From the Dept. of Grim Reality: The American Empire is Bankrupt - Page 2

Case in point: Asbestos Cleanup in Montana. All of us will be paying for this.

Well, that certainly takes the urgency off of Obama's civil rights failures over the past week. Screw marriage! We've got bigger fish to fry, like dieting and exercising so we can compete on the street corners when our cities become sex tourism destinations.

People want to fuck. You don't even have to be good at it for it to be a marketable job skill.

The problem with the tone is it weakens the facts. Someone who disagrees or is on the fence on the issue may dismiss the arguement based entirely on tone. For example, Sean Hannity may actually have a valid point one day but I for one would never know because his tone, historical record and overall persona forces me to discount everything he says. Same thing with Olbermann or the author of this particular article.

As for who owns those resources, well, with the way he is going Obama may have the US Govt owning it all soon anyway.

As for my evil brothers-in-arms at the multinationals (by the way yt, I do love how you use that word like they are the Legion of Doom) I honestly think you discount the patriotism of many of their leaders. Most of them are led by white Americans. Those guys generally don't want to see their homeland become a shithole. They may love money more, but they don't want to get money just so they can spend it in China or Inida.

Actually, though, isnt concentrating on the messenger, and the tone of the messenge, over the actual CONTENTS of the message one of these great little trends you guys get day by day through the power of basic TV? I mean, yeah, that article is written by a mouse going to a cat-owned all-you-can-eat buffet at Tiger,Inc. Regardless though, its info, and outright dismissing information due to finding the tone or agenda of the one giving it to you is not a great idea at all.
If you cant verify that information or if its patently untrue, of course thats an entirely different story, but the FACTS of that alarmist piece are, sadly, not wrong, and can be fact-checked without too much problem.

I mean, I dont expect everyone to know whats going on in the world, but dismissing something because the tone in which it was brought to you doesnt sound neutral isnt really the way to deal with such stuff in a country which, to be honest, has probably about zero neutral news sources left anyway.
Unless you just dont really want to bother dealing with it. And frankly, I think thats perfectly okay.
Because lets be honest, knowing about a shitstorm when you are chained to a fencepost and have to eat it anyway isnt going to make it taste any better. But it makes waiting for it just much more painful.

I would also love to hear what all the Keynesian followers who believe that going further and further into debt will solve our problems if only because is directly impacts a percentage of how we choose to measure GDP along with allowing a central bank to artificially determine interest rates have to say about it as well.

Especially since weve been utilizing these methods for...gosh...six or seven decades now.

Not to mention many of the most evil of evil-doers...banking CEOs...donated as much as possible to Obama's campaign. Jebus, the man was talking with Jamie Dimon last summer about being Treasury Secretary.

Uhhhh....no. Recessions of the early 80s, early 90s, and early 2000s resulted in the government issuing more debt, the Fed purchasing debt, and also artificially manipulating interest rates. Just like the recessions before. Just like the recession now.

Interesting pattern dontcha think? Especially considering since they started this strategy weve had a recession once every 6-7 years or so. Einstein once said something about doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

And the main problem with you is when you are presented with this point of view (which admittedly is en vogue right now with the Republicans because its the only thing that makes sense they can try to grasp on to) even if the argument is being floated by people like myself who have been saying this for a decade or longer is that you always automatically jump to the "Well you did it first!" defense.

No matter who did what, at the end of the day what were doing now makes no sense whatsoever for anyone who is looking further than today.



I believe he has nothing but the best intentions, but I also believe his plan is wrong. Which is dissapointing because I personally had high hopes for him coming in.

ETA Im not sure why we need two of these threads: http://chud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111243

"In contriving any system of government and fixing the several checks and contracts of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave and to have no other end in all his actions but private interest. By this interest, we must govern him"

The fact that we've gotten away from that fundamental belief, a ideal from the very foundation of the nation, and given in not to what Adam Smith called "the passion....that will admit neither a rival or a successor" in favor of the lesser engine of greed for property and lust for power is the problem.

Any responsible government that claims to be of the people, by the people and for the people will harness these engines to control them and put them to work thereby making them, like Hume wrote; "subservient to the public good". What they will not do is cast one aside for the good of the other because it increases the wealth and priviliege for a small minority of the citizenry.

Barack Obama, and A) the criminal class on Wall Street, aided by a corporate media that continues to peddle fatuous gossip and trash talk as news while we endure the greatest economic crisis in our history, may have fooled us, B) but the rest of the world knows we are bankrupt. And these nations are damned if they are going to continue to prop up an inflated dollar and sustain the massive federal budget deficits, swollen to over $2 trillion, which fund America’s imperial expansion in C) Eurasia and our system of casino capitalism. D) They have us by the throat. They are about to squeeze.

A) Yeah that's not agitpropspeak or anything

B) The rest of the world is not in any better shape: in fact China has serious problems with millions of unemployed roving the countryside with NO safety net to help them. When I read stuff like this it really makes me scratch my head: this guy implies some rosy World Order where China, Russia et al have a good solid grasp of Economics and it's only us EEEEVIIIL Americans who are screwing everything up.

C) "Eurasia" So now China, Iran, Russia, India (didn't see Japan in there) are all now one monolithic economic block? Despite the diversity of their economies, cultures, politics etc? More like China asserting themselves as a new world leader

D) If anything the rest of the world has a vested interest in the US getting our shit together. China can try and dump dollars but they still own an assload of US Treasuries. I think a lot of this is posturing to pursuade the US to act responsibly.

You know, the last time we experienced anything close to a "multi polar world" was the 19th century. It ended in 1914, badly.

Lets be brutally honest here: Neither China nor Russia nor Japan want the USA to become some sort of 2nd world backwater, and thats not going to happen either way.
Outside of Mad Max, you dont just fall back down the ladder of industrialization or technological sophistication. Plus, US consumers are probably the most gullible of all, so they fulfill an important role especially for China.
However, I think the last few decades, and in particular the last one, has changed the perception of the USA as a constant, as a reliable trading partner, a cornerstone of the world economy. And you ll have to admit, thats not entirely baseless.

There is a short but well-known list of countries looking to take a step forward in the world, and that means they ll have to make room somewhere. The USA is in a prime position, right now, to lose some of their room, and give others a piece of their slice. I think thats the only motivation for all that economical saber rattling from far east: They want the USA as a reliable market for their products, in order to propel them into the next stage and put them on even terms with the USA and Europe on the global stage.
Ideally, the US citizens happily spend their earned cash for imported goods that these countries can produce. Too bad that didnt work out to be a stable solution this time around.

For the average american citizen, I suspect the only tangible long-term effect of this crisis may be a higher unemployment rate, and a couple less boxes to choose from at WalMart, or a smaller car.

Regarding Obama: I dont think there has been a politican as earnest in his attempts to do unpopular stuff that , in his and his advisors opinion, needed doing. If he doesnt manage to do it, nobody will. I cant base that on facts as its just conjecture, but if he fails, I would pretty much just resign to the fact that the system cannot really work anymore.

No one, save for a few loonies, wants the US to crash. First because we're not, contrary to a big part of popular opinion, assholes and we don't want to see it's citizens suffer. Second, because you are the best customers anyone could ever ask for. But, while I believe that such doomsday scenarios aren't likely to happen, the time of the US being able to dictate policy and set the agenda for everyone is coming to an end.

I agree 100%, but at the same time when the guy comes out and details his plans on the steps hes going to take to get the economy back on track, its hard not to hold it against the guy if you disagree with almost all of those steps. I know his intentions are nothing but good, but I think hes choosing the wrong route to get from point A to point B.

Not including the depression, there were 10 recessions leading up to Reagan being elected (the last one began in July of 1981, so Im not sure if you want to "count" that as Reagan's considering he had only been around for 6 months, and many argue it was simply a continuation of the recession that began in the beginning of 1980 and supposedly ended that same summer). Counting the one were about to get out of, there have been 3 since then.

As far as severity is concerned, the 2007-now period is pretty much on par with 1973 and 1937. Most recessions either pre or post Reagan lasted between 6-10 months or so.

Interesting to note that from 1991-2001 was the only 10 year period following the depression that we didnt go through a recession. Although the 2001 recession was very mild (surprising considering all of the phantom wealth that was created via the dot-com bubble), its safe to assume that the reason for that was because, due to the Fed and their Keynesian practices creating an entirely new bubble in the housing sector, all we did was postpone that correction and it simply combined with this one. So to answer your question before you ask it, I dont think one period is "better" than the other.

Taking a look at what the Fed and Treasury is doing now, it seems like theyre following the same game plan. Sales of previously owned homes shot up close to 7% in April, which is the largest gain since...wait for it...during the recession of 2001. Some would argue that this means the Fed's policies are working, when in actuality it's simply creating a whole new bubble considering the funds used to purchase 7% more of these homes was created out of thin air. If the Fed were to start taking some of the newly pumped money from the economy via raising interest rates and selling back Treasuries, i.e., to curb the money-supply rate of growth, the bubble will start to deflate.

Which means 5-6 years from now well get to combine this with the high unemployment in the construction sector due to the bubble being created there as we speak (those government funded stimulus labor jobs cant last forever) and be back right where we started. Not to worry though, as Im sure theyll come up with another way to simply defer the bad stuff to a few years down the road after that.

Throughout his entire term, all he did was expanded the supply of credit, inflate the dollar, and kept interest rates artificially low. In 2001 alone he pushed rates from 6.75% down to 1.75%.

As we talked about in the other thread, this is why actual free-market advocates have nothing but disdain for the guy. Just because he talked like an anti-Keynesian in no way makes him one. Actions speak louder than words. There is literally no way anybody on earth could describe Greenspan's policies as anything but Keynesian.

Manipulating interest rates fits absolutely nowhere in free market principles, but is one of the benchmarks if Keynesian principles. Not to mention Greenspan practically invented the financial bailout.


Sorry about the confusion regarding recessions. I'll pull up some data specific to boom/bust cycles, although it's hard to differentiate between a "boom" and a "bubble." Nothing wrong with booms.

Its been over since the oil embargo of 1973.

Also, I'm proud of the level of dissent I've seen on the 2nd page. These types of doom and gloom editorials are rarely worthwhile, being just barely a level above cable news pundits.

Something they still are learning how to do. They can't even control their neighbors (North Korea). They have a lot of development ahead of them still before being the new world leader.

Keeping an unstable leader on a string, allowing him to rattle his tincans and makeshift bottle rockets from time to time, only to reel him back in with more promises of aid is in China's best interests. North Korea is their buffer. They don't want a Pro-U.S., stable united Korea with a substantial American military presence on their border. Factor in also the massive humanitarian crisis that would rush across their border in the event of U.S. military retaliation they're the ones that have the most to lose.

I have no doubts that if the Chinese ever came to the belief that Kim Jong Crazy was going to do what he always threatens to do that they'll take care of him and install someone else that can repeat the cycle without actually following through on his threats. We need to press the Chinese and not the North Koreans themselves in my estimation. They're the ones who hold the cards.

I can't wait for the dollar to plummet. I'll be able to have the cheapest trip ever to Vegas!