# Goodbye Euro



## George Caplan (May 4, 2010)

or is it?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (May 4, 2010)

The Dansih primeminister just annonced, today, that we need to join it ASAP and there is no downside. Hmmmm


----------



## midphase (May 4, 2010)

Ok, for those of us from Europe living in the US...WTF's up with the Euro? Bring us up to speed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 4, 2010)

I'm reiterating this argument for the American audience, whose conservative members point to Greece as an irrelevant example of why our government should stop spending money in the middle of a recession - and as always they're totally wrong.

It wasn't total irresponsibility. Yes there was a bubble, but what caused the debt level to become unsustainable was the worldwide financial collapse. Unfortunately for Greece, it's on the Euro; it would be better off if it weren't (from its point of view) because then the austerity measures wouldn't have to be as severe.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 4, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue May 04 said:


> Unfortunately for Greece, it's on the Euro; it would be better off if it weren't (from its point of view) because then the austerity measures wouldn't have to be as severe.



Nick, I dare to differ in this point. True, devaluation it is a band-aid if a national economy is bad and yes, the Euro blocked that sneaky path. But it has never been more than that, a band-aid, an emergency measure, and a tilted one.

Maybe it is the best luck for Greece that this is not possible in the current situation because now they seem to be introducing better methods. For example they are discussing to raise the pension age from 61 to 63 years. Since my generation will be working until 67 in Germany (if not even longer) I think this is only fair and a good step, as well as other measures.

nikolas, great to have you here, and great you are posting, my friend. Don't panick, a crisis can induce strength and growth. Europe will stand this test, I am sure.


----------



## nikolas (May 4, 2010)

Thanks Hannes.

From the inside I can tell you that Greece is filled with very weird issues, in regards to jobs and 'rights'. It's a good thing that most of these are being faced today and changing. 

The one thing that we are still not able to control is tax evation! There's amazing tax evation! You get doctors in the center of Athens, where they have a rent of above 3,000 euros per month and they claim that they had an anual revenue of less than 10,000 euros! At the same time they own a BMW X5/6 or something equally expensive! And they get away with it!

It would be awful to get out of the euro economy zone and a devaluation never really helps (like Hannes is saying).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 4, 2010)

Hannes and nikolas, it's true that ultimately every monetary game - including devaluing currency - is only a band-aid; you still have to sell stuff you produce, whether it's Greece or the US. And I've read about the tax evasion problems, people retiring in their early 50s, and so on.

But if Greece were able to devalue their currency and they had a treasury that could issue money at low interest rates, they wouldn't have to suffer as much in the meantime. This is all hypothetical, though, because Greece isn't going to leave the euro and it's going to be tough.

Meanwhile we have a problem in the US with conservatives who think our government should be trying to lower our deficit in the middle of a bad recession. Wrong.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 4, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed May 05 said:


> But if Greece were able to devalue their currency and they had a treasury that could issue money at low interest rates, they wouldn't have to suffer as much in the meantime. This is all hypothetical, though, because Greece isn't going to leave the euro and it's going to be tough.



Nick, you seem to be always saying the same in that regard, so I guess you are really committed to it. But devaluation is a _trick_, not more. _We spend more than we earn ... OK, let us print new money_. It is not a solution.



> Meanwhile we have a problem in the US with conservatives who think our government should be trying to lower our deficit in the middle of a bad recession. Wrong.



As much as I symphathise with Obama ... it is a true realisation that the root of the recession is the habit of _spending more than earning._ This un-sustainable behaviour could be called a basic sin and can be found as being causative on all levels of society. And I think Obama is very aware of that.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 4, 2010)

nikolas @ Tue May 04 said:


> The one thing that we are still not able to control is tax evation! There's amazing tax evation! You get doctors in the center of Athens, where they have a rent of above 3,000 euros per month and they claim that they had an anual revenue of less than 10,000 euros! At the same time they own a BMW X5/6 or something equally expensive! And they get away with it!



Nikolas, yea that is weird. We have the same phenomenon here to an amount.

The problem with our interest of interest system is that once somebody earns substantially more than he can use up it will pile up and the money concentrates at singular places which means the rich become more rich and the poor become more poor.

In this regard Nick is right if he says that inflation helps to reduce the "rich become more rich" effect - if it is done in measures. But again here this is only a band-aid, not a real solution of the problem. If we want to solve problems, not emergency measures, we must cure the problem at its root and find ways to get more money from the rich back into the system. Our state president Horst Köhler says since years that international financial transactions must be taxed and banks need more control (he was IMF president before). Unfortunately a state president has only an advisory voice here.


----------



## George Caplan (May 5, 2010)

the word is that Germany may even pull out of the eurozone completely if contagion gets hold. 

Greece is almost certainly going to default on its loans. maybe not but almost certainly. Greece could easily get kicked out of the euro and revert to drachmas if that happens.

contagion spreads and dont think for one minute this doesnt affect the US. it does big style.

currency traders are flocking to the reserve currency. if Germany pulls the plug the next country to follow will be France before you know it. make no mistake if the Uk was in the euro right now it would be in even worse trouble than its in now. as a non dom i can safely say that right now im glad we have a house in the states and i get paid in $$. people here have no real idea of whats to hit them after tomorrow. the way this election goes will affect the eurozone and its looking like its a hung parliament right now. thats bad news economically.

sure you feel for public sector workers in Greece and soon to be in Italy Ireland Portugal Spain and the Uk. but how often over time do you see public sector workers demonstrate in the square everytime a private sector company goes bust?


----------



## nikolas (May 5, 2010)

George Caplan @ Wed May 05 said:


> the word is that Germany may even pull out of the eurozone completely if contagion gets hold.


The word... Like you know what the word is? Were you discussing in a pub or something about Germany?



> Greece is almost certainly going to default on its loans. maybe not but almost certainly. Greece could easily get kicked out of the euro and revert to drachmas if that happens.


"almost certainly"... Thank you for your vote of confidence here...



> contagion spreads and dont think for one minute this doesnt affect the US. it does big style.


Which is all you care about, right? A tiny bit selfish, no?



> currency traders are flocking to the reserve currency. if Germany pulls the plug the next country to follow will be France before you know it. make no mistake if the Uk was in the euro right now it would be in even worse trouble than its in now. as a non dom i can safely say that right now im glad we have a house in the states and i get paid in $$. people here have no real idea of whats to hit them after tomorrow. the way this election goes will affect the eurozone and its looking like its a hung parliament right now. thats bad news economically.


I'm happy for you as well. You do realise that Greece was the last country (exageration) to start the global economic crisis... But yeah, it's all about yourself.



> sure you feel for public sector workers in Greece and soon to be in Italy Ireland Portugal Spain and the Uk. but how often over time do you see public sector workers demonstrate in the square everytime a private sector company goes bust?


Oh well. the public sector workers in Greece (and Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and UK), can go beep themselves, right?

Really in your 90something posts, the majority is about politics, economic crisis (the Icelandic and now Greece). What's up with that?


----------



## Hannes_F (May 5, 2010)

George Caplan @ Wed May 05 said:


> the word is that Germany may even pull out of the eurozone completely if contagion gets hold.



That is not an option at all and you may find it to be expressed as a speculation in pubs but not by any serious german politician. If you were living here and about my age you would know that it has taken decades to get a strong understanding and good friendship especially between Germany and France which is our direct neighbour. Both countries invested really much into a bilateral partnership (we were literally exchanged as school kids in order to learn more about our neighbours, there are lots of cultural programs etc.) and the expansion of this axis was then the priming for the European Union. So this is about more than just a common currency. I see no way that Germany would want to walk alone ever again.


----------



## Udo (May 5, 2010)

Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government circumvented the EU deficit rules - budget deficit may not exceed 3% of GDP and total government debt mustn't exceed 60%.

The true extent of the deficit was 'masked' with a variety of 'tools' for many years.

The Greeks have never managed to stick to the 60% debt limit and they only 'adhered' to the 3% deficit ceiling with the help of Goldman Sachs through blatant balance sheet cosmetics. The EU can impose hefty penalties if that 3% is exceeded. Last year's 'real' figure had exploded to over 12%.


----------



## Rob (May 5, 2010)

germancomponist @ 4th May 2010 said:


> The EU? I would say, as always, more the germans....... . :-(
> 
> ...



just to put things in perspective... 
during 2010 EU will contribute 45 billion euros, in proportion of each country's share in the ECB

Germany 8.4
France 6.3
Italy 5.5
Spain 3.7
Holland 1.8
Belgium 1.1

other countries follow...


----------



## chimuelo (May 5, 2010)

The new administration is really just a new group of folks who also realize they take their orders from the same Wealthy families that own the World Bank, which owns every other bank.
These families have their Heirs and also are permanent members, so they can allow the survival or demise or any Government. They also do not suffer from temporary occupancy of their positions like our politicians.
Whether we want to accept the truth or not this is the way the world economies are operated.
At this moment the the Federal Reserve is the playground for the World Bank. They loan money that is printed at the Fed for no interest......? Why..........? Well because they own the banks they are lending to, and in short, they also own our Government, the EU and the IMF.
This time the new majority in DC can spend without fear of any repercussions because the World Bank allows it. In turn they can drive the smaller private banks out of business because they cannot afford to loan money with no interest.
The world economies are controlled from the top down and has been this way for decades. The same folks who owned the World Bank financed both sides in World War II. Knowing this was a great business, they have continued this and have used the Armed Forces of the USA ever since.
Do you honestly think Americans vote on fighting around the globe.?
The Kennedys' were killed because they were fighting against the Industrial/Military machine that protects the World Banks investments.
No politician would dare try and pull out of this 70 year marriage so instead they use the relationship to change domestic policies all while the Military goes where it is told.
Business is War, and the USA will always be at war.
China is basically a slave now that they have joined the World Bank. Owing them unites the 2 largest economies in the world and guarantess decades of peace.
Seeing the Worlds elite moving to China is an example of their commitment.
So while we may think the Duetsch Bank and Goldman Sachs are seperate entities, they are branches of the World Bank.

I could site dozens of examples but I will demonstrate just one more example.
When Argentina decided to take the little bitty Falklands from Britain they made a huge mistake. They actually insulted the Brits but even worse the Queen Of England.
She is a trustee of the World Bank through her subordinants. Argentinas leaders never thought about the big picture and figured England had no investment there and never expected a flotilla of English warships to steam across the Globe and fight.
That country was punished severely and hasn't been able to secure loans ever since.......!!!!
One only needs to research this powerful woman and see she owns 1/6th of the Planets surface.
Why else would Canada have her face on their money....??
These aren't conspiracy theories, but rather reality. Canada leases the land from her.
There are many more such examples like Nelson Rockefeller, the Rothschilds, etc.etc.
Follow the money...the information can no longer be hidden thanks to the net.

So I wouldn't worry too much about one the World Banks' pawns going under.
They will do as they are told and force the temporary occupants of the Government to raise the retirement age and make concessions.
Afterall, the trustees and board members aren;t going anywhere, but the little politicians that take their orders from them have a limited time to spend whatever funds are available.


----------



## nikolas (May 5, 2010)

Just found out that at least 3 people are dead in the centre of Greece, due to a fire started by the riots.

BBC seems to confirm this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8661385.stm
CNN images: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/ ... greece.cnn

Other than that I'm just sadden by all the bloody idiots in all parties and all oppositions and everywhere. When will this stop?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2010)

Hannes, I'll come back and explain why you're dead wrong about the US...and actually about Greece, even though the situation is very different. I'm not repeating the same thing over, I'm trying to explain it in different way.

John Maynard Keynes. When people and businesses aren't spending, the government spends to keep the economy flowing. Macroeconomics.


----------



## germancomponist (May 5, 2010)

Rob @ Wed May 05 said:


> germancomponist @ 4th May 2010 said:
> 
> 
> > The EU? I would say, as always, more the germans....... . :-(
> ...



This is right, but Germany always pays the most. o/~ 

The problem for me is that we pay more for our german banks. The german banks made risky business with some politicians in Greece. The German banks were greedy, as they always are. And the people must always pay the bill.

Nikolas, I have no problem with the Greek people. o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2010)

I agree with you about the UK being fortunate it's not on the euro right now, George - although the other part of the reason it's not in the same shape as Greece is that its economy is growing. But I'm curious why you'd pick the day after Germany pledges $150 billion to bail out Greece to say that it's planning on leaving the euro.


----------



## George Caplan (May 5, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed May 05 said:


> I agree with you about the UK being fortunate it's not on the euro right now, George - although the other part of the reason it's not in the same shape as Greece is that its economy is growing. But I'm curious why you'd pick the day after Germany pledges $150 billion to bail out Greece to say that it's planning on leaving the euro.



very fortunate Nick and what people need to understand is that money and financial comments are not personal. they are merely objective opinions from subjective thinking. why just this morning Kelvin Mckenzie stated on tv that the guardian was a newspaper written for social workers. heck i can live with that.  


the brits pound can devalue or revalue all by itself. euros have more trouble with that. you think Germany, a large exporter of quality goods would be glad to see the euro bomb against the dollar? well maybe to a certain extent but if contagion sets in they wont want to just give their goods away right?

a German pledge is right. its a pledge and will they go through with it? yes of course they will. but back to the last question. what happens if Greece defaults?

communists running round Athens makes traders nervous. people starting to state on uk radio from Athens they want an end to capitalism makes anyone lending money nervous.

you will recall that the Greece was downgraded to junk status a couple days ago. 

im done for this evening. thanks.


----------



## nikolas (May 5, 2010)

You're so far from Greece right now George (if the Surrey/US in your profile is correct) that the only thing you're doing is reprinting wrong information and *ahem*!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2010)

Hannes, I've actually explained before why the US national budget is not the same as a household budget. It's not that debt and deficit spending aren't problems, because they are; where I disagree with you is when you say that monetary policy is just a way of shuffling money around without making any real difference. You don't have to look any farther than the Great Depression to see why it isn't. Hoover thought the answer was to cut spending, with the result that people were unemployed in soup lines and living in tents; FDR spent like crazy and the economy picked up.

The reason our economy is so bad is NOT because of our national debt or deficit spending, it's mainly because we had a real estate bubble. Banks loaned money to people who only had to make payments long enough for them to sell the loans to someone else and take their cut.

We have a very long way to go before we have any trouble servicing our debt. You're right that the deficits we're running aren't sustainable, but there's a huge difference between deficit spending during normal times (bad) and deficit spending to keep the economy moving.

The basic idea is very simple, and I've posted it many times here: if people aren't spending money (because they don't have it or are afraid of losing their jobs) and businesses aren't spending because they don't have any customers, the economy stops. Tax revenues plummet and the deficit goes up.

But if the government steps in with massive stimulus - and what we had wasn't massive enough - then that money goes into the economy to keep it moving, unemployment goes down, tax revenues go up...and you still have a deficit, but meanwhile the pain isn't as bad. That's called priming the well, and once again, you only have to look at the Great Depression to see that it works.

During normal times it's very different. If on top of everything else you have two wars and cut taxes for the people who can most afford to pay them, the deficit will rise; that's taking money out of the economy, because people and businesses would otherwise be spending. And if your Federal Reserve keeps interest rates too low, fueling a housing bubble during which the rich get much richer and the middle class lives off its real estate money, eventually it becomes apparent that the money is only on paper.

But during a horrible recession it's much better for the government to run up the deficit. When the economy picks up is the time for austerity; doing that while the economy is down just depresses it further and causes it to take much longer to turn around. Fortunately the US is able to do that, but other countries aren't so lucky.

By the way, in Germany you have a big social net that serves as stimulus when people lose their jobs.


----------



## Udo (May 5, 2010)

Rob @ Wed May 05 said:


> just to put things in perspective...
> during 2010 EU will contribute 45 billion euros, in proportion of each country's share in the ECB
> 
> Germany 8.4
> ...




That doesn't tell the whole story; The Netherlands (Holland) contributes more than Germany on a per capita basis (per head of population).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2010)

I'm quite sure I'm not wrong, Udo. Your figures are right and they do have too much debt, but it was the bubble popping and worldwide financial crisis that caused them not to be able to manage the debt.

By the way, something I wrote came out wrong:



> But during a horrible recession it's much better for the government to run up the deficit. When the economy picks up is the time for austerity; doing that while the economy is down just depresses it further and causes it to take much longer to turn around. Fortunately the US is able to do that, but other countries aren't so lucky.



I meant that fortunately the US is able to spend and that other countries aren't so lucky.


----------



## Udo (May 5, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 06 said:


> I'm quite sure I'm not wrong, Udo. Your figures are right and they do have too much debt, but it was the bubble popping and worldwide financial crisis that caused them not to be able to manage the debt.



They were obliged to contain budget deficits to 3% of GDP and total government debt to 60%. They didn't, they went way, way over for many years. That's the main cause of the disaster. If they'd followed the rules, the problems would probably have remained manageable. With the help of Goldman Sachs they fiddled the books to avoid the hefty EU penalties and, in the process, concealed the imminent disaster from the rest of the EU.


----------



## Udo (May 5, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 06 said:


> ........I meant that fortunately the US is able to spend and that other countries aren't so lucky.


Australia never went into recession (knock on wood), like most countries, incl. the US o/~ . 

Could have been luck, rather than good management of course


----------



## nikolas (May 5, 2010)

Unofrtunately what Udo says is true! The 'cooking' of the books is one of the reasons the measures are so harsh right now.

Then again back in 2004, when Simitis (the prime minister then) tried to do something with much more mild measures (because he WAS a true leader in my opinion), he got so much slam from the union fucking leaders (responsible for many bads in Greece) that he had to pull it off.

And... here we are today.

Of course it's never that simple! For example, 6 months ago, when the disaster and level of debt was NOT yet out in the open, Greece could actually get a hefty loan at 3% interest from private parties. But they chose to go out in the open and play the cards this way. Maybe in the long run it could be the best thing to do, but... :-/


----------



## Narval (May 5, 2010)

How much money can make up for three lives? And one of the killed women was pregnant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEF0-IjG ... _embedded#


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2010)

Udo, I'm not disputing what you're saying. My point is this: it wasn't as much the debt that was the problem as that the crash made it unmanageable.

And the US crash has NOTHING to do with government management of its own budget - although the wars, tax cuts for the rich, and excessive defense spending are also an issue. We are not in a recession because the country can't manage its debt; if that were the case we couldn't have had a $500 billion + tax cuts stimulus package that has helped our economy a lot. The reason we're in a recession is that we had a housing bubble that burst. Huge difference.

The reason this is such an important point is what I've said: the conservatives in this country are 100% wrong about every last thing, and this is one of them. They want the government to pull back on spending in order to reduce the deficit right now, and that would be a total disaster.

It's easy to understand why they believe that, of course: if the reason we're in a recession is that people took on too much debt, it seems logical that the government shouldn't either. But the problem with that and everything else they believe is that reality is far too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker. They're wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2010)

Now I see I am repeating myself, because I posted most of that before. But it is an important point: the US national debt is an issue, but it's not the huge emergency it's being sold as.


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 6, 2010)

"the conservatives in this country are 100% wrong about every last thing"

Sorry Nick, what a silly statement. You sound exactly like most writers (and journalists) spreading their "word": ordinary left-propaganda.

What complicates the matter though is when comparing USA politics with Europe's, the latter is still largely stuck in the old socialist left vs. conservative right dogma.
The USA seems to have sailed ahead here, perhaps thanks to the nature of the people by whom it was founded.

Fortunately, with the current choice of free on-line publications and blogs, we are freed of single sided indoctrination.

Regarding Europe and Greece: It's about time drastic measures are taken, not only in Greece. You cannot continue to live on borrowed money and subsidies.

Me (Dutch) and my Swedish wife got married in Greece, we have great memories of wonderful Corfu and it's friendly people


----------



## George Caplan (May 6, 2010)

nikolas @ Wed May 05 said:


> You're so far from Greece right now George (if the Surrey/US in your profile is correct) that the only thing you're doing is reprinting wrong information and *ahem*!



yeah. ok lets see. once again i see youre from Greece and sorry about the troubles you are having in your country. me im from Connecticut originally and now live in surrey for the last 26 years.

lets try again. this morning an old bond trader friend of mò¾=   Ð0ì¾=   Ð0í¾=   Ð0î¾=   Ð0ï¾=   Ð0ð¾=   Ð0ñ¾=   Ð0ò¾=   Ð0ó¾=   Ð0ô¾=   Ð0õ¾=   Ð0ö¾=   Ð0÷¾=   Ð0ø¾=   Ð0ù¾=   Ð0ú¾=   Ð0û¾=   Ð0ü¾=   Ð0ý¾=   Ð0þ¾=   Ð0ÿ¾=   Ð1 ¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1	¾=   Ð1
¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1 ¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1¾=   Ð1 ¾=   Ð1!¾=   Ð1"¾=   Ð1#¾=   Ð1$¾=   Ð1%¾=   Ð1&¾=   Ð1'¾=   Ð1(¾=   Ð1)¾=   Ð1*¾=   Ð1+¾=   Ð1,¾=   Ð1-¾=   Ð1.¾=   Ð1/¾=   Ð10¾=   Ð11¾=   Ð12¾=   Ð13¾=   Ð14


----------



## chimuelo (May 6, 2010)

Record number of fleeing politicians from the " left " and the " right " are as good of an indicator as the NYSE.
They aren't worried about losing an election. Most come form wired districts where nobody is stupid enough to run against their wealthy Corporate donors. 
They are worried about 2011 and that's when the real dip in the economy will come.
By that time extensions for Unemployment will have expired. ( funny how they timed the benefit extensions to last through the November elections 'eh? )
No sir, these guys are privvy to inside information that the stenographers and Parrots of the media are unaware of.
Their stocks always make money and they sell their properties right before the mortgage industry tanks. Hell even the women politicians have their rich husbands buying entire neighborhoods for later resale. Talk about a stacked deck.
They want to be as far away from political office as possible when the dip comes.
So while many believe the Parrots and stenographers, those of us who prefer reading and researching can come to our own conclusions.
When I see rats jumping a ship, I become concerned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2010)

> Sorry Nick, what a silly statement. You sound exactly like most writers (and journalists) spreading their "word": ordinary left-propaganda.



That's an inversion, because propaganda is the stock and trade of the right. My statement is not the least bit silly, it's absolutely true. And I'll back it up as applied to any issue you want.

Furthermore, the US has NOT sailed ahead. Our politics are very different, yes, and I'm fully aware that I'm talking about the euro through American eyes. I said that.

But as far as sailing ahead, our national debate is now between slightly conservative and totally moronic. Eisenhower and especially Nixon would now be to the left of Bernie Sanders in some ways! The Republican party's positions today have become parodies of what were bad ideas to start with. There are no principled conservatives anymore outside ivory towers; nobody really believes in laissez faire economics and small government in the real world.


----------



## George Caplan (May 6, 2010)

chimuelo @ Thu May 06 said:


> When I see rats jumping a ship, I become concerned.



be concerned.

whats interesting to me as an outsider is watching the outcome of the uk general election this evening. 

do you think voters have factored in the EU debacle when they voted today?

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2010)

Surely they have, at least the informed ones! They'd have to be very glad they're not on the euro right about now.


----------



## nikolas (May 6, 2010)

George Caplan @ Thu May 06 said:


> nikolas @ Wed May 05 said:
> 
> 
> > You're so far from Greece right now George (if the Surrey/US in your profile is correct) that the only thing you're doing is reprinting wrong information and *ahem*!
> ...


You got that right I guess! 



> lets try again. this morning an old bond trader friend of mine came on bbc tv and repeated what i told you almost verbatim. you seem to have gotten into a personal frenzy here. this is just speculation. this is what we do. speculate on events. sorry if this is hard to understand. its a mind set.


And this speculation is quite nice to share, with nothing to worry about living in Surrey, and 3 (4 actually) people being dead because of the riots and silly anarchists! Come again?

You think that speculating is "fun" (other wise why do it?). Someone lost a wife, etc... Would you like checking me out speculating in such a way on 10/11 or something? Would that be nice? 



> let me put it another way. Greece is a very nice country to visit and the people are friendly. Greece econically is f***** and will be for at least a generation. the problem has now shifted from Greece to Spain and Portugal. this what is known in the trade as contagion. we need to understand this in order to make financial decisions.


I would sincerely hope that greece won't be fucked for a generation. Then again you seem to know better, right? 

Even more, I don't give a shit if you find Greece a 'very nice country', cause I don't, with everything happening right now. What I care about is going to stability right now. And your posts are really aggrevating me, exactly because you name no sources, you name nothing substantial, just trolling around with speculations. So, exactly because right now you have at least one member of this forum who is VERY sensetive about this whole issue, and maybe, just maybe is having a hard time, I would appreciate if you calmed down on your speculations...



> the credit agencies are now under a lot of pressure to get their rating correct.


and if you had your math correctly and your info right, you would know that if Greece actually does go bankrupt the debt will 'go away' (with this meaning that Greece will simply say it's unable to pay, but there's money to be paid. Go ahead and figure out who owes what to whom...). So go ahead.

In all, you're offering light trolling speculation over a rather sensetive issue. No links, no hard facts, just speculations. If you want to speculate, do it over a pub, or over a beer, or with your family. If you have real hard facts let's talk. Otherwise really, just quit on the subject because all you're doing is making things worst for at least one Greek! 

It's one thing to comment on some events and another on ò¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;	¾P   Ð;
¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð; ¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð;¾P   Ð


----------



## P.T. (May 6, 2010)

Gov't spending during a recession can help but right now we have very serious recession and the gov't is bankrupt.
Their stimulus money is money that they print which isn't all that different from counterfeit. Just make money out of thin air when you need it.

This devalues the existing money and devalues people savings.
People who live responsibly and within their means and who save for the future and for retirement are being screwed over by the gov't printing all this money.
They print so much that they even stopped reporting how much they print.

It's grossly irresponsible. Austerity would be the responsible thing to do, but the people have been spoiled by governments that buy votes by giving out goodies. Well the goody train is broken and we have hit the wall.

You can't live beyond your mean, even as a nation, forever. And it is immoral to pass all this debt to your children, grand-children and who knows how many great grandchildren which is how we have been living.

Nikolas,

Sorry for the hard times.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2010)

P.T., if you're in America you're completely wrong, and I find this kind of post really frustrating because it echoes what ignorant conservative fux throughout the country always say.

No. Wrong. Bad.

It would be "generational theft" for the government to have gone on an austerity program in the middle of a major financial crisis. That would have extended the recession far longer, caused lots more unnecessary pain, and exacerbated the social problems that go along with unemployment (and people entering the workforce not starting their careers).

Stimulus money is NOT printed out of thin air, it's raised by selling bonds. And the federal government is not bankrupt. States are, but that's different.

You and a whole lot of people need to read up on what John Maynard Keynes proved decades ago: that the time to manage deficits is during good times and the time to increase them is during bad times.

I keep repeating myself; I wish there were a way for people to understand this, because it's not complicated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2010)

Sorry to be insulting. I'm just frustrated.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 6, 2010)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/opini ... an.html?hp


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 7, 2010)

Widely different views here...

I actually thought P.T's post was all about common sense, and true to the mark.

Indeed, it's immoral to pass huge debts to your children, grand-children. Still, that's exactly what happens, no matter how much governments and (pseudo) economists are twisting and manipulating things behind a smoke curtain of virtual reality.

By normal business and ethical standards, Europe is already broke. It has handed out extraordinary sums to troubled countries long before the Greek crisis. And don't get me started on for example EU's endless farming subsidies...

Politicians keep on buying votes with goodies that are either never payed for, or stolen from genuine taxpayers money.


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2010)

I hate to admit it but Krugman is correct about California and Greece. 
He may be a biased Parrot but economics is his strength and to ignore those facts is in itself being Biased.
Obamas team finally did something right by pledging aid.
Their usual divisive rhetoric has caused many Democratic states to elect Conservative Governors and Senators. I can't blame the senior Liberal legislators for running for the hills.
I have never seen such a divisive inexperienced team in the White House. I can understand their frustration with the Conservatives, but to belittle its own citizens over and over in public speeches has had devasting results on the State level.
Thankfully we saw the first bi partisan support on a bill in 2 years.
Greece will survive this. The only way it could fail is if the World Bank wants it to.
At the end of the day the World Bank decides the fate of Governments, unless they are isolated like N. Korea.
When it comes to entiltlements, conservative and fiscal responsiblity just doesn't apply. Solvency is all that matters, and the methods to retain that solvency can vary according to the current state of trading and spending.
A balance of free markets and Social programs is never easy.
But with a large entitlement Nanny State, you eventually run out of other peoples money to spend.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2010)

Krugman is not a biased parrot at all! He's very much an original thinker, extremely bright and insightful, and I learn a lot from reading his blog.

I also have nothing but foaming at the mouth disdain for fucking Margaret Thatcher's "other peoples' money" line. It's just disgusting.

Robert, I'm talking about American politics. In this country we have two teams: the D team and the R team. The D team is sometimes right and the R team is always wrong - 100% of the time.

And the R team wants to eliminate all spending that's for the good of our country, constantly cut taxes for the people who can most afford to pay them - all under the cover story of "small government" - while unlimited amounts of money on the military and private militias.

Meanwhile, Keynesian economics is NOT a smoke curtain of virtual reality. Bear in mind that the other side of it is to reduce deficits during boom times!

So for the United States, what P.T. is saying is absolutely wrong. The R team must not be allowed to get their way - precisely for the long-term good of our grandchildren.

Macroeconomics is not as simple as "you have so much money and can't spend more." Deficit spending can be good when it leads to economic growth; there's no reason to balance the budget and stifle the economy when the economy is growing.

That doesn't mean irresponsible spending is good, but I'm arguing from the filter of our D team vs. the R team.

And yes, the R team really is wrong about every single issue!


----------



## Narval (May 7, 2010)

"There are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't." (Robert Benchley)

Those who think in terms of: Us, and them. And those who think in terms of: we're all responsible.

Those who think in terms of: We are right, they are wrong. And those who think in terms of: we're all wrong, hence the problem; so let's work out something together.


----------



## chimuelo (May 7, 2010)

That's the trouble with the intolerant liberals and conservatives.
They refuse to comprimise, and both think their side is right.
Thankfully they are both the minority and this will surely be reflected as the silent working middle class majority hands them their hats in November.
Hopefully they will be replaced by those who have the foresight to choose wise policies from both schools of thought.
Wealth redistribution is a fair way to even the playing field and help the less fortunate, but this is where the Majority Middle Class should have a say so in how these funds should be managed.
We are plagued by greed, fraud and partisan snivelling from the Utopians that are currently not held accountable for their poor decisions that have led us down a path of turmoil.
Let politicians make the laws, and then let the better suited people experienced in business enforce them and choose where the money goes.
I for one detest Acorn and these other fraud ridden organizations that recieve federal funds. They recieve the funds in return for votes and typical thuggery that is Pro Labor. This is hardly fair.
On the other hand a Republican would give these funds to a defense contractor or research R & D for Monsanto to continue experimenting with Genetically Grown food.
That's where real business minded folks who are already wealthy and have experience should step in.
I just cant stomach more unpunished criminals lining their pockets, cheating on their wives and giving our money to their chosen causes.
Enough is enough.
In November I hope the far left and the far right are run out of town, just like we are seeing in every State level election since 2009.
I actually have a great idea.
Have Obama go and give support to any Democrat and have the usual rhetorical cheering rallies, this will guarantee thier loss as we have seen in the last 6 major elections.
Then have Bush show up and rally " republicans " for his chosen candidates.
Then all of these elitists will be removed once and for all and we can start over with a new group of leaders who LISTEN to the people, and comprimise with each other.
Californians would be wise to watch Greece with an open mind.
They have similar entitlements that defy reality.
6 figured pensions, and free health care as a reward for breaking our laws and crossing the border has its consequences.
Eventually they will run out of other peoples money....
Especially since the Sacramento legislators have chased every business into Nevada for over taxing them.
I should really send them a letter of gratitude.
I no longer have to drive to San Diego to buy a surfboard. They are now made in Nevada.......... o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic (May 7, 2010)

chimuelo @ Fri May 07 said:


> That's the trouble with the intolerant liberals and conservatives.
> They refuse to comprimise, and both think their side is right.



Exactly. The best example of this perhaps was Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan. They were totally divergent politically but they would sit down over an Irish whiskey and work things out. Bill Clinton had an effective presidency because when he saw a good Republican idea, he co-opted it.

I do believe Obama would like to work this way but the line has hardened so much on both sides now that is impossible. They not only challenge each others ideas but also impugn their motives and that does not create a climate for effective results.


----------



## JohnG (May 7, 2010)

chimuelo @ 7th May 2010 said:


> In November I hope the far left and the far right are run out of town, just like we are seeing in every State level election since 2009.



That would indeed be wonderful -- but won't happen. 

Only a tiny minority of House seats are in districts that are not "safe." In other words, a significant majority of House districts have been gerrymandered so that the electorate in that district is 70-30 or even 80-20. As a result, those running not only have no incentive to reach across the aisle, they actually have a positive disincentive to do so, because if they do, a more-rabid candidate will promptly vilify and demonise the "moderate" (which is now like a swear word) for caving in to the other side.

So if you want the country back:

1. Undo gerrymandering so that individual districts are drawn geographically, not to create safe seats all over the place; and

2. Hope that a new Supreme Court justice will vote to reverse its macabre ruling that effectively will allow corporations unfettered spending in elections.

Otherwise, get ready to watch big banks, defense, and oil companies continue to pay little or no tax, owing to "incentives" they have bought and paid for.


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 7, 2010)

Nick is pulling out all stops here to promote Keynesian economics. Nothing wrong with expressing opinions IMO, but I beg to disagree.

One example of failed Keynesian economics can be found in the UK right now.
PM Gordon Brown first screwed up the UK economy in his many years as Labour Finance Minister. After seeing private and free market mechanisms gathering steam, all he could think of was hitting the brakes by increasing interest rates to insane levels. Instead of taking care of state finances and public sector performance, he was obsessed with fear of the state loosing control.

Now, after even more years with Keynesian economics in the UK, its debts got totally out of hand, and are in the ballpark of Greece's. The latest election results with the conservatives clearly in the lead show that a large majority has woken up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/

Nick please tell me, what would you have voted for if living in the UK?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2010)

> Exactly. The best example of this perhaps was Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan.



Exactly wrong. We're not talking about even Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil anymore, we're talking about an American right that went off the deep end.

It's not that I'm intolerant or won't listen to conservatives - I do...and I they're always wrong. Seriously, I defy you to list a single issue that they're not 100% wrong about. A single issue!

The American right is not. Just because they have lots of support doesn't mean that their ridiculous points of view shouldn't be battled.

***

Robert, you can beg but you may not disagree.  The devil is always in the details, in other words you can easily believe in Keynesian economics and screw up an economy. That is not an argument against Keynesian economics, it's an argument against bad decisions.

My argument is with the American right a) wanting to cut government spending at exactly the wrong time, and b) not really believing what they say in the first place when it comes down to it.

I'm actually not an ideologue. It's not that I think Keynes is a god, all government spending is good, every social program is right, and so on. I just want this country to remain divided to fight the American right. However well intentioned many of them may be, their point of view flat out sucks. There is NOTHING good about being centrist under these conditions. Compromise is for politicians; I don't have to lie to get votes from conservative dicks.

Who would I vote for in the UK? Probably the social democrat, but I don't know.

And I'm not in the UK, but my guess is that your analysis about people understanding anything and therefore voting for conservatives is far too generous. If it's like the US, people vote for whoever is not an incumbent when times are bad.

Given that people are the same everywhere, I'm going to place my money on that.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 7, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 07 said:


> > Exactly. The best example of this perhaps was Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A vote for a politician who thinks the way you do is a vote for stagnation. 

There are several examples of where the right was right, welfare reform for example. That has overall certainly been a success.

They were right about taking a hard line against the Soviet Union, which is why there no longer is one.

They are right about Afghanistan and I am glad that Obama is on board this.

IMHO they are wrong about a helluva lot more than they are right about but to blanketly categorize their views as "ridiculous" is, well, ridiculous.

Simple equations:Michael Moore=Ann Coulter. Dennis Kucinich=Wally Herger.


----------



## Ed (May 7, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 07 said:


> Who would I vote for in the UK? Probably the social democrat, but I don't know.



The liberal democrats?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2010)

Today - not 15 years ago - they are "blanketly" ridiculous and that is an objective fact, not ridiculous in the least.

I didn't vote for Nader, in fact I despise him...well, not because it would have been a vote for stagnation (which is what a vote for any Republican candidate is) but because it would have been a vote for Bush.

Welfare reform was a Clinton policy from 15 years ago, and I'm not sure it was a success. It certainly didn't get conservatives to STFU about how much they don't like paying taxes because in their minds - and loud mouths - 99% of the money goes to support lazy people unlike them.

I'm not convinced about Afghanistan. What are we doing there? And I'm certainly not in favor of the right wing notion that all defense spending is great.

The final collapse of the Soviet Union was because of a Carter administration policy that was continued under Reagan (Brezhinski's idea to support the Muhadeen and induce them to invade Afghanistan). Every president and every politician fought the Cold War, but the Republican hard line extreme excesses were terribly wrong! All that nasty business in South America, supporting murderous dictators, was just awful. Vietnam was the most unfortunate episode in American history.

How can you perpetuate that crap?! Both sides took a hard line, but the right was always in support of the terrible excesses that did not win the war.

And equating Michael Moore with Ann Coulter says nothing about him and everything about your prejudice against him. She's simply an ass who says anything that pops in her head just for attention. Unfortunately Moore does always get some facts wrong, he can be a jerk, but he's a talented film maker who captures the human side of the points he's making. That's the difference - he makes totally valid and serious points despite his excesses. It's too bad he has to go just a little bit over the top, because it allows right wing fux to discredit everything he says.

And to try and categorize Dennis Kucinich as the left's equivalent of a total asshole is beneath... even a centrist. Kucinich is an idealist, but I've never heard him say anything knee-jerk. It's only because the country is so extreme that anyone thinks he's way out there. In Europe they'd think he's a centrist.

Sorry, your examples are all bogus. But even if they weren't, I'm saying the American right is all wrong *today,* not that it always was. In the past the mainstream of the party wasn't anywhere near as radical as they've became over the past decade. Today they have not one serious solution to a single problem!

Even conservatives who you can tell know better than to act so idiotic - Lindsay Graham for example - won't do anything. (Refusing to introduce an extremely moderate energy bill because he doesn't want the Democrats to use judo on the Arizona-brains on the right?!)

You need to listen more closely to what the Republican party is saying today. I haven't heard them say anything that makes sense for years!


----------



## George Caplan (May 7, 2010)

Robert Kooijman @ Fri May 07 said:


> PM Gordon Brown first screwed up the UK economy in his many years as Labour Finance Minister. After seeing private and free market mechanisms gathering steam, all he could think of was hitting the brakes by increasing interest rates to insane levels. I



i dont understand that. are you sure thats what he did?


----------



## George Caplan (May 7, 2010)

Ed @ Fri May 07 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Who would I vote for in the UK? Probably the social democrat, but I don't know.
> ...




thats like voting for failure at all levels. this was not the election to go for a hung parliament. any other time maybe. but not this one. big trouble for the uk now unless they get their act together next week or even sooner. just look at the markets and the pound today. but i wont say i told you so. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 7, 2010)

"My argument is with the American right a) wanting to cut government spending at exactly the wrong time, and b) not really believing what they say in the first place when it comes down to it. "

Fair enough, let's just agree to disagree 

Funny this thread is shifting from Euro and Greece issues to USA politics, and reminds me of the endless left-wing anti-Bush propaganda from Nick Phoenix in the Northern Sounds forum. One might be forgiven to think not much new is happening here.
Perhaps one reason for the stagnation and lack of depth in today's music? After all, yesterday's progressives are today's conservative's when playing the same tape (message) over and over again...


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 7, 2010)

George Caplan @ Fri May 07 said:


> Robert Kooijman @ Fri May 07 said:
> 
> 
> > PM Gordon Brown first screwed up the UK economy in his many years as Labour Finance Minister. After seeing private and free market mechanisms gathering steam, all he could think of was hitting the brakes by increasing interest rates to insane levels. I
> ...



Hi George!
You know, during the nineties I spent many, many hours listening to BBC's superb "The World Today" program while driving to my job. Best reception came from their 198kHz long-wave transmitter in Droitwich. Traffic jams turn your car radio into your best friend 
Having a radio background myself, it was a joy listening to this wonderful program. Good in depth journalism and very professional presentation. Anyway, I witnessed quite a few interviews with various political figures. Amongst them of course mr. Brown!
Not to dwell in the details, but several things remain very clear in memory. One of them his almost religious determination in "controlling the market" and single sided focus on increasing and increasing interest rates to curb "an overheating market". He might have been right in some areas, but I was truly astonished that a man with those IMO dangerous point of views made it into a finance minister.

From interviews I've done for Dutch local radio with political figures an example:

Prior to a general election, we invited some leaders of various parties in the studio and asked the simple question: why should one vote for your party?
All the parties replied and took the time to explain their point of view.
With the exception of the social democrats. Their only answer: just because your father and grandfather did!


----------



## Dan Selby (May 7, 2010)

Robert Kooijman @ Fri May 07 said:


> George Caplan @ Fri May 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Robert Kooijman @ Fri May 07 said:
> ...



This makes no sense at all, Robert. When Labour were first elected in '97, one of Brown's first acts as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give independence to the Bank of England to set interest rates. The Bank of England has set UK interest rates since then... and by UK historical standards, rates have been been both low and stable since then.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2010)

> reminds me of the endless left-wing anti-Bush propaganda from Nick Phoenix in the Northern Sounds forum



It wasn't propaganda, it was and still is reality. The same fools who supported Bush are still here, and our country is divided for that reason. Anyone with his or her eyes open is still militantly against the American right.

And I'm sorry, I don't accept your olive branch with one hand and your insult with the other. I don't agree to disagree; you're wrong and I'm right.

So there.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2010)

And this is what I'm talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/08/us/po ... te.html?hp


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 7, 2010)

"It wasn't propaganda, it was and still is reality"

So was his suggestion that 9-11 was a hoax?

"I don't agree to disagree; you're wrong and I'm right"

So says Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an humble attempt to bring some nuances into the discussion:
USA's conservatives are probably more "conservative" then their European counterparts. At the same time, US democrats stand in many areas closer to Europe's liberals and conservatives. As a whole, the US is seen far more oriented to the right then most countries in Europe. Still, Europeans tend to favor democratic candidates. Part of this is the ongoing brainwash by left-leaning journalists lacking higher education, and the misconception that Europe's traditional socialism shares lots of common ground with US democratic policies.

If living in the US, I would have perhaps voted democrat at some occasions.
Certainly not for hypocrites like Bil Clinton or Al Gore. Carter and Obama: yes.

But living in Sweden, we sadly had to deal with die-hard socialists and communists. They were thrown out during the last election, I hold my breath for what will happen in this year. We currently have a pretty good team in place that understands the dangers of letting public deficits getting out of hand while attempting to reduce taxes.

I truly feel sorry for the Germans that are perhaps forced to have their spending income and pensions reduced just for the sake of "saving the EU".

OK, time to stop all this rambling. Peace!


----------



## Ashermusic (May 7, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 07 said:


> _Today - not 15 years ago - they are "blanketly" ridiculous and that is an objective fact, not ridiculous in the least.
> _
> Dictionary says "Objective: of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.' In no way does that fit you.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Kooijman (May 7, 2010)

" This makes no sense at all, Robert. When Labour were first elected in '97, one of Brown's first acts as Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give independence to the Bank of England to set interest rates. The Bank of England has set UK interest rates since then... and by UK historical standards, rates have been been both low and stable since then."

True, and indeed some good moves here.

However, Brown was Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1987 to 1989 and then Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, before becoming Shadow Chancellor in 1992. At that time, he was very vocal about raising interest rates and defending more traditional labour politics.

Without wanting to stir up the old earth-shattering Thatcher-Kinnock union disputes, it was the latter who actually recommended Brown as a rising talent. Having an "I'm always right" Kinnock as a reference isn't something everyone would be proud of.

Also, Brown mellowed down after Tony Blair entered the stage. I personally have high regards for Blair. He had a unique blend of qualities: genuine care of the poor and less privileged, while at the same time understanding the importance of a functioning free market, a healthy business climate and good UK-US relationships.

Well, it's getting very late here, time to get some sleep


----------



## P.T. (May 7, 2010)

"Welfare reform was a Clinton policy from 15 years ago, and I'm not sure it was a success. It certainly didn't get conservatives to STFU about how much they don't like paying taxes because in their minds - and loud mouths - 99% of the money goes to support lazy people unlike them. "

This was part of the Republican 'Contract with America' that Clinton signed and then took credit for because it was popular.

"Every president and every politician fought the Cold War, but the Republican hard line extreme excesses were terribly wrong! All that nasty business in South America, supporting murderous dictators, was just awful. Vietnam was the most unfortunate episode in American history."

Vietnam was Johnson's war.

I'm still waiting for the democrats to repeal the Patriot Act or even the worst parts of it.
I'm still waiting for the dems to make the tax system fair and remove working people who are below the poverty level from the tax rolls.
I'm still waiting for the dems to make social security fair. Currently people all pay the same percentage of their incomes in soc sec tax ( it is currently not a progressive tax) and the wealthy don't have to pay on their entire incomes.
Yet the low income people (who need the benefits the most) receive the lowest benefits and the wealthy (who don't even need soc sec) receive the highest benefits.

After they address these things I may consider that there is some truth to their claims that they care about the common working people.

Until then I won't be voting for them or the repubs who I also hold in disdain.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 7, 2010)

Note that I'm not saying all Democrats are great, just that they're right *some* of the time. You make lots of good points, and actually you're right about Vietnam.

***

Jay, you're wrong about everything yet again. I don't want to tit for tat all of that, but what you're saying about Kucinich is insane. He's not unrealistic or irrational, he's idealistic. We need that. He absolutely doesn't fit on the opposite side of a scale from some right-wing asshole whose values are total shit.



> He [Michael Moore] is a lying sack of shit and your willingness to minimize the misdeeds of those you agree with while pillorying those you disagree with proves your lack of objectivity



It's not because I agree with him, it's because he's right. I haven't minimized anything - I've put his exaggerations in appropriate context.

Your error is in trying to rationalize that because two people are both showmen with polarized points of view, they're automatically both equally valid (or invalid)...and therefore if I excuse errors in one and not the other then I'm biased.

Well, that's faulty logic. Ann Coulter has absolutely nothing worthwhile to say whether or not I'm stupid enough to agree with her; Michael Moore would have a whole lot to say even if I didn't excuse his faults. Or whether or not you think he's a lying piece of shit.

Yes he does get some relatively minor things wrong. You think he's as big a jerk as she is. Fine; maybe he is. But that doesn't mean the two are equal, just that they have overlapping jerk circles.

But I will admit that I'm willing to cut MM some slack because of his big heart. As I said, he captures the human side of what he's talking about in a very moving way. That's why people go to see his films.

***

Robert, yes - the stuff about 9/11 being a hoax is ludicrous. But it never occurred to me that it's either left- or right-wing propaganda, just people believing ridiculous stuff because it's fun to believe it. Am I wrong?


----------



## midphase (May 7, 2010)

P.T. @ Fri May 07 said:


> I'm still waiting for the democrats to repeal the Patriot Act or even the worst parts of it.
> I'm still waiting for the dems to make the tax system fair and remove working people who are below the poverty level from the tax rolls.
> I'm still waiting for the dems to make social security fair. Currently people all pay the same percentage of their incomes in soc sec tax ( it is currently not a progressive tax) and the wealthy don't have to pay on their entire incomes.
> Yet the low income people (who need the benefits the most) receive the lowest benefits and the wealthy (who don't even need soc sec) receive the highest benefits.
> ...




I think the power of the Republican party is that to convince the opposition that if they go with their guts, doom will surely follow. And the fault of Democrats is that they believe it! This is why the health care reform took so long and ended up being so watered down, and why the financial reform is taking so long and will probably be equally watered down.

Don't fool yourself for a second that things are the way they are because of Democrats, the Republicans are still calling the shots even though they're in the minority. This is mostly because they're a united minority vs. Democrats who hold a majority but who are also by definition more open minded and with varying opinions.

There are obviously changes afoot, and I believe that more than ever before in history, we will see a great deal of independents getting elected to office.


----------



## chimuelo (May 8, 2010)

Well personally I don't care which party they say they belong to.
A plane ride on Air Force One or a few million bucks can easily show someones true colors and because of that dose of reality, that most Americans were unaware of, we should see all new faces.
Hopefully they will be professional, and at least listen to the people instead of the special interest groups that pay them for legislation.
Obamas team and Harry Reid are so out of touch they cannot see that the millions of people that need jobs are standing in the street while they discuss energy and health care. The recent cry for help in Arizona is a sign that not even a State is being paid attention to.
Sadly this means that Obamas last 2 years will accomplish nothing, and this type of baloney that both political parties use like whiny little bitches is exactly why millions of Americans who have never voted before will send these wealthy gentlemen to Wall Street or back to their mansions for re evaluation.


----------



## JohnG (May 8, 2010)

Hi C,

But who do you think we're going to get instead? Just different millionaires, it appears, if you're talking about the so-called grass roots people who mouth populist slogans and are themselves generally millionaires too.

I don't actually have a problem with millionaires running things. They run companies pretty well, overall. It's the corporate money in politics that is ruining an otherwise fine idea.

Most of the time it's like the Winston Churchill saw about democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the other ones -- I hate my candidate less than all the other useless creeps who were running, so I voted for him.


----------



## chimuelo (May 11, 2010)

John G. you are correct about the money, but have assumed I am a fan of the Tea Party, which I see as just another desperate attempt for the Conservatives to have a new " face."
I want to see politicians negotiate and comprimise new legislation, and then have a private financial firm allocate the funds.
Right now we have zero accountability and this has led us to the excessive greed and corruption we now see.
This isn't a left or right issue, most Americans believe in social programs and capitalism existing side by side. We have had this for some time now.
But having the same politicans who passed these laws have the purse strings is dangerous and only leads to corruption.
Especially when you see they are part time leaders. This means they can take unncecessary risks because there is zero accountability.
With a private firm, their motivation is the available capital which they can earn interest from.
By being a private firm they are subjected to laws.
Our politicians break the laws consistently in their quest to control the purse strings.
This is just pure greed and has nothing to do with politics.
The new supreme court ruling was passed by both parties as it just didn't pop up in front of the justices. It went through various committees all controlled by the current super majority. So to see these wealthy politicians act as if they disagree and despise this, it made the news for a total of one day.........!!! Without Senator Kerry or Senator Schumers' help this bill could have stayed buried in a committee for years, and passed along to the next batch of greedy scoundrels.
So I see money as the corrupting factor here, and this is where the left/right dog and pony show is truly united.
Until we have accountability and have a seperate private firm motivated by common sense business practices, we will have this continued corrupt process.
I have no answers only suggestions, but I am not blinded by the distractions both parties present while the real issues of greed and corruption continue.
Since we can't imprison these elitists, we must take away their power to allocate the money they lust for.
Also having a private firm means accountability and far less fraud and waste.
The current inefficient process we have isn't accidental, it was created for a purpose. Our leaders can pretend certain processes were an unseen accident, etc. But I know they are very smart and know EXACTLY what they are doing.
Such inefficienices breed corruption and I would rather see a poor single mother who has an exceptionally bright child get free private schooling from tax payers money than the current innefficient child care centers we call schools.
We are the richest nation in history and to not have education for the brightest children becasue of the political posturing in DC is criminal and these bastards should be ashamed as they bask in the sun at their latest acquirred beachfront properties.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2010)

Jimmy while I do not by and large disagree with you you are painting with a broad brush. Not ALL politicians are greedy, dishonest and rapacious.

And in my experience, private firms are no more likely to be competent, no less greedy and rapacious, and many will do everything that they can get way with, including violating the law if they think they will not get caught.

I am afraid that this is a basic component of human nature.


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2010)

I have seen many, many instances of corporations behaving competently and honourably. It is partly out of self-interest, to be sure, but a bad reputation in business can actually wreck your company and your career, from little to big.

Besides, many organisations actually seek and reward honesty, forthrightness, "doing the right thing when nobody's looking," and other Boy Scout-ish virtues. Given a firm with 100,000 employees, some people may behave badly, but in the main, the time horizon for most companies is a lot further down the road than that of politicians.

If your business experience lies solely in entertainment or, say, health insurance, that's another matter. Not a hotbed of long-term thinking.

And of course, there are some exceptions.

Fear and greed are the most reliable predictors, over the long term, of behaviour in the workplace and the marketplace, I believe. Both can provide energy and positive outcomes, if properly harnessed.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2010)

JohnG @ Tue May 11 said:


> I have seen many, many instances of corporations behaving competently and honourably. It is partly out of self-interest, to be sure, but a bad reputation in business can actually wreck your company and your career, from little to big.
> 
> Besides, many organisations actually seek and reward honesty, forthrightness, "doing the right thing when nobody's looking," and other Boy Scout-ish virtues. Given a firm with 100,000 employees, some people may behave badly, but in the main, the time horizon for most companies is a lot further down the road than that of politicians.
> 
> ...



That is my point. Human nature is human nature and therefore any given body of government or the individuals working in it or any given company/corporation or the individuals working in it is neither inherently more/less likely to do the right thing.

Government is no more corrupt than companies or individuals because they are human beings.


----------



## chimuelo (May 11, 2010)

Humans....yes.
Thats why businesses must watch politics, and politics must watch the businesses.
Similar to the Police Force having an Internal Affairs Bureau.

I should have emphasized that the ones who yeild the most power are the most corrupt. But it does render the honesty of a few ineffective.
To gain access to vital connections requires money, which is where the purse strings are. If you don't play along you are in a sense locked out.
Corporations are never demonized. Politicians prefer to pick on Wall Street firms who don't contribute to their campaigns.
Monsanto is probably the most evil entity ever allowed access to Congressional members.
The FDA allows Genetically Grown Food to be pushed upon us w/ little care of long term effects.
Hell we sent 30 tons of food to Africa and it was rejected, and they were starving...So even the supposed " uneducated 3rd world " is well aware of the debacle we involve ourselves in.
Greed is mans purest emotion, I find myself being greedy all of time. I collect and spend money on hardware when I should be stacking more away for my sons college funds. But since he has great athletic ability and honor roll grades, I tend to skimp a little, becasue I bribed him and said if you get a scholarship, the college funds go towards a car of his choice......So I concede I am far from perfect. 
But the reason we see Wall Street taking money and misrepresenting its investors on occassion is because Goldman Sachs is a major contributor to both parties. It employs many retired politicians as " consultants " and even has Obamas Chief Counsel from his first year employed by the CEO. So obviously they do not fear any repercussions from DC.
Washingtons politics have corrupted everything it comes in contact with.
Get rid of the purse strings and have someone like Carl Icahn or Lee Iacocca who is widely respected by all American investors take the reigns and half of the waste and fraud will disappear, then imagine the interest made from having a CEO who takes pride in accomplishing something instead of a politician who has no fear of failing. Especially since they are only there on a temporary basis.
I know I am dreaming, but this country has succeeded on such ventures.
Social programs are a way a great society betters itself, and to see them funded by successful business practices instead of some jive ass Cap & Trade tax, or forced Health Care payments after 4 years of taxation is much more appealing.
These DC lawyers are not stupid. So for me to make a claim that they pass stupid laws, etc. is the sign of a successful distraction. These lawyer/leaders know exactly what they are doing, and their continued gaming of the sytem and its citizens must stop.
I voted for Obama becasue of such similar statements he made, I was gleeful. I now realize he is on the same team, only with a different social agenda, but the fact remains he wants massive revenues to flow into Washinton DC so he and his fellow lawyers can gain more power.
I like the way the money flows to DC and will gladly contribute...................but I want business men in charge, not these finger wagging Professors and lawyers who know they now have a license to steal....
As I said the newest Supreme Court Ruling is a sad day for all of us.
This Novemeber the same John Kerrys that go yachting with Wall Street CEO's will be handed millions for their " campaigns " and we have no way to see who's paying their bills.
Thanks Obama...............Change we can count on.
Yeah, Change is all I will have left in my pockets when these guys are through.


----------



## Ashermusic (May 11, 2010)

I can only say that you have more faith in "businessmen" than my 60 years on the planet has lead me to.


----------



## chimuelo (May 11, 2010)

Well its a choice between the failed Republicans, the failed Democrats, and then some successful Businessmen......
Which One You Like..?

BTW while we may disagree on things, we are civil and respect each others opinions.
This is something the elitists in DC need to remember.

Enough of this.
Politics makes me angry and since I have no pressing taxes until December, I shall go play with my new EQ's and MOdular Synth.

CiaoMein My Brotha's.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 24, 2010)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ku ... 86611.html

Another way of putting what I've been saying (excerpt):

"The budget deficit here and overseas does need to return to a more moderate level -- after we get an economic recovery. But the problem with the austerity treatment during a recession is that if everyone tightens their belts at once, there is nobody to buy the products; the economy shrinks and repayment of debt is even more arduous. As John Maynard Keynes famously wrote, "The patient does not need rest. He needs exercise."

You don't have to be a Keynesian to recognize that the economics of belt-tightening is a fool's errand in a recession.

With the exception of a few smaller nations, the large deficits in the OECD countries are not the result of fiscal profligacy, but of revenue losses caused by the downturn. And in the case of Greece, supposedly the poster child for profligacy, the new Socialist Papandreou government is having to clean up after the fiscal finagling of its conservative predecessor. Greece certainly needs tax reform to make sure that so many of its very wealthy do not hide their assets. It does not need general austerity.

The US has been spared this phase of the crisis so far, because the Federal Reserve has been willing to be buyer of last resort of all manner of securities, including government debt. This remedy is far from ideal, and it needs to be wound down as soon as recovery comes, as well as combined with structural reforms. But the Fed rescue certainly beats a total collapse."


----------



## Animus (Jun 24, 2010)

George Caplan @ Thu May 06 said:


> chimuelo @ Thu May 06 said:
> 
> 
> > When I see rats jumping a ship, I become concerned.
> ...



Just look at the state your state is in right now to see the end game of liberal ideology. The problem with most Republicans is that they are not real conservatives at all. Both parties are just a two headed hydra. Obama hasn't been two far removed from Bush. The problem with our government is corporatism on both the left and the right. Goldman Sachs basically owns this country and Obama.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 24, 2010)

End game of liberal ideology? Liberal "ideology" is actually just the lack of conservative ideology, but I'd say if anything it's conservative ideology that is leading the world economy to an endgame - or a very, very long recession because of this lunatic austerity going on in the UK and the Eurozone.

What state are you talking about, by the way?


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 24, 2010)

Deficit spending has been proven to work. FDR proved that, but as usual once the economy was on its feet numerous repeals corrected it.
Also the banking industry in late 2008 was saved by TARP.
Keynesian theory is the only way out of the mess we are in. 

Orin Hatch recently said to drug test the unemployed.......%^??? WTF does he think working Americans are doing ??? The money they get is keeping them in the game, he forgets that these " drug addicts " had to have a job for years to be eligable, so he's a perfect example of these elitists who care so much for their citizens.
The sad story is becasue there is less money flowing around Las Vegas now, the Food Stamp Centers are overwhelmed, the ER's are working the nurses and doctors 12-16 hours a day as thousaòäŸ   ÙÉ/äŸ   ÙÉ0äŸ   ÙÉ1äŸ   ÙÉ2äŸ   ÙÉ3äŸ   ÙÉ4äŸ   ÙÉ5äŸ   ÙÉ6äŸ   ÙÉ7äŸ   ÙÉ8äŸ   ÙÉ9äŸ   ÙÉ:äŸ   ÙÉ;äŸ   ÙÉ<äŸ   ÙÉ=äŸ   ÙÉ>äŸ   ÙÉ?äŸ   ÙÉ@äŸ   ÙÉAäŸ   ÙÉBäŸ   ÙÉCäŸ   ÙÉDäŸ   ÙÉEäŸ   ÙÉFäŸ   ÙÉGäŸ   ÙÉHäŸ   ÙÉIäŸ   ÙÉJäŸ   ÙÉKäŸ   ÙÉLäŸ   ÙÉMäŸ   ÙÉNäŸ   ÙÉOäŸ   ÙÉPäŸ   ÙÉQäŸ   ÙÉRäŸ   ÙÉSäŸ   ÙÉTäŸ   ÙÉUäŸ   ÙÉVäŸ   ÙÉWäŸ   ÙÉXäŸ   ÙÉYäŸ   ÙÉZäŸ   ÙÉ[äŸ   ÙÉ\äŸ   ÙÉ]äŸ   ÙÉ^äŸ   ÙÉ_äŸ   ÙÉ`äŸ   ÙÉaäŸ   ÙÉbäŸ   ÙÉcäŸ   ÙÉdäŸ   ÙÉeäŸ   ÙÉfäŸ   ÙÉgäŸ   ÙÉhäŸ   ÙÉiäŸ   ÙÉjäŸ   ÙÉkäŸ   ÙÉläŸ   ÙÉmäŸ   ÙÉnäŸ   ÙÉoäŸ   ÙÉpäŸ   ÙÉqäŸ   ÙÉräŸ   ÙÉsäŸ   ÙÉtäŸ   ÙÉuäŸ   ÙÉväŸ   ÙÉwäŸ   ÙÉxäŸ   ÙÉyäŸ   ÙÉzäŸ   ÙÉ{äŸ   ÙÉ|äŸ   ÙÉ}äŸ   ÙÉ~äŸ   ÙÉäŸ   ÙÉ€äŸ   ÙÉäŸ   ÙÉ‚äŸ   ÙÉƒäŸ   ÙÉ„äŸ   ÙÉ…äŸ   ÙÉ†äŸ   ÙÉ‡äŸ   ÙÉˆäŸ   ÙÉ‰äŸ   ÙÉŠäŸ   ÙÉ‹äŸ   ÙÉŒäŸ   ÙÉä¡   ÙÉŽä¡   ÙÉä¡   ÙÉä¡   ÙÉ‘ä¡   ÙÉ’ä¡   ÙÉ“ä¡   ÙÉ”ä¡   ÙÉ•ä¡   ÙÉ–ä¡   ÙÉ—ä¡   ÙÉ˜ä¡   ÙÉ™ä¡   ÙÉšä¡   ÙÉ›ä¡   ÙÉœä¡   ÙÉä¡   ÙÉž              òä¡   ÙÉ ä¡   ÙÉ¡ä¡   ÙÉ¢ä¡   ÙÉ£ä¡   ÙÉ¤ä¡   ÙÉ¥ä¡   ÙÉ¦ä¡   ÙÉ§ä¡   ÙÉ¨ä¡   ÙÉ©ä¡   ÙÉªä¡   ÙÉ«ä¡   ÙÉ¬ä¡   ÙÉ­ä¡   ÙÉ®ä¡   ÙÉ¯ä¡   ÙÉ°ä¡   ÙÉ±ä¡   ÙÉ²ä¡   ÙÉ³ä¡   ÙÉ´ä¡   ÙÉµä¡   ÙÉ¶ä¡   ÙÉ·ä¡   ÙÉ¸ä¡   ÙÉ¹ä¡   ÙÉºä¡   ÙÉ»ä¡   ÙÉ¼ä¡   ÙÉ½ä¡   ÙÉ¾ä¡   ÙÉ¿ä¡   ÙÉÀä¡   ÙÉÁä¡   ÙÉÂä¡   ÙÉÃä¡   ÙÉÄä¡   ÙÉÅä¡   ÙÉÆä¡   ÙÉÇä¡   ÙÉÈä¡   ÙÉÉä¡   ÙÉÊä¡   ÙÉËä¢   ÙÉÌä¢   ÙÉÍä¢   ÙÉÎä¢   ÙÉÏä¢   ÙÉÐä¢   ÙÉÑä¢   ÙÉÒä¢   ÙÉÓä¢   ÙÉÔä¢   ÙÉÕä¢   ÙÉÖä¢   ÙÉ×ä¢   ÙÉØä¢   ÙÉÙä¢   ÙÉÚä¢   ÙÉÛä¢   ÙÉÜä¢   ÙÉÝä¢   ÙÉÞä¢   ÙÉßä¢   ÙÉàä¢   ÙÉáä¢   ÙÉâä¢   ÙÉãä¢   ÙÉää¢   ÙÉåä¢   ÙÉæä¢   ÙÉçä


----------



## P.T. (Jun 24, 2010)

"Deficit spending has been proven to work. FDR proved that..."

I'm not so sure.

Many economists say that it was the fact that the US had the only infrastructure that wasn't demolished during WW2 and so we became the producers for the world. That is what gave us prosperity after the war, not the deficit spending.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 25, 2010)

I didn't believe this a year ago and then I read Robert Skidelskys' book.
As communities start seeing the results of the unemployment benefits being stopped, you can imagine what would happen if this was done on a larger scale.
Just look at the month of June where only 2 weeks of the funds stopped circulating.
Wait until they see the end of July's results. 
This is causing Americans to lose their homes, which the taxpayer will have to cover.
It causes more Emergency Room visits which depletes the Medicare funds further.
Then the lack of flow will cripple small businesses and definately show up in Wal Marts numbers.
This is 3-4 times as expensive as continuing the benfits.
All for political posturing. So who is really being a conservative now...?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 25, 2010)

chimuelo,

just wanted to say that your postings seem to get a little unsystematic and into ranting mode lately. I try to follow because I think there might be something in it but have a hard time.

I remember you said that if times get worse people spend more in Las Vegas. Is this still true?

Cheers, H.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 25, 2010)

If ranting means upset, yes I am upset, I apologise.
I have never seen so many people in turmoil before.
I am a survivor of 3 major race riots where neighborhoods were burned down in St.Louis back in the 60-70's. Even witnessed 2 social collapses when the trucks stopped stocking the stores, but Americans seemed to get through those troubles and learn from them. But I am seeing this happen again and its not over leaders being assainated or Oil embargos. Just a lack of cash and people losing value on their pensions, losing insurance they have paid into for decades, etc. This is becasue of Wealthy elitists in DC using the working class people as Chess pieces. This is what gets my blood boiling. If you are poor or disabled, you get taken care of, if you are rich you can shelter your money. If you are a middle class working man you're screwed. 
Its the middle class that collects unemployment, not the poor or disabled. So after decades of your employer taking your money and also his, and paying into the unemployment funds, to be thrown on the street is a crime IMHO.
And Yes Vegas casinos are doing fine, and I will always have more work than I can take. Its a musicians paradise. 
But I have seen small businesses dropping out and leaving empty spaces behind for 2 years now. Only recently have I seen first hand what happens when cash becomes scarce. I have people with their children standing out in front of the grocery stores begging for food and money just so they can make it another day in hopes of finding a job. It's sad.
And having politicians say that these hard working Americans must take drug tests and insult them in such a way makes my blood boil.
It shows that these elite bastards have no clue what goes on in the real world.
This extension should be paid for with what the banks have paid back on their bailout, or the 500 billion left over from unused stimulus funds. But it is being passed over due to politics. 

As I said I doubted the Keynesian theory until I read up on the matter, and now having witnessed a local economy disintegrating by the week, I can only imagine what would have happened if Bush and Obama hadn't followed the deficit spending model.

If what is happening in New Orleans and Vegas starts happening in LA, San Francisco and Seatlle, Greece will look like an opening act at SuperJam.

Rant Over...


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 25, 2010)

I'm not sure how trying to balance the budget *right now* would help the economy.

It would mean laying off many government employees (including people like teachers, police/fire, and the military), which means more unemployed which means less people spending on the things that keep other people employed.

And it would probably also require tax increases, which would also cut into consumer spending.

Sure, running up a huge debt is generally a bad thing overall, but it seems more prudent to pay it down (and even have a surplus when possible) during times of prosperity and accept that it may be necessary to run a deficit in difficult times. The main reason the current deficit is so alarming is because it's happening right after years of rapidly increasing debt that happened unnecessarily during times when the country could afford to have a balanced budget.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 25, 2010)

Balancing the budget right now would *kill* the economy, lead to far worse unemployment, and it would have very little effect on the actual debt.

The time to reduce debt and come closer to balancing budgets is during normal times when the tax revenues are much higher, people aren't unemployed, and it's possible to do reduce it without damaging the economy.

What's going on in Europe is insanely stupid.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jun 25, 2010)

I wouldn't say Vegas is doing fine, many companies are having a really tough time right now. Two factors to consider are that many hotels have extremely low room rates right now which boosts tourist traffic to the city but doesn't necessarily mean they're making a profit on them, and that a number of companies also have properties in Macau (and other locations) which are doing well right now and offsetting numbers in LV.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 25, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> Balancing the budget right now would *kill* the economy, lead to far worse unemployment, and it would have very little effect on the actual debt.
> 
> The time to reduce debt and come closer to balancing budgets is during *normal times* when the tax revenues are much higher, people aren't unemployed, and it's possible to do reduce it without damaging the economy.



I guess one difference between us two is that I consider the present time still as quite normal ... compared to what will eventually come. Reason: Even a stagnation in GNP as we have today means that effectively there is as much money around as yesteryear ... which still means more than ever before since decades. If we can't behave ourselves under these conditions that are objectively still nearly optimal ... how can we if the GNP drops to say 50 %? 

BTW _then_ will be a good time for Keynesian spending ... given there is still something in the purse ...


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 26, 2010)

its the population and investment houses and other financial institutions have known that for years. partly thru actuarial reviews. its the one subject politicians dont like to touch. especially in the usa at the moment with this reactionary president. its also partly to do with cheap labor and the farming of manufacturing and administrative jobs to places like china and india for example. this will eventually stop due to many pressure factors that will come but at the same time that will probably cause more concerns over sovereign debt, currency fluctuations and the usa debt to china in particular.

i find living in this country a great deal of confusion still seems to be floating over why they have recessional problems and cuts have to be made. the british still think it was down to the banks. they kid themselves over the real reasons because it seems to make them feel better. :lol:


----------



## dcardillo (Jun 26, 2010)

George Caplan @ 26/6/2010 said:


> its the population and investment houses and other financial institutions have known that for years. partly thru actuarial reviews. its the one subject politicians dont like to touch. especially in the usa at the moment with this reactionary president.
> 
> 
> this reactionary president? hmmm...as well as a liberal, socialist, radical, revolutionary, tyrant, dictator, Muslim, Christian, Marxist, Leninite, and follower of Hitler? reactionary seems rather tepid...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2010)

Hannes, the GNP isn't going to drop 50%, but it may drop a couple of points because of the policies being enacted. And it simply isn't a fact that these are normal times just because things could get far worse. The biggest downturn in three generations is not normal!

Right now the economies have huge excess capacity that is going to waste, and the only way to keep the engines going is for governments to spend money now. Waiting for the economies to collapse more only makes it much harder!

The other interesting thing is that you mention "behaving ourselves." That's the exact irrational psychology Paul Krugman writes about: the masochistic idea that somehow we have to punish ourselves in order to right the course.

It's just nuts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2010)

By the way, what C M Dess says is also true: we're headed toward ecological collapse. But that's not what this crisis is about.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 28, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jun 26 said:


> Hannes, the GNP isn't going to drop 50%, but it may drop a couple of points because of the policies being enacted.



It can easily drop to 50 % and lower. All that would be need for that is a little rate change in geoactivity or a minor climatic change.



> And it simply isn't a fact that these are normal times just because things could get far worse. The biggest downturn in three generations is not normal!



I knew you were saying this ... and you knew I would deny it 

Seriously, if you really consider what GNP means you realize that overall the money is still there and is still circulating. What we actually have is a huge distribution problem and we need to cure that, and much more to the point. Keynesian spending is a crutch workaround, but actually for a different scenario. On the other side: spending more that what is in the purse is exactly one of the main reason of all problems.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 28, 2010)

I do not know a better system then our capitalism, but our system will ruin us, earlier or later...... . :-(


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 28, 2010)

Hannes, I'm not talking about an asteroid hitting the earth, I'm talking about what's likely to happen because of this recession.

And I'm afraid you have a misconception of what GNP is. It's not money, it's the value of goods and services produced by a country. Right now the industrial world has excess capacity, meaning that we are set up to produce and consume more than we are - with the result we see today: massive unemployment (not in Germany, but everywhere else pretty much, and Germany will feel the hit too).

Keynesian spending is not a crutch workaround, it's a way of investing in the economy. Failure to do that is way more "expensive" in terms of unemployment - which is much more than just people not having money, it means that people miss their careers. It's a terrible, terrible problem.

Austerity is going to screw up the world. Look at Ireland. Or look at America under Hoover. Or Argentina 20 years ago.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 29, 2010)

Europe cannot borrow anymore money to spend. The large elderly population coupled with early retirement ages is a double whammy. When you stop working you start using your benfits that you earned, all while being less productive and having entitlements paid to you. A large population at the wrong time can devastate an economy. We are fortunate enough to have the open border to lower and raise our productivity rates.
Its simple. 90% of the Mexicans are good hard working families, the rest are trouble makers and drug runners.
To be an elitist I will explain it like this..............
We claim we want to be Humane and help the poor Mexican immigrants. So we leave the borders open.
This means you are illegal and not legally able to collect a pension.......Bonus 1.
Then some whine about how we cover their health care and educate their young for free.........
Bull Puckey.
They are too busy working to go the emergency room. We have miilions of crackheads that dont work doing that already. Mexicans just want the money. We pay them shit for wages, but when they take that green back to Mexico they live like Kings..................Bonus 2.
The 10% that are drug dealers dont mess with people unless they are involved in the drug and smuggling rings. They dont go killing elderly white people, it happens occassionally but it is remote. They do make sure thousands die at an early age to help save on heath care expenses, and they kill each other ( other criminals ) so the population control aspect balances itself out.
Face it, our own CIA dealt drugs to all of Southern California, got caught after years and only apologized....? How can we tell these guys to not do as we have done.....
Thats Bonus 3..........
As usual the American media does what its told and has the left / right polarized positions that they profit from.
The reasons we send any immigrants back is simple. If you are really stupid or lost, you get caught.
Afterall we have enough dumb Americans to contend with from our quality public schools that have a 30% dropout rate. Thats just in case the Mexicans quit coming, we can take advantage of the guilty dropouts and give them crappy pay and no benefits.
So right now we are slowly growing our GNP and productivity rates.
Hell if they close the borders I will have to cut my own grass.........( home owners association provides it ).
We'll be fine eventually and this fake money we are re circulating will as usual help the rich community, and China in 15 years.
I suggest learning Mandarin. I make sure my neighbor teaches my son. He sends me emails from next door that look like he cant spell but he uses a Chinese QWERTY.
I still say that America should close its bases overseas and maintain a Naval presence. We could have trillions to invest in education and alternative energy.
By the time Europe and the USA become the leaders of alternative energy in the world, we will take all of our money back from China by using our brains instead of our military..............

Rant Over..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 29, 2010)

I actually agree with most of that, but why do you say that all of Europe can't borrow any more money to spend? Ireland, Greece, and Spain can't, but England and Germany certainly can, and at very low interest rates.

The argument for austerity in those countries is precisely that their bond rates will go up if they don't cut back spending, i.e. they won't be able to borrow any more money at good rates. Except that there's no evidence that's going to happen, as Paul Krugman has shown over and over.

I also wonder whether the stock market dive today is proof of the opposite: austerity is going to crash the world economy, and the markets know that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 29, 2010)

A simple explanation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/busin ... dt.html?hp


----------



## George Caplan (Jun 30, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 29 said:


> I also wonder whether the stock market dive today is proof of the opposite: austerity is going to crash the world economy, and the markets know that.



that was because of forthcoming bank repayments throughout europe and subsequent concern over defaults. all from the eurozone in this case.

but this is what ive been mentioning here for quite some time. you have to isolate if you can òæÙ   ÚjfæÙ   ÚjgæÙ   ÚjhæÙ   ÚjiæÙ   ÚjjæÙ   ÚjkæÙ   ÚjlæÙ   ÚjmæÙ   ÚjnæÙ   ÚjoæÙ   ÚjpæÙ   ÚjqæÙ   ÚjræÙ   ÚjsæÙ   ÚjtæÙ   ÚjuæÙ   ÚjvæÙ   ÚjwæÙ   ÚjxæÙ   ÚjyæÙ   ÚjzæÙ   Új{æÙ   Új|æÙ   Új}æÙ   Új~æÙ   ÚjæÙ   Új€æÙ   ÚjæÙ   Új‚æÙ   ÚjƒæÙ   Új„æÙ   Új…æÙ   Új†æÙ   Új‡æÙ   ÚjˆæÙ   Új‰æÙ   ÚjŠæÙ   Új‹æÙ   ÚjŒæÙ   ÚjæÙ   ÚjŽæÙ   ÚjæÙ   ÚjæÙ   Ú


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2010)

George, you say it's so and you've mentioned it before, but there's no evidence that austerity will have any negative effect on bond markets.

And austerity DOESN'T have to be so. That's my exact point: it's insane! You make it sound like there's only one side to the debate!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2010)

Again, there is zero evidence that austerity measures will have a positive effect on bond prices. Lots of people *say* they will, but that doesn't make it so. There are no examples of this happening in history - unless there aren't other overriding factors, i.e. growth for other reasons.

And I'm not talking about Spain, Greece, or Ireland, all of which are unable to borrow money; I'm talking about the UK and Germany mainly, both of which are adopting pathetic economic policies and risking disaster.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 30, 2010)

Paul Krugman is all over this, and if you look his blog on NYTimes.com over the past couple of weeks you'll see all kinds of charts and examples proving that the idea that bond prices are going to soar without austerity is nothing but masochism.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 1, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 30 said:


> Again, there is zero evidence that austerity measures will have a positive effect on bond prices. Lots of people *say* they will, but that doesn't make it so. There are no examples of this happening in history - unless there aren't other overriding factors, i.e. growth for other reasons.
> 
> And I'm not talking about Spain, Greece, or Ireland, all of which are unable to borrow money; I'm talking about the UK and Germany mainly, both of which are adopting pathetic economic policies and risking disaster.



cuts will certainly help to stave off rises in lending or bond rates if you will. bond prices are a different issue. the PIIGS are one thing and a separate thing to germany and the uk but like it or not they are connected with a degree of inclusion to the us economy and every other economy. economic disaster is a long way off germany and the uk. what germany dislikes is lack of leadership and there maybe some unrest in the future over the coalition that causes concern. the next big deal in the uk will take place around november and we expect to see like everyone else, a 25 basis point rate rise around that time.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 30 said:


> Paul Krugman is all over this, and if you look his blog on NYTimes.com over the past couple of weeks you'll see all kinds of charts and examples proving that the idea that bond prices are going to soar without austerity is nothing but masochism.



paul krugman is a well respected economist with a good academic background. he appeals in particular to liberals and makes good points backed up by academic knowledge. and on top of that you get the added bonus of pauls charts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 1, 2010)

PK appeals to liberals because he is liberal, and being liberal I believe that he's in firm touch with reality. The charts he posts show hard economic data, not theory.

Again again again: there is no evidence that cuts will stave off the cost of borrowing to governments that can borrow. There is evidence that it will cause those economies to descend into darkness.

The central point is basic: the world's economies need support right now. Pulling that support will almost certainly prolong the current problems while doing next to nothing to reduce long-term debt. The time to do that is when the economies are on more stable footing. And contrary to what Hannes believes, these are not normal times; we're not on firm footing.

Now, I'm in favor of stimulating wisely to get the maximum bang. But austerity has had bad results every time it's been tried.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 1, 2010)

All pretty much true, C M, but that's a midrange problem. We're dealing with an immediate crisis.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 1, 2010)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/opini ... an.html?hp


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 1, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> And contrary to what Hannes believes, these are not normal times; we're not on firm footing.



I never said we are on firm foot, I said times will be much worse when a real (environment) crisis will hit us, not a virtual (numbers and expectations).

BTW if I say the current crisis is virtual I do not mean it does not cause actual and real pain. I am just saying we could deal with it differently than we do because we are preparing our own hell in this case. Which is crazy enough.

Of course when an asteroid hits us as you suggest the game will be changed so drastically that nothing will be even comparable to now. But I am talking about changes that are subtle enough to keep the current system intact but still cost lots and lots of money. Google "methane mexican gulf" and you know one example (one of many possible). If something like this hits us it will catch us in our underwear because everything else is hypothecated.


----------



## P.T. (Jul 2, 2010)

This problem was caused by debt and throwing more debt at it won't solve it.
We have already spent roughly a trillion dollars on stimulus in the US.
We can spend 10 trillion and when that doesn't work the Keynesians will say we didn't spend enough.

When this is finally over, hopefully people will realize how bankrupt Keynesian economics is.

It's a house of cards, ponzi scheme system of fraud. Let's borrow from future growth and pretend it is real wealth in the present.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 2, 2010)

BTW ... could it be that Keynesian economics is a form of lobbyism for banks in its core? Is there any probability for that?


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 2, 2010)

Yamaha and Roland have a Keynesian Flooring Plan that creates wealth, jobs and boosts the value of the dollar.
Its key ingredient is the product.
Our Governments key ingredient is the middle class, not the poor and disabled, and not the rich who can create tax shelters.
We can afford to spend the money as long as there are jobs being created by low taxes for small business and for corporations who hire new employees and recieve tax credits. This is a proven fact becasue Reagan had higher unemployment, shorter extensions, but his advisors were experienced in business instead of being proffessors and Union activists.
Obamas team has all of the power it needs as the Republicans are powerless. They spent their political capital last year with Health care. They should have focused on what they promised the stimulus would do, create jobs.
Now you have the democrats all wanting to appear as conservatives to be re elected so the blame falls on the WHite House.
Right now Harry Reids son is running for Governor and his ads won't even use the family name as he fears the word Reid is sure to cause failure. The campaign slogan is Rory for Governor, not Reid or Rory Reid.................this is the same defective strategy that other dems will use in the coming months, so as the numbers get worse, the public will blame anyone who resides in DC as the problem.
So all we can do is wait and see if the Keynesian theory works or doesnt work.
Because HR 4213 has been voted down 4 times in a row. This means deficit spending is frozen right now and is not going to come around until after November.
We will see if the freeze on spending works or not in the coming months.
Personally, I have seen already the results on hospitals and local business here in Las Vegas, and the crime rates and jails are filling up too.
Caifornia, New York and Texas cannot have the same thing happen in those large population centers, their economies are fragile and in California's case, on the verge of default.
It's cheaper to spend now and avoid this, than it is to try and rebuild after the fact.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 2, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> BTW ... could it be that Keynesian economics is a form of lobbyism for banks in its core? Is there any probability for that?



certainly not in the uk. conservatives threw out keynes economics way back when and are not likely to return to that. milton friedman more likely. liberals and labor tend to like keynes economics a lot more than conservatives. when youre about to cut the public sector into littlebitty tiny pieces, keynes doesnt hack it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 2, 2010)

Not in the US either.

Hannes, this is a financial crisis and the only solution is financial. That applies to PT too.

Debt is a problem in the long term but it's not the immediate problem, as I said. The immediate problem is unemployment.

But I certainly agree with you (Hannes) that ecological collapse is also a looming crisis. Of course.

chimuelo, the Keynesian theory *is* working. The problem is that the stimulus we had isn't enough, and also what's going on in the rest of the world is dragging it down.

George: yup. Conservatives suck here too.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 2, 2010)

P.T. @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> This problem was caused by debt and throwing more debt at it won't solve it.



That's a big oversimplification. The problem was caused by a number of things, some of it involving debt, but much more than that. And what you call "throwing more debt at it" others see as trying a solution that costs money. Maybe it will work, maybe not. But I haven't heard any solutions proposed that would fix the economy AND balance the budget - if you have one, I'd love to hear it.



> Let's borrow from future growth and pretend it is real wealth in the present.



Seems like a strawman comment - I don't see anyone pretending it's real wealth, it's intended as a temporary fix to give the economy momentum to get rolling again. In the long term, running up the debt is a bad idea. But in the short term, it may be the best solution followed by paying down the debt once the problems are improved.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Jul 2, 2010)

Hannes_F @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> BTW ... could it be that Keynesian economics is a form of lobbyism for banks in its core? Is there any probability for that?



Bingo! :lol: 

I'm amazed people still quot him.



> This problem was caused by debt and throwing more debt at it won't solve it



Yes it is that simple.

The neo-liberal are so far gone, or use to be, that they = debt with wealth.


----------



## P.T. (Jul 2, 2010)

Fernando Warez @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Hannes_F @ Fri Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW ... could it be that Keynesian economics is a form of lobbyism for banks in its core? Is there any probability for that?
> ...



In the short term (our current crisis) gov't spending may be helpful, but it may also be just pouring money into a black hole. 
Programs like cash for clunkers just encourages people to take on more debt that they can't really afford and at most delays the problem.

Supporting the housing market with an $8000 gift for buying a house (more debt that people might not be able to afford) is just a temporary stalling of the housing collapse (note that as soon as the program ended the market started to collapse again).

In the long term (both going forward and american life since the 1950's) the debt society is an attempt by society, encouraged by gov't and the lending institutions, to live beyond their means.
It is a disastrous philosophy.

The federal reserve is about creating an inflationary system that is great for bankers and allows the gov't to spend on war and vote buying social programs without having to tax the people for it which might be unpopular. Most sane people don't like parting with large amounts of their money.

The gov't can just print money. Peoples savings get devalued, though they tend to not be as aware of that as they are of taxes and the gov't can pretend that we have prosperity because each generation earns more dollars than the previous generation. The fact that those dollars buy less doesn't generally make it into most peoples consciousness.

We are poorer than we were in the 1950's and 60's and probably even the '70's.

Compare salaries and what could be bought with those salariƒæ   öõèJ   ÚÆÁ   ööèJ   ÚÇŽ   ö÷èM   Ú¿   öøèP   ÚÇô   öùèR   ÚÈe   öúèT   ÚÈÖ   öûèY   ÚÉG   öüèY   ÚÉ¸   öýè\   Ú‚-   öþè]   ÚÊ   öÿè_   ÚÊ}   ÷ èa   ÚÊî   ÷èd   ÚË_   ÷èf   ÚËÐ   ÷èi   ÚÌA   ÷èk   ÚÌ²   ÷èk   ÚÍ#   ÷èn   ÚÍ”   ÷èn   ÚÎ   ÷èn   ÚÎv   ÷	èn   ÚÎç


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 3, 2010)

Some of what you're saying is right, P.T., but most of it is wrong.


----------



## P.T. (Jul 3, 2010)

Some of what you're saying is right, Nick, but most of it is wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 3, 2010)

Sorry, my post wasn't helpful - because it got aborted when I had to leave.

What you're saying about the Federal Reserve creating an inflationary system that benefits bankers isn't really...well, it's not that it doesn't benefit them, it's that it benefits everyone to have some inflation. Right now the worry is deflation, with the economy slowing down more so it's really hard to pump up again.

But my main problem with what you're saying is that it's not impossible to pick up the economy with good government policy. And in the real world we're not going to get rid of the Fed, stop spending money on wars, eliminate social programs...anything else? I'm all for targeted tax cuts if they'll stimulate the economy, and stimulus isn't a black hole.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 6, 2010)

I don't think anyone would disagree that in the long term, too much debt is a bad thing.

But in the short term, if stimulation isn't the solution, then what is?


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 6, 2010)

That doesn't sound like an implementable solution.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2010)

Hannes, that's the argument festering around the world like an infection. The idea is that "the market" will lose confidence and the government will have to pay much higher interest rates.

Except that there's no evidence of that happening. It's all based on nothing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2010)

By the way Hannes:



> BTW ... could it be that Keynesian economics is a form of lobbyism for banks in its core? Is there any probability for that?



On the contrary 100%. 100%. The banks want governments to pay them interest at the expense of the people who live in those countries!


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 06 said:


> Hannes, that's the argument festering around the world like an infection. The idea is that "the market" will lose confidence and the government will have to pay much higher interest rates.
> 
> Except that there's no evidence of that happening. It's all based on nothing.



Nick, thanks for responding. I see that your focus is very much on the stock market, bonds etc., and from that point of view it probably makes sense.

I have a different view however ... for me numbers basically don't count (if I look on it at a very fundamental level). I was however referring to what I see a lot around me: People (and I don't mean money people who seem to be a special kind of persons but ordinary people) are loosing confidence into the overall situation and are less and less willing to work self-employed if that means long times of low income (often lower than being unemployed) before they break through. But yet I think these are the true heroes of our economic system, taking risk plus the according personal responsability plus working their bottom off if it needs to be, and if we can ever recover then from there (so I think).

I would wish there were more reality shows about that, campaigns, PR. The majority of people I see featured are either those that are stinkin' rich or very poor/unemployed. I miss the healthy role models in our media. Does that make sense?


----------



## Hannes_F (Jul 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 06 said:


> By the way Hannes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Could you please explain? I am thinking this is the same as I said: Banks want governments to take up loans in order to pay interest, therefore is in their interest if a theory says that taking loans is a healthy activity for handling a crisis. Yes/No/Maybe?


----------



## P.T. (Jul 6, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Jul 06 said:


> I don't think anyone would disagree that in the long term, too much debt is a bad thing.
> 
> But in the short term, if stimulation isn't the solution, then what is?



The problem, at least in america, is that they never do anything unless things have reached emergency proportions.
They won't do sensible long term planning so we only see short term emergency solutions that are no solution at all and may well make things worse in the long term.

They will start programs that fix something in the short term and then the program becomes permanent so it just ends up adding to the spending/debt problems.

One of the reasons that California is in so much trouble is that during the boom years of the dot com bubble they were adding spending programs as if that boom was going to last forever.
They went in over their heads and when the bubble burst they refused to terminate any of the programs that they had enacted based on the boom year tax money.

Well, the money is gone, the income is gone because the bubble burst but the programs remain.
This is the kind on nonsense we have to put up with.
No sensible long term approach.

If we manage to get out of the current mess they will just continue with their irresponsible spending until the next crisis.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 6, 2010)

I totally agree that things have generally been handled poorly in the long term. But that doesn't change the fact that a crisis exists that needs to be dealt with in the short term. Whether the current short term programs work or not remains to be seen.

But you didn't answer my question - you said what you think is wrong with the currently proposed options, but what alternative would you propose?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2010)

P.T., it's hard to see how saving things like teachers' jobs is going to do nothing good in the long run.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 6, 2010)

> We already did stimulus



And it worked. It just wasn't big enough.

We need another one, and it will save a lot of jobs. It's not reversing time, it's supporting the economy.


----------



## P.T. (Jul 6, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 06 said:


> P.T., it's hard to see how saving things like teachers' jobs is going to do nothing good in the long run.



I don't think teachers are automatically immune.

If there are too many then let some go.
If management is top heavy, let some of them go and divert money to the teachers.

Just because it's education doesn't mean it gets by unevaluated.

And I'm not saying that we need to cut teachers. I'm speaking generally.

And, where did I even mention teachers in my earlier post?


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 7, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Jul 06 said:


> Isn't most government debt done through bonds and not loans from banks?



yes but there are quite a lot of differences in type of debt. arguably the most significant debt right now is what is known as sovereign debt. SD without going complicated is debt issued by your government that is generally sold to foreign investors and not usually domestically. in the us we call them bonds and in the uk they call them gilts. what people need to understand is bond traders call all the shots at this juncture. not governments. unless you want rampant interest hikes.

there are some interesting points made but as i have worked mostly in the uk for the last 25 plus years one the biggest problems that caused government debt is now under the spotlight and that is namely their type of public sector final salary schemes or defined benefit schemes to give them their correct title. totally out of control and they need to be scrapped. now.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 7, 2010)

P.T. @ Tue Jul 06 said:


> I don't think teachers are automatically immune.
> 
> If there are too many then let some go.



But there aren't too many, in most schools there aren't nearly enough. The reason they are getting laid off isn't "too many", it's to try and balance budgets at the expense of quality of education. After the cuts, I've been hearing about class sizes of 40+ students, which is insane.

And no, you didn't mention teachers, but you talked about no solution at all - I'd say keeping teachers working (as well as cops, firemen, etc) is certainly something beneficial and should be done.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2010)

George, if I understand what you're saying correctly, I have to disagree strongly with the premise that the answer to the problems of the world is to eliminate the social safety net.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 7, 2010)

PT, you mentioned "spending programs" as if everything that costs money is bad. So I brought up education as an example of why that's the wrong outlook.

Sure schools shouldn't be allowed to waste money, but right now there isn't too much of anything in our public education system. I know because I have a daughter in a public high school, and it's ugly out there. There's a *great* teacher in the magnet program she's in who might lose his job, and that totally sucks.

We just had a real estate bubble collapse in this country, and it's affected everything else. That doesn't mean everything else is a glutinous wasteful big government communist social program that deserves to be knocked on the head so the rich can get richer.


----------



## George Caplan (Jul 9, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 07 said:


> George, if I understand what you're saying correctly, I have to disagree strongly with the premise that the answer to the problems of the world is to eliminate the social safety net.



what safety net?


----------

