America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 52 replies replies.
Poll Question : WHAT YEAR DOES THE US GO BANKRUPT
Choice Votes Statistics
2012 1 3 %
2013 0 0 %
WAIT THERE AIN'T GONNA BE ANY YEARS AFTER 2012 2 7 %
2014 1 3 %
2015 1 3 %
2016 0 0 %
THE FEILD (2017 and above) 3 11 %
HA SUCKER! IT'S ALREADY BANKRUPT ! 16 61 %
VICTOR+ # (FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T VOTE HI A FAV BAN) 2 7 %
Total 26 100%

2 Pages12>
WHAT YEAR DOES THE US GO BANKRUPT ???
jackconrad Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
(\_/)
(^.^)
c(")(")
smokestaxx Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-27-2012
Posts: 4,214
This year! Frying pan
DrMaddVibe Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
When we went over GDP...we hit that mark.

LAST OCTOBER!!!!
raymallen Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
When we went over GDP...we hit that mark.

LAST OCTOBER!!!!


That is not the equivalent of bankruptcy Dr...
raymallen Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
My opinion on this is that we will not go bankrupt. When we get to a Greece level of debt then we'll manipulate our currency and devalue it, then we will clear our debt with devalued currency. inflation will be high, but at least we won't default. Simple economic fix that can be devastating if policies allow us to get there. But as far as default, we're the largest economy, we are the country to big to fail.
DadZilla3 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
'You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.' - Ayn Rand.
engletl Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
raymallen wrote:
My opinion on this is that we will not go bankrupt. When we get to a Greece level of debt then we'll manipulate our currency and devalue it, then we will clear our debt with devalued currency. inflation will be high, but at least we won't default. Simple economic fix that can be devastating if policies allow us to get there. But as far as default, we're the largest economy, we are the country to big to fail.


Keep drinking that koolaid.

Rome thought it was to big to fail
Egypt thought it was to big to fail
Persia thought it was to big to fail
etc etc etc
jackconrad Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
Even ELBY'S BIG BOY FELL !
raymallen Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
engletl wrote:
Keep drinking that koolaid.

Rome thought it was to big to fail
Egypt thought it was to big to fail
Persia thought it was to big to fail
etc etc etc


We're in a new age brother, the argument doesn't fly anymore. The only people that depended on the Roman economy at that time were the Romans, the entire world runs on our economy now. You think China would let us go under? by the way the U.S. owns almost half of it's own debt, you think we will let ourselves go under?
smokestaxx Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-27-2012
Posts: 4,214
2012.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
We're in a new age brother, the argument doesn't fly anymore. The only people that depended on the Roman economy at that time were the Romans, the entire world runs on our economy now. You think China would let us go under? by the way the U.S. owns almost half of it's own debt, you think we will let ourselves go under?



Ahem, when you monetize the debt and let a criminal enterprise like the Federal Reserve control the Treasury Department you get what we have now.

When does bread start costing 100 dollars a loaf?
HockeyDad Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
DrMaddVibe wrote:

When does bread start costing 100 dollars a loaf?



A week before I start importing bread from France instead of oil from Saudi!
raymallen Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Ahem, when you monetize the debt and let a criminal enterprise like the Federal Reserve control the Treasury Department you get what we have now.

When does bread start costing 100 dollars a loaf?


I'm just responding to the question "when will we fail", I did not answer on behalf of how I feel about it ethically.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
I'm just responding to the question "when will we fail", I did not answer on behalf of how I feel about it ethically.



Likewise.

Unlike you though I see it for what it is, not some rainbow, lollypop and unicorn daydream.

"Too big to fail"? Now where did I hear that before? Yeah...that didn't work out. It put us DEEPER in debt.

We've already defaulted. We CANNOT pay the debt off. WAKE UP!
kharzhak Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-29-2008
Posts: 1,825
This is a silly poll ... we'll never go bankrupt as long as we can print money. The question should be "when will a can of coke cost you $100?"
jackconrad Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
HockeyDad wrote:
A week before I start importing bread from France instead of oil from Saudi!





(\_/)
(^.^)
c(")(") EVEN ZAT FRANCH BREAD HASS STARTED TO GET CRUSTEE!
raymallen Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Likewise.

Unlike you though I see it for what it is, not some rainbow, lollypop and unicorn daydream.

"Too big to fail"? Now where did I hear that before? Yeah...that didn't work out. It put us DEEPER in debt.

We've already defaulted. We CANNOT pay the debt off. WAKE UP!


We already defaulted? DrMaddvibe your logic takes this conversation no where haha. By the way that bailout that didn't work out, kept us from financial collapse, if you want to take a historical example that is still relevant, read about the late 20's and early 30's and what lack government interventions did. I'm a fairly conservative person, but I understand there is a role of government. I believe in the free market, and our low interest rates on our 10 yr bonds still prove a lack of risk in our debt, showing we are not even close to default.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
We already defaulted? DrMaddvibe your logic takes this conversation no where haha. By the way that bailout that didn't work out, kept us from financial collapse, if you want to take a historical example that is still relevant, read about the late 20's and early 30's and what lack government interventions did. I'm a fairly conservative person, but I understand there is a role of government. I believe in the free market, and our low interest rates on our 10 yr bonds still prove a lack of risk in our debt, showing we are not even close to default.



Yes, we did already default. We will not be able to pay back the debt. Haha. SCOREBOARD! WTF? There is no win in this game.

I've already stated on this board a fabulous book...

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Empire-Debt-Financial/dp/0470483261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334693251&sr=8-1

I don't know what world you live in where a nation makes very little for itself and is in debt as high as we are to GDP ratio and "wins". Spending is out of control...military needs to take a haircut across the board. Close the bases in Germany, Korea, Okinawa...those wars are OVER. Bring the boys home from the deserts too. What a waste that was.

There is NO WAY you can be conservative and think for one second that it's government's role to bail out losers and pick winners. GM would've been better served to go through the bankruptcy protection laws and become lean and mean but it's back to it's old tricks. The financial institutions? The govt. held a gun to their heads and told them that people with no jobs...no income were supposed to realize the American Dream and Fannie and Freddie were going to prop it all up. How's that role in govt. working now?

The only thing I find amusing in the post is that you're burying your head in the sand with a Pollyanna attitude that everything is A-OK. Its not. Please don't lecture me about the 20's and 30's either. The private sector bailed itself out and did it quicker without all the shell and ponzi schemes the govt. runs. Conservative my ass!
raymallen Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Yes, we did already default. We will not be able to pay back the debt. Haha. SCOREBOARD! WTF? There is no win in this game.

I've already stated on this board a fabulous book...

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Empire-Debt-Financial/dp/0470483261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334693251&sr=8-1

I don't know what world you live in where a nation makes very little for itself and is in debt as high as we are to GDP ratio and "wins". Spending is out of control...military needs to take a haircut across the board. Close the bases in Germany, Korea, Okinawa...those wars are OVER. Bring the boys home from the deserts too. What a waste that was.

There is NO WAY you can be conservative and think for one second that it's government's role to bail out losers and pick winners. GM would've been better served to go through the bankruptcy protection laws and become lean and mean but it's back to it's old tricks. The financial institutions? The govt. held a gun to their heads and told them that people with no jobs...no income were supposed to realize the American Dream and Fannie and Freddie were going to prop it all up. How's that role in govt. working now?

The only thing I find amusing in the post is that you're burying your head in the sand with a Pollyanna attitude that everything is A-OK. Its not. Please don't lecture me about the 20's and 30's either. The private sector bailed itself out and did it quicker without all the shell and ponzi schemes the govt. runs. Conservative my ass!


I never said everything was okay, I only suggested we have not defaulted (which is a factual statement). Our deficit is about 1.3 trillion at the moment and our GDP is hovering around the 14.5 trillion area. America holds a significant portion of our bonds, so to say American will go bankrupt is just unreasonable. I admire your passion, but we need to look at the numbers first before we jump to conclusions.
jackconrad Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
It's time to quit concerning ourselves with the Bullcrap legal mumbo jumbo language roadblocks that put us here in the fist place. When you spend 10% more than you take in as far as the eye can see you are BANKRUPT !\

It's gonna be an American Fall..
raymallen Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
I think rather than the negativity of when we fail, we should speculate ideas on how to dig our way out of this mess. If you were on a sinking ship would you sit there and say dang this captain steered us wrong? or would you consider your options, do you try and save the ship or what can I do to insure my safety? Personally, I think these are the questions that must be addressed.
jackconrad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
[quote=raymallen]I think rather than the negativity of when we fail, we should speculate ideas on how to dig our way out of this mess. If you were on a sinking ship would you sit there and say dang this captain steered us wrong? or would you consider your options, do you try and save the ship or what can I do to insure my safety? Personally, I think these are the questions that must be addressed. [/quote

Well realizing that you are sinking is a good place to start..
HockeyDad Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
raymallen wrote:
I think rather than the negativity of when we fail, we should speculate ideas on how to dig our way out of this mess. If you were on a sinking ship would you sit there and say dang this captain steered us wrong? or would you consider your options, do you try and save the ship or what can I do to insure my safety? Personally, I think these are the questions that must be addressed.




I think that was a quote from some Roman.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
HockeyDad wrote:
I think that was a quote from some Roman.



Quick...lemme guess...he had a fiddle and liked to play with matches?
engletl Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
raymallen wrote:
We're in a new age brother, the argument doesn't fly anymore. The only people that depended on the Roman economy at that time were the Romans, the entire world runs on our economy now. You think China would let us go under? by the way the U.S. owns almost half of it's own debt, you think we will let ourselves go under?


ummm...at that time Rome was the world
DadZilla3 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
raymallen wrote:
But as far as default, we're the largest economy, we are the country to big to fail.

To put things more in perspective, here's a handy reference of other empires and dynasties that were 'too big to fail'...several even lasted more than 1000 years. They have one important thing in common...they are all history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires
DrMaddVibe Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
DadZilla3 wrote:
To put things more in perspective, here's a handy reference of other empires and dynasties that were 'too big to fail'...several even lasted more than 1000 years. They have one important thing in common...they are all history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires



OR...read the book I posted about in Post #18!!!
HockeyDad Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,187
There is still plenty of money to be made dismantling the empire.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
I never said everything was okay, I only suggested we have not defaulted (which is a factual statement). Our deficit is about 1.3 trillion at the moment and our GDP is hovering around the 14.5 trillion area. America holds a significant portion of our bonds, so to say American will go bankrupt is just unreasonable. I admire your passion, but we need to look at the numbers first before we jump to conclusions.



Have you looked at the projections OwedumbaCare is adding?

Not to mention the other wars he's started since taking office!

Please.

You think we're the center of the world...I believe the English had a saying that the sun never sets on it's empire...how'd that work out for them again?

We're in a world of hurt. For the first time in our history MY kids and grandkids are slaves to a debt they had NO part of. Kicking the can down the road because we can print our own money only devalues the currency. That's the ONLY thing we have in our favor. That just buys time. Too bad we have a corrupt Federal Reserve at the helm...answerable to NOBODY.


NOBODY is cutting a damn thing and entitlements are at all time highs. Look to Greece and Spain...our day of reckoning is coming.
raymallen Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Have you looked at the projections OwedumbaCare is adding?

Not to mention the other wars he's started since taking office!

Please.

You think we're the center of the world...I believe the English had a saying that the sun never sets on it's empire...how'd that work out for them again?

We're in a world of hurt. For the first time in our history MY kids and grandkids are slaves to a debt they had NO part of. Kicking the can down the road because we can print our own money only devalues the currency. That's the ONLY thing we have in our favor. That just buys time. Too bad we have a corrupt Federal Reserve at the helm...answerable to NOBODY.


NOBODY is cutting a damn thing and entitlements are at all time highs. Look to Greece and Spain...our day of reckoning is coming.


If we crumble, everyone crumbles. So many economies (including China) rely on us. If we start at square one again, we're not alone.
jackconrad Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
(\_/)
(^.^)
c(")(") I live in a hole
DadZilla3 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
raymallen wrote:
If we crumble, everyone crumbles. So many economies (including China) rely on us. If we start at square one again, we're not alone.

I'm sure that will make us even more popular than we even are now throughout most of the world.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
If we crumble, everyone crumbles. So many economies (including China) rely on us. If we start at square one again, we're not alone.



Ever watch the Mad Max movies and ask yourself..."What caused those wars?"

One day you'll have to look at the headlines and read between the lines. Travel abroad and see for yourself. The United States...America...we're not the good guys. We had a good run. We wasted the goodwill somewhere after WWII and The Korean War. Sorry if that damages your viewpoint but it's the truth!

I didn't want to think we were colonizing anyone, but we're putting bases and listening stations all over the world in countries that make you go "Huh?". Our involvement in destabilizing the Middle East is a joke and what we're ramping up in Africa right now should send shivers down anyone's spine. We're meddling in freely elected nations and blurring everything..all paid for on the taxpayer's dime. Speaking of which...let's be honest for a second while we're at it...can we both admit that the rich will be able to exploit every single loophole to hang on to their phat cash?

I don't want us to crumble. I take no personal liability in it and mourn for our children and for the nation moving forward but we're screwed, glued and tattooed and we're going to go down. I'm not really sure what economics classes you went to where the mountain of debt we have versus what we manufacture and export and sell is slanted towards debt is sold as a positive. Forget the fact that nations that would love to put their boot on our throat and see us crumble delight in our demise. Look at the monetizing of the debt. Quantitive Easing is what it's called. It's devaluing our money's worth and the ability to dig ourselves out quicker. Only when factions like the Tea Party band together and form a voice does Washington DC take notice. Look at what they did too? Painted them as kooks...violent thugs...angry mobs...when the facts don't bear that out...why? BECAUSE WE THREATENED THEIR POWER BASE AND AUTHORITY! We overturned their apple cart and voted bums out. We need to vote them all out every damn cycle! They're the problem.

You mentioned something earlier that piqued my interest. You said government plays a role. Please define that for me if you would.
raymallen Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Ever watch the Mad Max movies and ask yourself..."What caused those wars?"

One day you'll have to look at the headlines and read between the lines. Travel abroad and see for yourself. The United States...America...we're not the good guys. We had a good run. We wasted the goodwill somewhere after WWII and The Korean War. Sorry if that damages your viewpoint but it's the truth!

I didn't want to think we were colonizing anyone, but we're putting bases and listening stations all over the world in countries that make you go "Huh?". Our involvement in destabilizing the Middle East is a joke and what we're ramping up in Africa right now should send shivers down anyone's spine. We're meddling in freely elected nations and blurring everything..all paid for on the taxpayer's dime. Speaking of which...let's be honest for a second while we're at it...can we both admit that the rich will be able to exploit every single loophole to hang on to their phat cash?

I don't want us to crumble. I take no personal liability in it and mourn for our children and for the nation moving forward but we're screwed, glued and tattooed and we're going to go down. I'm not really sure what economics classes you went to where the mountain of debt we have versus what we manufacture and export and sell is slanted towards debt is sold as a positive. Forget the fact that nations that would love to put their boot on our throat and see us crumble delight in our demise. Look at the monetizing of the debt. Quantitive Easing is what it's called. It's devaluing our money's worth and the ability to dig ourselves out quicker. Only when factions like the Tea Party band together and form a voice does Washington DC take notice. Look at what they did too? Painted them as kooks...violent thugs...angry mobs...when the facts don't bear that out...why? BECAUSE WE THREATENED THEIR POWER BASE AND AUTHORITY! We overturned their apple cart and voted bums out. We need to vote them all out every damn cycle! They're the problem.

You mentioned something earlier that piqued my interest. You said government plays a role. Please define that for me if you would.


Now that's a response I can appreciate from a true American!

To answer your question about the role of government. I'm a finance student, (a damn good one in my opinion) I have have met with many people involved in the industry including some very powerful banks. I may be just assuming here, but from what I gather you prefer a complete free market society. If this were the case, you would see one bank run the whole show, because they know the information you will never have, and in all reality one firm can run a more efficient business than 10. With out every one having the same knowledge there is no efficiency in the market (the market has never been entirely efficient). Perhaps we should completely throw away our legal system with the government?

And in response to the rich "exploiting". the top income earners pay most of the taxes, in a "fair" society shouldn't every one pay the exact same dollar amount?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
Now that's a response I can appreciate from a true American!

To answer your question about the role of government. I'm a finance student, (a damn good one in my opinion) I have have met with many people involved in the industry including some very powerful banks. I may be just assuming here, but from what I gather you prefer a complete free market society. If this were the case, you would see one bank run the whole show, because they know the information you will never have, and in all reality one firm can run a more efficient business than 10. With out every one having the same knowledge there is no efficiency in the market (the market has never been entirely efficient). Perhaps we should completely throw away our legal system with the government?

And in response to the rich "exploiting". the top income earners pay most of the taxes, in a "fair" society shouldn't every one pay the exact same dollar amount?



I'm an Average Joe with a thirst for Knowledge. The info I get is out there on the webs for ANYONE to get.

You didn't really answer my question though. What role should government play? Yes, I am for a free market society in the same vein that our Founding Fathers wanted and sought. Jefferson had it spot on. It's NOT government's role to hinder business. Yet, look at what we have now. I am NOT in favor of you blurring the lines between free enterprise and centralized banking. THAT'S one bank. Taking marching orders from a board. That's why we're screwed. The Federal Reserve is a corrupt organization that has now chased bubble after bubble creating the next big disaster until they hold every single slim dime and everyone is indebted to them for everything. Kinda more like a Feudal system than free market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRO2qmiCiCc

If you're talking about a flat tax, yes. I am in favor of that. It's what Thomas Paine wanted waaaaay back when too because....he saw the inherant problem with the system! He was branded a radical. He was correct though.
ZRX1200 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
I cannot take anyone seriously who thinks the banks were too big to fail, and that keeping interest rates down anymore is a good thing.

The economy is a house of fed printed cards waiting to fail.

Our debt is 47,700$ PER PERSON INCLUDING CHILDREN.

Wreckless spending and unconstitutional controls and behavior has to end. Period.

DrMaddVibe Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Take a good look at the numbers spinning. Use the forward arrow and go to 2016.

WINNING!!!
tweoijfoi Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
@raymallen,

It's nice to see a level head on these boards.

@DrMaddVibe

It stuns me as well how many want a pure, unregulated "Free Market". As you mention, large businesses are more "efficient". Would you also agree that they have more assets to leverage as weapons against smaller competition?

- The cash buyout/hostile takeover
- Legal assets to take them to court and cause them to spend to defend and hurt them financially
- Government contacts to hurt competitors with regulation
- Cash reserves to lower prices temporarily

In a free market, eventually there would be one company, or at most, one company per industry.

If you are in favor of a truely free market, you are also in favor of monopolies.
ZRX1200 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
You can truely NOT PARTICIPATE IN BUYING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE!


You CANNOT choose to not participate in our govt.
tweoijfoi Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
ZRX1200 wrote:
You can truely NOT PARTICIPATE IN BUYING A PRODUCT OR SERVICE!


You CANNOT choose to not participate in our govt.


You can choose not to eat food, or drink clean water?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
tweoijfoi wrote:
@DrMaddVibe

It stuns me as well how many want a pure, unregulated "Free Market". As you mention, large businesses are more "efficient". Would you also agree that they have more assets to leverage as weapons against smaller competition?

- The cash buyout/hostile takeover
- Legal assets to take them to court and cause them to spend to defend and hurt them financially
- Government contacts to hurt competitors with regulation
- Cash reserves to lower prices temporarily

In a free market, eventually there would be one company, or at most, one company per industry.

If you are in favor of a truely free market, you are also in favor of monopolies.



I NEVER said large companies are more efficient! Look at the behemoth that is General Motors! The can't react to the world in a quick pace. That's what kills them. Monopolies? That's not a free market! A free market is supply and demand and not the crony capitalism we now have here in the US either! That's not a monopoly! If you desire government intervention then you have price manipulation. This nonsense of one business is pure folly. The closest thing you could claim would be Wal-Mart, yet Sears, KMart, Family Dollar, Family General and a host of other retailers doing the smae thing survive and expand. If people can get a deal on Product A and another store has it marked up higher barring convenience what store would get the business?

I don't believe ANYTHING is too big to fail. That's pure arrogance and ignorance bundled in the same cloak!

Let's look at your assertions and see how that played out.

Microsoft?
Apple?
Google?
Oracle?
Cisco?

Yet for everyone there's competition.

I don't trust the government to manufacture a damn thing just like I don't for regulating either! Once again I post up a link to a Frontline story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtJql2aqjkw&feature=related

If the regulators had done their job we wouldn't be in the mess we're in! WAWWWW...the laws were there! WAAA the agencies were there...WAAAAA...why didn't it work????


Government doesn't work does it?
raymallen Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
@ Tweo On point and well educated response.

@ Drmadd Monopolies are the result of pure free market... So to say they are not free market is hypocritical. Without government intervention in these matters, say good bye to the so called "small business owner" who cannot efficiently run at the same value as a major corporation. You love historical examples, look at US prior to the Anti-trust Act compared to now. Is it efficient? no, but does it look out for the smaller guy? absolutely. I'm a capitalist, look at my post in the General conversation board, I just got an interview with Wells Fargo in commercial banking. But if you truly believed in 100% free market, you would be spending your time in a factory right now as apposed to spending your time posting on these boards.

By the way, our founding fathers were those greedy rich you speak of, just look at Jefferson's wealth in today's terms. There were just as many skeptics like you then as there are now, not much has changed. It will be like that 100 years down the road as well.

Also, all of those companies you speak of would be consolidated into one per industry if allowed to. More market share = more efficiency = cheaper price. It isn't to difficult to figure out. How do you feel about not regulating health hazardous industries such as oil refineries and meet packaging? these were all unregulated and unsafe until government regulation. I don't suppose you agree with deregulating these industries do you?
raymallen Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
Also to address the term "to big to fail". This is not a literal term, but we saw in the depression what no intervention did. banks collapsed! 25% unemployment! Government intervention brought our economy back! If you think free markets got us out of that mess than I have nothing more to say here. Essentially, the bailouts saved us from a depression on a much larger scale. By the way those "handouts" weren't free, they were interest bearing loans.
ZRX1200 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Tweoijfoi



Sorry if you cant manage a damn thing by yourself.

Sad.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
@ Tweo On point and well educated response.

@ Drmadd Monopolies are the result of pure free market... So to say they are not free market is hypocritical. Without government intervention in these matters, say good bye to the so called "small business owner" who cannot efficiently run at the same value as a major corporation. You love historical examples, look at US prior to the Anti-trust Act compared to now. Is it efficient? no, but does it look out for the smaller guy? absolutely. I'm a capitalist, look at my post in the General conversation board, I just got an interview with Wells Fargo in commercial banking. But if you truly believed in 100% free market, you would be spending your time in a factory right now as apposed to spending your time posting on these boards.

By the way, our founding fathers were those greedy rich you speak of, just look at Jefferson's wealth in today's terms. There were just as many skeptics like you then as there are now, not much has changed. It will be like that 100 years down the road as well.

Also, all of those companies you speak of would be consolidated into one per industry if allowed to. More market share = more efficiency = cheaper price. It isn't to difficult to figure out. How do you feel about not regulating health hazardous industries such as oil refineries and meet packaging? these were all unregulated and unsafe until government regulation. I don't suppose you agree with deregulating these industries do you?




Please. Simplistic at best is what you're describing.

You suppose I should be in a factory why? Wells Fargo for you...factory for me? You know not what I do nor what I have done in my professional careers. Good luck with the job, hope you get it. Really. Then you can go to work telling them and showing them how to do it better! LOL!

The companies I posted up have all of the criteria that tweoijfoi posted. Yet, they exist. You say they won't. I throw the B$ flag. They're in business and will be in business in some way, shape or fashion. Is there someone that has a better mousetrap? Most likely yes. Maybe it's being developed right now in a garage somewhere by some college dropouts or backwoods shop owner.

Don't bring in that mamby pamby coal mines, clean air and good food. Was there a time we had lil' Oliver Twist slaving away in a coal mine? Yes there was. In Indonesia , Oliver is alive and well making the Nike's you're probably wearing right now!!!! The HQ is where again? This brings us to the same question...What role do you believe government plays that you still haven't answered!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
Also to address the term "to big to fail". This is not a literal term, but we saw in the depression what no intervention did. banks collapsed! 25% unemployment! Government intervention brought our economy back! If you think free markets got us out of that mess than I have nothing more to say here. Essentially, the bailouts saved us from a depression on a much larger scale. By the way those "handouts" weren't free, they were interest bearing loans.




We have very close to 25% unemployment right now! THAT'S manipulated too...by?

No, the governement did nothing but give a payday to major bundlers and donators. Those are the facts. The "bailouts" were the biggest blank check jokes ever. The biggest disgrace to every American taxpayer. We're NEVER going to get the money back. EVER! Those handouts weren't free. That part you have correct. THEY WERE STOLEN! American's didn't have a voice which way their money was going to be spent nor which companies would be the winners and losers!

So, who's going to pay the money back? When?
raymallen Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2011
Posts: 396
@ DrMadd I completely agree with you that it is a disgrace that these institutions received tax payer money. I'm not trying to justify that they deserved it in any way shape or form. But, I am arguing that the results of not doing it would have been much more severe.

The unemployment rate calculates those in search for work. I admit that the calculations for those are quite skewed, but they have been around for a while. historically we know woman were not a large part of the work force, they were not calculated in at the time either. so a 25% to our recent 8.2% using same criteria is a good judgment as far as the relationship goes.

And I want you to look at pictures of Los Angeles in late 80's compared to pictures now after environmental regulations took place. If you don't see a drastic health difference, than that's pure ignorance on your behalf. Call me "mamby pamby" if that means I agree with protecting the health of our citizens. Economically speaking, healthier citizens provide lower health costs in the future. If you think I'm a total socialist by saying that industries will not regulate environmental health on their own, than call me one all day long. It makes no sense in monetary terms to raise their own costs to protect the general public from what they are doing. THAT is a role of government.
engletl Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
tweoijfoi wrote:
You can choose not to eat food, or drink clean water?


Yes you can...they are generally called hunger strikes
DrMaddVibe Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,552
raymallen wrote:
It makes no sense in monetary terms to raise their own costs to protect the general public from what they are doing. THAT is a role of government.




Obama oil margin plan could increase price swings

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama's bid to dampen the influence of oil speculators by having regulators set trading margins could backfire, potentially making prices even more volatile and leaving crude dominated only by those with the deepest pockets.

Under Obama's request to Congress, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would determine how much speculators need to pay to trade U.S. crude oil futures, in theory increasing the amount when prices move too far, too fast.

But economists and traders cautioned that pushing smaller investors out of markets would only hand greater influence to the largest hedge funds and Wall Street banks. Ultimately, there may not be enough traders left to do business with oil producers and consumers looking to hedge their needs.

"Reduced liquidity often means greater volatility," said broker Jay Levine at Enerjay LLC in Maine.

"That's the exact opposite of (Obama's plan's) purpose".

Exchange-operator CME Group, which currently sets margin requirements for the benchmark U.S. crude oil contract, on Tuesday called the president's plan "misplaced", and said speculation should not be confused market manipulation.

CME charges separate margin rates for speculators and end-users of oil such as airlines, who are hedging their physical needs.

One contract of benchmark U.S. crude, commonly known as West Texas Intermediate or WTI, had a notional value of just under $103,000 on Thursday, based on a standard 1,000 barrel contract and prices around $102.50 a barrel.

Traders defined as speculators can buy that contract for an upfront cost of just $6,855, with a maintenance margin of $5,500. Those defined as hedgers would pay $5,100 upfront with a maintenance margin also of $5,100.

EXISTING POWERS

While Obama's bill currently has little hope of making it through a divided Congress, a price spike before November could boost cross-party support from politicians wary of siding with oil traders in an election year.

Two large waves of speculators have surged into oil markets in the last 14 months due to the supply disruption in Libya and plans for increased sanctions on Iran's oil exports this year.

Prices rose on both moves, but some industry experts believe prices could have risen even more without their influence.

"The attack on speculation is an attack on better functioning markets," said Edward Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup.

"If there were not liquidity in the futures market... the chances are overwhelming that price volatility would be greater."

The CFTC already has emergency powers to raise margins, though they have rarely exercised them. Last year, when the supply shock in Libya was big enough to spark a coordinated stockpile release by the International Energy Agency, the CFTC declined to pull the margin trigger, despite speculator positions hitting an all-time high.

That raises the question of whether they would increase them in the event of a future supply disruption, if they were also tasked with setting margins day to day.

"When markets are very volatile and they are afraid about banks buying too much oil on leverage, it gives them a tool," said Amy Jaffe, energy policy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute in Houston.

"(But) would a politician actually have the guts to use it? If you use it when we are already in a horrible crisis, it is too late."

Michael Wittner, global head of oil research at Societe Generale in New York and a former analyst at the IEA, said he didn't expect regulators to become more active, even if they are handed more powers.

"The CFTC already works very closely with the exchanges," Wittner said. "They're going to continue to rely on their expertise."

SPECULATOR SURGES

Many traders and market analysts noted that speculators tend to buy crude when there is a strong underlying reason to do so such as the loss of Libyan crude last year or sanctions and possible military action against Iran.

Between February and March 2011, when Libya's crude oil supplies were first cut by fighting in the country, speculator bets that crude oil prices would rise on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) shot-up from 185,236 contracts to an all-time high of 311,632, CFTC data showed.

With each contract equal to 1,000 barrels of oil, that's the equivalent of over 125 million extra barrels of oil (roughly 1.4 days of global demand) bought in less than a month.

Prices spiked by $15-$20 a barrel over the period, though many argued it was natural for prices to rise given almost 2 million barrels per day of light sweet crude had been lost from a finely balanced market.

"The CFTC understands that markets can be volatile," said Jason Schenker, president of Prestige Economics in Austin, Texas.

"Leaving people at the risk of sudden margin increases could deter investment in oil markets that is critical in the long-run."

This year, with pending sanctions on Iran's oil exports and concerns about a possible military confrontation, speculator bets on higher prices increased about 43 percent, from just over 190,000 to 272,032 between January and March. Prices rose over that period from $99 to a peak of $110.55.

But over the last five weeks, speculators unwound net-long positions back to the level they were at the beginning of January, as expectations waned for a confrontation between Israel and Iran.

Hedge fund manager John Kilduff said that while politicians had been quick to criticize speculators in oil, they've been quiet about speculators in the natural gas market, who have been betting on lower prices since at least June 2009, according to data from the CFTC.

Natural gas prices hit a 10-year low below $2 per million British thermal units on Thursday due largely to booming domestic shale gas production.

"We look forward to seeing the natural gas market speculators feted at the White House soon for their work in reducing prices upward of 90 percent in several short years," Kilduff said.





Government's meddling has to stop. When you couple it with kooky ideas from over educated shills that have NO real world experience you get the failed policies of the Kenyan King. When you stack the deck with criminals, tax cheats and commies...WTF did you expect? Rainbows, Unicorns and Lollipops? See the fail for what it IS. Take your political slant out of it, step back and re-read the article.

Hope and Change?

KNEEGROW PUHLEEZE!
Stinkdyr Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
English muthahumpah.........can YOU spell it?????


the word is ......... TRULY.


Beer
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>