Quoted:
Not saying they're wrong but, how many times have we heard this since 2008?

Quoted:

"Prefers gold"

Quoted:

And your point is...?

Quoted:


Prefers copper.  

Quoted:


Not saying they're wrong but, how many times have we heard this since 2008?

Quoted:
Well, in our fast food, microwave, instant gratification society, everyone now expects things to happen "right now" when in fact it IS happening "right now" but most don't "recognize it" because it all isn't happening inside a one hour crime drama like on TV.

Quoted:
Hmmm, I don't recall GD's head expoding over this ...
.

Quoted:

Hmmm, I don't recall GD's head expoding over this ...





.

Quoted:
Acts of High-Treason...how many examples do WE need?
They want US to believe it's Gross Incompetence, but these are calculated actions; Political Coup d'etat
F'in Pimps


 

Quoted:
Acts of High-Treason...how many examples do WE need?
They want US to believe it's Gross Incompetence, but these are calculated actions; Political Coup d'etat
F'in Pimps


 

Quoted:


China's massive military buildup! China spends a quarter of what we spend on their military.

China is not a major threat.  In fact, no nation state on the planet is stupid enough to think they can militarily defeat the United States.  We spend 3 or 4 times the combined military budgets of our enemies.

In fact, the entire planet UNITED against us could not beat us militarily.  We have the largest military budget in the history of the planet.  

The neoconservatives and progressives want us "active" in empire building because there is a lot of money to made in building empires.  But without exception, every single nation that has attempted empire has failed.  But it's different this time?  ....really?



Our own government is THE threat.  
 

 

Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
What if China were to ship 100,000 people over hear once a week.  All they do is send unarmed men and women in boats that arrive at random ports.  The people force their way off.  We'll shoot some of them, but after about a month of shooting unarmed people the US would surrender.

Quoted:




Plane, you still haven't come to terms that we've been in a 'depression' for over a decade, and that it has been hidden by all sorts of transfer payments and QE.

If one half of those activities were terminated, right now, what do you think would be the result???

I'll tell you one thing, about 2/3rds of the employed folks on this board would likely be out of work.

Just for starters.

Originally Posted By glockO:
China's massive military buildup! China spends a quarter of what we spend on their military.

Quoted:


See, I'm not buying we've been in a depression for a decade or more. In fact, bubble or not, up until 2007-2008, the construction industry, driven by 3 million new houses a year and 300 million sq ft. of retail space, along with millions of office space being built, was so desperate for workers that the illegals were coming over in hordes and were being put to work the moment they got ANYWHERE. There were whole hispanic, non-English speaking communities that developed in most major metro areas simply because there was THAT much construction being staffed by anyone with a pulse going on. During the same period of time, there was rampant consumer buying, unemployment was at a historically unheard of 4%, even lower than economists ever thought possible, and production (of an admittedly lowered capacity) was running in the high 80s-low 90 percents. One could argue that it was all built on the largest individual, corporate, and national debt binge in the history of the world, but NOONE would sanely argue that period of time, less than 6 years ago, was anything but a booming economic time.

One could also argue that "boom", built on a mirage though it was, was the only reason we had enough headroom to support the collapse in 2007-2009. Had the same collapse happened after a minor recession, we'd already have a complete meltdown by now. My concern is that we're now already at a low ebb economically, and the trends seem to be pointing in a decidedly negative direction. That being the case, the total lack of headroom at all in the economy means that any (or all) minor downturns will be amplified into major ones. With the financial system itself being worse off now than they were in 2008, any minor hiccup will cause systemic upheaval there, too. In addition, we have an administration hell bent on proving that naive, incompetent idealogues can centrally plan lives of everyone in the entire US and is willing to stop at nothing to achieve those ends. Add all that up, and you have a real powderkeg with a well-lit, short fuse.

Quoted:

  I don't think the economic "depression" part of this wave, did begin until 2008, marked by the collapse of the free-market global financial system.   The years just prior to that, 2000-2007 were part of the Fed's engineered housing bubble.  Greenspan was clear, after the  dotcom bubble collapsed, the Fed intended to inflate the real estate market by keeping interest rates artificially low. (too lazy to look up the specific speech from 1999 or 2000, where he outlined this, but it's out there.)

The Fed succeeded, and yes a lot of construction jobs were created.   But during the same time median household income steadily declined.  That's just a fact.  The data is there to see. (Again, too lazy to look up)  The central planners actually managed a recovery, of sorts, but it was a one trick pony.  ....an EXPLODING one trick pony.  

The main difference between Austrian and London schools of economics, or Hayek and Keynes is how to address the business cycle.  Both schools of though acknowledge that it exists.   Everything moves in cycles.  It was Keynes and his disciples who now dominate the study of economics, and control global monetary policy, that believed the business cycle could be mitigated through central planning. Think of these folks as the "authoritarians" of economics.  They believe that a few smart people can manage the lives of masses better than the masses can manage their own life.  Which is why Keyne's ideas  were actually thought of as communistic in nature.  When Nixon oversaw the default of the dollar in 1971, and closed the gold window, Milton Friedman coined the phrase which is attributed to Nixon "...we're all Keynesians now..."  

I believe what we are experiencing is the economic "blowback" for half a century of Keynesian economic distortions.   The business cycle of boom and busts is GOOD.  It's natural.  The occasional economic wildfire keeps the "debris" from building up on the economies floor.  It kills off old and weak trees and makes room for new growth.  If you fight it, you will eventually end up with mega economic fire.  

In my opinion (and others), IF Hoover and Roosevelt had just kept their hands off the economy during the 1930's the Great Depression wouldn't have been so great. But they didn't, and their actions prolonged it until 1947 (Yeap WWII didn't end the Great Depression... just masked it).

The only thing that is proven to work is individual freedom, and its economic proxy the free-market.   Central planning doesn't work, collectivism doesn't work, and big government doesn't work.    

If we want to save ourselves, we'd dramatically cut government and reduce laws and regulations.  We would eliminate any and all "central planning" and increase individual freedom.   The Wisdom of Crowds would save us, not the authoritarians.  

   

Quoted:


Indeed. Note the part in red above. Not only was the "boom" of the construction bubble (not just housing) built on credit, but since the 2008 fiasco, virtually all of the supposed "recovery" has been created with non-existent money, not even credit, just artificial hot air. The massive wealth transfer that has occurred in the last 5 years is absolutely staggering. Then, to top it off, the commie-pinko brigade has the gall to complain about income inequality. Well, gee mister Kommizar, maybe if you hadn't created the problem in the first place, the solution would be obvious.

I find it interesting that noone in the centers of .gov seems to recognize when you're stuck deep in the hole, your very first action should be to STOP DIGGING!

In times gone by, the Fed would use interest rates as a sort of "regulator" on the economy, thinking that increasing rates would slow the economy, decreasing rates would stimulate the economy. The problem seems to be that the PinHeadDummies (PhDs) at the Fed failed to recognize when that strategery no longer worked. Indeed the last time that strategy was even mildly effective was back in the early 80s to tame the stagflation of Jimmy Carter during Reagan's first term. All this round of artificially low interest rates has caused is currency debasement and decimation of the ability of working-class people to save for their retirement (or even live off the retirement they had already put together). And, again, they are puzzled why the retirement-aged workers are not retiring. Well, DUH!

Quoted:


Indeed. Note the part in red above. Not only was the "boom" of the construction bubble (not just housing) built on credit, but since the 2008 fiasco, virtually all of the supposed "recovery" has been created with non-existent money, not even credit, just artificial hot air. The massive wealth transfer that has occurred in the last 5 years is absolutely staggering. Then, to top it off, the commie-pinko brigade has the gall to complain about income inequality. Well, gee mister Kommizar, maybe if you hadn't created the problem in the first place, the solution would be obvious.

I find it interesting that noone in the centers of .gov seems to recognize when you're stuck deep in the hole, your very first action should be to STOP DIGGING!

In times gone by, the Fed would use interest rates as a sort of "regulator" on the economy, thinking that increasing rates would slow the economy, decreasing rates would stimulate the economy. The problem seems to be that the PinHeadDummies (PhDs) at the Fed failed to recognize when that strategery no longer worked. Indeed the last time that strategy was even mildly effective was back in the early 80s to tame the stagflation of Jimmy Carter during Reagan's first term. All this round of artificially low interest rates has caused is currency debasement and decimation of the ability of working-class people to save for their retirement (or even live off the retirement they had already put together). And, again, they are puzzled why the retirement-aged workers are not retiring. Well, DUH!