True American Hero?

[MSimon]

Why did we go off the gold standard? It was an effort to match monetary growth to economic growth. You can sustain higher growth rates that way if the bankers are reasonably honest. There is always the temptation to cheat.

BTW the tech bubble lead to cheap broadband. The housing bubble will lead to cheaper housing if the government doesn't interfere.

And gold is no panacea. If some one invented a process to extract gold from the ocean at 1 cent an ounce inflation would go totally out of control.

At least with printing presses there is a switch. If some one will use it.

Look up Mark Twain and the cyanide process re: gold that I did on Power and Control. It caused a lot of gold to enter the market. Here it is:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ensus.html

Also see what an influx of gold from the new world did to Spain. They were ruined.

What happens when an asteroid miner finds a billion ton solid gold asteroid?

With technology rampant there is no sure limited commodity.

[MSimon]

Another one: look up the price of aluminum before and after the electrolytic process.

[MSimon]

If a man finds a 10 ton gold asteroid he is rich. If he finds a billion ton gold asteroid he is broke.

[Roger]

This has got to be the funniest thread of the month, I mean 6 or 7 good laffers. Bookmarked for future reference.

[zbarlici]

look.. i did not know that the gov`t actually set up and encouraged the economy to be the way it is, making it possible for citisens to acquire some posessions, and how is that bad?? The US is one of the richest contries in the world, its citisens HAVE THE RIGHT to be able to own a house and a little lot of land.... its the credit agency that screwed it all up.

They were rating the mortgage-backed securities the safest! And that was all great until all of a sudden the world`s savings, via its investors, started looking at the US market(most lucrative), and investing in it hoping to make some interest.... after all why not its just sitting there in a bank account! And since the prime is so freaking low, they notice this "mortgage-backed securities", insured by govt, rated triple freaking AAA as safe investment by the CRA, hey why not? Its higher interest returns than everything else?

... apparently mortgage was approved to a number of dead people in the USA. Wow... you dont even need a pulse. That does not make these morgage-backed securities very safe... Unless the Undead can still get a permit to work.

[MSimon]

look.. i did not know that the gov`t actually set up and encouraged the economy to be the way it is, making it possible for citisens to acquire some posessions, and how is that bad?? The US is one of the richest contries in the world, its citisens HAVE THE RIGHT to be able to own a house and a little lot of land.... its the credit agency that screwed it all up.

The way to do it if there is a RIGHT to own a house and some land is to vote it from the public treasury.

Of course if I have a RIGHT to the fruits of your labor please send me $1,000 as soon as possible. Currently I'm in the bottom 5% of the economic distribution and you are obviously not giving me my due. What is wrong with you?

I want the fruits of your labor. NOW. You thief.

BTW any place where property rights are insecure underperforms economically those places where property rights are secure. So living by my own philosophy despite my strained economic condition I think you should keep your $1,000. Spend it on what you want. Not what I want.

You might want to read what Economist Hernando DeSoto has to say about property rights. He thinks that those rights are the engine of prosperity.

I have no envy. I'm glad there are people making billions. The crumbs from their table have given me hot and cold running water, central air, three refrigerators, a Cray 1 equivalent on my desk, and a family with three autos. Rich beyond the dreams of most poor people in the world. And I'm at the very bottom of the pile.

Note also. From a self esteem point of view it is better for people to work for what they want rather than having it given to them. They also take better care of their property because they know what effort it took to get it.

The poor of the world are that way because they live under governments that do not respect property rights. I'd hate to see the USA go further down that road. One of the consequences of that, since the USA is the engine of world prosperity, is that the world will be worse off.

You know the old economic saw "The USA gets a cold and the rest of the world goes into a deep freeze".

Note also re: bad mortgages. Europe is in worse shape than America. They wrote more bad loans on European property than the USA did on its property. It is one of the reasons the dollar is rising against the Euro.

[Aero]

Of course if I have a RIGHT to the fruits of your labor please send me $1,000 as soon as possible. Currently I'm in the bottom 5% of the economic distribution and you are obviously not giving me my due. What is wrong with you?

I want the fruits of your labor. NOW. You thief.

Now wait a minute, don't be sending it all to Simon, I want it too. WANT WANT WANT, most people are just want buckets full of unsatisfied wants. There is a huge difference between a person's "Wants" and a persons verifiable "Needs." Society in general has some responsibility to work toward the satisfaction of verifiable needs, it has no obligation what so ever to address "Wants." Unfortunately home ownership falls into the category of Want, while shelter is the actual need.

[Aero]

And a different thought I think is related to this thread.

Why did our government regulators allow this mortgage crisis to arise anyway? It was long apparent that housing was going into, and then in a price bubble. It lasted several years, taking off in about the year 2000. But as I recall, it was housing equity growth (and cash out refinancing) that let homeowners feel financially comfortable enough to keep spending and consuming. And driving our national economy! This continued long after other economic sectors showed major weakness.

I suggest that we can lay the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of king George who needed to fund his war, and wanted to avoid political fall-out by putting off giving the needed economic medicine until the next president. He almost made it, or did he actually make it all the way and give his sponsors and friends $700 billion as a thank-you bonus?

[MSimon]

And a different thought I think is related to this thread.

Why did our government regulators allow this mortgage crisis to arise anyway? It was long apparent that housing was going into, and then in a price bubble. It lasted several years, taking off in about the year 2000. But as I recall, it was housing equity growth (and cash out refinancing) that let homeowners feel financially comfortable enough to keep spending and consuming. And driving our national economy! This continued long after other economic sectors showed major weakness.

I suggest that we can lay the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of king George who needed to fund his war, and wanted to avoid political fall-out by putting off giving the needed economic medicine until the next president. He almost made it, or did he actually make it all the way and give his sponsors and friends $700 billion as a thank-you bonus?

The Democrats in Congress colluded. After all it was helping poor people realize the American dream.

It was quid pro quo. The Democrats gave in on the war for their desires and the Republicans got their war finance. It is the way politics is done.

BTW I think establishing a self governing Arab country in the ME will be seen as a good decision 20 years from now. The autocracies running that neighborhood are toxic and the establishment of self government in Iraq is weakening them.

Note also: now that the war is well in hand George is balking at further economic bail outs: i.e. the auto companies. When it turns out that no amount of money can save those dinosaurs the new administration is going to be stuck with the onus.

And if the new administration is seen as geopolitically weak, a war greater than Iraq may very well ensue.

I predict the day will come in the next 4 years when people will pine for the good old days of George (the worst President ever).

[Mike Holmes]

Interestingly (to me at least), several years back there were a couple of books predicting the housing crisis. I don't know that they got the details precisely correct, but their titles were things like "The Housing Bubble and the Coming Collapse." They seem pretty prescient, looking back.

Why didn't anyone take notice. I mean I noticed, and I'm not usually one to notice these sorts of things. Forget who to blame for the policy, where was the hue and cry to rectify things from anyone?

Seems to me that everyone was too busy enjoying the soaring stock market to take the long view on this one. Nobody wanted to upset the boat. On either side of the aisle.

Unless I missed something. Can anyone show me anyone shouting to dampen the housing market in the previous few years?

Interestingly, when oil prices get high, we do all we can to dampen them... and then you get over-corrections...


On geopolitics, well, since we're not weak, I wouldn't worry. Not sure who would beat who in a boxing match (Obama probably, based on age alone), but I think that one man does not make that much difference. Yeah, even if he's the president. Economics rule, always, and no president lets anyone get away with messing ours up (we do that ourselves). There's no "weak" America as long as we're still the #1 economy. And that's not about to change any time soon, the current "crisis" notwithstanding. Our economy is so potent that if it declines, so goes the rest of the world.

In general terms, in fact, the power of the president to affect economics is over-rated. They don't dare meddle with the Federal Reserve. One can argue that Alan Greenspan has had more effect on the economy of the last several decades than any other single person.

Mike

[ravingdave]

Why did we go off the gold standard? It was an effort to match monetary growth to economic growth. You can sustain higher growth rates that way if the bankers are reasonably honest. There is always the temptation to cheat.

BTW the tech bubble lead to cheap broadband. The housing bubble will lead to cheaper housing if the government doesn't interfere.

And gold is no panacea. If some one invented a process to extract gold from the ocean at 1 cent an ounce inflation would go totally out of control.

At least with printing presses there is a switch. If some one will use it.

Look up Mark Twain and the cyanide process re: gold that I did on Power and Control. It caused a lot of gold to enter the market. Here it is:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... ensus.html

Also see what an influx of gold from the new world did to Spain. They were ruined.

What happens when an asteroid miner finds a billion ton solid gold asteroid?

With technology rampant there is no sure limited commodity.

Massive new influxes of Gold do occur and they have created havoc, but this is not a common occurance. Yes, printing presses have off switches, but they also have on switches, and therein lies the problem. I have always said that the U.S. Government is going to solve the national debt problem by inflating the currency and making payments with devalued money. As far as i'm concerned, inflating the money is a form of stealing.

The beautiful thing about Gold is that it's harder to cheat.


I don't think the tech bubble is responsible for broadband, I think it just hurried it up a bit. Broadband was comming anyways due to inevitable technological progress.


The cynaide process made it far easier to extract gold from ore, but it made a horrible mess in the process. Of course we did a lot of stupid things in the last hundred years. (and in the previous hundred.)


David

[ravingdave]

Of course if I have a RIGHT to the fruits of your labor please send me $1,000 as soon as possible. Currently I'm in the bottom 5% of the economic distribution and you are obviously not giving me my due. What is wrong with you?

I want the fruits of your labor. NOW. You thief.

Now wait a minute, don't be sending it all to Simon, I want it too. WANT WANT WANT, most people are just want buckets full of unsatisfied wants. There is a huge difference between a person's "Wants" and a persons verifiable "Needs." Society in general has some responsibility to work toward the satisfaction of verifiable needs, it has no obligation what so ever to address "Wants." Unfortunately home ownership falls into the category of Want, while shelter is the actual need.

You make a very good point. On my occasional forays into trying to understand the thought process of the other side I sometimes see a new insight. For example, the old communist saw "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." is really not all that objectionable to me, a right wing extreemist. It all depends on how truthful we want to be.


It is in our nature as Americans to feel pity on the helpless. What does a person NEED ?

Air. Water. Food. Shelter. And sometimes Medical services.

Okay, air is simple. It's free. Everyone is entittled to it.

Water costs something, but with the population balance of workers to needy it's not a significant burden to give water to the needy.

Food costs a lot more, and is a more significant burden on the working population, but as our working population can produce such bountiful surpluses it is again not a major burden provided times remain good and the needy do not become too many.

Medical services is again a little more burden, but given the nature of our people I think we would have near unamity that the needy should get basic medical services provided it does not become too significant of a burden on the productive members of society.


I think the vast majority of people would be willing to tolerate these burdens on behalf of the needy.


Of course the good will evaporates when the lazy and the crooked are redefined to be the "needy." and sending them a check every month is the stupidest thing you can do. (of course that's exactly what government does.)


Even so, if we are not wanting to watch people starve and die in misery, we might very well be willing to provide for the Needs of the crooked and the lazy.


Fine. Give them the bare necessities, and if they want to live that way then they really can't help themselves. I think any normal or capable person will not be willing to live in a baracks with a cot and a mess hall for their entire life and so such a system would solve a lot of existing problems. Why can't we get there ?

Too much stupid compassion and not enough smart compassion. Besides, it's harder to buy their votes when you aren't sending them other people money.


David

[MSimon]

There was a SF book on that called "Child of Fortune"

Child of Fortune

A really good read. Lots of sex and general craziness.

Norman Spinrad.