Ron Paul warns that collapse of Greece "...is just the beginning."

[The Toecutter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IcePRLgpXo&feature=player_embedded#

[Biggie]

Man the dollar already aint worth ****. I spend so much money every weekend I decide to go off base, it's redunkulous.

[Kire]

So what's the answer, buy gold?

[Armored]

Ron Paul's been saying the end of America is coming for years now and it hasn't happened.

[Biggie]

Terr's been saying the end of America is coming for years now and it hasn't happened.

fix'd

[The Toecutter]

Ron Paul's been saying the end of America is coming for years now and it hasn't happened.

It is definately in progress, even if it is not complete.

*There are currently 19 million homes vacant in the U.S. and growing during a so-called "recovery" while the government uses its peoples' money to try to artificially prop up housing costs on behalf of the banks knowing full well that a large part of the problem is that Americans can't afford the homes available.
*The total "distressed inventory" of homes exceeds 12%, meaning that it is statistically likely that 12% of the current occupied homes will be foreclosed upon this year(See this chart (http://johngaltfla.com/blog3/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/chart-of-the-day-teh-current-housing-overhang.jpg)).
*Deficit spending is now more than 12% of America's GDP. This is unsustainable and probably not possible to fix given the size of it at this point. If current trends continue, deficit spending will account for 100% of GDP by 2025.
*Social Security, the FDIC, Medicare/Medicaid, and other government safegaurds are either bankrupt or close to it.
*41 of 50 states in the U.S. risk bankruptcy due to budget shortfalls, along with a large number of municipal governments.
*A recent survey by the Pew Research Center claims that more than 70% of Americans do not trust their government, an all time high.
*During this so-called "recovery", the BLS U6 unemployment has remained at the lower end of Great Depression levels and has not declined a significant amount from its peak last year(remaining between ~16%-17%).
*Wealth distribution has approached similarities to that seen just before the start of the Great Depression, with the welathiest 1% of Americans owning almost half of all wealth in the U.S.
*America is still engaging in fruitless(unless you're an arms race tycoon or an oil man) resource wars that it can't afford.
*While in recent months the American dollar has appreciated against the Euro, the amount of goods that it can purchase has still declined sharply. Food inflation has recently reached records not ever seen before in U.S. history, and costs of rent and energy have also increased dramatically from their 2009 lows.
*US wages, adjusted for inflation rate, are declining rapidly.
*The Federal Reserve, for more than a year, have been the largest buyer of US treasuries, and the banks that have been bailed out with our money have also been buying U.S. treasurues... this is how the M1 money supply can be transferred to the M3 with disasterous consequences.
*Banks are going bankrupt at a rate that is twice as high as in 2009, during a so-called "recovery" (see this chart (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/4-16-10-Bank-Failures-2.gif)).
*1 in 8 Americans are currently receiving Food Stamps, almost 40 million people, more than any other time in U.S. history. According to the Supplimental Nutrition Assistance Program, 1 of 3 people who are eligible to receive them aren't.
*Despite the slowing of the economy, which caused a sudden decrease in fuel prices, fuel prices are now on the way upwards again, with more shortages of the likes seen in 2008 possible this year. Peak oil has occured, but the oil production plateau has continued thus far. The DOE is warning of significant declines by 2011.

Buying gold/silver certainly wouldn't be a bad idea. It's a hedge against the prospect of hyperinflation. There are many parallels between the current case of the U.S., and the Weimar republic before they had hyperinflation. The following article explains the parallels in layman's terms:

http://www.fgmr.com/hyperinflation-looms-dollar-arrives-at-its-havenstein-moment.html

“When prices are going up faster than the money supply, the people begin to experience a severe shortage of money, for they now face a shortage of cash balances relative to the much higher price levels. Total cash balances are no longer sufficient to carry transactions at the higher price.”

As the Globe & Mail observes, these circumstances prevail today. Prices of goods and services are rising, but as it warns, the quantity of dollars in circulation is “shrinking, after taking into account inflation.” This “shortage of money” is being widely misinterpreted as deflation, which is exactly what happened in Weimar Germany shortly before the Reichsmark was swooped up in its hyperinflationary whirlwind.

Rothbard provides his usual brilliant insight to explain what happens once the “Havenstein moment’ is reached. There are two alternatives.

“If the government tightens its own belt and stops printing (or otherwise creating) new money, then inflationary expectations will eventually be reversed, and prices will fall once more – thus relieving the money shortage by lowering prices. But if government follows its own inherent inclination to counterfeit and appeases the clamor by printing more money so as to allow the public’s cash balances to ‘catch up’ to prices, then the country is off to the races. Money and prices will follow each other upward in an ever-accelerating spiral, until finally prices ‘run away’…[i.e., hyperinflate]”

Weimar Germany took the second alternative.




But yes, this nation is collapsing much similarly to Greece, albeit it hasn't progressed as much yet.

[IamPinhead]

It is definately in progress, even if it is not complete.
But yes, this nation is collapsing much similarly to Greece, albeit it hasn't progressed as much yet.

http://christianseiersen.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/300.jpg
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-rate.aspx?Symbol=USD
America won't collapse any time soon. Every country goes through a rut. I know it's cool for everybody to hate their own country (it's back in fashion after people came off the drugs in the 60's and 70's), but honestly America is the big kid on the block with his dad's rifle. It's also easy to say that "Well, America is in a **** hole now and won't get out of it any time soon."
What happened to the Great Depression? We came out of it a rising nation, becoming the most powerful in the entire world. The reason we can act as self-righteous world police is because we are so powerful. We, as a nation, go through roller coasters. That's to be expected, but what makes us American is our ability to pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and kick the problem in the ass. I might sound like a hopeless Patriot, but give us our due, Cutter.
http://www.sethskim.com/Captain%20America%20is%20Back2.jpg

[The Toecutter]

I don't particularly hate my country, but the direction it is heading in is something I despise.

That being said, during the Great Depression, the U.S. had plenty of resources and a large industrial base for which it could grow its economy with(and did so by participating in a war with the intent of growing the economy, and dismantling money savers such as mass transit to get Americans to spend more money on transit against their will, starting a costly drug war that violates our rights but provides jobs to law enforcement, among other measures).

U.S. oil production peaked in 1971, and today, we import about 2/3 of the oil we use. Our industrial base has been outsourced and we are now a service economy; manufacturing in the U.S. is at levels not seen since the 1940s, but with a much higher population than then. Our resources have also declined, even our soil from the heavy use of industrial farming practices and monoculture. Our currency has nothing to back it but the faith that it has value, thanks to Nizxon succeeding in decoupling our dollar from the gold standard.

America is going to have to pull itself up by the bootstraps while it is crippled...

So far, our politicians have decided to try a different approach, mainly stealing from U.S. citizens through the tax system and re-distributing it to failed enterprises owned by the very wealthy... which will do nothing but delay our problems. Eventually these problems will have to be confronted, and the longer they have to grow, the worse the collapse will be when these problems finally are confronted.

If you really want to save America, the best places to start would be by wiping away personal debt(which is too high to ever be repaid), reducing government overhead as much as possible, returning the creation of currency to congress, and by getting independent from oil as much as possible. Even just one of these measures left unaddressed will eventually collapse this country.

[IamPinhead]

grow its economy with(and did so by participating in a war with the intent of growing the economy


http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg
Hitler Who?
independence from oil
We've been using oil for hundreds of years now. It's going to be a hard habit to break, but currently our best bet is solar energy. Yes, it is currently too inefficient to be of any true use. But they've being working in Koln, Germany in order to increase the efficiency by changing the chemical make up of the photo-voltaic cells. The power option in which I place most of my favor is Nuclear Fusion. It will take a couple decades for the team working in the U.K. (or Florida, either way it's an international group if I'm correct) to make it truly cost and energy effective, but once it's perfected we'll only need hard water to solve our energy problems. There is another, most current solution, which is to actually return the CO2 and other pollutants to the ground, effectively repeating the fossil-fuel cycle. That's obviously a temporary fixer, but it's not taking away our independence from oil.
Our best bet is to make it an incentive not to use oil (gradually of course), such as increasing the environmental safety of alternative-fuel transportation and decreasing the overall industrial requirement for it. I mean, the most current example that should show an example of oil's pitfall is the whole Gulf business. This Cracked article should explain that in better detail than I can:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/a-probably-true-story-about-a-now-infamous-moron/
And as for America pulling itself up crippled, all the better. Bring it on. Our country is not about to fall because of our economy and this oil business. These problems are tough, but I say tough ****. That's what we do, Cutter. We kick ass, take names, and then call those names back and say "You want some more, punk?"
What we need now is for the government to decrease the currency in circulation and try to instate demand-pull inflation. Our progressive tax isn't strict enough; Americans comprise a little over half of the top ten wealthiest people in the entire world. I'm not saying we could get rid of our external debt this way (12 trillion), but that's still a good example of the excess of wealth in our country. If we raise the progressive tax enough, revenue won't be so hard to come by. Our biggest problem in the realm of debt is credit irresponsibility. It's too easy to come by loans, and considering the tight monetary policy we should be using (how well did loose policy work, I forget, we need to start not throwing money all over the place.
On the subject of the gold standard, what you're forgetting is the instability of gold prices. We need something much more solid than that, and despite our fiat money system, we have the second most purchasing power in the world behind the European Union. The dollar wouldn't be so depreciated if we had some scarcity for it.

[SirTMagus]

wtf am i reading

[Sampson]

On the subject of the gold standard, what you're forgetting is the instability of gold prices. We need something much more solid than that, and despite our fiat money system, we have the second most purchasing power in the world behind the European Union. The dollar wouldn't be so depreciated if we had some scarcity for it.

Gold prices are not unstable.

That's like putting on weight and then claiming the measurement of a pound is "unstable". The value of gold does not change, the value of paper in relation to gold does.

But yeah, Pinhead, the majority of your posts in this topic can simply be summarized with : "America, **** yeah!" That's not really an adequate argument.

[Sejon]

Pinhead calling Terr "Cutter" really had me confused. :p

Anyway, I'm hoping that Europe will be able to sort itself out, especially as I'll be living right next door in the UK in a couple of months. I'm very much an EU-hopeful, particularly because its supranational existence runs counter to the insidious "modern-day tribalism" that is nationalism -- I think it's admirable that all these European countries who have bleak, war-torn pasts, and presumably have every right to hate each other's guts due to centuries-old grudges, are making an effort to join together and put aside their differences at the cost of yielding a fair share of their sovereign powers.

...But for the first time ever, I find myself being thankful that the UK hasn't been a part of the single currency, at least for now. Not that the sterling's doing stunningly well, but the euro-zone's been such a roller-coaster as of late. It's just been non-stop doomsaying since Greece's true debt numbers were finally revealed, and all this fear that Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Ireland (what's with all the Catholic-majority countries? Excepting Greece, of course) might follow suit and yadda-yadda. This likely could have been avoided had they all had tighter fiscal union to begin with, but the EU has to struggle to make for such a case.

It'll be interesting to see how things develop, as it's been made increasingly clear that either the euro-zone will become tighter and more unified, or it'll fall apart.

[Denmo]

wall of text

*braces for Terr's monolith of a reply with citations, articles, and bulleted lists*

:run

[Czechs Mex]

Gold prices are not unstable.

That's like putting on weight and then claiming the measurement of a pound is "unstable". The value of gold does not change, the value of paper in relation to gold does.

But yeah, Pinhead, the majority of your posts in this topic can simply be summarized with : "America, **** yeah!" That's not really an adequate argument.


I dunno, couldn't the price of gold still be unstable, in terms of its value in relation to other goods? For example, if JPSInnovations™ invents some perfect substitute to gold at a fraction of the cost, isn't my stockpile of gold now essentially worthless? More generally, consumer preferences dictate the value of gold, and those can change. So it seems misleading to say the value of gold is unchanging by definition, as your "pounds" example implies.

So I guess what has to first be argued is why gold is more stable than fiat currency (probably not hard to do) and any other alternative. And this is all assuming that your objective in choosing a currency is to maximize stability, but in reality there could be other important dimensions as well (presumably there is SOME advantage to a fiat currency over the gold standard).

[Cutter De Blanc]

And as for America pulling itself up crippled, all the better. Bring it on. Our country is not about to fall because of our economy and this oil business. These problems are tough, but I say tough ****. That's what we do, Cutter. We kick ass, take names, and then call those names back and say "You want some more, punk?"

waaaat

I don't think America will collapse

[Czechs Mex]

No one was talking to you, De Blanc.

[Cutter De Blanc]

Still, though, Mex

[IamPinhead]

Gold prices are not unstable.

That's like putting on weight and then claiming the measurement of a pound is "unstable". The value of gold does not change, the value of paper in relation to gold does.
Yes, actually it would be unstable. We abandoned it because the price was based on the American dollar and that eventually led to serious stagflation.
Besides, there are other factors to a country's worth than just how much gold it possesses, so it's an inaccurate measurement altogether. Liechtenstein has only a handful more people than my small city, but its GDP is the highest in the world. But where is its gold? Probably not in the country. Not only that, the hamfisted Government in all its wisdom can't be trusted not to screw it up in the efforts to maintain the gold reserve. When the government does need to intervene to control pricing, they can't just adjust interest. The money supply would remain constant.
*braces for Terr's monolith of a reply with citations, articles, and bulleted lists*
* America.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/p/gold_standard.htm
This is a new idea!
Other point that isn't really a new idea!
This is a new idea this time!
Happy?

[Sampson]

I dunno, couldn't the price of gold still be unstable, in terms of its value in relation to other goods? For example, if JPSInnovations™ invents some perfect substitute to gold at a fraction of the cost, isn't my stockpile of gold now essentially worthless? More generally, consumer preferences dictate the value of gold, and those can change. So it seems misleading to say the value of gold is unchanging by definition, as your "pounds" example implies.

So I guess what has to first be argued is why gold is more stable than fiat currency (probably not hard to do) and any other alternative. And this is all assuming that your objective in choosing a currency is to maximize stability, but in reality there could be other important dimensions as well (presumably there is SOME advantage to a fiat currency over the gold standard).

Consumer preferences don't dictate the value of gold. Gold is a special commodity because its quantity is extremely limited and it has virtually no consumer or industrial uses (besides jewelry, but that is a negligible amount). Therefore its value is nearly constant over time. That's why western civilization has used gold as its money for virtually all of recorded history.

Even if you could create a "fake" gold, it wouldn't matter. They've already created fake diamonds, it hasn't devalued them. Unless the "fake" gold was completely 100% indistinguishable, then yes, but this is a highly theoretical example.

Do you really want me to argue why gold is more stable than a fiat currency? Even a basic understanding of economic history should lead one to that conclusion. I can go into it if you want, but I'm sure you can easily find articles about that with google.

Yes, fiat currency does have its advantages: it allows governments to spend unlimited amounts of money.

We abandoned it because the price was based on the American dollar and that eventually led to serious stagflation.

Stagflation did not arise until after 1971 when we abandoned the gold standard. We abandoned the gold standard because the federal government did not have enough gold to pay for the debt it had accrued fighting in Viet Nam and paying for the welfare programs created by Lyndon Johnson. Essentially, we went off the gold standard because we were bankrupt.

The nation is in a similar predicament now, only there is no gold standard to abandon. You can choose not to believe me all you want, you will soon learn first hand the folly of paper money.

Besides, there are other factors to a country's worth than just how much gold it possesses, so it's an inaccurate measurement altogether.

In order for an economy to function, there needs to be some medium of exchange. That medium is money. My argument is that gold is the ideal candidate for money.

[The Toecutter]

Hitler Who?

Hitler was not the only reason the U.S. entered WWII. The U.S. remained neutral until it was attacked on December, 7, 1941, an attack which was later discovered could have been dealt with prior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

Further, the McCollum memo, dated more than 1-year prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, suggested that another war would be unpopular unless America was directly attacked. One of the memo's proposals as a suggestion to provoke war was to put a trade embargo on Japan in order to motivate them to attack, which Roosevelt followed, having read the memo.

We've been using oil for hundreds of years now.

We hadn't started using oil in any great quantity until 1890 or so, but I suppose 1.2 "hundreds" could be considered plural...

It's going to be a hard habit to break, but currently our best bet is solar energy. Yes, it is currently too inefficient to be of any true use.

Solar has an energy return of energy investment ratio in excess of 8:1(meaning, the panels will output over the course of an assumed 20 year life span more than 8 times as much energy as they take to produce; in reality the panels tend to last much longer). solar panels are about 10-25% efficient depending on the technology used, but being that sunlight is infinite(for all practical purposes), the thermal efficiency of their energy conversion doesn't matter.

Running an electric car on solar energy, even though solar energy is still 'expensive'(see paragraph below), and even factoring in battery pack replacement, is still cheaper than running a similar car in terms of aerodynamics, weight, and performance on gasoline.

Solar is about 4 times as expensive as coal per kWh and about the same cost as nuclear if there is no subsidies; this is without counting external costs such as pollution and environmental damage associated with each source, but if this is counted solar comes out to being cheaper.

America's government has actually played a role in the past in suppressing these technologies because they threatened established industries and threatened to save people money(which would reduce GDP output, but most of the losses would be felt in the investor/capitalist class that can afford to lobby politicians whuile there would have been a net benefit for everyone else). This is starting to change, finally, but the technology to get our automobiles off of oil without entailing any sacrifice to the consumer is about 20 years old, nevermind the prospect of 80+ mpg cars from the 1970s onward(See Viking cars at the Western Washington University Vehicle Research Institute, Volvo LCP2000, Peugeot VERA+, ect.).

The auto industry, more so than the government, is culprit in this thanks to attempt to keep planned obsolescence as a business model, and sadly, that is not changing as these companies clamor for taxpayer-funded bailouts to keep making gas-guzzling cars no one wants to buy. The oil industry has also played a role as well.

Solar energy is far from "our best bet" but it is a good one. wind is much, much cheaper than solar, and in some locations, cheaper than coal. It is, however, less inclined to having the same profit margins as coal, and thus is discouraged by the utility industries unless they get taxpayer money to help offset some of the reduction in profits...

The power option in which I place most of my favor is Nuclear Fusion. It will take a couple decades for the team working in the U.K. (or Florida, either way it's an international group if I'm correct) to make it truly cost and energy effective, but once it's perfected we'll only need hard water to solve our energy problems.

For the last 70 years, fusion power has always been "a couple deacades" away. It is not yet viable; other sources are but we aren't using them due to political reasons, largely in part to U.S. policy over the last 40 years and largely in part to entrenched industries who stand to lose profit if we change our economy to renewable sources of energy.

There is another, most current solution, which is to actually return the CO2 and other pollutants to the ground, effectively repeating the fossil-fuel cycle. That's obviously a temporary fixer, but it's not taking away our independence from oil.

It's an unproven method with unknown risks and high expense. Not practical or feasible today.

And as for America pulling itself up crippled, all the better. Bring it on. Our country is not about to fall because of our economy and this oil business. These problems are tough, but I say tough ****. That's what we do, Cutter. We kick ass, take names, and then call those names back and say "You want some more, punk?"

America is subject to the same laws of physics as the rest of the world. Changing its attitude might be a good start, but it still won't change the underlying facts that surround its situation. The argument in the quoted paragraph above isn't much of a means to support America's case. f the problems I mentioned go unaddressed, America WILL collapse.

The way things are going, the only way America will stay a cohesive entity for a period of time after is if it resorts to fascism, and arguably, collapse would be a much preferable alternative.

What we need now is for the government to decrease the currency in circulation and try to instate demand-pull inflation. Our progressive tax isn't strict enough; Americans comprise a little over half of the top ten wealthiest people in the entire world. I'm not saying we could get rid of our external debt this way (12 trillion), but that's still a good example of the excess of wealth in our country. If we raise the progressive tax enough, revenue won't be so hard to come by. Our biggest problem in the realm of debt is credit irresponsibility. It's too easy to come by loans, and considering the tight monetary policy we should be using (how well did loose policy work, I forget, we need to start not throwing money all over the place.

I agree with most of the paragraph above, although increasing taxes is not the only way out of this; in fact, if spending isn't reduced, increasing taxes still won't garner the funds needed. Spending needs to be reduced dramatically, especially on wasteful projects that don't benefit or provide questionable benefit to this nation's people(eg. resource wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, bases all over the world, war on drugs, Homeland Security Department, ect.)

On the subject of the gold standard, what you're forgetting is the instability of gold prices. We need something much more solid than that, and despite our fiat money system, we have the second most purchasing power in the world behind the European Union. The dollar wouldn't be so depreciated if we had some scarcity for it.

Gold is about as stable as a currency can get.

Besides, there are other factors to a country's worth than just how much gold it possesses, so it's an inaccurate measurement altogether. Liechtenstein has only a handful more people than my small city, but its GDP is the highest in the world. But where is its gold? Probably not in the country.

I think you're talking about GDP per capita, not total GDP.

Further, most GDP, especially if based on fiat currency, is artificial. Note all of the CDOs currently in circulation, with no real wealth to back them; this is a large part of the reason that taxpayers are bailing out the banks with money they don't have, because the banks were fraudulently claiming assets that aren't present in order to issue more loans.

[Czechs Mex]

Consumer preferences don't dictate the value of gold. Gold is a special commodity because its quantity is extremely limited and it has virtually no consumer or industrial uses (besides jewelry, but that is a negligible amount). Therefore its value is nearly constant over time. That's why western civilization has used gold as its money for virtually all of recorded history.

Even if you could create a "fake" gold, it wouldn't matter. They've already created fake diamonds, it hasn't devalued them. Unless the "fake" gold was completely 100% indistinguishable, then yes, but this is a highly theoretical example.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

[The Toecutter]

Even if you could create a "fake" gold, it wouldn't matter. They've already created fake diamonds, it hasn't devalued them. Unless the "fake" gold was completely 100% indistinguishable, then yes, but this is a highly theoretical example.

Being that Gold itself is an element and not a molecule, there is no known substance that can mimic its properties, and there is no known way to synthesize it in usable quantities(random radioactive isotopes of it will be created in nuclear fission reactions, but often the time for which particles produced last and/or the quantity of such particles produced is far too small to be extracted at a practical cost).

The most successful "fake gold" to be discovered are large tungsten bars coated with a thin layer of gold; the difference in density between gold and tungsten is so small that conventional methods of measuring the density to confirm an item is made of gold will not be able to distinguish the two due to the variation being smaller than the margin of error.

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1258049769.php

A quick solution to knowing whether what you buy is truly gold or not is to do the following:

1) walk to the place of purchase with cash on hand, and show the prospective seller to let them know that you are serious
2) examine the "gold" for sale, and proceed to use a hacksaw to cut it through the middle
3) if a random cross section is gold all the way through, purchase, and carefully store any filings. If it isn't, reject purchase

[The Toecutter]

The video below describes quite succinctly the situation that the U.S. is in:

http://inflation.us/videos.html

[Czechs Mex]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZA0qNsf4m0#t=26m10s

Next year, it's gonna be horrible for foods. Horrible in the sense that it's going to be so inflated. Because in California this year the fall harvest was wiped out. There's nothing. Where's the avocado, where's the apples, where's the pears? There's none!

...

Last year the farmers couldn't get loans for fertilizers. They had to shut down counties and counties and counties because of the water issue. There's colony collapse disorder where there's no bees in california, they've been having to import bees from Arizona, and that's not even covering 10% of the pollination. So we're going to see a huge food shortage come next year in California. You're going to see hyperinflation. Big time.


So now a price increase due to decreased supply is called "inflation"? That seems totally misleading. If you're saying inflation is causing farmers to have less purchasing power, say that. Don't say that bee shortages and water shortages are leading to HYPERINFLATION.

And then right after that, the dude starts making false claims about Ocean Spray, which the video issues a post-apology for, presumably thanks to Ocean Spray's legal department.

God...

Why is it so difficult to get information from a source that is not so dogmatic in their beliefs that they get carried away and start making bullsh** claims? I understand trying to "shock" people into change, but I feel like now I'd have to fact-check every single claim in that video. Too bad, they may have said a lot of truths, but they ruined it.

[Alzar]

i've pretty much decided that anyone who makes economic predictions of any sort is full of ****

[The Toecutter]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZA0qNsf4m0#t=26m10s

So now a price increase due to decreased supply is called "inflation"? That seems totally misleading. If you're saying inflation is causing farmers to have less purchasing power, say that. Don't say that bee shortages and water shortages are leading to HYPERINFLATION.

And then right after that, the dude starts making false claims about Ocean Spray, which the video issues a post-apology for, presumably thanks to Ocean Spray's legal department.

God...

Why is it so difficult to get information from a source that is not so dogmatic in their beliefs that they get carried away and start making bullsh** claims? I understand trying to "shock" people into change, but I feel like now I'd have to fact-check every single claim in that video. Too bad, they may have said a lot of truths, but they ruined it.

The video you had linked titled "The Dollar Bubble" is not the same one that I was referring to, but based on what you posted, I have no desire to watch it.

The video titled "Meltup" is far more rooted in reality and less sensationalist than what you described.

Fact checking any source is a good idea, even if its claims seem plausible.

[Czechs Mex]

Ah. There were four videos on the page you linked to, all made by the National Inflation Association. I watched the second one.

Edit: I agree that fact-checking everything is ideal, but usually not possible given finite time. But even without checking everything, you can still assign a person some estimated probability of making a credible statement based on past statements they've made.

And for me, the second video didn't exactly help the credibility of the National Inflation Association.

Still, I guess I'll watch their other video at some point, when I get the time.

[IamPinhead]

Hitler was not the only reason the U.S. entered WWII.

Never said that. We needed to enter that war anyways, and although Russia was probably equally key giving the Nazis a swift kick in the testes, the United States was a large factor in turning the win onto the allies. But to say that we entered the war for purely economic reasons is ridiculous. I mean, yeah capitalist dogs, but give the WWII United States some credit.
Solar has an energy return of energy investment ratio in excess of 8:1(meaning, the panels will output over the course of an assumed 20 year life span more than 8 times as much energy as they take to produce; in reality the panels tend to last much longer). solar panels are about 10-25% efficient depending on the technology used, but being that sunlight is infinite(for all practical purposes), the thermal efficiency of their energy conversion doesn't matter.

I'm obviously not up to the times then. 10-25% is still a lot less than oil, and like you said, Oil companies are staffed by douches by nature anyways. They're the whole reason the electric car went in the crapper. Conversion factor matters for everything, actually. You can still keep charging, but the payback is a lot worse than oil is. Sunlight is infinite, yes. But it's only around for 10-12 hours a day (for all practical purposes.), and we need an energy solution that is more efficient than oil.

Not only that, solar energy has the difficulty of storage. I'm not an electrical engineer or anything, but that sounds like a problem. Since conversion of solar to electrical energy has yet to be as practical as good ol' gas-o-leen (yes that was on purpose).
Maybe it's a pipe dream to think that national relations will eventually be good enough to use Nuclear Fusion, or that generator that one Canadian guy made which was proved to not be perpetual motion by 65 engineers, physicists and scientists but still rejected by the U.S. patent office for several years and almost pushed out of existence, but I still have faith.

To produce a (relative to terrestrial capabilities) sustainable Fusion reaction might be a nuclear physicist's wet dream, but it's an achievable one. We can't currently sustain it for very long, but the difference now is the phenomenal leaps in technology we've made in the past forty years.

I think you're talking about GDP per capita, not total GDP.

We're still at the top, and South Africa produces the most gold in the world. Of course it's been in all sorts of political turmoil since the Belgians and English came to Southern Africa, buuut, my point still stands that a country's currency worth ought not be based on gold reserved. We're fourth for gold production, but number freaking two for GDP. Why? Because we're America. Ha, just kidding, it's because gold shouldn't be the only factor for the worth of currency. Supply and demand, not just market prices (those never fluctuate).

Further, most GDP, especially if based on fiat currency, is artificial. Note all of the C.D.O.'s currently in circulation, with no real wealth to back them; this is a large part of the reason that taxpayers are bailing out the banks with money they don't have, because the banks were fraudulently claiming assets that aren't present in order to issue more loans.

Bank Crises 1890-1905 were caused by this problem. While we were on the gold standard. I will agree that the gold standard keeps inflation nice and low, but that can change very easily if the money supply grows. Although this standard allows for fewer bills being circulated, the problem that occurred during the Stock Market Crash happened several times (fifteen) during that fifteen year period. People would try to exchange their bills for more gold than the bank had in stock.
Irresponsible loaning has always been there, but it stands to be much easier to happen with the gold standard. Banks have been doing this since forever. They base profit forecasting on proposed returns rather than actual. People will never receive any loans if they only use money that they have, rather than their customers. I'm not an economist or anything, but that's how it's always been. That's how people build credit; spending money they don't have to pay for things they can't afford.
This, of course, is what caused our problem (on which I agree with you) in the first place. Irresponsible loaning is on the banks' heads for that one.

I'm aware that the United States is subject to the laws of economics and political science alike. However, we've been through much worse. I'm not saying we're invincible, not by a long shot. The 9/11 tragedy has shown that in kind, and the consequences of the terrorists' and our actions have had rippling effects since.

But, as a country, we have a habit of banding together in paranoid rage during times of crises. What we need now is a strong leader and cabinet who know what they're doing. Barrack Obama might not be the most experienced, but I do have faith in the effect his charisma has on people. Unlike George dubs, I do believe he'll learn from his mistakes and focus more of his attention on the economy.

[Perversion]

But to say that we entered the war for purely economic reasons is ridiculous.

Why? We entered the war with Iraq for purely economic reasons~

[IamPinhead]

Why? We entered the war with Iraq for purely economic reasons~

1) The Iraq War is a war on insurgents
2) We knew it was the Japanese who attacked us and had proof
3) We were fighting soldiers with uniforms, not terrorists using civillian shields
4) It was a World War with armies, commanders, etc. not one guy with a bomb in his shoe
5) Approval rating for the war after Pearl Harbor was almost 100%
6) Nazis
Not all capitalists who make more than 20 grand a year are blood-sucking monsters hellbent on making another five dollars to stuff their pockets.

[The Toecutter]

Never said that. We needed to enter that war anyways, and although Russia was probably equally key giving the Nazis a swift kick in the testes, the United States was a large factor in turning the win onto the allies. But to say that we entered the war for purely economic reasons is ridiculous. I mean, yeah capitalist dogs, but give the WWII United States some credit.

With regard to Japan, I agree... but to allow such an attack to occur with advance knowledge AND to intentfully provoke such an attack is criminal. If I were drafted for this war, I'd have become a 'terrorist' against my own government. Had the war been kept to Japan, no draft would have been needed, and unless/until some other country decided to attack the U.S., it could have stayed isolated there.

The U.S. was a sort of "lesser evil" in the war... we had an authoritarian socialist(FDR) facing off against a few fascists(Hitler, Mussolini, ect.). Neither leadership cared about the lives lost and sought to win at all costs...

Had it not been for Pearl Harbor, Americans would likely have revolted for such a war; all the more reason why nothing was done to lessen the damage of Pearl Harbor when it was known an attack was immenent.

Further, I was not arguing that the war was for purely economic reasons, but that economic reasons were a significant factor in it. There is no denying that we were attacked, but the events surrounding that attack do not bode well for the sincerity that Americans believed our government had.

I'm obviously not up to the times then. 10-25% is still a lot less than oil, and like you said, Oil companies are staffed by douches by nature anyways. They're the whole reason the electric car went in the crapper. Conversion factor matters for everything, actually. You can still keep charging, but the payback is a lot worse than oil is. Sunlight is infinite, yes. But it's only around for 10-12 hours a day (for all practical purposes.), and we need an energy solution that is more efficient than oil.

Not only that, solar energy has the difficulty of storage. I'm not an electrical engineer or anything, but that sounds like a problem. Since conversion of solar to electrical energy has yet to be as practical as good ol' gas-o-leen (yes that was on purpose).

On the contrary, EROEI of oil extracted in the U.S. is about at parity with solar penels, and less than 1/4 that of wind turbines. I will also reiterate: thermal efficiency of solar panels is a non-issue given the virtual limitless of the supplier of energy(the sun). The thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine is an issue because oil is a finite resource. The thermal efficiency of solar panels only matters when viewed from the vantagepoint of materials needed(abundant) and area required for placement for a given power amount(sufficient at today's technology levels).

Storage is a difficulty pertaining to solar for off-grid systems, but it is not an insurmountable or cost-prohibitive one if the government steps in and finds ways to increase its use(and thus its production volume, reducing its cost). Thousands of Americans have custom-built electric cars that they charge with solar panels mounted on their rooftops, and run their entire house on battery-backed solar energy with no tie to the electric grid; with NO subsidies at all, the payback period for the setup is about 25 years, and this is without the much higher volume that would occur should use dramatically increase, and thus without the savings advantage that will bring. For grid-tie applications, storage is a virtual non-issue. Further, the demand pattern of electricity consumption in the U.S. is conducive to using both solar and wind; when one is in abundance, the other tends not to be.

<<< is an electrical engineer (albeit one seeking work once again)

Maybe it's a pipe dream to think that national relations will eventually be good enough to use Nuclear Fusion, or that generator that one Canadian guy made which was proved to not be perpetual motion by 65 engineers, physicists and scientists but still rejected by the U.S. patent office for several years and almost pushed out of existence, but I still have faith.

To produce a (relative to terrestrial capabilities) sustainable Fusion reaction might be a nuclear physicist's wet dream, but it's an achievable one. We can't currently sustain it for very long, but the difference now is the phenomenal leaps in technology we've made in the past forty years.

Given that we already have other viable solutions, and that there is still no known way to make fusion work on any meaningful scale(we've always been 'close'), it seems a waste to pursue it when the renewable energy technology we currently have could be applied... granted we will have to make due without having the wealthiest 1% of the population consume a grossly disproportionate share of energy to make this work.

We're still at the top, and South Africa produces the most gold in the world. Of course it's been in all sorts of political turmoil since the Belgians and English came to Southern Africa, buuut, my point still stands that a country's currency worth ought not be based on gold reserved. We're fourth for gold production, but number freaking two for GDP. Why? Because we're America. Ha, just kidding, it's because gold shouldn't be the only factor for the worth of currency. Supply and demand, not just market prices (those never fluctuate).

Likewise, fiat currency itself shouldn't be the only thing backing itself. These systems collapse. Whether it was Germany in the early 1920s, Bolivia in 1985, Russia in 1992-1997, Argentina in 2001, or Zimbabwe in 2004-present, fiat currencies are unstable and will collapse when the right conditions are met. Those conditions are being met in the U.S. today, and barring something being done to stop this event in progress, the U.S. dollar will similarly collapse... it has nothing backing it right now except the faith that it has value. This is also true for the Euro and the Pound, which are currently collapsing.

Irresponsible loaning has always been there, but it stands to be much easier to happen with the gold standard. Banks have been doing this since forever. They base profit forecasting on proposed returns rather than actual. People will never receive any loans if they only use money that they have, rather than their customers. I'm not an economist or anything, but that's how it's always been. That's how people build credit; spending money they don't have to pay for things they can't afford.

The difference is in the percentage of money loaned versus the existing supply... compare today with previous events in the past, and with regard to today, we have orders of magnitude more money in circulation than wealth to back them, during previous bouts of inflation i the past. The gold standard presents a limit to this phenominon. Without the ability to create money out of thin air, there is an absolute limit to the amount of value money can lose; not so with fiat currency...

This, of course, is what caused our problem (on which I agree with you) in the first place. Irresponsible loaning is on the banks' heads for that one.

Will they ever be held accountable? The current bill in congress is currently written to do the opposite of what the politicians say it is supposed to do...

I'm aware that the United States is subject to the laws of economics and political science alike. However, we've been through much worse.

With regard to our consumed natural resources, the amount of money in circulation versus assets to back them, the amount of manufacturing available, we have NOT been through worse. Time will tell how bad this crisis gets; it's not over yet; the great depression wasn't apparant until 4 years into it. The Depression had lots of "recoveries" on its decent to the botom...

I'm not saying we're invincible, not by a long shot. The 9/11 tragedy has shown that in kind, and the consequences of the terrorists' and our actions have had rippling effects since.

Yup. Sad to say, that too could have been mitigated and didn't require Americans to give up their rights, either...

But, as a country, we have a habit of banding together in paranoid rage during times of crises. What we need now is a strong leader and cabinet who know what they're doing. Barrack Obama might not be the most experienced, but I do have faith in the effect his charisma has on people. Unlike George dubs, I do believe he'll learn from his mistakes and focus more of his attention on the economy.

Even better would be a strong leader with a penchant for a "hands-off" government when it comes to our personal lives, but a deep willingness to bring balance back to the country by going after those institutions that possess a disproportionate share of power, and of which are abusing that power to everyone's expense.

[IamPinhead]

With regard to Japan, I agree... but to allow such an attack to occur with advance knowledge AND to intentfully provoke such an attack is criminal. If I were drafted for this war, I'd have become a 'terrorist' against my own government. Had the war been kept to Japan, no draft would have been needed, and unless/until some other country decided to attack the U.S., it could have stayed isolated there.

The U.S. was a sort of "lesser evil" in the war... we had an authoritarian socialist(FDR) facing off against a few fascists(Hitler, Mussolini, ect.). Neither leadership cared about the lives lost and sought to win at all costs...

Hitler killed twelve million people because he was a racist piece of ****. The cause for Allied victory was far more noble than that of the Axis. We were fighting the evils of Nazism and fascism, they were malign conquerors. We should have fought the war in Europe, and we did. There was no avoiding that battle. A terrorist in your own country? So you would have sided with the Nazis? That was probably the last war with nearly unanimous agreement behind it. We needed to get involved, and Hitler needed to be stopped.

As much as you seem to hate capitalism, you ought to agree with FDR. He was probably the best president we've ever had.




<<< is an electrical engineer (albeit one seeking work once again)
Haxx.


Given that we already have other viable solutions, and that there is still no known way to make fusion work on any meaningful scale(we've always been 'close'), it seems a waste to pursue it when the renewable energy technology we currently have could be applied... granted we will have to make due without having the wealthiest 1% of the population consume a grossly disproportionate share of energy to make this work.
Nuclear Fusion is the most renewable source next to solar energy, and the output of energy is far greater. It should be the top goal because it could potentially provide limitless energy so long as we have hydrogen.

Whether it was Germany in the early 1920s, Bolivia in 1985, Russia in 1992-1997, Argentina in 2001, or Zimbabwe in 2004-present,
Germany: Collapsed because of World War I
Bolivia: tin prices dropping severely (one of their main resources), end of the Cold war causes a sharp decline in Western aid, tripled water rates (Quantum of Solace storyline FYI),
Russia: transition from communism to capitalism and poor bureacractic management
Argentina: corruption, weak law enforcement, free-trade barriers, Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz
Zimbabwe: Owes 240% of its GDP in external debt, and is also a third world country with 95% below the poverty line
The only countries that haven't significantly recovered since then are Bolivia and Zimbabwe. Not only that, you make the error of consequence. Just because they have a fiat money system doesn't mean they'll crumble. The countries you listed didn't fall because of a fiat money system; it was corruption and severe inflation (that had more to do with socio-political issues than economics).
Those conditions are being met in the U.S. today, and barring something being done to stop this event in progress, the U.S. dollar will similarly collapse
The conditions in those countries were because of bureacracy and social issues, not because of the fiat money system. Besides, our country is worth more than our gold reserve. A fixed economy is a bad idea because it takes away international pricing control and inflation adjustment.

The gold standard presents a limit to this phenomenon. Without the ability to create money out of thin air, there is an absolute limit to the amount of value money can lose; not so with fiat currency...
Money can be devalued based on supply and demand. Not only that, any spike in the gold supply will cause sharp and severe inflation. Even so, fiat currency is backed by the economy of the nation that uses it. The greater the demand for our dollar and our products the greater value it has.

Will they ever be held accountable? The current bill in congress is currently written to do the opposite of what the politicians say it is supposed to do...

Storm the streets and burn the mo-fos down.

With regard to our consumed natural resources, the amount of money in circulation versus assets to back them, the amount of manufacturing available, we have NOT been through worse. Time will tell how bad this crisis gets: it's not over yet. The great depression wasn't apparent until 4 years into it. The Depression had lots of "recoveries" on its descent to the bottom...
We're richer and more powerful now than we have been for a long time. We still have the second highest GDP (behind the EU which isn't even a country) and can deal with a recession far better. Our economy isn't nearly as much in the ****ter now as it was then, and as far as I can tell there's an up-trend lately. Just because we're in the ****ter now doesn't mean we won't get back up. We're fully capable and we have the early 20th century as a precedent for it.


Yup. Sad to say, that too could have been mitigated and didn't require Americans to give up their rights, either...
We haven't given up any rights. We haven't been attacked on any great scale since 9/11 because of the measures taken.

Even better would be a strong leader with a penchant for a "hands-off" government when it comes to our personal lives
What kind of citizen of a capitalist country are you? Especially a post 9/11 one?
to bring balance back to the country by going after those institutions that possess a disproportionate share of power, and of which are abusing that power to everyone's expense.

People in the upper class will abuse us so long as we are unwilling to do anything about it. Those companies have that much power because they earned it. They're going to do whatever they please because it's hard to fight them in our current recession. We're looking to boost American industry, and the components of that industry control prices as much as they want. Again, do something about it. Google has a monopoly on the internet and have power over most of the world through the internet. But you still use Google because it's a superior product. Until you boycott it, they're going to keep telling you to pick up that dropped soap and call them "Daddy."
P.S. Spell check. Find it. Use it. Love it.

[Armored]

Google has a monopoly on the internet and have power over most of the world through the internet. But you still use Google because it's a superior product. Until you boycott it

I did that, and I suggest everyone else does too!

[Czechs Mex]

Either italics means sarcasm or I don't really know why you're boycotting Google. What exactly are they doing that you want to change? And are you boycotting them by not using Gmail or something, or are you not even using them for search?

[Armored]

The italics was a mistake that I didn't correct because I don't like how it says I edited my post.

I quit using gmail, google search, youtube. Mostly over censorship issues and the fact that they have too much influence over the internet.

[Valkysas]

They'll just buy up whatever sites you use instead.

[IamPinhead]

They'll just buy up whatever sites you use instead.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Business/images/bill-gates.jpg
I see what you did there.

[The Toecutter]

Hitler killed twelve million people because he was a racist piece of ****. The cause for Allied victory was far more noble than that of the Axis.

Neither cause was benign... both were power hungry and cared less about the welfare of their citizens, wrecklessly sending them to their deaths just so the people in power of each side could bolster their chances of "winning". The leaders of each conflict never fired a shot.

We were fighting the evils of Nazism and fascism, they were malign conquerors. We should have fought the war in Europe, and we did. There was no avoiding that battle.

We were fighting Nazi and fascist regimes, but the U.s. was NOT fighting the evils of fascism; the U.S. at the time was adopting fascist principles under FDR, including but not limited to:

*mass censorship of media (Executive Order 8985 Establishing the Office of Censorship)
*creation of organizations to spy on Americans (FBI, CIA, NSA, ect.; violation of Article II of the constitution that specifies what power the Executive branch had)
*forced conscription (violates the tenants outlined in the Declaration of Independence)
*confiscation of privately-owned gold in the hands of individial people, even in small amounts (violated 4th amendment)
*outlaw of automatic weapons without paying a ludicrously expensive tax (violates 2nd amendment; our founding fathers wanted Americans to be able to destroy their own government if the need ever arose)
*using the "income tax" amendment as a means to force a tax on wages when the federal courts had ruled wages and income are different and previously declared this tax unconstitutional, rulings which the supreme court never overruled or contested (see Flora v U.S., Evens v Gore, Conner v U.S., Eisner v Macomber, ect)
*outlaw of marijuana (violates 4th amendment; alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment because of this)

FDR and Hitler had a LOT in common. It just so happens that one was worse than the other and one killed far more people than the other; it doesn't change what the "lesser evil" was.

Granted, it doesn't help things that a cabal of fascist bankers tried to oust FDR with a coup; read about General Smedley Butler for more inforation on this.

An authoritarian is an authoritarian is an authoritarian. It doesn't matter what political party they come from or whether they subscribe to communism, socialism, or capitalism; they have NO PLACE leading what is supposed to be a libertarian, free republic.

A terrorist in your own country? So you would have sided with the Nazis?

Hell no. I would have sided against authoritarians, regardless of their country of origin; in this case, FDR would have been on American soil compelling me to fight his war. Unfortunately, no one but a cabal of fascist bankers had the guts to shoot the bastard, but fortunately, that cabal failed(they'd have been even worse than him).

That was probably the last war with nearly unanimous agreement behind it.

It had unanimous support due to the nature of the attack; our leaders let the attack be worse than it could have been in order to galvanaize the public behind this attack. Oldest trick in the book...

We needed to get involved, and Hitler needed to be stopped.

With regard to the U.S., he'd have been stopped had he tried to invade. America was relatively safe and very well armed.

As much as you seem to hate capitalism, you ought to agree with FDR. He was probably the best president we've ever had.

I don't hate capitalism. I hate corporatism. There is a difference between the two. The U.S. seems to practice the latter, and not the former. FDR has eroded liberties that we have never gotten back, even after the war was long over. He's really a traitor to the ideals of our founding fathers and was literally a domestic enemy of the U.S. constitution, something our military had sworn to protect against all enemies, foreign, and domestic, but failed to do so then and fails to do so today.

Granted, FDR was preferable to a cabal of fascist bankers running the country, but not as different from them as you would think.

Haxx.

Heh. By the time I was laid off, I was the last one left in my office. There were more than 20 people there when I first started working. I did my job very well; it just so happens that there is no way that I can compete with a Chinese or Indian doing my line of work for 1/10th the pay, nor is it possible for me to work that job when there is no work left to do.

Nuclear Fusion is the most renewable source next to solar energy, and the output of energy is far greater. It should be the top goal because it could potentially provide limitless energy so long as we have hydrogen.

If we put the majority of our resources into it and it fails, then what? At least with wind and solar, there will be garaunteed results and there are thousands(millions) of functioning examples in existence.

Germany: Collapsed because of World War I
Bolivia: tin prices dropping severely (one of their main resources), end of the Cold war causes a sharp decline in Western aid, tripled water rates (Quantum of Solace storyline FYI),
Russia: transition from communism to capitalism and poor bureacractic management
Argentina: corruption, weak law enforcement, free-trade barriers, Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz
Zimbabwe: Owes 240% of its GDP in external debt, and is also a third world country with 95% below the poverty line
The only countries that haven't significantly recovered since then are Bolivia and Zimbabwe. Not only that, you make the error of consequence. Just because they have a fiat money system doesn't mean they'll crumble. The countries you listed didn't fall because of a fiat money system; it was corruption and severe inflation (that had more to do with socio-political issues than economics).

In each and every case listed, the governments of these nations dramatically increased the money supply. They chose to increase it; it didn't happen on its own. Had this not occured, deflation would have occured instead. A lack of a fiat money system means that the government cannot increase or decrease the money supply to such a degree.

The conditions in those countries were because of bureacracy and social issues, not because of the fiat money system. Besides, our country is worth more than our gold reserve. A fixed economy is a bad idea because it takes away international pricing control and inflation adjustment.

With PMs backing all wealth, the PMs would have had to have risen in value to accomodate the increased wealth available.

International pricing control is vulnerable and has allowed bankers to game the system to their advantage and everyone else's expense. The Federal Reserve creates dollars backed by debt and American taxpayers are charged interest on each dollar printed with materials that said taxpayers paid for. There is a reason that the U.S. constitution states that congress has the authority to coin currency... we will see the consequences of this firsthand before long, given how much money is in circulation versus the assets to back it...

Money can be devalued based on supply and demand. Not only that, any spike in the gold supply will cause sharp and severe inflation. Even so, fiat currency is backed by the economy of the nation that uses it. The greater the demand for our dollar and our products the greater value it has.

A spike in gold supply has no historic precedent.

Further, the value of an economy can fluctuate; Europe is seeing the downside of this firsthand today, and because of that, foreigners are flocking to the dollar; the problem is, like the Euro, the dollar is backed by no physical assets any longer. Realizing this, many Greeks are starting to buy gold and silver, and are now willing to pay 50% or more over spot price for it. Relative to the euro and other currencies, the dollar has gained strength recently, BUT it still buys less and less goods despite this. Fiat currencies can all lose value in tandem, even if, relative to each other, one of them gains.

We're richer and more powerful now than we have been for a long time. We still have the second highest GDP (behind the EU which isn't even a country) and can deal with a recession far better.

The U.S. reached its zenith around 1970. Since then, its standard of living has been eroding. It now takes two working parents to support a family where it used to require one. The U.S. has a high GDP per capita, but that is an average; the median American is worse off than the median Canadian or Norwegian, for instance. Check out the GINI index; we have the worst wealth distribution of any 1st world country. Further, Healthcare and Education have fallen behind that found in many 3rd world ****holes, including Cuba, who has far less resources per capita than we do. This is embarassing, but it is a symptom of the top 1% of the population owning almost half of the wealth and accounting for a similar resource footprint.

Our economy isn't nearly as much in the ****ter now as it was then, and as far as I can tell there's an up-trend lately. Just because we're in the ****ter now doesn't mean we won't get back up.

I don't know where you see this up-trend; re-read the facts I posted in this topic in an earlier post. If you don't believe them, I'll cite you the direct sources.

The facts remain:

*unemployment has not improved meaningfully over the past year and has at best remained steady
*there are more vacant homes in the U.S. than has ever been recorded, with a higher distressed inventory than has ever been recorded
*defecit spending is worse than last year
*the social safety nets like social security are on the verge of bankruptcy
*more U.S. states are on the verge of bankruptcy than has ever been recorded
*fewer Americans trust their government than ever before
*wealth distribution is the worst it has been since the Great Depression
*wages adjusted for cost of living are declining in the U.S.
*more banks are going bankrupt per unit of time than last year or the year before
*no one wants America's treasuries and the Federal Reserve is now the U.S. government's biggest customer for TBills, wherin this was not the case last year
*more Americans are recieving Food Stamps this year than has ever been recorded

Where is the up-trend you speak of? I hear about it sometimes when I pass by my dad's TV, but the objective facts do not support the existence of a real recovery.

Just because some talking head on the TV says that there is a recovery, doesn't make it so. Looking at the objective facts, at best this economy has held steady since 2009.

We're fully capable and we have the early 20th century as a precedent for it.

The 20th century was a century of abundance. The resources are gone now, as is the ability to further expand. The 20th century has destroyed many of the freedoms that the founders of America declared inalienable. It set a precedent for corporatism, fascism, authoritarian communism, theocracies, and despotism, depending on where one was at the time.

We haven't given up any rights.

No, but our government gave them up for us without our permission. Consider:

*Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the government without a warrant or a court order or probable cause access to a person’s library, medical, commercial, and academic records without their consent. Those who are forced to turn over those records would be prosecuted if they told someone of the government invading their privacy. This violates the 1st amendment.
*Section 802 of the PATRIOT Act allows the government to classify a person or set of persons committing an act of dissent of which the government feels may be an attempt at coercion to influence government or corporate policy as a terrorist or terrorists, without any proof or cause that the act is causing any harm, another 1st Amendment violation.
*As stated earlier, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act gives the government access to a person’s personal information without their consent or a warrant or a court order or probable cause. This violates the 4th amendment through amending Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
*Section 216 and 217 of the PATRIOT Act grants the government rights to searches of people’s homes, cars, telephone conversations, computers, and other property, and allows them to place under surveillance or confiscate this property, without a court order, warrant, or probable cause. This violates the 4th Amendment.
*Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act allows the government to detain any immigrant within American borders if they deem necessary, without a court order, warrant, or probable cause. It allows no judicial oversight. This violates the 4th Amendment and allows suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus. This section also grants the government the ability to strip Americans of their citizenship.
*Section 304 and 307 of the Homeland Security Act allow the government to forcibly vaccinate people even if the vaccine isn’t tested and is entirely experimental, and grants the company that manufactures the vaccine immunity from lawsuit if anything goes wrong. This is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
*Former President Bush’s military order, part of the PATRIOT Act, allows the government to try a non-military American citizen in a military tribunal. It allows the government to force people to incriminate themselves and allows the government to designate American citizens as ememy combatants without allowing them a chance to prove their innocence in the court of law. This is a violation of the 5th Amendment.
*The Homeland Security Act in Section 710 gives the Homeland Security Secretary unrestricted access to anything a witness states or reveals and has full access to the names of confidentially protected witnesses. This violates the 5th Amendment.
*Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act allows the government to detain immigrants without probable cause, warrant, or court order and strip Americans of their citizenship denying either of them a speedy and public trial. This violates the 6th Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment, the most defended and prized among America’s conservatives, who generally don’t care about the others, will likely be the last to fully go once all the rest are completely taken away.

We haven't been attacked on any great scale since 9/11 because of the measures taken.

Perhaps it is not because of the measures taken, but moreso because the incidences of terrorism are very rare; further, someone determined enough and competent enough to do such an attack will succeed. It happens all the time in Isreal, despite their measures; hint, it's not the security measures that stop terrorists, it is a resolve not to create them to begin with! Isreal creates them by illegally taking their land and killing their families.

What kind of citizen of a capitalist country are you? Especially a post 9/11 one?

One that despises the evils of nazism and fascism, the latter of which had grown dramatically in the U.S. post 911.

People in the upper class will abuse us so long as we are unwilling to do anything about it.

The reason we are unwilling to do anything about it is because there is the threat of force to keep us in line... eventually, that threat may not be enough and actual force will eventually be used. It happens all the time in 3rd world ****holes...

Those companies have that much power because they earned it. They're going to do whatever they please because it's hard to fight them in our current recession. We're looking to boost American industry, and the components of that industry control prices as much as they want.

Are we boosting american industry, or are we boosting transnational industries without the burdens of borders or rule of law to put in place checks and balances? There is quite a difference.