MSD

I realize that the souce is a fringe, out-there site, but it's an interesting theory. It's not like it's an original theory of theirs, it's a book review. I think it's worth discussing.

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/chan...m?ChannelID=49

Sparhawk

Funny, just today I read the opposite:

I've noticed with Greenspan coverage that people on both sides of an argument always manage to point to something he says to make their point.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Sensei

Greenspan usually acts in the best interests in the economy and not for political gain (he's not elected). The debt truly is crippling and I certainly don't want see a double-digit interest rates when I'm middle-aged, which is the road Bush is leading the US on.

__________________
Slacking off with style since 1981.

Ustwo

Only time I remember double digit rates was Carter.

Spending comming out of a recession not of his making doesn't a middle-aged crisis make. In fact considering that he had a recession before he took office and had 9/11, Bush if anything should be praised for the state of the economy, not whined about as if its his fault.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

Interesting to see how the words Greenspan said are taken in ways each side wants to hear. And both focused on the negatives.

I do see a flaw in Sparhawk's article tho. I believe Greenspan is retiring this year so where it talks about his wanting to win reconfirmation is not accurate.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

james t kirk

Greenspan is a registered republican.

But he did 8 years under Clinton because Clinton knew he (greenspan) knew just what the hell he was doing.

Bush Sr. and Greenspan butted heads over deficit financing.

Bush Jr. is too stupid to be able to go toe to toe with Greenspan.

Greenspan abhors deficit financing (and rightfully so.)

W has been spending money like a drunken sailor with little or no regard to the long term economics of it all. This year's US deficit is a record 521 billion, though in terms of percentages of GDP is not quite a record (yet). Rompin Ronnie Raygun holds that distinction.

But, the 200 billion or so spent on Iraq is NOT included in that 521 billion (why I don't know.)

So the US deficit is massive and Greenspan is rightfully concerned.

At the current time the US treasurery is printing up money to cover the deficit without having the assets to back up the debt. As a result, the US dollar has been decreasing in value rather dramatically on the international market. The Euro is at record levels.

Right now the overnight rate in the US is at 1% which is quite low, almost free money in fact.

If the US keeps up its current strategy of printing up money, there will come a time when a US currency crisis could happen. Since there are no investors willing to invest their money for a crumbie 1%, you don't have the bonds to borrow against now. Investors will demand more than 1% return on their money.

Unless the US wants to continue to print up more money and further devalue their currency, Greenspan will have no choice but to raise interest rates (rather shockingly) in order to attract investors.

When that happens the amount of tax dollars going to service JUST the interest on the debt (the sum of all deficits) will be incredible and will take away the US government's ability to spend tax dollars on other Government programmes such as that big honking military.

Something has to give.

There aint no thing as a free lunch, and you can kid yourself about Bush being a great guy and helping the economy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

He is just using purely short term economics and mortgaging the future.

No, if the US doens't get its spending under control we are in for another depression in 4 to 8 years.

james t kirk

PS, when Greenspan retires, the markets will panic.

Yakk

James, I hope you are joking or speaking allegorically about "printing up money". Cash is money, but money is not cash, and printing money (aka, making cash) is a ridiculous way to increase the amount of money one has availiable.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

smooth

I think our social safety net programs are the things that are going to give.

We just witnessed a previously considered sacred program receive its first real shove toward privitizing and/or dismantling our senior health care benefits.

Rodney

Well, perhaps many people would like that to happen. But I don't think it will really happen.

Apparently there's a neo-con strategy out there called "Starve the Beast," in which you run up big deficits with tax cuts which favor the wealthy, and then 'balance' them by cutting most government entitlement and regulatory programs -- thus leaving big business and the rich under relatively few restraints. The military, of course, gets left alone.

It's a nice theory, but middle-aged people vote. When Clinton left office, apparently the self-destruct date for Social Security (because of money running out) was like 2039. Now I'm sure it's a lot sooner. The argument that the start-date for SS can be rolled back because people live longer is fallacious; yeah, they do, but a lot of them still can't work much past 65, or are otherwise disabled. So all you're doing is taking people off the SS rolls and throwing them onto the federal disability rolls, which are growing by leaps and bounds already, by the way.

At any rate, the hurt is going to come down in a few years to the general population. And no matter how the current ruling class tries to cement deficits in place by passing low taxes (raising taxes is harder than lowering them), it won't change things. It'll just make the fight harder and nastier, and in the end you'll end up with enough pissed-off voters to elect another FDR type (or worse, a Huey Long/Pat Buchanan type) to make major changes to the system that may or may not be well advised.

Intersting times, ahoy....

[edit -- at least unless the Demos get in and make substantive changes before the fit hits the shan; but I'm not sure that they have the will or the means to do so... ]

gabshu

They always accuse Greenspan of trying to help presidents get defeated. He is a bit on the conservative side for my liking, but I have to say that the man does his job really well, in an unbiased manner. I think he really help the United States be the superpower it is economically.

__________________
Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

james t kirk

No, I am not joking, the US fed is printing up money, thus devaluing the currency.

Purposely.

It drives down the value of the dollar.

It makes sense in a way because the American dollar was too high previoulsy thus making imports very cheap and exports very expensive.

By lowering the dollar, it is hoped that this will make American made goods cheaper international and help reverse the US trade deficit.

But too much and you risk going the other way.

Yakk

James. The amount of cold hard cash in circulation means shit all.

No really.

Credit and numbers in computer bank accounts is the vast majority of the money supply.

There is > 8 trillion dollars of "M3" money supply out there. (M1 M2 and M3 are names of three different types of money supply, each containing the previous. M3 is "less cash-like" than M1 in some sense. M1 consists of things which are cash-equivients (like chequeing accounts).

I can't find an exact number, but there is most definately less than 1 trillion dollars in physical cash in circulation. I'd guess there was under half a trillion or less actually. 1000$ in physical cash for each man woman and child in the USA is probably more than enough.

Money is not physical cash, even though physical cash is money. You don't play games with the money supply of a modern industrialized nation by using a printing press. Money supply is typically manipulated by changing the interest rate charged to the banks when they "borrow" money from the central bank (note, however, the central bank doesn't have the money until it is borrowed. The numbers are simply pulled out of the ether, and interest is charged on them.)

This is all first year economics stuff mate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you really do seem to think that they are literally "printing up money", which is a cute belief. Read a book on the subject, things might not be a simple once you understand it, but you'll sound less silly.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Superbelt

Greenspan was part of the 1983 Social Security Commission that recommended drastic increases in payroll taxes to create a surplus in the Social Security fund. This was done to ensure solvency of SS into the future. Payroll taxes are capped at $87,000, So this SS surplus was funded largely by the middle class.

Then Greenspan endorses the 2001 tax cut that raided SS, and then the 2002 tax cuts. And now SS is back in the crapper and he wants to drastically reduce the benefits of SS.

Greenspan is a reverse Robin Hood. He stole from the middle classes to fund Social Security, then took that money (that was specifically paid for by the middle class) and gave it away to the rich. i.e. People who will never need Social Security.

It's a shell game, and Greenspan needs ousted for backing such an irresponsible tax cut package. It almost seems purposeful....

Sparhawk

I just read about that yesterday, Superbelt, and it sounds so surreal that I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Superbelt

Really, why isn't Greenspans bloody dismembered torso hanging from one of the tines of the Statue of Liberty right now?

$1,800,000,000,000. That's how much middle and lower class working americans paid into the system above and beyond the normal payments since 1983. That averages out to about $16,000 per person that someone who has been working since 83 has paid in EXTRA. All as part of a regressive tax increase for us. Then it all gets divided up in Bush's tax cuts and given, disproportionately, to people who will never need it.

Stealing 1.8 TRILLION dollars should be much bigger news. It's the greatest financial crime of all time.

This should be bigger news here as well. I'm surprised workers on this site aren't cursing Greenspans head.

Sparhawk

This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

james t kirk

Oh really....

Perhaps you should read this mate.....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...151209953.html

smooth

It's that predicted rise in the interest rates that concerns me so much in California. We just passed our 15 billion dollar bond measure to reconsolidate our past debt. That doesn't do anything for our unbalanced spending, however. Here's the kicker though, something that didn't seem to make it into the analysis: the projected repayment of 15 billion more dollars in interest was based on the current interest rates--which are at a 50 year low. Any guesses as to whether our interest rate will increase in the next 12 years?

Does anyone know if these type of bond measures are fixed rates, or adjusted? I'm not certain myself.

deepinjello

Everyone should read "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan, it's a great easy read that explains basic econmics for the layman but its not so dumbed down that its unreadable.

I feel that Greenspan has done what's best for the economy when he can, of course since he holds his office so long (14 years, i believe) it doesn't particually matter who is president or that's the theory. So let the conspiracy theories roll on but the economy will keep trudging along till doomsday.

__________________
"Hike up your skirt and show the world to me"

Tman144

Yakk,
When the Federal Reserve wants to increase the supply of money they buy government bonds and credit the accounts of the sellers without actually having the money. In effect they are "printing" money but no cash actually trades hands. They do the reverse when they want to decrease it buy selling off the bonds they have and then "destroying" the money they receive. So even though they don't print up money and give it away, they do create money that didn't exsist before.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat