Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

The demise of the US dollar.


  • Please log in to reply
281 replies to this topic

#41 atomant

atomant

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:12 AM

Originally posted by uglybastard
lumberjack, I think you're panicking over nothing just like Henny Penny.

The US economy is undergoing a sluggish recovery or so everyone says.

I try to stay away from those wierdo internet sites. They poison your mind.



[SIZE=4][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=blue]
Don't stick your head into the sand and pretend you living in wonder wonder land either" We are facing a huge financial crisis now of proportions you have no idea.

Were not saying to go out and build a bomb shelter and join your local para-military survival organization....were saying be the smart boy scout and
  • 0

#42 Lumberjack

Lumberjack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:14 AM

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't think this "downturn" is anything like the other recessions we've seen since WWII, now we're hearing it'll be a double dip. It's a secular bear market,they happen from time to time. Again,the harvest is over. Time to protect and survive 'til spring. Then you can buy and hold again,now is not the time.

Atom,

I agree, but it's very difficult to convince the voters that a recession is really in their best interest. Either way I think we'll see single digit P/Es before its over,it'll be a few years. I still stand by a 10% dividend yield for the broad market as a bottom.
  • 0

#43 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:25 AM

Per capita? Adjusted of inflation?

Population 1979 200 mill?
Pop 2003 300 million?

1967 Dollars per capita Gnp=

My assets are my CPA/ Econ consulting clients like US Government..

I will look it up.

ag
cpa
bsba
MS Econ

Washington DC
  • 0

#44 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:29 AM

http://www.bea.gov/b...tables/ebr5.htm

let the research begin,

PS I bill by the hour
  • 0

#45 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:40 AM

http://www.economagi...fedstl/gdpdef 1

1980=59
1996=100
2002=111
  • 0

#46 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:49 AM

http://www.mindsprin...a/dpop1980.html

1980 population 227,000,000
2002 population 287,000,000
  • 0

#47 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:02 AM

let me check my previous numbers...it is friday night
  • 0

#48 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:15 AM

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


THE NATIONAL DEBT IS 6 TRILLION

IF YOU ADJUST FOR POPULATION GROWTH AND INFLATION

THINGS ARE NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERNT FROM 1980, EXCEPT INFLATION AND INTEREST IS LOWER.

1980 National debt @2 trillion in 1996 dollars is 3.5 trillion- $15K per capita 227 million

2002 National debt @6.4 trillion in 1996 dollars is 5.7 trillion- $20K
287 million

The population has grown by 25% (227/287)

2% interst on $20K is $400
12% interst on $15K is $1,800

The percapita debt sevice is FALLING
  • 0

#49 Lumberjack

Lumberjack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:23 AM

4 Trillion in 1980 was not the national debt, it was the total debt of individuals,corporations, and government. as is the 35 trillion today. 3.5 times is not a good figure. I think you've strengthened my argument $110K per capita including children and seniors is not a sustainable number, $440,000 for a family of four is a bit much don't you think?
  • 0

#50 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:34 AM

I edited my posts, now read them...

Carter raised the debt ceiling to 2 trillion

it is now 6.43 trillion

NO BIG DEAL

THINGS ARE FINE CHICKEN LITTLE
  • 0

#51 Lumberjack

Lumberjack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:39 AM

I'm not here to get into a pissing match, using 2% for the cost of debt service seems a little optimistic doesn't it? I read you're posts and you're trying to compare apples and thermonuclear weapons, good luck.
  • 0

#52 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:42 AM

$440,000 for a family of four is a bit much don't you think?



Yes 33 trillion/287,000,000=

Where do you get your 33 trillion figure from?
  • 0

#53 Lumberjack

Lumberjack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:46 AM

Barrons.

=114,982.5 OK so I rounded down.
  • 0

#54 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 02:58 AM

I don't know many house holds in that much debt. Even if you include the $22K per capita national debt.

Who hold that debt?

Corporations owing banks?

I believe the average house is worth $150-180K, and the ave mortgage is ?
  • 0

#55 Lumberjack

Lumberjack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 03:09 AM

I know it's hard to come to grips with, that's the total of credit card,mortgage,national,municipal and corporate debt. Corporate debt is held primarily in mutual funds,pension plans,and by individuals in the form of bonds at considerably higher than treasury rates.These rates have been rising rapidly in the last few years as corporate credit ratings deteriorate due to the collapse of their equity values. So no,households do not hold that much debt but there is that much debt in the economy. The S&P 500 is bankrupt as a whole if P/E ratios drop below 20,which is still historically overvalued. The bubble is going to take a long while to work its way through the economy,especially since we're pounding in so much new credit to keep everything levitated.The point is that the debt cannot be serviced and many people think their retirement is safe when it's anything but.
  • 0

#56 atomant

atomant

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 03:25 AM

[SIZE=5][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=blue]
Seems like we are all pretty much in consensus that for the last 25 years or so the US economy and its screwed up fiscal policies have been driving us further and further downward....

Now the big question.... how do we fix it?

Don
  • 0

#57 Lumberjack

Lumberjack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 03:47 AM

Atom,
You're right, that went on too long.

I don't think there is a "fix". Government will try everything under the sun,regulation,deregulation,public works projects,nothing will help the fact that the investment realm is way out of whack. If we don't make matters worse by destroying our constitution or starting any wars (uh-huh) we should be able to get it all unwound in a decade and then maybe we'll see another 20 year bull market,hopefully one that is based on reality.I don't think we'll be using dollars at that point, at least not as they are today.
Long term the solution is free markets and free money. What is free money? Legal tender laws only work if legal tender has intrinsic value, otherwise it's a cancer that eventually destroys the economy, so if we can no longer manage a gold standard (an assumption I'm not ready to make) we can no longer have legal tender laws either. Ultimately I still think a multi-metallic system is the best. No more Fed,no more national debt,no more deficit spending to finance every evil under the sun. Many of the problems we face around the world have their roots in fiat,from the welfare state to the wars we wage to the widening gap between the haves and have nots. If the barbarous relics do not find favor than money should be backed by something,maybe oil,maybe land, something.

examples,
The Iraqi litre,The British pound, The Canadian cord, The Columbian gram, The Russian Fifth,The Brazilian Bushel,The Tanzanian karat,The New Zealand kilo, And the US has constitutionally mandated values for its money.(The debasement of which is a capital offense by the way)
  • 0

#58 Gandu

Gandu

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 01:58 PM

Well the national debt is collaterialised using federal lands and parks. So who ever is holding the bonds are going to end up owning yellowstone park. You think the japanese might open another amusement park there?

The 30 trillion debt from companies are not a major problem either since the people holding the debt will just get the companies. Like all the phone companies and such.

The individual debt woul dbe a major problem since there is no real collateral. It is services based on an asset bubble. If property values drop to real levels then the banks are going to end up in the same boat the Japanese. In fact thats what happened to them anyway.


If there is no war I expect the US to default and the Arabs and Japanese to move in to their new homes. How many palestinians would fit into yellowstone palestine?

The biggest question is are the europeans going to back down from trillions of FREE EUROS just for the taking and let the US get away with it. You are talking about massive amount of money that can prop Europe into the new world empire and the US into another banana republic like the USSR. It mostly depedns on the UK though. If they go Euro the US is as good as dead.
  • 0

#59 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 03:03 PM

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

This thread has turned stupid.

www.imf.org

Check who owes who.

Then find out who is owed this debt, you think the US owes the Palestinians money? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The Euro, check German unemployment at 11.1 % vs American unemployment at 5.7%.

www.dol.gov

http://www.dw-world....191_1_A,00.html


Unemployment spread deeper into the German population during
January, throwing 398,000 more people out of work. And officials
see no immediate relief in sight.

There used to be a time when German Chancellor Gerhard Schr?der
had high hopes for cutting the country's unemployment rolls. He
talked of cutting the total to 3.5 million and urged voters to measure
his performance by this standard before they went to the polls in
2002.

His high hopes also once seemed to be shaping up into real gains. At
the end of 2000, the chancellor looked back on a period in which
around 550,000 people joined the working world starting in late
1999. And he could look confidently ahead at more gains, fueled by
a blend of tax breaks and other measures he had pushed through.

Barely two years later, Schr?der can only look with horror at the
numbers. On Wednesday, he and the rest of the country learned that
the number of jobless people climbed to 4.623 million in January. It
was the highest figure for the month in five years and a total that
amounts to more than the entire population of the eastern German
state of Saxony. Within a month, the country's unemployment rate
jumped 1 percentage point, to 11.1 percent, as 398,000 people lost
their jobs.

Slump, weather blamed

Florian Gerster, the head of the German Labor Office in N?rnberg who
had the task of spreading the bad news, blamed the increase on the
winter weather and the country's slumping economy. Gerster also
offered little hope that the situation would change soon. Instead, he
said an improving economy would not help the economy until year's
end.

The numbers sent a shock through the country. "It is clearly worse
than expected," Andreas Scheuerle of the DekaBank told the
Reuters news agency. "Those are horrible numbers."

Angela Merkel, who leads the opposition Christian Democratic
Union, said Germany needed a powerful push to overcome the
problem. "And the federal government must provide this powerful
push," Merkel said.

Wolfgang Clement, the Social Democratic
economics and labor minister charged with
bringing down the numbers, responded to
the report in a more sober language. "The
numbers show that the weak economy and
the pressing structural problems continue
to have an effect on the economy," he said.

Analyzing the problems

To Holger Sch?fer of the Cologne Institute
for Business Research, the growing
numbers are nothing new. For years,
economists like him have been analyzing
the problems of the German job market and
been coming to similar conclusions. Part of the current problem,
these economists know, lies beyond the control of the government.
When the economy falls into a slump, employment suffers, Sch?fer
said. And the German economy has been in the doldrums for two
years. It grew 0.6 percent in 2001 and about 0.2 percent last year,
according to the German Statistics Office in Wiesbaden.

The second set of problems, however, has little to do with the ups
and downs of a country's economy. Instead, they are caused by
Germany's highly regulated job market, Sch?fer said. In this
environment, job creation sometimes becomes "the course of last
resort," he said.

One reason that employers are reluctant to hire people is the
non-labor costs associated with their employment, he said. "These
costs know only one direction -- up," Sch?fer said. The costs,
generally shared on a 50-50 basis between employer and employee,
cover such things as health insurance and payments into the
country's pension system. This January, the pension payments
climbed from 19.1 percent of gross pay to 19.5 percent. Some
officials expect that they will climb once again this year. Many
people also are paying higher health insurance premiums as the
deficit of the public health funds climbs.

Regulations on layoffs

Beyond these money issues, other regulations make employers
reluctant to hire workers, Sch?fer said. One such regulation defines
procedures that employers must follow when they decide to lay off
someone. Among other things, these rules regulate the notification
period for layoffs and the payment of severance pay. In larger
companies, employers also must consult the workers' council, which
represents employee interests in a company, before they can lay off
workers.

A change in these regulations would allow employers to dismiss
employees more easily during bad times, he said. But "they could
hire people more quickly during good times," Sch?fer said.

Clement, as he noted Wednesday, recognizes the need for structural
reforms and has suggested relaxing this law to make it easier to
dismiss and hire workers. But he encountered immediate opposition
from many of Germany's unions, which are heavily represented in
Clement's Social Democratic Party. In the wake of Wednesday's
unemployment report, the head of the German Trade Union
Federation continued to raise objections the such ideas. "I can only
advise people to keep their hands off such superficial, knee-jerk
reactions," Michael Summer said.

Change in statistics planned

Clement is also planning to introduce one sure-fire way to cut the
rate: He plans to base Germany's unemployment rate on European
Union standards. The centerpiece of the change will be that officials
will count only those unemployed people who are available to take
jobs. Under Germany's rules, a person is considered to be
unemployed if he or she works less than 15 hours a week and is
registered with the country's labor office.

Officials said the change was necessary in order to create a
universal standard within the European Union. The change is
expected to cut the total by more than 1 percentage point.
  • 0

#60 American Guy

American Guy

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 08 February 2003 - 03:13 PM

Maybe we will call in the money advanced forJAPANS 1999 Asia fianacial meltdown.

rotflmFao

Who much does India owe the IMF? Maybe we can call that note and draw down our #1 position as backer of the World Bank/IMF located here in Washington DC.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Silly, just silly, most of the money America owes is to other Americans, not the IMF etc.


Here this will help you put it in perspective:

http://www.infopleas...a/A0874911.html
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru