Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on September 19, 2008, 10:32:22 PM
-
"An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.
What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away."
Last 2 paragraphs of Buchanan's essay. I wouldn't change a word of it. Very well written and said.
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/pjb-the-partys-over/
-
Here is a different view of the same thing............
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717
interesting?
-
(deep breath...)
I have mixed opinions about the Patrick Buchanan article.
He's right in that, for years "Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels".
However, I don't agree with his opinion that globalization is to blame. He wrote:
Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.
But this generation decided that was yesterday’s bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into 'global companies' and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers
It seems that Buchanan doesn't understand how globalization works. Those American jobs would have been lost to Mexico, China and India anyway, regardless whether American companies "went global". Globalization is nothing more than Adam Smith's idea for producers to specialize in their respective areas of competitive advantage, written large on a global scale. Even as the United States began selling off the industries that it is no longer competitive in, it began to develop new competencies in areas that other countries cannot (yet) match. For example, advanced computing and entertainment.
The trade deficit that Mr Buchanan complains about is, at heart, caused by two factors.
First, the difficulty of converting laid-off baby-boomer workers into other jobs once their industry went bust. I blame this on unionism, especially in the car industry. It's simple: American cars simply aren't as competitve in global markets as Japanese or European cars, that's why less are being sold. Greater innovation was required, but that could mean more dismissals, the unions stepped in and prevented it.
Second, the trade deficit, like almost every other deficit in the United States, has been funded by easy credit, the same factor that caused the sub-prime mess we're witnessing today. The simple fact is that Americans have grown used to spending beyond their means. The consumption had to go somewhere, and in this case, it was on imported goods.
The idea that the United States must isolate itself from the world to retain its clout is dangerously wrong today, both for itself and for the world economy. The flow of goods and services has gone massively global since the 90s, and this trend is not going to turn back.
The most fundamental fix for any country that "suffers" under globalization is to address its economic productivity, through education and infrastructure development. Then, it has to ensure relatively free movement of labor (including foreign labor) to whichever industry needs it most. It has to allow competition at home, and through that competition each company becomes sharper, leaner and more innovative. And when critical mass has finally been achieved, the industry as a whole is ready to take on the world.
No, I don't see any solutions in Mr Buchanan's suggestions. I see more danger instead.
A better model for the United States would probably be Japan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7623779.stm).
First, a reminder of how bad things looked in 2002. At that point it seemed almost inevitable that one of the huge Japanese banks would find itself insolvent. It became clear that they had a severe problem with bad debt — money that they had lent to companies and individuals who could not repay it.
During a property market boom, the banks were happy to lend to builders and developers, especially those who were putting money into offices and shops in big cities like Tokyo. Then property prices tumbled and the developers could not repay their loans. Banks were losing money in loans to people who could not repay them and whose collateral, the value of their property, was less than the value of those loans.
The Japanese authorities agonised over what to do. They slashed interest rates to zero. They pumped money into the financial system, just as America has. But in the end, they took the expensive and painful decision to use tax payers' money to help the banks write off the bad loans.
At least US$100bn dollars went on the programmer. The Bank of Japan lent money to institutions at special rates and also bought some of their shares. The money came with an important proviso; the Bank of Japan wanted full disclosure of how serious the problem was and a promise from the banks not to let it happen again.
The article aboive doesn't go further into examining how Japanese banks "would not let it happen again". I'll assume that it involves greater fiscal discipline. It's certainly true that, for now, Asian banks including Japan's have been barely affected by Wall Street's meltdown. That's mainly because the exposure has been very minimal. Asian banks, in general, have always been very conservative compared to American and European banks.
During the boom years, Asian banks were criticized for not making better use of their shareholders' money. Well, look who has the last laugh now.
-
The problem is the disaster hasn't even really hit yet. The govt is bailing out the Big Business elite in the classic "privatize the profits but socialize the losses" move, yet it's the American public who will get the bomb dropped on them over the next few years. This disaster is only beginning and you will be writing a check for it every April 15th for the rest of your life as will your kids.
The financial Ruin has only been moved from Wallstreet and been placed on the backs of the American public.
-
ron paul called it... the dollar and housing bubble are one in the same... ;)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html
-
Crocket, I agree that it's just starting.
Mg1942, thanks for your post! It's really nice when someone in the O'Club actually says something :)
-
ron paul called it...
So did Perot almost 20 years ago
But yet every HAS to vote for the same two parties of clowns.
The only real silver lining is that next election, After the big two have driven us into the ground even farther. Third party candidates will be able to make an even stronger case to break away from the two party monopoly.
-
You guys realize that... Like me.. ron paul would deregulate.. it makes sense.. some of the loan companies doing the best are the least regulated and some of the worst are the most regulated... it is not regulation or lack of it that caused the problem.. bad loans creating a bubble caused the problems.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717
"While many pundits are pointing to corporate greed and a lack of government regulation as the cause for the American mortgage and financial crisis, some analysts are saying it wasn't too little government intervention that cased the mortgage meltdown, but too much, in the form of activists compelling the government to pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into unsound – though politically correct – lending practices.
"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.
Liebowitz puts forward an explanation that he admits is "not consistent with the nasty-subprime-lender hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown."
In a nutshell, Liebowitz contends that the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal."
Now.. the scumbags are to blame too.. when you open the doors for "minorities" and "low income" you open the floodgates for the shysters who play the game and work the loopholes.
MG and old pat say we spend too much.. this is true but.. How much is toooooooo much? If all of a sudden the house you owe 100k on is now worth 600k... you have 500k equity and people banging on your door every day to buy it for that...
Why wouldn't you enjoy some life? You made a "good" investment.. why pay $500 a month for that pickup.. just pay it off with an equity loan.. why not fix up the old homestead.. it is a gold mine anyway right? why not go on that vacation or help the kids get through school?
NONE of this would have happened if we had not made bad loans and created a false equity and housing bubble...
How many of you homeowners had everyone from shysters to your own bank to financial wizards all tell you that you needed to use some of that equity in your home?
It is laughable.. blaming the homeowners when no one was telling them this would happen.
I didn't do it and am glad but even I took out a small home equity line of credit.. it worked out fine for me.
lazs
-
So did Perot almost 20 years ago
Tis so.
-
The so-called Greatest Generation handed us a nation that already contained the germ seed of our financial ruin: the Federal Reserve.
-
For citizenry to blame govt errs. We're in this mess because we are content with bread and circuses.
-
Here is a different view of the same thing............
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717
interesting?
Here's a link to an article from 1999 warning of the risks in bad economic times (this comes from a link in the above article):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&scp=1&sq=&st=nyt)
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Wow, someone saw the writing on the wall.
-
(deep breath...)
I have mixed opinions about the Patrick Buchanan article.
He's right in that, for years "Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels".
However, I don't agree with his opinion that globalization is to blame. He wrote:
It seems that Buchanan doesn't understand how globalization works. Those American jobs would have been lost to Mexico, China and India anyway, regardless whether American companies "went global". Globalization is nothing more than Adam Smith's idea for producers to specialize in their respective areas of competitive advantage, written large on a global scale. Even as the United States began selling off the industries that it is no longer competitive in, it began to develop new competencies in areas that other countries cannot (yet) match. For example, advanced computing and entertainment.
The trade deficit that Mr Buchanan complains about is, at heart, caused by two factors.
First, the difficulty of converting laid-off baby-boomer workers into other jobs once their industry went bust. I blame this on unionism, especially in the car industry. It's simple: American cars simply aren't as competitve in global markets as Japanese or European cars, that's why less are being sold. Greater innovation was required, but that could mean more dismissals, the unions stepped in and prevented it.
Second, the trade deficit, like almost every other deficit in the United States, has been funded by easy credit, the same factor that caused the sub-prime mess we're witnessing today. The simple fact is that Americans have grown used to spending beyond their means. The consumption had to go somewhere, and in this case, it was on imported goods.
The idea that the United States must isolate itself from the world to retain its clout is dangerously wrong today, both for itself and for the world economy. The flow of goods and services has gone massively global since the 90s, and this trend is not going to turn back.
The most fundamental fix for any country that "suffers" under globalization is to address its economic productivity, through education and infrastructure development. Then, it has to ensure relatively free movement of labor (including foreign labor) to whichever industry needs it most. It has to allow competition at home, and through that competition each company becomes sharper, leaner and more innovative. And when critical mass has finally been achieved, the industry as a whole is ready to take on the world.
No, I don't see any solutions in Mr Buchanan's suggestions. I see more danger instead.
A better model for the United States would probably be Japan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7623779.stm).
The article aboive doesn't go further into examining how Japanese banks "would not let it happen again". I'll assume that it involves greater fiscal discipline. It's certainly true that, for now, Asian banks including Japan's have been barely affected by Wall Street's meltdown. That's mainly because the exposure has been very minimal. Asian banks, in general, have always been very conservative compared to American and European banks.
During the boom years, Asian banks were criticized for not making better use of their shareholders' money. Well, look who has the last laugh now.
You sir are 100% correct, nice to see someone with intellect and education :aok
-
I best competitive advantage we could hope for is the elimination of the IRS the elimination of monetary gifts to foreign nations support of anyone that wants to do business with our politicians and a move to the Fair Tax which is hands down the best fix of all tax plans mentioned but it should ONLY finance essential government responsibilities like our Military. We need to remove retirement plans for government officials from tax payers obligations. We need to end entitlements and yes I mean ALL forms of welfare. We need to end social security (its already an impossible obligation). In fact we should eliminate all government except the White House Congress Senate Supreme Court FBI NSA and CIA. Everything else can go to the private sector.
-
"What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away."
Sig material right there...
-
I best competitive advantage we could hope for is the elimination of the IRS the elimination of monetary gifts to foreign nations support of anyone that wants to do business with our politicians and a move to the Fair Tax which is hands down the best fix of all tax plans mentioned but it should ONLY finance essential government responsibilities like our Military. We need to remove retirement plans for government officials from tax payers obligations. We need to end entitlements and yes I mean ALL forms of welfare. We need to end social security (its already an impossible obligation). In fact we should eliminate all government except the White House Congress Senate Supreme Court FBI NSA and CIA. Everything else can go to the private sector.
So which of those aforementioned departments manages the military again?
-
It's certainly true that, for now, Asian banks including Japan's have been barely affected by Wall Street's meltdown. That's mainly because the exposure has been very minimal. Asian banks, in general, have always been very conservative compared to American and European banks.
During the boom years, Asian banks were criticized for not making better use of their shareholders' money. Well, look who has the last laugh now.
Ummm... mayhaps you missed a key point... 'Asian Banks' is far too sweeping a reference. In china, The PRC owns the banks and the majority share of all big business. In Japan, after the 1998 meltdown on real estate investments in the US and the 2002 home collapse, the Government became the major shareholder. In Korea, the banking institutions are shared by both corporate and government interests. It should also be noted that all three systems are in vicious competition with one another.. looking 'inward' is the first 'checkpoint'.. they make no moves that'll leave them open to foreign funds grabbing control.
And here.. we just lost any chance of keeping the sovereign funds from snapping up broad swathes of our economic engine. We may be sitting here debating the fall of the western economies.. we'll know soon enough, I think.
-
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
he** don't worry about the bailout of AIG - if they do it right it should turn a profit within 3 years - as long as congress stays away from it
try to figure out how we are going to pay this off
our parents and grandparents had to ration, pay higher taxes and suffered a little to support our involvement on ww2... there is no way in h..that this current generation will sacrifice like that... raising taxes and war bonds wil never get rid of this debt
-
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
he** don't worry about the bailout of AIG - if they do it right it should turn a profit within 3 years - as long as congress stays away from it
try to figure out how we are going to pay this off
our parents and grandparents had to ration, pay higher taxes and suffered a little to support our involvement on ww2... there is no way in h..that this current generation will sacrifice like that... raising taxes and war bonds wil never get rid of this debt
Govt turned a profit on Chrysler, prolly turn profit on AIG as well--its only loans---AIG isnt insolvent
-
The so-called Greatest Generation handed us a nation that already contained the germ seed of our financial ruin: the Federal Reserve.
:aok
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/Skyrock67/fed.jpg) =
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/Skyrock67/slavery.jpg)
-
Actually the fed was instituted before the WW2 generation... We have Woodrow Wilson to 'thank' for that, finally taking the US off the gold standard in '71 was the real shaker. I think pat was spot on in the article... the globalists are racing us down the road to ruin.... we need to be fully self sufficient again and only trade with nations for things we cannot make ourselves at all.
-
Actually the fed was instituted before the WW2 generation... We have Woodrow Wilson to 'thank' for that, finally taking the US off the gold standard in '71 was the real shaker. I think pat was spot on in the article... the globalists are racing us down the road to ruin.... we need to be fully self sufficient again and only trade with nations for things we cannot make ourselves at all.
The sad thing is - that is probably 90% of the goods we buy today - we don't make anything in the us anymore
but we are in a global financial market for good now - no way to stop it, as soon as the freddie mac mess became a reality - the global market tanked...a bank in england went under -- aig mess ... if that loan wasn't done ... the depression would have looked like a disney party
-
Actually the fed was instituted before the WW2 generation... We have Woodrow Wilson to 'thank' for that, finally taking the US off the gold standard in '71 was the real shaker. I think pat was spot on in the article... the globalists are racing us down the road to ruin.... we need to be fully self sufficient again and only trade with nations for things we cannot make ourselves at all.
I agree 100%. Of course, we need to resume making the things we use.
-
I agree 100%. Of course, we need to resume making the things we use.
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the western world, and we wonder why companies move overseas
-
Actually the fed was instituted before the WW2 generation... We have Woodrow Wilson to 'thank' for that, finally taking the US off the gold standard in '71 was the real shaker. I think pat was spot on in the article... the globalists are racing us down the road to ruin.... we need to be fully self sufficient again and only trade with nations for things we cannot make ourselves at all.
A gold standard is not the answer. Gold is scarce and therefore easy to monopolize. Fiat money is the way to go, and constitution gives congress the authority to print and therefore regulate our money supply.
-
The sad thing is - that is probably 90% of the goods we buy today - we don't make anything in the us anymore
you are wrong, but there is not room enough on here to list everything that is made in the USA.
-
We have the highest corporate tax rate in the western world, and we wonder why companies move overseas
Corporate tax in the US is from 15% to 39%. Even at 39% we aren't the highest, but most corporations do not pay the high end at 39%. Most that know how to play the books get by on the lower end. France for instance is 33% firm. Germany is 29%, Australia is 30%. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many big corporations paying more than 30%.
It's just the same as individual tax, you could pay from 0% to 35% just depends on your income vs deductions. Just like anyone with a clue won't end up paying 35%, any cooperation with a clue won't end up paying 39%.
-
Ummm... mayhaps you missed a key point... 'Asian Banks' is far too sweeping a reference. In china, The PRC owns the banks and the majority share of all big business. In Japan, after the 1998 meltdown on real estate investments in the US and the 2002 home collapse, the Government became the major shareholder. In Korea, the banking institutions are shared by both corporate and government interests. It should also be noted that all three systems are in vicious competition with one another.. looking 'inward' is the first 'checkpoint'.. they make no moves that'll leave them open to foreign funds grabbing control.
And here.. we just lost any chance of keeping the sovereign funds from snapping up broad swathes of our economic engine. We may be sitting here debating the fall of the western economies.. we'll know soon enough, I think.
What the hell type of word is "that'll" ?
-
you are wrong, but there is not room enough on here to list everything that is made in the USA.
way to contribute...I guess ...
Thank jod for jackboots like you...the world would be so less interesting
-
What the hell type of word is "that'll" ?
contraction
-
We need to have the LOWEST corporate tax rate on the planet to stimulate business growth and investment... that will create jobs and reduce the cost of the goods that we produce. When we reduce the tax burden on industry, they can compete with other countries who actually subsidize key industries. Without our manufacturing base, there is no sizable pool of mid-level jobs between McDonald's and Professional level jobs.
You would think the global-warming crowd would realize that buying goods from communist china causes tons more pollution that if the manufacturing was done here because unlike them, we actually do have and enforce environmental and product safety laws... and each shipping container now costs about $8,000 each to ship from communist china. That's a lot of 'fossil fuels' folks.
Yep, lower the corporate tax rate, kick out the parasitic illegals and put America back to work. We can get ourselves out of ANY jam if our hands are untied and we are allowed to do whatever is necessary to get things done... I mean, we ARE America. I was born the very last year of the "Baby Boom". I am old enough to see what we can do every time we are determined to meet a challenge. I have seen America pull together and heal its' old wounds. I distinctly remember Reagan challenging all of us to do a number of things to get our economy going... We pressured our congressmen and senators to go along with the program and trickle-down worked wonders... I saw it happen.
I am actually going to use an MSNBC clip for this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzBNNgHp-sQ
Of course Reagan knew how to take the blame when he was WRONG about something too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc&NR=1
:salute