by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 7,672 - 7,711 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
I thought Tom Hanks was responsible for the collapse of the SovU.
Well I’ll be knackered.
You got it all wrong - it was Clint Eastwood flying the jet that knew how to read commands from his brain but only in Russian.
Sean Connery did his part by defecting and bringing the Red October over as well.
No, really it was the speech Rocky gave after he defeated Ivan Drago.
I’ll keep this in mind next time some idiot prattles on about how ‘bad’ things are over there, how us merrikans are soooo much better as a bunch of wage slave debt serfs with no healthcare, vacation time or retirement.
Yes, take it to the bank. In fact maybe buy yourself a vacation or two, some health care, a college education for your child, or a pension to celebrate this new found "knowledge."
So, I'm not US Poor... I'm Euro rich. I'm gonna buy me a silly hat and walk around pretending to speak a foreign language - with an entourage.
wormwood - does a porn magazine count as a book? 'cause if it does, I know many scholars.
‘Course, I have to read about this from a Brit source. Our media is so lame at doing even the basics of their jobs — uh, actual reporting.
June 21 - NY Times, followed by other articles. Besides, everything is instantly available in this internet age. Who cares who reported it first?
Another example of your knee-jerk reaction to just about everything.
I thought Tom Hanks was responsible for the collapse of the SovU.
What movie was that from???
Naturally, the voters had to pass that common sense legislation.
CA, the state owned by the drug habit of unionization.
“Borrow huge sums from the US, flood them with oil or cheap chotskies, use the cash to modernize, then, at a key moment, default and oil embargo. The Chinese may be running a variant of this - lend huge sums, the American’s own money actually, by flooding them with goods and making them dependent on your supply, then at a key moment, stop buying debt and demand economic control.â€Very, very good point.
Agreed.
You got it all wrong - it was Clint Eastwood flying the jet that knew how to read commands from his brain but only in Russian.
HA!
These are the key factors.
I thought they ran out of cash by spending too much on military. They crashed, we stuck around with the trillions of bad debt we can't pay back.
"I am not against (bull fighting). Every nation has their own affairs and own sports. Some nations like to see blood, and some like to see their victims suffer from speculation. It's all in your point of view. They kill the bull very quick. Wall Street lets you live and suffer." DT #1646, Nov. 1, 1931
"Borrowing money on what's called 'easy terms,' is a one-way ticket to the Poor House. If you think it ain't a Sucker Game, why is your Banker the richest man in your Town? Why is your Bank the biggest and finest building in your Town? Instead of passing Bills to make borrowing easy, if Congress had passed a Bill that no Person could borrow a cent of Money from any other person, they would have gone down in History as committing the greatest bit of Legislation in the World." WA #14, March 18, 1923
Just an observation. But not much has changed in 90 years now. Same shit, different date.
I see so many Mississippians booking month-long paid vacations to Mallorca and the Aegean every August.
According to this article, Brown was going to release details of his budget counterproposal today:
Brown Plans New California Budget as State Legislators Lose Pay
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-22/brown-plans-new-california-budget-as-state-legislators-lose-pay.html
June 22 (Bloomberg) -- California Governor Jerry Brown has drafted a plan to pass a budget through the Legislature that sidesteps Republicans who blocked a previous effort, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.
Brown’s proposal comes as legislators have been forced to forfeit pay for every day they fail to send a balanced budget to the governor past a June 15 deadline. He vetoed a spending plan sent to him by Democrats last week, saying it used legally doubtful maneuvers and one-time fixes.
“I’ll be sharing some very specific ideas tomorrow,†Brown said to reporters as he left a meeting with Assembly Democrats yesterday. “There will be several ideas I’ll propose.â€
I haven't seen anything come through the wire yet...
People come up with all kinds of self-serving alternatives when the actual truth is too harsh.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The Chinese may be running a variant of this - lend huge sums, the American’s own money actually, by flooding them with goods and making them dependent on your supply, then at a key moment, stop buying debt and demand economic control.
What would they buy with a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars from trade with the US?
Then, what will they do with the surplus of US dollars from trade with Germany, and Australia, and Japan, and every other country on earth that denominates trade in US Dollars.
But I also don't think very many people think US defense spending is the sole reason for the collapse of the USSR. In fact, I've never heard anybody say this was the sole reason.
Whereas bob2356 at least knows what PPP is based on his question asked. Yes, differences in consumption tax rates is an identified weakness in PPP calculations, Bob. But in this case, for Europe is a clear cause of WHY PPP is lower in Europe than in America. Euroweenies can’t purchase as much compared to us if their governments are both taking more money from them at the front end (income earned) as well as at the tail end (at the cash register).
What about the fact that in Europe you don't pay 12-18k per year out of your take home pay for health care? Or 50-200k for a university degree. Or a lot of other social services that are paid by taxes in Europe and out of pocket in the US. Or medicare and nursing home costs for the elderly paid out of retirement or from adult children's earnings. That all pretty dramatically affects PPP. Yes I have more in my pocket in the US to buy things, but I have a lot higher expenses to pay off first that Europeans don't. That isn't included in the PPP calculations at all.
Wow you went on vacation to Europe a whole 6 times in 30 years. Very impressive. I've lived overseas almost 12 of the last 30 years and like to think I know a little about Europe after living there. Your PPP calculation just doesn't wash with the reality on the ground. It's a lot more complicated than how many trips you can make to wal mart per capita. Europeans have very different values and the vast majority are quite happy with them. If you think that consumerism is the be all end all of life then more power to you, but it doesn't mean everyone else agrees.
WTF does where muslims live have to do with anything?
Which definition do you want?
Some helpful links to get you started:
Dictionary definition of liberal:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
Dictionary definition of liberalism:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism
Wikipedia on liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Wikipedia on classical liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Wikipedia on shock conservative liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
Wikipedia on economic liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
Wikipedia on social liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
I hope you find this helpful in your understanding of liberalism.
.
Ru proverb 'they pretend to pay us, we pretend to
work"
west gov's can pay prin, only int. U
+ > S total debts $200t twelve zero, 13c
gdp $14t/yr" prof says
I'm no historian, but I've heard it said by historians that around the time of the civil war, republicans were the liberals and the democrats were the conservatives. Even when I was a child, southern democrats were very conservative. In the senate they were often more conservative than some of the northern republican senators. The civil rights movement seems to coincide with a reorganization of the teams.
Since then or so I have observed a continual huge change in both parties, especially the republicans. They are no longer really conservative. But then it's true that both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the banks and the corporate world.
WWood - When you consider the change we have seen since 1975, it shouldn't really surprise you that Lincoln was a liberal.
One of the things that fascinates me is that people usually lock onto a team (their party) and don't change no matter what. It's sort of like tastes in food or music. They say after the age of 30 or so, many of these are locked in. I think it's the same with parties. People are loyal to their political party to a surprising degree.
Witness the republicans. Just how insane will they have to get, before we see many more moderate republicans saying adios ?
What would they buy with a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars from trade with the US?
They can and are buying assets from around the world: Coal Mines in Australia, High End Audio Makers in Germany, Oil Wells in Iran, Gold Mines in South Africa, and America's current top economic performers, Doughnut Shops and Porn Studios.
Republican?
I thought Lincoln was bipolar.
I don't think he ever explored the Arctic. His wife, on the other hand, nuttier than a fruitcake.
Formidable matin à tous,
Premièrement, offrez-moi la possibilité de vous démontrer mon appréciation pour toutes les très "à propos" informations que j'ai rencontrées sur cet excellent forum.
Je ne suis pas certaine d'être au bon endroit mais je n'en ai pas vu de meilleure .
Je réside à Shelburne, États-Unis. J'ai 37 ans et j'ai quatre très gentils enfants qui sont tous âgés entre 5 et 12 années (1 est adopté). J'adore beaucoup les animaux et j'essaie de leur présenter les items qui leur rendent la vie plus confortable.
Merci d'avance pour toutes les palpitantes débats à venir et je vous remercie de votre compassion pour mon français moins que parfait: ma langue de naissance est le portuguais et je tempte d'apprendre mais c'est très complexe !
A une autre fois
Arthru
google translate rocks:
Antohwb
Befriend | Ignore
Posts: 0
Comments: 1Thu, 23 Sep 2011 at 10:57 pm Link Top Bottom Quote Email Flag
Wonderful morning to all,First, give me the opportunity to show my appreciation for all the great "about" information that I have encountered on this excellent forum.
I'm not sure to be the right place but I have not seen better.
I live in Shelburne, United States. I'm 37 and I have four very nice children who are all aged between 5 and 12 years (1 is adopted). I love animals very much and I try to present items that make life more comfortable.
Thank you in advance for all the exciting future debate and I thank you for your compassion for my less than perfect French: My native language is Portuguese and I tempt to learn but it's very complex!
At another time
The oil glut of the late 1980s was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes.
For some reason Reagan boosters tend to minimize how fucked up the Soviet economy had become by the time that Gorbachev took over. This is odd, since they profess to believe that socialism can't work, yet fail to identify it failing so conclusively with the USSR.
Of course, the USSR was indeed an evil empire and the Soviet brand of socialism was in fact a crock compared to our system. It wasn't Reaganism that did in the Soviets, it was their own failures to create a viable political, social, and economic system. This much is obvious, except to conservative Reagan worshippers.
Oil supply skyrocketed in the late 80s -- North Sea was peaking, Alaska North slope peaked, with most of that supply being shipped down to the west coast, pushing gas prices under $1 again. This indeed crippled the Soviet's hard-currency in-flows from its oil exports.
The US also caught a break with the PC tech boom of the 1980s, the soviets didn't have the economic chops to compete with the Japanese & US consumer electronics powerhouses that were changing the word, both improving productivity and standard of living.
I am accusing the Fed to be the primary reason for bubbles.
I wouldn't argue the Fed doesn't share some responsibility, but it's not the primary cause. There have been as many, if not more, asset bubbles before the FED as after:
Tulips, South Sea Company, Railroads, etc.
OK answer this question: Who is responsible for the housing bubble? I am asking for the root-cause. Not the peripheral people who took advantage and made the bubble worse.
The cause was clearly the ability of banks to sell mortgages no matter how crappy the loans. Lending standards went to hell. Low interest rates were probably a contributing factor, but not the main cause.
The democrats could come up with a winning platform now, and they need to. One that polls show to be popular. SOmething like what I heard Barbera Boxer say the other day:
1) End loopholes
2) End all wars
3) Raise tax rates way way up to Y2K levels
At least then they could say, "look at what the republicans were not willing to do."
Unfortunately too many democrats are either pussies or millionaires themselves (confict of interest).
I'm not giving that clown more money to squander then feign a befuddled state whilst his cronies chuckle.
You are only looking at this from your Liberal at the expense of Others point of view. You're loaded, so it's all good to you, if this administration wants to eviscerate the middle class.
The Republicans are only one side of the Vote, why are the Democrats willing to default, because they think the Republicans wont budge? Why should they? They are acting responsible at the behest and outpouring of 67% of the nation that believes in spite of his Usama rabbit trick, he is an ineffective president. We don't want more taxes, and more social services, money to be allocated to Government programs. Then once on the books, have the government spending be politicized to Outsourcing to make more Cronies rich, to laugh at us even louder during National addresses to the subjects, of his Majesty King Hussein Obama, explaining once again. Why his economic policies failed.
We're powerless to make him stop, only John Boehner and rag tag team of Freedom Fighters in Washington can protect us all from the Badman.
The democrats could come up with a winning platform now, and they need to. One that polls show to be popular. SOmething like what I heard Barbera Boxer say the other day:
1) End loopholes
2) End all wars
3) Raise tax rates way way up to Y2K levels
At least then they could say, “look at what the republicans were not willing to do.â€
Unfortunately too many democrats are either pussies or millionaires themselves (confict of interest).
Too many politicians on both sides have impediment of that conflict of interest.
Dude they already get trillions, thats not enough to feed thier greed - so they print trillions more. Thats not enough now raise taxes more? enough!
The raising of the taxes is whats killing the country IMO. I know the goal: eventually government is 100% of the economony and we are cuba.
I wouldn’t argue the Fed doesn’t share some responsibility, but it’s not the primary cause.
The above statement is contradictory to the statement below.
The cause was clearly the ability of banks to sell mortgages no matter how crappy the loans.
If banks are responsible, and the bank's bank (The Fed) sets/controls the market interest rate, who's at fault? Remember, there is NOTHING federal about the Federal Reserve. It is basically a consortium of private banks. Answer this question: how do banks make money? Well, through issuing more debt. When issuing more debt is your incentive to earn more, then you will issue debt to infinity. Why would the central bank loosen the noose on monetary policy for the private banks? The TBTF banks own and dictate the monetary policy in this country.
Tulips, South Sea Company, Railroads, etc.
South sea company bubble cause: Government war spending by England. (central planning by the government)
RailRoads: The Bank of England cut interest rates, making government bonds less attractive investments, and existing railway companies' shares began to boom as they moved ever-increasing amounts of cargo and people, making people willing to invest in new railways. (central planning by the central bank)
Tulip mania: See this paper (http://www.econ.ucla.edu/thompson/Document97.pdf) as always, Government meddles with the market.
There are three Options:
* Default. Short term pain, hopefully sweep away the deadwood. Might end up sweeping the middle class baby out with the bathwater, however.
* Austerity. There is no way to Grow Out of the Debt, not even a return of the late 90's tech boom will solve it. Austerity will only guarantee the absolute elimination of the Middle Class, as less spending = less business = more layoffs and paycuts = even less spending in a downward cycle of doom. Those who own productive assets will escape largely unscathed and relatively even more wealthy (and thus, powerful) than everybody else. Finally, see THIS. Austerity is seldom apportioned fairly, and the sacred cows often go unbutchered, while the golden goose gets trimmed and stuffed.
* Inflation. Probably the best weapon in the arsenal, but not too wonderful for the babyboomers who will be retiring soon. Continuous downward pressure on wages and high unemployment means that we might end up in the same downward cycle as Austerity, since wages won't rise to match inflation, and Unions are weaker than ever.
Pick one.
If banks are responsible, and the bank’s bank (The Fed) sets/controls the market interest rate, who’s at fault? Remember, there is NOTHING federal about the Federal Reserve. It is basically a consortium of private banks. Answer this question: how do banks make money? Well, through issuing more debt. When issuing more debt is your incentive to earn more, then you will issue debt to infinity. Why would the central bank loosen the noose on monetary policy for the private banks? The TBTF banks own and dictate the monetary policy in this country.
But monetary policy had only a very small, if any, role in the debacle. And the federal reserve system had no role in underwriting standards. Hell--it was savings and loans that were the worst offenders.
South sea company bubble cause: Government war spending by England. (central planning by the government)
RailRoads: The Bank of England cut interest rates, making government bonds less attractive investments, and existing railway companies’ shares began to boom as they moved ever-increasing amounts of cargo and people, making people willing to invest in new railways. (central planning by the central bank)
Tulip mania: See this paper (http://www.econ.ucla.edu/thompson/Document97.pdf) as always, Government meddles with the market.
I think it was Twain that said--To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Food for thought.
« First « Previous Comments 7,672 - 7,711 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,240,931 comments by 14,822 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now