that the Consitution fails to mention the most powerful branch of our government, as a matter of fact the word 'Lobby' fails to appear in the text even once.


Our gov

I agree. And BTW, by "Hanging" I meant we should have let them go under. Capitalism should reward the good, and the bad should fail otherwise you don't have free markets.

 

[Monkeyman]

If you wish to dispute anything I said about dervatives trading please do so. If you don't agree that this trading represents a level of unsustainable insanity that makes Ponzi look like a piker, then please do so.

Derivatives trading, when used properly, is an effective risk management technique. It's my opinion that firms like AIG, who got waaaaay out over their skis with the volume of credit default swaps they'd underwritten, got into that position because they felt the chances were better than good that the government wouldn't let them fail. How did they come to that conclusion?

They had key lawmakers in their pocket. If there had been no "implicit backing of the federal government" (see Fannie, Freddie, and other Government Sponsored Enterprises) these firms would have stayed within their budgets. Just as the Community Reinvestment Act, and the subsequent political arm-twisting by BJ Clinton, Bawney Fwank, Chris Dodd, and most of all, the Black Congressional Caucus, caused otherwise prudent lenders to start handing money out like candy, the government created the problem; in the case of AIG and Goldman, by allowing these firms to hold influence over federal oversight. If a business can buy a politician, then the rules no longer apply. That is not a fundamental flaw in capitalism, it's a fundamental flaw in the rule of law.When politicians extort businessmen, you can't blame the businessman for fighting back. Or, to a lesser extent, playing along.

You state that the government "had to' bail out AIG. Rubbish. The government CHOSE to bail out AIG, because they had in effect created the problem. To paint all risk management tools as "useless securities" is painfully naive. Anyone who has ever run a business, or risked capital to create profit and growth, knows that risk management is a major element to success. Of all the CDS's traded every day, it was a relatively small part of the market that caused all the trouble. In a truly fair marketplace, bad business decisions are punished by bankruptcy.

And to quote a political hack like Warren Buffet (and I don't give a rat's *** how rich he is, he's a hack) is disingenuous. Warren Buffet has used the government to his advantage every bit as much as Bernie Madoff. He is not a saint, he's one voice, one opinion, albeit a rich one.

Just because we have a pack of thieves writing laws in Washington does not mean capitalism doesn't work. To say that capitalism has failed us is to deny our entire history. And whether our academic elites like it or not, the US is the greatest experiment in freedom in the history of mankind. And economic freedom leads the parade. Capitalism is the only economic system that allows complete freedom. Even the freedom to be greedy. Greed is not the problem; the corruption of the court system is the problem, corruption in government is the problem, and the systematic extortion of productive elements of society by corrupt politicians is the problem. You cannot legislate morality. To try and legislate against greed is no different than to try and legislate against any other of the 7 Deadly Sins. Good luck with that.

 

[willseeker]

Just because we have a pack of thieves writing laws in Washington does not mean capitalism doesn't work. To say that capitalism has failed us is to deny our entire history. And whether our academic elites like it or not, the US is the greatest experiment in freedom in the history of mankind. And economic freedom leads the parade. Capitalism is the only economic system that allows complete freedom. Even the freedom to be greedy. Greed is not the problem; the corruption of the court system is the problem, corruption in government is the problem, and the systematic extortion of productive elements of society by corrupt politicians is the problem. You cannot legislate morality. To try and legislate against greed is no different than to try and legislate against any other of the 7 Deadly Sins. Good luck with that.

Your knowledge of derivatives is excellent, Monkeyman.

Your statement that the U.S. is the greatest experiment, also excellent.

To say the greatest experiment in freedom? OK.

But why do you say that by stating capitalism as failed, it's a denial of our history? I don't feel we're denying history.

And when you state that capitalism is the only system that allows for complete freedom?...not buying it.

Capitalism has proven itself to be a system of catagorical enslavement. Do you really think you're free?
I can't even carry concealed without expressed written permission from the system! I thought it was a freedom declared in the 2nd amendment? Free?

I have to agree with you though, that government offices are the corrupted ones, however; I do believe that by removing the temptation of payoffs through corporate lobbyists we can turn government to serving the people, not the interests! Get corporate influence out of Washington! That might be classified as moral legislation.

BTW: Good posts Monkeyman and Bugeye!

 

[bugeye]

Derivatives trading, when used properly, is an effective risk management technique. It's my opinion that firms like AIG, who got waaaaay out over their skis with the volume of credit default swaps they'd underwritten, got into that position because they felt the chances were better than good that the government wouldn't let them fail. How did they come to that conclusion?

They had key lawmakers in their pocket. If there had been no "implicit backing of the federal government" (see Fannie, Freddie, and other Government Sponsored Enterprises) these firms would have stayed within their budgets. Just as the Community Reinvestment Act, and the subsequent political arm-twisting by BJ Clinton, Bawney Fwank, Chris Dodd, and most of all, the Black Congressional Caucus, caused otherwise prudent lenders to start handing money out like candy, the government created the problem; in the case of AIG and Goldman, by allowing these firms to hold influence over federal oversight. If a business can buy a politician, then the rules no longer apply. That is not a fundamental flaw in capitalism, it's a fundamental flaw in the rule of law.When politicians extort businessmen, you can't blame the businessman for fighting back. Or, to a lesser extent, playing along.

You state that the government "had to' bail out AIG. Rubbish. The government CHOSE to bail out AIG, because they had in effect created the problem. To paint all risk management tools as "useless securities" is painfully naive. Anyone who has ever run a business, or risked capital to create profit and growth, knows that risk management is a major element to success. Of all the CDS's traded every day, it was a relatively small part of the market that caused all the trouble. In a truly fair marketplace, bad business decisions are punished by bankruptcy.

And to quote a political hack like Warren Buffet (and I don't give a rat's *** how rich he is, he's a hack) is disingenuous. Warren Buffet has used the government to his advantage every bit as much as Bernie Madoff. He is not a saint, he's one voice, one opinion, albeit a rich one.

Just because we have a pack of thieves writing laws in Washington does not mean capitalism doesn't work. To say that capitalism has failed us is to deny our entire history. And whether our academic elites like it or not, the US is the greatest experiment in freedom in the history of mankind. And economic freedom leads the parade. Capitalism is the only economic system that allows complete freedom. Even the freedom to be greedy. Greed is not the problem; the corruption of the court system is the problem, corruption in government is the problem, and the systematic extortion of productive elements of society by corrupt politicians is the problem. You cannot legislate morality. To try and legislate against greed is no different than to try and legislate against any other of the 7 Deadly Sins. Good luck with that.

I like regulated capitalism. If not regulated it turns into an aristocrisy of money, and this problem is as old as ancient Athens. Money gets concentrated in the hands of them that has money. When that process has run it course capitalism turns into a tyranny and the citizens become slaves.

Anyone who wants to investigate the derviates trade can do so, almost all will find it insane and dangerous. If you don't see anything wrong with someone else being allowed to buy fire insurance on your house, then you might be in the group that thinks derivatives are fine. Most of us can see the torches in the distance!

You fail to consider how many other AIG's there were out there, who didn't knit their CDS? Since no disclosure of what is being held is required, no one knows! The gov had no choice but to do the safe thing and bail them out, Bush pushed for this. Indeed if they had kept Lehman afloat, it would have gee way cheaper for all of us. AIG was just the first domino that they kept from hitting the next one.

You left out hundreds of GOP players, and hundreds of other brokers besides Freddy and Fannie, that is simple Repub. partisanship, and in this case is rather absurd since the GOP is more than half responsible for this fiasco. Also, no mention of that great saint of the free market, Greenspan who fought regulation of the derivatives trade tooth and nail! At least Greenspan has learned something from the last year, and now admits that he was wrong.

You can legislate greed and morality to some extent in financials, because these players are forced to stay within the law, or take on great risk.

As far as our sell out congress people, what came first the sell outs or a system (by the money and for the money) that makes them be sell outs before they are even allowed to run for office. There are plenty of people in this country that could go and serve as representatives of their constituents without selling votes, because they believe in America, their lack of presence in the congress can only be explained by the process of selection?

 

[zeezee]

I honestly don't think the Arab country's have what it takes to hold a world currency together in spite of all their wealth.
Heck NO, those rag heads have been fighting each other since day one and will continue long after the USA is a mere page in the history books.

 

[Monkeyman]

Your knowledge of derivatives is excellent, Monkeyman.

Your statement that the U.S. is the greatest experiment, also excellent.

To say the greatest experiment in freedom? OK.

But why do you say that by stating capitalism as failed, it's a denial of our history? I don't feel we're denying history.

And when you state that capitalism is the only system that allows for complete freedom?...not buying it.

Capitalism has proven itself to be a system of catagorical enslavement. Do you really think you're free?
I can't even carry concealed without expressed written permission from the system! I thought it was a freedom declared in the 2nd amendment? Free?

I have to agree with you though, that government offices are the corrupted ones, however; I do believe that by removing the temptation of payoffs through corporate lobbyists we can turn government to serving the people, not the interests! Get corporate influence out of Washington! That might be classified as moral legislation.

BTW: Good posts Monkeyman and Bugeye!

I'll say it again: capitalism has not failed. Capitalism has given our society the highest standard of living ever known. That success is directly related to freedom. Freedom to keep what you earn, freedom to make your own economic decisions, to act in one's own self-interest, to make your own choices in life, and to bear responsibility for those choices. Capitalism recognizes that we are NOT equal; some people are smarter, some stronger, or better looking, healthier, or more socially adaptable than others. That is human nature, and there is no denying it.

Over the years we have allowed our government to impede capitalism in the name of fairness. Envy and greed are also part of human nature; I would suggest that the efforts by some in our society to make the playing field more "fair" is the problem. We have a system of courts and property rights that are the envy of the world; it's only when those rights are usurped, and those courts corrupted, that the system breaks down.

I see no "proof" that capitalism is enslavement. Are you suggesting that those who cannot succeed under capitalism are slaves? I know too many people, born poor, who have worked hard and taken advantage of the freedoms guaranteed by our society (education, mobility, and even social programs, not all of which are bad) to improve their lot in life. I know plenty of lazy people, too, who blame others for their shortcomings. A rich society provides a safety net for those who are truly less fortunate. A rich society that enslaves its weakest in a cycle of poverty through the evils of a welfare state is corrupt.

To answer your question, yes, I know I am free. I can only wonder why you feel you are not.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of our Constitution, has been tossed aside like so much paper by an ever-expanding federal government. That has nothing to do with our economic system; it's our political system that is broken.

Think about this: if the government had not stolen power from the people, if the government did not have the power to pick winners and losers, instead of letting free markets (under the jurisdiction of fair courts properly enforcing our laws) pick winners and losers, there would be no need for lobbyists.

And please, if you think corporations are the only entities lobbying in Washington and Salem, you'd best have another think. We have come to the crazy situation where agencies of the government are lobbying themselves. Unions, non-profits, Arabs, all spread the cash around.

You want to eliminate lobbyists? Limit the scope and power of government, and demand accountability from your elected officials.

 

[willseeker]

Going to Broadway Cigar to burn one. Be back in a couple hours.:cigar:







Oh and just to stay on topic...If, as you say, the dollar hasn't failed and capitalism is alive and well, you may want to look in the rearview mirror. It seems to be on a collision course with the rest of the worlds currencies.

 

[trainsktg]

Oh and just to stay on topic...If, as you say, the dollar hasn't failed and capitalism is alive and well, you may want to look in the rearview mirror. It seems to be on a collision course with the rest of the worlds currencies.

No other fiat currency in the world's history has ever survived more than a few decades, and ours has been running the predictable downward course for about 39 years now...

Keith

 

[Moobear]

Ahh... but you see, we have the military might and a gigantic ocean on both sides of our continent to not only protect us, but to create a gigantic supply line to any potential invading nation. Wargaming has taught me that for every troop and piece of equipment you wish to bring to battle, you need a corresponding ship or amphibious vehicle to transport it. This not only drives up the costs for the invader, but also increased the risk, as entire battalions of soldiers and high tech equipment can be lost by sinking a transport ship with a couple of well placed torpedoes.

The Chinese may have a million man army, but getting them across the water is the biggest challenge and in the process of doing so, internal and nearby external Chinese threats may decide it is a perfect time to cause problems.

Again, we only have to look at history to see that the English Channel saved Great Britain from a German invasion at the height of their military power and after blitzkrieging through France and the Low Countries. The British retreat at Dunkirk was a disaster, but the natural barrier of the English Channel prevented the Germans from following through on their decisive victory.

So again, I ask what people think will happen if the United States of America were to renege on all foreign debts, close their borders, and adopt an isolationist foreign policy? If the German nation could make war against most of the world (and many people thought they would win at the time), how much more could modern America do?

THIS! If you look at the make-up of every major nation's armed forces (besides the united states), no nation has the ability to mobilize an invasion against us. Most navies and air forces are designed towards defense. the one exception I see is ours. China has...1 aircraft carrier? and a handful of planes. Same with Russia. So sure, they may have huge amount of foot soldiers, the main thing we have to worry about is intercontinental missiles.

 

[Stomper]

THIS! If you look at the make-up of every major nation's armed forces (besides the united states), no nation has the ability to mobilize an invasion against us. Most navies and air forces are designed towards defense. the one exception I see is ours. China has...1 aircraft carrier? and a handful of planes. Same with Russia. So sure, they may have huge amount of foot soldiers, the main thing we have to worry about is intercontinental missiles.

Is that all? Try the infiltration of guerrilla/terrorist fighters through our vast borders... you could NEVER stop all of them, and it only takes a few who are motivated and trained to rain holy havoc on a given society... besides, we have too many "one world government-wannabe-eurotrash" types over here, closing the borders will never happen.

 

[Moobear]

Is that all? Try the infiltration of guerrilla/terrorist fighters through our vast borders... you could NEVER stop all of them, and it only takes a few who are motivated and trained to rain holy havoc on a given society... besides, we have too many "one world government-wannabe-eurotrash" types over here, closing the borders will never happen.

True, this could cause a bad news bears situation, I didn't think of that. However (besides terrorism) I doubt a country would be stupid enough to send a handful of soldiers into the US, regardless of how effective they could be at first. Without the ability to disable a majority of our infrastructure with such a small group, the country that sent the soldier's would be in a world of hurt if we found out the soldier's weren't acting alone.

Basically it would be like going up to the biggest, meanest biker dude at a bar and spitting in his face for the **** of it. Sure, he might recoil at first, but once he recovers he'll beat the snot out of you.

 

[willseeker]

True, this could cause a bad news bears situation, I didn't think of that. However (besides terrorism) I doubt a country would be stupid enough to send a handful of soldiers into the US, regardless of how effective they could be at first. Without the ability to disable a majority of our infrastructure with such a small group, the country that sent the soldier's would be in a world of hurt if we found out the soldier's weren't acting alone.

Basically it would be like going up to the biggest, meanest biker dude at a bar and spitting in his face for the **** of it. Sure, he might recoil at first, but once he recovers he'll beat the snot out of you.

No Moobear you're right! No country would invade the U.S...Well, what if there was a covert agreement though?

I don't trust a government, (the same one that allowed the Bin Laden family free airspace on 911), not to make some bassackward move and let some other country access to our land, whether it be because we owe them a barrel of money or whatever!

As far as the biker analogy, done that. Of course I was younger and pretty loaded at the time...well, some day I'll tell you the story.

Will