8/7/2011 11:12:12 PM

That rollercoaster needs to go down more. Maybe end in a pit of lava, sort of like some assy trap in minecraft.

8/7/2011 11:53:32 PM

SuperDude, I don't think its the end of the world by any means but it will be Financial Armageddon.

During the disruption there's no telling how ugly it will get. Riots, looting, wild wild west for all I know...

I'd just prefer to have food and clean water to drink in my living quarters so that I don't have to risk going out of the house while it all transpires.

Also, since many of us will presumably be losing our job during the crisis I'd like to have plenty of savings on hand.

And since the dollar will be debased indefinitely, I want that savings to something that actually has value. Like gold.

8/8/2011 1:19:48 AM

Hurry everyone get the remaining jobs in the military industrial complex.

8/8/2011 1:20:44 AM

Quote :

"Even if you're right, 1/3 of the military is still a ton of people. What happens when you drop individuals that are literally trained to kill into a civilian population where jobs are hard to come by even for highly educated folks?"

Actually no. Despite almost 10 years of constant warfare less than 1% of the US population has served in uniform and roughly 50% of the deployed forces have been reservists.

1/3 of the Active Duty military is around 400,000 people, or 0.1% of the total US population.

Not to mention that your perception of the military is wildly off-base.

8/8/2011 3:42:57 AM

The campaign slogan no one saw coming:

SAVE THE ECONOMY - RAISE TAXES!

8/8/2011 9:41:02 AM

This has been bouncing around:

Quote :

"This is not going to be one of those posts that laments S&P’s decision to downgrade the US, but then says that S&P was probably right about our oh-so-dysfunctional political system. No, S&P was flat-out wrong — no caveats. They are, to put it very bluntly, idiots, and they deserve every bit of opprobrium coming their way. They were embarrassingly wrong on the basic budget numbers, as everyone knows now, so they were forced to remove that section from their report, and change their rationale for the downgrade. (Always a sign that you’re dealing with hacks.) [...] Look, I know these S&P guys. Not these particular guys — I don’t know John Chambers or David Beers personally. But I know the rating agencies intimately. Back when I was an in-house lawyer for an investment bank, I had extensive interactions with all three rating agencies. We needed to get a lot of deals rated, and I was almost always involved in that process in the deals I worked on. To say that S&P analysts aren’t the sharpest tools in the drawer is a massive understatement. Naturally, before meeting with a rating agency, we would plan out our arguments — you want to make sure you’re making your strongest arguments, that everyone is on the same page about the deal’s positive attributes, etc. With S&P, it got to the point where we were constantly saying, “that’s a good point, but is S&P smart enough to understand that argument?” I kid you not, that was a hard-constraint in our game-plan. With Moody’s and Fitch, we at least were able to assume that the analysts on our deals would have a minimum level of financial competence. I’ve seen S&P make far more basic mistakes than the one they made in miscalculating the US’s debt-to-GDP ratio. I’ve seen an S&P managing director who didn’t know the order of operations, and when we pointed it out to him, stopped taking our calls. Despite impressive-sounding titles, these guys personify “amateur hour.” (And my opinion of S&P isn’t just based on a few deals; it’s based on countless deals, meetings, and phone calls over 20 years. It’s also the opinion of practically everyone else who deals with the rating agencies on a semi-regular basis.) Treasury has every right to be outraged. S&P mangled the economic argument so badly that they had to abandon it entirely, and then fell back on a political argument which they are in no position to make, and which isn’t even correct. "

Ouch. Any insight on this? I can't decide how credible this is.

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-s-downgrades-and-idiots.html

8/8/2011 10:08:50 AM

so is it time to start stockpiling guns, ammo, rations and water? move out to the country to grow a garden and hunt game?

8/8/2011 10:10:10 AM

Quote :

"And since the dollar will be debased indefinitely, I want that savings to something that actually has value. Like gold."

gold won't be worth shit when we are living out of tents looking for food and water.

what's going to be worth more, a gold bar or the 100 rounds of 9mm ammo i have?

8/8/2011 10:12:34 AM

Your 100 rounds of 9mm aren't shit.

8/8/2011 10:24:21 AM

i only need one round to take your gold ;-)

8/8/2011 10:26:45 AM

Quote :

"Can we please stop regurgitating this? Our revenues would have easily covered payments on public debt several times over."

And can we please stop pretending like that's point? The point is that this entire fight over raising the debt ceiling was an uneccesary blow to an already lagging economy. When the DOW dropped 500 points in one day last week, that wasn't a fake threat or a theory. That actually happened, and there are people who will suffer because of it. The S&P downgrading our debt may have been mostly based on perception than anything else, but it still happened, and it's still going to cause yet more pain to people who have already had too much. Do you get it? This whole stupid fucking exercise that was perpetuated by a group of representatives whom are quite frankly, not very smart(which by the way, was the entire reason the founding fathers were against direct democracy), was something we just didn't need right now.

8/8/2011 10:26:57 AM

^^ Well, no, you're going to need a fucking army to take my gold.

8/8/2011 10:29:01 AM

^^And yet, unlike other democratic nations, we have no institutional mechanism for dismissing the whole legislative body ("no confidence" purgation).

8/8/2011 10:42:45 AM

Quote :

"gold won't be worth shit when we are living out of tents looking for food and water. what's going to be worth more, a gold bar or the 100 rounds of 9mm ammo i have? "

the 1000 rounds of 7.62x54 r that i have and the 2 guns that fire it.

(or the rounds for my big gun i don't talk about)


seriously... i'm really excited to see this piece CNN is working on about how dems and repubs only care about building up their perceived power and not about the good of our country only their own.

[Edited on August 8, 2011 at 10:47 AM. Reason : .]

8/8/2011 10:45:24 AM

^ i'm not saying that 100 rounds of 9mm ammo is a lot. just that i think if shit really does hit the fan that this perceived value we put on gold and silver will vanish when people are just trying to survive. i mean seriously, who the fucks made gold and silver so important? i think food, clean water, shelter and security will be the driving factors.

[Edited on August 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM. Reason : i]

8/8/2011 11:11:29 AM

Quote :

"Actually no. Despite almost 10 years of constant warfare less than 1% of the US population has served in uniform and roughly 50% of the deployed forces have been reservists. 1/3 of the Active Duty military is around 400,000 people, or 0.1% of the total US population. Not to mention that your perception of the military is wildly off-base."

My mention of the military was just one example of jobs that I considered unproductive...and I do consider nation building/killing people unproductive. Someone responded to the military bit, so I elaborated.

8/8/2011 11:17:55 AM

[Edited on August 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM. Reason : double post ciiiity]

8/8/2011 11:20:53 AM

Quote :

"What happens when you drop individuals that are literally trained to kill into a civilian population where jobs are hard to come by even for highly educated folks?"

A good number of the ones I know went to college on the GI Bill. Aside from John Rambo, I really can't think of anyone who just went nuts and roamed the Pacific Northwest stalking cops who hassled them over their hair cut.

8/8/2011 11:33:19 AM

Hahaha. I don't think ex-soldiers going crazy that will be a widespread occurrence or anything, but it has happened, and I'm sure it will happen. I can't speak from experience, but I imagine that routinely engaging in combat, killing other people, and seeing your friends killed takes a psychological toll. Just off the top of your head, who is the most notorious domestic terrorist in the U.S. in recent memory? What can you tell me about his background?

When you also take into account that many of the guys going into the military had no other viable options, and now the job market is worse than they went in to the service, it's not a rosy outlook. Shit, even Obama was talking about retraining soldiers in his speech towards the end of last week. I don't know if that was a genuine sentiment or a head fake, but still.

[Edited on August 8, 2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2011 12:01:52 PM

Dude of course you will want food, water, and alcohol. I've mentioned 100 times you should have that.

You are also going to want gold. To say gold won't be worth shit shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of money and how value is stored over thousands of years.

8/8/2011 12:34:10 PM

Quote :

"Just off the top of your head, who is the most notorious domestic terrorist in the U.S. in recent memory? What can you tell me about his background? "

Jared Lee Loughner? As far as his background, no combat, no killing others, no seeing his friends killed.

8/8/2011 12:40:54 PM

Fuck gold I can't do anything with it. It's worth is as bad as fiat money. Its some shiny shit that people want without reason.

8/8/2011 12:54:33 PM

i'm not saying gold won't have value. i'm simply challenging the reasoning behind assigning value to gold. i mean what properties of gold and silver make them so valuable besides having a history of value?

8/8/2011 12:55:52 PM

and wheee there goes my 401k

8/8/2011 1:00:43 PM

Quote :

"Jared Lee Loughner? As far as his background, no combat, no killing others, no seeing his friends killed."

I was thinking of Timothy McVeigh.

8/8/2011 1:03:47 PM

you're worried about nutcases with middle eastern financial support?

8/8/2011 1:14:33 PM

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Quote :

"i'm not saying gold won't have value. i'm simply challenging the reasoning behind assigning value to gold. i mean what properties of gold and silver make them so valuable besides having a history of value?"

Scarcity, ease of divisibility, portability...all of those things make gold and silver ideal money. At it's core, monetary systems are just advanced bartering - people want stuff for stuff.

[Edited on August 8, 2011 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ]

8/8/2011 1:23:38 PM

It's very difficult to determine the value of things if there is not an infrastructure provided to allow safe barter.

In otherwords, gold could be worth a lot, but no one would pay for it, they'd just take it.

8/8/2011 3:11:45 PM

Right...hence the old "gold and guns" motto.

8/8/2011 3:13:26 PM

My point is that it's only really the guns that matter.

The only real things of value in that situation will be weapons, food, water, shelter, and women. Probably in that order.

8/8/2011 6:31:25 PM

Did this thread really turn into a debate of guns vs. gold and soldiers coming home and killing people? i gotta stay out of soapbox.

8/8/2011 8:30:24 PM

I like the unpredictability.

8/8/2011 8:33:42 PM

^^^

The ancient world had plenty of very civilized systems of trade and currency. Just because some of our more modern systems collapse doesn't mean a plunge into utter chaos. Classical trades like farming will be very valuable as will helping each other out and doing your part. Unless of course the religious right turns it into a culture war.

[Edited on August 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM. Reason : a]

8/8/2011 8:34:16 PM

Quote :

"The ancient world had plenty of very civilized systems of trade and currency."

They took years to build and leaders with the military power to defend them. Guns kind of change the game and create a very large dichotomy between warlords and peasants. This is why we see these kinds of systems in places with weak governments now, like many places in africa.

8/9/2011 7:46:52 AM

time to reload that ol 303 brass!

8/9/2011 8:42:41 AM

Quote :

"It was based on concerns that if 30% of our representatives seemed ok with defaulting, that they could actually let it happen one day. It's the Tea Party's fault, 100%."

Remind me again, oh bastion of liberal talking points, who was it that was saying "let's default"? Because, bless my tarded heart, the only one I EVER heard talking about default were the fearmongering democrats, trying to convince everyone that "living within our means" meant "default". Find me a dumbass Tea Partier who said "let's default, it's awesome!" FIND ME ONE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THIS BULLSHIT TALKING POINT.

Quote :

"Not that we as a country don't deserve this, but these were the same people that said CDO home loans were AAA rated, and look how that turned out. "

again, you don't wanna make that argument... Because that easily means that OUR GOV'T is vastly overrated by these agencies as well

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ]

8/9/2011 11:16:38 AM

Quote :

""living within our means not getting a tax increase" meant "default""

FIFY

The point I was trying to make is that the Washington Establishment does not want to cut spending, they don't want a balanced budget amendment, and they want more revenue to bolster their reelections (pork). The Tea Partiers were standing on the principles they got elected on. They were hired to cut back government. The Democrats spewed the "we need more taxes line" and the "we need more debt line".

Hell, the bill they passed is only a cut to the increase, not a cut to the spending. Granted, it has stipulations for future cuts and a balanced budget amendment, but I seriously doubt the Legislative branch will handcuff themselves, even if that is what the voters want. It may take another election cycle to get that to happen.

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

8/9/2011 11:19:01 AM

^?

Quote :

"Ouch. Any insight on this? I can't decide how credible this is."

Yeah, sour grapes. Saying a major ratings agency is full of idiots is about as ad hominem as it can get.

Quote :

"The point is that this entire fight over raising the debt ceiling was an uneccesary blow to an already lagging economy."

ahhh, the old "we need to keep destroying the economy long-term to avoid short-term pain. brilliant, I tell ya. brilliant

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

8/9/2011 11:21:36 AM

Quote :

"Remind me again, oh bastion of liberal talking points, who was it that was saying "let's default"? Because, bless my tarded heart, the only one I EVER heard talking about default were the fearmongering democrats, trying to convince everyone that "living within our means" meant "default". Find me a dumbass Tea Partier who said "let's default, it's awesome!" FIND ME ONE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THIS BULLSHIT TALKING POINT."

Ok, I have 5 minutes to educate a dipshit.

McCain:

Quote :

"The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue and the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama.... Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea party hobbits could return to Middle-earth having defeated Mordor."

Boehner:

Quote :

"Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that — I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House."

Read between the lines you DUMB MOTHER FUCKER (see I can use caps too, its fun), their own fucking party leaders were calling them out for wanting to cause a default. Why would McCain/Boehner say these things if they weren't true? Shit talking the Tea Party can only equal lost votes at this point for anyone in the GOP (you can even see how delicate Boehner was with his comments, so as not to piss off any rednecks/racists like yourself).

Read the S&Ps own statement you DUMB MOTHER FUCKER (this really is a lot of fun),

Quote :

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the THREAT OF DEFAULT have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy."

Tell me how am I supposed to interpret that, I'm sure Rush will come up with something good for you. And while you're at it, find me quote from a liberal saying "if we live within' our means, we will default"

Quote :

"ahhh, the old "we need to keep destroying the economy long-term to avoid short-term pain. brilliant, I tell ya. brilliant"

Sure, that's one way to interpret it, if you are dumb racist redneck. The other (sensible) way would be that it's the old "we can fix our government/economy without first burning it the ground and destroying everything that makes us a 1st world country". Savy?

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 1:17 PM. Reason : L]

8/9/2011 1:15:34 PM

I personally watched an interview with Sarah Palin in which she stated a default would not be a big deal. Saw one where Michelle Bachman said the same thing. To be fair, they weren't saying explicitly "hey, let's default!!!", but it was "if that's what it takes for us to win, it's ok!!" which is close enough...

8/9/2011 1:23:32 PM

Do you guys even know what this "debt deal" contained? This was not a victory for the Tea Party (whatever the fuck that is). The Tea Party got shut out - the establishment managed to crank out a "compromise" in the 11th hour, just like I said they would.

They made trivial cuts to future projected spending. There were no actual cuts. The politicians are not serious yet. Maybe they'll get serious when Americans take to the streets, which could be coming sooner than you think.

Problem is, the only people mad enough to take the streets will be the ones getting cut off, more than likely. Once the government gives a group something, they'll fight to keep it. Very dark clouds are on the horizon, fellas. Hope you're prepared.

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/9/2011 1:47:36 PM

^Who are you preaching too? I know what passed last week was a piece of crap. That's what happens when one party is full of bad ideas and the other party is filled with spineless donkeys. However, given the reaction in the markets to just the threat of default and the S&P downgrade, it's pretty clear now that Obama had no choice but to hold his nose and sign it. Well, he did have a choice, but as we've already established, spineless donkeys.

The whole tragedy here is that there actually has been a lot of progress made towards a real deal that accomplishes much of what BOTH parties want. Bowles-Simpson, the Gang of Six, they had plans on the table with bipartisan support that made real gains towards balancing our budget. These weren't imaginary wastes of time like "a balanced budget amendment" or something with absolutely no chance of passing like "Cut, Cap, and Balance". These were plans from politicians who actually are serious. The problem was that instead of debating those plans, the Tea Party shifted the debate to the absolutely insane "should we raise the debt ceiling" while simultaneously refusing to actually compromise on anything (like raising taxes on the rich which basically everyone wants).

8/9/2011 3:12:04 PM

Quote :

"^Who are you preaching too? I know what passed last week was a piece of crap. That's what happens when one party is full of bad ideas and the other party is filled with spineless donkeys. However, given the reaction in the markets to just the threat of default and the S&P downgrade, it's pretty clear now that Obama had no choice but to hold his nose and sign it. Well, he did have a choice, but as we've already established, spineless donkeys."

I'm going to assume that the GOP is full of bad ideas and that Democrats are the spineless donkeys. If only we had done what the Democrats wanted, everything would have been fine, right?

Bad news for you: both parties are full of bad ideas, and both parties are spineless. What we actually need are huge cuts across the board, which is not what you want to hear. You think that everything should be able to continue as normal, raise taxes on the rich, and we'll be fine. The situation is much, much worse than that. We have to cut from military, and we have to restructure entitlements. Those are not possible solutions - those cuts will take place sooner or later, and the longer we wait, the worse it's going to be.

Zero progress has been made. No one is talking about immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. No one is mentioning Medicare or Social Security. Bullshit the politicians are serious.

8/9/2011 3:52:03 PM

What do you mean no one is mentioning SS and Medicare? Look at the Bowles-Simpson/Gang of Six plans, they include Medicare reform and huge cuts to SS benefits. They include tax reform that raise taxes on some, but overall reduces the marginal tax rate and simplifies the code. It was actually *gasp* a balanced plan with broad bipartisan support (not 2 democrats like whatever piece of crap the House floated). These plans were on the table and ready to be debated until the Tea Party jumped in and said "no tax increases, no raising the debt ceiling, and we want a constitutional amendment". Then the firestorm of the past few weeks ensued. Liberals were willing to put personal mortgage interest deductions on the table, but the Tea Party held the line on getting rid of tax breaks on corporate jets. That's the sort of "compromise" that leaves us where we are today, right back where we started.

8/9/2011 4:32:40 PM

Simpson-Bowles at least addresses some crucial issues, but it also had no chance of being passed. It was a plan created by appointees, not politicians. The politicians will not vote for something that actually cuts SS benefits.

And, of course, no budget plan can be taken seriously if it doesn't address military spending.

8/9/2011 4:54:12 PM

Quote :

"Vested Interests When you watch the corporate mainstream media, or read a corporate run newspaper, or go to a corporate owned internet site you are going to get a view that is skewed to the perspective of the corporate owners. What all Americans must understand is everyone they see on TV or read in the mainstream press are part of the status quo. These people have all gotten rich under the current social and economic structure. Buffett, Kudlow, Cramer, Bartiromo, Senators, investment managers, Bill Gross, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Jeff Immelt, and every person paraded on TV have a vested interest in propping up the existing structure. They are talking their book and their own best interests. Even though history has proven time and again the existing social order gets swept away like debris in a tsunami wave, the vested interests try to cling to their power, influence and wealth. Those benefitting from the existing economic structure will lie, obfuscate, misdirect, and use propaganda and misinformation to retain their positions. The establishment will seek to blame others, fear monger and avoid responsibility for their actions. Ron Paul plainly explains why the US was downgraded: “We were downgraded because of years of reckless spending, not because concerned Americans demanded we get our finances in order. The Washington establishment has spent us into near default and now a downgrade, and here they are again trying to escape responsibility for their negligence in handling the economy.” The standard talking points you have heard or will hear from the vested interests include: Stocks are undervalued based on forward PE ratios. Ignore the volatility in the market because stocks always go up in the long run. Buy the fucking dip. America is not going into recession. The market is dropping because the Tea Party held the country hostage. The S&P downgrade is meaningless because they rated toxic subprime mortgages AAA in 2005 – 2007. The market is dropping because the debt ceiling deal will crush the economy with the horrific austerity measures. The S&P downgrade is meaningless because Treasury rates declined after the downgrade. Foreigners will continue to buy our debt because they have no other options. Foreigners will continue to invest in the U.S. because Europe, Japan and China are in worse shape than the U.S. America is still the greatest economy on the planet and the safest place to invest. Each of these storylines is being used on a daily basis by the vested interests as they try to pull the wool over the eyes of average Americans. A smattering of truth is interspersed with lies to convince the non-thinking public their existing delusional beliefs are still valid. The storylines are false. Here are some basic truths the vested interests don’t want you to understand: As of two weeks ago the stock market was 40% overvalued based upon normalized S&P earnings and was priced to deliver 3% annual returns over the next decade. The S&P 500 has lost 17%, meaning it is only 23% overvalued. Truthful analysts John Hussman, Jeremy Grantham and Robert Shiller were all in agreement about the market being 40% overvalued. This decline is not a buying opportunity. The S&P 500 was trading at 1,119 on April 2, 1998. The S&P 500 closed at 1,119 yesterday. In March 2000 the S&P 500 traded at 1,527. By my calculation, the stock market is 27% below its peak eleven years ago. As you can see, stocks always go up in the long run. It is just depends on your definition of long. The talking heads on CNBC told you to buy the dip from October 2007 through until March 2009. The result was a 50% loss of your wealth. The government will report the onset of recession six months after it has already begun. People who live in the real world (not NYC or Washington DC) know the country has been in recession for the last seven months. The CNBC pundits don’t want to admit we are in a recession because they know the stock market drops 40% during recessions on average and don’t want you to sell before they do. The stock market held up remarkably well during the debt ceiling fight. It did not begin to plunge until Obama signed the toothless joke of a bill that doesn’t “cut” one dime of spending. The markets realized the politicians in Washington DC will never cut spending. The National Debt will rise from $14.5 trillion to $20 trillion by 2015 and to $25 trillion by 2021, even with the supposed austere spending “cuts”."

http://www.theburningplatform.com/

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 6:24 PM. Reason : a]

8/9/2011 6:21:25 PM

Quote :

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

S&P's downgrade was not some force of nature. It was a decision made by a group of people who published the reasons why they made those decisions. It's hilarious when people go on the record disagreeing with S&P's publicly stated opinion on why S&P downgraded.

[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 8:11 PM. Reason : .]

8/9/2011 8:10:58 PM

distinction without a difference

8/9/2011 8:22:02 PM

It is hilarious how much the dope box has changed their tune!

Now...someone convince me about the credibility of the credit rating agencies. I guess they run the world economy now? I guess they did not fail to foresee the housing bubble? I guess, I know, they are a part of the entire scheme..

Say what, S&P:

Quote :

"Standard & Poor's on Friday downgraded the U.S. government's credit rating for the first time in the nation's history, lowering it from the highest level because the firm said the spending cuts in the recent deal to raise the federal debt ceiling "falls short" of what's needed to stabilize the government's longer-term finances."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/us-credit-rating-downgraded-by-standard-poors.html

Statism, epic fail as usual.


[Edited on August 9, 2011 at 10:26 PM. Reason : x]

8/9/2011 10:20:41 PM