This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Morgan Stanley On America's Biggest Challenge: Entitlement Spending

Tyler Durden's picture




 

There are some who will take up hundreds of pages to explain something as simple as the complete bankruptcy of the US entitlement program. Others, like Morgan Stanley in this case, present it succinctly- why write and write and write when a one page income (well, loss technically) statement will suffice? In a presentation, oddly focusing on Internet Trends, the MS team puts up an appendix page that probably should make the inbox of every politician in America. In a nutshell, when analyzing the math of entitlement spending, even as revenues flatline (at best), and decline (realistically), the expenses are quite literally growing geometrically. At this rate of deterioration, the Loss on the entitlement P&L will be at ($3 trillion) a year by 2013. For those who don't buy this estimate, here is a refresh: it was +$128 billion in 2001, (318) billion in 2005, and ($1,413) billion in 2009. Then there are some like former Western Asset Management personnel, who are so confused by numbers so massively negative, that they #Ref out their excel spreadsheets, and tend to ignore them altogether. Which brings us to the topic of the night - those who find the most efficient way to short Western Asset Management (and its retention policy of never hiring those proficient with positive and negative integers... forget about floating point) will win a free Zero Hedge hat.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:20 | 403059 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Warlord has already figured it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxBizeiL3s

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:45 | 403092 Heavy
Heavy's picture

Very nice.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:50 | 403094 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

 - yes it is, I could feel it.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:16 | 403105 Heavy
Heavy's picture

Really gets the old brain fired up with all those strands tied together so intricately.  Funny too: "the curr she fed well" "I wondered where I could find another".  Outstanding.  Solution found, to action! "And this would be a glorious day"

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 05:45 | 403352 Popo
Popo's picture

Slightly OT:  But 2 Million Protesting in Spain right now due to cuts in entitlement spending...  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/09/2922107.htm

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 06:16 | 403365 nmewn
nmewn's picture

You know the end is near when a DECREASE in the amounts extorted from the productive is met with protests from the unproductive...LOL.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:06 | 403585 Missing_Link
Missing_Link's picture

Very near indeed.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:37 | 403674 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Despite the controversy the New Black Panther Party continues to grow and expand. The National Black Power Conventions impressive lineup of guests and organizations is a testimony that the New Black Panthers Leadership has support in wide circles in the Black Community, particularly amongst grassroots organizers and entertainers.

 

“With the rise of the Tea Party, the white-right and other racist forces. With gun sales nationwide at an all time high amongst whites, with a mood that is more anti-Black than any time recent, it is imperative that we organize our forces, pool our resources and prepare for war!” Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Esq. Convention Convener and Party Chairman.

 

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/05/prweb4040824.htm

Now we're talkin'!!! We're HuffGlue when you need 'em! Shoot the racists that want to take our money!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:55 | 403740 Zina
Zina's picture

With the growth of the nazi Tea Party, blacks have reason to be concerned...

Tea Party will lead the US to a civil war.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:04 | 403997 Greyzone
Greyzone's picture

And massive deficit spending won't? The New Black Panther Party won't?

There will be war, Zina, but it won't be because of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a symptom, not a cause. If you don't understand that, then you're hopeless.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 19:14 | 404734 Geoff-UK
Geoff-UK's picture

First person to use "Nazi" to characterize the other side automatically loses. 

 

Also, you made what is called an assertion without evidence.  Or do none of your friends ever disagree with you and ask you to explain yourself?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:32 | 403662 Zina
Zina's picture

By "the productive" I think you mean owners of "pet spas", "pet daycare", "dog boarding and grooming", or some kind of business as "chocolate massage" or similar...

By "the unproductive" I think you mean teachers and doctors from the public sector.

Your concept of "productivity" is surely funny.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:46 | 404140 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

productive = people who work jobs and pay income taxes from their wages.

unproductive = on the dole, pay no income taxes (and there's plenty of those in Spain).

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 19:18 | 404744 Geoff-UK
Geoff-UK's picture

"Productive" = you generate income that is taxed

"Unproductive" = you are paid out of the money that was taken via taxation

 

I'm "unproductive" to the economy as a member of the military.  So don't take any of this personally, if you happen to be unproductive also.  Paying me to defend the nation is, economically speaking, nothing more than a necessary evil. 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 21:23 | 404944 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Socialists and communists are doomed to the abyss by their own lack of humor...poor babies. You are one of the most ignorant troll's on ZH...and that's saying something, your running neck and neck with "Harry Dangler" and some self identified "Indian" dude (the Sub-Continent Asian type) who regaled ZH recently with his hatred of the "white" race, apparently uninformed of what self loathing or a Caucasian actually is...LOL. Yeah...those "productive" teachers are doing a bang up job don't ya think ;-) And doctors from the "public sector"???...I've never been to a "free clinic" in my life, so tell me, do doctors really work for free in there???...do they buy those funky white coats themselves with their own money???...if not, with what???...chickens, goats, pigs???...is this where that mild "pandemic" swine flu started???...in FREE CLINICS???...reusing pig tongue depressors???...I knew it...LOL. You apparently believe money is just printed by governments and then given to teachers and free clinic "doctors" as needed...if this is the case, we have no need for a bond market do we???...no need to borrow...or have any concern about debt whatsoever...or any need to account for that debt...(your bean counting friends are not amused right now...LOL)...we simply print more...easy right??? Your a fool and most fools these days have no sense of humor...we'll see who laughs last.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:49 | 403717 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

agreed

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:32 | 403065 Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

I'm surprised to see them lay it out so simply like this.  I thought the game was to ignore it and not mention it, or at best speak vaguely about "challenges" to face or some other nonsense.

 

Actually handling the problem necessarily means cutting government back to size, which I can't see them being fans of.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 06:04 | 403362 chistletoe
chistletoe's picture

If it mainly consisted of "cutting the government" it would not be so difficult. Consider the tea partier in Kentucky who recently said, "Get the government off my back and keep their hands off my Social Security!"

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:42 | 403519 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

It's time to prepare the public for the reduction in entitlements.  Of course, the banks will continue to receive massive, limitless generosity and largesse from the public purse.  No expense will be spared when it comes to the goddamned precious fucking banksters.

Endless free money for the banks, austerity for the middle class.  Count on it.

What we have to do is figure out how to make the bulk of the austerity fall onto those less entitled; I mean people who never paid in, or who are receiving ridiculous public pensions.  I know that won't be enough, but in order for the middle class to be able to swallow this at all they must be certain that it is happening.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:25 | 403067 Apostate
Apostate's picture

Never fear.

Chairman Ben will make everything alright.

P-Krug & Jimmy G-braith will lay it all out for you. It's as simple as punching in a few extra digits. People who complain about "fiscal responsibility" are just small-minded fools.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:44 | 403091 snowjax
snowjax's picture

I love how it is called "Entitlement" - They took the money out of my paychecks for countless years and now I should feel as if I am receiving a reward.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:12 | 403125 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Isn't that the point:  you're ENTITLED to it, because you paid in.  

One easy solution to this phony crisis is to lift the salary cap on income paid into Social Security.  If Bill Gates and Lloyd Blankfein paid into the till on the basis of their income rather than the income of a Wal-Mart store manager, nobody would be talking about a crisis.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:57 | 403138 Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

No, the point is to get as large a constituency as possible conned into believing they're "Entitled" to receive something no matter what.  They become dependent on government handouts, and thug politicians never have to run for reelection again.

It's just like any other pyramid scheme.  You start it out with very low pay ins and generous benefits, so of course people go for it.  The first in pay next to nothing and cash out huge.  Then it starts to go bankrupt, but you can never get rid of it, so it's a ratchet stealing more and more from those who work for a living.

There aren't enough Bill Gates in the world to make a dent in the geometric growth.  But the cap will still be raised, and the middle class who're already losing half their earnings will get hit even harder to pay for someone else's been-uh-fits.

The Wal-Mart store manager will have that much less of his paycheck left, in exchange for the promise of negative returns for a few more years until even that collapses again.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:00 | 403969 Kali
Kali's picture

I would be happy if they just returned the money I paid in and get rid of SS.  SS was never meant as sole support in retirement anyway, it was supposed to be a supplement.  And no one likes to talk about the biggest "entitlement" of all, the Military budget. 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:40 | 403150 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."

- Margaret Thatcher

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:49 | 403160 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

Thatcher and Churchill were the best PM's this country ever saw.

Brown's "elimination of boom and bust" (although those "wise" words were during his reign as Chancellor) will be up there with Chamberlain's "peace in our time".

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:57 | 403335 quintago
quintago's picture

before you read any lower....take 6 shots of tequila.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:50 | 403162 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that her asinine economic theorizing accelerated the terminal decay of the world capitalist system.

Outside of tea and crumpets, she's hardly an authority on anything.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:54 | 403170 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

You'd probably say the same thing for Von Mises or Hayek or anyone who doesn't ascribe to your obvious socialist bent.

BTW, the world has never been a capitalist system ... never.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:02 | 403184 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Von Mises and Hayek cannot explain how a growth-based system is sustainable in a finite universe.  

I suppose saying that capitalism (i.e., a specific, historically defined method of production and distribution in which labor is bought and sold for the purpose of generating surplus) isn't real makes it easier to justify the ghastly atrocities committed in the name of the market, doesn't it?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:09 | 403195 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Errr, what? Straw man much?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:10 | 403196 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Actually Von Mises explains the theory of growth-based systems and sustainability in a finite universe very well ... you should read his work before making an idiotic comment like the one you just made.

You have an odd definition of capitalism ... probably the result of a U.S. education.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:13 | 403204 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Your definition of capitalism is a phantasm, totally and utterly disconnected from Capital.

Obviously you do so in order to keep your apologetics purely philosophical. 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:27 | 403214 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

You obviously don't understand what capital is, capital is labor, nothing else. Capitalism is the idea of having individual property rights ownership.

Whats your beef with capitalism?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:40 | 403229 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

+10000

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:41 | 403230 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Capital is not only labor, though the owner of labor-power most certainly has the most critical source of capital in her or his hands.

A lathe is capital, so long as it's used to make commodities for the market.

Land is capital, whenever the fruits it produces go to a market. 

This is Econ 101 stuff.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:43 | 403232 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Thanks for another book definition.  Congrats you know how to read. 

Get back to us when you know how to think.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:10 | 403262 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Your understanding is so silly because you tell me with your own words why you are so brainwashed. Your doublethink is very apparent in these lines.

A lathe is capital, so long as it's used to make commodities for the market.

Yes that is right, who do you suppose uses a lathe? Gee I wonder maybe a person? Someone had to use the lathe right? That is called LABOR. SAY IT WITH ME NOW... LABOR.

Land is capital, whenever the fruits it produces go to a market.

And who tills the land and carries the apples from the orchard to the market...santa clause?

This is Econ 101 stuff.

No shit!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:24 | 403274 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

My labor isn't capital if I'm working in my garden.  My labor is capital if I'm producing something for the market.

Only an ignoramus thinks that all labor, all the time is capital.  The whole point of capitalism is to absorb all labor into the market that can be exploited.  And the way to most optimally exploit (not in a value sense, necessarily) labor is by combining it with other types of capital.

The name of the game is efficiency.  A worker with a needle and string is much less efficient than a worker with a loom.  Both workers are performing a type of labor, but their output is determined by the other categories of capital involved.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:33 | 403280 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

My point was that all capital is the product of Labor. And actually working in your garden does make an improvement relative to your desire, or at least should cause it would be pointless to create some effective change you didn't want. You are in fact also your own market as you can labor to create the things you need.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:00 | 403309 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

 

It's not about "desire" or any other fanciful thing.

It's about production, pure and simple:  who produces what for whom?

If I'm producing for the market, my labor is capital - something for use in the 'market'.  If not, it's not.  

What you're calling labor is actually 'life', our time not controlled by anyone or anything.  And as much as capitalism wants to own every space of existence, it doesn't own our life by fiat.   We have to "buy-in".

"Unfortunately", you add.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:36 | 403673 Zina
Zina's picture

Do not waste your time with people who believe in "marginal utility". They live in a fantasy universe.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:44 | 403233 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Like I said before, calling capitalism "an idea" (i.e., not real) exonerates it from the grotesque devastation of our planet is has wrought.

Capitalism is a specific mode of production and distribution that produces surplus for the possessor of capital - precisely the people FDR kept in charge.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:25 | 403275 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

What? Did you even read the new deal? FDR was all about having a controlled economy, that is not capitalistic at all.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:39 | 403288 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

What industries did FDR nationalize as part of the New Deal?

Of all those alphabet soup opiates he offered to a decaying corpse of a system, which ones took control over entire industries?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:59 | 403305 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Money is capital as all things derived from capital can be used as money, it is why money is interchangable with a product. Most common forms of money are simply the most desirable forms of capital as they are the most liquid or exchangable. So when you end up controlling a large portion of the "money" within a market you direct the flow of capital and thus create imbalances. You don't need to nationalize a single industry when you control the flow of money because you become the market maker. Get it yet? When you control money you control capital, when you control capital flow you have a controlled economy.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:40 | 403291 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Shhh, he wants to play semantic games to demonize this thing called 'capitalism'...don't spoil his fun.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:55 | 403303 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Here's my trick, FB:

Associate capital with capitalism, and apply it to the real world.  

I know, I know:  I hear you already:

"Idiot".

"Ingrate"!

"So much better to play make believe."  

"Timothy Geithner doesn't work for Goldman Sachs!"

Get over yourself.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:41 | 403690 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Apply socialism to the real world. Now shoot yourself in the nape and fall in a ditch.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:48 | 403713 Zina
Zina's picture

Do not waste your time with people who say that capitalism has never existed in any country in the world.

Their "capitalism" is just an utopia wich does not exist in the real world.

If no country in the world was never capitalist at any time, then we have two options: either Feudalism continued to exist after the Industrial Revolution, or socialism dominates the world since the French Revolution. Lunacy...

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 05:51 | 403354 bmwmc
bmwmc's picture

Ditto for multi-national corporation and primary dealers. The greatest beneficiaries of government welfare and socialism.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:47 | 403158 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

That's not the problem. The problem is those who think they're entitled, regardless of whether they paid in or not.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:54 | 403169 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

I'm hardly defending the system.  Social Security was a sop to save capitalism the last time it sent the world into utter ruin.

The problems are too numerous to mention:  to start, immigrants pay in, and all they get in return is persecution by do-nothing racists who sit behind a keyboard all day buying and selling crap nobody needs.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:56 | 403175 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

"Social Security was a sop to save capitalism the last time it sent the world into utter ruin."

Heh.  FDR ... a capitalist.  Would love to see you argue that case ...

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:07 | 403192 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

History does a perfectly fine job of arguing it for me.  

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:10 | 403198 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

History does a fine job of showing that FDR was not a capitalist. You need to do better than that.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:25 | 403215 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Expansion of state spending isn't socialism.  In FDR's case, it was simply an effort to salvage a system that the majority of people thought outmoded 80 years ago.

FDR did everything in his power to fend off the left in order to keep property in the hands of those who drove the economy off a cliff.

Precisely what Obama is doing today, incidentally.

"I'm the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

- Obama to the Wall St. brigands who own him

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:31 | 403219 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

You must have been absent the day that your history teacher explained Executive Order 6102 to the class ... that was a completely Capitalist act.  Probably the most Capitalist act ever performed in the history of the world.

 

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:59 | 403250 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

6102 had nothing to do with the crisis of global capitalism, of course.  Nothing to do with the actions of any other capitalist powers, for example, right?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:05 | 403255 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

I suddenly reminded of a classic phrase from the Princess Bride every time you respond to any post ...

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:07 | 403259 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

I don't watch shit movies.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:09 | 403260 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

"Inconceivable" ...

 

 

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:54 | 403302 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Where the fuck did I say anything about socialism, you kneejerk ideologue?

And how is any kind of state spending, part of capitalism? And by 'capitalism', just to be clear, since you seem to like to define it any way you want, I mean 'laissez-faire free markets'. Government bailouts of anything is anathema to capitalism.

If you want to hate on some big bank or big business corporation, fine. But know that if they are the recipients of any kind of corporate welfare, they are by definition not capitalists. Fascists, or corporatists, or even 'privatized gains, socialized losses'. Whatever suits your fancy.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:11 | 403200 Conrad Murray
Conrad Murray's picture

Haha, I read that sentence and said "whhhhaaaa?!" too.  Save capitalism by bringing about socialism, brilliant.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:15 | 403207 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Another poor sap who took Milton Friedman's fanciful class on the Depression instead of studying it in a global and historical context.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:25 | 403213 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Oh please enlighten us as to how the government had nothing to do with bringing about and extending the Depression (then or now), and that the Fed should have printed gobs more dollars to stimulate a quicker recovery.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:30 | 403218 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Isn't this purely hypothetical, based upon the flawed premise, to speculate about what would have happened had the government not begun deficit spending?

I suppose blaming the government for everything exonerates the real perpetrators of capitalist collapse - the capitalists.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:35 | 403224 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Do you really have to know the out come for yourself if you decided between saving money and spending it, and how it effects your personal financial situation? Get real, the government can't spend what it doesn't have forever without consequences.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:48 | 403238 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

But corporations can?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:14 | 403265 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Do you not get the fact that corporations getting bailed out, market to myth, and regulation (legalized monoplies/theft) is really socialist, not capitalist. Capitalism has nothing to do with corporations. The coporation is a legal issue not a philosophical economic position.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:20 | 403270 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Who put the government there?  Was it divine intervention?  

Governments are there to mitigate disputes and conflicts and crises among capitalists.  It's function is to help divide the spoils among those who run it (peacefully whenever possible, violently at other times), and steal from those who do not.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:29 | 403279 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Dude you are so grasping at straws.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:43 | 403294 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Government, and law, is a weapon of the capitalist class (i.e., those who run it).  And we all know who runs government.

That's why the courts work like they do, and it's why jails jail who they jail.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:57 | 403306 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Oh man. I can tell you're flipping through your Marxist textbook so fast you're in danger of ripping the pages. Don't get a paper cut!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:05 | 403311 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

 

 

 

And my guess is you're dusting off An Essay on Pederasty or some other such masterwork of Bentham!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:05 | 403404 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

Jeez, are you sure you're on the right site?

I don't think anyone but you here subscribe to that "World Socialists Unite" school of reasoned bullshit.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:31 | 403220 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

You do realize that capitalism only functions under a free society and social programs redistribute wealth or rather capital through force. That is called theft, and if you don't understand that I feel sorry for you. Once the propagation of society is theft, it takes no time at all to watch it eat itself.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:47 | 403236 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

How did the capitalist get what's 'theirs' in the first place?

They had to have stolen it, because it didn't start out theirs.

Just ask Africa.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:20 | 403271 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

See this is what it always comes down to with people that think like you. My father made the same argument to me before and its rather absurd to say that in order for someone to be in possession of something they first had to take it from someone else. While it is true that in order to be in possession of an object others can not be in possession of it at the same time it doesn't mean that the nature of the act of the possession has to be by force.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:50 | 403298 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

It doesn't have to be. 

It just is, most of the time.

Just ask the African in the 1500.  Or anyone indigenous to the earth on which you now stand.

Or the Palestinian, right now, facing Zionist ethnic cleansing.

Most of the capital that's taken - land, gold, olive trees - isn't surrendered willfully.

He who has the most guns, usually wins.  As does the person selling guns.

(And the guy selling the drugs to pay for all the guns)

Growth is all that counts.  Killing ain't no thang.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:00 | 403308 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

So, now Zionist ethnic cleansing is part of capitalism? Really? Gosh I'm learning so much today.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:27 | 403321 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

 

 

Zionism is an imperial project, start to finish.  Always was.  White Europeans taking Arab land, getting ready of a 'nuisance' population in the process.

Add a little of the "Invisible Man in the Sky" stuff for good theater.

That is why (among other reasons) so many Zionists collaborated with the Nazis.  And why Obama is down with 'Whites-only' settlements in the heart of al-Quds.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 11:30 | 403375 Suisse
Suisse's picture

Now jews collaborated with the nazis? Conspirational, anti-semitic individuals like you who are allowed to remain on ZH do nothing but discredit it as a legitimate financial news venue.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:47 | 403710 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

 

Reality check:

Look up the Stern Gang, and see the proposal they wrote to ally with the Nazis.  Then, go buy this book and look at the primary source materials uncovered:

http://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/156980...

Facts are stubborn things.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:59 | 404209 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

Yeah buddy...you're right...Africa is the root source of all productivity and ingenuity that exists in the US today. Spot on!

 

</sarcasm>

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:24 | 403460 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

"You do realize that capitalism only functions under a free society and social programs redistribute wealth or rather capital through force."

Utter nonsense.  A free society is perfectly capable of deciding to tax itself in order to provide services needed by all.  There is no 'force' necessary.  It is a part of what we call civilization.  What you are describing is anarchy.  If you truly believe in complete and unfettered capitalism, then by all means get going over to Somalia.  Who needs civilization when you can have capitalism?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:35 | 403225 Suisse
Suisse's picture

Since you appear to be into the whole limits to growth thing, why are you sticking up for immigrants?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:45 | 403235 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

If capital can freely go anywhere, without obstruction or borders, why can't people?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 11:27 | 403367 Suisse
Suisse's picture

Because people aren't capital and can cause problems. Importation of complete aliens is hazardous to the livelihood of a nation.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:49 | 403712 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

And capital flight can NEVER cause problems!  No way, José.

HA!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 16:05 | 404229 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

You're comparing human capital to other types of capital moving across borders and say it's the same - Christ, you're a dumbass.

Humans also have emotions, identities, cultures, languages, etc. that other types of capital do not. These emotions, identities, cultures, languages, religions, value systems, etc. cause competition and friction among different people.

As Suisse said, wholesale importation of large groups of immigrants would be a disaster for any nation.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 14:46 | 403928 Catullus
Catullus's picture

You are a plant.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:54 | 404184 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

What kind of immigrants exactly are you talking about? I'm an immigrant, and I pay in, and I don't get persecuted.

Illegals, on the other hand, well that's a different story...

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:48 | 403539 jkruffin
jkruffin's picture

That's part of the main problem with entitlements.  As you say, you paid in, so you are entitled, yet a very large portion of the money is going to people who never paid in, or paid very little in, and they are entitled automatically on your dollar. Its all the same story whether its  SS, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.  

One of the things I noticed when getting my documents and other things ready for my move to the Philippines with my wife, was the fact that your appliation will be denied up front, if you cannot prove to them through having enough savings and money on deposit with a Philippine bank that you will not become a burden on their people. They make you have enough where you could live just a basic life with no job on your savings and interest, but not be a leech. They have enough of their own people in poverty, and don't need other citizens coming over and adding to the problem.

The U.S. just lets anyone in, anytime, free if your Mexican, and allow them to become a burden on the population and start getting free money and services.

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:51 | 403099 vainamoinen
vainamoinen's picture

More BS - sources I access (Center for Defense Information - War Resistors League, etc) indicate approx 45% of the Fed budget gooes to the military and military related.

I don't argue the above info in the article - it's just that it is meant to keep people off the scent.

 

Running the world's preeminent empire is expensive - and the oligarches pay no taxes - so you worker drones in the tax base best keep your noses to the grind stone - and don't expect anything in return - that would be socialism!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:44 | 403155 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Um, actually the entire U.S. military complex is socialism ... we pay those brave men and women to war abroad because our government cronies wouldn't want to face an unemployed militia back home if/when they pull the U.S. troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, etc.

Easier to manage true leadership and American heros by casting them abroad to fight false flag boogeymen than to have to deal with the harsh realities of empty promises and even emptier tills

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:10 | 403197 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Except that they're 'over their' killing and dying in the interests of Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and Nike.

That part isn't so socialist.

 

"I was a gangster for capitalism."

- Smedley Butler

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:12 | 403201 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Let's be a little more precise with our terms and call it fascism or corporatism.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:16 | 403210 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

... the logical outcome of capitalism when it has laid waste to a given territory (i.e., Europe after The Great War).

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:32 | 403222 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Dude you've got such heavy ideological lenses on, it's a wonder you can hold your face up.

How did 'capitalism' lay waste to Europe? The War itself did that, and the war was funded by the Fed printing money. That has nothing to do with capitalism. Without governments' central banks, the wars of the past century would have been a fraction of the calamity they were. War is the ultimate 'economic stimulus'; the industry of the nation gets boosted and bailed out by free money, and competing economies are bombed back to the dark ages. Again - NOTHING to do with capitalism. Fascism is the closest name I can come up with.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:37 | 403227 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

That guy has massive double speak on the brain, don't bother with him.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:52 | 403243 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

'The Fed' are private bankers who make money funding war.  Imperialism and the quest for resources brought on The Great War, and the bankers made sure Europe could commit ritual suicide on an industrial scale.

Total war is capitalism's end, from start to finish.  That's why we're so much gooder at killin' than anyone else has ever been.

"We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range"

- Roger Waters

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:06 | 403312 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Ummm, yeah. Private bankers. Nominally, yes. Effectively, the Fed is part of the government. It operates outside of markets, because the government wants it that way and enforces their legal monopoly on money and credit creation. Just so happens the banks want it that way too. This is called Fascism, not capitalism. And yes, Fascism feeds on war. Stop conflating capitalism with Fascism.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:52 | 403721 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

If you want to believe that Jamie Dimon, when he puts his "Fed" hat on, acts in the interests of the government, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The Fed is a creation of the banks, for the benefit of the banks.  The fact that governments turn over their political power to such private companies for nothing demonstrates quite clearly who's in service to whom.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:48 | 403239 Chupacabra
Chupacabra's picture

Yes, WWI and WWII were clearly examples of capitalism at work, not socialism or fascism or anything like that.  *mind boggles*

You use language very loosely, as any good liberal is taught to do, right comrade?  Your arguments are doubleplusgood.  Moar!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:57 | 403247 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

I guess fascism and communism just fell from the sky, didn't they?

It had nothing to do with the material conditions in Germany, Italy and Spain in the late 1910s and 1920s (or Russia under the Tsar) brought on by the systemic collapse of global capitalism, did it?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:16 | 403267 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Ignoring that Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848 ... Facts.  Dates.  Meh.  History is hard. 

Evidenced by your inability to do exponents, math is harder-er I guess ... so stick with history.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 04:30 | 403324 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Your quiz today, Irish:

The Great War, also known as World War I, occurred during which time period:

a)  1848

b)  1914-1918

Hint:  'B' 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:17 | 403211 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Yes.  U.S. soldiers are on a mission to protect the slave factories of Nike, Monsanto, etc.

Slight problem with the facts again ... most of corporate overseas factories are in non-occupied or non-war zone states ...

 

 

 

 

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:31 | 403221 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Depends on how you define war, I suppose.  

Von Clausewitz is worth a read.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:28 | 403476 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

"Um, actually the entire U.S. military complex is socialism..."

Wrong.  It is called fascism.  The military complex benefits no one except the state and the corporations, and by definition, that is fascism, not socialism.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:51 | 403166 Ragnar D
Ragnar D's picture

The anti-military types always throw in that disclaimer:  military spending is such-and-such percent of discretionary spending.

Of course, discretionary spending excludes everything that's growing geometrically and dominating the budget.  I'm all for cutting back on the foreign stuff--still keep the strongest defense in the world but stop subsidizing Europe--but the fact is that military growth increases linearly, and even that can be halted.

Even gutting the entire military, we'd still be massively in the red.  The Entitlements already cost more than the entire budget revenue, and that's without defense, police, courts, or anything else the government spends on, legit or not.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:01 | 403182 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Ding. Ding. Ding.  At least the military serves a purpose in our Republic ...

Someone explain to me again the societal value-add of the crack-addicted welfare queen who has 8 kids and lives in a trailer in rural KY?  Or maybe the 80 year old who lives in South Florida and plays Bocce all day while collecting SS just because he can even though he has 7 figures in the bank ...

I'd spend 60% of the Federal Budget on the military before I spent another dime on the leeches described above ...

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:04 | 403188 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The purpose of the military:  theft of resources from other people (mostly darker skinned people).

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:50 | 403240 Chupacabra
Chupacabra's picture

Che Guevara?  Is that you?  I knew you were alive.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:56 | 403248 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Umm, I am a capitalist and I don't see any point to having a standing army over seas. Don't try to stereotype something you do not fully understand. Just because you are pro capitalist doesn't make you a war monger.

Capitalism is not about using force to get what you want as it is about respect for the rights and privlages of your fellow human being. Maybe you should read Adam smith and his argument why slavery was a waste economically, he argued against slavery because it was not effiecent to take care of slaves to force labor out of them when it was more cost effect to let people take care of themselves and add their own capital to the market. Lets put it this why, when their is more created capital in the market then their are a lot of benefits, you get variety of choice, low prices, and a deflating currency because the supply of goods and services increases relative to the supply of money. A deflatoinary currency actually benifits 2 particular types of people, people that labor to gain capital, and people who save and invest.

The fact is we don't exist in a capitalist system because we don't have honest money, it self regulates budgets by floating interest rates to markets which would be relative to supply of what ever the currency was, and it riegns in spending because it is impossible to spend what you don't have with honest money.

Socialism always relies on fiat money because it is a deceptive tax to maintain its expanding budgets from the cost of the unfunded social programs. You see not only does inflation give the government essentially "free money" but it also increases the amount of money that the governments make through taxes because everything raises in tandom. Ultimately however so much capital is mis allocated by the government and so much capital stolen that eventually it becomes so un appealing to do legitimate business that it will eat it self and drive more and more business to doing work outside the "legal system" or black market, and in response the government will continue to increase taxes to combat the falling tax reciepts. Economic suicide essentially.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:13 | 403264 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Very well said. 

It will be summarily met with a strawman from DownWithTheBanks in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 14:55 | 403954 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

lol, or just junked in a fit of anonymous ad hominem.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:17 | 403436 EscapeKey
EscapeKey's picture

+100

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:54 | 403737 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The point of armies (be they standing, privatized, etc.) is to take things from those who don't want to cede them.

So while you, as Mr. Capitalist, might not like the fact that your government sends soldiers of fortune 'out there' to plunder in your name, the bottom line is that the system cannot function without it.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:15 | 404033 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Capitalism, and coercion are mutually exlusive. Once the latter exists, you no longer have the former. You have....call it what you want....Mercantilism, Corporatism, Fascism...but it ain't capitalism.

If you were to take your nose out of the books long enough to engage in a real discussion, rather than just being adversarial, you might find some common ground here.

Perhaps it's not that capitalism does not, or never has existed. Perhaps, given desire of Human Doings to plunder some, and make friends with others, it cannot exist. Maybe some epiphany will result from the grand experiment of the United States, which could actually allow it to exist.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 05:23 | 403345 PaulC
PaulC's picture

I should have stopped reading this clown as soon as I heard him say Princess Bride was a bad movie. For those trying to get through, here's some timeless truth - "Dont caste your pearls before swine". Let him go. This is futile.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:53 | 403552 Brett in Manhattan
Brett in Manhattan's picture

I'm not a big Michael Savage fan, but, heeding his maxim  "Liberalism is a mental disorder" can save you a lot of energy dealing with the likes of "Downwiththebanks."

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 12:53 | 403556 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Anybody who doesn't see Princess Bride as a cult classic is nuts -- it's inconceivable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 13:55 | 403741 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

You're full of something, Paul - it ain't pearls.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 00:53 | 403101 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

someone once told me the footnotes are more important than the income statement:  i'm a little curious about the inclusion of tarp expenses, fannie mae, freddie mac, etc. as one-time (want to bet) in the 2009 expenses.  also what nutrition programs are they talking about?  something will be done about the many incongruities in the federal budget;  deflationary depressions have a way of bringing significant political change.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:09 | 403121 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

The most 'entitled' people on the planet are the despicable parasites doing the 'analysis' (it's not really analysis, actually - it's a political screed masking as economics) .  It is they who demand of the working men and women of the planet trillion dollar bailouts, not the other way around.

And most reprehensibly, they do so with the suckers' own 401K as the weapon of choice:  "Don't give me cash with a wheelbarrow, no strings attached??  Then F____ you!  We'll crash the market and now your kids can't go to college!"

Meanwhile, if Uncle Sam wasn't so down with killing black and brown skinned folks all over the world, he wouldn't be in such dire straits.  It was, after all, Vietnam that send Medicare and Social Security into the red.  

But then again, it's so easy to blame the teachers and machinists and service workers for our problems, since they live so high on the hog!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:51 | 403163 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

"It was, after all, Vietnam that send Medicare and Social Security into the red."

Heh.  Your screed was okay until you got here .. Medicare and Social Security are the largest ponzi schemes ever invented.  The Medicare/Social Security destiny has always been to finish "way, way, way in the red" ... the question has always been WHEN, not IF.

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:57 | 403176 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Whatever you say.  I'm stating a fact - Uncle Sam began to steal from Social Security to kill "gooks" and drop weapons of mass destruction in My Lai, Hue, Phnom Penh and elsewhere.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:04 | 403189 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

Heh.  Facts are interesting things ... in that they can be proven to be true.

So your postulate if I'm getting this right is that SS and Medicare would be fine without the Uncle Sam stealing from them for the Vietnam war ...

Just a quick question ... have you ever met my friend "EXPONENTS"?  Yeah, he might want to have a word with you about your tinfoil hat and your baseless theory ...

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:05 | 403191 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

I'm not talking about Medicare, Samurai.  Knowledge of history would explain why that's the case.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:13 | 403202 IrishSamurai
IrishSamurai's picture

So knowledge of history can overcome the mathematical law of exponential growth and the inherent future failures of the U.S. entitlement programs?

Someone get Benny or Timmy a history book ... STAT!

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:14 | 403205 Haywood Yablomi
Haywood Yablomi's picture

Irish is also stating a fact: Social Security and Medicare ARE ponzi schemes.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:18 | 403212 downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

I'm not disagreeing.  Capitalism tied to nothing is a ponzi scheme, so it goes without saying that everything under the umbrella of 21st Century capitalism falls within it, too.  

Never disputed that.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:59 | 403244 Chupacabra
Chupacabra's picture

They both steal from us, numbnuts. 

The corporate welfare recipients who are "too big to fail" collect their TARP funds and immediately distribute year-end bonuses at their holiday bash in the Caymans.  They use tax dollars to pay off bad bets the way I reach into the coin jar.  They are criminal scum, along with their politician enablers.  You'll get no argument from me on that, brother.

But the unionized civil servant with a full, inflation-adjusted pension for life at age 42, the grossly overpaid Postal worker, the welfare recipient who passes up work because he'd rather sit on his ass and collect unemployment, the people who expect me to help pay for their medical care, and all of the other associated freeloaders who consume more than they produce, steal from me too.

F them both.  You feel like you have to choose a side, apparently, but I don't.

 

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:09 | 403254 Renfield
Renfield's picture

Me Too, on this comment.

As much as I am enjoying this debate, I agree that taking a 'side' winds up either standing with (corrupt governments and) corporate parasites, or (corrupt governments and) union parasites. Either way it's a parasite problem.

Not much difference that I can see, in practical terms, although perhaps theoretically there's a world of difference (?).

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 15:14 | 404034 Kali
Kali's picture

+100

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:24 | 403137 Nolsgrad
Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:26 | 403139 hognutz
hognutz's picture

?

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:27 | 403140 Ras Bongo
Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:16 | 403209 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

the usual suspects; larry summers, robert rubin, richard perle, henry kissinger, richard holbrooke, robert hormats, and my personal fav (about to get his ass kicked --- NOT)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYHu0cN8bg

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:56 | 403246 Chupacabra
Chupacabra's picture

I wonder how much they spend on security, to safekeep such august personages.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 01:58 | 403178 Haywood Yablomi
Haywood Yablomi's picture

America's biggest challenge is that the banks, Morgan Stanley being a primary culprit, have squandered and stolen this nation's wealth and hijacked it's political system.  Ponzi schemes on top of ponzi schemes.  Sure, entitlements are unreasonably and unrealistically high.  But before anybody else loses a cent due to the false bill of goods they've sold us, the bankers should be out of their jobs at a minimum.

 

 

 

 

 

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:30 | 403276 Renfield
Renfield's picture

Agree that removing TBTF should be Priority One in any serious reform; I'd say that any 'reform' that doesn't do this FIRST is a lie.

What I would do to the banksters is probably closer to a 'Chinese' (or 18th-century French) solution than an American one. Any further details would get Marla pissed off with me. But me, I would view their crimes as no less than treason.

I'd remove more than their jobs, and in public; if it were in any way up to me.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:01 | 403180 Burnbright
Burnbright's picture

Holy crap, expense YOY is accelerating at an alarming rate.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:52 | 403241 A Man without Q...
A Man without Qualities's picture

The US government finances are in such a bad shape, the only "smart" trade is to buy Treasuries....  feels like it could go horribly wrong with this theory.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 02:57 | 403249 Chupacabra
Chupacabra's picture

Maybe we can start a ZH hedge fund for the New American Economy.  Our first investments should be an ammo factory and a whiskey distillery.

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 03:23 | 403273 Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

...and Jesus, turned water into wine...

 

  - miracle #1

Wed, 06/09/2010 - 05:48 | 403353 Jendrzejczyk
Jendrzejczyk's picture

Us "pee-ons" pay for 85% of the government.

Corporations pay for only 7%, and yet they hold so much sway over the politicians.

Are bribes tax deductible?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!