Re: QUOTES OF THE WEEK

GreyCloud stated in post qNOdnSxfM8G683LUnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx on
4/22/09 12:21 PM:

Snit wrote:
GreyCloud stated in post VLednWbSsrRLu3PUnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx on
4/21/09 1:05 PM:

...
The problem being that the toxic derivatives have poisoned their system.
This was brought about due to the repeal of the Glass-Steagler Act. Alan
Greenspan was for the derivatives which now has brought us a lot of
problems.

Yes. This has nothing to do with the issue that was being discussed, namely
whether the Fed putting new money into circulation necessarily causes
inflation.

It has always been demonstrated that if you increase the money supply the
dollar devalues accordingly, causing inflation.

Well, if they money supply grows faster than the growth of the economy...

And the money supply is growing at a fast pace. And the economy is
definitely going sour.

Yes. We are running into interesting times. The last few decades have seen
horrid money mismanagement, especially under Reagan and Bush II. We will be
paying for that for a long time. Hopefully Obama is not pushing equally bad
or worse mistakes.

Decrease the money supply, you get deflation, which is already happening now
to some extent. Having Credit tightened also causes deflation, and if done
for too long causes depression. Which is what the clowns did after 1929.
The banks refused, back then, to loan to the farmers. Did you realize that
over 7,000,000 people died during the great depression due to starvation? We
are now on that same path again if they continue with this stupid,
self-destruction of our economy.

At this point the economy is pretty much trashed... *something* needs to be
done.

I'm glad you brought this point up. When those that caused this problem knew
very well what they were doing. They create the problem, people react and say
"do something", and then they present their solution. We have to be very
critical in accepting their solution... or should I say reject it completely.

What do you suggest?

It makes sense for the government to have a surplus when the economy is doing
well and run at a deficit when the economy is doing poorly, though I agree
that the size of the stimulus bill is over-the-top. How the heck are we
going to pay for it?

A very good question. And I'm even afraid to imagine what the Feds have in
mind on how we are going to pay off this debt with interest piled on top.
Odd... we bailed them out and then we have to pay them thru taxes to pay the
interest on a debt we didn't ask for. It should be that *THEY* owe the people
some money plus interest.

Oh, I am sure all the corporations will do the right thing and pay back
every penny, with interest. [sarcasm, of course].

When the economy was doing well, the US should have been saving, as it was
doing - at least to some extent - under Clinton.

We had a surplus and weren't in debt IRC.

Well, as ed pointed out, we clearly did not pay off the full debt under
Clinton! But at least, during his years, the US was heading in the right
direction financially.

The Reagan / Bush II years were completely out of hand - gross deficit
spending with, largely, *good* economies.

They had an agenda then to outspend the soviets... at least that is
their excuse.

Excuse is a good word.

....
True, but how did this get started in the first place? Somewhere, there was
some mandate handed down to do so. When I went for a home loan in the 70s,
my credit was checked, my employment was verified, and my income was
verified. After 2000, the banks just took the applicants word for it and
gave them the home loan.

I purchased a home past 2000... and my income was verified. I was also
approved for a far, far bigger loan than I would ever reasonably even
consider... and I did not take it.

The banks that got into trouble, like WAMU, didn't check anything. There were
a lot of this mentioned in the Finance Committees. Unfortunately, the blame
for this mess was laid on the public for going too far into debt, yet mass
media kept goading the public to take out home loans thru advertising
channels.

And with so many people buying beyond their means, the housing market
exploded. This made it so even people who purchased intelligently still
paid a lot more than they should have. I was lucky, the people who sold me
the house I am made me a great deal.

....
And due to the corporate advertising, which creates a phenomena of "Keeping
Up with the Jones". My family had a high standard of living and only one
bread winner. In the early 80s is was painfully obvious that he could no
longer maintain that standard of living and actually cut back. Most peoples
salaries and especially wages, do not keep up for inflation.... those
governement stats are nothing more than juggled figures and worse a big lie.
Their stats will not include the cost of gas or food. But you need both.
Add that figure back in and you'll find inflation. My grandfather was also
the sole bread winner and was never in debt, and in the beginning he only
got one home loan of $1500. It took him 5 years to pay it off and at 0%
interest. He only had to pay a $5 filing fee and that was it.

So comparing yesterday to todays system shows that debt rules and controls
peoples lives today.

Out debt as a nation is absurd... and, yes, it is largely what is killing our
economy. And you cannot escape the effects, if you stay in the US that is.

That explains why so many wealthy people (those that have over $100,000,000 in
assets) left the U.S. in the last two years. I understand it that if one were
to leave the U.S. now with their wealth is nigh on impossible. Not sure what
that is all about.

Never heard that... seems they should be able to leave, but their money
would not be as valuable.

....
Actually, those were very good days in the 1950s. No cell phones, no
computers, no internet. Nice and quiet for one to pursue more interesting
quests. I find that most kids do not get out to excercise or have a decent
childhood. They are too busy in an artificially induced virtual universe
known as computer games. That isn't living.

I agree I do not like such things... but things have always changed.
Technology does that. I suspect we will see a swing back the other way over
the next 20 years or so... people wanting to go outside and actually garden
and the like.

True enough. The pendulum will swing the other way, but usually out of
necessity this time. I've seen a lot of the kids here still do play
neighborhood grouped games. Rather reminds me of my own childhood. I never
saw that in the other area I used to live in. I'm putting in a garden as well
this year.

Sadly in my neighborhood there are not many kids at all... but there is a
lake and a path. We take my kids there often... and walk to a part a mile
or so away.

....
Uh,... I don't see any improvements at all over their so called being
"civilized". Watch how civilized these people get when social order breaks
down.

As technology increases, morality drops.

I think that is a stretch... though looking at the morality of many in COLA,
maybe you have a point. I quote someone, he denies it and says I quoted only
one word of his post, I prove him wrong by providing a link back to the post
where I quoted him ... and he reacts by calling me a "Child Molester". The
depth of immorality that is shown by that one act is beyond anything I could
ever imagine doing to *anyone*.

I heard the above from a community leader. It took some time for it to sink
in, but looking back at the 60s when birth control pills were made available
all of a sudden it was called a sexual revolution. All I saw then that
morality really did go down a notch. Then drugs, another technology item
known to some as designer drugs, took its toll as well.

Perhaps, but *every* generation things the younger generation is losing its
morality... there are quotes from Socrates saying this... about Plato's
generation (or maybe it was Aristotle... you get the idea).



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


.

Relevant Pages