The Unofficial But Kind of Official US Pawliticks Thread

[boost]

Imagine how many "cool" schools one of those carriers could buy. Imagine how many "cool" teacher's salaries the annual operating budget for one of thoes carriers could support...

[boost]

So the US and Israel are best buds til the end... ok, fine.. but why can't we just admit how fucked up Zionism was to start with. Like, ok, we really fucked up after WWII. Sure these people were SOL and we wanted to prevent another Holocaust, but this clearly was not the solution. However, we are where we are now, and at this point Israelis and Palestinians have to get along, or suffer through an endless conflict.

Why can't we just say that? That would be political suicide... but why? People wonder why politicians are so full of shit, but they don't stop to realize that Barack Obama can't say "hey, guys, I'm not the first black president, unless I'm also the 44th white president." because the same people sick of the bullshitting politicians can't cope with the truth. Fuck you US electorate, fuck you.

[wufwugy]

So the US and Israel are best buds til the end... ok, fine.. but why can't we just admit how fucked up Zionism was to start with. Like, ok, we really fucked up after WWII. Sure these people were SOL and we wanted to prevent another Holocaust, but this clearly was not the solution. However, we are where we are now, and at this point Israelis and Palestinians have to get along, or suffer through an endless conflict.

Why can't we just say that? That would be political suicide... but why? People wonder why politicians are so full of shit, but they don't stop to realize that Barack Obama can't say "hey, guys, I'm not the first black president, unless I'm also the 44th white president." because the same people sick of the bullshitting politicians can't cope with the truth. Fuck you US electorate, fuck you.

I think it is mainly because there are some quite old and extremely rich Zionists. They still live in the post-WW2 world and the Cold War, and things won't change until they die off. Despite the fact that most Israelis themselves are against extreme Zionism, it pays to be an extremist like Netanyahu because of funders like Sheldon Adelson

IIRC the overwhelming majority of US Jews are against Zionism and also support the Palestinians. There are simply a few crotchety old men with assloads of cash that support it

[boost]

well, let's not lay all the blame on rich American Jews. Disturbingly a huge amount of support for Zionist comes from Evangelical Christians who believe that the full reestablishment of an Israeli state is a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ (doomsday.) They an essentially attempting to concoct a geo-political potion that will allow them to cast a spell which will bring back their undead lord. Doesn't get much creeper than that.

[a500lbgorilla]

Imagine how many "cool" schools one of those carriers could buy. Imagine how many "cool" teacher's salaries the annual operating budget for one of thoes carriers could support...

Why when I don't have to imagine how cool those carriers actually are?

And how do you plan to turn warships into schools?

[boost]

Why when I don't have to imagine how cool those carriers actually are?

And how do you plan to turn warships into schools?

Ha.. obviously I am implying that future carriers' construction should be sacrificed and instead, the funds funneled to education, or some other non superfluous endeavor that actually stands to better society.

But maybe you're onto something... maybe that'd be the best of both worlds. If we just dock these behemoths at the major US ports, disarm them, and reappropriate them as schools. I think we both win then, kids going to school on these engineering masterpieces.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Poopadoop]

Ha.. obviously I am implying that future carriers' construction should be sacrificed and instead, the funds funneled to education, or some other non superfluous endeavor that actually stands to better society.

But maybe you're onto something... maybe that'd be the best of both worlds. If we just dock these behemoths at the major US ports, disarm them, and reappropriate them as schools. I think we both win then, kids going to school on these engineering masterpieces.

Hopefully one or the other happens before China asks you to pay them the money you owe. At least if that debt were being spent on something useful you could say it was worth it. Spending it on military overkill when there's been no serious threat to you since 1989 is pretty goofy imo.

I'd be curious to know how much it costs to train and equip the average GI just so he can go to Afganistan and get blown up by $30 worth of homemade explosives packed into a soup can.

[surviva316]

Hopefully one or the other happens before China asks you to pay them the money you owe. At least if that debt were being spent on something useful you could say it was worth it. Spending it on military overkill when there's been no serious threat to you since 1989 is pretty goofy imo.

Maybe you just answered your own riddle. Maybe we're building such a large military because we don't plan on paying back our debts.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe you just answered your own riddle. Maybe we're building such a large military because we don't plan on paying back our debts.

Yeah, only part of that plan that doesn't work is that you owe the money to financiers.

Good luck getting more loans as a bankrupt nation. But hey you can always pawn an aircraft carrier or two. I heard those really cost a lot. You can probably spare a couple guarding the Antarctic.

[a500lbgorilla]

Good luck getting more loans as a bankrupt nation.

This is clearly a man of deep insights.

[wufwugy]

Irony is that not only is US the world's further from bankruptcy nation, it has systematically taken out too few loans from itself. Watch as the Fed gradually shifts towards market monetarism policy over the decades; we'll find debt "problems" solve themselves, NGDP growth is more steady and larger than before, and the job market reflects

[surviva316]

Yeah, only part of that plan that doesn't work is that you owe the money to financiers.

Nope, every part of the plan works. The simple brilliance of it has gone over your head, but ten years down the road you'll probably be out in the lawn doing some weeding and you'll be like, "woah, now I see. Every part of that plan works. The simple brilliance of it had gone over my head, but now ten years downt he road, sitting here in my lawn doing some weeding, I'm like, 'woah.'"

[Luco]

Nope, every part of the plan works. The simple brilliance of it has gone over your head, but ten years down the road you'll probably be out in the lawn doing some weeding and you'll be like, "woah, now I see. Every part of that plan works. The simple brilliance of it had gone over my head, but now ten years downt he road, sitting here in my lawn doing some weeding, I'm like, 'woah.'"

Lol gold.

So how many of you guys are in the 70% who's vote is irrelevant (i.e non swing-state)?

[wufwugy]

Lol gold.

So how many of you guys are in the 70% who's vote is irrelevant (i.e non swing-state)?

I dunno, I voted in several very important elections and initiatives including legal weed and legal gay marriage. BTW 33% of WA ballots have already been returned and polling has both of those above 55%. WA gonna be the first state to legalize weed and first to legalize gay marriage by voter choice

[Poopadoop]

Irony is that not only is US the world's further from bankruptcy nation, it has systematically taken out too few loans from itself. Watch as the Fed gradually shifts towards market monetarism policy over the decades; we'll find debt "problems" solve themselves, NGDP growth is more steady and larger than before, and the job market reflects

I'm not sure on what basis you think you're the furthest nation from bankruptcy. Your credit rating was reduced so it's now below that of a lot of first world countries.

Right now the US owes $16 trillion, that's more than $50k for every single person in the country. Less than a third of that is foreign debt.

Every year more and more of the budget goes to interest payments. $12k per person that comes out of your taxes to pay interest. Then the gov't borrows more to keep up its spending. The deficit goes up and up.

Debt problems like that don't magically solve themselves just because you shift to a market monetarism policy. That isn't going to make debt disappear.

And lol at the guy with the GI Joe avatar whose proud of the fact his country owns the vast majority of the world's aircraft carriers, then making sarcastic remarks about my thought proesses. The irony of that is delicious. And lol at the whole "Let's spend as much on the military as the rest of the world put togeter" idea. "Aircraft carriers are so cool, let's build some more." That kind of jingoism is so entirely self-defeating it's not even funny.

Your economic relative strength peaked in the 1960s and has been going down ever since. Trying to stop a declining empire from declining by overpsending on military is a policy destined to fail. If you don't believe it, look at the UK, Spain, France, etc. They all went up and they all came back down, and so will you.

[Poopadoop]

Nope, every part of the plan works. The simple brilliance of it has gone over your head, but ten years down the road you'll probably be out in the lawn doing some weeding and you'll be like, "woah, now I see. Every part of that plan works. The simple brilliance of it had gone over my head, but now ten years downt he road, sitting here in my lawn doing some weeding, I'm like, 'woah.'"

So in other words, you've got no answer.

[wufwugy]

I'm not sure on what basis you think you're the furthest nation from bankruptcy. Your credit rating was reduced so it's now below that of a lot of first world countries.

Right now the US owes $16 trillion, that's more than $50k for every single person in the country. Less than a third of that is foreign debt.

Every year more and more of the budget goes to interest payments. $12k per person that comes out of your taxes to pay interest. Then the gov't borrows more to keep up its spending. The deficit goes up and up.

Debt problems like that don't magically solve themselves just because you shift to a market monetarism policy. That isn't going to make debt disappear.

And lol at the guy with the GI Joe avatar whose proud of the fact his country owns the vast majority of the world's aircraft carriers, then making sarcastic remarks about my thought proesses. The irony of that is delicious. And lol at the whole "Let's spend as much on the military as the rest of the world put togeter" idea. "Aircraft carriers are so cool, let's build some more." That kind of jingoism is so entirely self-defeating it's not even funny.

Your economic relative strength peaked in the 1960s and has been going down ever since. Trying to stop a declining empire from declining by overpsending on military is a policy destined to fail. If you don't believe it, look at the UK, Spain, France, etc. They all went up and they all came back down, and so will you.

Lucky for us, economics doesn't work anyway like how you think. Concepts of debt and credit are entirely different on hierarchical government levels than on household levels. People like to say things like China owns us because they have bought some of our debt, but the way it actually works that that China is more indebted to the US for a myriad of other reasons involved with how their finances depend upon the influx of US treasuries.

The fact that you think the US was relatively stronger in the 60s compared to now shows that you're not up to speed. The US economy is the global granddaddy and where people place their investments reflects. The US is so high upon the totem pole that everybody else is willing to take a loss just so they can hold T-bills. US has more leverage now than ever before, and the reason there was a downgrade by credit rating agencies was because they claimed the GOP obstruction was a risk to the US deciding simply not to pay back debts, not that the US is unable.

The US can very easily pay down its debt by fabricating trillion dollar coins, but it doesn't want to do that for various reasons (one being that debt is expansion and paying down debt is contraction). The easier way is to expand the money supply in various ways that make economic function relative to debt levels better, which the Fed has actually been rather bad at lately, but there have also been some very good signs that the Fed is changing ideology on this towards the better

The main problem we have right now is simply monetary policy that doesn't expand growth enough and doesn't reduce debt burdens inherently

[surviva316]

So in other words, you've got no answer.

I'm being like 0% serious, and the guy with the GI Joe avatar is at the very least being light-hearted.

[Poopadoop]

Lucky for us, economics doesn't work anyway like how you think. Concepts of debt and credit are entirely different on hierarchical government levels than on household levels.

You have heard of countries going bankrupt, right? Greece, Iceland, Ireland? In that sense, personal and national debt work pretty much the same. Going bankrupt is a catastrophic event no matter if you're a person or a country.

The fact that you think the US was relatively stronger in the 60s compared to now shows that you're not up to speed. The US economy is the global granddaddy and where people place their investments reflects. The US is so high upon the totem pole that everybody else is willing to take a loss just so they can hold T-bills. US has more leverage now than ever before, and the reason there was a downgrade by credit rating agencies was because they claimed the GOP obstruction was a risk to the US deciding simply not to pay back debts, not that the US is unable.

Actually a look at share of world GDP suggests we're both wrong. The US share peaked around 1950.

The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

The US can very easily pay down its debt by fabricating trillion dollar coins, but it doesn't want to do that for various reasons (one being that debt is expansion and paying down debt is contraction).

Or perhaps somewhere in the gov't someone has heard of the Weimar republic. Seriously, that is not even an idea worth bringing up.

This might be of interest to you:
Presenting Bridgewater's Weimar Hyperinflationary Case Study | ZeroHedge

The main problem we have right now is simply monetary policy that doesn't expand growth enough and doesn't reduce debt burdens inherently

The only way to reduce debt is to run the gov't at a surplus which can then go to paying off debt. That is the monetary policy the world's governments need.

[wufwugy]

I'm a little upset because I typed a slick post but accidentally deleted it. Maybe will get around to it later

[wufwugy]

You have heard of countries going bankrupt, right? Greece, Iceland, Ireland? In that sense, personal and national debt work pretty much the same. Going bankrupt is a catastrophic event no matter if you're a person or a country.

If the US goes bankrupt, the entire globe enters a new Dark Age. As it always has been, the biggest and baddest subjugates everybody else. What we are currently seeing is the US doing so well that every other nation is depending upon it. And don't bring up the EU crisis as a counterpoint unless you want to demonstrate that you're unaware that their problem is really just a technicality in having monetary unity without fiscal unity.

Actually a look at share of world GDP suggests we're both wrong. The US share peaked around 1950.

The Economic History of the Last 2,000 Years in 1 Little Graph - Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

This is irrelevant. The US's place at the top in the complex hierarchy is more reinforced now than it has ever been. This is why many wealthy investors are willing to take a loss on their investments in order to reduce risk by putting them in the US.

Or perhaps somewhere in the gov't someone has heard of the Weimar republic. Seriously, that is not even an idea worth bringing up.

This might be of interest to you:
Presenting Bridgewater's Weimar Hyperinflationary Case Study | ZeroHedge

You're right, it's not worth bringing up. Germany was enslaved by debt to their boss nations to such a degree that it was not feasible for them to ever produce more than they owed. There is no relation whatsoever to this scenario with the current US. When you owe the bank a million bucks, you're in the shit, but when you owe the bank a billion bucks, they're in the shit. The US is pretty much the latter. The US economy is such a juggernaut that it can write off its debt or not even pay it without much problem, but if it does so every other nation would convulse. The rest of the world has more incentive for the US to stay true to its debt than the US does.

BTW the real Tyler Durden would not approve of ZeroCred's incessant, baseless fearmongering.

The only way to reduce debt is to run the gov't at a surplus which can then go to paying off debt. That is the monetary policy the world's governments need.

Not only does nobody know what the magic number for "bad debt" is, but we have strong evidence that the US is nowhere close to where that number would be. It's not even debt that is relevant, but debt relative to GDP. Paying down debt the way so-called "hawks" want is a disaster because all it would do is destroy the economy by way of perpetual contraction. The correct way to reduce debt burden is to grow beyond it. Not only does this expansion counteract the contractionary effects of paying debts but it reduces the value of the debt. It is arguable that debt for a nation like US doesn't even matter as long as the deficit is within an appropriate range of NGDP growth.

That said, I would like the US to pay down its debt gradually and becoming a longterm lender

[Poopadoop]

If the US goes bankrupt, the entire globe enters a new Dark Age. As it always has been, the biggest and baddest subjugates everybody else. What we are currently seeing is the US doing so well that every other nation is depending upon it. And don't bring up the EU crisis as a counterpoint unless you want to demonstrate that you're unaware that their problem is really just a technicality in having monetary unity without fiscal unity.

It never ceases to amaze me how much you guys are brainwashed to believe the whole world revolves around the US, and we can't possibly manage to feed ourselves without you. Fact is, the US is no more than a cog in the world's wheel. A big cog, granted, but not any bigger than Europe, and slowly and surely getting smaller all the time.

The EU crisis is not due to a 'technicality'. That is lolable. It is a common market with a common currency, but if releasing countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain, from that bond would have solved their problems, don't you think it would have happened by now? In fact, those countries are pleading to stay in the EU because it is much better for them than the alternative.

The US's place at the top in the complex hierarchy is more reinforced now than it has ever been. This is why many wealthy investors are willing to take a loss on their investments in order to reduce risk by putting them in the US.

Any hard facts to support these assertions? A lot of economists use GDP as an index of economic power, so what index are you using?

Also, who are these people who are so wisely investing in a negative EV proposition when everyone else is buying up precious metals? And what are these investments they're making, and what do they have to do with the US gov't? Pretty sure T-bills still pay interest if that's what you're referring to, but correct me if I'm wrong.

The US economy is such a juggernaut that it can write off its debt or not even pay it without much problem, but if it does so every other nation would convulse. The rest of the world has more incentive for the US to stay true to its debt than the US does.

You're again overestimating the power of the US in the world economy. No doubt it would be bad for everyone if it defaulted on its loans, just like it's bad for everyone that the EU has broke countries in it. Everything is interconnected.

But the idea that it would not be much worse for the US itself is where you're off. The US gov't runs on credit; they simply can't manage without it as things stand. So having no more credit means you would have to balance the budget. Today. That would be worse for you than everyone else. And since most of your credit comes from your own citizens and corporations, it's mostly going to fall on your people if those loans are defaulted on.

Not only does nobody know what the magic number for "bad debt" is, but we have strong evidence that the US is nowhere close to where that number would be.

Because there are other countries where the debt:GDP ratio is greater that haven't gone bankrupt? That's fine, but how can you be sure the same will be true for you? And please don't just repeat its because the US is a big economy again. That's not convincing.

I would like the US to pay down its debt gradually and becoming a longterm lender

Well then we are closer to agreeing than I thought. Fwiw, I never said you should crash the economy just to pay the debt off right away. My point when i first started posting ITT was that you are spending all kinds of money on military for no tangible gain, while your debt is expanding exponentially towards whatever the 'magic number' is (and we're both clear that number is not infinite). Ergo, military overspending is damaging to your economy.

[surviva316]

Anyone else concerned about the Ohio voting machines story? I really really hate to get caught up in the hoopla of national media sensationalism, but I have a tough time not being at least concerned by phrases like "no paper trail."

Will the smart, reasonable people of these boards please convince me how I'm being silly so that I can proceed to operate on a level above the scare tactics?

EDIT: Coulda just done more thorough Googling. Obviously googling "debunked" is gonna get biased results, but so long as the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (lol) is a solid source of good reporting, the there's no reason to be concerned.



They do go on to give a quote from a reliable source (deputy so-and-so of so-and-so county) but it's just like "There's no way nothing could go wrong. Nothing to see here," (no actual substance) so I didn't even bother including it.

[wufwugy]

It never ceases to amaze me how much you guys are brainwashed to believe the whole world revolves around the US, and we can't possibly manage to feed ourselves without you. Fact is, the US is no more than a cog in the world's wheel. A big cog, granted, but not any bigger than Europe, and slowly and surely getting smaller all the time.

One US bank went bankrupt and this created a cascade where the rest of the world that was intertwined with that bank has suffered more than the US. It's not size that matters but position in the hierarchy.

The EU crisis is not due to a 'technicality'. That is lolable. It is a common market with a common currency, but if releasing countries like Greece, Ireland, Spain, from that bond would have solved their problems, don't you think it would have happened by now? In fact, those countries are pleading to stay in the EU because it is much better for them than the alternative.

It is a technicality, not one they can remedy without tons of pain. The one and only reason the EU has this crisis and the US does not is because the US monetary union is backed by governmental fiscal unity. The US has perpetual redistribution of funds from surplus states to deficit states, and this keeps the deficit states from going bankrupt. This redistribution is necessary because each individual state is not able to control its own currency. The EU crisis is because the weaker states are not able to control their own currency yet do not receive the aid from the federal system that keeps them from being forced into bankruptcy.

This problem was triggered by the crisis and recession, but it was constructed by the introduction of the Euro as a common currency between separate autonomous governments

Any hard facts to support these assertions? A lot of economists use GDP as an index of economic power, so what index are you using?

There isn't an index that tells the story. If there was, economics would be so easy that we wouldn't even have problems. You know, because we'd have those super easy to reference indices that tell us what to do.

Also, who are these people who are so wisely investing in a negative EV proposition when everyone else is buying up precious metals? And what are these investments they're making, and what do they have to do with the US gov't? Pretty sure T-bills still pay interest if that's what you're referring to, but correct me if I'm wrong.

It is well known that T-bills are the primary source of risk-free financial holdings, sometimes chosen even at a loss. And no, people are not buying up precious metals because there's not enough to go around. Well, some people are, but the amount of investment they represent globally is itty bitty.

But the idea that it would not be much worse for the US itself is where you're off. The US gov't runs on credit; they simply can't manage without it as things stand. So having no more credit means you would have to balance the budget. Today. That would be worse for you than everyone else. And since most of your credit comes from your own citizens and corporations, it's mostly going to fall on your people if those loans are defaulted on.

That's quite a leap you take where magically the US can no longer create more credit. We need to stop using the words debt and credit when referring to macroeconomics because they have entirely different meanings than what most people think. The US can create more credit for a long time and/or could pay its debt in a day simply by paying it. This stuff is not a problem and won't be a problem for a long time. Only after deficits are so bloated that potential revenues and growth can't counter them does it become a problem, but that problem is still only momentary based in the jolt to the system that happens when the Fed creates trillion dollar coins and pays off its debts. If you want China to scream bloody murder, have the US pay back China. That's the last thing China wants because the reason they hold so many Treasuries in the first place is to keep the renminbi weak enough so that they can corner the market on cheap manufacturing and exports.

It should be telling that nobody thought the debt was a problem until after Mitch McConnell said the only goal of the party is to destroy Obama.

Because there are other countries where the debt:GDP ratio is greater that haven't gone bankrupt? That's fine, but how can you be sure the same will be true for you? And please don't just repeat its because the US is a big economy again. That's not convincing.

The same way I don't need to worry about driving off a cliff if I'm not anywhere near a cliff.

Just because it would be better to reduce debt:GDP ratio doesn't mean not doing so is doomsday

Well then we are closer to agreeing than I thought. Fwiw, I never said you should crash the economy just to pay the debt off right away. My point when i first started posting ITT was that you are spending all kinds of money on military for no tangible gain, while your debt is expanding exponentially towards whatever the 'magic number' is (and we're both clear that number is not infinite). Ergo, military overspending is damaging to your economy.

Fortunately, Obama and the Democrats are fixing this. The main problem with it all is that the debt and deficit benefit non-consumers. So while it's not doomsday now, it would still be better create longterm paths of deficit reduction. IIRC banks and multinational corporations tend to do much better when the US runs a deficit, but consumers do better when we don't. I'm not sure why that is though

[wufwugy]

Anyone else concerned about the Ohio voting machines story? I really really hate to get caught up in the hoopla of national media sensationalism, but I have a tough time not being at least concerned by phrases like "no paper trail."

Will the smart, reasonable people of these boards please convince me how I'm being silly so that I can proceed to operate on a level above the scare tactics?

EDIT: Coulda just done more thorough Googling. Obviously googling "debunked" is gonna get biased results, but so long as the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (lol) is a solid source of good reporting, the there's no reason to be concerned.



They do go on to give a quote from a reliable source (deputy so-and-so of so-and-so county) but it's just like "There's no way nothing could go wrong. Nothing to see here," (no actual substance) so I didn't even bother including it.

I think electronic voting should be banned, but I don't think we're going to see foul play. There has yet to be any concrete evidence for any of the accusations I've seen. It is something we need to be very vigilant about though.

Honestly, I hope Romney fixes the Ohio election because it would be idiotic because he would get caught while still losing the election. The media is wrong that Ohio is the make or break state. The election is going to be boring because Obama is winning FL. He's also winning CO IA VA and NH

[wufwugy]

This is the real kind of voter fraud (which is suppression)

Daily Kos: Photo of My 9 Hour Wait to Vote in Florida.

People need to stop voting for Republicans until the party itself stops mandating hatred, ignorance, and destruction

[Poopadoop]

One US bank went bankrupt and this created a cascade where the rest of the world that was intertwined with that bank has suffered more than the US. It's not size that matters but position in the hierarchy.

Details? Actually it doesn't really matter, because a gov't is not a bank. So this comparison is meaningless.

The EU crisis is because the weaker states are not able to control their own currency yet do not receive the aid from the federal system that keeps them from being forced into bankruptcy.

Numerous countries have defaulted on loans outside of a monetary union. Even some individual US states did so (though that hasn't happened in over a century). So blaming it on an inability to control the currency isn't really accurate.

Sovereign default - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There isn't an index that tells the story. If there was, economics would be so easy that we wouldn't even have problems. You know, because we'd have those super easy to reference indices that tell us what to do.

So then what are you basing your assertion that the US is economically stronger than ever upon? You haven't cited a single source of hard data or expert analysis.

That's quite a leap you take where magically the US can no longer create more credit. We need to stop using the words debt and credit when referring to macroeconomics because they have entirely different meanings than what most people think.

Well, gov't debt is more analagous to corporate debt than to personal debt. But it's still debt - and there is a point where a corporation is spending so much of its gross income on managing debt that it loses the confidence of its creditors. And gov'ts are no different.

The US can create more credit for a long time and/or could pay its debt in a day simply by paying it. This stuff is not a problem and won't be a problem for a long time. Only after deficits are so bloated that potential revenues and growth can't counter them does it become a problem, but that problem is still only momentary based in the jolt to the system that happens when the Fed creates trillion dollar coins and pays off its debts.

You act like the US gov't can magically create wealth and revamp it's credit just by printing money. It is the Weimar solution all over again, which you yourself admit is not worth discussing, so not sure why you mentioned it again.

All printing trillion dollar bills is going to do is devalue the currency to the point where it is financially the equivalent of defaulting on the loans. It is tantamount to saying 'fuck you' to the creditors.

Krannert Professor of Economics - Comparing Government to Business - YouTube

If you want China to scream bloody murder, have the US pay back China. That's the last thing China wants because the reason they hold so many Treasuries in the first place is to keep the renminbi weak enough so that they can corner the market on cheap manufacturing and exports.

Actually China is buying less T-bills and more gold. So apparently their plan is changing.

China unloads 97 per cent of short-term U.S. Treasury bill debt but still owns $1.2TRILLION of American deficit | Mail Online

The Hoarding Continues: China Has Imported More Gold In Six Months Than Portugal's Entire Gold Reserve | ZeroHedge

Fortunately, Obama and the Democrats are fixing this.

Another statement backed up with nothing. Neither party has done or seems to have plans to do anything constructive about the problem.

Tom Coburn seems to make some interesting points, though his plan may be going too far too fast.

Dr. Coburn on Charlie Rose on US Debt Crisis, Leadership Deficit in Washington - YouTube

[wufwugy]

Details? Actually it doesn't really matter, because a gov't is not a bank. So this comparison is meaningless.

I didn't even make a comparison. I presented an example of precisely what you asked for.

Numerous countries have defaulted on loans outside of a monetary union. Even some individual US states did so (though that hasn't happened in over a century). So blaming it on an inability to control the currency isn't really accurate.

You have now made a comparison. A completely irrelevant one. You have conflated all forms of default with specific problems of the EU. Your position is not arguable; it is well known fact that EU problem is monetary union without fiscal union.

So then what are you basing your assertion that the US is economically stronger than ever upon? You haven't cited a single source of hard data or expert analysis.

Did you forget about that one US bank that collapsed which brought down the rest of the connected world more than it did the US?

Well, gov't debt is more analagous to corporate debt than to personal debt. But it's still debt - and there is a point where a corporation is spending so much of its gross income on managing debt that it loses the confidence of its creditors. And gov'ts are no different.

Not managing the debt well is problematic, but losing the confidence of creditors is not. If that happens, the creditors are in much, much, much deeper shit than the US. They're the ones, after all, who would lose all their money on "bad" investments.

You act like the US gov't can magically create wealth and revamp it's credit just by printing money.

It can and it has been for a very long time. It is, however, just a part of the whole.

It is the Weimar solution all over again, which you yourself admit is not worth discussing, so not sure why you mentioned it again.

I didn't mention Weimar. You're the one who doesn't understand the topic enough to know that what I said has no relevance whatsoever to post-WW1 Germany.

All printing trillion dollar bills is going to do is devalue the currency to the point where it is financially the equivalent of defaulting on the loans. It is tantamount to saying 'fuck you' to the creditors.

If that was true then you just contradicted your position from a couple sentences ago and have made a case for why US accruing debt isn't a big deal.

Actually China is buying less T-bills and more gold. So apparently their plan is changing.

China unloads 97 per cent of short-term U.S. Treasury bill debt but still owns $1.2TRILLION of American deficit | Mail Online

The Hoarding Continues: China Has Imported More Gold In Six Months Than Portugal's Entire Gold Reserve | ZeroHedge

Their plan is changing, albeit slowly, and it's better for the rest of the world in the long term.

Stop mentioning ZeroCred. It belies your understanding of the issues.

Another statement backed up with nothing. Neither party has done or seems to have plans to do anything constructive about the problem.

It is unfortunate that our media so incompetent that what Obama and the Dems have done for these issues hasn't seen the light of day in public.

Do you not find it strange that you can look at one party that started wars, shifting tax burden from rich to poor, destroyed the economy, and pushed aside the healthcare problems and say that they're the exact same as the other party that has been stopping the wars, shifting tax burden from poor to rich, fixing the economy, and fixed healthcare?

[eugmac]

I'm currently reading Currency Wars by James Rickards. It goes into currency manipulation by various world governments as a form of gunless, bombless warfare. According to the author we've entered and are currently amidst a new Currency War since around 2010. He goes into how QE was a first strike of sorts because an outright debasement of the US dollar forces China to choose between inflation (the yuan is pegged to the dollar), or appreciation of their currency causing a reduction in exports. Other export nations like Brazil were direct casualties and got their finance minister to outright accuse the Fed of starting a currency war.

The intro to the book is intriguing enough - he was invited a few years ago by the Pentagon to do war game exercises where different teams would represent countries like US, China, and Russia, and they would engage in financial warfare. This was to test and see what kind of tactics governments might use to undermine the US and to gauge any vulnerabilities that might exist.

[DropTheBanana]

Redskins Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Redskins lost. Sorry Dems.

[wufwugy]

Redskins Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Redskins lost. Sorry Dems.

I'm pretty sure this effect does exist for local turnout of home teams (like if an FL team loses on Sunday, turnout in FL elections would be depressed on Tuesday), but the Redskins one is merely coincidence.

[Poopadoop]

@wufwuggy

I thought I might have learned something because you come across as articulate and intelligent. But the more you talk, the more you resort to calling me ignorant, the less interested I am in what you have to say.

Add to this the fact that you can't (or think you don't have to) find any independent source to back up your arguments - not an intro econ text, not a professor of econ, not a journal article - makes this really not a very interesting or enlightening discussion imo.

[Poopadoop]

I'm currently reading Currency Wars by James Rickards. It goes into currency manipulation by various world governments as a form of gunless, bombless warfare. According to the author we've entered and are currently amidst a new Currency War since around 2010. He goes into how QE was a first strike of sorts because an outright debasement of the US dollar forces China to choose between inflation (the yuan is pegged to the dollar), or appreciation of their currency causing a reduction in exports. Other export nations like Brazil were direct casualties and got their finance minister to outright accuse the Fed of starting a currency war.

The intro to the book is intriguing enough - he was invited a few years ago by the Pentagon to do war game exercises where different teams would represent countries like US, China, and Russia, and they would engage in financial warfare. This was to test and see what kind of tactics governments might use to undermine the US and to gauge any vulnerabilities that might exist.

Sounds interesting. A book that i found had some interesting economic ideas was Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. He was one of the first cognitive scientists to study decision making related to economics in individuals, and has been at it for over 30 years now.

One of the more surprising things he relates in the book is how unpredictable the stock market is. He argues that the distribution of investment success across the total population of stock brokers essentially followed a normal distribution centred on zero - meaning that as a whole, stock brokers were basically operating at chance when they tried to predict the market.

[Jack Sawyer]

Watch Last Man Standing | Voting online | Free | Hulu


Apologies if it's been already posted

[wufwugy]

wufostradamus say

Florida will go for Obama and North Carolina will go for Romney. Every other "swing" state is solidly in Obama's pocket. Final tally: 332 to 206

[kingnat]

I feel very comfortable that Obama will win.

I'm more interested/concerned with a few local elections and the 4 significant measures for equality: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Minnesota. 1 time for teh ghey!!! cmon peoples!

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's US president voting day. So all you members of the electoral college get out there and vote!

The rest of America:
Raise your hand if you think the electoral college is at least outdated if not an affront to American democracy.


OK, now go and vote like a good citizen, because there are plenty of other people and issues on which YOUR vote matters.

Remember, if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the precipitate.

[lolzzz_321]

Yes, yes he did. What a glorious day in politics!

I wonder why my college dorm hall got so quiet when Bush won and why no one cheered when I screamed it down the hall at 1 am.

-'rilla

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...tml#post984645

YOLO

[bigred]

Ermahgerd I verted fer oberma in Terxers. Chernge!

[rong]

So every media outlet says it's super close and could go either way and discussing the outcome of a draw and shit, yet the bookies say Obama is 2/9 and that other fuckwit is 3-1. Odd.

[kiwiMark]

512 Paths to the White House - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com

[Jack Sawyer]

Fucking go vote, mofos. Don't lazy it up and stay home.

[boost]

this sucks... I was sure I would be back in Chicago today, so I didn't request an absentee balot... but I got delayed and now I can't vote. But at least it's in Illinois, where it doesn't really matter all that much.

[a500lbgorilla]

this sucks... I was sure I would be back in Chicago today, so I didn't request an absentee balot... but I got delayed and now I can't vote. But at least it's in Illinois, where it doesn't really matter all that much.

You are terrible.

I got to vote Dsocialist. Feels good.

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...tml#post984645

YOLO

LOL Kerry woulda had us speaking Chinese-Russian by now. Didn't you hear what his Swift Boat buddies had to say about him?

[supa]

I didn't vote. I have never voted. Go.

[wufwugy]

wufostradamus say

Florida will go for Obama and North Carolina will go for Romney. Every other "swing" state is solidly in Obama's pocket. Final tally: 332 to 206

Yep

[surviva316]

Sigh of relief in da house!

[wufwugy]

im just happy that liz warren, the sexiest woman alive, won

[dranger7070]

Sounds like Obama has it in the bag. Guess we'll find out if thats a good thing or not in the next 2-4 years.

[Hawk]

Yay legal pot!

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[wufwugy]

Yay legal pot!

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Pretty sure governor has to sign, but not entirely sure. I think she will, and we won't hear anything from the feds. They haven't actually been cracking down on dispensaries operating legally under state law

[dranger7070]

I've already got my bags packed! (mostly bongs)

[surviva316]

Yep

Rasmussen looks like they're going to finish outside of the margin of error in 7 of the 11 swing states! What are the odds of a 95% certainty not coming to fruition 7/11 times AND all of those margins being broken in the same direction? Those slim odds are the slim chance that Rasmussen is a legitimate polling organization.

[rong]

It's just like x-factor.

[Luco]

wufostradamus say

Florida will go for Obama and North Carolina will go for Romney. Every other "swing" state is solidly in Obama's pocket. Final tally: 332 to 206

Florida counting not quite in yet, but WP sir

[Jack Sawyer]

Mobama!

[Jack Sawyer]

Fun fact i got in todat on the Tweeter:

In Northwestern China, archaeologists found a 2700 year old body of blue-eyed Caucasian buried along with 789 grams of marijuana.

Some behind the scenes:
Obama Wins: How Chicago's Data-Driven Campaign Triumphed | TIME.com

[kingnat]

Same-sex marriage won four times? That's so gay.

[boost]

Obv Obama winning is huge, but legal marijuana, more states with medical, and marriage equality make up the best icing on the cake ever. If Obama wins, but these ballot iniatives lose, the future isn't nearly as bright.

And now that Obama is going to get to see healthcare through, and people will get to reap the rewards of this and the recovered (hopefully) economy, we could be getting a potential four term democratic run.

[surviva316]

Obv Obama winning is huge, but legal marijuana, more states with medical, and marriage equality make up the best icing on the cake ever. If Obama wins, but these ballot iniatives lose, the future isn't nearly as bright.

My thoughts exactly. My sister lives in San Francisco, and she said '08 was much more ambivolent in the city when Obama was giving his victory speech at the same time that the polls were showing that much of the city's population were going to have their right of marriage revoked.

[surviva316]

Speaking of society progressing in the right direction:

Nate Silver's Election Predictions a Win for Big Data, The New York Times | Campaign Trail - Advertising Age

It's not just about Nate Silver, but the use of statistics in general and to express prediction in terms of probabilities.

First baseball, then poker, now punditry! People are slooooooooowly starting to come around to the fact that math works.

[wufwugy]

Yeah this election is showing a non-insignificant shift towards the "um, government isn't the devil" stances, but a very remarkable shift towards social liberalism. The GOP is a mess and they won't be able to win again until they can move dramatically to the left on social issues. The new swath of voters now is definitely persuadable to bad economic policy, but not bad social policy. This is a paradigm shift. The old moral majority was conservative but the new moral majority is liberal

I'm guessing Clinton/Cuomo 2016, but hoping Cuomo/Hickenlooper. I'm not sure if what is still an overly misogynistic country is ready to put a woman in charge, so I don't want Clinton to run. But Cuomo will run, then if Hickenlooper can be added we have an all white male ticket that will pretty much have locked in 272 EVs due to regional popularity in el Norte and Yankeedom. I don't know much about Hickenlooper, but I would very much enjoy a Cuomo presidency as he's good on policy and is the last person who could be talked down to.

The all white male ticket is important because the estimates are that if Obama was white he would have done about 2% better in 08. And after eight years of a black guy presidency, a white guy lead will go a long way in soothing the inadvertent racism of some voters. I would like Julian Castro to run because he would never, ever lose because there would be a pouring forth of Hispanics in Arizona and Texas, but he won't run this cycle. For the party, it is better that he doesn't run yet too, as he will be able to spend time aging and growing the half-dead Democratic Party in TX as he runs for governor.


The GOP is probably looking at Santorum or Rubio or Jeb Bush for 2016. I know people say Christie, but that's kinda not happening. The party is too socially conservative and he's too short and fat, and he would get his ass handed to him by a "real" yankee like Cuomo anyways. The GOP likes electing the runner up from the previous cycle because they're most comfortable with that person, so this means that Santorum will come in as a favorite. The base does actually like him, and the only reason he lost to Romney was the gajillions put against him by the richies. But that probably won't happen in 2016 because the base will be more adamant about the need for the real conservative and the richies got burned hard by Karl Rove and SuperPACs promising the world by propping up a "moderate" but just taking the money and running

My guess is Jeb Bush will put his hat in because that party is incorrigible, and if he does he will probably win the primary and will carry FL in the general. But I don't think the country will reelected a Bush. The GOP doesn't necessarily know that though.

Rubio is somewhat of a wildcard because he's not white, and it would be a small miracle for the GOP to nominate a non-white. He could be a powerful candidate due to pulling away some color from the Dems (wouldn't be a lot though) and carrying Florida for sure. I have a hunch he may not get deep in the primary though because he probably doesn't wanna swing hard right with the crazies. He's got a good Senate gig and can bide his time till the GOP doesn't crave social conservatism for him to be the first person of color at the top of their ticket.


I have a fantasy of 8 years of Cuomo then 8 years of Castro. The country always does so well under Democrats, and we need that now.

[Hawk]

Interesting fact I saw last night.

The last time the US voted for a republican ticket that didn't have the names Nixon or Bush on it was 1929, Hoover.

[boost]

Looks like Liza was rooting for the other guy, Paul. How's that make you feel?

[Renton]

Interesting fact I saw last night.

The last time the US voted for a republican ticket that didn't have the names Nixon or Bush on it was 1929, Hoover.

The way the republican party picks it's leaders is fucking creepy and makes them seem like they want to return to feudal times. They just run the same candidate over and over because its his "turn" to rule.

[Weissr]

The Canadian perspective: "Thank god Obama won (ie. not Romney)"

[wufwugy]

The way the republican party picks it's leaders is fucking creepy and makes them seem like they want to return to feudal times. They just run the same candidate over and over because its his "turn" to rule.

I'm not sure if I mentioned it here, but my theory on why this is is that conservatives have a more paranoid outlook about life, and so they end up "vetting" their candidates in this strange way that just makes them more comfortable around the runner ups.

The hardline conservative mindset is weird. I grew up in it and my sister still exemplifies it. Even in one of the safest counties in the entire country, she's afraid of getting out of her car without a loaded gun and she once delayed buying her daughter a bike so she and her husband could buy two more guns; they own over twenty as is.

[a500lbgorilla]

Looks like Liza was rooting for the other guy, Paul. How's that make you feel?

It's good to see politics has not so effectively dehumanized the opposition that you enjoy seeing them tearful and beaten.

[bigred]

I'm not sure if I mentioned it here, but my theory on why this is is that conservatives have a more paranoid outlook about life, and so they end up "vetting" their candidates in this strange way that just makes them more comfortable around the runner ups.

The hardline conservative mindset is weird. I grew up in it and my sister still exemplifies it. Even in one of the safest counties in the entire country, she's afraid of getting out of her car without a loaded gun and she once delayed buying her daughter a bike so she and her husband could buy two more guns; they own over twenty as is.

Your theory seems pretty reasonable to me.

[bigred]

I need to get this off my chest as I've monitored facebook, as we all have, the past few days and had to read some of the stupidest bullshit in the world.

Let me preface this with I'm an independent who would be defined as socially liberal, whatever that means. To me, socially liberal equates to person who respects other humans and realizes not everyone is the same as me but as long as they don't negatively impact others, go for it. Socially conservative equates to self focused dickhead who fears anything different. I realize that's a slight stretch but it's how I feel.

With that said, I have two things to vent about.

Republicans don't fucking get it. They just fucking don't. Every post election whine I've seen on facebook is about the economy. "Good luck when we fall off the financial cliff", "Good luck when all those socialist taxes take money out of your pockets", or "Can't wait to see the economy utterly destroyed." THEY DON'T FUCKING GET IT and this is why you have lost the last two elections. There are things bigger than my wallet or this country's wallet. There's this document called the constitution that specifically states the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. How the FUCK can you even talk about taxes and wallets and money when this country systematically undermines anyone who is not white, male, and straight (a category I belong to, btw). That is a disgrace to the constitution and a disgrace to America. The constitution cares so deeply about your right to your own beliefs, but it does not give a fuck what they are. The second your beliefs negatively impact any other us citizen protected by the constitution, you are a god damn traitor. The people who voted against gay marriage, a pursuit of happiness for U.S. citizens who happen to be gay, should be labeled for the unpatriotic shitheads that they are. That is clearly disrespecting the constitution. It's embarrassing.

Two. Do people actually understand the word economy and the complex system that it is? One man, even the president of the US, cannot destroy such a complex system. There are so many variables to the equation that even the leading economists cannot even begin to fathom or explain. To suggest that either candidate is the death of the economy is such hyperbole and suggests an extreme naivety and blatant lack of understanding.

[bigred]

And now for levity

[boost]

It's good to see politics has not so effectively dehumanized the opposition that you enjoy seeing them tearful and beaten.

What?

Ryan and wife are all sad and thier daughter has this wicked grin on her face reminiscent of pyrogirl.jpg. it looks as if she is taking some sort of sick pleasure in Obama's win, or in her own father's defeat.

That being said, I do enjoy seeing the hopes and dreams of the right shattered. I disagree strongly with their position on pretty much everything. So why wouldn't I?

[wufwugy]

I need to get this off my chest as I've monitored facebook, as we all have, the past few days and had to read some of the stupidest bullshit in the world.

Let me preface this with I'm an independent who would be defined as socially liberal, whatever that means. To me, socially liberal equates to person who respects other humans and realizes not everyone is the same as me but as long as they don't negatively impact others, go for it. Socially conservative equates to self focused dickhead who fears anything different. I realize that's a slight stretch but it's how I feel.

With that said, I have two things to vent about.

Republicans don't fucking get it. They just fucking don't. Every post election whine I've seen on facebook is about the economy. "Good luck when we fall off the financial cliff", "Good luck when all those socialist taxes take money out of your pockets", or "Can't wait to see the economy utterly destroyed." THEY DON'T FUCKING GET IT and this is why you have lost the last two elections. There are things bigger than my wallet or this country's wallet. There's this document called the constitution that specifically states the right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. How the FUCK can you even talk about taxes and wallets and money when this country systematically undermines anyone who is not white, male, and straight (a category I belong to, btw). That is a disgrace to the constitution and a disgrace to America. The constitution cares so deeply about your right to your own beliefs, but it does not give a fuck what they are. The second your beliefs negatively impact any other us citizen protected by the constitution, you are a god damn traitor. The people who voted against gay marriage, a pursuit of happiness for U.S. citizens who happen to be gay, should be labeled for the unpatriotic shitheads that they are. That is clearly disrespecting the constitution. It's embarrassing.

Two. Do people actually understand the word economy and the complex system that it is? One man, even the president of the US, cannot destroy such a complex system. There are so many variables to the equation that even the leading economists cannot even begin to fathom or explain. To suggest that either candidate is the death of the economy is such hyperbole and suggests an extreme naivety and blatant lack of understanding.

Good post. I would add that the reasons Republicans don't get it is because they don't care about facts. It sounds harsh and a little broad, but it's true and the reason it's relevant here is because their lack of care for facts informs every other political opinion they have, thus they say and believe utterly asinine things.

The facts on the economy are that after economic Armageddon, when we didn't even know if there was a bottom in sight, the economy has 500k more jobs than four years ago when the so-called commie Kenyan Obama took office. This is some of the best economic turnaround in sheer proportions in world history, and if it was during a GOP presidency, every single Republican voter would be calling their guy the greatest leader Civilization has ever known. GOP voters play on Team Republican, and that's that. My entire family is like this, and they treat their Republicanism exactly how they treat their religion