Don't look now, but things just got worse;

[katty]

more: http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 07:55 CDT

This site is supported by subscription to Peoplenomics. For additional content, please subscribe.

Content mirrored at my other site: www.independencejournal.com,

Debt Disaster Growing
Don't look now, but things just got worse; in fact very much worse. I don't refer to the Italian earthquake which may have killed 250, nor do I refer to the U.S. electrical grid being "penetrated by spies". although that's all worrisome stuff, and a bummer, and all that. But no, it's not my candidate in either event for 'disaster of the year' because that shapes up to be in the field of economics.

I refer specifically to the collapsing consumer debt figures released by the Fed on Tuesday afternoon. As my friend Jas Jain is fond of pointing out: "It's the debt, stupid!"
The Fed's G.19 Consumer Credit (which is really debt) report shows that in the month of February, people cut back on revolving debt (think: credit cards) at an annual rate of 9.7 % while nonrevolving debt (think: house payments) increased a tiny 0l.2% annualized rate. Overall, debt was dropping at a 3.5% annualized rate.

Now let's think this through for a moment: What does it mean. Well, first and foremost this is a 'consumer economy' - and the aggregate spending of consumers is something that essentially determines the overall growth rate of the economy. Want to see a 20% nominal gain in the gross domestic spending? How about enticing consumers to spend 13% more annualized and do this against a background of 7% inflation; that'd work.

[gcomeau]

1. What???

IMO, a large part of the problem is that too many people were overextending on the level of debt they were carrying to begin with. How do you expect people to start seriously spending again until they reduce those debt loads and get out from under them?

So the debt load reduces... and it's reason to panic? Who's going to be more inclined to spend in the future? Someone who's free and clear or someone who already owes their credit card company 10,000 dollars and is struggling just to make their payments as is?

Long term, that debt load NEEDS to drop. That it is doing so isn't a reason to panic. That's ridiculous.

[elleng]

2. xactly!

so you got the 'joke.'

[Warpy]

3. It's the JOBS and the WAGES, stupid, not the debt!

With secure jobs at living wages, people would pay that debt down.

Without them, then the financial sector is going to be in a world of hurt forever and all the funny money in the world isn't going to bail them out.

[targetpractice]

4. Offering easier credit has been the substitute for raising wages.

I don't see how a solution that focuses on restarting lending will help... I see salary cuts happening everywhere... Offering more credit to a population suffering declining income seems misguided.

[Warpy]

11. You're far too polite. It's not misguided,

it's batshit crazy.

Unfortunately, conservatives in our party are controlling the process right now and only when it blows up in their silly faces as much as it blew up in the silly faces of the other party will we be able to broaden the debate to include that which is necessary: a return to an economy based on jobs, production, and wages instead of one based on debt.

From his speeches during the campaign and after, I think we can surmise that Obama understands this, at least intuitively. He's been saddled with great experts, though, and has to give them a go first.

[targetpractice]

15. I think he understands...

One clue was his recent comment to the Bank CEO's recently... "Gentleman, my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

[eridani]

27. If someone would sign up to bring the tumbrils and the guillotine--

--I'd bring the knitting needles.

[patrice]

5. Hush-puppy for those who still have a piece of the "pie" to keep them insensate

while the Employee Free Choice Act and Universal Health Care, read that SINGLE PAYER Health Care, are

Sold to Trans-National corporations

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. Credit availability

is nothing but a diversion.

The only people that benefit when someone gets a loan is the banks - and whatever fricking company is importing and selling crap most likely made in some other part of the world.

But if you are the sucker that took that loan then you just became a slave.

On the other hand, if you had a job that paid a decent wage you could save your pennies. You could invest. You just might be entrepreneurial. You might not be dependent upon traditional employment. You would not be dependent upon the fucking bankers. If you were diligent and frugal you just might be a threat to the bankers.

Jobs and wages are among the keys to resolving our economic difficulties. Credit? Not so much - though there certainly need to be some major reforms.

[bertman]

9. I took out a loan to remodel my house including replacing the old worn-out furnace

and AC with new energy-efficient ones.

The interest rate is good and I'm able to pay it down monthly as long as I remain employed.

I don't consider myself a sucker for doing that, but you're entitled to your opinion, Coyote_Bandit.

I agree that it would be better if we all saved more and borrowed less, but calling people suckers for borrowing---well, that sucks.

[Two Americas]

10. why bother then?

Why bother being interested in politics if you are going to buy in to the something for nothing investment mentality?

[gcomeau]

12. That question made absolutely no sense.

Either on it's own merits or in the context of the post it was in reply to... which had nothing to do with a "something for nothing" mentality.

[Two Americas]

13. An Imaginary Conversation....

A modern fellow of genus Homo protests his innocence. "I don't work because I worked much harder before", says he. "I labored for ten years at a crap job earning $30,000 per year and that earned me the right to live in miserable conditions in which the loss of my job would have made me destitute in weeks. But, I was not content to labor as my fellows. I got a second job at $20,000 per year and I was so thrifty that I spent not a penny of it but banked it all so that at the end of my time I had $300,000, a princely sum. I invested it wisely at 10% and now I can live for the rest of my life, if modestly, off the proceeds of only my own sweat, my own thriftiness, and my own discipline. And, if there was any luck to it - in my not facing misfortune or ill health or any other calamity - that was the product of my own luck too. I owe nothing to anyone. What I have is due to myself alone, and those who have much more than I, it seems to me that they must have arrived at it the same as I, perhaps over generations. What is this social power you speak of when it is only individual labor and individual property that stems from it? It seems to me that you merely envy that which you are too lazy to earn for yourself."

"My dear independent fellow" says we, "let us understand the simple arithmetic of your claims. If your story is as you say and we ignore all else that you report, still at the end of ten years, we see only $200,000. And, if you continue to live at this admittedly low level, nevertheless, you will have run through your entire accumulated proceeds in only 6 years and eight months. More than this, by your accounting, it would take one and a third lifetimes to create a single lifetime without labor, and this at the exceedingly low standards and exceptionally favorable circumstances that you assume. How then are we to explain those who live without labor for generations, and this at a thousand or ten thousand times times the level that you report? How many generations of 'thrift' and 'hard work' would this require? What you claim is impossible for you and beyond impossibility for those who live above you. Where is this magic of 'individual labor and individual property' that you speak of?"

"But you forget interest", protests our friend. "My money makes money, and simply by the act of having some which is not consumed in day to day living, that which I save is augmented. It is this which grants me my independence."

"We forget as much as your money 'makes'," answers we, "which is nothing at all. Set your money on the table and leave it there for as long as you like. Nothing happens to it. It remains the same. It is only by setting it in motion as capital that anything whatever is 'made' and that 'making' is the product of labor, the same as your own. Your interest comes from the command of the labor of others, just as your own was once commanded and after 6 years and eight months not a speck of 'hard work', 'thrift', 'good luck' or 'wisdom' is left. Neither is there any trace of 'independence' or 'personal property' You now live by the labor of others... by the transformation of your pitiful 'savings' into Capital, no matter how small the sum. It is your ability to command the labor of others as a social power that gives you your ability and that you have a poor man's caricature of that process changes nothing other than to lay fraudulent your claims to the right. You might as well claim innate superiority or the right of the sword as did the slave master or the god-given hierarchy of obligations of the lord or even the phases of the moon, if you like. You eat without working because you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which others work to feed you. You are the opposite of what you claim."

"You're just trying to make me feel bad.", says our friend.

"We don't give a shit how you feel", says we. "It is modest enough what you do... just as you claim. It is your willingness to ignore what is closer to your face than your nose that we tire of. "

- anaxarchos

[gcomeau]

16. While entertaining...

...not a single thing you just posted there in any way alters my preceding statement. So, what was the point exactly?

[Two Americas]

17. point about what?

It makes a great point without being "about" anything else.

"Entertaining?"

[gcomeau]

18. The point of posting what you posted.

First you posed a question that made no apparent sense and had no apparent connection to the post it was in reply to... then in response to having that pointed out to you you posted a story that has nothing to do with the observation you posted THAT in reply to.

If you're just randomly posting observations and instructional tales with no intention of integrating them into an ongoing two-way discussion, well... ok.

[Two Americas]

20. thought it was obvious

Sorry.

See if my other post clears up the confusion.

[Two Americas]

19. going back over the exchange

The first poster says credit is a scam, and only the bankers win.

You say that you borrowed money and it worked.

I said, no it never works, there is no such thing as something for nothing, and someone always loses.


...

[bertman]

23. I don't understand how someone "loses" if he borrows money at interest to obtain

something he wants/needs, then pays the money back to the lender.

It's a mutually beneficial transaction. The lender made money on the loan. The borrower received the goods/service he borrowed money to buy. In essence, the borrower leveraged his credit-worthiness to obtain goods or services that he would otherwise not have been able to procure. Where's the loss?

Yours sounds like the old argument that lending is somehow inherently evil. I don't agree with that.

Certainly lending can be evil if it's used to subvert people's financial solvency, as in these escalating interest rate loans or credit cards. But that's an anti-social element of lending that we once controlled through well-crafted and -enforced laws.

[Two Americas]

26. I know

I know you don't see it. I thought the story would help.

Lending is not inherently evil, it is inherently dangerous.

With the state of the economy, and with the cause of the crisis being so clear, I feel like I am trying to convince people who are standing in a house that is burning down about the inherent danger of fire.

If it were a "mutually beneficial transaction" bankers would not be flying around in private jets while we all lose our jobs and our homes. I guess they are "credit worthy."

Think about that phrase right there - "credit worthy." Sounds like "shackles worthy" to me. "Oh Mr. Smith, you are so shackles worthy. We know you are not going anywhere and will do our bidding, and will never rock the boat - and you will thank us for your shackles!"


...

[bertman]

28. The fact that some people are unwise in their use of credit is more of an indictment of

those people than it is of bankers, IMO.

No one forces people to take out loans. Yes, I know that many banks have made credit too easy to get for some of us who are irresponsible in our personal financial lives. They've made lots of money doing that. That is a disservice to the public. HOWEVER, in many instances it's the result of people being too ignorant of good financial practices.

I know people who only operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. Rare birds in this world. But they do it and they live well. They are frugal and pinch every penny. They don't try to keep up with the Joneses, rather they make spending decisions based on "need" more than on "want". I also know lots of people who have loans for their homes, vehicles, and various other things like credit cards, but they have planned their finances well so they are not overburdened. So, what does that say about the rest of us who are overextended? To me, it says that we need to rethink our personal financial attitudes. Many of us have been too foolish or blind or blase when we should have been focused on our finances.

Is that the fault of bankers? No. Did they benefit from it? Hell yes. Does that make them evil? No.

Most of us make choices about our livelihoods at some point in our lives. If we are able to go to college we decide we want to be teachers or doctors or scientists or geologists or bankers or social workers or whatever. Some of us go for the jobs that make lots of money. Some go for the jobs that give them the greatest personal satisfaction. Some go for the jobs that they feel are most secure. If we can't go to college, we also make choices about our jobs. Do we want to be a day laborer or do we want to become a carpenter who learns his trade well enough to become a business owner or a superintendent? This stuff is all about individual decisions. So is the decision to borrow or not to borrow.

For many decades borrowing was a very positive and uplifting thing for Americans to do for themselves and their families. Now, for many of us it has gotten to be an addiction. Does that mean it's bad for everyone? No.

As far as your derision of the term "credit-worthy", that just shows your bias against the use of credit. Shackles to you are the keys that unlock another man's chains.

[Two Americas]

29. blaming the people

This is what the right wingers have trained us to do - blame the people with the least power and access to resources, and then dismiss inequality and injustice by saying that if only those people had gone about things correctly, cleverly, they would not have any problems.

Politics is not about personal lifestyle choices. That can only support the right wing to look at things that way.

It is a right wing distortion of history to say that "for many decades borrowing was a very positive and uplifting thing for Americans." After the New Deal, capital was reigned in so that people had a chance. In agriculture, to this day the New Deal farm credit program is preventing the crisis that is happening with credit and finance in the rest of the country.

This money the bankers loan to people - where do you imagine that money comes from?

This is not some esoteric or academic subject. Sit down and watch the film It's a Wonderful Life to understand the difference between what you are espousing, and how finance can actually be "a very positive and uplifting thing for Americans."

The "positive and uplifting" is to have a decent job, paid fairly, with access to resources, a home, access to health care, public infrastructure and a chance at a decent life. None of that is thanks to the bankers.

It is a false argument to claim that the only alternative to your view is hating bankers or something. Are you by any chance a banker or Wall Street executive? You are talking like one. You are defending the premises and assumptions that underpin Reaganomics, and against those that underpin the New Deal.

What is the point of beating the Republicans if we are going to perpetuate all of the same premises and assumptions?



...

[bertman]

30. This response of yours is so far off in so many ways that I don't have the time or

inclination to deal with all of it, but I'll hit the high points.

First, I am not a Republican or a right-winger or a banker or Wall Street executive. I don't need the right wing to tell me how to think. I base my comments on my life experience as a working-class American.

Your argument hinges on the old trick of saying that someone who disagrees with you is a tool of the right wing. I find it very offensive to say the least.

The banking and financial industry has been around for millenia and, for good or ill, it will likely be around a lot longer. You are right about one thing: "capital was reigned in so that people had a chance". It needs to be reigned in again, as it has once again weaseled its way out of the regulatory constraints that held it in check for 50 years.

What I hear you saying is that the hundreds of millions of Americans who have enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world owe none of that to their ability to borrow money to improve their lives and their standard of living. You're saying that the millions of small business owners who have borrowed money to finance and expand their businesses and better the lives of themselves and their employees were not able to have access to resouces, homes, access to health care, public infrastructure, and a decent way of life. You're saying that all of that would have happened without access to credit. I find that astounding in its ignorance. Not everyone has ALL of the things you mention, but a huge portion of our society does have them. Have you become so blinded by ideology that you cannot see what is around you? No, America is not close to perfect and we are having one hell of a rough economic problem to deal with now, but until Bushco took power most Americans felt like they had a pretty good life.

Bankers are part of the system just like steel workers, school teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, landscapers, poultry processors. Whether they perform for the benefit of the society is due to regulation and enforcement of the banking industry. You seem to have determined that banking is all bad unless it follows the "It's a Wonderful Life" model. Yeah, that would be great, but so would a world with no wars, no pollution, only kind, compassionate people helping other people. But the world is what it is. What we progressives do is try to regulate that which is prone to be damaging to society because we recognize that this world is not perfect. Sometimes that regulation is sketchy or non-existent and sometimes it's effective. We have seen effective regulation of banking and we need to reinstitute that process along with prosecution of fraudulent bank executives who have helped to drive our economy into the ground. But there are many good banks that are still in business and are still trying to offer services to Americans who need them.

Of course, folks like you who are wealthy don't need to borrow money like the rest of us working stiffs, so you don't care if we have well-regulated banks to loan to us.


:evilgrin:

[Two Americas]

31. fine

We see this differently.

I want to counter a few misconceptions your post contains.

I did NOT call you a Republican or a right winger. I said that the effect of the argument you are making here supports ideas and concepts that are helpful to the right wing. If you want to get offended and refuse to consider that possibility, that is your prerogative.

I am NOT advocating some radical doctrine here, and your attempts at isolating and marginalizing my point of view is a form of red baiting. The ideas I am advocating are the same ideas as those used to implement the farm credit program - a real world example of unqualified success of the ideas I am promoting.

Trying to portray critics of the domination of our lives and our economy by the financial and banking industry as some sort of impractical and fringe wild-eyed radicals is highly reactionary.

Domination of society by the banking and financial industry has NOT been around for millenia and is NOT inevitable. That is the right wing point of view you are expressing there.

The fact that "hundreds of millions of Americans who have enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world" is because of the work and sacrifices of courageous and visionary people in the organized Labor movement. That any Democrat could argue otherwise is truly stunning.



...

[MISSDem]

32. I've been reading your posts and wonder exactly what

you think should be done.

[Two Americas]

33. ok

It is not as though there is one and only one answer or plan. However, in similar situations fiance has been reined in successfully, as in my example of farm credit.

What is needed are jobs. The bailout money would put everyone in the country who is unemployed or under-employed to work immediately. We have a crumbling infrastructure and a collapsed manufacturing sector, so it is not as though it would be difficult finding productive things for people to do.

This is not merely my bright idea, but rather a description of what has worked in the past.

Of course, if we are shooting for feudalism and becoming a banana republic, we are on the right course. I assume that no Democrat is shooting for that. If we would rather support Wall Street fat cats in their mansions and private jets than put skilled people back to work, then the current plan is fine. Again, I assume that no Democrat wants that, either. But who knows? Many here are advocating just that. It could be that the Democratic party is transforming into the conservative party in the country. That has happened a few times in the last, and there are many signs that it is happening again. The people are not going to accept that program, though, regardless of whether or not they should and regardless of what our opinions may be, especially as life gets harder and harder for them.


...

[MISSDem]

34. Then I agree with you.

It is the same thing that FDR did.

[Two Americas]

37. sort of

It is the same thing that FDR did, given that there was a powerful, militant and outspoken political left wing movement and organized labor forcing him to.

Our job is to be that powerful, militant and outspoken political left wing movement and organized labor - that is, if we are serious about wanting anything like the New Deal to happen.

You can't start out by advocating the compromise that you would eventually settle for. A comprise that people settled for, after much struggle, is what the New Deal was - it was not some "choice" selected off of some political buffet table.



...

[bertman]

35. Red baiting? Give me a fucking break. That is weak.

You said that I sound like a Republican. You said that I seem to favor Reaganomics over FDR's New Deal policies (or something to that effect). Nothing could be farther from the truth. FDR did not do away with banks, he regulated them.

Your idea of what's right and wrong is so twisted that it makes me wonder how you got to be so angry and vitriolic. How am I supporting right-wingers by saying that there is value in people being able to borrow money to improve their lot in life? Your obvious bias is that anyone who has enough money to lend to someone else with interest is doing something evil. I couldn't disagree more.

Perhaps you should read up on your history a bit. The people who controlled the wealth--hint: we're talking about the nobles/aristocracy/church--have been in charge of financing everything from mercantile endeavors to wars to colonization for MILLENIA. Do you think the Romans just put together a bunch of peasants and told them to go to England to bring back booty? Apparently you have no idea that wars, colonization, and trade have all been bankrolled for the benefit of those who had the gold, so that they could get more gold (and spices, and silk, and slaves, and wine, and oil, etc. etc.) These people who had the gold/silver/jewels/money were more than happy to give it to those who needed it for their endeavours BUT ALWAYS FOR A PRICE--what we have come to know as interest. No, the Romans did not call it the First National Bank of Venice, but the wealthy elites still served that function, just as many of them do today.

"Trying to portray critics of the domination of our lives and our economy by the financial and banking industry as some sort of impractical and fringe wild-eyed radicals is highly reactionary." Where the hell did you get that? Do you just pull this crap out of your ass to have something to say?

"The fact that "hundreds of millions of Americans who have enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world" is because of the work and sacrifices of courageous and visionary people in the organized Labor movement. That any Democrat could argue otherwise is truly stunning." Actually what's stunning is that you don't understand that it was not JUST the people in the labor movement who helped create that standard of living, it was also millions of other Americans who were farmers, small business owners, entrepeneurs, non-union workers, grocers, and --HOLD ONTO YOUR SEAT -- even bankers and industrialists and investors. But, of course, that reality does not fit into your Us Versus Them mentality.

I'll be glad to see the financial industry re-regulated again and heavily re-regulated. This time for the benefit of the citizens. That doesn't mean that bankers can't make money. It just means that bankers can't make ALL the money.

[Two Americas]

36. the confusion

You are responding as though I attacked your identity, rather than your arguments. I am not saying that you "are" a Republican, nor that you "sound like" a Republican. I am saying that the line of argument you are using gives aid and comfort to the right wing - inadvertently, I think, so no need for getting personally offended. Would you not want to consider that possibility, when coming from an ally? I would, were the situation reversed.

I am not the least bit angry or vitriolic. Speculating and making insinuations about the other person;s supposedly irrational or overwrought emotional state is a dishonest way to discredit what they are saying.

Saying this: "Your obvious bias is that anyone who has enough money to lend to someone else with interest is doing something evil" is a form of red baiting, or at least a close cousin to it. Taking any vaguely left wing statements and characterizing them in an extreme way is a key feature of red baiting. I said the financial industry is dangerous, not evil. You cannot support the New Deal concepts and take issue with me on that with any integrity or consistency. saying things like "oh he hates all bankers" - like "he hates all rich people" or "he against people having anything" - is using scary caricatures to raise specters of "crazy radicals" who are not to be taken seriously. That is red-baiting.

I asked you where you thought this "enough money to lend" that some people have originated from. Did it fall out of the sky? Do they "just happen" to have money to lend?

Your examples of "nobles/aristocracy/church" and the R9man Empire are the exceptions, used to weave a narrative that justifies modern capitalism by selective citations from history - sort of a Cliff's Notes version of the history of western civilization that just happens - surprise! surprise! - to lead to support and defense of the notion of modern capitalism as an invertible and inescapable feature of human history, passed down to us by the ancients.

Nothing could have ever been accomplished without the capitalists! is the moral of your story.

Yes, the history of capitalism, as written by capitalist apologists and for the purpose of promoting capitalism, contains supposed examples of capitalism from the past, and things that seem on the surface to support the idea that capitalism is eternal and inescapable - and then also kinda sorta good, in your view.

"...it was not JUST the people in the labor movement who helped create that standard of living, it was also millions of other Americans who were farmers, small business owners, entrepreneurs, non-union workers, grocers, and --HOLD ONTO YOUR SEAT -- even bankers and industrialists and investors."

Utter nonsense. All of those other groups would have gone along with and been perfectly happy had the gains by the Labor movement never happened. Yes, once Labor had battled for the rights of workers, the rest of the people got on the program. But the big money people had to be dragged kicking and screaming and fought it every inch of the way - violently, relentlessly.

You may as well argue that the Confederate army and slave owners contributed to emancipation, because after is was an accomplished fact they accepted it and went about their business.

The same argument was used against the Abolitionists in the 1850;s that you are using here, almost word for word - "not all slave owners are evil! You are making this into us versus them and saying that all slave owners are evil!! How dare you say that I am not against slavery!" The same argument was used against the Labor movement - "not all business owners are evil! How dare you say I am against the workers. You are making this us versus them." Against the New Deal - "not all bankers are evil! You are making this us versus them!" Against the Civil Rights movement - "not all whites are evil!" Against the suffragette and feminist movements - "not all men are evil!!" Against the GLBTQ community right here in recent weeks - "not all heteros are evil!! How dare you call me a bigot!"

You say "I'll be glad to see the financial industry re-regulated again and heavily re-regulated. This time for the benefit of the citizens. That doesn't mean that bankers can't make money. It just means that bankers can't make ALL the money."

Of course. What do you think I am advocating? How do you propose to achieve that goal if no one advocates strongly against the dominance of the financial industry, and when they do get attacked the way you are attacking me here?

So you can sit back, and look forward to that moment when the struggle is over, and then you can "be glad to see" the results. Others will continue to speak out and fight. If you really want to see the results - as you say - stop resisting the process. Opponents of social progress throughout history have ALWAYS said that they support the eventual results, and then go about blocking the process at every turn. "Oh don't get me wrong, I support gay rights - how dare you imply otherwise!!! I just don't like the way they are going about it, and now it is not the right time, and we need to take baby steps, and we are working toward it, and screaming and yelling and going ballistic just alienates people and works against your cause."


...

[ORDagnabbit]

7. been readin george for years....pretty smart guy.

[MISSDem]

8. Consumer spending drives the economy.

The economists ask that those who can afford to, to spend to help the economy.

[BirminghamExaminer]

24. That's the problem...those who can afford to have everything they want or need

while people like me are having to decide whether to pay the mortgage or whether to pay the health insurance bill.

If those who can afford to will spend, tell them to buy our used books. Better yet, tell them to pay off my house so I can afford to start putting money in savings for retirement when I'm oh, 95 or so.

[Grinchie]

14. Unfortunately, the Fractional Reserve Monetary System is dependant on Debt

As people take out loans, it creates nearly 10 times the amount of money out of thin air, parts of which is then used as reserves for other loans. Unfortunately, their is always a shortfall of conjured money when it comes to repayment, causing a fixed percentage of debtors to fail. The failure of these debtors is built into the system by the fact that Interest moneies have to come from somewhere else, or be taken out of the debtors assets.

This is how wealth is slowly but surely transferred to the bankers in todays world.

We have been led to believe that credit is the staple of the economy since about 1975 or so. At this point, Americans consider Credit Card debt and other loans as a necessary part of the economy. This is a fraud. Even if you are extremely wealthy, if you take on extraordinary debt and fail to repay, you will lose your assets. It's a fact.

At this point, with the games that have been played by Greenspan, Bush, Paulson and Bernanke to prop up the house of cards, along with the complete collusion of the big investment banks and hedge funds that profitted from their financing of the Military industrial complex, the crushing realities of the hiddens debts are coming into play as we realize that we are looking at Hubbert's Curve, eviscerated Industrial Production, Exhausted Natural Resources, A food System that is Compromised by GMO contamination and utterly dependant on Oil to exist, and unhealthy, obese and uneducated citizenry that has not needed to think critically for many years as they consumed their way into happiness.

Right now, we are seeing massive deflation of the money supply as the promises to repay are determined to be worthless. This causes a massive contraction of available money, which only existed on paper anyway, but the banks use it to reduce lending even more, because all of a sudden they "Know" that they exceeded the boudary condition and the system has collapsed.

This deflation I believe is almost over. We are now seeing the signs that the lack of productions and restocking of our retailers and wholesalers is starting to affect inventory. When people need to repair of replace items in the near future, they are going to be compteting with millions of other people in the same boat for a much diminished supply of goods, namely because nobody is producing much right now. When this group of buyers starts competing for the limited goods, the reinflated money supply will drive prices much higher, so we will see a huge spike in prices for what limited goods are available. Whether this goes into Hyperinflation is anybodys guess, but it will probably last a few years, namely because we do not have the industrial capacity to replace the crap that comes from China easily. Nor do we have the labor, because Americans would not tolerate similar working conditions that the Chinese or foreign labor endures.

For those of us that benefitted from Enron, by losing everything as it stuck the knife into the DotCom survivors, and realized that the system was all a big fraud, we got out of debt, own everything free and clear, and produce most of what we need on a daily basis. The current economy and most people are running on fumes from an empty tank and they are just now beginning to notice.

The economic collapse was predicted by a colleague of mine in 2005, who said it was engineered by Bush to completely hamstring the Democrats. I don't see anything to change my mind that this is indeed what happened, and although Obama is keeping a stiff upper lip, he knows that the situation is hopeless, and is reliant upon the existing power structure to keep the country stable. They have probably convinced him that the people are too weak and stupid to be able to face the reality of a bankrupt USA, and is going with plan A -- Drag out for as long as possible until they can figure a way out of this mess.

We are on the verge of Change. Nobody knows if it will be good or bad, because there are too many stupid people that think money is everything, and that laws that apply only to some people are actually laws that need to be obeyed. The only laws that the Judicial system enforces are those with real monetary values, they don't care about human rights, pollution, or constitutional law.

It's like a cop once said to me, "Their is no law against lying", and when you look at the Government, you can see the truth of that statement.

[jimmybama]

21. To stimulate spending

You need to drop retail prices on everything across the board.
To do thi, corporate america will have to do something they
have refused to do. CUT PROFIT MARGINS. Small business have to
do this I don't see why corporate america can't or won't do it
either (greed). What's wrong with only making 10 million a
year instead of 200 Billion.

[Myrina]

22. BINGO!

:applause:

[BirminghamExaminer]

25. They won't drop prices, they'll drop employees instead and keep their profit margins. N/T