Are We Due for a Economic Depression?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]brent352 wrote:
I believe there is a depression coming that will serve to weed out the weak and the stupid. This is what I am preparing for. The writing is on the wall but I can’t make you read it. Federal Reserve notes are worthless to me.

If you are not buying gold and silver you are missing out. I don’t really feel like posting a bunch of charts and graphs and links so either take my word for it or do your on research. The US empire is slowly spiraling down the drain and no amount of Mcmansions and ungodly expensive sports cars are going to serve as assets when the dollar collapses and people are looking to spend what little “money” they have left on commodities.

I would also suggest planting a garden and learning how to tend it. Skills like this will be invaluable in the years to come. Good luck to everyone.

oh and I won’t be reading this post again so please don’t get your panties in a bunch if I don’t reply again.[/quote]

Unless you are buying it and taking physical possession of the gold, or silver, you don’t have anything but paper.

If the shit hits the fan like some on here are predicting, no one will honor contracts, or certificates.

I it really gets to that point, buy guns and ammo - then move to the country.

42

Studies: Iraq costs US $12B per month http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…

We are at the mercy of foreign investors holding dollars. …

They are at our mercy.

Both of you are wrong. No one is at anyone’s mercy. It’s just business.

In a voluntary exchange both parties are dependent on each other to fulfill each other’s end of the contract. If one party is dissatisfied with the other’s end result then that party is free to walk away and do business with another party. It’s called free market competition and it is what makes goods and services better.[/quote]

Even in free will, voluntary business exchanges, one side often has a lot more leverage than the other. Wal-Mart has ungodly leverage over its suppliers, even though all parties involved entered into business voluntarily and are free to walk away at any time.

In this case, the U.S. has the most leverage, because the nations that are buying our debt need the U.S. economy to flourish a lot more than we need them to buy our debt.

44

As a result of schemes such as these, the top 1% of Americans now have more personal wealth than the bottom 92% combined! (From The Future of Money, by Bernard Lietaer, Random House UK 2001) In these modern times, money has lost all connection with value, work and productivity, making a collapse of the system inevitable. Part of the purpose of a second great depression will be to flush away arbitrary, unfair systems such as these.

45

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…

We are at the mercy of foreign investors holding dollars. …

They are at our mercy.

Both of you are wrong. No one is at anyone’s mercy. It’s just business.

In a voluntary exchange both parties are dependent on each other to fulfill each other’s end of the contract. If one party is dissatisfied with the other’s end result then that party is free to walk away and do business with another party. It’s called free market competition and it is what makes goods and services better.

Even in free will, voluntary business exchanges, one side often has a lot more leverage than the other. Wal-Mart has ungodly leverage over its suppliers, even though all parties involved entered into business voluntarily and are free to walk away at any time.

In this case, the U.S. has the most leverage, because the nations that are buying our debt need the U.S. economy to flourish a lot more than we need them to buy our debt.[/quote]

If investors think the rate of retrun is higher elsewhere, they will leave. If our currency is falling, we have to match the real return AND the loss in value of the currency, in order to keep them happy. This portends higher rates.

Then, people who borrowed at lower rates get ‘readjusted’ and banks start failing left and right. Bad news all the way around…

46

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…

We are at the mercy of foreign investors holding dollars. …

They are at our mercy.

Both of you are wrong. No one is at anyone’s mercy. It’s just business.

In a voluntary exchange both parties are dependent on each other to fulfill each other’s end of the contract. If one party is dissatisfied with the other’s end result then that party is free to walk away and do business with another party. It’s called free market competition and it is what makes goods and services better.

Even in free will, voluntary business exchanges, one side often has a lot more leverage than the other. Wal-Mart has ungodly leverage over its suppliers, even though all parties involved entered into business voluntarily and are free to walk away at any time.

In this case, the U.S. has the most leverage, because the nations that are buying our debt need the U.S. economy to flourish a lot more than we need them to buy our debt.[/quote]

Without foreign nations buying our debt we could not purchase goods. We are a debtor nation.

Wal-Mart can demand low prices because they own the largest share of the retail market. The producers who sell to them would have tons of overstock if they did not. This would still work out in our favor because the Chinese producers would still have to sell or quit producing. Low prices would not happen if Wal-Mart was not able to barter for a better deal; for example, if Chinese production wasn’t so hi. If production wasn’t high enough in China Wal-Mart would purchase from somewhere else and or prices would rise.

Everyone benefits by voluntary trade. Exchange between Wal-Mart and Chinese producers is still voluntary no matter how large their market share is. What would not be good is if Wal-Mart was the only place to buy a TV, for example because then they could charge monopoly prices, though they’d still have to set prices low enough to move merch.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…

We are at the mercy of foreign investors holding dollars. …

They are at our mercy.

Both of you are wrong. No one is at anyone’s mercy. It’s just business.

In a voluntary exchange both parties are dependent on each other to fulfill each other’s end of the contract. If one party is dissatisfied with the other’s end result then that party is free to walk away and do business with another party. It’s called free market competition and it is what makes goods and services better.

Even in free will, voluntary business exchanges, one side often has a lot more leverage than the other. Wal-Mart has ungodly leverage over its suppliers, even though all parties involved entered into business voluntarily and are free to walk away at any time.

In this case, the U.S. has the most leverage, because the nations that are buying our debt need the U.S. economy to flourish a lot more than we need them to buy our debt.

Without foreign nations buying our debt we could not purchase goods. We are a debtor nation.

Wal-Mart can demand low prices because they own the largest share of the retail market. The producers who sell to them would have tons of overstock if they did not. This would still work out in our favor because the Chinese producers would still have to sell or quit producing. Low prices would not happen if Wal-Mart was not able to barter for a better deal; for example, if Chinese production wasn’t so hi. If production wasn’t high enough in China Wal-Mart would purchase from somewhere else and or prices would rise.

Everyone benefits by voluntary trade. Exchange between Wal-Mart and Chinese producers is still voluntary no matter how large their market share is. What would not be good is if Wal-Mart was the only place to buy a TV, for example because then they could charge monopoly prices, though they’d still have to set prices low enough to move merch.[/quote]

You don’t get it do you?

48

"$200 Oil? It Could Be Asia’s Gift to World
by William Pesek Jr.

(Bloomberg) – The e-mail’s subject line jumps right out at you: ``Anyone Willing to Forecast $200 Oil?‘’ The report by Action Economics LLC explores the worst-case scenario for energy markets in the years ahead.

On whether the price of a barrel of crude oil will go that far, Action Economics Chief Economist Mike Englund is quite right when he says ``we suspect it’s well beyond the willingness of most oil analysts to reasonably project.‘’

Perhaps not in the near future, but thanks to economic trends in Asia, can $200 per-barrel crude oil really be ruled out? No, says Marc Faber. One of Asia’s best-known contrarians, the Hong Kong-based head of Marc Faber Limited has been managing money in this region for more than 20 years – $300 million at the moment. He publishes a monthly newsletter called ``The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report.‘’

When it comes to oil-price trends, Faber wonders if investors realize just how bad things could get for bond markets.

The fundamentals, long term, of the oil market are very compelling, extremely compelling,'' he explains. I wouldn’t be surprised to see $100 or $200 (for a barrel of) oil in the next five to 10 years. It’s not a projection. It’s that I wouldn’t be surprised.‘’

http://www.energybulletin.net/2916.html

A price like that would be an unparalleled disaster in the West. Our entire economy is based upon cheap energy. Such a price would cause a systemic breakdown.

Sad to say, but we need to conquer Venezuela and open up the 85% of our coastal oil fields that have been locked down by environmentalists whackos.

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"$200 Oil? It Could Be Asia’s Gift to World
by William Pesek Jr.

(Bloomberg) – The e-mail’s subject line jumps right out at you: ``Anyone Willing to Forecast $200 Oil?‘’ The report by Action Economics LLC explores the worst-case scenario for energy markets in the years ahead.

On whether the price of a barrel of crude oil will go that far, Action Economics Chief Economist Mike Englund is quite right when he says ``we suspect it’s well beyond the willingness of most oil analysts to reasonably project.‘’

Perhaps not in the near future, but thanks to economic trends in Asia, can $200 per-barrel crude oil really be ruled out? No, says Marc Faber. One of Asia’s best-known contrarians, the Hong Kong-based head of Marc Faber Limited has been managing money in this region for more than 20 years – $300 million at the moment. He publishes a monthly newsletter called ``The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report.‘’

When it comes to oil-price trends, Faber wonders if investors realize just how bad things could get for bond markets.

The fundamentals, long term, of the oil market are very compelling, extremely compelling,'' he explains. I wouldn’t be surprised to see $100 or $200 (for a barrel of) oil in the next five to 10 years. It’s not a projection. It’s that I wouldn’t be surprised.‘’

http://www.energybulletin.net/2916.html

A price like that would be an unparalleled disaster in the West. Our entire economy is based upon cheap energy. Such a price would cause a systemic breakdown.

Sad to say, but we need to conquer Venezuela and open up the 85% of our coastal oil fields that have been locked down by environmentalists whackos.

[/quote]

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

50

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
"$200 Oil? It Could Be Asia’s Gift to World
by William Pesek Jr.

(Bloomberg) – The e-mail’s subject line jumps right out at you: ``Anyone Willing to Forecast $200 Oil?‘’ The report by Action Economics LLC explores the worst-case scenario for energy markets in the years ahead.

On whether the price of a barrel of crude oil will go that far, Action Economics Chief Economist Mike Englund is quite right when he says ``we suspect it’s well beyond the willingness of most oil analysts to reasonably project.‘’

Perhaps not in the near future, but thanks to economic trends in Asia, can $200 per-barrel crude oil really be ruled out? No, says Marc Faber. One of Asia’s best-known contrarians, the Hong Kong-based head of Marc Faber Limited has been managing money in this region for more than 20 years – $300 million at the moment. He publishes a monthly newsletter called ``The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report.‘’

When it comes to oil-price trends, Faber wonders if investors realize just how bad things could get for bond markets.

The fundamentals, long term, of the oil market are very compelling, extremely compelling,'' he explains. I wouldn’t be surprised to see $100 or $200 (for a barrel of) oil in the next five to 10 years. It’s not a projection. It’s that I wouldn’t be surprised.‘’

http://www.energybulletin.net/2916.html

A price like that would be an unparalleled disaster in the West. Our entire economy is based upon cheap energy. Such a price would cause a systemic breakdown.

Sad to say, but we need to conquer Venezuela and open up the 85% of our coastal oil fields that have been locked down by environmentalists whackos.

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

[/quote]

The dropping dollar is responsible for much of the price increase.

The US needs to change the way we use oil. Driving military and construction vehicles to commute to work and go grocery shopping is ridiculous. Market forces will change this.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

[/quote]

Really? If we could lower the price, wouldn’t that benefit everyone? All we’re doing now is letting ME countries get rich enough to attack us and Israel.

Chavez is a criminal, who confiscated Exxon’s oil fields. That’s one reason prices are high.

52

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

Really? If we could lower the price, wouldn’t that benefit everyone? All we’re doing now is letting ME countries get rich enough to attack us and Israel.

Chavez is a criminal, who confiscated Exxon’s oil fields. That’s one reason prices are high.

[/quote]

But invading another country and killing its people to steal their oil wouldn’t be criminal?

53

[quote]will to power wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

Really? If we could lower the price, wouldn’t that benefit everyone? All we’re doing now is letting ME countries get rich enough to attack us and Israel.

Chavez is a criminal, who confiscated Exxon’s oil fields. That’s one reason prices are high.

But invading another country and killing its people to steal their oil wouldn’t be criminal?[/quote]

Not when they stole the oil in the first place. It’s taking back what is yours - at least the assets and technology to get the oil out of the ground.

54

One of the things that allows the banks to keep faith is the knowledge that everyone involved would rather take a hit than to see a meltdown sink everybody. The petrodollar crisis in the late 70s- early 80s objectively “should” have led to a chain of defaults and massive dislocations in the industry and the economy at large. Rather than let this happen though the banks and government got together and rewrote the accounting rules for this occasion so that the losses could be written off over a longer period of time. Modern economics may not have the answer for most things, but it has sure as hell come a long way since the last depression.

In the present case there will be plenty who lose and the decline in the dollar, inflation in china, rising energy prices, tight credit and subsequent economic slowdown will result in in a decline in the standard of living for many or possibly most. That’s not the same as a depression when the system just fails outright; it’s the system efficiently correcting itself. Don’t head for the hills yet.

55

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You don’t get it do you?[/quote]

Ha. Well, I haven’t seen you give any analysis.

56

[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

Really? If we could lower the price, wouldn’t that benefit everyone? All we’re doing now is letting ME countries get rich enough to attack us and Israel.

Chavez is a criminal, who confiscated Exxon’s oil fields. That’s one reason prices are high.

But invading another country and killing its people to steal their oil wouldn’t be criminal?

Not when they stole the oil in the first place. It’s taking back what is yours - at least the assets and technology to get the oil out of the ground. [/quote]

He’s not suggesting taking back enough to cover the nationalisation of the company, or taking back the equipment.

57

[quote]will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:

Fantastic idea.

Please, create as much political tension as you can in yet another major oil region.

Afterwards bomb Canada and see prices rise to 300.

I do not give a shit, because the dropping dollar offsets lost of the price increases for us.

Really? If we could lower the price, wouldn’t that benefit everyone? All we’re doing now is letting ME countries get rich enough to attack us and Israel.

Chavez is a criminal, who confiscated Exxon’s oil fields. That’s one reason prices are high.

But invading another country and killing its people to steal their oil wouldn’t be criminal?

Not when they stole the oil in the first place. It’s taking back what is yours - at least the assets and technology to get the oil out of the ground.

He’s not suggesting taking back enough to cover the nationalisation of the company, or taking back the equipment. [/quote]

Exxon is suing the Venezuelan oil company for 12 billion dollars, causing a freeze on the Venezuelan company assets around the world. Chavez has threatened to cut off oil to the USA.

Exxon actually has the temerity to be pissed that Chavez stole 12 billion dollars from them, to give this money to the ‘poor and suffering’ (aka his Swiss accounts). Now he’s shocked that they’re mad…wow…

58

La-di-da.

59

[quote]lixy wrote:
La-di-da.

[/quote]

You welcome the demise of America, not realizing that the USA is your protector. Sad…

Meanwhile, the dollar collapse continues, encouraged in part by protecting the world.

“Equity markets around the world tumbled as the dollar breached the Y100 level against the yen for the first time in 12 years, while the euro hit a new record high and the Swiss franc neared parity with the greenback.”

60

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
La-di-da.

You welcome the demise of America, not realizing that the USA is your protector. Sad…

Meanwhile, the dollar collapse continues, encouraged in part by protecting the world. [/quote]

Protecting my eye! Harassing’s more like it.