$18.1 Trillion Debt

Off Topic Politics, World Issues
61

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The vast majority of their losses would be them selling their own stock to buy it in the company that just released the most important innovation the world has seen in decades, if not centuries.

“Big Oil”'s loyalty to oil is money, not love of burning fossil fuels. And you don’t get that fucking rich being stupid and sentimental. [/quote]

I see your point, and to Drew’s point as well, my assumption is incorrect. They’d also be prepared for the speculation long before the rest of the market would.

62

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The vast majority of their losses would be them selling their own stock to buy it in the company that just released the most important innovation the world has seen in decades, if not centuries.

“Big Oil”'s loyalty to oil is money, not love of burning fossil fuels. And you don’t get that fucking rich being stupid and sentimental. [/quote]

I see your point, and to Drew’s point as well, my assumption is incorrect. They’d also be prepared for the speculation long before the rest of the market would. [/quote]

In simplistic terms I see the change from oil to another energy like this:

The low level employees of companies in the industry would be hurt the worst. At a executive level, they would most likely switch jerseys and get onboard with the new technology. If all the producing talent, or mid-level employees (engineers, lower managers, project leads etc.) of the oil companies no longer had jobs, and an industry was booming (new technology), a significant amount of them would migrate to the new opportunity. Essentially the new company would utilize a significant amount of the people who make the oil companies successful.

With that said, a change in how our world uses energy will shake up a lot, and more than just industries. Cities like Houston, which is the undefined oil capital of the world, would be dramatically changed. Not to mention countries who mainly rely on oil exports would lose their main source of income. West Africa, parts of Russia, parts of South America and regions in SE Asia would lose their most prized resource. What would happen in the Middle East?? I do not see those countries adapting nearly as easily as big bad oil.

63

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The vast majority of their losses would be them selling their own stock to buy it in the company that just released the most important innovation the world has seen in decades, if not centuries.

“Big Oil”'s loyalty to oil is money, not love of burning fossil fuels. And you don’t get that fucking rich being stupid and sentimental. [/quote]

I see your point, and to Drew’s point as well, my assumption is incorrect. They’d also be prepared for the speculation long before the rest of the market would. [/quote]

There’s no doubt some of them do some shady stuff. But yes, they survive based on foresight and planning along with sound investing in both stocks and infrastructure or subsidiaries.

I can corroborate Drew’s point by looking at the public stock portfolios these companies have as well as their acquisitions in recent years. In addition–if for no other reason than the government cheese they can get by doing so–their own corporate investment into green energy sources.

This combined with the fact that if one of them DID discover the next generation of energy alternatives they would crush their competitors overnight and take market share. That’s a pretty strong combination of motivators.

This is something a lot of the Big Oil conspiracy crowd does not understand. The most successful businesses of all time diversify as much as feasible in order to keep their edge in “what’s coming next” lest their competitors get there first. Its somewhat analogous to newspapers trying to scoop each other for the big story and readership

64

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Elon Musk is the current pioneer,
[/quote]

If Musk was a true pioneer his company wouldn’t be run almost entirely on government money. If he were a true pioneer, people would voluntarily buy his product without any incentive or subsidy.

65

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Here is to all those free marketers:) The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse [/quote]

Umm, huh? The Federal Reserve is not a product of free market capitalism. It was literally created by an act of government (Congress) much like the SEC or any number of other initials. AKA it is regulation, the opposite of free market.

If you don’t like what the Federal Reserve is doing you’re espousing conservative principles Pitt.
[/quote]

You kind of don’t see the forest for the trees , My point was about debt and the free wheeling of printing money but I guess you have to argue about something [/quote]

Lol, so government spending and government policies aka regulation aka non-conservative principles. [/quote]

No , we were talking about 18.1 trillion dollar debt and the US and the World for that matter just printing money when they can’t get a loan or bond

66

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Reich pins all the responsibility on the commencing wealthy when other impersonal forces have had a huge impact on the diminution of the middle class - globalization and technology. While I do think there is some truth to Reich’s approach (I don’t think the wealthy are evil, mustache-twisting scoundrels, but they are politically active and our tax and trade policies are blindly tilted toward the investor class,
[/quote]

I could not agree more , it is simply a monopoly

67

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Here is to all those free marketers:) The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse [/quote]

Umm, huh? The Federal Reserve is not a product of free market capitalism. It was literally created by an act of government (Congress) much like the SEC or any number of other initials. AKA it is regulation, the opposite of free market.

If you don’t like what the Federal Reserve is doing you’re espousing conservative principles Pitt.
[/quote]

You kind of don’t see the forest for the trees , My point was about debt and the free wheeling of printing money but I guess you have to argue about something [/quote]

Lol, so government spending and government policies aka regulation aka non-conservative principles. [/quote]

No , we were talking about 18.1 trillion dollar debt and the US and the World for that matter just printing money when they can’t get a loan or bond
[/quote]

You wrote:

“Here is to all those free marketers:)” and then talked about debt and the printing of money neither of which are free market principles. That doesn’t make any sense.

68

What would be the most viable option(s) that would serve in place of The Federal Reserve? The Fed’s actions have been grossly irresponsible, at best, and catastrophic at worst. No one tied to the Fed wants to do what’s necessary and push the button to cut the quantitative easing and increase the interest rates…and there seems to be no sign of that action taking place any time in the near future.

So back to my question: if the Fed were to be cut out, what would be the alternatives?

69

[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
What would be the most viable option(s) that would serve in place of The Federal Reserve? The Fed’s actions have been grossly irresponsible, at best, and catastrophic at worst. No one tied to the Fed wants to do what’s necessary and push the button to cut the quantitative easing and increase the interest rates…and there seems to be no sign of that action taking place any time in the near future.

So back to my question: if the Fed were to be cut out, what would be the alternatives?[/quote]

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/alternatives-federal-reserve-system

Its not too in depth, but has several options.

70

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Here is to all those free marketers:) The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse [/quote]

Umm, huh? The Federal Reserve is not a product of free market capitalism. It was literally created by an act of government (Congress) much like the SEC or any number of other initials. AKA it is regulation, the opposite of free market.

If you don’t like what the Federal Reserve is doing you’re espousing conservative principles Pitt.
[/quote]

You kind of don’t see the forest for the trees , My point was about debt and the free wheeling of printing money but I guess you have to argue about something [/quote]

Lol, so government spending and government policies aka regulation aka non-conservative principles. [/quote]

No , we were talking about 18.1 trillion dollar debt and the US and the World for that matter just printing money when they can’t get a loan or bond
[/quote]

You wrote:

“Here is to all those free marketers:)” and then talked about debt and the printing of money neither of which are free market principles. That doesn’t make any sense. [/quote]

does manipulating the value of the currency covey a free market ?

71

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Here is to all those free marketers:) The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse [/quote]

Umm, huh? The Federal Reserve is not a product of free market capitalism. It was literally created by an act of government (Congress) much like the SEC or any number of other initials. AKA it is regulation, the opposite of free market.

If you don’t like what the Federal Reserve is doing you’re espousing conservative principles Pitt.
[/quote]

You kind of don’t see the forest for the trees , My point was about debt and the free wheeling of printing money but I guess you have to argue about something [/quote]

Lol, so government spending and government policies aka regulation aka non-conservative principles. [/quote]

No , we were talking about 18.1 trillion dollar debt and the US and the World for that matter just printing money when they can’t get a loan or bond
[/quote]

You wrote:

“Here is to all those free marketers:)” and then talked about debt and the printing of money neither of which are free market principles. That doesn’t make any sense. [/quote]

does manipulating the value of the currency covey a free market ?
[/quote]

Interest rate manipulation and money printing by the Federal Reserve (created by Congress) to manipulate inflation or the value of a fiat currency is absolutely not “free market.”

So, no.

72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Here is to all those free marketers:) The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse [/quote]

Umm, huh? The Federal Reserve is not a product of free market capitalism. It was literally created by an act of government (Congress) much like the SEC or any number of other initials. AKA it is regulation, the opposite of free market.

If you don’t like what the Federal Reserve is doing you’re espousing conservative principles Pitt.
[/quote]

You kind of don’t see the forest for the trees , My point was about debt and the free wheeling of printing money but I guess you have to argue about something [/quote]

Lol, so government spending and government policies aka regulation aka non-conservative principles. [/quote]

No , we were talking about 18.1 trillion dollar debt and the US and the World for that matter just printing money when they can’t get a loan or bond
[/quote]

You wrote:

“Here is to all those free marketers:)” and then talked about debt and the printing of money neither of which are free market principles. That doesn’t make any sense. [/quote]

does manipulating the value of the currency covey a free market ?
[/quote]

Interest rate manipulation and money printing by the Federal Reserve (created by Congress) to manipulate inflation or the value of a fiat currency is absolutely not “free market.”

So, no. [/quote]

then what do you not understand ?

73

Meaning no disrespect USMC , I just believe you would argue with me if I said the sky is blue or the Ocean is deep or that Obama was the best president we have had since Clinton:)

74

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Here is to all those free marketers:) The Fed Is Not Printing Money, It's Doing Something Much Worse [/quote]

Umm, huh? The Federal Reserve is not a product of free market capitalism. It was literally created by an act of government (Congress) much like the SEC or any number of other initials. AKA it is regulation, the opposite of free market.

If you don’t like what the Federal Reserve is doing you’re espousing conservative principles Pitt.
[/quote]

You kind of don’t see the forest for the trees , My point was about debt and the free wheeling of printing money but I guess you have to argue about something [/quote]

Lol, so government spending and government policies aka regulation aka non-conservative principles. [/quote]

No , we were talking about 18.1 trillion dollar debt and the US and the World for that matter just printing money when they can’t get a loan or bond
[/quote]

You wrote:

“Here is to all those free marketers:)” and then talked about debt and the printing of money neither of which are free market principles. That doesn’t make any sense. [/quote]

does manipulating the value of the currency covey a free market ?
[/quote]

Interest rate manipulation and money printing by the Federal Reserve (created by Congress) to manipulate inflation or the value of a fiat currency is absolutely not “free market.”

So, no. [/quote]

then what do you not understand ?
[/quote]

I guess I don’t understand the first sentence in this chain, “Here is to all those free marketers:)” with a link to the Federal Reserve.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Meaning no disrespect USMC , I just believe you would argue with me if I said the sky is blue or the Ocean is deep or that Obama was the best president we have had since Clinton:)[/quote]

I wouldn’t argue with you if you were right or knew what you were talking about.

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Like when he speaks about unemployment of blacks in the past , he says it was better before regulations , do you interpret it as he saying we should go back to Jim Crow ?

[/quote]

No, he’s saying “look here, our people did better when the government shit on us, and have done worse once the government tried to wipe our ass. Maybe we should reconsider inviting government into our lives/voting for the people that have made it worse for us while telling us it’s for the best.”

[/quote]

That is your problem , you lack the ability to be broad minded he did not say do better , maybe the every one had a job and that was better , but pay , treatment standard of living were all inferior and terrible at that

76

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Like when he speaks about unemployment of blacks in the past , he says it was better before regulations , do you interpret it as he saying we should go back to Jim Crow ?

[/quote]

No, he’s saying “look here, our people did better when the government shit on us, and have done worse once the government tried to wipe our ass. Maybe we should reconsider inviting government into our lives/voting for the people that have made it worse for us while telling us it’s for the best.”

[/quote]

That is your problem , you lack the ability to be broad minded he did not say do better , maybe the every one had a job and that was better , but pay , treatment standard of living were all inferior and terrible at that
[/quote]

Yes, Your Democrats have always been the champions of Black Americans. Enslaving them, keeping the separated and now encouraging their termination and keeping them in inner-city ghettos.

You sure got it all figured out Pitt, such a broad mind.

77

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Like when he speaks about unemployment of blacks in the past , he says it was better before regulations , do you interpret it as he saying we should go back to Jim Crow ?

[/quote]

No, he’s saying “look here, our people did better when the government shit on us, and have done worse once the government tried to wipe our ass. Maybe we should reconsider inviting government into our lives/voting for the people that have made it worse for us while telling us it’s for the best.”

[/quote]

That is your problem , you lack the ability to be broad minded he did not say do better , maybe the every one had a job and that was better , but pay , treatment standard of living were all inferior and terrible at that
[/quote]

Yes, Your Democrats have always been the champions of Black Americans. Enslaving them, keeping the separated and now encouraging their termination and keeping them in inner-city ghettos.

You sure got it all figured out Pitt, such a broad mind. [/quote]

they are not my Democrats , both sides are guilty of stupidity , You still have not justified your point

beans said “that have made it worse for us while telling us it’s for the best.”