This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Deep Thoughts From Howard Marks - I'd Rather Be Wrong
The latest missive from Howard Marks.
- 10081 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The latest missive from Howard Marks.
- advertisements -
There is no way for the your elected stooges to tackle, solve or even address the financial problem. The problem is you all are using an equation that is unsustainable for more then about 60-80 years.
- System starts to expand
- System continues to expand at an exponential rate
- System unable to expand at an exponential rate
- System starts to go into a death spiral
- System liquidates the unfunded liabilities (guess what is liquidated)
- Rinse and repeat
And they are guiding us toward that cliff at a thousand miles and hour.
Nice. Real Nice.
That has been the plan all along. You push the equation as far as you can, then that's it pack it up.
There is absolutely no way any of those so called elected leaders can tackle THE PROBLEM. The only way they could do that is if they ask all the unfunded liabilities to jump into the pit voluntarily. I seriously doubt they will get any volunteers.
It's a drag race. Run what ya brung. While your running the fraud hope you can come up with a more complicated fraud to replace it when the original fraud has been reverse engineered.
Problem is the getting caught. They got caught on the engineered swine flu. They got caught on so many things in so many ways. They don't have a really good new fraud transition plan.
If they changed the nobel prize to a ton of C4 people might start working for it again. As it is citizenship awards are not working to create leadership. They are cut off from their transition to SDR's and carbon credits for all the crap the IMF and CIA have pulled over the last 30 years.
The death spiral has begun . . .
http://tinyurl.com/ykwrm32
I often don't understand American optimism, and I'm an American. Who in their right mind sees a "solution" to the financial hole the US has dug itself into? Politicians understandably see their only option to staying in power (and that is THE goal of any politican) is increasing entitlements and/or lowering taxes, i.e., appeasing the mob. Can anyone imagine seeing a politician elected on a higher taxes, lower services, smaller govt platform? Absolutely not. The entitlement-receiving majority would see to that. It is a given that the debt will not be repaid, and its a given that SS and Medicare entitlements will not be curtailed. DC has only one option and that is to keep both feet on the gas pedal for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. The only thing that will change this status quo is an apocalyptic event. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the planet is hit by a global epidemic that inexplicably wipes out everyone over the age of 60 (except for DC's finest, of course). That would solve the SS problem, at least.
As more and more people (besides politicians) realize that they also do not believe in the future security of our democatic/capitalist system, they will all put their foot on the gas to make as much money and grab as much power as fast as possible. As faith in the system declines, the more the citizenry will think short-term...and the more short-term the more 'gaming' of the business systems will occur.
Throughout human history is has been the norm to live under tyranny and despotism but with a few brief moments of liberty and prosperity. Consider the run of the USA as one of the latter with the former to return to being the norm for most of humanity. Individual humans work hard to achieve but once the collective has reached a higher level of prosperity, the collective nature is to sit back and soak up the rewards. This phase can only last so long before the foundations of the collective are corrupted and bankrupt both morally and economically.
Well put. To offer my humble assessment: The fact that the function is exponential is the key point here. The reason it has to be this way is that money, well, all goods, are valued as ratios against one another. If you increase the total amount of dollars the law of supply and demand dictates that their worth will drop as the become more abundant, it's quite simple. This is the reason the marginal productivity of debt has been dropping steadily for several decades and why it has suddenly dropped off a cliff. You have to inject more and more liquidity on a nominal basis for each consecutive GDP basis point.
The bitch with this whole arrangement is the fact that debt is real. Only in the most extreme circumstances can bodies like governments flip the rest of the planet the bird and renege on their IOU's, quasi-government bodies are no exception (ie: the Fed). What's important here is that debt repayments not exceed a height that is serviceable by the growth generated by the creation of credit. We've simply reached the point where it no longer works to boost the economy and enough wealth isn't created for servicing the debt. It's the Keynesian Endgame.
yeah let's sing kumbaya. Thw entire premise of the piece is flawed. There is an implicit assumption that the bipartisonship/divided gov't meme worked. evidence? People who understand the problems know the best soltuion is "not on my watch" while people like Maxy Waters/Hastert/Pelosi are to stupid to realize there is a problem
I refuse to read anything that starts with bashing social security. Go after the maggot bankster bailouts or the mic or interest on the bogus debt or the fedres or something. Otherwise -> zero credibility.
SS and Medicare work until the larger scheme fails. The financial system is based on the flawed assumption that exponential growth is possible for long period time, well if long is 60-80 years then it can, but that is about it.
Getting all the bankers is not going to solve THE PROBLEM, matter of fact they are just the result of THE PROBLEM.
The piece is severly flawed because the author has yet to identify THE PROBLEM so how can write about leaders unable to identify THE PROBLEM he doesn't even know about.
If someone thinks by locking up millions of people THE PROBLEM is going to be solved they are in for a rude awakening. THE PROBLEM will exist no matter how many people you put in the slammer. However, THE PROBLEM always get resolved by balancing the equation by liquidation of the non-performing assets.
The only way you can solve this PROBLEM is if you have unlimited power that would need to keep supplying the needed EXPONENTIAL supply and demand. Without unlimited power to keep the game going, the PROBLEM will solve itself by liquidation of the non-performing assets.
"the PROBLEM will solve itself by liquidation of the non-performing assets."
Yes it will resolve itself. The problem is the pain that the masses will have to endure while the banksters are having cocktails on their yachts in St. Barth's.
Social security and other govn sponsored "handouts" are the ROOT CAUSE of this credit crisis. Bankers are just the parasites that feed off the FLAWED SYSTEM.
The political system is what needs fixing first and foremost. The rest falls into place after that.
No that is not the root cause, never was the root cause.
The equation the system and all you guys use as the basis for your system is unsustainable. Unless you have unlimited power or you magically can change Math the system will eventually collapse.... 60-80 years.
The system you are using DEMANDS exponential growth, the only way you can do that is if you have unlimited power to supply and demand the growth... good luck with all that.
Look, I've been paying into Social Security for 32 fucking years now. Just give me back what I put into it, and I'll be happy.
There is nothing to give back. You invested in a pyramid scheme. The whole system is a pyramid scheme, you invested in a pyramid scheme that has another pyramid scheme as it's backbone.
I did not invest in a pyramid scheme. The government garnished my wages and spent it, rather than invest it. Bush tried that in 2005 (investing SS funds) and got laughed off the stage.
Ahhh, WE are all responsible for this. Some of us are responsible for doing this directly while others are responsible for not stopping it.
Actually, the agreements that your State has in regards to the wage tax are not what you think they are, most probably you were never subject to them.
"investment" all those "investment" are based on a fiction, that is Man can produce and supply exponential growth.
Not only were you investing in a pyramid scheme, that pyramid scheme ran on top of the bigger pyramid scheme. Now you are seeing the end result of using the equation, well not yet but you will.
That's what you think, chief. Over twenty years ago I knew I'd never see a dime back from the thousands I've poured into SS. So I did take matters into my own hands.
WE ALL are responsible for this whether WE want to admit it or not.
Sorry to burst your bubble Perch, but you invested in a Ponzi scheme. I love you 'Boomers. But, I'm not going to pay for your retirement.
What I love most is all the 'intergovernmental debt' in the SSTF. I equate it to the last scene in Dumb and Dumber, where the suitcase flys open and everyone sees there are only IOUs inside. As Lloyd Christmas says, "That's as good as money, sir. Those are I.O.U.'s. Go ahead and add it up, every cent's accounted for. Look, see this? That's an aircraft carrier. $100 mil. Might wanna hang onto that one."
I am actively trying to destroy the system. Decreasing my withholding to $0. Cutting corners on taxes. Maxing out pre-tax retirement accounts (ie 401k). (I know... I hate the 401K. I plan to 'loan' myself the funds on an annual basis until I quit my job and open a self-directed IRA for PMs.)
I attended the Tea Party's Healthcare rally last Saturday. It was a waste of time. Everyone kept talking about "taking back Congress in November". Fuck that! Don't pay your taxes on April 15th. Go to the bank and withdraw all your money. If either action was coordinated it could possibly bring the system down. It's all about confidence. What would you do if you saw a line outside of 1 or 2 banks tomorrow?
Just my 2 cents.
sadly if it was coordinated, you would just get a coordinated military response.. the only way is for a military coup.. but what faith do we have in them??
whoever is in power here, what do you think they will do??? we have only pyschopaths that make the major decisions in this country.. all the caring folks get pushed out of the way
Sorry but that isn't how it works,the Government isn't even required to pay SS. Once you pay in that money,it is not yours anymore and you have no legal guarantee to the system's benefits. It is just goodwill money sort of speak.
Perhaps you could present some thoughts on the what you see as the future of Social Security.
Here is a quick summary of what my research shows:
1) The pay as you go system will be in the RED in FY2010, much earlier than the CBOs creative arithmetic.
2) The SS trust fund was predicated on the idea that government debt would be a store of real wealth. However, the conversion into debt with the expectation of maintaining real worth involves risks.
The SS surpluses, which represented real worth when withheld (labor), where exchanged for special Government SS bonds (debt), and then the surplus was spent. Fundementally, you cannot swap labor for debt and maintain real worth without risks. To make sense this type of arrangement would have to be made in something outside of Government debt (diversification), that would be a store of wealth (very low risk), an extreme example would be Gold or some other asset. I would like to add, that the idea of adjusting for inflation only applies if the nation has a sound money policy, and does not continually debase the currency through monetary inflation (essentually a hidden cost).
This leads to a very important mantra about government finance:
The U.S. Government can transfer financial risks to taxpayers and program (SS) beneficiaries.
Well what does this really mean? This means that the government does not take risks, in terms of lost investment. All the risks are born by the people (taxpayers).
One example of risk, in this context, that did not pan out, is the SS trust fund. In fact, from a Governmemt standpoint we could default on all of the bonds and not even produce one dollar of real income. This is because the U.S. government today (Obama's budget going forward 10 Y) can only pay its bills by issuing more (and I think unsustainable) debt. To pay for a SS bond you would just have to replace it with the sale of a T bond of equal value. You would just be replacing debt with debt. The only difference may be one of interest.
The strategy to maintain real worth, or store wealth, through the purchase of Government debt is so flawed that the risk of loss is 100%. This is the legacy of our politicians and the inability of our central government to work towards the benefit of the people.
The interesting thing is that the only real gaurantee for the SS bonds from a investment standpoint is that they are backed by the full faith and credit of the US. However, this gaurantee is one made by our Central Government, which has no direct access to assets (property held by the states), and hence is only a promise due to its power to tax. So in the absence of fiscal and monetary responsibility, the ability to tax does not protect investors.
3) Social Security is an easy target for reducing benefits. When a government financial crisis comes to a head SS benefits will be cut.
Also I would like to say that it is not a matter if you like or dislike SS, the debt being incurred by our central government is so extreme (relative to revenue and real growth) that in 2011 we could reach a point where the Treasury will have to request that the FED buy US debt on a continual basis (out in the open).
-----------
Another area of interest when it comes to Central Government entitlement programs, is what can be construed as an inversion of revenue. That is, the taxpayers (residents or the states), provide revenue to the central government that is a call on labor of which the states potentially do not benefit. The question is one of effective investment that ecourages growth. In looking at the inefficiencies of the central government in terms of waste and devaluation of the currency, what is being produced is becomming a net loss for the states.
The states would be better served (conceptually), in using the finite revenue of its citizens if many of the burdens of the central government where removed. At some point the amount of available revenue will limit funding of government, both central and at the state level. The states will have to decide, slowly at first, that there is a limit on taxation, and revenue should be reserved for the people before the central government. The states will have to act.
I see this coming to a head, when a state like California, for example cannot match medicaid, or has a problem funding medicare. California will have to come to the central government and ask for relief. Essentially, using the central governments power to create money. But, this is very dangerous for the Obama administration, because all the state would then expect similar help. What happens if California is refused? The state will have to take action.
So on the horizon I see constitutional battles over the fight for limited resources. Perhaps we are reaching a point where the states can no longer afford the waste of the central government. At some point the states will balance their budgets, and realize that there is a finite amount of taxation, and they can no longer participate in inefficient federal programs.
Eventually, the states will act.
Mark Beck
Progress is not possible because no one really wants to be in the party of "NO". Both political parties talk about "fixes" and give lip service to responsible government, then they trip over themselves to buy votes in the next election. Creeping democracy has finally loaded the American wheelbarrow to the point that it can't be moved anymore. Any fool can see it's going to tip over and spill its load, but when that happens is anybody's guess.
I will run for the party of no, zero, nadda.
My platform is simply no new legislation for my entire term.
All the planks consist of the removal of laws off the books, starting with the tax code, and quickly followed by the removal of all foreign aid.
Work for the Gov't in something other than defense? Better warm up the resume.
Not law-makers, but law-strikers.
Vote Hedgeless in '12.
Marla for VP? Read that lipstick.
TD for Sec Tres? There will be no currency to sign, however, because all such funding bills will be vetoed.
JUST SAY NO, Bitches!
You have my vote.
Much simplier then that.
- Run for office at the State level.
- State removes agreements with the Federal Government... see your State Acts for details.
- Tell the people that want to file a claim to do it in a neighboring State because your State won't be a part of their ponzi scheme.
The alternative is your State will keep on dishing out money until it's bankrupt, the courts will start ordering sales of State property and/or the Feds will move in to take over the State.
I am a 41 year old, 6-3, 200# white male.
I am married with 3 children and we attend an Episcopal church.
My parents have been married for 50+ years, and still both work.
I have a valid U.S. birth certificate.
I don't do drugs, but have a university degree from a Big 12 school.
My name does not rhyme with a famous terrorist.
I do not have a law degree.
In short, I am unelectable.
All it will take is one State. The choice is yours.
Without (your State here) repealing all the agreements with the Federal government, eventually (your State here) will face bankruptcy. One problem with that, (your State here) can't file bankruptcy. So either liquidation of (your State here) or a takeover/bailout of (your State here) by the Federal government.
I would say California is now #1 on this list.
This gets the Federal government out of (your State here), but the world wide global credit system is going to collapse either way. There is nothing that can be done about that.
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12185184
http://worlddarkestdays.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare-bill-is-intended...
(your State here)'s problems are not going to be solve by either a Republician or Democrate in DC, how could it? They do not have unlimited power which is what it would take to solve the problem.
Texas. We are doing better than Cali.
Secession (or excision) often causes more problems than it solves. Mostly, because once it is seen as a viable solution, it quickly becomes the favored solution, and we end up in small tribes getting our butts kicked by other less enlightened folks.
However, you should still vote for me, don't you think?
You don't have to leave the Union. It doesn't matter what State you are in, the entitlement expenses are coming your way. "Nobody rides for free". Last State to cancel the agreements will be the biggest loser.
The Federal government works within (insert your State here) at the permission of the State. Go look at your State Code if you don't believe me.
http://worlddarkestdays.blogspot.com/2010/03/why.html
You are giving them permission to work in (insert your State here).
I have learned that you can be right as rain, and still lose. Ask anyone short the last 12 months.
Just say no to lawmaking in 2012!
Vote Hedgeless.
You can say "no" at the State level, and your State will be in bankruptcy with no court to file bankruptcy in. Federal courts will order liquidation of State assets and a take over of the State to fund the debt incurred and/or a complete take over of the Federal government upon receiving a bailout agreement.
You guys better start waking up your States real fast. California will be first.
Unfortunately, for your plan to succeed, you would need to find a state with a majority of voters (or Diebold machines) that want their state to be bankrupt. I can't imagine one, can you?
No state will want to be first, but you are right in that many would want to be second.
Did I mention I love babies almost as much as I hate plaintiff's attorneys?
A vote for Hedgeless is a vote against The Beard, TurboTax Timmy, and Barry O'Potus!
The States are finding it out, but at a slow pace. Arizona kills a smaller program. The States must end all agreements or they will not survive.
http://worlddarkestdays.blogspot.com/2010/03/arizona-kills-schip-program...
There is no plan, you either do or that will be the result.
Nothing can save the system, that is built on a fiction.
Ok, Mako. What law do I have to remove from the books to get you to vote for me?
http://worlddarkestdays.blogspot.com/2010/03/why.html
Here are the Michigan public acts enacted on Social programs, these are the ones from the 30s, other programs and agreements exist between your State and the Federal government. You will have to go through your Public Acts in Texas, all States have agreements with the Federal government.
The federal government is in your State by agreement.
You have my support.
Let's hope we are successful and cause the Federal Government to force a re-ratification by the individual states of all these types of laws.
Tyler, this makes two. Can I have a counter please?
Imagine a repeal of all those draconian copyright laws! Vote Hedgeless!
You don't have to force the Federal Government to do anything. States have every Right to repeal their public acts.
No need to be removed from the Union, just remove your State from the federal programs which is done by your legislative branch.
Last State out of the programs will be the biggest loser.
Maybe that is true. But from a practical sense, one POTUS could cause all 50 states to realize this right by forcing the issue. Correct? And would not that be better? You don't really want any of the United States to be a loser, do you? This is rhetorical.
There is no force. The States are allowing the Federal government by invitation.
they are all on the dime... they bend all their laws for fed money but with the fed going broke maybe they will all get their spine back
would be nice to have the states make their own decisions again. Then everyone can get along like a dorm house where you just go to your side and hang out with your friends but you still stick together when the shit hits the fan vs the other dorm houses..
we still have nukes - so who cares about a fed army? and no one fights wars like the old days anymore anyway
The problem is that both parties are sock puppets to the oligarchy that really controls this country. Neither one wants to wade out into unkown waters and actually make the RICH MOTHER FUCKERS PAY. Nobody should be worth a billion dollars or even a 100 million. Nobody. If this shit continues we'll become Mexico...one rich guy and his pals, a bunch of brutal gangsters and everyone else poor as fuck trying to imigrate to Canada.
Graduated income tax brackets work. Restore ours! For starters, remove the income cap on social security tax..problem solved. Make a graduated tax on capital gains too. Why is it that income earned from real work is taxed more then income earned from doing nothing??
It's really quite simple. Just follow the money. Where is it all at? How'd they get it?
It is really quite simple. There's even a pretty name for it: Venezuela.
+1.
+1,100,000,000
When 20% of the population controls 85%+ of the wealth in the country, there's something seriously fucked up with that system. I highly doubt that anything approaching a true free market economy would ever generate such a gross imbalance. I've been unfortunate enough to see some bits of that new show "Undercover Boss" on T.V. These CEO jerks appear barely competent to tie their shoes, let alone fill an entry level position. But hey, he's the CEO so we've got to pay him 8,000x's your salary or we'll lose all that talent to the competitor. What a fucking joke.
Just read up on Kondratieff Cycles and you'll understand.
We're in the first quarter of the Winter season.....
http://northcoastinvestmentresearch.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/kondratieff-cycle.jpg
http://www.kondratieffwinter.com/kw_wave.html
Life is nothing but a series of cycles. The only way to eliminate this type of cycle which I would suspect will cost billions instead of 100+ million like last time ie see liquidation from 1923-1945 is to stop using the equation.
What the cycle looks like after that will be different, but cycles always exists.
Mr. Marks it's of government employees for government employees by government employees. Until the tipping point and on toward the end game. One by one the countries of Europe are getting there already. We've just crossed over from 'if' to 'when.'
Become one of the richest 1%, get a government job or die by 1000 cuts like everyone else.
The Beast always gets fed - and more every year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_federal_spending(4).png
Republican? Democrat? President? Senate? Don't matter.
Not one bit.
And that graph is only through 2006, folks! How's it been going since then?
This guy assumes politicians are able or even interested in solving problems. Markets solve problems. Politicians creat them.
how does the market provide education and health care to poor people?
It provides them at up to the level that they can afford. Otherwise they have to throw themselves at the mercy of others' charity. that's the way it worked very well for thousands of years.
Kalki
where i am from school is free and health care only cost a nominal amout (to keep the crazies from showing up at the doctors every day).
cost of medicine is capped also, the state pays if you go over like $1500 a year. off course by law doctors have to prescribe generics where available.
this is paid for by very high income tax, rich people might think that sucks but living in a "relatively equal" society is pretty cool.
it´s a nannystate to be sure, but it nice when people who lose their jobs are just sad, not desperate.
Odds are your nation is in debt too. That means it part of the unsustainable system, it just joined it a little later, or took a little slower path.
There isn't a single sitting member of Congress - not one - that doesn't know exactly where we are headed.
I'd be surprised if there's even a majority who can even balance their own checkbook or fill out their own taxes (with or without turbotax), so expecting them to comprehend how f--ked our financial house has become is a stretch at best.
The passage of the health insurance bill is proof of that.
Congress doesn't care what happens in the future. They will retire with monstrous pensions when things start to look unfixable. I don't think anything good can ever happen until/unless we have public funding of elections. They just vote for goodies for whomever pays them.
This guy is thinking way inside the box, and in a very mediocre way.
End the Fed, end fiat money, allow a real currency to develop. That by itself will cease the parabolic expansion of debt and government power, by cutting off the infinite supply of fictional paper money.
We have 50 million Americans dependent on welfare who must be supported and who, because of low IQ, will never be able to generate enough income from their labor to pay for the education of their (mostly illegitimate) children, their medical costs, and their retirement costs. And it doesn't help that we allow Mexico to push their low IQ welfare cases north of the border, at the behest of delusional real estate developers, restaurant owners and other local chamber of commerce types yearning for cheap labor.
In addition, 50% of the baby boom is entirely dependent on Social Security and Medicare and have no other resources to apply to their old age.
Finally, we spend trillions of dollars trying to reeducate the Moslem world at the point of a gun, at the behest of a small but very powerful AIPAC, which will never compromise on its vision for a violent U.S. led Tikkun Olam.
All of which, in our complex society of 300 millions which has exported its manufacturing jobs oversees, must be paid for by a shrinking pool of perhaps 50 million younger workers in that half of the population with IQ's above 100.
In short, we are facing a demographic disaster.
Elect moderates, my foot! The conflicting interests at stake are matters of life and death, and the fuel of revolution and civil war, not 1950s style compromise and bi-partisanship. Ultimately, the trickle of young workers at the top half of the IQ spectrum emigrating to low tax countries such as Australia or (if they can stomach the Cyrillic alphabet) Russia, will turn to a flood unless the U.S. closes its border to outward flight.
And we are left with the 12 million or so Vietnam era veterans who, at the end of their lives, must choose whether to march into the wilderness of senility and decrepitude with much reduced Social Securitiy, Medicare and third world levels of medicine, or re-form their old companies for one final battle long after the evolutionary purposes of their lives have been fulfilled.
The scope of our problems cannot be solved by our present government. Expect unpleasant outcomes.
I expect a mass exodus. Nations of the world, prepare. In the not so distant future, millions of Americans will be seeking asylum from the oppressive taxes and living conditions. I'm keeping my eyes open for opportunities in Australia and NZ.
Yep! You just said what I was thinking.
I found the original article to be trite. He's engaged in wishful thinking for the halcyon days of his youth -- his so-called "answers" need a time machine to find their relevance.
Slight adjustments will fix nothing. Compromise will not help -- that only works if each party has half the answer -- and these guys not only have no answers at all, they are taking the wrong test, in the wrong building, on the wrong campus!
Nice article for newcomers to frustration. It's failings, however are best exhibited in this quote:
"Many of today’s problems are
government-created, so government will have to solve them."
"The financial problems we face..." Hey! Those are our financial problems!
Those are not financial problems to the makers of these crazy games...who themselves may be simultaneously crazy and brilliant.
We call them "insiders"...the true insiders.
Howard Marks sort of gets it, but his prescription is wrong. Electing moderates is not the answer. Moderates can be controlled, simply by moving the extremes.
They tend to say, well if both sides are angry, then the answer must be about right. All one side or the other has to do is to demand a more extreme position (typically a ploy of the left, but the theory works either way).
If I am selling a car and want $10,000, I don't ask for $10,000. If I did, and the offer came in at $9,000, I will never meet my goal.
I ask for $12,000. Then if the first offer comes in at $9,000, I counter at $11,500 in the hopes of getting more than my $10,000 goal.
That's why the party loons are there (ignore for a moment that they are in leadership roles). By having a Henry Waxman or a Maxine Waters make some crazy demand, the rest of the party can take a leftist (but not crazy) stance and look moderate in comparison.
Electing moderates is a fools game.
Electing moderates is a fools game.
Marks message was term limits
p5: "And let's elect moderates from both parties, not extremists."
To the extent he is for term limits, I am all over that. Term limits would fix much of what is wrong with our career politician system. But he is also pushing moderates.
So we must give up everything for the light at the end of the tunnel?
These cuts will only make things worse. See arnie's proclamations after EACH budget cut the last 2-3 years, that he was done. That california had solved it's fiscal problems and were on a path for greatness. Except they didn't. Then he only needed a bigger budget cut 6 months later. Rinse and repeat.
This guy might actually believe if you get rid of the social safety net, there will be anything left in America? That's funny.
So this guy doesn't want to solve the problem. He wants to take the easy way out, that he tries to point is the 'hard way' out? More like it's NO WAY OUT.
His answer is to forget the public, and to do the 'tough choices' that's needed to right the system?
What an idiot. What he proposes won't right the system. If anything, it'll help destroy it. Meanwhile he's an a**hole for wanting to throw everyone in the safety net over the cliff....for nothing mind you other than the crazy belief that by doing so, we all can be saved....somehow.
Nope. You won't save anybody. You'll just be creating misery for no reason at all.
He's not talking about solving big problems. He's talking about radical actions, in an attempt to ease the symptoms.
The deficits are there because the system demands them. The system can't function (at this late stage) without deficits. It's that simple.
So blame the deficits....and not what CAUSED THEM???? Again symptom meet problem.
The deficit, is merely a SYMPTOM of what's wrong.
Yes social spending cuts are idiotic, when it's done to pay the bankers.
Yes tax increases are idiotic, when the debt cannot be paid....also when you consider you aren't uttering credit to finance many aspects of gov't, you are borrowing from banks and putting it on the federal deficit.
So this guy is acting idiotic. Why? Because the system demands higher taxes or higher deficits. The SYSTEM is broken. Which IN TURN breaks everything running IN the system.
This guy forgets that, or is oblivious to it.
That's why he can come on here and say the reason for our problems is that the things that have nothing to do with the problem are being made as the problem.
If I borrow 1 million dollars for crap
Then go broke because I spent my last five dollars on social spending for my stomach
It wasn't the social spending that pushed me over the edge, even if, its actions did.
Because it was in totality that caused the situation
Which means it was the 1 million dollars for crap, that put me under.
So when I say higher taxes are neccessary for this system, they are. But when I say higher taxes are bs, they are.
Because a lot of what you pay taxes for, should be credit uttered by the gov't. Then, you have more spending, less taxes, and can have little or no deficit.
But people don't realize that gov't can provide loans outside of the banking circle, and would then not be a part of our 'national deficit' driving the debate.
The whole defiict, is only because we structured things wrong. We said, everything must be borrowed from a bank, and paid for by income or business taxes.
When clearly, there was a better way. You don't need higher taxes, and you don't need lower spending. But we do need higher taxes on certain risky things. But those risky things aren't be used by 99 percent of the public.
You need to put things in their proper place.
I guarantee you 1.4 quadrillion in derivatives is far more a disruption (whether inflation or deflation via their growth or destruction) than the gov't printing money for loans that will be paid back by the business, and the money taken out of the circulation. Plus if you have capital, you can still lend it. So, you aren't getting rid of banks. You are just ending their MONOPOLY. For that, you'll have more social spending, and lower taxes. It's not utopia. It'll still be the real world with lots of faults. But it would be a much better world than where we are and where we're trending.
Would social security be insolovent if the surpluses for the past 20+ years weren't raided? I mean there's 10-20 trillion lost right there. Probaboly 100 trillion in a few decades. Why? Because you don't just lose what was taken out. You lost the amount would have gained if in the pool the last 0-20 years. (each time period a longer period to benefit from).
Then when you couple that with the infaltion via debt, and realize how debt destruction would lower prices.
Couple those two things together, and you know WHY social security is becoming insolvent. Because social security is set up in a system that is now hell bent on destroying it.
So I read that 5 page article, and the guy is an idiot. Completely oblivous to what America can do, and instead, trying to figure out a way to pay off these fraudulent debts. Then having us blame our correct positions as the problem. Thus we must give up what's right to perpetuate what's wrong.
Unfunded liabilities in pensions...well wall street has been holding their hand down this route for decades. Gee I wonder why they are unfunded. Maybe because they were told you could float tons of stuff unfunded and it didn't really matter. Anyone think that didn't happen? I've got some beachfront property in AZ.
Great job author. I've seen three year olds have better thinking.
The first thing the author needs to progress beyond a three year old is to realize the problem. He still doesn't know it. So this article means very little imo. If the house is on fire, I don't care about watering the lawn. I care about turning the hose on the fire. But this guy seems to think our problems revolve around symptoms. Or maybe it was the imperialist control of gov't that pushed both sides to positions that would then create an ungovernable position, and have. That's not a reason to give up on the right ideas, like he says, it's a reason to fight for them harder.
But when compromise doesn't solve anything. What good is it? This guy forgets this point, and simply thinks if one side says 28 and the other says 30, that 29 is that answer. Well, too bad compromise isn't in such a vacuum bubble like that. Which means this guys position is unrealistic.
Say a levee is being constructed. One side says 16 feet, the other sides says 20 or higher. They compromise, and get it done. An 18 foot levee.
Then a 20 foot flood surge comes, and what did compromise bring you? Nothing.
The sad fact is both sides have been compromising their ideals for a very long time. We don't need more of it. We need to END it. The American people know what they want. They want MORE social spending. LOWER taxes. Less debt.
Only the idiots don't realize that all three are possible, and it's not fantasy. It's called the American Credit System. Not the british debt and derivative based monetary system.
This guy would pass crap, stick his head in the sand, and sing koom-bay-ya that the problems were solved because they compromised from their rightful positions into something that doesn't even do a good job at masking the symptoms of the problem.
We are far down the rabbit hole. This guy would have poor policy enacted and pretend that ANYTHING got done.
What this guy is calling for, is a recipe for disaster. I guarantee it.
The guy did say a couple of decent points. Like the filibuster has been perverted. The dems are idiots for wanting to remove the filibuster rather than calling the bs that the current filibuster is. The answer isn't to end the filibuster, it's to put it back in it's proper place. This part the auther got right.
But then he muddies it again with saying, 'hard choices'. There are no hard choices. Just good and bad ones. (some in the middle)
The 'hard choices' he talks about or bad choices. Not hard. They're idiotic, they're unecessary, and won't solve a damn thing. So his whole premise of 'hard choices' is folly. Only when you realize the system is pushing you to accept 'hard choices' do you realize it's the SYSTEM that needs to be changed, not 'hard choices' being implemented and stop having gov't and private entities do what's needed to deliver goods and services to people.
Hard choices as been lobbied 1000x around, is pure and utter BS. The hard choice in such cases, is the WRONG choice.
The TRUE hard choice, is to escape this manufactured nightmare. The only way to win, is not to play the banker's game.
But you have to think for that to happen. This author isn't thinking, even if he partially is, and believes he is. I don't fault the guy for putting on his thinking cap and trying, I am just pointing out that his thinking cap is BROKEN.
He says....if choices were easy we'd have them by now. Well it IS easy, conceptually. It isn't easy to follow through on it. Because you have imperialist control of our governement. That's what makes doing what's neccessary so impossible.
Nice piece of sophistry there. You just took a reason to burn the current imperialist system and turned it into a reason you should do its bidding. What a retarded statement that was.
The problem is the solutions to our massive problems are 'considered extreme' even though they aren't.
They are the LaRouche wing of the democrats, and the Ron Paul wing of the republicans. Most would term them far left and far right. (is this right? of course not...because while you can say Ron Paul is a far right winger, is he like Dick Cheney who is a far right winger?)
The fact is far left and far right have been labeled incorrectly. Ron Paul is not a neocon, but he is a far right winger. LaRouche isn't a socialist/communist but he is a far left winger. Actually I think LaRouche is both, the appropriate bits of Paul, and the appropriate bits of social needs.
But everyboidy that thinks loves these two guys positions. Everybody that doesn't, calls them fringe wingers. In reality, our extreme left and right are really moderate left/right.
The authors attempt to call for more centrism, is a call for more half-as*ed measures and compromises isntead of solutions.
The problem with this author is that he doesn't realize the center grabbed so much, that Paul and LaRouche aren't considered mainstream, when they should be. Thus the auther doesn't realize we already have a bunch of moderates in office. Giving us moderate plans for 40 years, that did nothing but a piss poor job at symptom hiding, meanwhile the problems in our economic system just grew exponentially. Now people calling for solutions, are looking to the same people who casued the problem. Whoops. Good luck with that, really.
Then the author ends with a piece of sophistry from Reagan. Who he seems to think did the right thing by perpetuating the problems that got us here. Good one author.
Meanwhile the problems that he faced, are still with us. Does the author forget this? Must have. Because he just said we should solve our problems by copying someone who didn't. Nice one.
The commander in chief has the "nuclear option" -
Order the entire military to come home and stand down and do nothing.
Hard to spend any money when you're doing that.
Could you imagine that? The US government says the following to its enemies: "Ok, Enemy X, here's the deal: We're going broke, so as a way to save money on our warfighting efforts, we are going to bring our toops home and do no more fighting with airplanes, infantry, drones, etc.--no more boots on the ground. We are simply going to administer our military might in the form of one (or more) strategically placed nuclear bombs delivered cost effectively by ICBM. We can no longer afford to have surgical strikes and tactical battles. It's either black or white, on or off, glow-in-the-dark or not. In sum, don't mess with us. If you do, it goes from zero to nuclear in one step. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but we can no longer fight wars in a micro level--it's going to be all macro going forward."
We, the people, get the kind of government we (collectively) deserve.
God help us.
This has been beaten' like a dead horse, but, while walking on the bike path today, I saw a young man on a bicycle with a backpack on his back, no shirt, bum looking. It struck me that x number of people just live off other's hard work and sweat. To keep the lazy asses alive the government robs the hardworking and gives it to the unwilling to work. Man I hate this government racket! Just my rant!
“Our” Congress of the people, by the people, for the people…is perishing from the earth.
"Today (March 21, 2010), America witnessed the first vote for the end of representative government.” RNC Chairman Micahel Steele
Washington Murdered Privacy at Home and Abroad | Paul Craig Roberts | 03/22/10
In the Swiss newspaper Zeit-Fragen, Professor Dr. Eberhard Hamer from Germany asks, "How Sovereign is Europe?"
He examines the issue and concludes that Europe has little, if any, sovereignty.
Professor Hamer writes that the sovereign rights of Europeans as citizens of nation states were dissolved with the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Dec. 1, 2009. The rights of the people have been conveyed to a political commissariat in Brussels. The French, Germans, Belgians, Spanish, British, Irish, Italians, Greeks, and so forth, now have "European citizenship whatever this may be."
The result of aggregating nations is to reduce the political participation of people. The authority of parliaments and local councils has been impaired. Power is now concentrated in new hierarchical structures within the European Union. European citizenship means indirect and weak participation by people. Self-rule has given way to authoritarian rule from top to bottom.
Professor Hamer then examines the EU commissariat and concludes that it, too, lacks sovereignty, having submitted to the will of the United States. The problem is not only that Europeans are waging an unconstitutional war ordered by the U.S. in a region of the world where Europe has no interests. Europe’s puppet state existence goes far beyond its mercenary service to the American Empire.
The EU has given in to Washington’s demand for "free access to the banking data of the central financial service provider, Swift, in Europe. All financial flows in Europe (and between Europe and the rest of the world) will now be monitored by the CIA and other American and Israeli intelligence services." The monitoring will include transfers within Germany, for example, and within individual cities. "The data, even data of completely innocent citizens, have to be stored for five years, of course, at the expense of the banks and their customers…"
The American sheeple quietly accepted the complete destruction of their right to privacy. Encouraged by success in smiting the American people, Washington has now destroyed the privacy of Europeans.
Indeed, the "freedom and democracy" government spies on the entire world and sends drones into foreign countries to murder people disapproved by Washington.
Washington denounces other governments for human rights violations while itself violating human rights every day.
Washington puts foreign leaders on trial for war crimes, while committing war crimes every day.
What happens when the dollar goes and Washington no longer has the money to bribe compliance with its demands? When that day arrives, freedom will reemerge.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100322_privacy.htm
This strikes me as a boatload of drivel from Howard Marks. The Democrats control the White House, the Senate, and the House--with substantial majorities--and he's claiming gridlock as a result of naked partisanship--huh?
Talk about blinkered analysis...Marks would rather be wrong--well, he is.
the answer is as obvious as the fact that the world is round...
we have been conditioned to believe that we need government for all of humanity, when really, government created itself just to legitimize the exercise of power...
this latest version masks itself as a democratic republic, when its obvious to all of you that you have zero input into the political process...
the purpose of government has never been to protect your rights, it has always been about only one thing, facilitating and protecting those who would seek to gain power and control over others...
the writer of this memo says that:
the founding fathers were not leery of government, they just wanted it to be them instead of some inbred loser and his lackeys on the far side of the Atlantic...
the government seems to be incapable of "doing anything right" because we mistake its purpose. has anyone noticed lately how good a job the government has done in shifting trillions of dollars of wealth from the middle class to the international banking class?
99.99% of all people are absolutely convinced that we have to have government to live together peaceably on this planet, yet, its never the people that start wars with other people, its always states that start wars with other states (or peoples)... government inhibits our ability to create wealth, then steals a fair portion of what it does allow us to create, it protects industries and corporations that would do us harm (Thimerasol?, Monsanto?), it involves us in wars that serve us no good purpose, and even at times forcibly enslaves us and our children to go kill or be killed in these wars, it tells us how many gallons our toilets can use, it tells us what we can consume and what we cannot, it even has the gall to tell doctors what treatments they are allowed to use... government is a cancer, not a necessary evil, just an evil...
people who advocate re-instating a strict interpretation of the Constitution have been, until very recently, seen as kooks or the "fringe". more and more are starting to realize that we would have never gotten into this mess to start with if we had not abandoned the Constitution, but... it was inevitable... the PTB will not let a piece of paper stand between them and more power... re-instating the Constitution would be the beginnings of solving the problem, but there is a more permanent solution that is even more kooky and further out there on the fringe, but is the ultimate of societal evolution...
Jesus Christ is an important historical figure not because Paul created a church based on his life, but because he introduced the idea to the Western world that 1) God allows and welcomes personal and direct contact by every single person born on the planet, and/because 2) God values each of us, equally.
Jesus told us that God says that we are all equal in his eyes, so why do we acquiesce when some group comes along and says that we must give them the right to coerce us for our own good? especially considering that they are lying, and really intend to coerce us for their own good. everyone of us has a birthright to be a free, sovereign individual... we are where we are today because we do not exercise this birthright, most people have no clue that it exists...
some will object that a society without a government will be lawless, like Somalia, or Haiti... i will not spend time here arguing the practicality of the stateless society, but will only assert that that is an opinion, and a spurious one at that. if the government made all our shoes and then stopped making shoes, would we all then only have recourse to making our own shoes or going barefoot? you don't have to have a group that has a monopoly on "legitimate" coercion to have Law... in fact, as all readers of this blog know, monopolies are inefficient and abusive... Law protected and enforced by the competitive market would ensure true justice... the final point i will make about the practically of the stateless society is to quote von Mises:
ultimately, those who seek power, can never completely consolidate it, for even the most restrictive police state still requires one thing that the PTB cannot control, and that is the acquiescence of the people. if we don't go along with it, if we do not recognize the legitimacy of their power, if we see them for the murderous, psychopathic scum they truly are, then sooner or later, their regime crumbles. but their intentions really do not matter, whether they are good or evil makes no difference... even if their true intentions are benevolent, we are still shirking our God-given responsibility by acquiescing to their legitimacy...
once humanity perceives and accepts its birthright, the right of individual sovereignty and the responsibility that goes with it, and refuses to consider granting some portion of this authority and responsibility to others based on the fallacious notion that it is necessary for the "common good", those who seek power will forever struggle in vain and will always be recognized for the cancer they truly are, and the incredible promise of humanity will finally be within reach.
ucvhost is a leading web site hosting service provider that is known to provide reliable and affordable hosting packages to customers. The company believes in providing absolute and superior control to the customer as well as complete security and flexibility through its many packages. windows vps Moreover, the company provides technical support as well as customer service 24x7, in order to enable its customers to easily upgrade their software, install it or even solve their problems. ucvhost offers the following different packages to its customers