Money as a power tool

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

And do you think it's a good thing that there has been a transfer of wealth to governments that exceeds the GDP every three years?
.

No, I don't. But cutting programs for the poor will hardly make a dent.

Which would you cut, SocSec, Medicare or Defense? Because that is where the bulk of the money goes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Which would you cut, SocSec, Medicare or Defense?

As I've long stated I'd cut all three. I'd cut everything EXCEPT debt servicing. Either start it now or have no choice later.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Which would you cut, SocSec, Medicare or Defense?

As I've long stated I'd cut all three. I'd cut everything EXCEPT debt servicing. Either start it now or have no choice later.

About 25% of all voters are "baby boomers" and there are even more who were born before the baby boom. YOU may wish to cut all three, but political reality is different.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>Do you think it a good thing that there has been a net transfer of national wealth
>from the middle class to the very rich over the past 30 years?

As long as wealth has gone up OVERALL then yes, it's a good thing.

According to billvon (9/30/2011)

"Most people were better off in the late 90's,"

But the transfer from middle class to rich continues.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,118]

>According to billvon (9/30/2011) "Most people were better off in the late 90's,"

"Most people were better off in the late 90's, when unemployment was 4%, than in 2003, when unemployment was 6%."

Yes, there were more people employed (as a percentage) in the late 90's than in 2003.

Now, did you have a comment about what I posted?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

About 25% of all voters are "baby boomers" and there are even more who were born before the baby boom. YOU may wish to cut all three, but political reality is different.

Absolutely! The political reality is also that it's a mighty fine mess. My parents' generation and the generation before them voted themselves some mighty fine things. And they don't want to lose them. Coming from SoCal I can remember the defense cutbacks and the losses to aerospace and the like - industries that helped build the LA Area.

Check out Greece - there's a lot that has to be done but the political reality is that cutting the supply of national smack is causing some nasty withdrawals. Just the idea of it hurts like hell.

There is reality. And political reality doesn't match it. Politically, these people paid for the first people to get theirs and now they want want others to pay for them to get theirs. However, a Ponzi scheme inevitably fails. I already know I'm going to get screwed. It won't be there for me. It's just that nobody wants themselves to be first.

Government handouts used to be those - handouts. Now look at Greece and we see that handouts are EXPECTED. People have become so dependent as to not be able to see how to get by without them! And the survival of the country as a whole is fucked because the people of Greece cannot tolerate the thought that they'd have to have their gravy train passing less.

There's no money? Then they strike. They riot. And there's blood in the streets because there isn't enough government money to be handed out.

Greece is circling the drain now. It's a disaster. Austerity hasnt' even been tried, because Greece's deficit is going to be 8.5% of GDP instead of the already intolerable 7.6% predicted.

The EU is encouraging spending cuts and tax increases. Lowering spending is not viewed well by socialists because it shifts resources to private industry who can then deploy them more efficiently. But tax increases also cause the double whammy because while the government is giving more to the private sector, the tax increases strip the private sector of capital to deploy, whether by hiring, investing or even spending. The government does less with more and private sector does more with less. So Greece is saying, “We’re not going to do as much. We’re leaving that to the private sector, but we’ll be taking what it has.”

It’s EXACTLY what’s happening in Greece, except spending isn’t being cut enough. It’s exactly what the EU is encouraging because the EU bank have loads of Euros invested in Greece.

Why are the EU and IMF not encouraging spending cuts AND tax cuts? Because the present course of abrogating private wealth is the political reality that is irresistible to the politicians. Rather than embark on policies that allow private wealth to be built up that can satisfy consumer needs, “fuck the rich” is the populist sentiment. They’d happily bring themselves down if it destroys the wealthy. And it’s happening. The EU and IMF want to protect the banks because they both have much wealth invested in the banks.

Increased taxes prop up the state at the expense of private industry. The EU doesn’t have its money put up in private enterprise. It’s invested in governments and it wants returns on its investments. Thus, increased taxes prop up the government and Greece doesn’t reduce the size of government.

I can’t see a way for Greece to get out of it other than default. And frankly, in a decade, the US may be in the same spot unless a policy of spending cuts is implemented WITHOUT tax increases. This will free up resources for efficient use and spur redevelopment and cycling of money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Yes, there were more people employed (as a percentage) in the late 90's than in 2003.

The late 1990s was the dot.com era. Oh those where the good days when VC funding was running loose and wild. Where one did not have to have a solid business plan to secure funding. All they needed to do was say they were internet experts. The Simpsons made a classic episode about the dot.com era when Homer started his own internet business despite not knowing what the internet was. Yup those were the good days. Problem is, the VCs finally smartened up (they were definitely operating on too much greed) and the VC funding dried up for all but the people who actually had a solid business plan.

We should have had a much nastier recession following the dot.com era bust (which started at the very end of Clinton's term). GWB kind of deferred things with his Iraq War. But yes things did eventually catch up to the US economy. Money was too loose during the dot.com boom and now we are in the exact opposite predicament. However I am in a better position today than I was during the dot.com era despite earning much less money and paying much higher taxes now. How is this possible? Because I have less debt these days. Despite making less money and paying more in taxes, I have more money in my pocket at the end of the day simply because my expenses are not nearly as high as the once were due to lower debt.

No I don't think the dot.com era is the best era to compare to when it comes to jobs and the economy. Money was too loose then. Of course it is difficult to compare one era over another because the world is rapidly evolving. You remember the early 1980s, it was a very different world despite also going through very unstable economic times.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over