joedirt

Government spending as a percent of GDP is almost half, with no actual productive industry to show for it. Our short term debt is about 4 times as big as our reserves. Foreigners own almost half of our total debt. These things are gonna be a problem.

You must be a hoot at parties.

My Grandfather also died with shrapnel in him he picked up serving on a destroyer in Leyte Gulf. USS Abner Read.

I think she's too politically skewed, or else she's not that bright. First time I ever heard of her was in October when she said Bush's coup was taking place and we would never see an election.

And here I just thought he was some homo who spent half his life trying to turn shit into gold.

I haven't seen anyone else mention so... a trade deficit requires a DEBT to pay for it. There's just no way around it. If your debt gets bigger and bigger, eventually people don't want to lend to you. That could collapse your currency. So it's only a problem if you think we need a manufacturing base to have a surplus again.

Yeah, more money makes borrowing cheaper in theory. Just like a bigger supply of goods drives down the price of that good. Tha't actually how they lower the fed funds rate. They put more money out there. I for one can not tell you how this resemble's anything good.

As per your question... inflation is good for debters, that's about it. Most likely though, the assets they're trying to keep high will still fall, while other goods inflate. So while houses and equities deflate, commodities inflate. That's a worst case scenario that is starting to look more realistic.

I see he already chopped off the last sentence that said assault weapons belong in foreign countries, not here. Did you notice that?

*** The motive for the EC was stated by Hamilton (an elitist if there ever was one) in the federalist papers, and it was to prevent rule by "the mob". Nothing to do with making sure small states had an equal say in the matter. *** Did he come up with the idea of having 2 senators per state as well?

Well since he lowered overnight rates to 1% to prop up an economy that needed an overdue contraction, where exactly did his philosophy differ from the administrations? He's not exactly Volcker.

Oh...He's gonna have a legacy.

Do you just bitch about anyone making money outside of the government payroll or are you actually trying to make a point?

I don't have any source for you but I thought it was at least 40% owned by foreigners. Some countries hold it like gold, as reserves, because it's supposed to be stable. It is the world's reserve currency. It is our major export, and makes up for our trade deficit in one way or another. Hell, even our own federal reserve can "buy" our notes without putting them on the market. We're never gonna be able to pay it back at this point though, we just don't produce enough. If we were using the debt to produce hard assets and tangible, sellable goods we might stand a chance. Obviously we're going to keep buying liabilities with every new "fix" our great leaders come up with. They've made that pretty clear. Your gonna want to go ahead and get rich in the next couple of years in case the world decides they want a new reserve currency, one with a little promise.

That was the same year the Glass Steagal act was repealed. Really though, i'm sure Bush loved how the housing boom made for a very mild recession. These things just showed the money where the path of least resistance was.

You really miss the point. They're saying these bubbles are created by artificially low interest rates set by the government. THAT IS THE INTERVENTION that causes the problem. Things have to deflate to become healthy again. That is his point. The politicians throw these trinckets out there for each side to fight over but it's all bullshit. It's not deregulation at the root of the cause. It's not "community reinvestment" programs either. If the money wasn't available it would not be an issue. The money will always find somewhere to go. The government DID intervene after the dotcom bust, which created an even bigger bubble that we are dealing with now. They lowered rates down to 1 percent by 2003 or so. At least that is the argument of the Austrian school Schiff subscribes too. I don't know for sure he's right but from what i've seen it makes more sense than anything else i've heard. Economics is a social science, any one particular philosophy has hardly been "proven".

Which part? That creating artificialy low interest rates leads to unsustainable growth? Or that recession is needed to bring prices in line and sell off surplus? Care to enlighten this ol country boy?

Thanks for clarifying your original post. I agree, in that a one day rise or fall in prices can mean anything. I however disagree with you on the notion that the Japanese recession was caused by a lack of government action. I think the Austrian school types make more sense. Recession is the cure. It takes quite an arrogant politician to think he can control this sort of thing. "Addressing bad debts" is a euphamism for keeping overinflated assets overinflated. The only way they can do that is by inflating everything else. Except I think there's a good chance it will backfire. Our paper assets could still deflate while our tangibles go though the roof. Since so many other countries are struggling too, we could see commodities and oil disconnect from a direct relationship from the dollar. I picture a bailout plan where their beloved stock market has a brief rally, every one pats each other on the back. In the mean time commodities start picking up steam behind the scenes. Eventually the stock market crashes again, everyone yells for our leaders to do something. This time though it may not be as easy to sell out t notes and the dollar really starts falling. I guess we're gonna find out if intervention can be a long term solution, but I don't have much faith in that.

What is your point nerdgirl?

Not a terrible idea... but it ain't gonna happen. Haven't they tried to entice investors already who said "Ummm... no thanks".

About a year ago I didn't worry too much about the bailout talk, but in the words of Bob Dylan as an old man "Things have changed".

That's a better definition. Someone who brings in a 100,000 dollar yearly income from assets he owns is in a much different position than someone who makes a 100 grand yearly salary from a 40 hour a week job.

Some people just don't get it. The whole point of the glock is to be simple. It's not my favorite gun either but it's sure a simple gun. If someone can be trained to load a revolver, they can be trained just as easily to load a glock. Not to mention a glock is easier to shoot accurately. The trigger is way easier than double action revolvers, and you have the same trigger pull every shot. That makes a huge difference for a beginner to actually hit their intended target. I think old school guys basically see a glock as an ugly 1911. "I'm gonna shoot a .45, but heres a .38 snubby for you sweetheart". As if anyone can shoot a lightweight snubbie well. Revolvers are fine if that's what somebody likes, but this idea that they're the best self defense gun for a beginner is not quite right. Oh and it's field stripped for cleaning in about 2 seconds. So at least one person agrees with you.

Definitely. I would recommend a glock too, or one of the other double action only autos. No external safeties and easier trigger than a double action revolver. Just keep a round chambered, only unholster when you need to use it. I recently moved my glock to second string for a S&W M&P.

Just curious since apparently the US has been torturing people. Which one would you pick?