CCTAU 3,353 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The economy is not "bad", it is stalled. And why is it stalled? The people with the money have no idea what the great ONE will do next, so they do nothing. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/09/steve_wynn_on_obama_ill_be_damned_if_ill_have_him_lecture_me.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj3jordan 2,078 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Maybe they don't know what Obama is going to do next, but it is possible they know what he stands for and they DO know what is next so they hold on to their money until he is gone. You are correct in your analysis more than you may imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerNBham 3 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I heard a story on radio several years ago . The reporter had gone back in achieves and pulled out recordings of wall street and business leaders back through the Truman administration on the uncertainty of investing @ elections. You could close your eyes and hear different voices saying the same thing. Remember the old adage about investing in the face of a well established trend, "This time is different." You can make or lose a lot of money following that advice. Usually by taking it. I don't see much difference this time just the most recent reason to be concerned. Truth is ................ to be determined. Vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/conservatives-worry-ben-bernankes-fed-action-could-re-elect-obama/ http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/operating_policy_120913.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The uncertainty has been in place for more than four years. Is the real uncertaintly the debt? What happens to the economy when the governments credit line is exhausted. The Democrats aren't the government. The Republicans aren't the government. Together, they are the government and they are BOTH piling on more debt. Why? Is restoring prosperity as simple as Obama vs. Romney, Republicans vs. Democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerNBham 3 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Don't we wish it was. I hope even the most hard core of the "other" party would vote for the other man and party that could reduce the debt. Well maybe not: " When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxwere 82 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Don't kid yourself. It's phony. It's fiat. It's consumer, not producer friendly. It won't continue. The uncertainty is over bad debt. Will it clear or be monetized? This extends into both sovereign Europe and the private sectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerNBham 3 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think that is one of the largest contributors in making politics so vicious these days. Neither party has a clue how to fix debt and the public gets that. So, we make up code words and phrases to support one party or the other that assures us they'll make the other guy carry the burden . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,464 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Don't kid yourself. It's phony. It's fiat. It's consumer, not producer friendly. It won't continue. The uncertainty is over bad debt. Will it clear or be monetized? This extends into both sovereign Europe and the private sectors. How can it not continue if the world banking cartel and their government partners remain in place? Is this not a control mechanism? If consumption and production are dependent upon one another, then wouldn't it be friendly for both? Is there not as much credit issued to increase productivity as there is for consumption? Does consumption drive the economy or production? Can credit issued to sovereign states be used as some larger leverage politcally? Is there an historical precedence? (I think everyone knows the answer to this one but, isn't it funamentally corruption and not credit that is the real driving force?) Bad debt starts out as good debt. When the economy stalls we see the systemic problem of fractional reserves and fiat currency. How does the nature of deviratives play into the fragility of the system? Is there incentive to crash the economy? Could destruction be more profitable than creation? Is this a fundamental shift in the paradigm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,353 Posted October 10, 2012 Author Share Posted October 10, 2012 So we have one of the major players in investing and growing business say he will not invest while the great ONE and his policies are in office, and some of you start claiming that it as been that way since before the greate ONE? When Bush was president, companies invested and put capital out to grow. as soon as the great ONE took office, all growth started into a steady decline. When the people wiht the money start hanging on to it and moving it out of the country, there will be no way to just "print" more and make all of this go away. Whomever is in the whitehouse needs to create a more friendy United States for all businesses that wish to grow in this country. And right now, the kenyan jesus ain't getting it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bottomfeeder 244 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 In the Keynesian economic system credit drives the global economy. The global economic systems were not always credit driven. Fundamentals such as supply and demand played a significant role in balancing most of the economies of the world (the gold standard would have accomplished this without the need for war). However today, with the WTO, IMF, The Federal Reserve and the World Banking system, most countries are given loans they simply cannot repay (with the exception of some South American economies who have no debt, and of course Russia, China and some others). And, when those loans come due those same countries are forced to turn over their natural resources in exchange for the debt (created out of thin air). It's all a big fraud and we aren't invited to the party. The rabbit hole goes much deeper the more I research it. Basically, there are two factions at war, the Catholic Church and the anti-christ. From there we can see, throughout history, events that have changed the course of entire economies (WWII Germany for example). Mostly debt incurred through unneeded wars, pseudo-economic expansion of third world countries and boom-bust cycles. Panics are even created to have an affect on market prices rather than supply and demand. You can throw away most of those econ books because they are practically useless now. We are in uncharted waters. Bush gave tax breaks to companies to export jobs and Romney would do the same. Without decent paying jobs the governments have LESS REVENUE. It's not lowering taxes, it's more like increasing the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxwere 82 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 How can it not continue if the world banking cartel and their government partners remain in place? Is this not a control mechanism? I'm speaking of the US economy. Globally (and US) it will be held together by force. First "legal", then militarily. That is the only mechanism left. If consumption and production are dependent upon one another, then wouldn't it be friendly for both? Is there not as much credit issued to increase productivity as there is for consumption? Does consumption drive the economy or production? Neither. Demand and ability to meet it does (through production). Can credit issued to sovereign states be used as some larger leverage politcally? Is there an historical precedence? (I think everyone knows the answer to this one but, isn't it fundamentally corruption and not credit that is the real driving force?) Bad debt starts out as good debt. When the economy stalls we see the systemic problem of fractional reserves and fiat currency. How does the nature of derivatives play into the fragility of the system? Is there incentive to crash the economy? Could destruction be more profitable than creation? Is this a fundamental shift in the paradigm? As long as we are talking about state sovereignty as the ability to create empty IOUs, then credit is married to corruption. True. The "badness" of an asset is determined my market actors, not politicians. Outside of the fractional reserve aspects, derivatives in and of themselves play no aspect to fragility. Derivatives allow more buyers and sellers to enter into transactions not less. What happens to price stability when more people trade? More stability. We must look beneath the surface. Do derivatives emerge as a secondary form of fiat? Are there real supporting assets or only fractional reserve assets? I assume you are referring to the alleged behavior of Nathan Rothschild in the 19th Century. In general, the powers that be don't have incentive to see nominal values fall. Many would like to see war ensue, but that tends to hold prices up due to inflationary practices. The scheme survives through increasing nominal prices. Those that have access to the new money win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The economy is not "bad", it is stalled. And why is it stalled? The people with the money have no idea what the great ONE will do next, so they do nothing. http://www.realclear...lecture_me.html So why is Wall Street doing so well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxwere 82 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 So why is Wall Street doing so well? Nominal gains via QE3. It's long since being propped up by ~0% interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 QE3 must be bigger than QE2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.