Can Society Collapse? Do you have a plan on what to do if it does?

[Snipe]

I think that society can collapse. I don't have a real plan of action, more like a brief outline that needs some work.

For years I have written on this forum that my biggest fear is the collapse of the dollar. I started writing that during the Bush Administration; this isn't an Obama thing or a partisan thing. "Things that can't go on forever, don't" is my general theory of government spending money it doesn't have. At some point the ride stops and it is time for all of us to get off.

So can the economy collapse? Can the dollar collapse? I think the dollar can collapse, and that it is a distinct possibility in the next two decades. I pray it happens later than sooner, as I am unprepared right now.

What happens if the dollar collapses? What happens to all of us in an era of hyperinflation? When the money becomes worthless, how will the government provide services? What will happen to people that depend on the services that the government provides? Will they become angry? Will they become violent?

Hyperinflation could bring the economy to its knees. The United States can't count on the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to bail us out because we are the IMF. Without us there is no IMF. The calvary isn't coming. Nobody is going to save us if the shit hits the fan.

In fact the opposite is more likely. If the dollar collapses I think the economy will collapse along with it. You will have shortages of critical items like food and fuel, and possibly necessities like water and electricity would be intermittent. If the United States was ever to be attacked by her enemies, that would be the time to strike, particularly Washington DC (cut the head off of the beast) but the risk would be other places as well.

I also think a collapse would give an opening to fascism.

Security would be a huge concern in a government collapse. Would the prisons still run or would they let loose? Would policeman still patrol or would they pull back from riot torn areas to protect their own families and their own interests?

Perhaps it is just crazy talk. Perhaps I am paranoid and on the fringe and I couldn't be more wrong about the dollar and its implications.

I know it must sound like I am insane, but I think we should all have a plan. I want you to start thinking of your own plan.

If the electric and gas were cut off for three winter months, how would you heat your home enough to be able to survive?

If the water stopped coming out of your faucet, how would you get water to drink?

If the stores were laid bare by economic calamity, how would you feed yourself?

If police were not there for your security, how would you defend yourself?

Could you last for three months? I couldn't. I am developing a plan so that I can move my family to a safe and secure location and have food, water and fuel supplies for 3 months. If the shit really hits the fan 3 months is not enough, but at least it is a start.

Am I crazy? Perhaps. You tell me, and tell me if you have a plan.

[waggy]

I don't have a plan. I don't think you're crazy though, well maybe a little, but I think there will be a collapse. Do people and governments really think they can just keeping adding to their debt perpetually? It will come to an end. The only question is when. And when it does it's truly going to suck bad.

[Emp]

As long as we keep dividing ourselves into interest/ethnic groups and drift (gradually, or violently) away from feelings of common wealth and common purpose, and we continue to consolidate into armed camps, the social structure and the social contract are going to erode and eventually collapse.

How to prepare for the apocalypse? Can't be done. You can arm yourself and put up provisions, but what kind of life is that, and how long will it last? The illusion that we can control our destinies without the cooperation of others is self-delusional. For every survival scenario you can create, someone stronger or smarter or more devious has a counter-strategy. Or indiscriminate nature will just take you out with disease.

The more fear mongers perpetuate us/them and members of society buy into it, the more cooperative society in America, Cincinnati, the world will decline into feudal and ---I agree with you on this one -- fascist enclaves, the modern Dark Ages.

[XU 87]

As long as we ... drift (gradually, or violently) away from feelings of common wealth and common purpose, and we continue to consolidate into armed camps, the social structure and the social contract are going to erode and eventually collapse.



This notion of "common purpose" and "common wealth" is why we're in this mess. Socialism doesn't work. Yet those on the left argue that if we just had more socialism in this country, things would be much better.

[DC Muskie]

We can only have one thing in common...our defense.

Everything else is up for grabs.

Brazil, India, China will kill us in the next few decades. There is nothing we can do to stop it. Our only defense is our defense. Or our defense should be our offense.

Keep spending on our defense I say. Stop spending on everything else.

Shut down the following:

Department of Education
Department of Interior
HUD
IRS

Stop funding entitlement programs that cannot and will not support themselves. Take that cash and put into a plan to attack Chile for their copper reserves. We need to start thinking like the world is our personal RISK board.

Forget Europe, surround Brazil and make them think twice about continuing their relationship with Iran. We have enslaved people before, don't think we don't know how to do it. Peru, Columbia, Bolivia, Argentina, need to be ours. I wouldn't mind one of those Argentine women for myself. Let's clip some coupons and get two I say!

The dollar will collapse. It's going to be epic. The times we live in are quite interesting. I am not ready, but I say dump all cash into our defense and get ready.

[Snipe]

As long as we keep dividing ourselves into interest/ethnic groups and drift (gradually, or violently) away from feelings of common wealth and common purpose, and we continue to consolidate into armed camps, the social structure and the social contract are going to erode and eventually collapse.

How to prepare for the apocalypse? Can't be done. You can arm yourself and put up provisions, but what kind of life is that, and how long will it last? The illusion that we can control our destinies without the cooperation of others is self-delusional. For every survival scenario you can create, someone stronger or smarter or more devious has a counter-strategy. Or indiscriminate nature will just take you out with disease.

The more fear mongers perpetuate us/them and members of society buy into it, the more cooperative society in America, Cincinnati, the world will decline into feudal and ---I agree with you on this one -- fascist enclaves, the modern Dark Ages.

I generally welcome and even enjoy your arguments Emp even though we don't often agree.

I have to confess that I don't really understand what you are saying.

Am I fear mongering here? You seem to be saying that society can collapse too, just for different reasons. If society could collapse for whatever reason, it would help to have an idea of what you are going to do. My intent is not fear mongering, it is to get people to consider the idea and conceptualize what plan of attack they would have if everything broke down. I do admit that "SOCIETY IS GOING TO COLLAPSE" is by definition fear mongering though, but that wasn't my point.

Society may well collapse because of interest groups or ethnic divides. Your theory has some merit there. I don't see that coming in the immediate future, at least I don't see it as the CAUSE of the collapse. Outside of nuclear war, I think our biggest fear is the collapse of the dollar. The ethnic tensions would come after the collapse of the dollar, not before in my scenario.

One of the reasons I have thought about this is that I live in a community where 90% of the people are poor and 90% are black. Many of them depend on government services. If the government stopped functioning I think my neighborhood could burn. If police didn't patrol the streets my wife and my children would not be safe. I could see riots, looting, murder, a whole host of the apocalypse. If I lived in Milford I probably wouldn't think about it much. I would probably just stock up on some canned food, firewood and some five gallon water jugs and say enough is enough.

Maybe I am racist for thinking those things, but I don't want to be down here in times of distress if no police force is around. The first part of my plan is getting out of Dodge and kissing it good riddance.

You didn't vote in my poll. You think society can collapse. Do you have a plan? From what you said it seems you think no plan could ever work ("Can't be done"). I don't think that is the case. If you can survive the first winter the herd would have thinned out, and at some point order would be restored. I think some communties wouldn't miss a beat. Some small towns out in Utah or Idaho, the Amish won't even notice in Ohio and PA. Life would go on for some people and it would not for others. I think that is a fact. I would like to be in the group where life would go on. For that I need a plan and so do you.

[sweet16]

I think that society can collapse. I don't have a real plan of action, more like a brief outline that needs some work.

For years I have written on this forum that my biggest fear is the collapse of the dollar. I started writing that during the Bush Administration; this isn't an Obama thing or a partisan thing. "Things that can't go on forever, don't" is my general theory of government spending money it doesn't have. At some point the ride stops and it is time for all of us to get off.

So can the economy collapse? Can the dollar collapse? I think the dollar can collapse, and that it is a distinct possibility in the next two decades. I pray it happens later than sooner, as I am unprepared right now.

What happens if the dollar collapses? What happens to all of us in an era of hyperinflation? When the money becomes worthless, how will the government provide services? What will happen to people that depend on the services that the government provides? Will they become angry? Will they become violent?

Hyperinflation could bring the economy to its knees. The United States can't count on the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to bail us out because we are the IMF. Without us there is no IMF. The calvary isn't coming. Nobody is going to save us if the shit hits the fan.

In fact the opposite is more likely. If the dollar collapses I think the economy will collapse along with it. You will have shortages of critical items like food and fuel, and possibly necessities like water and electricity would be intermittent. If the United States was ever to be attacked by her enemies, that would be the time to strike, particularly Washington DC (cut the head off of the beast) but the risk would be other places as well.

I also think a collapse would give an opening to fascism.

Security would be a huge concern in a government collapse. Would the prisons still run or would they let loose? Would policeman still patrol or would they pull back from riot torn areas to protect their own families and their own interests?

Perhaps it is just crazy talk. Perhaps I am paranoid and on the fringe and I couldn't be more wrong about the dollar and its implications.

I know it must sound like I am insane, but I think we should all have a plan. I want you to start thinking of your own plan.

If the electric and gas were cut off for three winter months, how would you heat your home enough to be able to survive?

If the water stopped coming out of your faucet, how would you get water to drink?

If the stores were laid bare by economic calamity, how would you feed yourself?

If police were not there for your security, how would you defend yourself?

Could you last for three months? I couldn't. I am developing a plan so that I can move my family to a safe and secure location and have food, water and fuel supplies for 3 months. If the shit really hits the fan 3 months is not enough, but at least it is a start.

Am I crazy? Perhaps. You tell me, and tell me if you have a plan.


We have a golf outing planned for next spring at Pebble Beach and Spyglass........I need to send my money in by Oct.15th but now you've got me worried. Will there still be caddies available in April or will the calamity have already taken it's toll?

[_LH]

The year: 2010. From out of space comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon, unleashing cosmic destruction! Man's civilization is cast in ruin!
Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn...
A strange new world rises from the old: a world of savagery, super science, and sorcery.

[Lamont Sanford]

Save me a seat in your bunker Snipe. I'm joining your clan when the shit hits the fan!

[Snipe]

We have a golf outing planned for next spring at Pebble Beach and Spyglass........I need to send my money in by Oct.15th but now you've got me worried. Will there still be caddies available in April or will the calamity have already taken it's toll?

It doesn't appear that it will happen in the next year or so. We don't even have inflation growing rapidly yet. That will be a telltale sign that it might be beginning. And once it starts it might come quickly if there is a run on the dollar. I think we are at least five years out, and I hope it is 15-20 if it does happen.

I don't think it is anything people need to do today, but I do think people should start thinking about it. Getting ready for a three month supply is much easier if you do it overtime. You can get a few extra canned goods every year, save a little firewood every year; buy a five gallon water container every year, that sort of thing. Before you know it after five years you could have a nice buffer built up, and if you rotate your canned goods it wouldn't cost that much a year.

As for defense you could get a gun and learn how to use it, or come into contact with people who know how to use guns. My bug out place is in the hills of rural Indiana and my relatives own guns. We talked to them about coming in case of emergency and we have the go-ahead to pre-position food there. It has a creek for water and a wood burning stove. It also has a large propane tank that could last a whole winter of heating and cooking. He is a hunter with plenty of guns, he can field dress and clean a deer and he eats deer steaks and makes deer jerky. My wife has a gun and he taught her how to use it. I think I will be safe; I just need to make sure I can feed my fat belly.

[boozehound]

As long as we keep dividing ourselves into interest/ethnic groups and drift (gradually, or violently) away from feelings of common wealth and common purpose, and we continue to consolidate into armed camps, the social structure and the social contract are going to erode and eventually collapse.

How to prepare for the apocalypse? Can't be done. You can arm yourself and put up provisions, but what kind of life is that, and how long will it last? The illusion that we can control our destinies without the cooperation of others is self-delusional. For every survival scenario you can create, someone stronger or smarter or more devious has a counter-strategy. Or indiscriminate nature will just take you out with disease.

The more fear mongers perpetuate us/them and members of society buy into it, the more cooperative society in America, Cincinnati, the world will decline into feudal and ---I agree with you on this one -- fascist enclaves, the modern Dark Ages.

Personally I don't see division into interest/ethnic groups as a major source of domestic risk right now. I am with Snipe in that I am much more concerned about the collapse of the dollar than I am about social unrest tearing us apart. The social unrest will come as a result of people once again being forced to truly compete for scare resources like food and shelter (economics 101). People will do whatever they can to provide food and shelter for themselves and their families, any ethnic/interest groups will take a decided backseat to that in the event of a collapse.

I don't think a total collapse is likely, but I think it is possible. The more likely scenario that I see is a period like the Great Depression. People will be very poor. The divide between the haves and have not's will become a chasm. There will be an increase in violent crime as people get desparate and try to take from others. We haven't had a 'thinning of the herd' for a while so there are a lot of people who are not equipped in any way to survive in a 'survival of the fittest' type of environment. Those people will have the most difficult time. The government won't be able to care for those people like they do now, and they will definitely be angry.

[Snipe]

Save me a seat in your bunker Snipe. I'm joining your clan when the shit hits the fan!

If I won the Mega I would have a bunker, complete with some way to generate electricty off the grid, livestock, crops, fruit and nut trees and fuel tanks and food supplies for a few years. I don't have that bunker yet. Until I do, you need to have a plan too brother. If it ever happens it is life or death, and we are closer now to a collapse of the dollar than ever before in my opinion.

[boozehound]

We can only have one thing in common...our defense.

Everything else is up for grabs.

Brazil, India, China will kill us in the next few decades. There is nothing we can do to stop it. Our only defense is our defense. Or our defense should be our offense.

Keep spending on our defense I say. Stop spending on everything else.

Shut down the following:

Department of Education
Department of Interior
HUD
IRS

Stop funding entitlement programs that cannot and will not support themselves. Take that cash and put into a plan to attack Chile for their copper reserves. We need to start thinking like the world is our personal RISK board.

Forget Europe, surround Brazil and make them think twice about continuing their relationship with Iran. We have enslaved people before, don't think we don't know how to do it. Peru, Columbia, Bolivia, Argentina, need to be ours. I wouldn't mind one of those Argentine women for myself. Let's clip some coupons and get two I say!

The dollar will collapse. It's going to be epic. The times we live in are quite interesting. I am not ready, but I say dump all cash into our defense and get ready.

This was funny. Nice one.

[bobbiemcgee]

Two words: Snake Plissken

[BBC 08]

Will Xavier basketball survive? That is the important question.

[Snipe]

Will Xavier basketball survive? That is the important question.

If you ever get to a point where you are rationing food and fuel you would probably see the suspension of college basketball seasons. Thinking about it that way it would be good to have some old game tapes in the bunker.

[bobbiemcgee]

where can I get a crank up dvd player? Maybe I'll have to trade for one on craigslist which will actually be a list again.

[DC Muskie]

Fortunately for all of us, we read this board and Snipe will be the first to let us know of impending chaos.

It is going to be epic!

[PM Thor]

The year: 2010. From out of space comes a runaway planet, hurtling between the Earth and the Moon, unleashing cosmic destruction! Man's civilization is cast in ruin!
Two thousand years later, Earth is reborn...
A strange new world rises from the old: a world of savagery, super science, and sorcery.

Thundarr The Barbarian. Loved that show. That and Robotech.

Convergence cluster behavior. People feel safe when in a group, even if they really aren't safe at all. That's how I look at things in society right now. People think they are safe because many others feel safe around them. It's self fullfilling. So yes, I have a plan, a generator, stockpiled food, my camping stuff, protection and the like. Could I survive for three months? Yeah, pretty sure I could.

I HATE dayton.(

[MHettel]

Checklist: Things to do if Society Collapses

1. Set TiVo so I won't miss any Jersey Shore episodes.
2. Use up all the rest of my prepaid Starbucks Card.
3. Defriend Snipe on Facebook.

[Emp]

This notion of "common purpose" and "common wealth" is why we're in this mess. Socialism doesn't work. Yet those on the left argue that if we just had more socialism in this country, things would be much better.

87, everything in life isn't divisible into a socialist/not socialist paradigm/soundbite.

Public schools, highways, health departments, libraries, public roads and highway, the premise of taxes themselves are "socialist, " if I am reading you right. So are fire and police departments. These are social institutions that, until recently, most of us agreed gave the "common purpose" was to give everyone a fair shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The war on public schools and advocacy for ending public support for these institutions are bellwethers of the disintegration of the social contract. The very premesis that we should try to end poverty and sickness as matters of public policy are giving way to "every man woman and child for him/herself on [health care, you fill in the blank]." It explains why the middle class is shrinking and will be gone in 25 years.

Vonnegut's vision in Mother Night is, unfortunately, appearing more and more prescient.

Has anyone seen the movie Child of Man? I reccomend it highly. It is set "in the future," but it looks like right now Bagdad on steriods. A wonderful, awe-ful vision of the not to distant, lawless future.

Thinning the Herd! What a wonderful euphemism for cultural/ethnic cleansing of the poor, the sick, the defenseless.

Snipe, yes, my point about "preparations" is that its worthless. You can hold out for 3 months, two years, whats left when you come out? You know how to grow and defend crops, water, cooking oil? I don't. I don't want to learn that or live like that. I like it that we depend on each other and help each other. If that goes away, I'm not real interested in the alternatives.

[GoMuskies]

There's a war on public schools? Where? I must be part of it since I send my kids to Catholic school. Am I supposed to register for this war or something?

[GuyFawkes38]

I fear nuclear bomb attacks by terrorist groups.

But to be honest, I have no fear of massive inflation.

I think it's one of the strange aspects of some people on the right (the Rand crowd...who I respect a lot, but disagree on this point). They argue that Washington is too strong and powerful while, at the same time, arguing that runaway inflation is eminent.

Historically, inflation strikes weak governments. In the 20th century, Moscow purposely implemented policies to inflate currencies of Eastern European countries to take down their economies and impoverish their elites. After World War I, with the German government in ruins, Atlantic powers cheered inflation as a means of keeping Germany weak.

Massive inflation struck governments on the brink of collapse.

Luckily in the US, we have a strong government. It's not in anyone's interest to produce massive inflation. Nial Ferguson, a conservative historical economist, echos this point. Financial markets are too smart now to allow the government to inflate away debt (something that happened after world war II in the US and Britain...but it was carefully done). It doesn't get the government anywhere to do that. Bond yield rates would increase. Everyone, including government officials, realize that.

Taxes will have to be raised or spending cut in the future. Inflation isn't a way out.

[boozehound]

87, everything in life isn't divisible into a socialist/not socialist paradigm/soundbite.

Public schools, highways, health departments, libraries, public roads and highway, the premise of taxes themselves are "socialist, " if I am reading you right. So are fire and police departments. These are social institutions that, until recently, most of us agreed gave the "common purpose" was to give everyone a fair shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The war on public schools and advocacy for ending public support for these institutions are bellwethers of the disintegration of the social contract. The very premesis that we should try to end poverty and sickness as matters of public policy are giving way to "every man woman and child for him/herself on [health care, you fill in the blank]." It explains why the middle class is shrinking and will be gone in 25 years.

Vonnegut's vision in Mother Night is, unfortunately, appearing more and more prescient.

Has anyone seen the movie Child of Man? I reccomend it highly. It is set "in the future," but it looks like right now Bagdad on steriods. A wonderful, awe-ful vision of the not to distant, lawless future.

Thinning the Herd! What a wonderful euphemism for cultural/ethnic cleansing of the poor, the sick, the defenseless.
Snipe, yes, my point about "preparations" is that its worthless. You can hold out for 3 months, two years, whats left when you come out? You know how to grow and defend crops, water, cooking oil? I don't. I don't want to learn that or live like that. I like it that we depend on each other and help each other. If that goes away, I'm not real interested in the alternatives.

Do you believe in evolution? Survival of the fittest is a key part of evolution. It sounds cruel because it is, but it is also realistic.

[Snipe]

There's a war on public schools? Where? I must be part of it since I send my kids to Catholic school. Am I supposed to register for this war or something?

There is a war on public schools, and the United Federation of Teachers has just about obliterated them for personal gain. The teachers unions look out for the teachers and not the children. Over the decades it shows, no "enemy" of public education could have wrought as much damage as the teacher's unions have even with a concerted effort.

Private schools are still doing fine work though, even at less cost per pupil. I wonder why that is...

[Masterofreality]

I plan on living in Cintas Center- in a loge.

[vee4xu]

I get up and go for a sandwich and come back to this thread. Wow, some heavy shit for a basketball chat board.

[chico]

The Cubs once again will not win the World Series so we have at least another year.

[madness31]

A collapse of the dollar is not only likely but a given. When is the only question. If the recovery doesn't hold it will happen within a decade and if the recovery gains traction it will be within two or three decades. The US government is weak at this point. Debt continues to build which typically happens as a government tries to cling to fading strength. The US government depends on foreign financing to survive, at some point this financing will not be there.

I wouldn't worry too much about the food shortage in relation to inflation. Food prices will soar with the inflation, assuming the government doesn't implement price caps, which will keep farmers growing. They will likely just demand payments in foreign currencies or precious metals to ensure their profits are not stolen away by the inflation. It is still wise to be able to grow your own crops but as long as you have your wealth stored in precious metals and currencies of countries with strong mining industries you should be able to afford the food produced. Without this investment strategy you could starve as prices could be out of reach.

Intelligent socialism works incredibly well. It is important to prevent people from abusing the system and also to ensure policies do not encourage bad behavior. Unemployment insurance and social security both encourage bad behavior as people don't feel the need to save for a rainy day. Minimum wages help to ensure people are not taken advantage of. Progressive taxes help to create equality when people are unjustly rewarded through positions of power. Taxing capital however is a terrible policy as it discourages savings and investment. Socialism is incredibly inefficient in the US because of the constant fight over whether it is good or bad. Instead of working for the best solution the two sides fight over whether to have it or not and when one side finally gets what they want the policy is a mess.

[Snipe]

Intelligent socialism works incredibly well. It is important to prevent people from abusing the system and also to ensure policies do not encourage bad behavior. Unemployment insurance and social security both encourage bad behavior as people don't feel the need to save for a rainy day. Minimum wages help to ensure people are not taken advantage of. Progressive taxes help to create equality when people are unjustly rewarded through positions of power. Taxing capital however is a terrible policy as it discourages savings and investment. Socialism is incredibly inefficient in the US because of the constant fight over whether it is good or bad. Instead of working for the best solution the two sides fight over whether to have it or not and when one side finally gets what they want the policy is a mess.

There you go again. Why don't those Republicans just do the right thing and become intelligent socialists! Why am I not intelligent enough to see that socialism is the answer? Is it some sort of mental defect that I have to have faith in free people and free markets?

I guess I play that game too. I don't think that most people who support minimum wage laws actually understand economics, let alone the racist origins of those laws in the first place.

Morgan Reynolds on the minimum wage and unions (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/LaborUnions.html):


Economist Ray Marshall, although a pro-union secretary of labor under President Jimmy Carter, made his academic reputation by documenting how unions excluded blacks from membership in the 1930s and 1940s. Marshall also wrote of incidents in which union members assaulted black workers hired to replace them during strikes. During the 1911 strike against the Illinois Central, noted Marshall, whites killed two black strikebreakers and wounded three others at McComb, Mississippi. He also noted that white strikers killed ten black firemen in 1911 because the New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railroad had granted them equal seniority. Not surprisingly, therefore, black leader Booker T. Washington opposed unions all his life, and W. E. B. DuBois called unions the greatest enemy of the black working class. Another interesting fact: the “union label” was started in the 1880s to proclaim that a product was made by white rather than yellow (Chinese) hands. More generally, union wage rates, union-backed requirements for a license to practice various occupations, and union-backed labor regulations such as the minimum wage law and the Davis-Bacon Act continue to reduce opportunities for black youths, females, and other minorities.

Video: Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk)

"The most anti-Negro law on the books of this land is the minimum wage law"

Video: Milton Friedman ~ Power of the Market - Minimum Wage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6e8Pa6-IZU)

David Henderson at Econlog: Using the Minimum Wage to Hamper Your Rivals (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/using_the_minim.html)


The loss in jobs caused by the minimum wage is not an accidental byproduct of higher minimum wages. It is the consequence intended by those who most avidly support increasing minimum wages. Unions don't support minimum wage increases because their own members are working at the minimum wage. Virtually all union employees--I've never heard of an exception--work at wages above the minimum. Northern unions and unionized firms, for example, have traditionally supported higher minimum wages to hobble their low-wage competition in the South. In the late 1960s, Otis Elevator pushed for an increase in the minimum wage in New York state because it had begun to specialize in converting human-operated elevators to automatic elevators and wanted an increase in demand for its services.

Forty years ago, the politicians who pushed for the increased minimum wage did not hide their motives. Nor, in an era of state-sanctioned segregation, did they feel the need to hide their knowledge of who the intended victims of minimum-wage increases would be. In a 1957 Senate hearing, minimum-wage advocate Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who just four years later would be President of the United States, stated,


Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too--the wages of the white worker who has to compete. And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage--and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work--it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn't it ~ John F. Kennedy?

Knowing this, let’s look back at your statement:


Minimum wages help to ensure people are not taken advantage of.

It seems as if minimum wage laws actually take advantage of the very people some of their proponents claim to stand up for. The people who think they are noble crying exploitation and 'social justice' are just the naive useful idiots of organized labor and special interests.

[Snipe]

A collapse of the dollar is not only likely but a given. When is the only question. If the recovery doesn't hold it will happen within a decade and if the recovery gains traction it will be within two or three decades. The US government is weak at this point. Debt continues to build which typically happens as a government tries to cling to fading strength. The US government depends on foreign financing to survive, at some point this financing will not be there.

I wouldn't worry too much about the food shortage in relation to inflation. Food prices will soar with the inflation, assuming the government doesn't implement price caps, which will keep farmers growing. They will likely just demand payments in foreign currencies or precious metals to ensure their profits are not stolen away by the inflation. It is still wise to be able to grow your own crops but as long as you have your wealth stored in precious metals and currencies of countries with strong mining industries you should be able to afford the food produced. Without this investment strategy you could starve as prices could be out of reach.

I don't think a collapse of the dollar is "a given". I would think it possible to get spending and deficits under control and at the very least manage a long and steady decline in the value of the dollar. I do think the dollar will take a severe hit if we keep doing what we are doing, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to be able to cut spending. I do think once foreign financing dries up it will contribute to the dollar’s decline. There is evidence (http://www.europac.net/commentaries/fed’s_bubble_trouble)that is already beginning to happen (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/ponzi-scheme-the-federal-reserve-bought-approximately-80-percent-of-u-s-treasury-securities-issued-in-2009).

You say that people shouldn't worry about food shortages, then you suggest that people should grow their own crops and ending the paragraph you warn that people could starve. You need to get more logic and consistency in your arguments. You are all over the place.

You like to come here and give people financial advice but you don't get a lot of economic details right ~ see Minimum Wage above. Sometimes you seem to be arguing against your own premise.

I am interested to know which currencies you think will hold their value in relation to the dollar. Have you actually invested in "currencies of countries with strong mining industries"? I am interested to know exactly what foreign paper currencies you hold in your portfolio. Where do you get that advice? What country's currency do you look to buy in the future?

[Snipe]

Thinning the Herd! What a wonderful euphemism for cultural/ethnic cleansing of the poor, the sick, the defenseless.


In a world without food, heat, electricity or access to clean water many people would not survive the winter. People in hospitals and nursing homes needing critical care would be some of the first to go. People that depend upon medication that face critical shortages would suffer and many would die or live a sick painful life. Then flu season would hit, and as the bodies pile up and start to thaw many diseases would spread. The herd would be thinned, and people that had prepared and had access to resources would do better than people who had not prepared that lost access to resources. The poor would suffer. The sick would suffer. The defenseless would suffer. I am not sure I would call that ethnic cleansing though, which is genocide. People aren't rooting for this to happen. This isn't some plot of the rabid racist right wing stereotype that you fantasize about in your dreams.




Snipe, yes, my point about "preparations" is that its worthless. You can hold out for 3 months, two years, whats left when you come out? You know how to grow and defend crops, water, cooking oil? I don't. I don't want to learn that or live like that. I like it that we depend on each other and help each other. If that goes away, I'm not real interested in the alternatives.

Most human knowledge and technology would not be lost forever. The system could break down. We could have chaos and riots. That doesn't mean all the advances in science would forever be lost. At some point order would be restored again and the slow process of building society back would resume. We wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel though, or the internal combustion engine.

We could lose tens of millions of people (or more) to death & disease, but we are a country of 300 million people. We could lose half our population and we would still have 150+ million people. And of the people we lose a lot would come from the margins, the elderly, infirm, weak infants, and people that have always depended on their subsistence on the welfare state. We aren't all going to go away, and I think I want my family to be around for phase two. I am only advocating that people plan to get through 3 months and a tough winter, not years. I don't want to live in the Stone Age either, I don't think it would come to that.

[Snipe]

Public schools, highways, health departments, libraries, public roads and highway, the premise of taxes themselves are "socialist, " if I am reading you right. So are fire and police departments. These are social institutions that, until recently, most of us agreed gave the "common purpose" was to give everyone a fair shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The war on public schools and advocacy for ending public support for these institutions are bellwethers of the disintegration of the social contract.

Liberalism’s Greatest Failure? (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/247989/liberalisms-greatest-failure-jonah-goldberg) By Jonah Goldberg



Amidst all of this talk about education this week, there’s an omission that drives me crazy. Yes, yes, the horrid state of American education is an American problem, and to that extent we’re all to blame in some abstract sort of way. But is there another major area of American public policy that is more screwed up and more completely the fault of one ideological side? Which party do the teachers’ unions support overwhelmingly? What is the ideological outlook of the bureaucrats at the Department of Education? Which party claims it “cares” more about education and demagogues any attempt by the other party to reform it? Who has controlled the large inner city school systems for generations? What is the ideological orientation of the ed school racket? Whose preferred teaching methods have been funded and whose have been ridiculed?

You know the answer to all of these questions. And yet to listen to the debate this week, you would think this is all a bipartisan problem because Republicans share the blame for refusing to fund schools enough.

There are two problems with this canard. 1) Bush and the GOP congress massively increased education spending and 2) the problems with our education system have almost nothing to do with how much money we spend.

We’re constantly told about all of these countries allegedly beating us in the classroom. Does anyone really think they’re doing better than us because they spend more? Really?

In the last few presidential elections I’ve heard more from Democrats — by far — complaining about leaky school roofs, cracking paint, and the need for more computers in the classroom than I’ve heard about the fact it’s easier to find and train a brontosaurus than it is to fire a horrible teacher. Do we really think China and India are spending 20-30K per pupil on their new crop of math whizzes?

In 2008-2009, the District of Columbia spent $1.3 billion dollars on 45,858 students. That is slightly less than the entire GDP of Belize. In 2007, 8 percent of DC eighth graders were able to do math at the eighth grade level. Clearly what’s needed is more money!

As part of our war on education and the social contract, in 2008-2009 we spent over $28,000 per pupil on Washington DC public schools. Apparently part of our strategy for killing public education and the social contract is to fund it more than any country in the world. Yeah, thats the ticket. We can drown them in dollar bills, and if that doesn't work we can give them more.



I’m sure not that many people follow the DC education controversy, but in a nutshell: Mayor Adrian Fenty lost his reelection bid in large part because he tried, through Michelle Rhee the education chancellor, to fix the schools over the objections of the teachers’ unions. Fenty’s opponent and the liberal black establishment turned it into a racial issue (surprise!) and now education reform in DC is seriously in doubt. And even people who agree with Rhee or agree that there’s a huge problem have bought into this idiotic argument that Rhee sort of had it coming because her “attitude” was wrong. Who gives a rat’s ass about the woman’s attitude if she’s getting results?

So here’s this front page story in the Washington Post today: “Obama Says DC Schools Not On Par With Sidwell.”

This is news not because anyone — anyone! — in Washington honestly disputes or doubts this. Sidwell is one of the best private schools in the city, if not the country. It’s news because liberal politicians so rarely say anything truthful about education and Obama’s admission will be recognized as rhetorical ammo for the school choice crowd (Obama caved to the teachers’ unions (surprise!) and let the DC voucher program expire).

And yet when you listen to these endless seminars and interviews on NBC and its various platforms, I never seem to hear Matt Lauer or David Gregory ask “Isn’t the education crisis a failure of liberalism?” After all, liberals insist all social problems can be reduced to root causes. Well, they’ve been in charge of the roots for generations and look at the mess they’ve made. Look at it.

Largely because of the Iraq war, Katrina and Bush’s unpopularity, a host of liberal intellectuals pronounced conservatism to be dead. The decrepit state of American education is a far more sweeping, profound and lasting indictment of the very heart of liberalism and yet the response from everyone is “Let’s give these guys another try!”

A poor child growing up in Washington DC and attending public schools going K-12 is going to cost $28,348.38 per year and $368,529 over the course of his entire schooling in 2009 dollars. If he repeats a grade it will cost 396,877.32.

Growing up in DC he could also be using other social services that cost the tax payer, like free health care, rent assistance for his housing & food stamps. If all of those services added up to $500 a month, it would be $6,000 a year or $108,000 by the time he reaches the age of 18. By the time we are done with that child, it would put the cost of his burden to society at roughly half a million dollars. And that is just one child.

You can look at the poor single mother of four in DC as a tragedy of circumstance or victim of society, or you can look at those four kids collectively as a $2 million dollar burden of society that your children will have to pay for. And that doesn't count their future costs as adults, be they on welfare or incarcerated, let alone their breeding habits for future generations of the public dole. This country is already bankrupt. I can't see how we can afford the welfare state.

What is the breakeven point per child, and how many of them will live to pay that money back in taxes? And how could a private school voucher program that cost over $20,000 less per year have been producing better results? And why was it scrapped?

The numbers are so out of control it is mind numbing, and you use public education as evidence that we are breaking the social contract.

[Power]

I think that society can collapse. I don't have a real plan of action, more like a brief outline that needs some work.

For years I have written on this forum that my biggest fear is the collapse of the dollar. I started writing that during the Bush Administration; this isn't an Obama thing or a partisan thing. "Things that can't go on forever, don't" is my general theory of government spending money it doesn't have. At some point the ride stops and it is time for all of us to get off.

So can the economy collapse? Can the dollar collapse? I think the dollar can collapse, and that it is a distinct possibility in the next two decades. I pray it happens later than sooner, as I am unprepared right now.

What happens if the dollar collapses? What happens to all of us in an era of hyperinflation? When the money becomes worthless, how will the government provide services? What will happen to people that depend on the services that the government provides? Will they become angry? Will they become violent?

Hyperinflation could bring the economy to its knees. The United States can't count on the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to bail us out because we are the IMF. Without us there is no IMF. The calvary isn't coming. Nobody is going to save us if the shit hits the fan.

In fact the opposite is more likely. If the dollar collapses I think the economy will collapse along with it. You will have shortages of critical items like food and fuel, and possibly necessities like water and electricity would be intermittent. If the United States was ever to be attacked by her enemies, that would be the time to strike, particularly Washington DC (cut the head off of the beast) but the risk would be other places as well.

I also think a collapse would give an opening to fascism.

Security would be a huge concern in a government collapse. Would the prisons still run or would they let loose? Would policeman still patrol or would they pull back from riot torn areas to protect their own families and their own interests?

Perhaps it is just crazy talk. Perhaps I am paranoid and on the fringe and I couldn't be more wrong about the dollar and its implications.

I know it must sound like I am insane, but I think we should all have a plan. I want you to start thinking of your own plan.

If the electric and gas were cut off for three winter months, how would you heat your home enough to be able to survive?

If the water stopped coming out of your faucet, how would you get water to drink?

If the stores were laid bare by economic calamity, how would you feed yourself?

If police were not there for your security, how would you defend yourself?

Could you last for three months? I couldn't. I am developing a plan so that I can move my family to a safe and secure location and have food, water and fuel supplies for 3 months. If the shit really hits the fan 3 months is not enough, but at least it is a start.

Am I crazy? Perhaps. You tell me, and tell me if you have a plan.

Are you being serious with all of this? I assume not. You haven't explained how the dollar will collapse and make it seem as though it is an inevitability. That is a big assumption. The measures that would need to happen for the dollar to collapse are very very unlikely to happen.

1. If you are so afraid of the dollar collapsing why not just invest in foreign mutual funds or gold or something instead of building a bunker with your money?

2. What economy is strong enough to take on that high of a value? Not the European or Japanese economy who are also struggling.

3. If the US dollar were to collapse (damn near impossible) and the US economy is destroyed why wouldn't you just move with your foreign based mutual funds I just told you to invest in.

4. How would the dollar collapse? Short of major foreign players like China and Japan selling their US dollars and investing into secondary markets, it is not going to happen. Of coarse they would never do this because their economy rely on the United States.

5. The dollar is still the most used currency for the majority of the worlds banks reserves.

Personally, I think this is a crackpot theory. I do agree with the teachers union being stupid strong but I wouldn't call it a "war".

Seems like a whole lot of exaggeration to me.

[Snipe]

I wish I was joking.

Peter Schiff Warns Of The Looming Dollar Collapse (http://etfdailynews.com/blog/2010/04/28/peter-schiff-warns-of-the-looming-dollar-collapse/)


Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital and author of How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes, argues that the credit problems that plagued Greece will happen here and the U.S. dollar index will sink. Shiff is of the opinion that the economy is in worse shape than it was in 2008. Shiff says that the real crisis we are facing will be a currency crisis, a funding crisis, a sovereign debt crisis. This crisis is being masked right now by phony accounting practices and the fact that the Dow lost over 50% lending itself to a short covering bounce. Schiff equates the dollar to the dot com bubble and the housing bubble, saying that the fundamentals are flawed, and will lead to a collapse. His fear is that the longer it takes to fall, the further the drop.

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNGVQflUUN0)

Try googling "Dollar Collapse"

1. If you are so afraid of the dollar collapsing why not just invest in foreign mutual funds or gold or something instead of building a bunker with your money?

When people move away from the dollar and get their wealth out of dollars as you suggest, that is one thing that can trigger a collapse.

2. What economy is strong enough to take on that high of a value? Not the European or Japanese economy who are also struggling.

I don't know. I can't tell you where people would choose to invest their money instead of America. It isn't impossible that they will make those decisions.

3. If the US dollar were to collapse (damn near impossible) and the US economy is destroyed why wouldn't you just move with your foreign based mutual funds I just told you to invest in.

I don't know what foreign based mutual funds you want me to invest in. Any foreign fund is fine? That doesn't sound like a good investment strategy. I think Europe is on the brink too, with Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland dragging them down. Iceland is bankrupt. I am not sure the Euro will survive as a currency. Greece needs to deflate it's currency but it can't because it is tied to the Euro. I am not sure what countries mutual funds are good bets. Just saying buy mutual funds isn't the greatest advice, especially if we do come to a hard place.

4. How would the dollar collapse? Short of major foreign players like China and Japan selling their US dollars and investing into secondary markets, it is not going to happen. Of coarse they would never do this because their economy rely on the United States.

I am not sure that China will continue to loan us money to finance our debt forever. I would think at some point they would stop. I can't tell you when that point is, but I am pretty sure a point exists.

5. The dollar is still the most used currency for the majority of the worlds banks reserves.

It is still the most used currency, but it has been coming less and less so. The fed has recently had to buy up the bonds because other countries weren't buying. We are buying our own debt with money that we create out of thin air. That means we are monetizing the national debt and our deficit. We are printing money to pay our bills. That usually leads to inflation. You can't just print a lot of money and keep spending it without paying the price. That is what we are doing, and we will pay a price. Even if the dollar doesn't collapse, we will pay a price.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[waggy]

I wish I had a dollar, collapsing or not.

[XULucho27]

4. How would the dollar collapse? Short of major foreign players like China and Japan selling their US dollars and investing into secondary markets, it is not going to happen. Of coarse they would never do this because their economy rely on the United States.

The problem that China currently has is that they are heavily invested in U.S. debt. The Chinese government has been buying U.S. Treasury Securities for years. This investment strategy is not so that the Chinese government can "own" American wealth as some have stated but rather because it is a sustainable source of income for the Chinese government.

This strategy however, has proved risky. When the U.S. economy experienced a boom in the late 90's, U.S. Treasury Securities were a great financial product. After the recession however, the product has declined in value. The problem for China (and any foreign holders of U.S. debt) is that if they divest their assets from the American economy their remaining Treasury Securities will be rendered worthless. Hence, it is in the best interest of China, India, and other major purchaser of U.S. debt to continue to artificially inflate the dollar by investing in these securities. The inherit flaw is that at any point the economy can crash and the stockpiles of American debt will be worthless. In sum, on the one hand American debt is losing value, on the other hand foreign governments own so much of it they have to continue to consume it and maintain it artificially high.

I don't think that a total collapse of the dollar is probable in the next 20 years. I think the more likely scenario is a deflationary spiral of falling prices leading to a sustained recession much like the one Japan has experienced for the last 25 years.

I hope that explanation proved useful. I will however defer to those who have studied the situation more extensively. This is, of course, a layman's explanation proffered from my limited knowledge on the subject. I suggest the book Fault Lines by Raghuram Rajan. It's a great explanation of what is commonly referred to as the "Chindia Problem."

[DC Muskie]

I'm not sure where the National Review gets its number on the cost per student in DC.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C__-Maryland-in-top-10-for-per-student-spending-97339269.html


Although I appreciate the fact the National Review boils down the election of DC's mayor into a racial divide on the educational front. Gives people like Snipe a change to cut and paste a bunch of numbers and ramble on on how this country is going to hell in a hand basket. My only wish is he is breaks down the pack line defense like he does about a society collapsing.

I hated Fenty. But I thought the only good thing he was doing was bringing in that crazy Rhee woman to change the schools. Fenty lost this city for a variety of reasons, one of them was Rhee firing teachers. I'm sure the National Review would tell you otherwise, but then again I'm sure the National Review has probably never met even one DC school teacher.

I actually hate teacher unions. I love when I saw Christie up in Jersey basically bitch slap a bunch of teachers for basically not doing their job. But Fenty did enough screwing up in this city that the changes that he was making in DC didn't matter, because he pissed enough people off that he wasn't going to get reelected. And he was too stupid to recognize it. For that I'm gald.

But back to the point. DC spent a little more less than $2,000 more then the Montgomery County Maryland per student. And I as I stated before, MC is probably the most liberal, communist, socialist, Marxist, or whatever "ist" the teabagging right wing of this country wants to describe.

But MC has some of the best public schools in the country. Probably has something to do with the fact most of the students are white, but who knows...

But really...why do even spend money on people if we don't really know or worse, don't want to admit that they can't possibly return on that investment?

That money needs to go back into defense. Stop spending money on kids in DC, or Maryland for that matter. We should invest more in the army, because while they seem to be incapable of burying their soldiers properly, they have done a pretty good job of preventing England from attacking us through Canada.

And when the dollar collapses, I want to be sure we are dropping the 82nd airborne somewhere that can produce some revenue.

[PM Thor]

Call me crazy, but this thread epitomizes why I think people get distracted about what could happen in terms of natural disaster or social collapse.

While many are arguing about teachers unions, the dollar collapsing and the whatnot, people shouldn't really worry about the how, but more about how they respond.

It doesn't matter if the dollar collapses, or if it's a natural disaster. Big Brother isn't coming to save you. Screw how we would get to where we could possibly be, because in the long run, we wouldn't know how it happens anyway. Think about if a Hurricane Katrina hit the entire country. The government ain't coming. No one is coming. It doesn't matter how we get there. Argue how or why, it's irrelevant. How do you react and overcome?

I HATE dayton.

[blobfan]

Call me crazy, but this thread epitomizes why I think people get distracted about what could happen in terms of natural disaster or social collapse.

While many are arguing about teachers unions, the dollar collapsing and the whatnot, people shouldn't really worry about the how, but more about how they respond.

It doesn't matter if the dollar collapses, or if it's a natural disaster. Big Brother isn't coming to save you. Screw how we would get to where we could possibly be, because in the long run, we wouldn't know how it happens anyway. Think about if a Hurricane Katrina hit the entire country. The government ain't coming. No one is coming. It doesn't matter how we get there. Argue how or why, it's irrelevant. How do you react and overcome?

I HATE dayton.

I just need to make it to my local Walmart before the rest of the town figures out what's going on. There's shotguns in the back and plenty of camping gear. If things go nuclear, I think I'd rather be above ground and get wiped out in the first blast. I don't think I could stand decades in a bunker wondering what the hell is happening.

[PM Thor]

Don't get me wrong Blob, I don't want to be alarmist, nor reactionary. In case of a nuclear attack, I hope to die in the first wave with my loved ones too.

I'm just saying that people shouldn't expect the government to come to rescue them, and that people need to be more self sustaining. All you have to do is look at current natural disasters in the US for examples of why people should be more self sustaining. People should learn how to grow their own veggies, or how to live off of the water in their hot water tank, or how to jump a dead battery...stuff like that.

Here is my example. The government has said that the south western region of Ohio (Cincy, dayton, Northern KY, and Indy) is the 3rd most prepared area in terms of terrorist attack. It's a joke. On paper, it's true, but in no way is this area ready for any kind of attack. You think that this regions government is ready to respond to a massive event, natural or otherwise? Hell, we were shut down by a bunch of wind for Chrissakes.

I HATE dayton.

[waggy]

Whites Use Black Babies as Alligator Bait

so says new black panther king Shamir Shabazz

Definitive proof that society already has. I don't know how white people will ever be persuaded to stop.

http://www.breitbart.tv/new-black-panther-king-shamir-shabazz-whites-use-black-babies-as-alligator-bait/

[madness31]

Snipe, sorry for not clarifying everything but I'm a bit long winded as is. It is a great idea to grow your own food for many reasons. There could be droughts in other areas of the country/world, it is cost effective, especially if you can grow a self sustaining garden in an inflationary world. If you don't hedge the inflation properly through your investments then not growing your own food could make it difficult to maintain a diet you prefer.

I'm not sure what the confusion is on my minimum wage comment as it does effectively prevent employers from taking advantage of the working class. Where you might be getting confused is that it also potentially leads to fewer jobs or could lead to inflation. If efficiencies are not created then prices must go up to account for the higher wages or profits must go down. Typically efficiencies are created and more is asked of fewer workers and the owners or top management may take temporary financial hits to avoid raising prices. There are numerous factors and it is always possible that prices go up to account for the higher wages and no one is better off but typically competition drives down prices as someone figures out how to do it better/cheaper. As for the possible decrease in jobs this is commonly overcome by increased spending created by the higher salaries for minimum wage workers which leads to more hiring somewhere in the supply chain. Of course doing this during a deleveraging period or at other dicey times it could have very negative effects as the higher salaries might just go straight to savings and just add to the downward pressure on profitability.

Economics is a very fluid science as taking an action with one set of conditions can lead to very different results than taking the same action under a different set of conditions.

A great source for currency investing is Everbank.com as they have very low minimums and also offer products that guarantee your principle investment as long as you keep it for the designated time period. Some of these guaranteed investments are precious metals, currency baskets, international real estate. The products offered seem to change according to the investments that have the greatest probability of success though I don't really know how they determine what products to offer. I get financial/economic advice from various sources with Agora Financial being one of the main ones.

Currencies I like are Canada, Brazil, China, and precious metals. Australia is potentially good as well but they have some debt issues and are looking to tax the mining industries at higher rates which could cause less mining there if the change is too significant. Australia also might have some housing issues similar to what the US faced but most likely on a smaller scale (just a guess on the severity). Brazil is also rumored to be considering some anti capitalist actions which would add risk to their currency but if they avoid this mistake or just do some small tax increases on certain industries this currency will explode in value over the years. Brazil is energy independent and has tons of untapped oil and probably nat gas offshore. They also have an incredible agriculture industry to go along with beautiful beaches that could continue to attract wealthy foreigners for decades to come. Brazil is also very strong financially in comparison to most countries around the world.

China has lots of mining and has been securing deals with other resource countries around the world to ensure they have access to energy and metals for decades if not centuries to come. They have plenty of cheap labor to continue providing goods to the rest of the world but also have an emerging middle class. There is some risk that they are over building and that an economic collapse could happen but probably only if the US falls into depression. Continued US demand for Chinese products should offset much of any collapse in internal infrastructure spending.

Personnally I prefer gold and silver as there is less risk. I will make some Brazillian investments in the near future, especially if a buying opportunity presents itself. Regarding another person's comment, never invest in mutual funds. You are throwing away money in management fees. Mutual funds trend with the market with very few beating their benchmarks with any consistency. Buy ETFs that have very low management fees and also specialize in sectors of the market so that you can pick the areas of the market that you believe will benefit from current global/US forces. If you don't feel comfortable doing that then pick ETFs or Index funds that track the market as a whole. If you want to do even better you should cycle time the market and gradually sell your investments after 3 straight up years until you are completely out after 5 years. Gradually buy back in after the market sells off for a year until you are fully invested after about 2 years. This typically works though I suspect this cycle will produce different results. Deleveraging is different than a business cycle recession. If you want to implement this strategy I'd wait for another major pullback in stocks before getting heavily invested. I believe it is still time to sell into big moves higher in the market. I'd wait for the market to get reasonably close to the lows set during the crisis before investing any significant capital. I could be wrong but there are numerous structural issues with the current expansion that make me believe it is temporary. The investments I would keep would be mining companies, especially precious metals as well as energy investments. Agriculture investments are also solid but all of these would likely fall when the next big sell-off occurs. The difference is that they have tangible assets and they would benefit from any dollar crisis. Owning physical metals is also a must with silver and gold but some cash should be available to take advantage of buying opportunities.

The reason I believe a dollar collapse is inevitable is because the financial position of most Americans is terrible. Too many have no retirement savings so when Social security benefits are finally cut in a drastic way it will collapse spending and cause tax revenues to collapse which will exacerbate budget issues for the government. Dramatic cuts to medicare will also likely lead to decreases in economic activity as expensive medical treatments that are no longer covered will no longer take place. Could these things be avoided, maybe if meaningful action is taken now but the government is broken by partisan bickering, lobbyists, etc. I do not believe the two parties can come together and enact a meaningful solution to the immense problems facing the country. I also believe a war with Iran is going to take place within a few years to add to budget issues. It is also unlikely the financial collapse and job losses are over which will lead to lower tax revenue. A strong functioning government could probably prevent a collapse but this country hasn't had that in a very long while. If congress had any vision I suspect Obama would actually be a good president but the idiots in congress from both parties just can't function and seem to get worse each year.

[bobbiemcgee]

"Personnally I prefer gold and silver as there is less risk. "

How do you think they pay off an investment in metals? They don't deliver a gold brick to your door. They pay you in Dollars. So good luck with that.

[boozehound]

If the dollar collapses I don't know how safe other currencies are going to be either, particularly the Chinese Yuan. A lot of the 'producer countries' would face the possibility of economic collapse if the dollar were to collapse as well. Imagine what would happen to China if the US suddenly stopped buying things.

I tend to think that a collapse of the Dollar would lead to a global crisis, which I also tend to think makes a total collapse of the dollar less likely. It really depends on how you define 'collapse' though. I would be surprised if we don't lose our reserve currency status globally within the next 25 years.

The more I think about it I think we are more likely to see a steady, protracted, decline in the value of the dollar than a true 'collapse' ala Russia in the 1990's.

[XULucho27]

"Personnally I prefer gold and silver as there is less risk. "

How do you think they pay off an investment in metals? They don't deliver a gold brick to your door. They pay you in Dollars. So good luck with that.

Gold and silver, along with emerging foreign markets, have been forecasted to be the next "bubble" of our economy. However, these things are highly unpredictable and hence subject to debate and disagreement. That being said, I'd be careful about investing all or a substantial portion of my money in gold/silver/precious metals and foreign markets. If an economic boom in these markets does occur you can expect sharp bust shortly thereafter. It's simply the "boom/bust" cyclical nature of the economy.


The more I think about it I think we are more likely to see a steady, protracted, decline in the value of the dollar than a true 'collapse' ala Russia in the 1990's.

I agree with you Booze. If and when the dollar loses value it will most likely be in the form of a steady deflationary spiral in which prices exponentially drop, along with the value of dollar. You're right that it will be a long, protracted, process similar to the recession in Russia and Japan.

[GuyFawkes38]

Outside of some anarchists and hardcore communists (that doesn't include china or any other communist country today), it's in no one's interest to see a collapse of the dollar (it goes without saying that anarchists and communists don't pose much of a threat to the US government).

I just don't understand the fear. Like I said before on this thread, massive inflation strikes much smaller countries with governments on the brink of collapse. That's not the USA government.

Nuclear bomb attacks do freak me out (that would cause some weakness of the dollar).

[nickgyp]

Black babies as alligator bait?

Gee, I always thought Jerry Reed's "Amos Moses" was a fictional song where they were all "knocked in the head with a stump".

(Some songs stick with you even if you did not buy the 45 rpm vinyl.)

[waggy]

This woman didn't have an alligator, but she did have a gun.

Fed-up woman realized cavalry wasn't coming (http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/2760004,CST-NWS-mitch30.article)

Oh wait, she's black. Nevermind.

[Emp]

Snipe, will you please engage a bit more? This thread doesn't look like any of your usual manic rants.

Whose at war with public schools? Ex. A:, quoting the worst statistics possible for rhetorical effect?

Lets just try this one of your rhetorical flourishes:

What is the breakeven point per child, and how many of them will live to pay that money back in taxes? And how could a private school voucher program that cost over $20,000 less per year have been producing better results? And why was it scrapped?

So many red herrings, where to start. Your math? an $ 8000 voucher if I have the math right. Who is offering 8000 vouchers? State of Ohio? Details please.

So if you want to go to an out of district school and your parents work for minimum wage, where CAN you go to school in Cincinnati with that 8000 voucher? Tell me please, details. Your parents wont have to pay the difference for an out of district student? How will you get there, say as a sixth grader, take public transportation? Please, splain to me how any school reputable district in Cincinnati will accept an out of district student, clearly escaping a bad school, for $8000. Details please, not more rhetoric.

Follow up: Please clue me in, where are vouchers actually working? Achievement levels at half the charter schools in this state are abysmal.

Vouchers only work for parents who have enough jack to cover the difference between the voucher and the tuition, can pay for transportation, etc. Most folks in that class weren't going to send the kids to public school anyway. School voucher mythology.

[Emp]

Do you believe in evolution? Survival of the fittest is a key part of evolution. It sounds cruel because it is, but it is also realistic.

Interestingly, more than 6 in 10 Americans (not Afghans, Americans) dont believe in evolution.

Yes, I do believe that without intervention, the weak succumb to the strong and the greedy. I also thought that a Christian-based culture had decided that leaving the old and sick and crippled out to "be thinned" was unChristian and inhumane. I was mistakenly of the opinion that survival of the fittest was no a political and social philosophy that I would hear espoused out loud by a substantial number of citizens.

I would assume that the HerdThinners would be in favor of abortion, euthenasia, transportation and hanging for horse or car theft, the abolition of public hospitals ---hell, hospitals generally, surgery, prescription drugs.... thin out those jerks with clogged arteries, waste of society's precious capital.

Except for close family and friends, of course.

[madness31]

It is true that gold, silver and precious metals as a whole are projected as the next bubble but this is by the people that didn't see the housing and debt bubble forming. They do not understand economics and finance. Some of the brighter minds believe gold is fairly valued near current levels based on the cost of other goods and services. If the dollar continues to lose value, which it will whether slowly or quickly, then gold will rise in value. Commodities tend to do well for decades at a time. They have done well for about a decade and since these are unusual times I'd expect the cycle to last longer than the norm.

The Japanese style deflation that lasts decades is very possible but writing off a collapse is foolish. China would suffer dramatically with a US collapse as would the rest of the world but that doesn't necessarily prevent the possibility. Countries will not try to create the scenario to protect themselves but if the US slides into a depression and it appears debts will not get paid then foreigners and investors both will rush to the exits on treasuries. If the country is able to muddle through for a couple more decades or actually create economic growth then China will likely be in a position to exit by choice. Their middle class becomes stronger each week and once their economy is self sustaining they will be able to survive through a US collapse. India, Brazil and numerous other countries continue to thrive as well making the old economies of the US and Europe less meaningful. China won't cause the collapse of the US just because they can but should the US interfere in the Chinese affairs then China will hit the sell button. Maybe someone comes to the rescue and maybe not but China and Japan are the big players in treasury bonds.

Silver is no where close to a bubble. There is a production defecit every year with recycled jewelry and other silver accounting for the difference between production and demand. Demand grows yearly as silver is used in industries from medical equipment and antibacterial products to computers, phones and cameras to silverware and jewelry to various other uses. Silver will easily hit $50 per ounce and likely rise to $200 an ounce before the cycle is over. Eventually prices get high enough to use substitutes but there is a long way to run before hitting that price.

The comment about only small countries experience currency collapses ignores history. Every currency throughout time has been elliminated. The collapse of Rome was in large part related to the financial collapse of the Roman empire. The Roman government gradually reduced the precious metal content in coins to account for budget problems. The US is following a very similar path to Rome so ruling out a collapse is nieve.

Gold is currently bought in dollars but could be bought in Yuan a few years from now or paid for in agriculteral goods or clothes or anything other than dollars. A dollar only has value as long as people have confidence in the government's ability to make good on its obligations. As more currency is created to account for current financial problems it reduces confidence and also increases supply which is directly inflationary. As government debt grows confidence declines. This could continue to be gradual or something could make it abrupt.

Precious metals and foreign currencies will experience corrections but the trend is higher for many years. I've been in gold investments as well as silver and oil since 2000 and have enjoyed the ride. A decade of success should lead one to question how long the party can continue but the story hasn't changed so there is no reason for the ride to end. Reducing government spending won't necessarily lead to balanced budgets due to other economic problems so the defecit will continue to grow. As with all investments you should sell into strength and buy into weakness but with gold the strength should be given time to run and weakness bought quickly. Worst case for gold is a pullback to $800 but very likely any big weakness would end at 1000 or 900. Waiting for any of those levels could prove futile but you should always be aware of how low something could go. The only way any of those levels would be reached is if the S&P was also testing prior lows. There is no reason to own the stock market outside of commodities and a few select names which I'm not capable of selecting.

[GuyFawkes38]

Vouchers only work for parents who have enough jack to cover the difference between the voucher and the tuition, can pay for transportation, etc. Most folks in that class weren't going to send the kids to public school anyway. School voucher mythology.

So vouchers might help some people. But screw them because it won't help everyone.

Nearly everyone who reads this board had parents who had school choice. We are all lucky. Nearly all of us attended private or suburban public schools (indeed, families choose to live in suburbs with good schools...there's competition amongst suburban school districts), or gifted urban public school programs.

extending that ability to the urban poor (even if just marginally) is a good, worthwhile thing.

[Snipe]

Snipe, will you please engage a bit more? This thread doesn't look like any of your usual manic rants.

Whose at war with public schools? Ex. A:, quoting the worst statistics possible for rhetorical effect?


Emp, you know very well I will engage more. I tend to my threads. I start conversations to have conversations and I don't run away from questions. Most people complain about how I write too much, believe me I will have more to say and I will adress your concerns. Trust me.

I would like to know why you think my statistics are the "worse statistics possible". Statistics are statistics. Numbers are numbers. You and I can't change that. Every man is entitled to his own opinon, but not his own facts. The numbers are what they are.

I didn't start this topic to run away from it. If anything I wish someone would convince me that the dollar couldn't possibly collaspse.

You will get more of me in this thread in time. Trust me on that.

[Snipe]

Convergence cluster behavior. People feel safe when in a group, even if they really aren't safe at all. That's how I look at things in society right now. People think they are safe because many others feel safe around them. It's self fullfilling.

Good point.



Call me crazy, but this thread epitomizes why I think people get distracted about what could happen in terms of natural disaster or social collapse.

While many are arguing about teachers unions, the dollar collapsing and the whatnot, people shouldn't really worry about the how, but more about how they respond.

It doesn't matter if the dollar collapses, or if it's a natural disaster. Big Brother isn't coming to save you. Screw how we would get to where we could possibly be, because in the long run, we wouldn't know how it happens anyway. Think about if a Hurricane Katrina hit the entire country. The government ain't coming. No one is coming. It doesn't matter how we get there. Argue how or why, it's irrelevant. How do you react and overcome?

I agree.




In case of a nuclear attack, I hope to die in the first wave with my loved ones too.

I'm just saying that people shouldn't expect the government to come to rescue them, and that people need to be more self sustaining. All you have to do is look at current natural disasters in the US for examples of why people should be more self sustaining. People should learn how to grow their own veggies, or how to live off of the water in their hot water tank, or how to jump a dead battery...stuff like that.

Here is my example. The government has said that the south western region of Ohio (Cincy, dayton, Northern KY, and Indy) is the 3rd most prepared area in terms of terrorist attack. It's a joke. On paper, it's true, but in no way is this area ready for any kind of attack. You think that this regions government is ready to respond to a massive event, natural or otherwise? Hell, we were shut down by a bunch of wind for Chrissakes.


I love the PMThor contribution to this thread.

[Snipe]

The dollar will collapse. It's going to be epic. The times we live in are quite interesting.

I agree.



I hated Fenty. But I thought the only good thing he was doing was bringing in that crazy Rhee woman to change the schools. Fenty lost this city for a variety of reasons, one of them was Rhee firing teachers.

...


I actually hate teacher unions. I love when I saw Christie up in Jersey basically bitch slap a bunch of teachers for basically not doing their job.

...

MC has some of the best public schools in the country. Probably has something to do with the fact most of the students are white, but who knows...

But really...why do even spend money on people if we don't really know or worse, don't want to admit that they can't possibly return on that investment?



It sounds like you live in a good neighborhood.

[boozehound]

Interestingly, more than 6 in 10 Americans (not Afghans, Americans) dont believe in evolution.

Yes, I do believe that without intervention, the weak succumb to the strong and the greedy. I also thought that a Christian-based culture had decided that leaving the old and sick and crippled out to "be thinned" was unChristian and inhumane. I was mistakenly of the opinion that survival of the fittest was no a political and social philosophy that I would hear espoused out loud by a substantial number of citizens.

I would assume that the HerdThinners would be in favor of abortion, euthenasia, transportation and hanging for horse or car theft, the abolition of public hospitals ---hell, hospitals generally, surgery, prescription drugs.... thin out those jerks with clogged arteries, waste of society's precious capital.

Except for close family and friends, of course.


You make a valid point, and I am not saying that we should completely stop functioning as a society and go into 'everyone for themselves' mode. I do, however, wonder at what point we buckle under the weight of the people we are supporting. Are we better off making some tough choices now so that we don't have to make some really tough choices down the road?

How many can the few support? The more intelligent people are, by and large, having fewer and fewer kids. Stupid people are still having kids like crazy though. How does it not at some point reach a tipping point in which we can no longer function as a society because we have been trying to prop up people who add nothing of value to society.

[chico]

Follow up: Please clue me in, where are vouchers actually working? Achievement levels at half the charter schools in this state are abysmal.

Vouchers only work for parents who have enough jack to cover the difference between the voucher and the tuition, can pay for transportation, etc. Most folks in that class weren't going to send the kids to public school anyway. School voucher mythology.

I know this was directed at Snipe, but having kids in a private school here in town where several voucher kids are I can tell you that it works. As anything, it boils down to the parents. The parents of the overwhelming majority of kids at the school are involved in their kids' schooling.

You can quote all the think tank studies you like (on either side) but I will always believe the key to the success of a voucher program is the parents' involvement in their child's education.

[XULucho27]

It is true that gold, silver and precious metals as a whole are projected as the next bubble but this is by the people that didn't see the housing and debt bubble forming. They do not understand economics and finance.

I have to disagree with this point. Although it seems you have a far greater understanding of the subject than I, the projected gold/foreign markets bubble has been endorsed by some top economists. However, I do agree that their predictions do not constitute an assurance of a boom.


If the dollar continues to lose value, which it will whether slowly or quickly, then gold will rise in value.

My questions to this point, admittedly, rise from a lack of knowledge in the area: Wouldn't a sharp, quick increase in the value of gold lead to boom in that market? If the dollar continues to lose value and gold is increasing in value, wouldn't the sudden influx of investors to gold create an artificial spike in its value effectively creating a gold "bubble"?


The Japanese style deflation that lasts decades is very possible but writing off a collapse is foolish. China would suffer dramatically with a US collapse as would the rest of the world but that doesn't necessarily prevent the possibility. Countries will not try to create the scenario to protect themselves but if the US slides into a depression and it appears debts will not get paid then foreigners and investors both will rush to the exits on treasuries. If the country is able to muddle through for a couple more decades or actually create economic growth then China will likely be in a position to exit by choice. Their middle class becomes stronger each week and once their economy is self sustaining they will be able to survive through a US collapse. India, Brazil and numerous other countries continue to thrive as well making the old economies of the US and Europe less meaningful. China won't cause the collapse of the US just because they can but should the US interfere in the Chinese affairs then China will hit the sell button. Maybe someone comes to the rescue and maybe not but China and Japan are the big players in treasury bonds.

I completely agree with this however, I'm not sure if you were responding to my point. If I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that because China was so heavily invested in U.S. Treasury Securities a collapse was not possible. Rather, I was trying to highlight that it was in the best interest of the Chinese government, for the time being, to artificially inflate the value of American debt. You are correct however, that if China can bolster their own economic growth they could then exit the Treasury Securities market on their own. I think because of China's heavy investment and other economic factors, we're more likely to see a slow deflationary spiral as opposed to a sharp, drastic collapse of the dollar.

[Cheesehead]

My plan, living in a double wide on my wind farm (electricity) with pigs and cows (protein & dairy) and growing carrots, corn, tomatoes,potatos, beans (veggies) home brewing kit (beer); with my gold bars (currency/bartering).

Same plan I had for Y2K....

[American X]

If society collapses, I will calmly ride the streetcar out of it.

[madness31]

Lucho, you and I agree on China. They will choose to let the dollar fall gradually as long as it remains a choice. Should it ever appear the US has no possible way of making good on its debts then foreigners will run to the exits to collect any value they can get. If this doesn't happen in the next few decades and the emerging markets continue to develop basically uninterrupted then China will use the debt for political purposes. China will effectively own and control the US government.

I stand by my statement that most of the economists stating gold is the next bubble are clueless. Yes they are considered the "top" economists by the general public but most of these supposed "top" economists did not see the credit bubble and housing collapse until it was already happening. They don't seem to understand the Fed's role in the creation of these bubbles. I'm not saying gold won't become a bubble as it most likely will but that it is not a bubble at this point. If you are quoting economists that believe it will become a bubble but that it isn't currently a bubble then I have no issue with that statment but I've read/heard supposed leading economists state "gold is in a bubble". You will likely be able to ride gold up to $3000 at the low end and potentially $5000 at the upper end. At those values it may or may not be a bubble depending on what the Fed has done and what the government has done to balance its budgets. If the government doesn't find a way to balance its budgets then eventually the dollar will no longer exist and gold will be priced at an infinite number of $s.

Gold will likely become money once again. It will be used to back currencies once a crisis of confidence in currencies takes place. Should that occur than Gold cannot form a bubble as it will effectively set values from that point forward. Should the government succeed at inflating away debt obligations then Gold won't become money but will reach loft valuations as fear grows over whether the Fed will succeed at creating inflation without a currency collapse. I strongly suggest owning gold until the value explodes. There will likely be better entry points than the current level but there might not be.

[pickledpigsfeet]

Snipe, here's the start you need for your plan.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11487214&cm_mmc=BCEmail_Sept2010Mailer-_-Banner_-1-_-Thrive

[Snipe]

Snipe, here's the start you need for your plan.

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11487214&cm_mmc=BCEmail_Sept2010Mailer-_-Banner_-1-_-Thrive

Wow Pickled, that is pretty comprehensive and the outdates for expiration are impressive.

Just the fact that Costco is marketing this gives one an indication of how prevelant the fear of collapse is in society.

[muckem muckem]

Water, food, shelter and the ability to defend them are the first priority. Helping your family and neighbors will keep them from trying to get at your stuff violently. I have enough food and water until the next growing season. I have enough armament and ammunition for my friends.

A piece of paper that says you own something of value will be worthless. Material barter will prevail for the short term.

I don't obsess on this, but I do think that something of this nature has a possibility of happening, and it may happen rapidly.

[bobbiemcgee]

I filled the bathtub with water this morning. I'm good for the week.

[Snipe]

Gold and silver, along with emerging foreign markets, have been forecasted to be the next "bubble" of our economy. However, these things are highly unpredictable and hence subject to debate and disagreement. That being said, I'd be careful about investing all or a substantial portion of my money in gold/silver/precious metals and foreign markets. If an economic boom in these markets does occur you can expect sharp bust shortly thereafter. It's simply the "boom/bust" cyclical nature of the economy.



I agree with you Booze. If and when the dollar loses value it will most likely be in the form of a steady deflationary spiral in which prices exponentially drop, along with the value of dollar. You're right that it will be a long, protracted, process similar to the recession in Russia and Japan.

Point One: I agree. I would be careful in investing a substantial portion in anything, much less commodities that have hit all time highs and foreign markets and currencies that are volatile, especially when many economies are tied to the United States. For one thing, we will most likely expand again before we collapse, and the price of gold will come way down during economic expansion. Maybe we have had our last hurrah, but I hope not. I wouldn’t do that at the height of the market. It seems like a bad move.

One suggestion was to buy foreign currency. If the shit hits the fan and I need to buy food, who in Indiana, Ohio or Kentucky is going to want to take Brazilian currency? That seems like it could be a bad practical bet, even if the currency did in fact hold its value on traded markets in New York and international exchanges. Nobody is going to want that stuff.

If you are wealthy it is a whole different equation. Buy some gold, invest in foreign currency as a hedge. But those are only great ideas for the wealthy. What good would a once of gold do you when it all came down? An ounce of gold is worth something like $1300 right now, I didn't check. Can you buy some bread and meat with that? If you had a pallet load of toothpaste or ammunition I bet they would be better barter items than an ounce of gold. How do you break an ounce of gold down? If society collapses, Madness might have some Chinese Yuan, but who in the hell really wants it in exchange for a real live pig or some staples of food? Instead of buying gold, I would suggest you buy a gun and plenty of ammunition. And for trade’s sake, make the ammunition the most commonly used ammunition. I don't know what that is, but I bet it would be worth something and you could trade it.

Point 2:
If and when the dollar loses value it will most likely be in the form of a steady deflationary spiral in which prices exponentially drop, along with the value of dollar. You're right that it will be a long, protracted, process similar to the recession in Russia and Japan

I wouldn't be sure about that. You think that prices will drop exponentially, along with the value of the dollar. I don't know much about the Russian case, and Russia is much different than Japan. In Japan the Yen held its value, but they suffered deflation and the prices did drop. I think the fear is the collapse of the dollar, and I can't see prices dropping if the dollar becomes worthless. Japan over invested in capital assets, like Steel Mills. Those were assets that were not easily convertible into something else, but they were still assets. We have not had an overinvestment in Capital Assets like Japan. Ours has been a debt funded consumption bonanza, something the likes the world, let alone Japan has never seen.

If the dollar collapses we won't see prices drop. I think the people who fear deflation are on the wrong side of the map. I could be wrong. You simply can't print the money that we have just printed without a devastating effect on your currency. Deflation would be a godsend compared to what we have coming.

[GuyFawkes38]

yeah, I don't understand the deflationary argument. It's standard Fed policy to error on the side of inflation. The Fed has been remarkably successful doing that for the past 50 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg/500px-US_Historical_Inflation_Ancient.svg.png

But I don't think the dollar will collapse.

Strong, functioning governments don't have currency collapses. I know the politics in Washington suck these days. But still, there isn't a stronger, more secure government on earth. The ability to take on debt is a powerful tool that Washington won't squander away by inflating away debt. That's not in Washington's or anyone's interest (outside of anarchists).

The possibility of nuclear terrorist attacks does freak me out.

[Snipe]

Outside of some anarchists and hardcore communists (that doesn't include china or any other communist country today), it's in no one's interest to see a collapse of the dollar (it goes without saying that anarchists and communists don't pose much of a threat to the US government).

I just don't understand the fear. Like I said before on this thread, massive inflation strikes much smaller countries with governments on the brink of collapse. That's not the USA government.

Nuclear bomb attacks do freak me out (that would cause some weakness of the dollar).

It is in nobody's interest to see a collapse of the dollar. That is true. That doesn't mean it can't happen. The Chinese have invested a great deal in us. They won't do that forever.

Nothing lasts forever, not even our deficit spending. I wish that were the case. I wish we could print greenbacks for as far as the eye could see and still trade those pieces of paper for actual goods. We have been doing that for awhile and people are catching on. The jig is up.

Michael Kinsley is a prominent liberal, and I remember an argument he had about deficit spending while making a fiscal conservative rationale. He said in effect: If deficits don't matter, why don't we spend more? In fact, why do we even have taxes? Spend more and don't tax anyone if deficits don't matter! He wasn't proposing serious policy, he was making a point that deficits matter.

Think about that. Even hard core committed liberals see the end. You can't just spend money you don't have and if you do you pay the price one day. This thread is about preparing for that one day.

If the dollar can't collapse as you say, then why do we even have taxes Guy? Why don't we spend even more? Why not give everyone in the entire country ONE MILLION DOLLARS! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs)

Nothing demonstrates the process of inflation like Dr. Evil, even better than Milton Friedman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lWk4TCe4U)...

Dr. Evil On Inflation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs

[GuyFawkes38]

yeah, that's a great Friedman interview. Brilliant. It's awesome to see an audience respond so favorably to libertarian arguments.

I posted this great and depressing Nial Fergueson talk on the consequences of massive debt a while back. He makes the argument that the US government can't inflate away debt:

http://www.piie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=152&Media

That's not to say that there aren't really serious consequences to debt, as he points out. But a collapse of the dollar isn't one of them.

Of course, he could be wrong. It really is an awful situation.

[muckem muckem]

I told a liberal friend just last week: philosophies can be debated but numbers are fact and will end up as reality. The deficit spending is my biggest fear.

[Emp]

I know this was directed at Snipe, but having kids in a private school here in town where several voucher kids are I can tell you that it works. As anything, it boils down to the parents. The parents of the overwhelming majority of kids at the school are involved in their kids' schooling.

You can quote all the think tank studies you like (on either side) but I will always believe the key to the success of a voucher program is the parents' involvement in their child's education.

Snipe's silence on this confirms that rhetoric comes before facts.

For the record, I'm not against vouchers per se, but I have yet to see any case for the premise that the poor and lower middle class, who need the vouchers the most, can actually use them to any effective purpose. The experiments in Ohio in Cleveland in particular don't show any improvements, and in many cases losses, in scores or achievement.

I'm quite curious, it's a private school, where? What is the amount of the voucher? What is the spread between the voucher and the tuition and fees that the parents have to cover? What percentage of the school's population are there on vouchers?

One of the problems with vouchers is that there is no waiting infrastructure of good schools to accept "vouchered" students from failing schools. No school that has a high rating will want to accept more than a handful of students, lest they risk the high rating by accepting students who will test down at least for the entry years, driving the parents of full-tuition students to another school with a better rating.

Couldn't agree more that parental involvement is the single most important factor. I know you will gag on this, but the second most important factor is the community and its attitude towards the schools, the importance of educating all of "our" next generation, not just all of my next gen. Yes a part of that is the willingness to pay taxes to accomplish this goal, but the community effort of morale towards supporting students of parents and parents themselves is equally valuable.

[GuyFawkes38]

Sweden has a voucher system. It works well for them.

I think Emperor asks some good questions. But ultimately, you have to ask the question, do you want to attach funds to schools or the kids?

The teacher unions have a trickle down funding philosophy. Increase funding to administrators and teachers and hope it improves student performance. It's interesting that democrats argue against trickle down tax cuts to the wealthy, but endorse the approach with education.

[principal]

Over the past 10-15 years the Chinese have been preparing for the collapse of paper currency, specifically the dollar. First, literally overnight they leaped-frogged several spots to become the world's fifth largest holder of gold. The hoarding did not occur overnight, but the announcement to the IMF did. For years it was believed they were around number ten on the list, then bam, they announce they've been hoarding for years. Gold is a hedge against what? Inflation. Inflation is what? An increase in the money supply. An increase in the availability of a good results in what? The decrease in that good's value. So gold is a hedge against the decrease in the value (purchasing power) of paper money. The more gold China has the better they are able to survive if/when paper money collapses. They are more vested in the dollar than any other currency. They have been hoarding gold as a hedge against the eventual collapse of the dollar. Second, the Chinese government has publically called for the average Chinese citizen to buy gold. Why would the Chinese be telling the average citizen to buy gold? Given gold is a hedge against devalued paper currency, I'll bet they are doing this to further insulate the country from the possible collapse of paper money. Third, the Chinese have led the "charge" (it hasn't developed into much of a charge quite yet, but the idea is gaining traction) for moving away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency. If the dollar ceases to act as the reserve currency then by definition demand for the dollar decreases. What happens when you combine an increase in the supply of a good with the decrease in demand for the same good? That good won't be worth much for long.

Everything the Chinese are doing indicates that they expect the collapse of the dollar but want to minimize their losses given the degree to which they are vested in it. Buy more gold, buy less dollars, diversify, hope for a long, slow decline rather than an overnight collapse and hyper-inflation. They didn't quietly hoard gold for 15 years for no reason, they are not telling their average citizen to buy gold for no reason, and they aren't whispering about the reserve currency for no reason. They have a plan. That plan may not save them from losing their asses, but they are positioning themselves to minimize losses while we position ourselves to maximize losses.

The dollar can collapse and the dollar will collapse. It may be "overnight" and it may be a long, slow, slide a la Japan, but it is happening and will continue to do so unless radical change occurs in our government, in our fiscal policy, in our monetary policy.

[madness31]

The Kinsley comment was in response to Dick Cheney who stated "deficits don't matter". This is my issue with the Republicans complaining about spending. The Bush team spent like drunken sailors and cut taxes in the process to make shortfalls even larger. Bush left Obama with a $1 trillion deficit for his first year. Obama increased that with stimulus spending which has saved jobs. The only issue with the spending is that it focused on short term needs rather than long-term projects that will keep the country competitive. The budget problems are not the stimulus spending but that the government didn't run a surplus during the economic expansion. The law of economics is that governments run surpluses during good times and deficits during bad times. It was the Bush team that left the country in a terrible predicament. Bush and company do not deserve all the blame as Clinton was the only president in recent times to run a surplus and it took an extreme expansion to do it.

The government must get smaller but most of that must come from ending our imperial desires and eliminating fraud and waste from current programs. Obama and company is apparently looking into the second part of that but I suspect the partisan nature of congress will prevent action. What the country will get in the years ahead is reduced social security and medicare benefits. Wars will continue to be frequent as it gives the government an excuse to run deficits until the debt markets remove this possibility.

[GuyFawkes38]

The Kinsley comment was in response to Dick Cheney who stated "deficits don't matter". This is my issue with the Republicans complaining about spending. The Bush team spent like drunken sailors and cut taxes in the process to make shortfalls even larger. Bush left Obama with a $1 trillion deficit for his first year. Obama increased that with stimulus spending which has saved jobs. The only issue with the spending is that it focused on short term needs rather than long-term projects that will keep the country competitive. The budget problems are not the stimulus spending but that the government didn't run a surplus during the economic expansion. The law of economics is that governments run surpluses during good times and deficits during bad times. It was the Bush team that left the country in a terrible predicament. Bush and company do not deserve all the blame as Clinton was the only president in recent times to run a surplus and it took an extreme expansion to do it.


Madness, you write long posts which are interesting. But they often don't really deal with numbers and facts.

This is Obama's optimistic prediction:

http://reason.com/assets/mc/_ATTIC/Image/riggs/June_Fig_2.png

this also questions Obama's cost saving credentials:

http://reason.com/assets/mc/ngillespie/2010_10/bushobamadefictis.jpg

Indeed, the Obama administration has decided to spend as much as possible before their congressional majorities dry up.

(from this site: http://bit.ly/9PTvyA)

[GuyFawkes38]

The government must get smaller but most of that must come from ending our imperial desires and eliminating fraud and waste from current programs. Obama and company is apparently looking into the second part of that but I suspect the partisan nature of congress will prevent action. What the country will get in the years ahead is reduced social security and medicare benefits. Wars will continue to be frequent as it gives the government an excuse to run deficits until the debt markets remove this possibility.

I think your missing the big picture.

The big battle in Washington for the next 50 years will be reducing health care provider costs.

That means battling doctors and hospital administrators for much stronger cost controls.

[Snipe]

Snipe, will you please engage a bit more? This thread doesn't look like any of your usual manic rants.

Whose at war with public schools? Ex. A:, quoting the worst statistics possible for rhetorical effect?

Lets just try this one of your rhetorical flourishes:

What is the breakeven point per child, and how many of them will live to pay that money back in taxes? And how could a private school voucher program that cost over $20,000 less per year have been producing better results? And why was it scrapped?

So many red herrings, where to start. Your math? an $ 8000 voucher if I have the math right. Who is offering 8000 vouchers? State of Ohio? Details please.

So if you want to go to an out of district school and your parents work for minimum wage, where CAN you go to school in Cincinnati with that 8000 voucher? Tell me please, details. Your parents wont have to pay the difference for an out of district student? How will you get there, say as a sixth grader, take public transportation? Please, splain to me how any school reputable district in Cincinnati will accept an out of district student, clearly escaping a bad school, for $8000. Details please, not more rhetoric.

Follow up: Please clue me in, where are vouchers actually working? Achievement levels at half the charter schools in this state are abysmal.

Vouchers only work for parents who have enough jack to cover the difference between the voucher and the tuition, can pay for transportation, etc. Most folks in that class weren't going to send the kids to public school anyway. School voucher mythology.


Snipe's silence on this confirms that rhetoric comes before facts.

For the record, I'm not against vouchers per se, but I have yet to see any case for the premise that the poor and lower middle class, who need the vouchers the most, can actually use them to any effective purpose. The experiments in Ohio in Cleveland in particular don't show any improvements, and in many cases losses, in scores or achievement.

I'm quite curious, it's a private school, where? What is the amount of the voucher? What is the spread between the voucher and the tuition and fees that the parents have to cover? What percentage of the school's population are there on vouchers?

One of the problems with vouchers is that there is no waiting infrastructure of good schools to accept "vouchered" students from failing schools. No school that has a high rating will want to accept more than a handful of students, lest they risk the high rating by accepting students who will test down at least for the entry years, driving the parents of full-tuition students to another school with a better rating.

Couldn't agree more that parental involvement is the single most important factor. I know you will gag on this, but the second most important factor is the community and its attitude towards the schools, the importance of educating all of "our" next generation, not just all of my next gen. Yes a part of that is the willingness to pay taxes to accomplish this goal, but the community effort of morale towards supporting students of parents and parents themselves is equally valuable.

I don't think that I was quoting the "worst statistics possible". I think I was quoting the actual statistics in Washington DC. DC had a voucher program. The Obama administration ended it. It was doing well, parents liked it, and they took that option away from the people. It was also $20 grand less than what we pay to educate DC school children in public schools. Clarify what part of that you don't get and I will explain.

You question my math without any evidence. What is wrong with my math? You ask if Ohio has a voucher program. Well, Ohio does have a voucher program. I have gone door to door in my own community to tell people about it and I have signed people up. It covered the full tuition bill for the kids I helped sign up. I have actually done this. I have changed the trajectory of young lives. It isn't just a theory. It is being done right here in Ohio. Where do you live again? Ever heard of Ohio?

You ask about "Out of district" schools. That is a public school term. If you want to go to a school out of district you have to pay, and vouchers aren't enough to pay for public schools. You can't use the voucher for public schools in Ohio, it is for private schools.

Click here and scroll down to download the list of private schools that accept vouchers. You have about 60 private schools in Hamilton County alone that accept vouchers, and mostly the voucher pays the full tuition. When it doesn't, the Ohio State Law is that poor parents don't have to pay the difference. You have no clue what you are talking about.

You rag charter schools. I do too. Charter schools are public schools. Looks like you agree with me. Charter schools are only allowed in school areas that are already failing. They have to take kids from failing schools and try to turn them around in a new public school that gets less money than the old one. Is it any wonder than that "Achievement levels at half the charter schools in this state are abysmal." Those are public schools that get less funding than the old abysmal public schools. You are arguing for public schools by citing the case of failing public schools.

The nice thing about charters though is that failing charter schools are in fact allowed to fail. Public schools that aren't charters fail a lot, but they are never allowed to fail and go out of business. They just obviously need more funding!

I don't think you understand the argument. Vouchers for private schools have nothing to do with Charter schools, yet you conflate the two. You are unaware of the progress made in School Choice in Ohio or Washington DC. Parent satisfaction surveys are much higher with parents that choose vouchers to get a private education than parents who have children attending public schools. Graduation rates are higher too.

And vouchers are much cheaper for the tax payer. We pay way too much for public schools and the product is substandard. The private market could do much better, and it already does. Private schools kick the ass of public schools and they cost less.

In Milwaukee they wouldn't be able to afford getting off the voucher program they started now. They wouldn't even have the space for all the students, and the cost of taking all the students back would crush the budget. Having those students in the voucher program actually raised the amount they can spend on public education on a per pupil basis, and if it went away the schools would be starved. Add in the competition which makes the public schools with a government monopoly finally compete. It has made their public schools better.

Ohio's Ed Choice program currently has a waiting list. So many people are trying to get out of dismal government schools. School Choice is the next Civil Rights movement, and you my friend are on the wrong side of history.

[Snipe]

The government must get smaller but most of that must come from ending our imperial desires and eliminating fraud and waste from current programs. Obama and company is apparently looking into the second part of that but I suspect the partisan nature of congress will prevent action. What the country will get in the years ahead is reduced social security and medicare benefits. Wars will continue to be frequent as it gives the government an excuse to run deficits until the debt markets remove this possibility.


I am all for ending our imperial desires! Afghanistan is a cesspool of humanity. Might be the worst white country on the planet.

I am all for eliminating fraud and waste. It must be those Republicans that oppose eliminating fraud and waste. I hear them say it all the time..."We love fraud and waste".

If you can pay for new government programs by eliminating fraud and waste I am all for it. I think the first thing you should do is eliminate the fraud and waste and prove you have the power to do so. Just by saying this or that program will pay for itself because we will eliminate the fraud and waste doesn't cut it.

Why would Republicans be against eliminating fraud and waste? Why would anyone? And if you could eliminate fraud and waste, why isn't Obama doing that now? He has had two years, and Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have ruled Congress for the last four years. Democrats have had the Presidency and a filibuster proof majority in Congress. They don't even consult Republicans on things like the Stimulus bill.

So after all this time, could you point to me where they have cut the fraud and waste? Anywhere? Give me some numbers, give me some specifics? If they knew about fraud and waste, why are they waiting around to cut it? How much time do they need? Does Pelosi need four more years and even more Stimulus bills to finally find some fraud and waste? If they can't find it, what does that say? Maybe they are the fraud and waste.

You are one gullible little guppy just spewing the party line.

Spoon fed. Open your eyes.

[Snipe]

The Kinsley comment was in response to Dick Cheney who stated "deficits don't matter". This is my issue with the Republicans complaining about spending. The Bush team spent like drunken sailors and cut taxes in the process to make shortfalls even larger.

For the record the Kinsley comment that I talked about was in response to James Galbraith, not Dick Cheney. Cheney did say that deficits don't matter. Galbraith did too.

Also for the record, I am not a republican but many people complained about George Bush's spending. Check out his popularity ratings sometime.

Guy seems to agree with that deficits don't matter also, because he says our currency can't collapse no matter how much we spend. I don't know why anyone needs to pay any taxes if deficits don't matter, or why we shouldn't increase spending ten fold. Unless you live in the real world, where deficits actually matter.

[GuyFawkes38]

Guy seems to agree with that deficits don't matter also, because he says our currency can't collapse no matter how much we spend. I don't know why anyone needs to pay any taxes if deficits don't matter, or why we shouldn't increase spending ten fold. Unless you live in the real world, where deficits actually matter.

heh, this is a ridiculous and sloppy paragraph.

Of course, even if the dollar does NOT collapse, deficits can still matter. You seem to be inferring that deficits can only matter if the dollar collapses.

I earlier responded to you by linking to a talk by Nial Ferguson. He argues that deficit spending will seriously hurt our ability to maintain a strong defense force. But he doesn't believe the dollar will collapse. So I guess that means he does not believe government deficits matter. sure.

And a day doesn't go by that I post some alarming chart about government debt on this site.

Yet, you argue that I believe deficits don't matter. Come on now Snipe. Your usually sharper than this.

[Snipe]

Yes you don't like the debt and the deficit, but you think that the dollar could never collapse.

If the dollar could never collapse, why don't we just give everyone all the money they want? Just issue out ATM cards? And if our deficit spending and debt to constrain our wants and needs, that is because we can't print enough dollars to fund it. In effect, the dollar would have collapsed, because the things we used to buy with deficit spending we can't afford anymore even with more deficit spending. Why is that? Because the value of the dollar would have folded.

The dollar steadly loses value with every minute of every day. We keep on spending money we don't have. At some point the system will pay a heavy price for that. You agree with that, but you don't think the dollar will "collapse", I am saying that IS the collapse.

[GuyFawkes38]

If the dollar could never collapse, why don't we just give everyone all the money they want? Just issue out ATM cards? And if our deficit spending and debt to constrain our wants and needs, that is because we can't print enough dollars to fund it. In effect, the dollar would have collapsed, because the things we used to buy with deficit spending we can't afford anymore even with more deficit spending. Why is that? Because the value of the dollar would have folded.

I think a distinction needs to be made.

I don't think the dollar will collapse.

But that does not mean that there are institutions in Washington (the Fed, Congress, the President and his staff) that fear and actively take steps against a collapse. Indeed, there isn't another currency on earth with a more stable government behind it.

I don't doubt that a fear of collapse of the dollar exists amongst policy makers in DC. But that doesn't mean it will happen.


The dollar steadly loses value with every minute of every day. We keep on spending money we don't have. At some point the system will pay a heavy price for that. You agree with that, but you don't think the dollar will "collapse", I am saying that IS the collapse.

Steady and slow inflation is not, in itself, a bad thing. Incomes can fluctuate upwards. I find it odd that self described libertarians who deeply fear inflation don't have much faith in the markets ability to self correct.

In the long term, taxes will have to increase or programs cut. It'll be rough. But a collapse of the dollar is not an option that anyone would benefit from (outside of invading forces or terrorists or military coups....and historically, those are the only forces which take down currencies).


That all being said, I love Snipes response to Emperor.

Hopefully Emperor responds.

[madness31]

Guy, I have the general numbers in my head so I don't post links or paste pictures. You must remember that the outgoing president creates a budget for the next year. The incoming president can make some changes but for the most part only additional spending takes place because the funding has already been promised to states, etc. The other important point is that as recessions take hold you get less tax revenue and deficits grow without equal cuts in spending. About $1 trillion of the 2009 deficit belongs to Bush, not Obama. Obama added stimulus spending to save jobs. Stimulus spending during recessions is economically speaking the correct action to take. I take issue with the projects chosen but again the Republicans must share in the blame. They focused on not spending rather than helping choose projects wisely. They also focused on getting money for their states just like the democrats.

The other item to consider when viewing your spending charts is that social security and medicare expenses go up as baby boomers retire. Even if the president added no new spending it would look worse than the previous president. There are other promised spending as well and Bush passed the prescription drug plan which is going to show up in all future presidents budgets.

Spending is out of control and it is putting the future of the country at risk. I believe we are already past the point of no return but some believe that not to be the case. The point I always make is that the Republicans especially but also the Democrats need to put partisan issues aside and work together on eliminating waste and fraud. The reason why I focus on Republicans is because they focus all their energy on demonizing programs rather than making them as efficient as possible. What ends up happening is that special favors get thrown into bills to buy votes and less attention is paid to how a program functions. Claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility while doing nothing to create efficiencies and running deficits every time you are in power is fraud. I don't like Democrats but I hate Republicans simply because of the lies. Sure the Democrats lie occassionally and get things very wrong but they tend not to lie right to your face repeatedly.

I believe I said Obama is working on efficiency creation and not that it has been implemented. I suspect it will never be implemented as the two parties are completely unwilling to work with one another. The Republicans also benefit politically from the failure of Democrats. Unfortunately I believe the Republicans are willing to play politics to get elected at the expense of the country. I'm sure most don't realize that their actions are putting the future of the country at risk as most don't understand finance and economics but eventually selfish actions do just that.

The only hope for this country is to remove the two parties from office. Putting independents in office may result in the same selfish backdoor dealing but at least there is a chance it will be different.

[madness31]

Back to the investment argument. The country is already in expansion. Most likely we are nearing the end of the expansion and leading to another recession within the next year or two. Gold will not fall during an economic expansion for several reasons. The first reason is that this is a commodity super cycle. Commodity cycles last a decade or more. This one is already about a decade long but it coincides with emerging market infrastructure building that is no where close to ending. Commodities will run for another decade with drops happening whenever recessions occur. The next reason gold will continue to rise during expansions is that ecomic expansion is now limited to times of easy money. Past corrections were never allowed so there is still a lot of rot in the system. This rot becomes obvious whenever easy money is removed and a new recession begins. The Fed has to lower rates to new lows to stimulate. Taxes are also lowered each time there is economic uncertainty. The Fed is at the limit on lowering to new lows so it will be interesting to see what happens the next time a recession begins. They can always increase money supply so expansions will be built on increased money. Increased money is obviously inflationary which leads to higher gold prices.

The US has expanded for decades through debt creation. This has very negative effects on future growth and basically ensures a weakening of the currency. You notice gold moves higher every time the market goes higher. The market is rallying on the expected quantitative easy and not on strong economic fundamentals. The economy has been growing for about a year but weakly. The only way it continues growing is through easy money. Eventually what will happen is the market will send interest rates higher despite the Fed. This will take time as the Fed will print money and buy bonds to lower interest rates but eventually the market will win this battle as fear of hyper inflation is created by the fed action. If you want to benefit from rising interest rates buy TBT. If you want to protect the investment and possibly make some money while you wait for higher rates you can sell call options against the position. The great thing about this investment is you don't have to believe in hyper inflation, the collapse of the currency, etc to make money. If you believe the economy will recover then interest rates will gradually rise as this happens. The investment makes money as interest rates move up. I don't expect this to move higher immediately and it could go down further before it finally moves up but eventually it does go higher unless the US manages to repeat the Japanese deflationary spiral. Even in the event of that the downside risk is minimal and writing call options against the position should result in small gains or at least incredibly small losses.

I repeat my statement that there is no reason to invest in the US stock market other than commodities and a few select names, primarily global companies. If you believe in growth you should invest in commodities and emerging markets. If you believe emerging markets will not continue to grow strongly then you should also avoid US stocks as a big part of revenue and profit growth was due to exports. Cutting costs was the other primary contributer to profit growth. If emerging market demand slows then cost cutting will have a resurgence which will worsen economic conditions here.

Debt bubbles are painful so expecting stocks to rise without gold is a dream world that is a long way off. After secular bear markets which we have experienced for the last decade, it typically takes 1 to 3 ounces of gold to buy the Dow. Either gold has a long way to run or the Dow has a long way to fall if we are to achieve these historic measures of value. Stocks also typically reach PE multiples of 5 to 7 which would require either huge profit growth or a 50% drop in stock values. Of course these values do not need to be achieved or could take another decade or two to happen but it should cause one to invest cautiously and not worry about missing a market advance. My economic analysis, which could be flawed, suggests gold will at least match the performance of stocks and historical valuations suggests it will out perform stocks. Of course statistics also show that stocks perform better under democrats (not sure how gold performs but I suspect it also does well) so maybe equities will do just fine the next couple of years.

[XULucho27]

yeah, I don't understand the deflationary argument. It's standard Fed policy to error on the side of inflation. The Fed has been remarkably successful doing that for the past 50 years.

The argument for deflation is rooted in the current status of the nation's financial institutions. After the bailouts of 2008-09 banks did what many expected them to do in a time of crisis, hoard cash and rein in lending. When banks fail to engage in their most basic of functions (lending), it begins a ripple effect causing market prices to slowly fall over time. Given that the public uses the market as a barometer for the state of the economy, a lowering of prices in the market translates to lower prices consumer market. Moreover, because banks fail to lend money, consumers also begin to hoard cash and spend less thus further driving down the prices on consumer goods. The result is a positive feedback cycle in which prices continue to slowly drop, while consumers continue to hoard their assets and refrain from purchasing in anticipation of lower prices to come. It begins slowly but eventually grabs a hold of the system as a whole.

The above example is not limited to goods such as electronics, clothing etc., but rather it can also expand to mortgages, student loans, car loans etc. (the argument being that those who can afford to wait for interest rates or fees to fall on consumer financial products will do so in anticipation of lower market prices). Thus, while prices continue to fall (whether rapidly or slowly overtime) consumers continue to hoard their liquid assets in anticipation of lower prices to come.

Personally, I believe this whole mess could have been avoided if the Federal Reserve (under the Chairmanship of Alan Greenspan) and Congress hadn't pushed for market deregulation in the late 1980's through 1990's. Looking back, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 2000 and the merger of Citi and Traveler's to form Citigroup (a merger which, in fact, was illegal at the time) spelled the beginning of the end, not specifically for market deflation but rather in terms of irresponsible financial practices (that of course is an argument for another time.)



I wouldn't be sure about that. You think that prices will drop exponentially, along with the value of the dollar. I don't know much about the Russian case, and Russia is much different than Japan. In Japan the Yen held its value, but they suffered deflation and the prices did drop. I think the fear is the collapse of the dollar, and I can't see prices dropping if the dollar becomes worthless. Japan over invested in capital assets, like Steel Mills. Those were assets that were not easily convertible into something else, but they were still assets. We have not had an overinvestment in Capital Assets like Japan. Ours has been a debt funded consumption bonanza, something the likes the world, let alone Japan has never seen.

Yes and no. Japan was over-invested in some areas but, similar to our current predicament, their recession also began after a bank insolvency brought upon by a real estate bubble. In response, the Japanese government invested heavily in these banks to keep them afloat (think Troubled Asset Relief Program/Bailouts of 08-09). Unfortunately, much like our own "Too Big To Fail" banks, Japanese banks began to hoard cash assets and reduce lending, thus creating "Zombie Banks." These financial institutions kept cash reserves and received government help, but failed to produce a profit on their own (sound like any banks you know? Chase, BofA, Citigroup, Wells Fargo).

The fact is that our recession (it's roots aside) and subsequent bailout has created a situation very similar to Japan. Our nations six largest banks (whose assets total 62% of our GDP) are now in the unique position of knowing the government must bail them out in times of trouble or risk a meltdown of the financial system. Risk taking has been essentially disincentivized and banks can afford to hoard cash and invest in extremely risky, yet lucrative financial products. We're well on our way to creating our own "Zombie Banks." As a result of less lending by banks and an increasing in hoarding of cash, prices will eventually drop and the economy could very well find itself in the "positive feedback cycle" mentioned above.

It's for these reasons that I believe that a period of hyperinflation and subsequent collapse of the dollar in the next 20 years is much less likely, though not by any means impossible. I believe that our situation is so similar to that of Japan that we have an effective roadmap on what to expect. All that being said, I would favor legislation that would divest bank assets in subsidiaries, decrease their overall size and rein in our financial system. This could lead to a much more devastating depression, but one that would more likely than not, result in a healthy recovery for our economy.

Here are some sources to the information on Japan's crisis and how it is similar to our current situation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226887/caution-zombie-economy-ahead/rich-lowry
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/sep06/3.aspx

I also recommend Corporate Justice Blog. In the interest of full disclosure, one of the authors of this blog, Steven Ramirez, is my main source of information in financial matters. He was my professor this summer and we spent a good deal of time analyzing the current status of the economy including new government regulation. I fully credit him for helping me gain a greater understanding of the economy and helping form some of the opinions above.

http://corporatejusticeblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/inflation-deflation-and-excess-capacity.html

I apologize for the long post and welcome any and all comments/criticisms to the analysis above. :D

[madness31]

Lucho, very good post. I agree with most of what you said though I propose another idea that may initially seem impossible should be given thought before eliminating.

I could see both goods and service deflation at the same time commodity prices inflate. This would be the worst of all worlds as it would squeeze profits through higher costs, lower prices and reduced demand. Decreased consumer demand within the US would lead to price wars and potentially cause the feedback look you suggest with consumers waiting for lower prices. The weak economy would increase deficits for the government thus weakening the currency. The Fed would also take drastic actions to stop the deflation which would further weaken the currency. At the same time emerging markets may continue to emerge creating global demand for commodities. The high demand for commodities combined with a weak dollar would create significant commodity inflation while US businesses fought for what little consumer demand still existed. Labor cost cutting would be severe with both a reduction in the labor force and reduction to wages. This would destroy the restaurant industry as demand would crater at the same time prices soar. Retail in general would struggle and the commercial real estate market would collapse. This collapse would once again put the banking system in jeapardy.

Eventually inflation or deflation would have to win and all prices will trend together but I could see this scenario playout for up to a couple years. It already seems to be happening as you see commodity prices from crops to energy to metals rising while retail discounts merchandise and home prices fall. The dollar continues to lose value with just the talk of quantitative easing. If demand doesn't materialize then you will see stock prices fall and the wealth effect pressure home prices further. Corporate cost cutting will be renewed and most likely stimulus spending will come to an end due to politics and potentially bond market pressures. Waiting for lower prices would give way to hording of capital due to job fears and demand would stop.

Any thoughts on this scenario?

[boozehound]

The only hope for this country is to remove the two parties from office. Putting independents in office may result in the same selfish backdoor dealing but at least there is a chance it will be different.

Good luck with that one. Politicians will continue to bleed this country dry until there isn't a drop left. They have perfected the art of manipulating stupid people and playing to the fears of the masses.

Personally, I don't really even draw a distinction between Republicans and Democrats anymore. They are all basically the same to me. Politicians.

That is why I have little faith in the future of this country, financially or otherwise.

[Emp]

You question my math without any evidence. What is wrong with my math? You ask if Ohio has a voucher program. Well, Ohio does have a voucher program. I have gone door to door in my own community to tell people about it and I have signed people up. It covered the full tuition bill for the kids I helped sign up. I have actually done this. I have changed the trajectory of young lives. It isn't just a theory. It is being done right here in Ohio. Where do you live again? Ever heard of Ohio?

You ask about "Out of district" schools. That is a public school term. If you want to go to a school out of district you have to pay, and vouchers aren't enough to pay for public schools. You can't use the voucher for public schools in Ohio, it is for private schools.

Click here and scroll down to download the list of private schools that accept vouchers. You have about 60 private schools in Hamilton County alone that accept vouchers, and mostly the voucher pays the full tuition. When it doesn't, the Ohio State Law is that poor parents don't have to pay the difference. You have no clue what you are talking about.

You rag charter schools. I do too. Charter schools are public schools. Looks like you agree with me. Charter schools are only allowed in school areas that are already failing. They have to take kids from failing schools and try to turn them around in a new public school that gets less money than the old one. Is it any wonder than that "Achievement levels at half the charter schools in this state are abysmal." Those are public schools that get less funding than the old abysmal public schools. You are arguing for public schools by citing the case of failing public schools.

The nice thing about charters though is that failing charter schools are in fact allowed to fail. Public schools that aren't charters fail a lot, but they are never allowed to fail and go out of business. They just obviously need more funding!

I don't think you understand the argument. Vouchers for private schools have nothing to do with Charter schools, yet you conflate the two. You are unaware of the progress made in School Choice in Ohio or Washington DC. Parent satisfaction surveys are much higher with parents that choose vouchers to get a private education than parents who have children attending public schools. Graduation rates are higher too.

And vouchers are much cheaper for the tax payer. We pay way too much for public schools and the product is substandard. The private market could do much better, and it already does. Private schools kick the ass of public schools and they cost less.

In Milwaukee they wouldn't be able to afford getting off the voucher program they started now. They wouldn't even have the space for all the students, and the cost of taking all the students back would crush the budget. Having those students in the voucher program actually raised the amount they can spend on public education on a per pupil basis, and if it went away the schools would be starved. Add in the competition which makes the public schools with a government monopoly finally compete. It has made their public schools better.

Ohio's Ed Choice program currently has a waiting list. So many people are trying to get out of dismal government schools. School Choice is the next Civil Rights movement, and you my friend are on the wrong side of history.

This all started with my comment about the war on public schools. It is clear you are a foot soldier with aspirations to be general in the war. You regard public schools as the enemy. Thank you for this explication. My original point, Q.E.D.

Your generalization that public schools are failing is just not supported by evidence and experience. Is Walnut Hills failing its students? Anderson? Sycamore? Princeton? Or are you talking about urban schools serving the poor?

You refer to a link you didn't embed, but I did go look at your list of private schools. I would like to see your link. I looked at ODOE site and found lists of 300+ voucher/scholarship schools that consisted of both private and school-district sponsored schools. As well as a list of over 60 such schools that had failed and were closed.

Lets talk about the Milwaukee "miracle":

About 45 percent of students participating in the Milwaukee program in 1998 attended Catholic schools, according to a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The newspaper examined records at the state Department of Public Instruction and discovered:

* 4,000 voucher students attended religious schools and 2,200 attended private, non-sectarian schools.
* Of the 6,200 voucher students, only 1,400 attended Milwaukee Public Schools in 1997. The majority of voucher students were not new students who could finally afford to leave the public system
* 57 schools participating in the program are religious and 30 are non-sectarian.
* 2,785 students attend Catholic schools, 561 attend Lutheran schools and 654 attend other religious schools.

Vouchers are still code words for paying for Catholic kids already headed for Catholic schools.

[Snipe]

This all started with my comment about the war on public schools. It is clear you are a foot soldier with aspirations to be general in the war. You regard public schools as the enemy. Thank you for this explication. My original point, Q.E.D.

Your generalization that public schools are failing is just not supported by evidence and experience. Is Walnut Hills failing its students? Anderson? Sycamore? Princeton? Or are you talking about urban schools serving the poor?

You refer to a link you didn't embed, but I did go look at your list of private schools. I would like to see your link. I looked at ODOE site and found lists of 300+ voucher/scholarship schools that consisted of both private and school-district sponsored schools. As well as a list of over 60 such schools that had failed and were closed.

Lets talk about the Milwaukee "miracle":

About 45 percent of students participating in the Milwaukee program in 1998 attended Catholic schools, according to a report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The newspaper examined records at the state Department of Public Instruction and discovered:

* 4,000 voucher students attended religious schools and 2,200 attended private, non-sectarian schools.
* Of the 6,200 voucher students, only 1,400 attended Milwaukee Public Schools in 1997. The majority of voucher students were not new students who could finally afford to leave the public system
* 57 schools participating in the program are religious and 30 are non-sectarian.
* 2,785 students attend Catholic schools, 561 attend Lutheran schools and 654 attend other religious schools.

Vouchers are still code words for paying for Catholic kids already headed for Catholic schools.

You seem to have some animosity towards Catholics schools. I have to say it is a little odd considering that all of us here (including you) are Jesuit educated. Actually not a little odd, but a lot odd.

A year ago or so we already discussed the Blaine amendments and the Bible wars against Catholic schools in this country. I think that deserves another thread, but this is not that thread. For reference to anyone reading, check here (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showpost.php?p=83919&postcount=91) & here. (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showpost.php?p=85351&postcount=105)

Please start a thread about public schools vs. private education. I promise to attend.

[chico]

Snipe's silence on this confirms that rhetoric comes before facts.

For the record, I'm not against vouchers per se, but I have yet to see any case for the premise that the poor and lower middle class, who need the vouchers the most, can actually use them to any effective purpose. The experiments in Ohio in Cleveland in particular don't show any improvements, and in many cases losses, in scores or achievement.

I'm quite curious, it's a private school, where? What is the amount of the voucher? What is the spread between the voucher and the tuition and fees that the parents have to cover? What percentage of the school's population are there on vouchers?

One of the problems with vouchers is that there is no waiting infrastructure of good schools to accept "vouchered" students from failing schools. No school that has a high rating will want to accept more than a handful of students, lest they risk the high rating by accepting students who will test down at least for the entry years, driving the parents of full-tuition students to another school with a better rating.

Couldn't agree more that parental involvement is the single most important factor. I know you will gag on this, but the second most important factor is the community and its attitude towards the schools, the importance of educating all of "our" next generation, not just all of my next gen. Yes a part of that is the willingness to pay taxes to accomplish this goal, but the community effort of morale towards supporting students of parents and parents themselves is equally valuable.

I don't want to get specific on the location - let's just say it's on the east side along the I-71 corridor. I don't have specific numbers but my best guess would be we have about 10% voucher students. Most would otherwise come from Cincy public. I don't have access to the numbers (nor should I) but again, my best guess is that most if not all the voucher families are not paying anything toward tuition.

As for the infrastructure, it's my belief (although this could be wrong) that any student who lives in a district which is in academic emergency is entitled to a voucher to be used wherever they want. With our school, a lot of the parents drive a ways to get there so it's not their nearest private school.

As for your last point, it's my belief that, though important, the community is not as important as those teaching the kids. There was a very good article in The Atlantic awhile back about teachers and how new studies have shown that the quality of teacher makes a huge difference in the quality of education a child receives.

[Emp]

You seem to have some animosity towards Catholics schools. I have to say it is a little odd considering that all of us here (including you) are Jesuit educated. Actually not a little odd, but a lot odd.

A year ago or so we already discussed the Blaine amendments and the Bible wars against Catholic schools in this country. I think that deserves another thread, but this is not that thread. For reference to anyone reading, check here (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showpost.php?p=83919&postcount=91) & here. (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showpost.php?p=85351&postcount=105)

Please start a thread about public schools vs. private education. I promise to attend.

Oh my, Snipe cuts and runs. You made the long arguments. You touted Milwaukee as the shining example of rescuing public school students from evil public systems with vouchers, and saving money to boot. Simply not true. As soon as someone fact checks you, fade to black, change the subject.

You presume so much, and make so many ad hominem arguments. You, Sir (your sternest putdown intro, borrowed here only for effect) are seriously wrong about my feeling for Catholic schools, which are complex. I was "in a catholic institution" of some sort or another until I was 30. I was a student, a teacher and am still a vigorous alum.

I'm not hostile to Catholic schools, or private schools at all. I am hostile to the war on public schools you so clearly supporting. Everyone isn't as lucky as I was/we were. Abandoning, no actively attacking, public school education, rather than working hard for and morally supporting public education, is what curdles my milk.

Taft and the for-profit private school industry implemented vouchers in Ohio on an experimental basis. Good idea, with reservations, I thought at the time. But, O Self Appointed Guardian of the Public Pocket, my and your tax dollars have been pouring into the for-profit pockets of the industrial school movement to absolutely no net gain, and quite a bit of scandal. Private schools have no transparency or accountability, and we cannot see where are tax dollars are going. One private system in the Columbus area, with it wholly-owned REIT as the landlord, charged $1.4M for one years rent for two schools. Triple net rent, ie cover your own maintenance and capital improvements. WHAT?

[Emp]

I don't want to get specific on the location - let's just say it's on the east side along the I-71 corridor. I don't have specific numbers but my best guess would be we have about 10% voucher students. Most would otherwise come from Cincy public. I don't have access to the numbers (nor should I) but again, my best guess is that most if not all the voucher families are not paying anything toward tuition.

As for the infrastructure, it's my belief (although this could be wrong) that any student who lives in a district which is in academic emergency is entitled to a voucher to be used wherever they want. With our school, a lot of the parents drive a ways to get there so it's not their nearest private school.

As for your last point, it's my belief that, though important, the community is not as important as those teaching the kids. There was a very good article in The Atlantic awhile back about teachers and how new studies have shown that the quality of teacher makes a huge difference in the quality of education a child receives.

Of note is that apparently many if not most of the vouchered students have parents who can drive them a distance they cannot walk. That's fine for families with a non-working parent and two cars.

I'm not sure why you shouldn't know whether the voucher covers the tuition (not a particular family's finances). It's a very important part of the equation. How much is tuition at this school? Does the school (ultimately full tuition paying families) absorb a difference between voucher and cost per student?

Most of the working poor are not in that situation. Especially in a primary school situation, what you describe would not be an option for a substantial number of students and families. Community public primary schools that consistently fail need to be cleaned out and started over, but in a location that is accessible to the student. Insisting that the local public school perform is the more likely solution for most students and families. Not all, but most.

[chico]

The voucher covers tuition for each student. Tuition is in the $3,000 - $4,000 range depending on whether your are a parishioner or not. I do not know specifics as to how much we get for each voucher student as I am not on PTO nor our education commission.

Many of the kids take the bus. School districts can work together, as they do here, to get kids where they need to go. It may lessen the distance some can travel but the busses can provide access to a fairly large amount of schools.

[Emp]

The voucher covers tuition for each student. Tuition is in the $3,000 - $4,000 range depending on whether your are a parishioner or not. I do not know specifics as to how much we get for each voucher student as I am not on PTO nor our education commission.

Many of the kids take the bus. School districts can work together, as they do here, to get kids where they need to go. It may lessen the distance some can travel but the busses can provide access to a fairly large amount of schools.

Yikes, busing is the answer? Lemme ask you, do you send your grade school kids on a bus daily? No, that's not really fair, better question, do you think busing a first grader, a fourth grader, is a really good idea? I say this because I represented a family with a single mother who was not satisfied with the failing school across the street from her, so she found a better school. A fairly respectable bus company was to pick up and deposit her child at a designated spot. I will spare you the details, but needless to say it did not go well.

You may ask, what, opposes busing students? Well, actually and mostly, and certainly for young children, I do and did. I just think the benefits are outweighed by the dislocation of the child and the family. Making the local school work should be the highest priority.

[Kahns Krazy]

I rode the bus every day from first grade through 8th grade. I realize "things" are different these days, but I'm still sort of fuzzy on what those "things" are, or why the bus is such a horrible option.

[waggy]

I was getting a little worried that Snipe's personal society may have collapsed in that he hadn't been on the board for four whole days, but I see he was here this morning so hopefully all is well.

[Snipe]

I rode the bus every day from first grade through 8th grade. I realize "things" are different these days, but I'm still sort of fuzzy on what those "things" are, or why the bus is such a horrible option.

I rode the bus. I liked the bus. I still remember some of the fun times I had while riding the bus. My kids want to ride the bus. They see their friends on the bus and they think it would be more fun to hang with kids on a bus than dear ol dad in the car. The bus doesn't come my way though, so the kids are up a creek.

School kids take buses and they do so today as they have for generations. I don't understand where the Emp is coming with that one.


I was getting a little worried that Snipe's personal society may have collapsed in that he hadn't been on the board for four whole days, but I see he was here this morning so hopefully all is well.


Not yet at least Waggy!

[chico]

Yikes, busing is the answer? Lemme ask you, do you send your grade school kids on a bus daily? No, that's not really fair, better question, do you think busing a first grader, a fourth grader, is a really good idea? I say this because I represented a family with a single mother who was not satisfied with the failing school across the street from her, so she found a better school. A fairly respectable bus company was to pick up and deposit her child at a designated spot. I will spare you the details, but needless to say it did not go well.

You may ask, what, opposes busing students? Well, actually and mostly, and certainly for young children, I do and did. I just think the benefits are outweighed by the dislocation of the child and the family. Making the local school work should be the highest priority.

I don't understand your incredulity. Yes, my kids take the bus. In fact, two take the bus to their private school and one takes the bus to her public school. All the kids love taking the bus. So yes, I do think a first grader taking the bus is a fine idea. One client had a bad experience so we should damn the entire system?

The problem is, a lot of schools aren't working. You want the community to get involved. Well, what is a parent to do when the village doesn't care? I guess they're stuck because busing a child to a school that works is out of the question. Again, after parents the most important factor in a child's education is the educator. Problem is, we have such a strong teacher's union in this county that it's near impossible to make any headway. There are many, many good and dedicated teachers out there. I have two siblings who teach, so trust me, I know a little bit about this.

I'd love to see each community have a strong school system. But that ain't happening anytime soon. You know it, I know it, most everyone else knows it. So in the interim what's better - leaving a kid who really want to learn and make something of himself/herself in a failing school district because of the perils of busing, or give that child the option of going somewhere they can be challenged and given a real opportunity to realize his/her potential?

And really, how do you go about changing the attitude of a community? Do you throw money at the school system? Haven't we been doing that for years? Do you try to attract better teachers? Hard to weed out any bad ones right now with the union. And how long is this going to take, because a 4th grader right now will be in high school in 5 years.

[Snipe]

Oh my, Snipe cuts and runs. You made the long arguments. You touted Milwaukee as the shining example of rescuing public school students from evil public systems with vouchers, and saving money to boot. Simply not true. As soon as someone fact checks you, fade to black, change the subject.



What facts are in dispute?

Here is an article for you to chew on:

Milwaukee's Voucher Graduates
More evidence of 'what works.' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704022804575041383293960178.html)


A report released last week by School Choice Wisconsin, an advocacy group, finds that between 2003 and 2008 students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program had a significantly higher graduation rate than students in Milwaukee Public Schools.

"Had MPS graduation rates equaled those for MPCP students in the classes of 2003 through 2008, the number of MPS graduates would have been about 18 percent higher," writes John Robert Warren of the University of Minnesota. "That higher rate would have resulted in 3,352 more MPS graduates during the 2003-2008 years."

In 2008 the graduation rate for voucher students was 77% versus 65% for the nonvoucher students, though the latter receives $14,000 per pupil in taxpayer support, or more than double the $6,400 per pupil that voucher students receive in public funding.

The Milwaukee voucher program serves more than 21,000 children in 111 private schools, so nearly 20% more graduates mean a lot fewer kids destined for failure without the credential of a high school diploma. The finding is all the more significant because students who receive vouchers must, by law, come from low-income families, while their counterparts in public schools come from a broader range of economic backgrounds.

Milwaukee has higher graduation rates with vouchers. Parental satisfaction surveys show that parents are happier with vouchers schools than public schools. Where am I fudging the facts?

Look at the cost or public schools vs. vouchers ($14k vs. $6.4K). That is less than half the cost. Now let us extrapolate that $7,600 difference in tuition to 21,000 students.

$7,600 multiplied by 21,000 = $159,600,000. Almost $160 million dollars saved.

Also think of 21,000 students. The average school size of MPS is 400.8 students.

21,000 divided by 400.8 = 52.4 schools worth of kids. Milwaukee would not have room in their public school system if the voucher program was discontinued. They would have to go on a massive building binge. Wonder how much that would cost. They would also have fewer resources to spend per child, as the $160 million in savings would be wiped out.

Where do the $160 million in savings go? Into the public schools! Per pupil spending has increased. And increased competition has increased performance (http http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dont-believe-the-spin-milwaukee-voucher-program-a-success/?singlepage=true
) in the public schools.

Let’s recap:

In Milwaukee, voucher students graduate at higher rates than Milwaukee public school students.

Parents of voucher students are more satisfied than parents of public school students in Milwaukee.

They cost less than half the price to educate, saving incredible amounts of money. This money is put back into the school system, where per pupil spending has INCREASED.

The combination of increased competition and increased per pupil spending has helped Milwaukee Public School do better.

So what happens if we shut down the program?

Parents would be unhappy.
Students would not graduate at the same high rates.
The amount of per pupil spending in Milwaukee would plummet.
Massive numbers of new schools would have to be constructed.
With competition and funding diminished, so would the prospects for the future of Milwaukee Public school.

Vouchers don't hurt Milwaukee Public Schools, they have saved them.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The competition they foster and the dollars that they save make the Milwaukee public school system better. And again, this isn't the thread for that debate. Feel free to start your own thread.

[nuts4xu]

When I first glanced at this thread, I thought it read "Can Sobriety Collapse? Do you have a plan on what to do if it does"?

I was like, what Snipe has jumped on the wagon? If I went straight and sober, I am sure it could collapse. It would likely collapse pretty quickly, and my plan would be to return to the same activities and manage them better.

But I misread the thread title. My bad...carry on.

[DC Muskie]

This story was in the Post today. Thought it would be interesting in light of the conversation about schools:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101407577.html

[Emp]

It's impossible to cover all of your wildly incorrect factoids in one sitting, so let's start with three items. (A short digression on the sources of you factoids: A WSJ article on a report from a private school advocacy group. You never actually link to studies, just commentary and spin. Let's look at the actual facts, OK?)

1. There is no evidence that 21,000 students left Milwaukee public schools to attend private schools on vouchers, and considerable evidence to the contrary.

, a short digression on the sources of you factoids: A WSJ article on a report from a private school advocacy group. You never actually link to studies, just commentary and spin. Let's look at the actual facts, OK?

Last school year with analysis, 81% of voucher students were attending religious based schools in Milwaukee: 35% Catholic, 20% Lutheran, plus Muslin and Jewish schools.

http://www.publicpolicyforum.org/pdfs/2010VoucherBrief.pdf See chart 6.

I will pass over for now the little problem of the public subsidy of church schools and religious instruction that an unrestricted tuition voucher poses, and simply ask, where are your statistics showing that 21,000 student in public schools left for private religious schools? There is no corresponding drop in the public school populations that supports this premise. Please provide some statistical support for that "miracle." No one argues with the Sentinel figures on this issue.

Topic 2: dropout/graduation rates.

The Dropout rate for voucher schools was still a stunning 33%, chart 8. That impresses you? The private high schools can refuse anyone, for any reason. The private schools are not required to and do not have to admit any handicapped or academically failing students. Cherry picking does wonders for the stats, just ask Walnut Hills and St. X. Unless you think that an urban public high school with the better students being skimmed off has less than a 17% share of problem students per class, its at best a wash.

Part III: No accountability!! Believe it or not, the schools accepting voucher students were, until this term, not required to submit to the state testing of student progress, and totally complain when forced to do so! How can parents be satisfied with no metrics or transparency? If all you want is a subsidy for sending your child to a private religious school with good [fill in the blank: Christian, Jewish, Muslim] values, great for the parents, but I hardly think that is a basis for spending public education dollars.

More to follow: Where does the money come from?

[Snipe]

My wife bought this today:

http://www.machinegun.pl/sklep/images/marushin_mossberg500_8mm.jpg

Mossberg 500 Shotgun, and it would blow a hole right through you or anyone that stood between her and her progeny. My bitch is a badass. I will never cheat on her. Would you?

She is ready for the coming apocalypse

Bonus:
David Brooks from the New York Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks)


Elections come and go, but the United States is still careening toward bankruptcy. By 2020, the U.S. will be spending $1 trillion a year just to pay the interest on the national debt. Sometime between now and then the catastrophe will come.

It will come with amazing swiftness. The bond markets are with you until the second they are against you. When the psychology shifts and the fiscal crisis happens, the shock will be grievous: national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain.
You are my Xavier brethren. We have a faith. We are a people in a sense. You are my people. I started this thread to warn my people. “Sometime between now and then the catastrophe will come” What happens then?!?!! What happens when the catastrophe will come? David Brooks can see it. I see it too. We need to save ourselves.

Asking yourselves and answering these questions now will help you if the collapse does indeed happen. If it does, the collapse will be spectacular. Take a minute out and consider the consequences.

Am I insane? Sometimes I imagine myself vacillating between real and imagined demons. Can this possibly be true? Am I mad?

Maybe I am a crank. I have to admit that. Maybe none of this will ever happen. What I would implore upon people is that a chance exists of failure of our system, mainly the dollar. I am not even sure what it means if the dollar fails but I assure you that it would not be a good thing.

I would like people to think about it before hand. We are a community here, and I enjoy your company. You listen to my silly rants and political bullshit and tirades and whatnot. I appreciate the people that agree and disagree. I probably look forward to the people that disagree more, because I like the chase. I love the argument. I rejoice when the Emp fires off a tirade. I am a happy drunk Irishman just having fun by and large.

This isn’t about fun. My wife just bought a shotgun. That is a good addition to her pistol she already has. She is amassing an armory. I have never bought any guns. I am Irish and I have a drinking problem. I am mostly happy go lucky, but sometimes I have a bad temper. Guns, Drinking Problems, and Tempers are a bad mix. That is what I thought. And what would I ever need a gun for? I think the dynamics are changing though, and I think a gun and plenty of bullets are a great investment. People may tell you to buy gold. That is great if you are worth millions and have plenty of cash. You can’t buy bread with gold. What is practical? If society or the dollar were to collapse what is practical? Would you rather have some gold coins among all the disarray, or would you rather have a gun and some bullets?

Safety first!

[bobbiemcgee]

"Guns, Drinking Problems, and Tempers are a bad mix."

Good luck with that.

[Snipe]

That is the literal truth!

[xuwin]

I think society can collapse and I'm too old to work on a plan.

[Kahns Krazy]

My wife bought this today:

http://www.machinegun.pl/sklep/images/marushin_mossberg500_8mm.jpg

Mossberg 500 Shotgun, and it would blow a hole right through you or anyone that stood between her and her progeny. My bitch is a badass. I will never cheat on her. Would you?
!

I really wonder if she would have bought this if you had bought a normal home in the suburbs instead of in the middle of an urban war zone.

That is not a normal purchase in most neighborhoods.

[Snipe]

XUWIN, you are never too old to get some extra canned goods and firewood to get through a tough winter.

I am not a back to nature guy. I am a guy that can foresee disruptions in critical services, and people that are prepared for those disruptions will fare much better than those who don't.

You need to eat and you need to heat. Get what you can to make sure you can do those things and you will be fine. You are not too old at all. If things do turn bad you may wish you would have considered it. Since you believe that society can have some calamity, don’t get caught flat footed.

I am not talking about surviving forever in the wild. I am talking about preparing and getting through tough times.

[Snipe]

I really wonder if she would have bought this if you had bought a normal home in the suburbs instead of in the middle of an urban war zone.

That is not a normal purchase in most neighborhoods.

You are correct in this assumption. We live downtown in a site where if the government does fail there will be social unrest.

That is one reason why I think about this subject far more than the rest of you. Like I said earlier in this thread, if I lived in Milford I would just stock up on some firewood, get some large water jugs and canned goods and then go about my life no problem. Milford will never burn to the ground.

I don't live in Milford. I live downtown in an "urban war zone" as you put it. We have devised and escape plan and we are even pre-positioning supplies. It is crazy talk I know, but if the shit hits the fan I want to be alive with my kids and the last place I want to be is down here without police protection or a gun.

You should be relatively safe where you are. You wouldn't be worse off if you got a cord of wood just in case and some canned goods just in case. You can buy Skyline in a can that lasts for years. Nothing wrong with that and if nothing happens you can just have some Skyline.

But you are right. I am paranoid because of where I live. If riots happen, they will most likely happen here. Like the last time riots happened, and the time before that.

So I got that going for me.

[sweet16]

My wife bought this today:

http://www.machinegun.pl/sklep/images/marushin_mossberg500_8mm.jpg

Mossberg 500 Shotgun, and it would blow a hole right through you or anyone that stood between her and her progeny. My bitch is a badass. I will never cheat on her. Would you?

She is ready for the coming apocalypse

Perhaps. Or maybe she's just freakin' scared of YOU. I know you scare the livin' shit out of me!

[madness31]

The point you miss about gold and silver is that you can always sell them for currency to buy your bread, guns, fuel, etc or trade them directly for those things. The point is to keep your wealth in something that keeps its value as the currency collapses and get cash only right when you need it. You don't need to be wealthy to buy precious metals and if you buy them you will maintain your standard of living far better than those that don't.

Having fuel, a generator, wood burning stove, wood, guns, canned goods, etc are great additional protections in case things get really bad but the gold and silver are beneficial in many other scenarios.

[Snipe]

Perhaps. Or maybe she's just freakin' scared of YOU. I know you scare the livin' shit out of me!

I am a harmless happy drunk. And she isn't scared of me by any means. She runs her own business and just bought a bitch ass shotgun. That is her second gun. She isn't scared of anyone. She is quite exceptional and easily my better half.

[PM Thor]

Snipe, you might want to change out that handle, especially if a woman is going to use it. Consider a stock, or even a pistol grip, or recoil pad for recoil. I know, with a shotgun it's not a huge worry because you don't have to be too precise, but most women don't have the upper body strength to keep a shotgun steady after the first shot without a stock lodged into their shoulder. Many police departments even have "reduced recoil loads" that do the obvious, reduce recoil when using buckshot. I'm not going to mention that heat shield, blech. Oh and the safety is not metal, you probably want to consider swapping that out too, just for durability sake.

Heh. Probably surprised a couple people with this post.

I HATE dayton.

[Snipe]

From London's Telegraph:


Americans buy record numbers of guns for Christmas (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8987359/Americans-buy-record-numbers-of-guns-for-Christmas.html)
Americans bought record numbers of guns last month amid an apparent surge in popularity for weapons as Christmas presents.

According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.

It was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November.

On Dec 23 alone there were 102,222 background checks, making it the second busiest single day for buying guns in history.

The actual number of guns bought may have been even higher if individual customers took home more than one each.

Explanations for America's surge in gun buying include that it is a response to the stalled economy with people fearing crime waves.

Ho Ho Ho! My wife's Christmas party was at the shooting range. What a hoot. Lets go blow something to bits! People are getting ready for what's next.


The National Rifle Association said people were concerned about self defence because police officer numbers were declining.

A spokesman said: "I think there's an increased realisation that when something bad occurs it's going to be between them and the criminal."

Just had a big flash mob event at the Mall of America over the holidays. When malls in Minnesota aren't safe, it may be time for you to own a gun.

Budgets are getting cut all over. Police departments are feeling the pain and trimming the number of Policemen. In California the State Supreme Court last year looked at overcrowding and ordered the State to release 46,000 inmates. It wasn't that they were innocent, the State couldn't afford to house them.



The record for gun sales in a single day was set in November, on the day after Thanksgiving, when 129,166 background searches were carried out on customers buying weapons.

Shattering all the records. This time of year pundits are making their predictions for 2012. It appears that consumers are making their own. 2012 has long been predicted as the year that everything falls down...

Happy hunting hoop fans!

[bobbiemcgee]

http://www.cccp-shirts.com/images/new_I_love_my_ak47_wh.jpg

Valentine's Day is coming up.

[Juice]

I got one of these for Christmas

http://dynamicarmament.com/images/sigrifle/sig556_dual_lg2.jpg

[Kahns Krazy]

Ho Ho Ho! My wife's ... party was at ...blow something...! People are getting ready for what's next.
!

I bet they are.

[Snipe]

Read this on a blog, Gates of Vienna (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/03/shadow-knows-part-one.html#more):


I refer, of course, to the elephant of the coming economic collapse.

I make no predictions about when its enormous legs will begin to cut their inexorable swathe of destruction. I read all the doomsday forecasts back in 2008, and they all turned out to be wrong, at least in their predicted time frame. The signs that were predicted back then — the rise of oil and food prices, continuing unemployment, the stagnation in GDP, and the flight to precious metals — have begun, but they are clocking in two years later than predicted.

So the global financial system seems to be a lot more resilient than most people thought. The Powers That Be are adept at jury-rigging, and have patched up the decrepit machine with bailing wire and duct tape — i.e. bailouts and quantitative easing — to help keep it running for a little while longer.

However, the entire structure must eventually come crashing down, and the longer the postponement, the more spectacular will be its fall. The Western welfare state is built out of enormous, unthinkable quantities of debt. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, and its demise is mathematically inevitable. The only question is exactly when the scam starts to unravel in earnest — the outside limit is about a generation from now, when the demographic disaster can no longer be papered over.

It is a ponzi scheme. No way we can afford this debt. No nation has ever owed so much in the history of man. I have read papers from economists that state that there would not be enough money in the world (the entire world) to fund our current obligations even if the rest of the world wanted to lend that money to us to sustain our welfare state.



The end of the welfare state will act as a high colonic for some of the worst excesses of our culture. The lavish funding of our most absurd and destructive behaviors will come to an end. State support for the able-bodied, and probably even for the aged and disabled, will be drastically curtailed.

Immigration and its attendant problems will in due course become insignificant, because what remains of civil society among the natives will hunker down to protect itself, by whatever means necessary. Yes, I realize that much of California and other parts of the Southwest are already alien territory, and will simply become part of Aztlan or whatever the mestizo majority decides to call it. But at least the new entity will no longer be kept on life support through the beneficence of politicians in Washington D.C.

And much of the Muslim problem in Europe will be solved. When the state is no longer supporting three-quarters of the urban immigrant population, the denizens of the no-go zones will have to figure out some other means of subsistence. One presumes the resolution of the ensuing struggle for resources will not be pretty, but the problem will be resolved.

The great positive thing about the future is that all problems will eventually get resolved. They may not be resolved the way that you like it, but they be resolved. They will probably be resolved in the old fashioned way.

I am hoping for an economic recovery that can buy us some time, but I do think that all good things come to an end. I just don't want it to happen now. I think the Euro could be gone in a year or two, and that the instability of the Euro is what keeps the dollar afloat. Right now the dollar is a much better bet. We are insulated because of that in my theory. But if the Euro does go away so does our insulation.

On an introspective level, the chance exists that many that feel like me are just bigots. I think a lot of these doomsday scenarios are fueled by people who would love to see how the dregs of society would function if the welfare state collapsed. Since I live among the lower economic classes, I don't wish for this but try to think of how I could avoid that fate. I can't say that it doesn't have an appeal on some level though.

Sustainability

We can't afford any of this, even if you took all the money the rich already have. There is not enough money in the world to fund our Leviathan state.

The current system is unsustainable in my opinion. I have thought this for awhile. And I am not going to act like electing Romney will change anything. We are far beyond that. Nobody has the will. Our best case scenario seems to be gradual decline during intense demographic change and intense political and racial conflict. Our worst case scenario is rivers of blood.

[pizza delivery]

Until the revenue problem is solved there will be panic. I think the rich need to take one on the chin for 5 years and suffer some very high taxes. In every other war period, they've helped finance wars, but since 9/11 taxes have been lower or steady.

This new reality of ever constant war has blinded people to the fact that it's actually a drain on the budget. It's beyond reproach or questioning, but it's also beyond the budget's constraints. In my view, rich people are doing better than ever, and they don't really have an interest in creating jobs for the sake of jobs, so tax them.

Raise taxes on everyone, I don't care. Make them think about how we're spending money. You want safety through conflict in the middle east? Pay up. You want a social safety net? Pay up. After this period of sacrifice, which also needs to include reductions in services, reduce rates again. But everyone needs to be serious about getting this debt paid off, or like you say Snipe get armed up and let the rivers of blood flow. LOL. It's comical to me some people see this scenario as plausible and perhaps preferential to just paying more taxes. There is a disconnect with what people expect to receive and what they expect to pay for, from top to bottom in the US.

Look at the rates during the war eras in the US. It doesn't make sense that we could be in 2-3 wars and have such low tax rates, but that's the policy that the rich have convinced us of.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png

[pizza delivery]

In reality Democrats and Republicans are dividing the American people on this issue of taxes. It needs to be looked at with a solution oriented mind. The hard fact is that more revenue is needed. The guaranteed way to get that is higher taxes and less loopholes. Reagan knew that himself. There may be merit to trickle down, pad the pockets of the rich, unfettered free market philosophy, but the hard fact is, raise taxes, raise revenue. Don't cry like a baby and pretend like taxes are impossible to lower at some point in the future. Don't throw your hands up in the air and pretend your life is ruined by the government. Meanwhile, the poor and middle class need less coddling as well and would actually find some dignity in the reality that says you owe for what you've received, which is a very high standard of living in comparison with history and the rest of the world. You are not merely a servant to corporate America which needs every 40 dollars per year from you it can get in lieu of lower taxes for a starving government budget. That's my opinion. Tax everybody! Come at me you fantasy driven, island living (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19470) Libs!

[Snipe]

You seem to think that everything can be solved by taxes. I think that we spend far too much for that. You didn't link your graph and I would like to see one on expenditure and revenues. Tax rates mean very little if you don't consider the revenue gained.

[pizza delivery]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_1.png

Its a wikipedia chart and everybody knows those are the best charts!

[pizza delivery]

You seem to think that everything can be solved by taxes. I think that we spend far too much for that. You didn't link your graph and I would like to see one on expenditure and revenues. Tax rates mean very little if you don't consider the revenue gained.

I don't, but it's and essential piece to growing up and paying for what we buy. Cuts are needed as well. The American way of war needs to take some time off, for example. Extending the SS age needs to happen. Drug costs are too high. There's lots of stuff.

[Snipe]

One interesting thing about that graph is the very beginning. They had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to impose the Federal Income Tax. It was first initally promised at 3% just for the top earners and nothing for everyone else. It didn't take but a couple years before taxes went from 3% to 75%. It was amazing how they sold it.

That is always how they sell it.

[pizza delivery]

Tax rates mean very little if you don't consider the revenue gained.

From a philosophical standpoint, under what circumstances would 90% taxes on the wealthy be okay for you? Because that's been in place before. What it tells me is that when called upon, the rich had to pay through the nose for their country. And that country somehow survived, as did those rich people. Back then, there was likely a greater sense of propriety about being so fortunate.

[GoMuskies]

From a philosophical standpoint, under what circumstances would 90% taxes on the wealthy be okay for you? Because that's been in place before. What it tells me is that when called upon, the rich had to pay through the nose for their country. And that country somehow survived, as did those rich people. Back then, there was likely a greater sense of propriety about being so fortunate.

No one actually paid 90%, though.

Trying to institute a 90% tax rate now under current tax law would be a great boon to Grand Cayman, though. We could call it the Grand Cayman and British Virgin Islands Population Explosion Act.

[pizza delivery]

One interesting thing about that graph is the very beginning. They had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to impose the Federal Income Tax. It was first initally promised at 3% just for the top earners and nothing for everyone else. It didn't take but a couple years before taxes went from 3% to 75%. It was amazing how they sold it.

That is always how they sell it.

That's just sour grapes. Are you saying it wasn't necessary? The budgets were decently in line for decades. The wars they fought and won were apparently just. The world is a better place? (who knows) If you want to argue less taxes, less war, then I'm with you. Our financial first attitude was founded by the Dutch, who just make money and stay out of war for the most part.

[pizza delivery]

No one actually paid 90%, though.

Trying to institute a 90% tax rate now under current tax law would be a great boon to Grand Cayman, though. We could call it the Grand Cayman and British Virgin Islands Population Explosion Act.

What did they pay? How silly that they'd call it a historical fact that the rates were that high and it not actually be the rate that anyone paid. I'll admit, it's extremely onerous.

I'm not calling for 90% btw. It's just an illustrative point. If taxes went to 40%, just above clinton levels, the world might never hear the end of the squealing from the super rich.

[GoMuskies]

What did they pay?

Closer to 40%. All the other tax law of the time whittled down the taxable income number pretty substantially from the actual earned income before you actually multiplied that number by 90% to figure your taxes due.

[Snipe]

One interesting thing about that graph is the very beginning. They had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to impose the Federal Income Tax. It was first initally promised at 3% just for the top earners and nothing for everyone else. It didn't take but a couple years before taxes went from 3% to 75%. It was amazing how they sold it.

That is always how they sell it.


That's just sour grapes. Are you saying it wasn't necessary? The budgets were decently in line for decades. The wars they fought and won were apparently just. The world is a better place? (who knows) If you want to argue less taxes, less war, then I'm with you. Our financial first attitude was founded by the Dutch, who just make money and stay out of war for the most part.

I think it is an interesting point of contention for an argument for sure, but not the main point of this thread. We never had an income tax and we still somehow had a government. Then suddenly we passed a constitutional amendment to have a 3% income tax for the "1 percent" and that quickly became an income tax for all Americans, with the top earners paying 75%.

As I said, it didn't happen as it was sold, and that is often the case with progressive legislation. All they want is to have their foot in the door and then they can expand 3% to 75% and act like it is just the natural flow of the country.

Back to what matters. You seem to really think that if we just raised taxes these things would work out. You could take all the money and wealth from the rich and it wouldn't last that long when the government spends billions a day. What we need most is cuts. Anyone can raise or lower taxes, but no party has ever been successful in cutting the size of government in recent history. When was the last time the federal budget decreased? Is it even possible or probable that either political party will make cuts? I can't see it happening. Democrats certainly won't do it. Republicans already had their chance. I don't like our options.

[pizza delivery]

I think it is an interesting point of contention for an argument for sure, but not the main point of this thread. We never had an income tax and we still somehow had a government. Then suddenly we passed a constitutional amendment to have a 3% income tax for the "1 percent" and that quickly became an income tax for all Americans, with the top earners paying 75%.

As I said, it didn't happen as it was sold, and that is often the case with progressive legislation. All they want is to have their foot in the door and then they can expand 3% to 75% and act like it is just the natural flow of the country.

Back to what matters. You seem to really think that if we just raised taxes these things would work out. You could take all the money and wealth from the rich and it wouldn't last that long when the government spends billions a day. What we need most is cuts. Anyone can raise or lower taxes, but no party has ever been successful in cutting the size of government in recent history. When was the last time the federal budget decreased? Is it even possible or probable that either political party will make cuts? I can't see it happening. Democrats certainly won't do it. Republicans already had their chance. I don't like our options.

I really don't either. I think the best option from the democrat side is to be honest about what the solution will entail. Taxes and cuts. Obama has been willing to work under that principle, how far I don't know. I think he could drag some republican votes along if they committed to raising taxes on everyone.

A leader on this issue needs to have an honest discussion about what services are rendered and what they cost. No one can talk about things in a realistic way, or at least I've never heard of it. Dems have been on the run for 25-30 years as the boogeyman that wants to steal your money. The best way is to confront that and talk about the benefits. Right now Americans have no idea what their taxes go to and what things cost, as evidenced by the "cut my taxes! don't cut my services!" shit show we have going on now. Even democrats are finding ways to cut taxes wherever they can because that's the great vote getter. People won't even raise taxes on people that have money pouring out of their pockets.

There has to be a political middle in all this and I'm aggravated that both sides can't work out some sweeping and dynamic changes that would energize the citizens and prove to the world that we can make choices.

[Snipe]

I really don't either. I think the best option from the democrat side is to be honest about what the solution will entail. Taxes and cuts. Obama has been willing to work under that principle, how far I don't know. I think he could drag some republican votes along if they committed to raising taxes on everyone.


We should be honest about what the solution would entail. Taxes and cuts. That hasn't happened.

You say Obama has been willing to work under that principle. Where is the evidence for that? In the Presidential debates, Obama promised to cut the size of the Federal government. How has that worked? We have the biggest government ever recorded. He was going to go through the budget "line by line". Guess what, we don't even have a budget.

What about the "Bush Tax Cuts"? They expired. They were extended by Obama, Reid and Pelosi. How can anyone call them the Bush tax cuts anymore? They act like George Bush still has power over tax issues, when Pelosi and Reid took power in 2006. That was 5 years ago. It is no little thing. Those tax rates are all Obama's now. You can't blame it on anyone else.

Another thing about the Bush tax cuts, look at the lower rates in your graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png[/QUOTE]

It we restore the tax rates on the low end, it will be the biggest tax increase on the working class in history, or at least since the 1930s. Obama and Reid aren't about to do that. Nobody wants to do that.




A leader on this issue needs to have an honest discussion about what services are rendered and what they cost. No one can talk about things in a realistic way, or at least I've never heard of it. Dems have been on the run for 25-30 years as the boogeyman that wants to steal your money. The best way is to confront that and talk about the benefits. Right now Americans have no idea what their taxes go to and what things cost, as evidenced by the "cut my taxes! don't cut my services!" shit show we have going on now. Even democrats are finding ways to cut taxes wherever they can because that's the great vote getter. People won't even raise taxes on people that have money pouring out of their pockets.

There has to be a political middle in all this and I'm aggravated that both sides can't work out some sweeping and dynamic changes that would energize the citizens and prove to the world that we can make choices.

I would agree that no one can talk about things in a realistic way.

I would tend to disagree that there has to be a political middle where we can work something out. As you said people generally want less taxes and more benefits. If we had to tax everyone to pay for our actual size of government you would have a genuine tax revolt on your hands. That is why they do deficit spending in the first place, because people would riot and refuse to pay.

I also think that Demographics come into play. The people at the bottom are different than people at the top, and why pay for the other? 75% of first generation Mexican families are on welfare. Why would a rich person feel patriotically obligated to pay extra taxes to support that sort of government largess so that lazy Latin American inbreds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601493.html) can languish on the public dole?



It's not rape if she is my daughter. Though unconscionable to many, incest is seen in some countries as either unfortunate or not all that forced. In Mexico, for example, the rape of a teenage girl by her father is defined as voluntary until it is proved otherwise. Under most state criminal codes in Mexico, incest is considered a crime against the family, not against the physical integrity of the victim, and the underage victim is initially considered as much a criminal as the adult perpetrator.

[Snipe]

Another thing of note is that George W Bush spent all his political capital on entitlement reform in 2004. That was 7 years ago. He failed at that. But is it too late to say that he was right? What if he could have passed entitlement reform with a 10 year window to grandfather people in? Those people would be going through the system and entitlement reform would actually about to benefit us all.

Not a big fan of Bush, but history tells us that he was right all along on this issue. People made him out to be the devil, but now the situation is unsustainable. George Bush could have saved it in 2004. Will anyone step forward and apologize to George Bush?

[pizza delivery]

We should be honest about what the solution would entail. Taxes and cuts. That hasn't happened.

You say Obama has been willing to work under that principle. Where is the evidence for that? In the Presidential debates, Obama promised to cut the size of the Federal government. How has that worked? We have the biggest government ever recorded. He was going to go through the budget "line by line". Guess what, we don't even have a budget.

What about the "Bush Tax Cuts"? They expired. They were extended by Obama, Reid and Pelosi. How can anyone call them the Bush tax cuts anymore? They act like George Bush still has power over tax issues, when Pelosi and Reid took power in 2006. That was 5 years ago. It is no little thing. Those tax rates are all Obama's now. You can't blame it on anyone else.

Another thing about the Bush tax cuts, look at the lower rates in your graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png


It we restore the tax rates on the low end, it will be the biggest tax increase on the working class in history, or at least since the 1930s. Obama and Reid aren't about to do that. Nobody wants to do that.



I would agree that no one can talk about things in a realistic way.

I would tend to disagree that there has to be a political middle where we can work something out. As you said people generally want less taxes and more benefits. If we had to tax everyone to pay for our actual size of government you would have a genuine tax revolt on your hands. That is why they do deficit spending in the first place, because people would riot and refuse to pay.

I also think that Demographics come into play. The people at the bottom are different than people at the top, and why pay for the other? 75% of first generation Mexican families are on welfare. Why would a rich person feel patriotically obligated to pay extra taxes to support that sort of government largess so that lazy Latin American inbreds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601493.html) can languish on the public dole?

I think if there were people interested in a solution and not reelection then it could happen. I think term limits need to be reduced to one term at a time, perhaps, so that reelection is not part of the process in political life at all. 4 years in, 4 years out, 8 years max for congressmen. I think if Boehner and Obama were able to say nice things about the other, make some real exchanges in policy, face the backlash united, then there would be a lot of people on either side that would applaud the deal. Then a wait and see period.

edit: same policy for presidents: 8 years of non consecutive service.

[pizza delivery]

Immagration reform is paramount to reestablishing a perspective and American identity. I don't mind tougher laws. But keep in mind it's always somebody at the bottom, so focusing on demographics isn't useful from a tax policy perspective. One nation united under God is the stance on demographics. Let the locals deal with demography, as they know it better.

[waggy]

Here you go Snipe..

19 Acre ATLAS-F ICBM Missile Silo Base Underground Doomsday Fortress Bunker! (http://www.ebay.com/itm/19-Acre-ATLAS-F-ICBM-Missile-Silo-Base-Underground-Doomsday-Fortress-Bunker-/220981221563?pt=Residential&hash=item337381d8bb)

[Kahns Krazy]

Another thing about the Bush tax cuts, look at the lower rates in your graph.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Chart_1.png

It we restore the tax rates on the low end, it will be the biggest tax increase on the working class in history, or at least since the 1930s. Obama and Reid aren't about to do that. Nobody wants to do that.

?[/QUOTE]

I don't understand the lower line on that chart. It's zero. The lowest earners pay zero, and many of them pay less than that. Let's show that line.

Even a single, childless wage earner who makes $25,000 without any itemized deductions pays only 7.6% in taxes. Where is that on the chart?

That chart is dumb.

[RealDeal]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2127759/Apocalypse-Doomsday-shelter-built-Kansas-prairie.html

[GoMuskies]

I don't understand the lower line on that chart.

The bars in the graph just show the highest and lowest stated tax rates. Obviously not the (much more meaningful) effective rates.

[Kahns Krazy]

Just for giggles, I took my theoretical single $25k earner and gave them two kids out of wedlock.

The child tax credit and earned income credit alone change the federal tax liability from $1,900 to a refund (EIC) of $3,357. That is a $5,257 subsidy for breeding, and an effective tax rate of -13.4%. That's before you factor in other programs, strictly a federal income tax function. I know that income level qualifies you for free lunches for the kids, and a free cell phone too!

That is a recipe for societal collapse.

[Kahns Krazy]

I'm still watching Revolution, even though I think it's losing its steam. It reminds me of this thread though. I think it's interesting that they chose diamonds to be the currency in a lawless post collapse world. I am screwed. I have no diamonds. At all. Zero.

[LadyMuskie]

I'm still watching Revolution, even though I think it's losing it's steam. It reminds me of this thread though. I think it's interesting that they chose diamonds to be the currency in a lawless post collapse world. I am screwed. I have no diamonds. At all. Zero.

You need some bling, yo! A nice diamond-encrusted X necklace. I mentioned the hubby when we were watching Revolution that I would be fine in a world of diamond currency, but he was screwed, so he better be nice ;):laugh:

[paulxu]

but he was screwed, so he better be nice

What?!

[LadyMuskie]

Whoops. He is screwed. Not was. He's still with us. Among the living, I mean. Anyway. He has no diamonds. He gave them to me in the form of rings and stuff, so. . . nevermind.

[Kahns Krazy]

I had an interesting conversation with a guy about holding physical silver as a hedge against the dollar collapsing. He believes that the dollar will collapse and trade will revert to silver (or at least silver will be more stable) and he recommended holding 1 oz silver rounds. The idea is fascinating. I think that there would need to be a catastrophic population event in conjunction with a dollar collapse in order for any trade to revert to a metal backed currency. There are too many people and not enough metal to make that work today. It does seem much more reasonable than the diamond trade protrayed in Revolution. Diamonds vary too much and are too difficult to measure to make them a standard for trade.