The collapse of the American economy will occur on May 21, 2012. Families without food and water, clothing and tools set aside will be thrust back to the typical lifestyle enjoyed 300 years ago. I implore you read what that daily life style was really like. My words are truth. To the wise, they give life, security and peace. Stay in your homes. Ignore government edicts and cover your chimneys at night.
For your little theory to make any sense, inflation would need to be removed from the calculation of the debt. As it stands, any change in the value of the currency is reflected proportionally in the debt.
Also, your understanding of the money supply seems questionable.
How so? China holds reserves in dollars. Dollars are still the principal reserve currency in the World. Dollars are subject to our monetary policy choices, including those that incur massive inflation. If the debt itself is denominated in dollars, then there is no problem with the theory at all, since we have borrowed when the dollar was strong, bought hard assets, and then repaid when the dollar was weak. Also, what is your problem with my "understanding of money supply"?
The loans adjust for inflation. The loans are structured such that the scheme you are proposing is not feasible. However in cases in which an economy shrinks, devaluation may follow. In that case, the party loaning capital would face the same risks as investing in a money market fund.
When the Fed "prints money" they don't just throw it in the street for people to grab. Interest rate and minimum reserve adjustments provide incentives for banks to make more loans.
First you say the scheme I am proposing is not feasable, then you describe exactly what I said by saying; "However in cases in which an economy shrinks, devaluation may follow. In that case, the party loaning capital would face the same risks as investing in a money market fund."
That is EXACTLY my point.
As to the incentives for banks to make more loans; that is not even pertinent to my point. The more money is in circulation, the less each dollar is worth. Whether that be banks loaning it...
...or Ben Bernanke shoveling cash out of a helicopter over a city (look up "helicopter Ben"; his old nickname) doesn't matter at all. In either case you have an inflationary effect whenever you create new money. We have tripled our money supply in about a year. That means inflation. The only reason we haven't seen it hit is because banks have been sitting on their shares of the bailout money. Apparently your "incentives" aren't working too well.
Puckering up to lobbyists with deregulation got us into this mess. Insisting that businesses borrowing the 3.5 billion in bailout has worked for this admin. Bush should have insisted the same. I'm trying to hold on to my conservative beliefs, but it seems that what's left of our Republican party is merely social conservatives, rather than true conservatives. I am considering switching to Libertarian and never voting Republican again.
You do realize that Libertarians favor deregulation right?
I would point out that deregulation did not get us into this mess; the government intentionally distorting the mortgage market to the tune of almost a trillion dollars for years did. The market had to correct, and it did. Now, they want to fix the problem by adding more government control. That is like putting out a fire with gasoline.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was the deregulation that had the biggest effect on the economy. The Republican written bill ended the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 that kept companies from getting too big. Managers at the bank where I work predicted the outcome. Gramm --who authored the bill-- was one of McCain's campaign advisors.
Oh, brilliant; so if a "company gets too big" then the world explodes huh? There were these two, ever so small things called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were huge mechanisms for distortion of the mortgage industry; now what industry caused all the damage? Mortgage. In addition to this, the Fed caused a borrowing bubble by keeping the interest rates too low for too long; once again, government intervention. You don't want companies to get "too big" -to limit their freedom... why...
... do you want to vote Libertarian? A libertarian government would put less control, not more, on the private sector. In fact, it was stupid, centralized control that caused the problem, so you would be right to vote that way, except it doesnt match up with anything you seem to believe. Why aren't you a Democrat?
It's not what I "seem to believe." It's what I know. The Glass-Steagall Act kept investment and savings banking seperate. It kept banks from owning insurance companies. You know, I thought you'd try to talk me out of leaving the party. But it seems the party is over and all that's left are angry drunks who couldn't get laid. I'm unsubbing and blocking.
My point: companies (banking institutions) were too big "to fail" As you may not know, FDIC insures only up to $100,000. So if a client uses the same bank for savings as he does investment banking, he will lose a lot of money. The failure of these banks would have left many people in ruins. The housing bubble could not have caused a worldwide reccession. Banking conglomerates can; did. Another thing about deregulation: That's what the GOP has proposed we do about the health care industry.
It would get rid of the current national debt but they wouldn't lend you money in dollars again. It would be a sort of debt amnesty that you wouldn't get again.
Yes, they certainly wouldn't. It can only be done now because for the past 150 years, American debt has been one of the safest bets out there. The problem is; if you are in a hyperinflationary cycle, usually the only way to get out of it is to literally start over with a new currency. Israel had to do this in the 1980s, Germany, of course had to do it in the 1930s.. in most cases, the old currency is lost.
Unfortunately countries play with their currencies every couple of decades. Do not forget that the Chinese have been accused of keeping their currency devalued so that their prices are far superior to competitors... that too caused them to gain heavily, even though currency based fraud is much smaller in the Chinese scenario compared to your theory about current US currency manipulations.
Every nation attempts to lead it's currency to help it achieve it's goals.. for better or worse...
i think this is more of a boomer vs. everyone else battle. The boomers hold the majority of voting power and most are greedy socialists. We don't have real republicans, they're all collectivists...no different than liberals.
They're pandering to boomers with short term gains by spending and creating long term obligations that the younger generation will unfortunately be forced to pay for. Great vid btw.
I have to agree with you. If you look at voting patterns, Generation X has consistently voted for generally fiscally conservative candidates for the last 16+ years. Boomers have voted for liberal candidates overwhelmingly, and unfortunately, there are more of them. Worse than the debt though, is the fact that sudden inflation will wipe out people's savings if they aren't in something like gold. Millions will suffer, mostly middle class and poor.
This is good for us getting rid of our deficient and its bad because many people will get screwed and the whole world will get screwed but wont the country's receiving the dump dollar try to keep its value as high as possible? So there loss is not that great?
Of course they will try to keep the value of the dollar high. This is why I argue with people that China is not holding our debt over our heads because they can't sell it suddenly or they would lose a huge amount of value. Still, if we have a conscious effort to undermine our own currency, backed up with total fiscal and monetary irresponsibility in Washington, the debt holder countries ultimately don't stand a chance.
So isn't the debtors keeping the dollar high save us and if we eat up the dollar as soon as there almost about to dump it so inflation wont be as bad?
I don't think the debtors can save us (or their own investments). We are huge. As a percentage of the World's economy, we are a giant among lilliputians. If we start to erode the value of our own currency in order to lower the real value of our debt, they do not have enough leverage to stop it. Both our foreign investors, and our own citizens who keep most of their own money in dollars will be wiped out.
But what if we drop the Dollar and receive a new currency backed by gold or we buy large amounts of gold now back the dollar more gold than we had before so we can save many Americans after the collapse or since we control the banks tell them to exchange to the euro so the majority of cash is saved.
Yeah, we could change things if we changed our policies. The people in Washington do not want to change their policies or go to a gold backed dollar or something; I think they WANT to crash our monetary system. As to going to the Euro; I would recommend against it. First the USA would not control it's own monetary policy, secondly, a huge sacrifice of US sovereignty would be demanded in return for allowing us to use it; they would want regulatory control. That would ruin us.
The collapse of the American economy will occur on May 21, 2012. Families without food and water, clothing and tools set aside will be thrust back to the typical lifestyle enjoyed 300 years ago. I implore you read what that daily life style was really like. My words are truth. To the wise, they give life, security and peace. Stay in your homes. Ignore government edicts and cover your chimneys at night.
JosephHuntington 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
shoot, i've known about that fraud since i was a child. glad someone talks more than i do! :P
risecat 2 years ago
It's a fiat currency backed by people's faith in the US economy. Since the economy is not doing so well, it makes sense for the dollar to lose value.
Since the result of the scenario you are proposing would be Anti-Pareto, there is no motivation to provoke this if people are acting reasonably.
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
For your little theory to make any sense, inflation would need to be removed from the calculation of the debt. As it stands, any change in the value of the currency is reflected proportionally in the debt.
Also, your understanding of the money supply seems questionable.
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
How so? China holds reserves in dollars. Dollars are still the principal reserve currency in the World. Dollars are subject to our monetary policy choices, including those that incur massive inflation. If the debt itself is denominated in dollars, then there is no problem with the theory at all, since we have borrowed when the dollar was strong, bought hard assets, and then repaid when the dollar was weak. Also, what is your problem with my "understanding of money supply"?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
The loans adjust for inflation. The loans are structured such that the scheme you are proposing is not feasible. However in cases in which an economy shrinks, devaluation may follow. In that case, the party loaning capital would face the same risks as investing in a money market fund.
When the Fed "prints money" they don't just throw it in the street for people to grab. Interest rate and minimum reserve adjustments provide incentives for banks to make more loans.
Do you understand now?
eatenmyeyes 2 years ago
First you say the scheme I am proposing is not feasable, then you describe exactly what I said by saying; "However in cases in which an economy shrinks, devaluation may follow. In that case, the party loaning capital would face the same risks as investing in a money market fund."
That is EXACTLY my point.
As to the incentives for banks to make more loans; that is not even pertinent to my point. The more money is in circulation, the less each dollar is worth. Whether that be banks loaning it...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
...or Ben Bernanke shoveling cash out of a helicopter over a city (look up "helicopter Ben"; his old nickname) doesn't matter at all. In either case you have an inflationary effect whenever you create new money. We have tripled our money supply in about a year. That means inflation. The only reason we haven't seen it hit is because banks have been sitting on their shares of the bailout money. Apparently your "incentives" aren't working too well.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Puckering up to lobbyists with deregulation got us into this mess. Insisting that businesses borrowing the 3.5 billion in bailout has worked for this admin. Bush should have insisted the same. I'm trying to hold on to my conservative beliefs, but it seems that what's left of our Republican party is merely social conservatives, rather than true conservatives. I am considering switching to Libertarian and never voting Republican again.
melissasright 2 years ago
You do realize that Libertarians favor deregulation right?
I would point out that deregulation did not get us into this mess; the government intentionally distorting the mortgage market to the tune of almost a trillion dollars for years did. The market had to correct, and it did. Now, they want to fix the problem by adding more government control. That is like putting out a fire with gasoline.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was the deregulation that had the biggest effect on the economy. The Republican written bill ended the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 that kept companies from getting too big. Managers at the bank where I work predicted the outcome. Gramm --who authored the bill-- was one of McCain's campaign advisors.
melissasright 2 years ago
Oh, brilliant; so if a "company gets too big" then the world explodes huh? There were these two, ever so small things called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were huge mechanisms for distortion of the mortgage industry; now what industry caused all the damage? Mortgage. In addition to this, the Fed caused a borrowing bubble by keeping the interest rates too low for too long; once again, government intervention. You don't want companies to get "too big" -to limit their freedom... why...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
... do you want to vote Libertarian? A libertarian government would put less control, not more, on the private sector. In fact, it was stupid, centralized control that caused the problem, so you would be right to vote that way, except it doesnt match up with anything you seem to believe. Why aren't you a Democrat?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
It's not what I "seem to believe." It's what I know. The Glass-Steagall Act kept investment and savings banking seperate. It kept banks from owning insurance companies. You know, I thought you'd try to talk me out of leaving the party. But it seems the party is over and all that's left are angry drunks who couldn't get laid. I'm unsubbing and blocking.
melissasright 2 years ago
My point: companies (banking institutions) were too big "to fail" As you may not know, FDIC insures only up to $100,000. So if a client uses the same bank for savings as he does investment banking, he will lose a lot of money. The failure of these banks would have left many people in ruins. The housing bubble could not have caused a worldwide reccession. Banking conglomerates can; did. Another thing about deregulation: That's what the GOP has proposed we do about the health care industry.
melissasright 2 years ago
It would get rid of the current national debt but they wouldn't lend you money in dollars again. It would be a sort of debt amnesty that you wouldn't get again.
Scoforever 2 years ago
Yes, they certainly wouldn't. It can only be done now because for the past 150 years, American debt has been one of the safest bets out there. The problem is; if you are in a hyperinflationary cycle, usually the only way to get out of it is to literally start over with a new currency. Israel had to do this in the 1980s, Germany, of course had to do it in the 1930s.. in most cases, the old currency is lost.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Unfortunately countries play with their currencies every couple of decades. Do not forget that the Chinese have been accused of keeping their currency devalued so that their prices are far superior to competitors... that too caused them to gain heavily, even though currency based fraud is much smaller in the Chinese scenario compared to your theory about current US currency manipulations.
Every nation attempts to lead it's currency to help it achieve it's goals.. for better or worse...
rulllar 2 years ago
Obamanomics is an EPIC DISASTER.
i think this is more of a boomer vs. everyone else battle. The boomers hold the majority of voting power and most are greedy socialists. We don't have real republicans, they're all collectivists...no different than liberals.
They're pandering to boomers with short term gains by spending and creating long term obligations that the younger generation will unfortunately be forced to pay for. Great vid btw.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
I have to agree with you. If you look at voting patterns, Generation X has consistently voted for generally fiscally conservative candidates for the last 16+ years. Boomers have voted for liberal candidates overwhelmingly, and unfortunately, there are more of them. Worse than the debt though, is the fact that sudden inflation will wipe out people's savings if they aren't in something like gold. Millions will suffer, mostly middle class and poor.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
This is good for us getting rid of our deficient and its bad because many people will get screwed and the whole world will get screwed but wont the country's receiving the dump dollar try to keep its value as high as possible? So there loss is not that great?
KyleClarkUSA 2 years ago
Of course they will try to keep the value of the dollar high. This is why I argue with people that China is not holding our debt over our heads because they can't sell it suddenly or they would lose a huge amount of value. Still, if we have a conscious effort to undermine our own currency, backed up with total fiscal and monetary irresponsibility in Washington, the debt holder countries ultimately don't stand a chance.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
So isn't the debtors keeping the dollar high save us and if we eat up the dollar as soon as there almost about to dump it so inflation wont be as bad?
KyleClarkUSA 2 years ago
I don't think the debtors can save us (or their own investments). We are huge. As a percentage of the World's economy, we are a giant among lilliputians. If we start to erode the value of our own currency in order to lower the real value of our debt, they do not have enough leverage to stop it. Both our foreign investors, and our own citizens who keep most of their own money in dollars will be wiped out.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
But what if we drop the Dollar and receive a new currency backed by gold or we buy large amounts of gold now back the dollar more gold than we had before so we can save many Americans after the collapse or since we control the banks tell them to exchange to the euro so the majority of cash is saved.
KyleClarkUSA 2 years ago
Yeah, we could change things if we changed our policies. The people in Washington do not want to change their policies or go to a gold backed dollar or something; I think they WANT to crash our monetary system. As to going to the Euro; I would recommend against it. First the USA would not control it's own monetary policy, secondly, a huge sacrifice of US sovereignty would be demanded in return for allowing us to use it; they would want regulatory control. That would ruin us.
BiggsReport 2 years ago