The coming economic crisis

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[de_paradise]

It is widely believed that the GLD ETF doesn't have the gold it is trading. It has only promises to deliver gold--over-leveraged promises that could never be fulfilled even in the best of times.

 

There are also credible rumors that many of the solid gold bars in trade, are actually gold-plated tungsten. So buyer beware!

 

The ETF such as GLD and DGP are composed of gold futures only. Im not expecting systemic meltdown to the extent that the markets stop operating, but if you are wary of that risk then physical gold is the only option. As far as gold shopping one does due diligence. I am not just writing this out for a lark, I believe we are at a very risky point in financial history, and urge those that have some kind of plans to start putting them in motion.

[ralis]

Chinese wages are low and start around 1000 Yuan/month. USD equivalent is 147.50/month. That works out to 1.22/ hour based on a 40 hr. week. Of course these people are working in sweat shops and work long hours in horrific conditions. Therefor the pay is much less. Take for instance the toxic drywall that was imported from China. http://activerain.com/blogsview/924108/is-toxic-chinese-drywall-in-your-home-

Is this the kind of efficiency you want? Toxic food? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051901273.html This is not efficiency or anything close, just more greed promoted by corporations.

 

 

This is what you get without proper regulation. However, you conservatives only care about the bottom line and not the health and welfare of all.

 

As far as tariffs are concerned, the purpose is to create a fair playing field. Since there is such an imbalance of trade and more U.S. workers are left without jobs, I suppose the conservatives that are posting here think that is OK?

 

I have no problem with corporations existing for a useful purpose. However, when unregulated and predatory, those corporations should no longer exist. Until the late 1800's corporations existed for the length of their charter and only served for the good of the public. Now that corporations have been given the rights of persons, they have been given incredible power.

 

 

ralis

[joeblast]

I hope you know your biased anti-liberalism promotions are horribly transparent. I'm sure you know it is Conservative CEO's who took 50,000 factories off US soil and overseas, along with 6 million jobs. I'm sure you know this but you will just ignore because you have some sort of screw-rationality hate for "liberals". So go ahead and ignore this, and continue with your biased Fox News level propaganda.

 

Oh yea, and on another thread you blamed the Baby Boomer Liberals for the current 15 trillion dollar debt. I'm sure you know that Clinton had the US Budget BALANCED in the late 90's. And it was because of Wars and the Economic Crash - mostly cooked up by Conservatives - that the budget WENT TO HELL. But I'm sure you won't acknowledge this and just ignore it, and continue with your biased Fox News level propaganda.

 

Can you admit these two truths about conservatives? I doubt it. You are just playing a hate game, regardless of the truth. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees through you.

You still seem a lil hot under the collar - so much for a self imposed retreat!

 

Its funny that snapshot is touted - was it dynamic, or just a snapshot? It still doesnt account for the entitlement disasters by any means - they'd still be fiscal disasters in the absence of the wars, so if anything they merely hastened the days of reckoning - but they aint nearly the money-vortex that entitlement spending is. We've got roughly 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, mas o menos depending who you talk to. Cost of the war, about 1 trillion and then some.

[ralis]

I hope you know your biased anti-liberalism promotions are horribly transparent. I'm sure you know it is Conservative CEO's who took 50,000 factories off US soil and overseas, along with 6 million jobs. I'm sure you know this but you will just ignore because you have some sort of screw-rationality hate for "liberals". So go ahead and ignore this, and continue with your biased Fox News level propaganda.

 

Oh yea, and on another thread you blamed the 'Baby Boomer Liberals' for the current 15 trillion dollar debt. I'm sure you know that Clinton had the US Budget BALANCED in the late 90's. And it was because of Wars and the Economic Crash - mostly cooked up by Conservatives - that the budget WENT TO HELL. But I'm sure you won't acknowledge this and just ignore it, and continue with your biased Fox News level propaganda.

 

Can you admit these two truths about conservatives? I doubt it. You are just playing a hate game, regardless of the truth. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees through you.

 

 

Exactly! Clinton left a budget surplus and Bush spent that and more. Also Bush borrowed in the form of bonds, money to finance an illegal war. The Chinese are the holders of most of that paper. Bush sold us out!

 

ralis

[Tao99]

Edited July 10, 2010 by Tao99

[ralis]

"Credit Default Swaps" were developed during the gutting of Glass Steagall that allow banks and investment firms to make bets on bets. That is riskier than going to a casino. The insanity of this is ludicrous!

 

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2010/05/20/what-does-germanys-credit-default-swap-ban-mean-for-investors/

 

 

ralis

[Tao99]

Edited July 10, 2010 by Tao99

[Brian]

...

[ralis]

Let's just look at the facts without spin - fair and balanced. You believe in that right? If you are anything like me, you will find this shocking and rather depressing.

 

FROM: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

 

 

"Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts."[RED!]

 

 

FROM: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

 

QUESTION:

During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

 

ANSWER:

Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

 

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

 

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

 

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

 

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Thanks for this info. Excellent research!

 

The Republicans lied about the largest tax increase in history. The largest top rate was around 79% prior to WWII. I believe that was for incomes >3M.

 

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

 

ralis

Edited July 6, 2010 by ralis

[Brian]

...

[ralis]

A scientist looking at this chart would likely ask the question, "What happened in 1992, in 2000 & in 2004?"

 

What is your point?

 

ralis

[Brian]

...

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Brian]

...

[Tao99]

Edited July 10, 2010 by Tao99

[gendao]

I hope you know your biased anti-liberalism promotions are horribly transparent. I'm sure you know it is Conservative CEO's who took 50,000 factories off US soil and overseas, along with 6 million jobs.

What else are they supposed to do? The American business model is simply inefficient and flawed now due to excessive regulations. Liberals handcuff industry with so many staggering entitlement costs - which then simply get passed on to the consumer.

 

But the American consumer isn't willing to foot these enormous bills - so choose to buy elsewhere. So maybe you should blame liberals or cheap consumers, instead?

 

Seriously, if your PC was made entirely in the USA - it would probably cost you $10,000. You'd really rather to pay that???

Oh yea, and on another thread you blamed the 'Baby Boomer Liberals' for the current 15 trillion dollar debt. I'm sure you know that Clinton had the US Budget BALANCED in the late 90's. And it was because of Bush Tax Cut, Wars and the Economic Crash - mostly cooked up by Conservatives - that the budget WENT TO RED HELL. But I'm sure you won't acknowledge this and just ignore it, and continue with your biased Fox News level propaganda.

Nope, I am against various aspects of liberals/neocons combined. Yes, Dubya blew our budget to bits by blowing $80 billion/month in Iraq...

 

BUT, HOW MANY DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THE IRAQ WAR??? And why hasn't Obama pulled our troops out now? Here we see their false dichotomy exposed as they all express solidarity on the core CFR/Trilateral/Bilderberg issues.

Chinese wages are low and start around 1000 Yuan/month. USD equivalent is 147.50/month. That works out to 1.22/ hour based on a 40 hr. week. Of course these people are working in sweat shops and work long hours in horrific conditions. Therefor the pay is much less. Take for instance the toxic drywall that was imported from China. http://activerain.com/blogsview/924108/is-toxic-chinese-drywall-in-your-home-

Is this the kind of efficiency you want? Toxic food? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/19/AR2007051901273.html This is not efficiency or anything close, just more greed promoted by corporations.

Yup - all else aside - they work harder for less. That's the KEY VARIABLE HERE - REAL "SWEAT EQUITY." Blaming all this on "unfair trade practices" is denying the real problem - and solution.

 

And as far as corruption and quality control - yes, there does need to be more safety regulations in China - but those are also problems anywhere. Why do you think people stopped buying American cars? Cuz they got so sick of the hunks of rust churned out by Motor City in the 70s!

 

BTW, Ronald Reagan first granted illegal aliens amnesty, George Bush Sr. passed an EO banning offshore oil drilling & Clinton passed welfare reform (PRWORA). So, so much for conservative/liberal stereotypes in real life...

Edited July 6, 2010 by vortex

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[gendao]

^ Well, I was talking about real industry that make real consumable products - not Wall Street that just plays financial shell games.

 

As has been discussed, the housing bust was started by the Communist Reinvestment Act - which forced Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to give loans to select minorities with bad credit.

 

This started a competitive "no money down or credit check" subprime lending spree in mortgage lending...that fueled wild speculation and of course ultimately a total implosion.

 

So, this was due to BAD "Commie-style" REGULATION - forcing banks to make BAD LOANS.

 

Now of course Wall Street did suffer from UNDER-REGULATION - just like BP. Obviously, because most mainstream politicians are totally paid off by these industries. But most voters are too f'n stupid to actually do their homework - and simply vote for whomever has the best slogans (like "HOPE" & "CHANGE").

 

We are not losing Wall Street jobs overseas though - which is why I wasn't really including them in my analysis.

 

The cold, hard reality is very simple, though. You keep spending more than you have...and you will end up in deep doo-doo. This is pretty much true of any system. This contry is suffering from SEVERE JING DEPLETION due to overEJACULATION and ZERO CONSERVATION. Our qi is thus down to fumes now - and let's not even talk about our SHEN! Shen, what shen??? Yet this is the sobering picture that NO Americans want to accept and deal with.

So, they start pointing fingers at every other excuse out there - aside from the one that really counts! Instead, our leaders advise us to...EJACULATE even MORE? That is their cure for our jing depletion!

 

Obviously, this country is completely delusional now!

Edited July 6, 2010 by vortex

[ralis]

^ Well, I was talking about real industry that make real consumable products - not Wall Street that just plays financial shell games.

 

As has been discussed, the housing bust was started by the Communist Reinvestment Act - which forced Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae to give loans to select minorities with bad credit.

 

This started a competitive "no money down or credit check" subprime lending spree in mortgage lending...that fueled wild speculation and of course ultimately a total implosion.

 

So, this was due to BAD "Commie-style" REGULATION - forcing banks to make BAD LOANS.

 

Now of course Wall Street did suffer from UNDER-REGULATION - just like BP. Obviously, because most mainstream politicians are totally paid off by these industries. But most voters are too f'n stupid to actually do their homework - and simply vote for whomever has the best slogans (like "HOPE" & "CHANGE").

 

We are not losing Wall Street jobs overseas though - which is why I wasn't really including them in my analysis.

 

The cold, hard reality is very simple, though. You keep spending more than you have...and you will end up in deep doo-doo. This is pretty much true of any system. This contry is suffering from SEVERE JING DEPLETION due to overEJACULATION and ZERO CONSERVATION. Our qi is thus down to fumes now - and let's not even talk about our SHEN! Shen, what shen??? Yet this is the sobering picture that NO Americans want to accept and deal with.

So, they start pointing fingers at every other excuse out there - aside from the one that really counts! And our leaders advise us to...EJACULATE even MORE! That is the cure for our jing depletion!

 

 

As far as the CRA goes you have mis-characterized it. What do you have against minorities that were segregated discriminated against and kept from opportunities of the majority white population?

 

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

 

 

ralis

[gendao]

As far as the CRA goes you have mis-characterized it. What do you have against minorities that were segregated discriminated against and kept from opportunities of the majority white population?

 

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

I don't think banks should be forced to make bad loans to anyone - simply on account of their race. That is a horrible business practice - and also enables minority underachievement.

 

And a lot of the "discrimination" against lending to these minorities wasn't due to "racism,"...but the fact that many of these minorities genuinely did have BAD CREDIT. Seriously, you ever been to Detroit or stepped in the ghetto??? So, if more of these minorities have bad credit on the whole...then why should they be expected to own homes at the same rate as everyone else???

 

I mean, if bad credit is all due to discrimination - then why don't ASIANS have low credit scores???

On average, black and Hispanic scores are lower than white and Asian, probe finds

 

Federal Reserve Board says that credit scores vary "substantially" among racial and ethnic groups

 

Credit-score statistical factors and models are not biased against any particular demographic group, but are highly predictive of future payment performance.

 

Lower scores correlate strongly with future delinquencies; higher scores are associated with good payment performance.

 

Black Americans and Hispanics, on average, "have lower credit scores than non-Hispanic whites and Asians."

 

according to the Fed, "blacks, single individuals, individuals residing in lower-income or predominantly minority census tracts show consistently higher incidences of bad performance than would be predicted" by their credit scores. On the other hand, "Asians, married individuals, foreign-born (particularly recent immigrants), and those residing in higher-income census tracts consistently perform better than predicted" by their credit scores.

And the predictable end results of this act bear witness to all this..

In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks." In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.

Anyhow, I'm against these racist policies rewarding underachievement because I'm getting stuck with the bill as a taxpayer and it is DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY!!!! Edited July 6, 2010 by vortex

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Vortex, congratulations on writing a post without blaming "the liberals" for anything! Are you becoming open-minded on us? You dawg!

[ralis]

Wasn't Vortex posting on the Buddhist threads? I thought attachment to money was not being a good Buddhist.

 

ralis

[Stigweard]

[Gerard]

...Personally my living standard is poverty line level so it wont make much difference to me as long as food supply is kept up.

 

Don't forget this:

 

You could be poor but your spirit will grow richer. The Buddha left a life of opulence and comfort for poverty and loneliness in order to udnerstand the nature of suffering, and in the end he accomplished his goal. In the meantime he understood that impermanence is what rules existence so becoming attached to things only intensifies suffering. As long as you have a roof to sleep under and food then things will be fine.

 

I also live a life of semi-poverty, the only luxury I have is spending $ on medium priced green/pu-erh teas as well as my Bagua lessons.

 

Being spiritual and rich at the same time is contradictory.

 

Good luck!

Edited July 7, 2010 by durkhrod chogori