THE BEST LOOKING HORSE IN THE GLUE FACTORY

“Believe me, the next step is a currency crisis because there will be a rejection of the dollar, the rejection of the dollar is a big, big event, and then your personal liberties are going to be severely threatened.” Ron Paul

As usual the MSM did its usual superficial dog and pony show for the American public on Saturday and Sunday. The overall tone on every show (not journalism) was to calm the audience. Every station had a “downgrade special” to explain why you shouldn’t panic over the downgrade of the United States. As we can see, it didn’t work. Worldwide markets went berserk. The reactions of the various players in this saga have been very enlightening to say the least.

As I watched, listened and read the views of hundreds of people over the last few days, I recalled a statement by David Walker in the documentary I.O.U.S.A. This documentary was made in late 2007 before the financial crisis hit. The documentary follows Walker, the former head of the GAO, and Bob Bixby, head of the Concord Coalition, on their Fiscal Wake Up tour.

In the film, Walker tells the audience: “We suffer from a fiscal cancer. If we don’t treat it there will be catastrophic consequences.” He argued the greatest threat to America was not a terrorist squatting in a cave in Afghanistan, but the US debt mountain. He was nervous about the increasing dependence on countries such as China, which are the biggest holders of US Treasury bonds. Bixby explained: “If you knew a levee was unsound and people were moving into that area, would you do nothing? Of course not.” These men were sounding the alarm when our National Debt was $9 trillion. Evidently, no one in Washington DC went to see the movie. They’ve added $5.5 trillion of debt to our Mount Everest of obligations.

After listening to the shills, shysters, propagandists, and paid representatives of the vested interests over the last few days, Mr. Walker’s response to someone pointing out Europe and other countries were in worse shape than the U.S. came to mind:

“What good does it do to be the best-looking horse in the glue factory?”

At the end of the documentary there was a prestigious panel of thought leaders discussing ideas to alter the country from its unsustainable fiscal path. I was shocked when Warren Buffett basically stated there was nothing to worry about:

“I’m going to be the token Pollyanna here. There is no question that our children will live better than we did. But it’s just like my investments. I try to buy shares in companies that are so wonderful, an idiot could run them, and sooner or later one will. Our country is a bit like that.”

Buffett has since turned into a Wall Street/Washington apologist, talking his book. He declared this weekend the US deserves a quadruple A rating. He has tried to protect his investments in GE, Goldman Sachs, Moodys and Wells Fargo by declaring their businesses as sound and their balance sheets clean. He is now just a standard issue sellout spewing whatever will protect his vast fortune. Truth is now optional in Buffett World.

The Oracle of Omaha has continuously bad mouthed gold and pumped up the economic prospects for the U.S. He trashed gold in his March 2011 report to shareholders:

“Gold is a way of going long on fear, and it has been a pretty good way of going long on fear from time to time. But you really have to hope people become more afraid in a year or two years than they are now. And if they become more afraid you make money, if they become less afraid you lose money, but the gold itself doesn’t produce anything.”

I guess the leadership of this country has created a bit of fear in the market, as gold has risen from $1,400 to $1,750 and Warren’s beloved financial holdings have tanked, along with the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway (down 23% since March). There seems to be an inverse relationship between the barbarous relic and lying old men shilling for the vested interests.

Vested Interests

When you watch the corporate mainstream media, or read a corporate run newspaper, or go to a corporate owned internet site you are going to get a view that is skewed to the perspective of the corporate owners. What all Americans must understand is everyone they see on TV or read in the mainstream press are part of the status quo. These people have all gotten rich under the current social and economic structure. Buffett, Kudlow, Cramer, Bartiromo, Senators, investment managers, Bill Gross, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt, and every person paraded on TV have a vested interest in propping up the existing structure. They are talking their book and their own best interests. Even though history has proven time and again the existing social order gets swept away like debris in a tsunami wave, the vested interests try to cling to their power, influence and wealth. Those benefitting from the existing economic structure will lie, obfuscate, misdirect, and use propaganda and misinformation to retain their positions.

The establishment will seek to blame others, fear monger and avoid responsibility for their actions. Ron Paul plainly explains why the US was downgraded:

“We were downgraded because of years of reckless spending, not because concerned Americans demanded we get our finances in order. The Washington establishment has spent us into near default and now a downgrade, and here they are again trying to escape responsibility for their negligence in handling the economy.”

The standard talking points you have heard or will hear from the vested interests include:

  • Stocks are undervalued based on forward PE ratios.
  • Ignore the volatility in the market because stocks always go up in the long run.
  • Buy the f$%ing dip.
  • America is not going into recession.
  • The market is dropping because the Tea Party held the country hostage.
  • The S&P downgrade is meaningless because they rated toxic subprime mortgages AAA in 2005 – 2007.
  • The market is dropping because the debt ceiling deal will crush the economy with the horrific austerity measures.
  • The S&P downgrade is meaningless because Treasury rates declined after the downgrade.
  • Foreigners will continue to buy our debt because they have no other options.
  • Foreigners will continue to invest in the U.S. because Europe, Japan and China are in worse shape than the U.S.
  • America is still the greatest economy on the planet and the safest place to invest.

Each of these storylines is being used on a daily basis by the vested interests as they try to pull the wool over the eyes of average Americans. A smattering of truth is interspersed with lies to convince the non-thinking public their existing delusional beliefs are still valid. The storylines are false.

Here are some basic truths the vested interests don’t want you to understand:

  • As of two weeks ago the stock market was 40% overvalued based upon normalized S&P earnings and was priced to deliver 3% annual returns over the next decade. The S&P 500 has lost 17%, meaning it is only 23% overvalued. Truthful analysts John Hussman, Jeremy Grantham and Robert Shiller were all in agreement about the market being 40% overvalued. This decline is not a buying opportunity.
  • The S&P 500 was trading at 1,119 on April 2, 1998. The S&P 500 closed at 1,119 yesterday. In March 2000 the S&P 500 traded at 1,527. By my calculation, the stock market is 27% below its peak eleven years ago. As you can see, stocks always go up in the long run. It is just depends on your definition of long.
  • The talking heads on CNBC told you to buy the dip from October 2007 through until March 2009. The result was a 50% loss of your wealth.
  • The government will report the onset of recession six months after it has already begun. People who live in the real world (not NYC or Washington DC) know the country has been in recession for the last seven months. The CNBC pundits don’t want to admit we are in a recession because they know the stock market drops 40% during recessions on average and don’t want you to sell before they do.
  • The stock market held up remarkably well during the debt ceiling fight. It did not begin to plunge until Obama signed the toothless joke of a bill that doesn’t “cut” one dime of spending. The markets realized  the politicians in Washington DC will never cut spending. The National Debt will rise from $14.5 trillion to $20 trillion by 2015 and to $25 trillion by 2021, even with the supposed austere spending “cuts”.

 

  • The left wing media and the frothing at the mouth leaders of the Democratic Party have conducted focus groups and concluded that blaming the extreme, terrorist Tea Party for the stock market crash and the S&P downgrade plays well to their hate mongering ignorant base. They have rolled out their rabid dogs, Joe “gaffe machine” Biden, Howard “AYAHHHHHH!!!” Dean and John “ketchup” Kerry, to eviscerate the Tea Party terrorists.

  • The mainstream liberal media would like you to believe the Tea Party is an actual cohesive group that wants to throw grandmothers and the poverty stricken under the bus. The neo-cons in the Republican Party and their mouthpieces on Fox News have tried to co-opt the Tea Party movement for their purposes. There is no one Tea Party. It is a movement born of frustration with an out of control government. Ron Paul represented the Tea Party before it even existed and is the intellectual leader of the movement. His is the only honest truthful voice in this debate:

“As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”

  • S&P’s opinion about any debt should be taken with a grain of salt. They, along with Warren Buffet’s friends at Moodys, were bought and sold by the Wall Street criminal element. Anyone with a smattering of math skill and an ounce of critical thinking would have concluded the U.S. was a bad credit three years ago. A Goldman Sachs trader had this opinion of the brain dead analysts at Moodys: “Guys who can’t get a job on Wall Street get a job at Moody’s.” Michael Lewis, in his book The Big Short, summarized the view of the rating agencies:

“Wall Street bond trading desks, staffed by people making seven figures a year, set out to coax from the brain-dead guys making high five figures the highest possible ratings for the worst possible loans. They performed the task with Ivy League thoroughness and efficiency.”

  • The most laughable storyline spouted by the Democrats and their lapdogs on MSNBC is the extreme austerity measures forced on the country by the Tea Party has caused the stock market to collapse. The plan “cuts” $22 billion in 2012 and $42 billion in 2013. Over this time frame, the Federal government will spend $7.4 TRILLION. The horrific spending “cuts” amount to .86% of spending over the next two years. Meanwhile, we will add at least $3 trillion to the National Debt over this same time frame. Of course, we could listen to Paulie “Spend More” Krugman and add $6 trillion to the national debt with another stimulus package. When a Keynesian solution fails miserably, just declare it would have worked if it was twice the size.
  • Barack Obama, the James Buchanan of our times, gave one of the worst Presidential speeches in the history of our country yesterday. In full hubristic fury he declared the United States of America would ALWAYS be a AAA country. The American Exceptionalism dogma is so very amusing. We are chosen by God to lead the world. Barack should have paid closer attention in history class. The Roman, Dutch, Spanish and British Empires all fell due to their hubris, fiscal mismanagement and overseas military exploits. The American Empire has fallen and can’t get up.

And now we come to the $100 trillion question. The establishment/vested interests/status quo declares the United States as the safest place in the world for investors. They frantically point out that people are pouring money into our Treasuries and interest rates are declining. They hysterically blurt out that Europe has much bigger problems than the U.S. and China’s real estate bubble will implode in the near future. These are the same people who told you the internet had created a new paradigm and NASDAQ PE ratios of 150 in 2000 were reasonable. The NASDAQ soared to 5,000 in early 2000. Today it trades at 2,358, down 53% eleven years later. These are the same people who told you they aren’t making more land and home prices in 2005 were reasonable. They told you home prices had never fallen nationally in our history, so don’t worry. Prices are down 35% and still falling today.

Medicare and Medicaid spending rose 10% in the second quarter of 2011 from a year earlier to a combined annual rate of almost $992 billion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The two programs are likely to crack $1 trillion before the end of the year. Medicare’s unfunded liability alone amounts to $353,350 per U.S. household. The National Debt will reach 100% of GDP in the next four months as we relentlessly add $4 billion per day to our Mount Everest of debt. Federal spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion. Today, they are spending $3.8 trillion of your money. The country does not have a revenue problem. We have a spending addiction and the addict needs treatment. Doctor Ron Paul has our prognosis:

“When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.”

The politicians and bankers who control the developed world have made the choice to print money and create more debt as their solution to an un-payable debt problem. Europe, Japan, the U.S., and virtually every country in the world want to devalue their way out of a debt problem created over the last forty years. It has become a race to the bottom, with no winners. Every country can’t devalue their currency simultaneously without blowing up the entire worldwide monetary system. But, it appears they are going to try. The United States will never actually default on its debts. Ben Bernanke will attempt to default slowly by paying back the interest and principal to foreigners in ever more worthless fiat dollars. This will work until the foreigners decide to pull the plug. For now interest rates are low and the U.S. is the best looking horse in the glue factory. But we all know what happens to all the horses in the glue factory – even Mr. Ed.

 “It is true that liberty is not free, nor is it easy. But tyranny – even varying degrees of it – is much more difficult, and much more expensive. The time has come to rein in the federal government, put it on a crash diet, and let the people keep their money and their liberty.” – Ron Paul

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
177 Comments
Colma Rising
Colma Rising
August 9, 2011 9:15 pm

David G Mills….

Read “Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles” By Jesus Huerta De Soto… pure fiat can be maintained IF AND ONLY IF there is NO fractional reserves… 100% deposits. Anything else distorts the logic of contract law… to think that a 100% reserve wouldn’t be done away with by politicians asap is pure blindness.

Look at the SCOTUS rulings for evidence. Bust out some LEXIS.

I know that you may not have remembered, but what happened to all of those Mega Firms at the turn of the century?

Oh yeah! They went broke! All of that genius and not a lick of business sense, now wasn’t it? Go figure. Lawyer doesn’t = knowledge of finance or the wherewithal to recognize when the facts are distorted… the distortion of facts was the cornerstone of Progressivism. Look at the SCOTUS rulings for further evidence.

Not to mention your ommision of dissenting opinion. What were they? What were they based upon? Were they unanimous rulings? Do you believe in sterilizing the poor and “non-whites”? Tell us more.
LLPOH: You forgot about me. I am a dullard…

llpoh
llpoh
August 9, 2011 9:25 pm

Colma – did not! I posted a photo of you above with your attorney David! 🙂

Colma Rising
Colma Rising
August 9, 2011 9:35 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

I’m in college!!! Yaaay!!!

Mikey
Mikey
August 9, 2011 9:37 pm

@Petey

You beat me to that listing 🙂

@Davidgmills

I do agree with your post that there is sweet FA difference between both the US Democratic and US Republican parties. At least the ‘mainstream’ wings of those parties.

The ‘fringe’ elements though are indeed different from each other (and the mainstream wings). What do I consider ‘fringe’? oh, those ‘nutters’ one one side that talk ‘crazy talk’ like balancing the budget and not fighting wars with goat-herders for fun and profit. Not to mention those ‘silly people’ on the otherside that talk through their arse about such craziness like ‘lets not let the poor starve in the streets’ and ‘the rich should be taxed at *at least* the same rate as ordinary people’. Add to that the total loonies that spout such bollocks like ‘When not absolutely needed the government should just get the hell out of the way’ and ‘you should not try and legislate against idiocy’ as well as ‘people should take responsibility for their own actions’

such crazies!

llpoh
llpoh
August 9, 2011 9:51 pm

Colma – that is all you got? I slap the crap out of you and you just sit there and take it? Damn, man, you have gone soft.

Buckhed
Buckhed
August 9, 2011 10:03 pm

David said that the question he is asked most often by a client during a divorce proceeding is, “When we’re divorced is my ex-wife still my sister ? “

Pirate Jo
Pirate Jo
August 9, 2011 10:15 pm

TheresaE: “I find myself thinking, more and more, if there will ever be a day that I feel that knowing what is coming was worth the heartache, stress and marginalization.

This slow descent into hell is trying.

Sometimes I really wish I would have been blessed with beauty instead of brains. Ignorance is bliss and there are days (like these) where I wish I was much more ignorant.”

Eowyn: “I dreamed I saw a great wave, , climbing over green lands and above the hills. I stood upon the brink. It was uppterly dark in the abyss before my feet.”

TheresaE, this is just the dark before the first spring rain.

llpoh
llpoh
August 9, 2011 10:27 pm

“Sometimes I really wish I would have been blessed with beauty instead of brains.”

Why not wish for both? Works for me!

Petey
Petey
August 9, 2011 10:29 pm

Thread Recap: There were a few trolls on here that claimed the wise sages of TBP did not care about military spending. Little did they know that all they had to do was scroll down the page and look at the “Cost of US Wars” widget reminding us of our money going down the drain in the ultimate broken window fallacy that is war.

For the trolls: “War prosperity is the prosperity earthquakes and plagues bring.” -von Mises, admired by many wise sages of TBP.

Admin: It dawns on me that gmills being a lawyer of 33 years must put him in the range of being a (gasp) BOOMER.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 9, 2011 11:05 pm

This is interesting. I stumbled on to this site. Don’t have the slightest clue how I got here frankly.

All I did was post something about the vast amount of money we spend on the military and I am slammed before anyone knows who I even am. I really don’t bring up the fact that I am a lawyer much except when the topic turns to law, (it is my field) of which the Constitution still is, I think, but wonder sometimes.

Really hard to tell where you guys are coming from. You mostly seem to hate the government so much that I presume you must mostly be anarchistic. I am not saying that is good or bad. But what always gets me is that “people want to make a law” no matter how anarchistic they are.

And if you are not going to be anarchistic and you want some kind of government, then you are going to have to pay for it and the question is how.

So first principals. Do you believe in sovereign states or not? How much government do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it? Do you believe we should trash the US Constitution, if so, what would you replace it with?

I am just an inquiring mind. I just want to know.

newsjunkie
newsjunkie
August 9, 2011 11:12 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

llpoh
llpoh
August 9, 2011 11:26 pm

David – a lot better. You said “Do you believe in sovereign states or not? How much government do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it? Do you believe we should trash the US Constitution, if so, what would you replace it with?”

I can only answer for myself.

Sovereign states: Absolutely.

How much government: very damn little. Keep the peace. Standing army. Police the borders. Protect life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. Etc., but the less government the better. Welfare state? No fucking way. That has taken the whole western world down the shitter.

Willing to pay for: very damn little. Let the free market rule, and let charitable work become the norm. Mandatory redistribution of wealth because the govt knows better – not a chance.

Trash the constitution? Get serious. I just want it enforced, and not re-interpretted based on which president nominated which Supreme Court Justice. Again, I do not want it replaced – just adhered to.

major mocambo
major mocambo
August 9, 2011 11:33 pm

Mr Mills, you were just taking a friendly internet blog stroll when suddenly you decided to post
“Same old libertarian song. I’m a progressive and in truth the libertarians and progressives are not that far apart anymore. But you need a new line to be credible. If you are going to advocate only spending cuts, without tax increases, you just can’t be taken seriously by any one else until you start talking seriously about cutting the military.”

Damn dude, that’s provocative and an in-accurate assessment of the article.

Then you go on to say
“This is interesting. I stumbled on to this site. Don’t have the slightest clue how I got here frankly.”

Your funny!! Please stop responding, I’m laughing so hard I’m going to pee my pants. Oh wait, I think I already did. You know us boomers, can’t even trust a fart.

Colma Rising
Colma Rising
August 9, 2011 11:48 pm

BBES

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 12:03 am

What kind of site is this? Mostly what I see above are ad hominem attacks on me personally. The pictures of me…. Well all I can say is that I have posted on hundreds of websites over the years and never had those kinds of personal attacks. You could at least be civil if you want to engage a discussion with me. I will stay and argue with anyone if the discussion is civil and about ideas not about personal attacks.

What people ascribe to me as a liberal or progressive is laughable. I don’t consider myself to be a liberal because liberal to me means main stream democrat. I do consider myself to be a progressive but a progressive is certainly not what people here seem to think a progressive is. I feel like Alice in wonderland. Somebody called Buffet a progressive. Take it from me, Buffet doesn’t have a progressive bone in his body.

I am genuinely interested about the topic of money and our abysmal economy. I am also genuinely interested about legal matters of most kinds. Glad to discuss both civilly.

Now back to the topic of hyperinflation. The countries named above did not have true sovereign currency exclusively issued by the government, at least as far as I can tell. But I think more importantly none of those countries conditions at the time of their hyperinflation would be anywhere near similar to the US in today’s circumstances. I don’t think any would serve as a reliable predictor of what would happen if the US issued sovereign currency again.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 12:11 am

llpoh. You want the free market to rule? What are the free market rules that you want? The free market almost always ends in monopoly if it is unregulated.

Do you want anti-monopoly laws?

What is the welfare state that you don’t want? Whose welfare are you talking about?

If you believe in life (as in life liberty and pursuit of happiness — from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution) does protecting this life include protecting a person’s health? Life doesn’t seem to be worth living if your health is shitty.

howard in nyc
howard in nyc
August 10, 2011 12:11 am

fuck civility. it is way overrated. as a response to arrogant, stereotyping idiocy.

you blew in here and acted like a douchebag. and got your sorry ass slapped down. that is how we roll. sorry we don’t fit your predesigned labels, such as libertarian.

you come back, nice, open, polite. for exactly one post. then start lecturing us in civility. as a follow up on your wonderful eighth-grade history class level lecture on 1913.

take your 33 years experience as a litigator, your law degree that you believe trumps actual listening and thinking, and shove it up you civil ass.

engaging in a discussion with you would be a waste of fucking time. go charge someone $400 an hour for the pleasure.

what a maroon.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 12:16 am

David – this is the wild west. Do not take it personally. That was just a bit of fun – really.

You got off to a bad start by jumping in with an attitude that no one knows what is going on around here. So you became a target. It is reasonably good natured so far – trust me on that. It can get positively ugly and this ain’t it.

If you want, hang in there and people will be more than happy to debate you. There will be some firefights, tho, so you will need a thick skin.

But if you are serious about learning things and discussing things, you have come to the right place. You will quickly get the hang of it. But lighten up, go with the flow, fell free to blast away if someone pisses you off, and most importantly, add something to the site.

But you need to be a bit careful talking down to folks. You probably didn’t mean to do it. But folks will latch onto that and will come huntin’. That is the way it is. This is the most politically incorrect site imaginable, anything goes, but you can learn lots here – anything from financial info, airplanes, CIA stuff, weaponry and survival info, and even bat guano has come up.

Do yourself two favors – 1) hang around, and 2) keep calm for the moment until you learn the ropes.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 12:28 am

Damn, Howard – and here I am welcoming him. I had the same thoughts, but it takes these newbies time. Good flame.

David – the free markets largely prevent monopolies, in my opinion. The ability of big business to buy/curry favor in current circumstances leads to oligopolies if not monoploies. If business were actually left alone, it would generally make monopolies more difficult to achieve, in my opinion. And if monopolies did form yes, I suppose anti-monopoly laws would be beneficial. But right now big business is a protected species given their enormous influence over our politicians.

I do not want any welfare state, preferably. No SS, no medicare, no medicaid. Personal responsibility needs to be the name of the game. Governments cannot help themselves – they continually roll out more and more welfare programs, and it is never ending. People need to take care of themselves, and failing that, families need to help, and failing that, charities need to help. But to force charitable contributions – which is what is really happening – is destroying the moral fabric of the nation. Further, it is proving to be absolutely unsustainable. Further it provides disincentive to work (* million Americans on disability today – give me a break). Western societies are collapsing under the debt burden. Further, the welfare state is dramatically eroding the ability of nations to grow their economies. And growing economies would tend to make redundant the need to provide social welfare.

To draw the conclusion that the life portion of “life, liberty….” should include provision for healthcare is drawing an enormously long bow. It obviously meant that people had the right to their life and for it not to be arbitrarily taken away, and not to the government involvement in extending it via healthcare. In my humble opinion. The founding fathers didn’t rush out and implement universal healthcare, now did they? Insureing one’s health and family is a personal responsibility, not one for the government, in my opinion.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 12:34 am

David – Also – you said “Life doesn’t seem to be worth living if your health is shitty.” That is a personal decision for the individual to make. It has nothing to do with me.

For me it all comes back to personal responsibility, to family, and then to the natural charity of the communities. Natural charity would be much greater if the tax burden were less, as the government has taken on the role of charity giver.

We oft refer to “the free shit army” around here. It specifically refers to the mass of people that live off of social welfare and tend to give nothing back to society. I for one do not believe we should be supporting the free shit army, but should make them support themselves. Giving them free shit is self-perpetuating and never ending.

Buckhed
Buckhed
August 10, 2011 12:34 am

David..are monopolies bad ? Why were so many companies in favor of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act ?

Seems to me the act was used to protect incompetent businesses It’s probably the same reason that many corporations today support interventionist and anticapitalist policies: They wanted to use the power of government to hurt their competitors.

Thinker
Thinker
August 10, 2011 12:37 am

Good analogy for where the dollar sits today:

The Price Of A Big Mac Is Now $17.19 In Zurich
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/09/2011 18:24 -0400
Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man

The price of a Big Mac is now $17.19 in Zurich

Just a quick thought on a ridiculously volatile day:

One of the things that people pick up on very quickly as they travel are how different price levels are around the world. I’ve been to roughly 100 countries, and I still find it amazing how much variance there is among things like food, property, and entertainment prices.

There are certain places– Cambodia, Ecuador, Tanzania– that are so jaw-droppingly cheap that it almost seems unreal. And you wonder how these people could possibly ever survive if they came to your country.

Well, the United States has just joined this proud cadre banana republics… at least if you’re from Switzerland.

You see, the Swiss franc is one of the few currencies that have given investors some sense of comfort recently; Switzerland inspires confidence and stability, and the worse things get in the United States and Europe, the more investors pull their money out of the dollar and euro, and park it in the Swiss franc.

It’s all about supply and demand. Increased demand for the Swiss franc coupled with expanded supply of dollars and euros has caused the franc to surge over the last weeks and months. It wasn’t too long ago that it would take 1.20 francs to buy a US dollar. Now it takes $1.40 to buy a single franc.

I can think of a lot of words to describe the performance of the US dollar. Farce. Joke. Lunacy. Embarrassment. Disgusting. But it’s more clearly summed up like this: the price of a Big Mac is in Zurich is now so high (at $17.19) that a minimum wage employee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, would have to work for nearly 4-hours in order to afford it.

This is what stability looks like to Ben Bernanke.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 12:38 am

Buckhed – that is my point. Today’s system allows big corporations power by stealth – they buy politicians and favors. A true open market would prevent the bulk of this crap.

Buckhed
Buckhed
August 10, 2011 12:38 am

LLPOH..I use this line of yours all the time .

“Natural charity would be much greater if the tax burden were less, as the government has taken on the role of charity giver. ”

When you had to go a charity for support it came with strings attached and that was good for many folks. In addition there was a bit of public shame in having to get support from a charity. Now there is no shame or strings attached.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 12:39 am

Thinker – forget the Big Macs – how much is a beer?

Nice comments.

platoplubius
platoplubius
August 10, 2011 12:39 am

David asked: “What kind of site is this?”

Whew! After laughing so hard I cried, I had to respond. David, I would imagine this is one of the last vestiges of free speech (minus the fubard political correctness police) remaining on the internet.

Like IIPOH said, “Do yourself two favors – 1) hang around, and 2) keep calm for the moment until you learn the ropes.”

Buckhed
Buckhed
August 10, 2011 12:40 am

LLPOH said:

“A true open market would prevent the bulk of this crap.”

True but most companies couldn’t handle a “True Open Market”. Then again neither could employees .

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 12:41 am

Buckhed – attaching strings would offend the sensibility of the FSA. That cannot be allowed – mutual responsibility simply cannot be allowed.

Mikey
Mikey
August 10, 2011 12:42 am

@Davidgmills

“Do you believe in sovereign states or not? How much government do you want? How much are you willing to pay for it? Do you believe we should trash the US Constitution, if so, what would you replace it with?”

Here’s my 2c from the other side of the political spectrum from Ilpoh (and other side of the planet)

“Do you believe in sovereign states or not?”

– interesting question. Personally I think it’s up there with ‘do you believe in rocks’. Rocks are, whether you believe in them or not. To misquote the Pythons, Sovereign states are in the same sense that Mt Everest is. What I think you mean by this question though is “How do you define Sovereignity and how does this effect governments?” In that sense I follow Hobbes in his philosophical belief that that the ruler’s sovereignty is contracted to him by the people in return for his maintaining their safety, and that the ruler fails to do this, the people are released from their obligation to obey him.

I use “him” and “ruler” as notional heads of government. Replace “him” with “her”, “parliament”, “church leaders” or “committee” as you see fit.

“How much government do you want? ”

– As little as possible to ensure the smooth running of society and the production of essential services.

As I come from the “decentralised left” of the political matrix, I favour having many small councils that pass suggestions up to a central body, that makes proposals and passes them back down to the small councils to be approved/rejected. I also favour having fixed maxiumum terms of office of less than 10 years at any one level of government, or 3 terms, which ever is shorter with wages/benefits fixed at whatever the national average wage is. This is because I believe that all problems are local problems, and local problems are best dealt with at the local level. This also reduces the probability of politicians being remote from the people they allegedly represent. It also limits the effectiveness of major political parties.

Admittedly the cost of this system is much slower activity and much more talking. It also means that bills are more likely to be blocked or stalled. I think that’s a good thing as it means there will be less laws besides those that are blindingly obvious.

“How much are you willing to pay for it?”

– How long is a piece of string? A poor and highly biased question.

I think most people want everything for nothing – or better. At the same time they want to control what stuff everyone else gets. This is MY stuff, not YOUR stuff. Go get your own stuff! Don’t take any of mine!

I believe that the purpose of government is to protect the people. The people ARE the state, NOT the government, and NOT the businesses that the people make. I find it abhorent that businesses can have more rights that humans. A business can be considered a ‘person’ in law, with rights but with no responsibilities. Yes, I have been a successful small business owner (like many here) and yes I’ve used and abused the system like every small business owner has to (again, like many here).

As such I believe in a welfare state. As Mohindas Ghandi said, “You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members.” To those that say that a country with a welfare state cannot do well, consider German, the Nederlands, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand to name a few.

Yes, a welfare state can encourage those that are lazy to stay lazy. It also means that there aren’t beggars on the street, or people starving to death and raiding the rubbish bins of restaurants.

It is social security, not welfare. It means that the cost/benefit comparison between between committing a crime and not committing a crime changes. If you don’t have a job, how do you eat? You can either receive social security and survive that way, or you can rob those that have a job so that you can eat. Social security and its beaurocracy is cheaper than the costs of crime and the costs of enforcing the prosecution and punishment of crime.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 12:51 am

llpoh: Since you are being civil ( let’s be frank being uncivil doesn’t get people anywhere very often) and seem willing to debate, let’s start with the Constitution, since you said you don’t want it dismantled.

In the Preamble it says the government is being created among other things “to provide for the general welfare.” What does that mean? It doesn’t mean to me that we are all supposed to rely on charities for help. Personally, I think charities seldom do much for people that need help.

But, any rate, if you are a Constitutionalist, you can’t just ignore these words. Because the constitution mentions them again. In Article I Section 8 it says that Congress shall provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So Congress, under the Constitution, is charged with providing for the general welfare of the people.

Say what you want. That is what the Constitution says. It doesn’t say provide for our education (though most of us have at least some of our education from the public school system); it says provide for our general welfare. I am thinking that means it should help us feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and keep us living in reasonable health.

Just curious. What do you think it means?

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 12:59 am

Mickey: I think we are probably pretty close to each other in our views then. I would say that there are times when problems are to big tot be solved on the local level. Defense of the country for example. If you are going to trade, then a common currency helps.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 1:06 am

Well, David – I suppose that given that general welfare should be interpretted how it was meant when it was written, as opposed to how people want to interpprett it today. Was there income tax to pay for this general welfare? Nope. Was there SS/welfare/medicare/etc.? Nope. So, it seems to me that the intent of “general welfare” has been expanded well beyond what the founding fathers meant it to intend. Otherwise, they would have implemented such programs.

So today, people scrutinize the Constitution in an effort to find means of interpretting the words in such a way as to support programs they want to implement. I want the words interpretted how they were interpretted when they were written. I cannot imagine the founding fathers would have conceived of the vast reach of the current government. So I want the words interpretted in the very narrowest ways, not the broadest.

The general welfare clause has been interpretted ever more broadly through out the centuries. I object to this.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 1:14 am

David – I would also argue that welfare programs are not in the interest of the general welfare of the nation – quite the contrary, in fact. But again people supporting such programs believe differently, and so we are headed down the gurgler.

mikey – will see your “German, the Nederlands, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand” and raise you the US, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, UK, Greece, Portugal. Further, I will challlenge you re Germany – which has national debt approaching the US’s by percentage of GDP, as well as Iceland (for fuck sake, Iceland?). You are picking small population countries, by and large.

Buckhed
Buckhed
August 10, 2011 1:14 am

David it’s late but the General Welfare clause is one of my favorite parts of the Constitution.We’ll discuss it tomorrow.

I’ll give you a hint on where I stand. The Constitution says to provide for the General Welfare not the Welfare Generally !

Perhaps we’ll discuss U.S verses Butler or maybe Lysander Spooner’s opinion on the Constitution as a contract ? We’ll see .

Buckhed
Buckhed
August 10, 2011 1:18 am

A quick quote from Davey Crockett on the floor of the House on Charity which is what the General Welfare clause is used for now .

“I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.”

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 1:19 am

llpoh: I don’t see why you think a truly free market (whatever that is since it probably is only theorectical ) would produce fewer monopolies rather than more. If there is one human condition we all have it is greed. Very few of us can avoid the temptation of greed. And there is also the desire to protect oneself and one’s family from the vagaries of living. In combination, these two things make us natural horders of money and wealth if we ever get it. And once we get it, we devise ways to keep it, and one of the best ways to keep it, as you pointed out is to “bribe” government with it.

I just can’t invison a scenario where letting the market run unregulated will produce a dispersal of economic power rather than a concentration of it. Maybe I am too Machiavellian but I bet Machiavelli would not have thought that markets, if left alone, would produce a dispersal of economic power.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 1:27 am

David – the big companies are paying off the government. They are protected. They are immune in large part to legislation. If the free market existed, these protected companies would have to engage in fair fights. Strong, smaller companies could win, at least on occassion. It is not currently possible, as a general rule. Mostly what we end up with are oligopolies – which suit the big boys to no end. And as said, I wouldn’t be opposed to (some) regulation, for instance anti-monopoly – I just want to see a level playing field, which currently does not exist.

Nimbler smaller companies can often defeat large, slow-moving competition in a fair fight. And often, large companies consume themselves, if allowed, over time via decisions that seem prudent and expedient at the time, but bring doom in the long run. See auto companies for examples thereof.

Mikey
Mikey
August 10, 2011 1:28 am

@Ilpoh

I never said the system was perfect, it has to be DAMN carefully monitored and wound back and forth every now and then.

It also has to be paired with a highly educated population. I am not an economist so I may be wa wrong here, but I think level of general education, when combined with a strong work ethic is what makes a having social security system better than not having one.

The high education/work ethic is important as I think that will encourage more people to become entrepreneurs and business owners. That’s where the real growth and innovation of a country lives, and that’s one thing that the US did really well with the Patent system, and the ability to have debts forgiven through bankruptcy. It removed many of the barriers to starting a business and reduced the pain of the failure of a new business – which almost always happens.

Of course these systems can be abused too, and when they’re abused the results is a giant mound of fetid dingoes kidneys.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 1:31 am

Re your last post, in general I cannot disagree, except to point out that almost never are things “wound back”. Once a program is in place it expands. Social Security is a prime example – it was never intended as a retirement fund – it was, and still is by law – an insurance fund. There is no legal entitlement to SS whatsoever – none. And the courts have long upheld that position.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 1:35 am

Buckhead: Interesting Davy Crockett quote. What is charity? Is Social Security charity? if it is then I have been paying for 40 years to be charitable to my own self. Same with Medicare.

I don’t think that providing for the general welfare is the same as charity. In most cases the providing the government does is providing a means of helping one’s self. Frankly, I want the choice of having the government providing a means for me to help myself out and I also want the choice of the private sector. Sometimes the government’s provision will be better and sometimes it may be all I can afford. I want the choice though.

Take education. How many of us would be where we are today if the governments hadn’t provided us with the opportunity of a public education? If the US had never started a public education system 100 plus years ago, and we had to rely on the private school system for our education, where would we be? I doubt most of the US would have a sixth grade education. Our parents would have had no education to pass down to us and their grandparents to them and so on.

Should the government have stayed out of public education? I think not. If education warrants government involvement of some kind, why doesn’t health care? Nearly all those doctors and nurses and hospital administrators have those very marketable skills because most were the beneficiaries of public education either themselves or from their parents and grandparents.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 1:36 am

David – see, we can play relatively nice. And a lot of folks will debate ad nauseum. But ocassionally it will go off the rails and you will catch an onslaught. Part of the grandeur of the site. Show off your chest hair occassionally – you will like it. Just remember that loose comments will draw shit from all sides, even from those who might otherwise support you. Hope you survive and hang in long enough to get the hang of it.

llpoh
llpoh
August 10, 2011 1:39 am

David – of course SS is charity. You have been paying an insurance premium. Surely you knew that – that there was never any agreement that the money would come back to you? It just …. happened. And one day it …. won’t. You have been paying SS for one reason only – to support those that are collecting the charity. And when the Ponzi scheme falls over, it is over.

Petey
Petey
August 10, 2011 7:21 am

David – How is any welfare (individual, corporate, healthcare) program “general welfare”? I’m part of the “general” public, and it is hurting my welfare by taking money from me to give someone or some entity a free ride. If the public welfare requires violating my property rights, the public welfare be damned.

Petey
Petey
August 10, 2011 8:04 am

David – All of those countries had a sovereign currency. They spent too much money and simply created new money to pay for the debt the programs created. There wasn’t any productivity they could tax because they had ruined it with the handouts. You are advocating essentially the same system without debt right? So in your world there would be no need for taxes because like you said if the navy needed a ship we could just print it. If anybody “needed” anything we could just print it. This would undermine productivity. Only those who were the most politically connected would get the money first and price inflation would come as they spent the money. You think so lowly of the lower classes that you want to inflate so they can’t afford anything on their own and therefore you get to coddle them with welfare. It’s same thinking as “deficits don’t matter.” If deficits don’t matter we don’t need to tax and we can just print. Do you see the absurdity of your claim that all we need is a sovereign currency.

On another note I think I have happened upon a microcosm of what is wrong with the country. Here I am, an engineer, just starting out contributing to the development of technology and in my free time laying some foundation for my own business, but here is a boomer lawyer of 33 years in a paternalistic manner telling me what I should do with my money. He wants to undermine my productivity by taking my money and spending how he deems fit. I mean obviously he knows whats best for me, the country, and he is the arbiter of all values. He is also complaining about SS and Medicare. The provisions for SS and Medicare taken out of my paycheck every two weeks is enough to buy a weeks worth of groceries at Whole Foods. What type of society do you have when the elderly literally eat their young? I’ll leave him with another tidbit paraphrased from Greenspan since he is so up and up about sovereign currencies:

“Sure you’ll get your SS check in the mail, but what will it buy?”

Petey
Petey
August 10, 2011 8:09 am

Also I wanted to make the point that the elderly have had 40+ years to save for retirement and healthcare. I mean you know when you get old health problems are coming. You probably should save for them. Instead of relying on the government, maybe if they would’ve actually saved the money, the savings rate would have been much higher for decades past up to the present, thus there would be more capital spending and investment here for plant equipment and factories. It goes to show that the entitlement programs have undermined industry in this indirect manner.

Petey
Petey
August 10, 2011 8:13 am

I’ll give him public education. I benefited from it, but it was in a locally incorporated system not the $50 billion behemoth that is the Dept. of Education. The directives that come down from them undermine the teacher’s creativity and ability to teach.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 11:08 am

Ilpoh: There is no doubt that too big to fail companies, supported by the government, have an unfair advantage over those without government support. But, practically, I don’t know how you avoid that. The minute the government needs something and goes to the private sector to acquire it, whoever the government chooses at that point has a leg up on the competition. So over time, those entities that acquire government contracts will also acquire lobbying advantages. The “free market” will never be free of government favoritism.

I think anti-monopoly statutes are helpful but the government has to be willing to prosecute.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 11:12 am

Petey:

I was slapped hard for being too condescending in my explanation of sovereign currency. But the very fact all of these countries needed taxes to survive when the populace could not support taxes, tells me these were not true sovereign currencies. They were bank currencies acquired by borrowing from the banks which needed to be paid back and needed the revenue source of taxes.

True sovereign currencies do not need a tax base for support. That is the beauty of them. I explained that in my first example but I was beat up for being condescending.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 11:32 am

llpoh: SS is not a charity. It is an investment no different from investments in your 401K. What I like about it is the ability to diversify my portfolio. I can rely on my government investment and my private investment to retire. Now maybe one of these investments go bust, maybe both do and maybe both remain sound.

The way the stock market keeps tanking every 10 years (or faster) I don’t feel that the private sector is any more likely to provide me with security in my old age than the government.

To say SS is a charity is disingenuous. I have a contract with the government (a statutory contract) to pay me a return on the premiums I pay. With a charity there is no such contract. Whether the contract I have with the government is worth anything may be debatable. But so far the government has upheld its part of the bargain.

davidgmills
davidgmills
August 10, 2011 12:23 pm

RE: Promoting General Welfare and Ensuring Domestic Tranquility and the establishment of Justice.

The Preamble of the Constitution, says that in order to form a more perfect union, the government is being formed to do these things as well as several others.

It seems to me that nothing is worse for a government’s survival than rampant civil unrest. When you fail to promote the general welfare, fail to ensure domestic tranquility and fail to establish justice, the government is not likely to survive very long before civil unrest will take it down.

I’m with Mickey on this. Governments are most likely to fail when crime is high and people are running the streets. Social security and medicare, when they pay, put a lid on civil unrest. That some may abuse the system is a price I am willing to pay to keep the peace. It is analogous to letting an accused go free when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An individual catches an unfair or luck break so that the rest of us can have a free society.