I still think we are going to see a huge real estate crash here as well. The main worry in my mind is the fact that mortgages are backed in Canada by the government (Not by corps). It will be interesting to see what happens in our countries once interest rates start to rise. They can't be keep low forever...
It's foolish to believe something magical is going to happen to fix everything you see happening across the world. IMO, this is all just the beginning.
Gold is just a commodity dudes. Might as well back our currency in rap 12"s
gold is real money, shit like pork bellies and oil are commodities. gold may be traded as an etf, treated as a finanacial instrument like a commodity, but it's been an effective store of value for most of human history and always been the thing that societies have reverted to when fiat currencies have collapsed numerous times throughout history.
Ron Paul's brand of wingnuttery is every bit as inane and insane as Lyndon LaRouche's brand. Returning to the gold standard at this point would be like basing the world economy on tulip bulbs.
1980 was when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market in Silver and forced Silver and Gold into a bubble. It burst and they went bankrupt. All gold is doing atm is keeping pace with inflation and money supply.
Gold is just a commodity dudes. Might as well back our currency in rap 12"s
gold is real money, shit like pork bellies and oil are commodities. gold may be traded as an etf, treated as a finanacial instrument like a commodity, but it's been an effective store of value for most of human history and always been the thing that societies have reverted to when fiat currencies have collapsed numerous times throughout history.
Ron Paul's brand of wingnuttery is every bit as inane and insane as Lyndon LaRouche's brand. Returning to the gold standard at this point would be like basing the world economy on tulip bulbs.
what does an 11 year old article comparing TECH STOCKS to the 1600s dutch tulip bubble have to do with Gold backed currency?
Nothing directly, of course. I'm just comparing one brand of kookery to another. And the gold standard fetishists are kooks, one and all. You're a member of the libertarian cult, and the site you linked to links to every wackjob "Institute" under the sun.
Once the words "Austrian School" come into play it's time to walk away.
You have every right to belong to a cult and to believe all of its precepts, but it just aint so:
fair enough man, i just posted the first article from a long list of google hits on 'gold is not in a bubble'. i haven't mentioned Ron Paul even once, i'm looking at the long picture. Gold has outlasted every fiat currency in history. It has a proven track record. I could care less about keynesians and austrian school of economics. This is far from the first time in history that a government has tried to print away it's economic woes and it has never ended well. This time round we've got peak population, peak energy (not even going to get started on that, there's strong arguments in both directions) and peak currency supply. If you look at the fundamentals of exponential growth which is what the current capitalist system depends on to exists, it always eventually turns into a hockey stick and hits a hard limit. The US national debt has gone hockey stick. The M3 monetary base has gone hockey stick. Human population has gone hockey stick. Crude oil consumption has gone hockey stick. These are all facts, not nutjob conspiracy theories but mathematical certainties. Something has to, and will, give. It's just a question of when and how badly.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
That "surplus" was based on the annual budget, not the overall deficit.
The point is that we were moving in the right direction as Clinton presidency ended. Then the morons took over.
And that has made all of the difference.
No one is claiming that the national debt was below zero when Clinton left.
fair enough man, i just posted the first article from a long list of google hits on 'gold is not in a bubble'. i haven't mentioned Ron Paul even once, i'm looking at the long picture. Gold has outlasted every fiat currency in history. It has a proven track record. I could care less about keynesians and austrian school of economics. This is far from the first time in history that a government has tried to print away it's economic woes and it has never ended well. This time round we've got peak population, peak energy (not even going to get started on that, there's strong arguments in both directions) and peak currency supply. If you look at the fundamentals of exponential growth which is what the current capitalist system depends on to exists, it always eventually turns into a hockey stick and hits a hard limit. The US national debt has gone hockey stick. The M3 monetary base has gone hockey stick. Human population has gone hockey stick. Crude oil consumption has gone hockey stick. These are all facts, not nutjob conspiracy theories but mathematical certainties. Something has to, and will, give. It's just a question of when and how badly.
Okay, if you're not a Beck/Paul disciple where are you getting your freakazoid we're-all-doomed fantasies from?
Please tell me you're not just listening to that fuckstick Alex Jones. Or that your hockey sticks (WTF?) are talking to you.
There's also some solar flare kill shot coming apparently, so it's all a moot point.
look i don't really care enough about swaying random people's opinions to get into some protracted and pointless argument. I'm merely pointing out some basic truths that are easily found using google and doing some super elementary research. It's not some tin foil hat conspiracy shit, (although it's much easier to just lump everything in the nutjob basket) it's just basic mathematics. The current track that the entire planet is on is unsustainable. Beyond that, who fucking knows what's going to happen. History has a habit of repeating itself and all bubbles eventually burst.
at any rate, it's all good, open discussion is good, sharing opinions is good. change is inevitable etc etc etc.
This time round we've got peak population, peak energy (not even going to get started on that, there's strong arguments in both directions)...look at the fundamentals of exponential growth which is what the current capitalist system depends on to exists...
I agree with all of that. We also have peak food and peak clean water, but perhaps that is the same as population.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that long term projects of long life infrastructure (roads, bridges, aircraft carriers...) should be paid for in advance.
Actually, it's not important what backs our currencies. Only who controls their issue. People like to scream about how no fiat system has survived, but I also see no surviving gold standard. A gold standard just moves the cause of the inflation/deflation from a change in money supply to a change in gold supply.
If you really want to get in to capitalism on a fundamental level, you have to understand the relationship between intrinsic value, nominal price, money supply and inflation. It's a common misconception that modern currencies are fiat, they are not. Ever since the floating exchange system came in to being, currencies trade like stocks. Can they still be diluted? Sure. In the same way a company can dilute the value of their shares. A modern economy can print money and still maintain their currencies purchasing power if their exchange rate appreciates at the same time.
The Zimbabwe reference is unwarranted IMO, Zimbabwe hyperinflated because they redistributed a whole bunch of things and the productive base of the country died.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that long term projects of long life infrastructure (roads, bridges, aircraft carriers...) should be paid for in advance.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that long term projects of long life infrastructure (roads, bridges, aircraft carriers...) should be paid for in advance.
What?
I didn't get that, either. But then again I didn't get why you were confused about the difference between an annual budget surplus and the overall national debt.
The fact is that Dumbya came in and gave out huge and stupid tax breaks that reversed the progress that was being made under Clinton. Trickle-down economics returned on steroids and just look at the results.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that long term projects of long life infrastructure (roads, bridges, aircraft carriers...) should be paid for in advance.
What?
I didn't get that, either. But then again I didn't get why you were confused about the difference between an annual budget surplus and the overall national debt.
I wasn't, you just needed to invent a reason to insult somebody.
The money ultimately comes out of the same coffers, a short-term windfall does not mitigate the larger debt.
I'm not dismissing the difference between Clinton and Bush, but saying "we had a 40 billion dollar surplus" is ridiculous.
remember when clinton left office and we were left with somewhere close to a 40 billion dollar surplus?
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that long term projects of long life infrastructure (roads, bridges, aircraft carriers...) should be paid for in advance.
What?
I didn't get that, either. But then again I didn't get why you were confused about the difference between an annual budget surplus and the overall national debt.
I wasn't, you just needed to invent a reason to insult somebody.
The money ultimately comes out of the same coffers, a short-term windfall does not mitigate the larger debt.
I'm not dismissing the difference between Clinton and Bush, but saying "we had a 40 billion dollar surplus" is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous at all. We DID have a surplus in that budget year. If we'd continued the Clinton-era policies and avoided the idiotic Iraq war (which Dumbya left out of his budgets) it's entirely possible that the overall debt would have stayed about the same or decreased gradually.
As a business owner you should be able to recognize that having a good year has value even if you don't decrease the overall debt your business has incurred in terms of long-time obligations. If the biggest debt your business has is an interest-only mortgage, you don't say a year in which you had a nice profit is "meaningless" or "ridiculous" simply because you still have that mortgage. If you're smart you take that profit and position yourself to do something about that long term debt in future years.
If you're a fucking idiot you do what Dumbya did. You toss money to your rich pals and throw some big parties with fireworks in exotic locales and pretend everything is peachy.
As a business owner you should be able to recognize that having a good year has value even if you don't decrease the overall debt your business has incurred in terms of long-time obligations.
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
I would also know better than to think I had a 'surplus'.
When you own a business you can't afford to indulge in word games.
As a business owner you should be able to recognize that having a good year has value even if you don't decrease the overall debt your business has incurred in terms of long-time obligations.
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
I would also know better than to think I had a 'surplus'.
When you own a business you can't afford to indulge in word games.
Actually you would have a surplus, since the long-term debt hadn't increased. My scenario was very specific. That profit is yours to do with as you please. It's not a word game, it's real revenue over expenses in the short term.
To suggest that doesn't matter is just peculiar. Holding the overall debt in stasis would have been a HUGE accomplishment since the GNP increases over time almost every year under normal conditions. If we had a 6 trillion dollar national debt today no one would even be talking about it.
im sure we would have a year after year surplus if it wasnt for those evil republikkkkanz
absolutely nothing goes wrong when a surplus is generated by cheap money fueling bubbles
im sure we would have a year after year surplus if it wasnt for those evil republikkkkanz
absolutely nothing goes wrong when a surplus is generated by cheap money fueling bubbles
I have no idea why the New York Times pays that Krugman guy what they do when a genius like you could be had for the price of a thousand lattes.
As a business owner you should be able to recognize that having a good year has value even if you don't decrease the overall debt your business has incurred in terms of long-time obligations.
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
I would also know better than to think I had a 'surplus'.
When you own a business you can't afford to indulge in word games.
To suggest that doesn't matter is just peculiar.
Horseleech said:
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
To me you can't have a surplus until you have eliminated your debt.
I'm surprised you don't see it that way, as Bush Jr was a perfect example of somebody who didn't understand that.
As a business owner you should be able to recognize that having a good year has value even if you don't decrease the overall debt your business has incurred in terms of long-time obligations.
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
I would also know better than to think I had a 'surplus'.
When you own a business you can't afford to indulge in word games.
To suggest that doesn't matter is just peculiar.
Horseleech said:
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
To me you can't have a surplus until you have eliminated your debt.
I'm surprised you don't see it that way, as Bush Jr was a perfect example of somebody who didn't understand that.
This is simply weird. I don't know how your business is structured or if you own the buildings you operate out of, but what you're saying suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and finance.
As a lender I would look at a business according to their year-to-year profits. I wouldn't say they didn't have a surplus if their annual income didn't exceed their long-term debts. I would say they had a surplus if their annual income exceeded their expenses, including the debt service on that long-term debt.
If we operated on your principles, commerce all over the world would grind to an immediate halt. Very few businesses have an annual income that exceeds their long-term debt.
I don't know how much more clearly I can make this point, but what you're saying could not possibly make less sense unless you got unicorns involved.
Add: Dumbya's problem was actually that he didn't think the debt mattered at all, and that he though adding to the debt would increase revenues automatically. Both thinks are untrue, and they're untrue in a way that when combined makes them especially toxic. When you add in a fetish for deregulation and two unfunded wars you get 2008 and the Great Recession.
Comments
Naw, we are fucked as well.
I still think we are going to see a huge real estate crash here as well. The main worry in my mind is the fact that mortgages are backed in Canada by the government (Not by corps). It will be interesting to see what happens in our countries once interest rates start to rise. They can't be keep low forever...
It's foolish to believe something magical is going to happen to fix everything you see happening across the world. IMO, this is all just the beginning.
what does an 11 year old article comparing TECH STOCKS to the 1600s dutch tulip bubble have to do with Gold backed currency?
here's an article from 4 weeks ago.
http://www.cobdencentre.org/2011/05/gold-is-not-in-a-bubble-paper-money-is-collapsing/
1980 was when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the market in Silver and forced Silver and Gold into a bubble. It burst and they went bankrupt. All gold is doing atm is keeping pace with inflation and money supply.
Nothing directly, of course. I'm just comparing one brand of kookery to another. And the gold standard fetishists are kooks, one and all. You're a member of the libertarian cult, and the site you linked to links to every wackjob "Institute" under the sun.
Once the words "Austrian School" come into play it's time to walk away.
You have every right to belong to a cult and to believe all of its precepts, but it just aint so:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/modified-goldbugism-at-the-wsj/
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/goldbug.html
The U.S. had a National Debt of almost 6 trillion when Clinton left office. Sorry, but you can't have a 40 billion surplus when you have a 6 trillion dollar debt.
No doubt Bush Jr spent like a fiend and just made things worse, but that 'surplus' was going to vanish either way because it never really existed.
That "surplus" was based on the annual budget, not the overall deficit.
The point is that we were moving in the right direction as Clinton presidency ended. Then the morons took over.
And that has made all of the difference.
No one is claiming that the national debt was below zero when Clinton left.
Okay, if you're not a Beck/Paul disciple where are you getting your freakazoid we're-all-doomed fantasies from?
Please tell me you're not just listening to that fuckstick Alex Jones. Or that your hockey sticks (WTF?) are talking to you.
Who has you all scared, buddy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
Alex Jones lol.
There's also some solar flare kill shot coming apparently, so it's all a moot point.
look i don't really care enough about swaying random people's opinions to get into some protracted and pointless argument. I'm merely pointing out some basic truths that are easily found using google and doing some super elementary research. It's not some tin foil hat conspiracy shit, (although it's much easier to just lump everything in the nutjob basket) it's just basic mathematics. The current track that the entire planet is on is unsustainable. Beyond that, who fucking knows what's going to happen. History has a habit of repeating itself and all bubbles eventually burst.
at any rate, it's all good, open discussion is good, sharing opinions is good. change is inevitable etc etc etc.
Have a lovely weekend.
Cool. Mail me all your stuff and I'll send you a dollar. Maybe even two dollars.
Do you wear a tinfoil hat every day or have you come up with a more sophisticated device?
Also, if you're not an Alex Jones devotee, which freakazoid radio guy is your main tit? I'd really like to know.
Yes, a music forum where most of the posts aren't about music.
I agree with all of that. We also have peak food and peak clean water, but perhaps that is the same as population.
Hopefully you are not suggesting that long term projects of long life infrastructure (roads, bridges, aircraft carriers...) should be paid for in advance.
Thank you.
Where did you get that idea?
What?
I didn't get that, either. But then again I didn't get why you were confused about the difference between an annual budget surplus and the overall national debt.
The fact is that Dumbya came in and gave out huge and stupid tax breaks that reversed the progress that was being made under Clinton. Trickle-down economics returned on steroids and just look at the results.
I wasn't, you just needed to invent a reason to insult somebody.
The money ultimately comes out of the same coffers, a short-term windfall does not mitigate the larger debt.
I'm not dismissing the difference between Clinton and Bush, but saying "we had a 40 billion dollar surplus" is ridiculous.
It's not ridiculous at all. We DID have a surplus in that budget year. If we'd continued the Clinton-era policies and avoided the idiotic Iraq war (which Dumbya left out of his budgets) it's entirely possible that the overall debt would have stayed about the same or decreased gradually.
As a business owner you should be able to recognize that having a good year has value even if you don't decrease the overall debt your business has incurred in terms of long-time obligations. If the biggest debt your business has is an interest-only mortgage, you don't say a year in which you had a nice profit is "meaningless" or "ridiculous" simply because you still have that mortgage. If you're smart you take that profit and position yourself to do something about that long term debt in future years.
If you're a fucking idiot you do what Dumbya did. You toss money to your rich pals and throw some big parties with fireworks in exotic locales and pretend everything is peachy.
Yes, I would recognize the value in that.
I would also know better than to think I had a 'surplus'.
When you own a business you can't afford to indulge in word games.
Actually you would have a surplus, since the long-term debt hadn't increased. My scenario was very specific. That profit is yours to do with as you please. It's not a word game, it's real revenue over expenses in the short term.
To suggest that doesn't matter is just peculiar. Holding the overall debt in stasis would have been a HUGE accomplishment since the GNP increases over time almost every year under normal conditions. If we had a 6 trillion dollar national debt today no one would even be talking about it.
Quick as always.
absolutely nothing goes wrong when a surplus is generated by cheap money fueling bubbles
I have no idea why the New York Times pays that Krugman guy what they do when a genius like you could be had for the price of a thousand lattes.
Give or take a cappuccino.
To me you can't have a surplus until you have eliminated your debt.
I'm surprised you don't see it that way, as Bush Jr was a perfect example of somebody who didn't understand that.
This is simply weird. I don't know how your business is structured or if you own the buildings you operate out of, but what you're saying suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and finance.
As a lender I would look at a business according to their year-to-year profits. I wouldn't say they didn't have a surplus if their annual income didn't exceed their long-term debts. I would say they had a surplus if their annual income exceeded their expenses, including the debt service on that long-term debt.
If we operated on your principles, commerce all over the world would grind to an immediate halt. Very few businesses have an annual income that exceeds their long-term debt.
I don't know how much more clearly I can make this point, but what you're saying could not possibly make less sense unless you got unicorns involved.
Add: Dumbya's problem was actually that he didn't think the debt mattered at all, and that he though adding to the debt would increase revenues automatically. Both thinks are untrue, and they're untrue in a way that when combined makes them especially toxic. When you add in a fetish for deregulation and two unfunded wars you get 2008 and the Great Recession.