Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cause of the 2008 crash? Was it Terrorism?
#21
Exercise in inflation:

1970's Nixon allows milk subsidies and mentions on the infamous "White House Tapes" how fundraising from the milk producers' PAC would result in generous fundraising. His rationalization for higher prices was to head off the Democrats who wanted an even higher subsidy. Subsidies enacted, prices rise.

Johnny Carson facetiously refers to a shortage of toilet paper. People rush out to hoard the Charmin, prices rise.

People put savings into Gold. Prices soar. Silver virtually depleted due to use in manufacturing, prices stay at a moderately low level.
Reply
#22
UNCUT TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan

Are these individuals committing treason?
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#23
John L Wrote:I'm really not certain what specific answer you are looking for here. If you believe that confidence in the dollar is related to inflation, it is. But it is a 'result of', not a 'cause'. Simply stated, inflation is the result of too much liquidity pursueing too little Goods and Services. In other words too much money floating around.

But I still don't understand what you really want here.

I understand inflation and just the basic idea that if you increase the money supply you devalue the currency in circulation. But even if the Fed printed out 5 trillion dollars and distributed it evenly around the country, as long as no one spends the money there will be no inflation. No one really seems to be spending or lending which is deflationary. So how is inflation going to come about as long as spending doesn't increase?
I have noticed some rising prices even with spending as is and I don't understand why those prices have gone up if the demand on the product hasn't gone up? I thought inflation is a side effect of an increased money supply because of the increase in spending. What am I not understanding here? Why is there so much fear of inflation in our current situation? I read the article but it didn't really explain why exactly .
Reply
#24
BillPrestonEsq Wrote:
John L Wrote:I'm really not certain what specific answer you are looking for here. If you believe that confidence in the dollar is related to inflation, it is. But it is a 'result of', not a 'cause'. Simply stated, inflation is the result of too much liquidity pursueing too little Goods and Services. In other words too much money floating around.

But I still don't understand what you really want here.

I understand inflation and just the basic idea that if you increase the money supply you devalue the currency in circulation. But even if the Fed printed out 5 trillion dollars and distributed it evenly around the country, as long as no one spends the money there will be no inflation. No one really seems to be spending or lending which is deflationary. So how is inflation going to come about as long as spending doesn't increase?

Ahh, but you are falling victim to "The Unseen". Have you ever heard of Frederic Bastiat? He wrote an essay, in the 19th century entitled that which is seen and not seen. THis should be required reading for everyone studying economics. Unfortunately, Keynesians generally scoff at the "Unseen", especially that little ferret faced fellow at the NY Times. But get this from the opening statement:

Quote:There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Let's consider the unseen in your statement. Money does not appear to be flowing, since there is no apparent lending. But your statement above, concerning "no one spending" is misplaced. The Keynesian religion requires spending, hence the title "Demand- Side" economics. But Classical economists, such as today's Austrians, pin their tail on the 'investment' donkey. Hence the title "Production-Side" economics.

The truth is that all that sequestered liquidity is not sitting up, and going nowhere. It is, in fact being invested in places where it can earn further monies. Only money placed under a mattress will remain static.

And this where Classical Production-Siders differ from the Demand-Siders. Unfortunately, the later has had a field day for the last seventy years or so, and it is all in support of Collectivist ideology(welfare state). The two concepts are highly incestuous, feeding upon each other.

It is like the alcoholic telling his friend that in order to quit drinking, he must drink himself sober. And we are experiencing this totally outrageous concept as the Fed plays hanky-panky with the money supply, and politicians play hanky-panky with the fiscal end of things. That is why we are in such dire straits. You do agree with me that we are between a fiscal rock, and a monetary hard place, correct?

Unfortunately, it is going to take the total discrediting of Both arms of the demon, in order to get rid of each. They feed on each other. It has been happening in Euroland, and also here in the US. Eventually reality is going to catch up with the Keynesian utopianism.

Sorry for the rant.

BillPreston, Wrote:I have noticed some rising prices even with spending as is and I don't understand why those prices have gone up if the demand on the product hasn't gone up? I thought inflation is a side effect of an increased money supply because of the increase in spending. What am I not understanding here? Why is there so much fear of inflation in our current situation? I read the article but it didn't really explain why exactly .

This is a bit difficult to fully understand, so I am going to root around and pull up some lessons on Inflation, but from the Classical POV. Forget the Demand-Side POV. To them it is a 'watch-and-see' proposition. Unfortunately, once the hydra surfaces, it is already too late to head inflation off at the pass.

I'll get back with you on this one. But keep this in mind: there is an tug of war between commodities, and prices. That is why precious metals are great commodities for pegging to money. It offers great stability, and keeps politicians from 'intercoursing' with things. Thusly, if gold goes up, the value of money goes down. It's like playing on a see-saw. It is in balance: as one end goes up, the other end goes down, in order to equalize things.

But remember: Spending is only one aspect of how money is used. Investment is the other end of the equation. And one side may 'demand' all day long. But if there is not investment, i.e. production, first, demand is totally worthless. Think "Investment" first, and "Spending" second.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#25
John L Wrote:Spending is only one aspect of how money is used. Investment is the other end of the equation. And one side may 'demand' all day long. But if there is not investment, i.e. production, first, demand is totally worthless. Think "Investment" first, and "Spending" second.

Thanks

I read most of the article but understood what he was getting at right away because I do see the unseen. I overthink everything.
Keynesian economics I know are obviously illogical and make no sense and at all. It is bizarre actually.

Just to give you a brief idea of what my views are: I am all about a free market and not the "free" market we have now. I have traced almost every problem we have now which is overwhelming(literally everything is wrong in my opinion) to both market intervention and currency manipulation. Both are the effects of government. People seem to think that you can just trust the government to do the work they should be doing as a consumer. They don't understand that the same reason they think we need government is the same reason why we should not have government. Human fallibility.

As an example: The FDA passes persciption drugs that kill around 100,000 people a year due to adverse drug reactions.
http://www.healingdaily.com/Doctors-Are-...the-US.htm

Compare that to the 20,000 deaths from illegal drugs. Hmm.. So the unregulated black market actually kills less than the regulated prescription drug market.

I could find a million different reasons why I believe what I do but I would be preaching to the choir on this forum I think.

Anyways back to the question. Are investments really going to create massive inflation?
What are these investors investing in?
The stock market is still rightfully wary. I guess what I am looking for is current numbers rather than theory(though I appreciate anything anyone does to help futher my understanding). Or a good place to start looking for those numbers. The article just didn't get into specifics.

I am more worried about rising government debt and interest payments.
Actually I am convinced that any talk about improving our situation is pointless other than to learn what not to do after the system collapses.
Even if there is no infaltion, the interest on our debt will exceed tax revenues. So we will have to cut spending(For some reason 'defense' spending is out of the question). When we cut spending and lay off government employees we will be cutting consumer spending. Same with cutting government welfare programs. If we didn't have to pay back the debt this wouldn't be a problem("seen and unseen") but we do or the interest will kill us. So we have to cut spending but we also have to raise taxes. We have to go through a huge deflationary period in order to pay back our debt. How on earth is our consumer economy going to deal with that? Are we kidding ourselves even talking about a way out?

I am wondering whether I should invest in silver or in food, water and ammo.
Reply
#26
BillPrestonEsq Wrote:Anyways back to the question. Are investments really going to create massive inflation?

Actually the opposite would occur, if nothing was done. Here is what i mean. Investments lead to an expansion of the economy. If the economy grows, and the liquidity(i.e. money supply) remain constant, Deflation would result. After all, there would be less dollars pursuing a larger market economy. Adding prudent liquidity to an ever expanding economy, tends to keep value equal.

I'm not sure if you were aware of the Deflationary Monster, which led to the recession of 2000. Uncle Jude(U-Dee) was on this one before anyone else was. S5


Quote:I am wondering whether I should invest in silver or in food, water and ammo.

Commodities, such as gold, silver, platinum, copper, etc, are not perishable, and thus retain value. Right now silver, not gold, is the commodity of choice. Ammo is always worth keeping in stock. Just ensure that the purchased ammo will fit existing means of propulsion. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#27
Combination approach is always the best... buy silver bullets... Wink1
Sanders 2020

Reply
#28
mv Wrote:Combination approach is always the best... buy silver bullets... Wink1
Always appreciate your posts, mv.

I'm just checkin' in to see if I can post. If I can't, probs won't be able to get reinistated.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#29
5 identical posts?


Really?
Reply
#30
Make that 4...3...2...1!


Got 'em.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#31
Here's the cause of the Crash of 2008. And while it was not outward terrorism, it was just as surly ideological terrorism, in the form of Collectivist Ideology. And the usual suspect? Jackasses, that's who.

And note at the end of the video, it states that the Republicans saw this coming, but were afraid of rocking the boat, so they did not attempt to pass legislation reigning in Fanny and Freddy. Does anyone even begin to question my continued claim that the GOP is a totally Gutless party? How about you Bill, can you defend Your party's lack of will?

Fox News Special Report on The Banking Crisis


Note: I rearranged the title a bit, to be more open to the subject.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#32
(03-06-2011, 04:40 PM)John L Wrote:
mv Wrote:No intention to tease anyone this time.

I'd dismiss this article, but Gertz used to be very credible.

Agreed. However, he is staying on the Moonie wagon, so that may negate his credibility. I constantly receive crap from the WaTimes almost every day. No matter how many times I place each one in the "Spam" folder, it keeps coming back under a new IP address.

I have gotten where I hate the WaTimes as a result. And as you know, when you attempt to read that article, you are constantly bombarded with that advertising bar, which will not go away.

Screw them and the Kimchi horse Moon rode in on.

Ghostery will keep this off your screen and your browsing private.
[Image: PancakeBunny.jpg] I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head
Reply
#33
John L Wrote:...Does anyone even begin to question my continued claim that the GOP is a totally Gutless party? How about you Bill, can you defend Your party's lack of will?

Yeah, I should answer - even though you continually say "my" party like I am a GOP sycophant. Just for the record - I am more and more fundamentally anti-Democrat and every time I point out where the problem is coming from, the message is deflected into being pro-GOP. One is not the other.

I do make the distinction that being anti-GOP is being pro-Democrat. Those who express support for any splinter party that only makes Democrats less likely to lose, do so out of frustration and are too lazy to put in the effort to fix the GOP and make it what it could and should be. Every time someone denigrates an elite in the power structure and writes them off without seeing any tactics or strategies that can be used to impose our own goals and issues upon them, they are giving up. It is easy to say, "I learned my lesson so will do something proven not to work." Persons with that attitude are pie-in-the-sky fatalists who don't see the opportunities in front of them that they snub, or deign as "unworthy" of their own elitist standards.

I also have been saying what was on the video from the beginning. Bush 43 and others did try to fix what was wrong, way back in '03 as documented on the video, but couldn't get the support and votes needed to win. Everyone hates "Plan B" but what is the alternative? The very same pols who stopped efforts to fix the problems were able to generate support and votes and get their own bollixed-up input into Law.

How hard is it to see it is not the pols who are the problem? They are insignificant place-holders - it is the support and votes that drive what needs to be done, and the MSM that frames the questions. Every now and then, an honest pol will pop up with the ability to lead. When they do appear - the support system must be there for them to succeed. Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and the others like them, had the support and votes to drive them when the important issues were being decided. The issue was there - but the majority did not have an unsplintered wellspring of their own to beat them back.

The elite pols actually see the splintering - and use that as rationalization for their weaseling. Hugh Hewlitt made the point that these elite pols actually hold on to the untrue belief that the Main Stream Media still own the news and propagandizing of the public. When the MSM puts out an untrue statement - these polls accept them and allow the media to frame the questions and control the issues.

It's us against the MSM.
Reply
#34
Bill, your problem is that you are party oriented in your thinking. You are anti-Jackass, and while that may be fine in the short run, it's short sighted in that you are not anti-Collectivist, or anti-Big Government. And because both can also be found in that other party too, you make it a black and white issue(Democrats Bad, GOP good).

And you still refuse to acknowledge that the GOP is afraid of its own shadow, and lack the will to stand up to their fears? Well, that's pure bullshit. hell, even Rush goes on about it on a continual basis. And so do other talk radio people, including the love or your radio life, Mark Levin.

The GOP party apparatus Sucks! Sorry, but true. As it is currently, it can only cross any finish line by falling flat on its face, across that finish line. Pardon me is I refuse to be sucked in by their back slapping to my face and then slipping in the knife blade in my back.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#35
John L Wrote:,,,You are anti-Jackass, and while that may be fine in the short run, it's short sighted in that you are not anti-Collectivist, or anti-Big Government. And because both can also be found in that other party too, you make it a black and white issue(Democrats Bad, GOP good).

Again, wrong.

You make the continual mistake of taking denigration of the Dems for some unbounded respect for the GOP. That is your mistake!

I am anti-collectivist and anti-big-government. What are you? If your actions cause a collectivist, big-business success at the polls, then your strategizing and morality lectures will cause the very event you say you oppose.

I do not support every GOP candidate - but, yes - I'd rather see someone like Romney get in than another four years of Obama.

Reply
#36
Alright, perhaps I'm just picking on you Bill. I'm so angry with the S&Gs that I am striking out at anyone smooth talking them.

My opinion of them will not change unless the elites are thrown out. Period! Its time the dog(states) start wagging the tail(DC establishment).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#37
I know. You've explained that before - but you fail to accept reality. That is a very Venus thing - and you are a Mars on most things.

The elites need to be supplanted. We all agree on that. The concept we need to be sure about is the strategy to do that. While we plan what to do, we need to use Sun Tzu's ideas about war: "...The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans... the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces (Isolating him from his allies.)"

Sun Tzu made the easy observation that when you outnumber the enemy you attack, but when you are yourself outnumbered, you retreat. Combining assets is what the Democrats have successively done for decades. They use a plurality of dissimilar allies to outnumber a splintered majority.

Sun Tzu also remarked about the five dangerous faults that may affect a general. These five points are all summed up by the concept "to avoid recklessness that leads to destruction." Ssu-ma Fa made the incisive remark: "Simply going to one's death does not bring about victory."

Why is it so hard to admit it is far easier to retrench from within an existing organization, than to battle it and the enemy as well? Fix what's broken and use the observation that the GOP is afraid of its own shadow. Be the light to cast those shadows instead of fleeing from them. I don't care whether you flee from them in disgust or in fear - it's still fleeing. The fortitude to step up and be counted is a good thing - and is far from lending unrequited support for the elites who may be temporarily in control.
Reply
#38
S13S13
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)