This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

America's Tragic Future In One Parabolic Chart

Tyler Durden's picture





 

When it comes to forecasting the long-term trajectory of the US economy, things usually get very fuzzy some time after 2020 because, as even the most hardened optimists, the "impartial" Congressional Budget Office have recently admitted, America has at best 3-4 years before everything falls apart due to the unsustainable demographic crunch that will wallop the US entitlement state as demographics suddenly becomes a four letter word. Beyond that, not even the CBO dares to plot a straight line as to what happens should America not get its fiscal house in order.

Which is why were were very surprised to see none other than Morgan Stanley's David Greenlaw and Deutsche Bank's David Hooper release a paper (whose views do "not necessarily reflect those of the institutions with which they are affiliated") titled "Crunch Time: Fiscal Crises and the Role of Monetary Policy" which is a must read for everyone interested in what very likely will happen to the US as ever more power is handed over by the country's now terminally malfunctioning fiscal and legislative apparatus to the monetary policy vehicle controlled by the US financial oligarchy.

Since we know that most readers are pressed for time, we will cut to the chase: the following chart shows what according to the authors' own simulation of the US economy, and not that of the CBO, rates on the 10 Year will look like through 2037. The second chart shows what US debt-to-GDP will be for the next two and a half decades.

The charts need no commentary. Parabola #1 showing the yield on the 10 Year under the authors' simulation:

And Parabola #2 showing total US debt/GDP:

For those who request at least a little commentary, here it is:

[W]e have assumed the U.S. current account deficit holds at 2.5% of GDP-- a level that matches the best result seen in the past decade and is slightly narrower than the 2.7% of GDP recorded in 2012. If, instead, we assume that the current account deficit reverted to the 3.7% of GDP average seen over the prior five years, then the projected debt burden would reach 180% of GDP in 2037.

 

We can also examine a scenario in which policy actions and economic outcomes produce a less favorable path for the primary budget deficit (using our baseline current account deficit assumption of 2.5% of GDP). For example, suppose that the looming budget sequester scheduled to occur on March 1 is cancelled and that the steady-state unemployment rate is assumed to be 6% (as opposed to the 5.25% as assumed by CBO). In this case (which we refer to as Simulation II), the budget deficit would be quite a bit higher than in the initial scenario. The debt/GDP ratio would rise much more rapidly, hitting 304% of GDP by 2037 (Figure 3.13) and bond yields would skyrocket, eventually getting above 25% (see Figure 3.14).

 

We should emphasize that we are not presenting these alternative simulations as more realistic forecasts of what the U.S. experience will actually be. In a country like the United States, the debt premium presumably would arise from inflation fears rather than concerns about outright default. And if we are talking about a higher inflation rate, forecasts of nominal GDP should be adjusted as well. Instead, we view these simulations as illustrating the extent to which the path implied by baseline CBO projections could quickly become much more difficult to manage than some policy-makers may be assuming-- something dramatic will need to change well before U.S. interest rates reach double-digit rates

 

Our main conclusion is that higher debt levels can have a significant impact on the interest rate path and that feedback effects of higher rates on the level of indebtedness can lead to a more dramatic deterioration in long-run debt sustainability in the United States than is captured in official baseline estimates. Figure

Putting some numbers to the forecast by Greenlaw and Hooper, and assuming a 1.5% CAGR for GDP, which in the new structurally slower normal is quite generous, we get $23 trillion in US GDP by 2037, $70 trillion in debt, and a blended cash interest expense that is over 75% of total GDP.

We also get the Fed monetizing all of it.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:56 | Link to Comment Whiner
Whiner's picture

We need more of this
Firearms Companies Restricting Sales to Government Agencies in Areas That Restrict Gun Rights
February 22, 2013

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 04:24 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

If a right is being restricted, it is, ipso facto, no longer a right, merely, rather, a privilege in the process of being curtailed and denied.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:00 | Link to Comment klockwerks
klockwerks's picture

May I ask where

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:53 | Link to Comment CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

more than a dozen companies have now cut off sales to police agencies in Jew York. excellent

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 03:43 | Link to Comment tenpanhandle
tenpanhandle's picture

As a safety precaution it makes very good sense.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:21 | Link to Comment Marge N Call
Marge N Call's picture

In a weird way though. Wally-world had no buck or slugs, but .45 HP. Local gun guys had plenty of buck (which I relieved them of), plenty of .45, but NO 9mm or .22 left? They said they can't keep the 9mm and .22 on the shelves. Never saw that one before.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:52 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Any .416 available?

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 11:03 | Link to Comment dtwn
dtwn's picture

They also can't keep .223 on the shelves, or 7.62.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:11 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

I am going "Long Retired" in 2032.  I "didn't build this".  Have fun, kids.  ;-)

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:29 | Link to Comment masterinchancery
masterinchancery's picture

And these graphs are still on the optimistic side--they still expect growth in real GDP, which doesn't currently look very plausible.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:49 | Link to Comment Bernankenstein
Bernankenstein's picture

I am going long Remington razers, and will shave my beard so that the lynch mob doesn't recognize me.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:37 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Don't forget to shave your pussy too.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:11 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Long Remington UMC .223, 9 mm and anything else you might be able to find.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:18 | Link to Comment Killer the Buzzard
Killer the Buzzard's picture

5 more days for $5 foot-longs at Subway.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:37 | Link to Comment NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

They're only 11" long so..... you know.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:46 | Link to Comment Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

They are currently converting to the metric system so soon your foot longs will now be 120mm long and the price will be the same. Just think about getting 120mm of Sub Way sandwich instead of that 12" Sub Way sandwich!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:15 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Actually, the foot-long Subway sandwich would be 305mm, the current 11 incher, 280mm.

 

Meanwhile, speaking of Subway sandwiches:

Subway

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:20 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

So she keeps telling me.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:31 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

in what language?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:37 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

She speaks in tongues.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:18 | Link to Comment vmromk
vmromk's picture

Have no fear of outrageous debt levels, the printer in chief has your back.
Suck my cock BERNANKE.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:21 | Link to Comment stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

keep your gay faggotry to yourself, please!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:36 | Link to Comment vmromk
vmromk's picture

Please excuse the "faggotry".

How's this.....

I hope Bernanke gets his turn at your sister.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:34 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Maybe when he's done with my mother.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 04:36 | Link to Comment stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

i don't have one actually.

i guess yours will have to suffice.

i hope she enjoys being quantitatively EASED!

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 21:24 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Allegorically, I believe this would be known as 'Astrogliding.'

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:20 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

We're not all as flexible as you obviously are.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:28 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

 

keep your gay faggotry to yourself, please!

Very well, we will reserve all faggotry of the non-gay kind strictly for you to indulge in at your whim.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:38 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I got lost in all-a-dat. Was someone saying Benny prefers gang raping girls or boys? ;-)

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 03:35 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Me too. Are we still on sandwich lengths or have we moved to penis lengths? Everything's a blur. Good time to have a drink I guess.

Miffed:-)

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 04:41 | Link to Comment stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

that's as of yet undetermined.

however, the above poster that i had responded to (vmromk), was offering bernanke his phallus.

i guess he thought if bernanke couldn't inflate its miniscule size, no one could.

 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:19 | Link to Comment bjfish
bjfish's picture

Oh shit, we're fvcked.

 

ZH is like 1001 ways that we're fvcked

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 12:23 | Link to Comment samcontrol
samcontrol's picture

1001 ways you could get fucked

fixed it for you

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment ShortTheUS
ShortTheUS's picture

#REF!!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:22 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

I c wut ya did thar!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:19 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Schwiiiiing!!!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

fskcing exponents!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:40 | Link to Comment Wile-E-Coyote
Wile-E-Coyote's picture

Is this a dyslexia fest.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:15 | Link to Comment azusgm
azusgm's picture

Who's lysdexic?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:17 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

That would be the agnostic insomniac who lay awake all night wondering if there really was a Dog.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment Wakanda
Wakanda's picture

eM!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:21 | Link to Comment hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

i might apply for a job with these jokers! NOTTTTTTTTT heh

http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/2013-01-22/elephant-gets-bigger-circus-in...

i just don't got the tools these guy have. Mind you..doctors (PhD's) prove that debt enlargment does work!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:27 | Link to Comment GOSPLAN HERO
GOSPLAN HERO's picture

Phuck central planning - it does not work.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:57 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

Oh? It works quite well -- for the central planners. Millennia of feudal history backs it up. What have you got? A few years of 'democracy'?
/sarc. Sorry for the contrarianism.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 12:25 | Link to Comment samcontrol
samcontrol's picture

and what does work, communism, prepping, ripping peoples hearts out, dictators .....?

o i forgot empires work for a while, you know the one you live in..

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:28 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

But we are good for now, right?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:29 | Link to Comment PUD
PUD's picture

i've seen enough to know that "guessing" beyond a few days time is foolish at best. 30 years of "randomness" guarantees that neither of those graphs will be even in the ball park. If I had to bet, I'd bet they both read zero long before a sliver of those projections bear out and what's left of humanity has gone fully feral 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:22 | Link to Comment Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

Indeed, the U.S. 10-year struck a record yield of 15.8% in September, 1981 -- an economically turbulent time to be sure; yet, the condition of federal indebtedness then was far more temperate, by comparison, than in the present era. I submit that, if anything, the yield projection for the 10-year in the year 2037, may be far too conservative a figure.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:58 | Link to Comment CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

The "yield" on a 10-year on 2037 is going to be precisely zero (0). The Jewnited States and the Fed will be long, long gone by then. 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:15 | Link to Comment yogibear
yogibear's picture

How about we beat that big when the US dollar crashes and Bernanke and the Fed looses control of interest rates?

Bernanke, Evans, Dudley and Yellen, would like to see the expression on your sorry mugs when that moment occurs.

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 08:31 | Link to Comment css1971
css1971's picture

What on earth makes you think it's random?

ok there were some "economists" who took a look at the markets and decided they were a random walk. They were wrong, which shows that you shouldn't assume you know shit outside your domain of expertise and economists don't know what the fuck they are wittering on about ever.

Dow chart

That is not a chart of randomness. That is a chart of exponential growth which has hit a limit.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:29 | Link to Comment StarTedStackin'
StarTedStackin''s picture

Why not just print more money?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:39 | Link to Comment Long-John-Silver
Long-John-Silver's picture

The physical limits of even digital creation  of (fiat) money has been reached. Light Speed has yet to be exceeded.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 11:55 | Link to Comment Gold Dog
Gold Dog's picture

Gravity moves faster than light, Blythe hits the sell button faster than gravity.

Obummer has no gravitas!

 

Dog

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:30 | Link to Comment erg
erg's picture

The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
Frank Zappa

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:37 | Link to Comment WmMcK
WmMcK's picture

“There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.”
? Frank Zappa

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:12 | Link to Comment Kirk2NCC1701
Kirk2NCC1701's picture

"This is the Central Scrutinizer... Don't fool yourself... It's going right up your... I knew you'd be surprised!". - Frank Zappa.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:33 | Link to Comment diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

so what happens if the entire scope is contained within a digital, holographic, HFT algobot economic deathstar and we just get cooked down over the next 100 years as a species into transhuman biological androids

no collapse

just japan and britain until the dictionary is 5 pages long?

 

 

the threat of collapse is more real than collapse itself from a manipulation/phenomenological standpoint vis-a-vis NWO

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:05 | Link to Comment scatterbrains
scatterbrains's picture

nigga on crack  but don't stop

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:35 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

So then we have until 2037 then right??

Party on dude!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:40 | Link to Comment Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Projections through to 2035?

I can only laugh a sad laugh because well beore 2035 humanity either through nuclear mishap, natural disaster, stupidity, mathematical impossibility, natural unsustainability or war, will well and truly be recast into a shape that even I dare not try to guess.

Prepping may help for a few days, weeks or months, but I believe that hell on earth is almost inevitable due to the incredible vacuum of enlightened leadership we continue to suffer from.

Perhaps only cannibals will be able to make sense of the future that awaits us.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:30 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Pssst...don't tell em, but half of Missouri is just getting well-marbled for the rest of us.

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 03:51 | Link to Comment tenpanhandle
tenpanhandle's picture

A quick up vote for ya, now I gotta go vomit.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 12:31 | Link to Comment samcontrol
samcontrol's picture

this thread is funny..
we have had all you mentioned ..life continues,
you are right prepping is ok for a few days after that kamikazee.Not interested in roten meat ,i'll stick to ojo de bife and malbec until the world ends.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:41 | Link to Comment Decimus Lunius ...
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis's picture

By that time, we'll be worried about Soylent Green being labeled as rat meat in our processed lasagna. 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:41 | Link to Comment Jason T
Jason T's picture

Armstrong has it at 2015.75 - 2022, the ship hits the sand... gold rallies like a mother fucker.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:56 | Link to Comment thewayitis
thewayitis's picture

yessa...And silver right behind it

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:54 | Link to Comment Number 156
Number 156's picture

The sequester is meaningless and you shouldn't have bothered to factor it in. Those idiots are fighting over a few billion here or there when there are trillions of dollars in stupid spending. Wake me when they are serious about balancing a budget. 

The whole sequester thing is stupid.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:45 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 156

So little money, and it's the spending, stupid!

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 03:53 | Link to Comment tenpanhandle
tenpanhandle's picture

but the show must go on!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:52 | Link to Comment shinobi-7
shinobi-7's picture

Everyone who has ever been bankrupt knows that when the shit hit the fan things accelerate much faster. In 2035 all these numbers will be irrelevant and certainly not calculated in dollar.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:05 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

If they can't even avoid going bankrupt, why the fuck would I care what they "know"?

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 08:08 | Link to Comment css1971
css1971's picture

Experience?

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 11:36 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I think I'd be more interested in the experience of someone who avoided bankruptcy.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 20:59 | Link to Comment Crash Overide
Crash Overide's picture

What's everyone so worried about, things are looking UP/

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:00 | Link to Comment Jafo
Jafo's picture

Interesting that the banksters allowed this item to emerge just now.  The banksters want austerity and deflation to guarantee that their interest payments will continue and that they will have real purchasing power.

Religion and the State have worked to make usary illegal because of the harm that it does to society.  The banksters have figured a way around this by selling collective groups of people (governments) into usary which avoids the social and legal limitations against usary.  (The interest rates on credit cards are usurous and I wonder how the politicians can be allowing this except that I know they are either ignorant or in the pockets of the banksters.)  It also has the additional benefit of minimising the paper work - one contract for the government instead of an individual contract with every citizen of that nation.  Got to admit, it is a neat scheme. 

The weak point in their scheme is that the people can disolve the government and constitute a new government which is neither authorised to, or obliged to, honour the banksters contract with the previous government.  Won't be popular with either the people holding the sinecure of elected office or the banksters.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:21 | Link to Comment hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

odious debt is smelling sweeter day by day compared ot the shit coming out of the 435 + 100 + 1...pwned by the 5

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/odious-debt-definition

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:04 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I can make a model that predicts a straight vertical line; that doesn't make it so.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:32 | Link to Comment exgop
exgop's picture

I can draw a square circle

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:40 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I can visualize hyperspheres.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:05 | Link to Comment Pascal1967
Pascal1967's picture

blah, blah, blah . . . same old, same old. 1. does it matter? 2. if it DOES, then quit spitting out bullshit, scare-tactic scenarios and start recommending SOLUTIONS. thanks for wasting several minutes of my life I can never get back.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:05 | Link to Comment Whiner
Whiner's picture

You think anybody will be around in 2036 to make further projections? To give further warnings? Why does it always come like a thief in the night. Same old captive regulators, same old ratings agencies, same remaining old financial institutions and CEO bonuses-bigger, more concentrated than ever, same old academics on the dole, same old voter re-electing same old pols- more debt-deficits ramping faster, less GDP etc. No. We are done next year, 2014. Hunker down.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:32 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Hey, that's my guess too.  Why worry about 2036 when you can worry about 2014?

Gold and guns...

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 12:00 | Link to Comment Gold Dog
Gold Dog's picture

In the year 2525- If man is still alive......

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:05 | Link to Comment the night watchman
the night watchman's picture

Once again we have writers who are allowing  themselves to be distracted by the irrelevant "debt to GDP" ratio.  Debt to Federal REVENUE is the measure that matters and it is MUCH worse than debt  to GDP!  Eventually (3-4 years maybe) this ship will sink.  It is a mathematical certainty.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:07 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Do you really think revenue and GDP aren't related?!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:32 | Link to Comment the night watchman
the night watchman's picture

Sure, but government cant use GDP to repay debt... it can only repay from its revenue.  Debt to GDP might mean something but it is not a valid measure of repayment ability. Pretty simple stuff. 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:07 | Link to Comment hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

agreed...but it provides some utility by providing an external yardstick..but you are right...GDP is an abstract concept, especially when government spending amounts to 25% of it..and has evolved an insidiuos link to the rest of the economy that can't even be voted on...think black ops budgets jointly owend by CIA, DoD, Lockheed or NASA, IBM, Boeing and Honeywell...or freddie, fannie and the banks...or obama care and the medical.insurance industry, or JPM and EBT cards. my guesstimate is that 60% of the US economy is linked to government contracts lasting years or decades.

i follow your logic entirely...profits of the top 5,000 companies and 1,000,000 small, entrepreneurial business currently being picked over for tax, rather than reducing the burden by using a simple tax code (same tax code for all type of taxpayer, whether that is corporate, small biz or individual and whether it is income or capital gains) ...profits are the only cake worth measuring. you simply can't spend more than that every year without an investment that generates more profits (free cash flow) being left behind.

gdp is abstract..if the tax take is 2.1 trillion...that is more likely to be the base value from which taxes can be taken and the "value" base of the economy..i still adjust for risk and follow the "risk expects a return" mantra..otherwise, why bother taking the risk..so if the tax base is stable..it has low risk..say it is stbale to within 10% per annum...then I multiply the tax take by 100/10 to get a value for the economy..that makes the economy worth 21 trillion...whacking on loads of leverage to "borrow" future profits/free cash flow and spending it today is a sure sign that the econoym is being bled.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:45 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percent...

Looks like revenue is a function of GDP...and in a pretty narrow band at that.

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 14:45 | Link to Comment hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

gdp and revenue are both based on cash transactions you mean? and its nominal gdp? wonder why they estimate 2010, 2011 (and 2012?) receipts..and aren't the OMB the guys who predict u/e at 5% in a year with 6% nominal gdp growth and a fiscal surplus in three years?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:47 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

GDP is a contrived lie.

“Today, Washington and other government successfully gobbles up 38% of GDP (and spends over 60% of GDP).” --Karen Kwiatkowski on September 16, 2010

And under pure sociaism, Mises said, economic calculation would be impossible.

And, I might add, redundant because it is no longer independent of government.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:08 | Link to Comment proLiberty
proLiberty's picture

The left (er, "progressives") love to scold the rest of us about "sustainability", yet none of their schemes like solar power and electric cars never are econonically sustainale.  And neither is socialism, the belief that we will all be better off if government coerces all of us to live at the expense of everyone else. 

Printing money to pay the federal government's spending on social programs is not sustainable and is a slow motion train wreck.

 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:13 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

The right love to scold the rest of us about "what's good for business", yet none of their financial innovations ever are materially sustainable. And neither is capitalism, the belief that we will all be better off if corporations get to profit from the labor and natural resources of everyone else.

 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:21 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Tell you what, I'll let you and the Regressives, er, "Progressives" continue to beat the dead horse/strawman of capitalism (whatever that truly is) while I go on defending the sustainability and morality of free enterprise.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:24 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

"free enterprise"...with no regulation or enforcement authority for contracts (because that would require a government, martial law, or both).

Best of luck growing a worthwhile economy under those conditions.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:44 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Your mistake, like that of all statists, is glibly, ignorantly and mistakenly equating regulation with coercion.

For example, the queue at your local bank or grocery store is almost always well-regulated, yet with no coercion in sight.  Our national food distribution network is highly "regulated" in its functioning, yet with minimal if any coercion being part of the process.  Angies List is a neat deterrent to shoddy or fraudulent business practices on the local level, consitituting "regulation" that is totally non-coercive.  Nobody mandates that lightbulbs be made with one basic base diameter, yet the market somehow "regulates" that such is the case.  And I could go on.  But such facts mean nothing in the face of statist dogma, so I will desist.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:27 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You've never seen someone with a full cart in the 10 items or less line..or seen them sent to one of the other lines for doing so?

Our food industry is "self-regulated" by the very industrialists who profit greatly from doing such a poor job at same.

Funny that you subsitute a self-appointed and toothless authority like  "Angie's List" to show how we don't need authorities and it doesn't do much for the people who got ripped off, only perhaps the next guy who might happen to hear about a shady company, who's name has most likely changed since then. It does practically nothing to stop shoddy business practices at even local scale, much less any relevant scale.

How does the market determine the correct size to use? Was it a "standards body"...or merely the result of a monopoly market position?

Seems your "facts" don't really make muster, but they sure are chock-full of fantastical handwaving and sophistry.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:34 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Yes, if only our society encompassed even more (statist) coercion than it currently indulges in, all would certainly be well.

Your utopian (and Orwellian) ideals are the stuff of kindergarten fantasies, and freedom lovers' nightmares (and increasingly, their daily lives).

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:54 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

You beat that strawman! Show him you mean business, pun intended, but we're talking about no-regulation vs some regulation not none vs even more (funny that you twinkies all retreat into exactly the same hyperbolic corner once your "facts" run dry...or prove to be anything but).

Yes, even a kindergartner could see through the bullshit you post up as flack.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:06 | Link to Comment CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

It's quite simple, operationally: the real economy of work/wealth is being regulated to death. The JewPonzi economy of debt and speculation on debt is allowed to run riot. 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:12 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

If you could eliminate just one regulation to help improve the "real economy of work/wealth", what would it be?

Which regulation is really making life miserable for the supposed "job creators" (as if they're created by anything but demand outstripping production anyway)?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:14 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Obama(don't)care would be a good one.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:19 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

The GAO published a report two years ago outlining over 200 billion dollars in redundant and useless government programs. One of Obama's first campaign promises was to eliminate waste. He blasted Bush for all of his wastefull spending but once he was in office he publicly proclaimed all spending was "stimulative" and therefor not wasteful. Go figure.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:26 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I can find $200B of savings in one five-sided building.

Bush spent like a drunken sailor, for the same poorly thought out reasons that you're slamming O'bammy for now...the only major difference being the interceding depression.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:41 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Then we agree, government is not the answer.  

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:48 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Depends on the question being asked, but I'll agree that this government (of the people, by the lobbyists, and for the corporations) is not the answer.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:05 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

"I'll agree that this government (of the people, by the lobbyists, and for the corporations) is not the answer.

'this' as opposed to what 'other'?  In a world of dying fiat and war over resources, it is impossible to vote in uncorrupt government.  Almost all of them have voted for the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, fascist bailouts, etc. and are owned by the fiat banksters.  

The answer is free enterprise and minimal government with stict term limits under a system of honest, non-fractionally reserved money.  

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 15:09 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Not sure why you think that the experiment in minimal government and free enterprise will turn out differently this time around.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:24 | Link to Comment CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

1. get rid of the income tax

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:15 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

That would be  great start.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:45 | Link to Comment Vendetta
Vendetta's picture

the banks were 'self-regulating', that turned out well especially after that nasty Glass-Steagall statist crap was taken out (snark) .. of course the statists DID interfere with those banks self destruction which is the unfortunate statist act.

But these details not used as examples by the 'free market' true believers.  Ideology is one thing, reality is almost always something else especially for things as uncontrollable (by its huge number of variables some measurable many not measurable)_

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:10 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Bankers have broken countless laws and have yet been held to account. No shortage of law or rules. If anything, government encouraged banks to make ridiculas bets because there was, what turns out to be true, implicit backing. We are still paying to this day. This has not been a free market for many decades and its failures surely are not "freedoms" fault. All things equal I would still rather taking my chances "free range" over the coupe anyday.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:44 | Link to Comment TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

It's because bankers OWN the gvt. They practically OWN the States (as they control the gvt). They put their men as head of States and into the administrations. Go check Europe, the US.

I'm not standing for Statism, it's not that simple, it can't be reduced to "statism" or "free market". It doesn't work that way, it isn't reality.

See how the Constitution works in the US, in Europe. Tell me if it does work. Justice. Justice! There isn't such thing as "justice" going on either.

Discourse is just discourse. If we don't understand reality, how things work, in whose hands the Power is...

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:22 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Real "statists" would have nationalized those assholes before Xmas.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:55 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Oh no! They don't want their name over the door. Just like they won't pass a budget, they don't want their identity directly tied to whats going down in any way. They can effectively do everything they want with the "strings" of regulation and bailouts. They got the perfect people in place to do everything that's needed.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:40 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I bet we could REALLY get the economy growing with a few thousand MORE laws and a few hundred thousand MORE regulators trying to interpret them and the inevitable lawsuits coming from those interpretations.

In the economy of state production, instead of private production, of course.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:02 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

There is no rational rebuttal to this, but oh, do they try... 

'The next cycle we'll elect leaders who really will reform things, I mean, they said they would!'

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:28 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Because there's no room at all between "too many" and "zero"?

Who needed that excluded middle anyway.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

And YOU, of course, in your infinite and benevolent wisdom, will be the one to tell us just precisely what is the perfect number, yes?

Or are you going to hand that function over to somebody with coercive power over society, who of course will altruistically only have the general population's best interests at heart?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:58 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Given my druthers, I'd be one of a few hundred million...voting for one of several distinct choices.

Your position is basically equivalent to "all sex is rape" and about as logical.

 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:14 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So your belief is that we are suffering under too little regulation, too few laws and too few government employees?

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:20 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Asked and answered. ^^

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:36 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Not sure how you get from over regulation to all sex is rape, but OK. Most free market thinkers would not suggest that there should be no law or legal framework to define a level playing field. That is significantly different from anything close to what we enjoy today. With the expansion of the commerce clause alone, we see an unlimited reach of the federal government to define virtually any and all financial transactions, even to the point to where they can define an action that actually eliminates a financial transaction as under their control. If the constitution is to mean anything, it has to be able to restrain our government's infinite interventions.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:17 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Ignoring the possiblity of consent and cooperation between society and government is the same false dilemma. I offer the posts above as proof that many "free marketeers" have no such rational approach to the problem of governance and instead rely on mythical constructs to spontaneously provide the level playing field (which they can't bring themselves to admit is not an inherent part of their economic utopia).

You might want to re-read the Constitution and realize that's the control they were after all along (well, the Hamilton camp anyway). Thankfully, it also contains all the tools necessary to make restraint of government possible, but we're too busy snapping our heads back and forth watching the staged ping-pong match to attack the core problem of our government going to the highest bidder due to our insane campaign finance laws.

Fix that (no small feat, I'll grant you) and you'll see more than a single party masquerading as two (and a half). Unless and until we do, expect more of the same.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:04 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

Consent and cooperation is only possible in a balance of power scenario. When one party holds all of the power there is only coersion. And it is posssible that your perception of the meaning of the constitution could be wrong. Admittedly it open to interpretation, but I think the general understanding is that the document was to restrain the governments power over the people, not to make its declarations of such.

The money you are so concerned about controlling in elections does not buy off the politician. It is to buy off the media. The  media is the one who sets the agenda, the game, the super bowl of politics..

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:26 | Link to Comment TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

And the media belongs to...

Let's surf... The New York Times, i.e.-

http://www.nndb.com/company/538/000119181/

Let's take a look to the current board members, directors...

And so on.

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 04:08 | Link to Comment TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

Minus? Do the job, search. Find the sources (and goals) of the information you get. And the one you don't get.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 11:43 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I'm specifically addressing the enumeration of powers that gives congress control of our money. And don't forget that most of the bill of rights was added later, not part of the original plan (thank you Virginia contingent). 

The media is a means to an end...why blame the megaphone for the utterances emanating from it? If the media defines the agenda, what are all those lobbyists for?

If you don't think those congress critters know exactly where their bread is buttered, you're intentionaly fooling yourself.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:33 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

....and that change is offered at the polls!  LMFAO {gut hurts!}   *sigh*

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:08 | Link to Comment TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

I believe you have it all wrong.

In the US, in Europe, it's all in private (corporate) hands. Even States. Indeed, who owns the Fed? Who owns the ECB? What States have to buy the currency they need plus interests? Who runs the financial casino? Who pays for it? Who is getting poorer? (Individuals, common citizens, STATES). Who is getting richer? Corporations, banksters. WHO RUNS THE SHOW? A BUNCH OF PRIVATE BUSINESSMEN as these:

http://mapper.nndb.com/start/?id=164310

http://mapper.nndb.com/start/?id=164310

Etcetera.

And you are calling european states, the US, "socialists" states?

How in the hell can this kind of thing be "socialism"?

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:50 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

So do you think socialism is where the "people" own everything? Like where, USSR, China? Socialism is an excuse to take property from those who have created the wealth and give it to the chosen few elites that only have their good of their people at heart. Socialism is about theft, redistribution, which is exactly what these people are using governmental powers to do. Once they have pillaged all they can get from the people they will create a new revolt to another system that they can manipulate to their advantage. Its always about the money.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 03:53 | Link to Comment TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

to take property from those who have created the wealth and give it to the chosen few elites that only have their good of their people at heart is what is going on and has been, what is happening to you, Europe right now and it isn't Socialism, sir.

Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ideology as "a system of ideas and ideals forming the basis of an economic or political theory". And "the set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual".

To simplify, Socialism is about sharing. Marx stated Socialism was the transition towards Communism; anyway it's an economic system of social organization that advocates the the vesting of the ownership and the control of the means of production as well of distribution of capital, land, resources, in the community as a whole.

 

Do you see such a thing in the US? In Europe? The mean of production in the hands of the community? The capital under control of the community? The land? Resources? Absolutely not, sir.

The guys who are plundering the US and Europe are private businessmen, sir. As they managed to control the States, they practically OWN them. Look at Europe: they've organized a system in which STATES HAVE TO BUY THE CURRENCY THEY NEED and PAY INTERESTS TO THEM, PRIVATE BANKERS, IN ORDER TO GET THE CURRENCY. As it happens in the US with the Fed. So it's some kind of paroxysm of Capitalism rather than Socialism.

I see a lot of confusion around. I repeat: In the US, in Europe, gvts are in the hands of a bunch of guys who run the show the show in behalf of their own interests AGAINST public interests or common good. Mostly bankers. That isn't Socialism. USSR was a totalitarism: it wasn't "the people" who owned the production (as intended in a Socialist economy) but the gvt., a strong, violent, totalitarian gvt. China isn't a socialist State. In fact:

"BEIJING — Facing a sharp economic slowdown at home, Chinese companies are plowing money into U.S. assets at a record pace, making huge bids for American energy, aviation, entertainment and other businesses."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/25/business/la-fi-china-us-investin...

That sounds like Capitalism to me, sir. China is a Capitalist State.

Many people here seem to think the problem is the State, I believe the problem is who runs the State. Who is in charge. Who has the Power. If a bunch of corporative businessmen actually OWN the government, they are gonna do (as in fact happens) their own business which isn't the society business, the common interest (common interest which includes, in my view, freedom, which it's been reduced a lot for the citizens in the US and European countries). The guys who actually run States are spying on you (and on a large portion of the World through your States), are sending your boys to fight their wars and die for the profit of a few, are deceiving you with false flag operations - at the point of 9/11 -, are formatting your brains so to drive your actions, and now are flying over your heads with drones. Four main corporations own most of the brands you buy into their corporate supermarkets.

Your politicians work for their corporations:

http://chieforganizer.org/2012/05/05/is-hillary-clinton-heading-to-kolka...

Hillary for Walmart, Monti (Italy) for Goldman Sachs as many others in european gvts, Paulson, Corzine, your guys, they weren't working for the US sake. Did Bush? Did Clinton? Since WHEN your gvt is working for private corporate interests? Long. They've fucked up most of the World in behalf of corporate interests, they've killed, bombed, destroyed, telling you it was for your safety, but no. Of course you don't believe they invaded Afghanistan and Irak to free people and prevent terrorists attacks on America, do you? You have read about 9/11, you have seen the Twin Towers' controlled demolition, do you?

Indeed, society is breaking down in the US, in Europe...

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/20-signs-that-society-is-beaki...

or right here, on ZH:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-02-23/economic-leaders-pay-lip...

Most people would choose a mix economy in which both private property and common interests can work. To make it work, basically, the pursuing of individual, private interests must have a boundary: the common good. Many constitutions were written according to that idea.

But in Europe, in the US, private interests have taken it all.

No sharing at all, sir. Just an extraordinary concentration of the means of production, land, resources, even currencies, in a few hands. The exact opposit of Socialism.

Against the common interest, the common good. Against you, me all. They've done a hell of a job on you, people.

 

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 10:44 | Link to Comment Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

anyway it's an economic system of social organization that advocates the the vesting of the ownership and the control of the means of production as well of distribution of capital, land, resources, in the community as a whole.

Ownership by the "state". And the State is owned or controlled by who? The point is that centralized power placed in the hands of the State is ultimately corrupt. Decentralization of power and choice is the only answer. Not Anarchy but decentralization. And MArx was right. Socialism is simply the mid point transition that empowers the state to hold full tyranny of dictatorship. If you believe in Full Communism, where the dictators somehow misteriously melt away after three generations, then you sir, are truely frightening.

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 12:47 | Link to Comment TNTARG
TNTARG's picture

"Centralized power" is what we have right now. Power centralized in a few private hands.

And just to be precise, you misunderstood my point: I'm saying you shouldn't call this "Socialism". It's wrong. Doesn't mean I'm Socialist, Communist. Never said that, read again.

P.S.: I'm a woman. That arm in the picture is my arm.

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Some pretty wealthy people in "socialist" China:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Jonathan+Manthorpe+Waves+illegal+mo...

 

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 01:23 | Link to Comment Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

No that isn't in the issue and you know it.

The issue is the system : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI

In a real world community, we would make better choices electorally if we had choices. But we have no choices

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 23:20 | Link to Comment Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

Hey fuckmad people abide by contracts because of moral and ethical bonds that are tied together by shared culture. Fucking bureaucrat statist don't enforce a thing. 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:18 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

"This time is different."

High rates and higher debt?  How could this possibly happen?

Black Tulips will always be as valuable as the average house.

You can retire on South Seas shares.

Herbalife is not a Ponzi.

All hail Caesar!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:18 | Link to Comment Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Get smart. The new regulator lurks.

http://www.iosco.org/

 

Or shall I say, new geolocation database NSA targets. We love you NSA bitichez, start doing your job. If you don’t, we will .

/sarc

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:27 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Will they be incredibly useless wrist slappers like the pink bitches responsible for punishing UBS, Barclays, and RBS for LIBOR fixing?

 

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:51 | Link to Comment DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Atomizer & GMad, yes & yes.

The little bitch organzation looks so European...

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:57 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

In other words, another hollow shell organization whose primary goal is to promote investor confidence while doing absolutely nothing to protect investor assets.

"VAPORIZED"

Sun, 02/24/2013 - 00:02 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Et......c'est disparu.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:27 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

But, but, but, we got teh reserve currenceeeezzz

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:32 | Link to Comment buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

Hogwash, both are wrong. The 10y will be ~ 1% within ten years imo.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:41 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

We were told long ago it's the world of TINA ("There Is No Alternative.") Those who dare to question the dogma have been and will be mercilessly terminated.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:05 | Link to Comment Lucius Corneliu...
Lucius Cornelius Sulla's picture

TINA is the new "Goldilocks" or "Eyballs" valuation methodology.  Just a stupid rationalization for the sheep.  Meanwhile the corporate insiders are selling like its 2007.

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 22:10 | Link to Comment hooligan2009
hooligan2009's picture

tina + nimby (not in my back yard) = a country with no houses!!! wigwam bam!

Sat, 02/23/2013 - 21:58 | Link to Comment Lost Wages
Lost Wages's picture

Buy and hold ultra-short 10-year treasury ETF for next 20 years.

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