Is the Global Econimc collapse inevitable? Video explains yes in laymen's terms

[Texashiker]

Never in the history of our country have we collected enough taxes, as a percentage of GDP, to cover our current spending.

Andrew Jackson was the only president who had a balanced budget.

He balanced the budget by abolishing the central bank, and only spending what the government brought in through taxes.

 

[Smoblikat]

Yes, we can raise taxes. We simply choose not to.

Also, P&N <===

Lots of cuts can be made, but no one will make them.

lol, both sides "know" the answer yet claim the other side isnt willing to do it. How about we raise taxes AND cut spending?

 

[fskimospy]

lol, both sides "know" the answer yet claim the other side isnt willing to do it. How about we raise taxes AND cut spending?

Because fundamental economics says that's a really bad idea in a depression?

 

[woolfe9998]

lol, both sides "know" the answer yet claim the other side isnt willing to do it. How about we raise taxes AND cut spending?

We just raised taxes and cut spending. This year.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

We just raised taxes and cut spending. This year.

Uh OHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[Matt1970]

Uh OHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

And imediately we saw unemployment go up, GDP went down and so did the stock market.


Oh wait.......

 

[fskimospy]

And imediately we saw unemployment go up, GDP went down and so did the stock market.

Oh wait.......

You realize that we've seen GDP growth markedly slow along with job growth and the impact of those cuts has only briefly been in effect, right? (the sequester only started in March)

My guess is that when you see growth slow you'll find a way to blame 'libruls' and Obama again, despite it being your preferred policy.

 

[Matt1970]

You realize that we've seen GDP growth markedly slow along with job growth and the impact of those cuts has only briefly been in effect, right? (the sequester only started in March)

My guess is that when you see growth slow you'll find a way to blame 'libruls' and Obama again, despite it being your preferred policy.

I guess we will see. I can't rightly blame it on Obama when we all know it's still Bush's fault.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

Actually watched that in its entirety. I think this video deserves a thread if anything.

 

[zephyrprime]

The only solution is to print free money (not debt money) and give it to the populace (not the goverment), decrease the fractional reserve ratio to 2.5, cut spending, and increase taxes. I have listed these items in order of importance (most to least important).

By printing free money, we maintain the economy of the US. This allows the economy to keep going and produce real wealth. By printing free money as opposed to debt money, we won't have the newly created monetary units just sitting on bank balance sheets doing nothing but shore up the regulatory requirements of backs that should have gone belly up already if the free market were really in effect.

By giving it to the populace we allow the citizens to reap the benefits of being the reserve currency of the world. Currently, the vast majority of citizens are getting only the disadvantages of being the reserve currency of the world by having their jobs outsourced and having to compete with foreign labor which gets paid with a currency that is much weaker. Also, unlike our currently

Decreasing the fractional reserve will stymie inflation from the money printing while at the same time end the ever increasing wealth gap. Also, fractional reserve banking above a real ratio of 2.0 is simply theft by money printing so it is VERY IMPORTANT to end this form of theft.

Cutting spending is raising taxes is self explanatory.

 

[hardhat]

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

The problem with videos like this is that they:
1. Don't do independent research, just gather any inflammatory statistics that they can come up with.
2. Try to convince you of their position by indicting the status quo instead of offering a competitive analysis of why their policies would be better.
3. Sleazily mislead you.

I watch about the first half of the video, then skipped to the end to see what their sources were. Instead of referencing each fact, they gather their arguments by pulling quotes from articles.
Using Quotes from the internet instead of Facts is stupid, as shown in trying to track down original sources. I followed four quotes from the article that lead to dead ends (articles with no references on shady sites, or broken links) before finding one I could follow to some fact somewhere. Here's the one I found:
"In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector."
Their link for the quote is here: http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...ss-is-being-systematically-wiped-out_07162010
Which pulls their "facts" from here: http://www.businessinsider.com/22-s...ally-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7
That references this article: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-07-07-column07_ST1_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Which doesn't give a real fact source, nor a further reference. The article actually mentions the argument that fed workers have more bachelor's degrees, but says they are still overpaid.
If you look for the real source of this comparison, you will find it in one of Rand Paul's speeches. And he doesn't just say 60% more-his numbers say fed workers are compensated 120k on average in comparison to the 60k average private sector worker.
But Paul's wrong, because he included federal pension payments in his comparison, and didn't take into account education, job requirements, experience and a lot of other factors in his argument.
Even the economist who did a comparison of fed vs private sector compensation, Howard Risher, said that ""we truly don’t know" which side is right because "neither has detailed job-to-job comparisons to support their arguments"".
If you actually want the facts, go read this article: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

Now, you see what a mess it is trying to argue against that video? The facts are questionable, the conclusions are suspect because his only argument stems from indicting the status quo, and he doesn't present the whole picture. He paints a startlingly grim visage of our predicament, but the paint starts to run as soon as you look at it too closely.

 

[OverVolt]

You like the guy who was laughably and publicly wrong about the effects of additional debt in this financial crisis? Why?

Hmm how so? I don't know about it. He is a historian after all, I just look at his historical perspective.

 

[nextJin]

Because fundamental economics says that's a really bad idea in a depression?

Hmm how so? I don't know about it. He is a historian after all, I just look at his historical perspective.

I'm at work who are we talking about here?

 

[OverVolt]

I'm at work who are we talking about here?

Niall Ferguson Historian at Harvard who talks about historical empires with an economic twist.

http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html

So instead of debt this QE that he explains in a bigger picture mode what is going on.

 

[bradley]

Global economic collapse = Great Depression

Completely manufactured by the international bankers in pursuit of their global consolidation agenda. When the economy finally goes off the cliff in the United States, the IMF will be brought in to "come to our rescue", but not without major strings attached. Those strings will include the U.S. government officially ceding sovereignty to unelected international governing bodies.

This has been happening since 2000, especially after President Clinton argued for the Chinese to be allowed into the WTO. He even called it a &#8220;win-win." If not the IMF first, it will be the UN, and there's nothing to be done about it. History continues to repeat itself.

 

[OverVolt]

This has been happening since 2000, especially after President Clinton argued for the Chinese to be allowed into the WTO. He even called it a &#8220;win-win." If not the IMF first, it will be the UN, and there's nothing to be done about it. History continues to repeat itself.

Or if you watched the video globalization is causing wealth between Western civ and the East to hit an equilibrium. Used to be 20x the wealth of the average Chinese, now 5x, and at current trend will hit 2.5x.

Sucks.

 

[fskimospy]

Hmm how so? I don't know about it. He is a historian after all, I just look at his historical perspective.

Basically he said in 2009 (using his historical perspective) that deficits and Fed activity would cause soaring interest rates, massive inflation, etc, etc. Needless to say, he turned out to be really, really wrong. In 2012 he also penned a pretty insanely wrong piece about Obama that was a cover story in Newsweek.

I don't think the guy is a very credible source.

 

[piasabird]

If the USA monetary system collapses it will cause a lot of pain and suffering all over the world. We may get to a point where we say that money means nothing. If hyper-inflation kicks in and a loaf of bread is $1,000 to purchase then the money will be worthless because no one will have enough to purchase anything. At that point we have no way to pay anyone anything of any value unless you get paid in commodities like fabric, Grain, Meat, Salt, cheese, etc.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

If the USA monetary system collapses it will cause a lot of pain and suffering all over the world. We may get to a point where we say that money means nothing. If hyper-inflation kicks in and a loaf of bread is $1,000 to purchase then the money will be worthless because no one will have enough to purchase anything. At that point we have no way to pay anyone anything of any value unless you get paid in commodities like fabric, Grain, Meat, Salt, cheese, etc.

And a bitcoin derivative (think Facebook from Myspace) can be agreed upon as the single currency for the world. It makes sense, but this system will be milked awhile longer. These people are getting filthy rich and powerful right now, they won't let it collapse so easily.

 

[piasabird]

The State of New York went through Default but the fed govt bailed them out. If the federal government goes into default it will cause a total collapse of civilization as we know it. With No money what to we have? Life savings gone??? Investments Gone.

 

[piasabird]

How about we cut spending. We could fire all but about 1/10th of the Government and no one would know the difference. You have to have gone through some workforce downsizing to understand this.

 

[bshole]

I'm not too worried, the stock market has been in nice steady rise for the last 4 years or so. I am looking for the DJIA to get to 20000 before Obama's term ends. My rate of return these last 4 years has been incredible. The people who are putting their money where their mouths are, seem to have a great deal of confidence in our economy.... I am with them whole-heartedly. It is a shame that all the people who have no faith America are missing out on this tidal wave of asset appreciation in the market. They should have stayed in the market as I have done.

 

[OverVolt]

Basically he said in 2009 (using his historical perspective) that deficits and Fed activity would cause soaring interest rates, massive inflation, etc, etc. Needless to say, he turned out to be really, really wrong. In 2012 he also penned a pretty insanely wrong piece about Obama that was a cover story in Newsweek.

I don't think the guy is a very credible source.

Oh well historically he is correct, if some country were to run massive deficits and run the risk of default people would demand higher interest on their bonds that they issue. This is happening in Europe (Say 7% on a Spain bond) but not the USA because of QE, operation twist, etc. Where as in Europe, all bound by the same currency, no individual country has the ability to print their own money and they all have different money base and inflation needs. Europe is a total disaster IMO.

Of course if you print massive amounts of money to buy your own bonds and make the interest rate go artificially lower, you can do that too and distort the risk. The distortions are still there so I'd argue he is still correct. The risks DID increase they will just manifest in an indirect way. We still don't know the long-term effects of all this QE.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh well historically he is correct, if some country were to run massive deficits and run the risk of default people would demand higher interest on their bonds that they issue. This is happening in Europe (Say 7% on a Spain bond) but not the USA because of QE, operation twist, etc. Where as in Europe, all bound by the same currency, no individual country has the ability to print their own money and they all have different money base and inflation needs. Europe is a total disaster IMO.

Of course if you print massive amounts of money to buy your own bonds and make the interest rate go artificially lower, you can do that too and distort the risk. The distortions are still there so I'd argue he is still correct. The risks DID increase they will just manifest in an indirect way. We still don't know the long-term effects of all this QE.

You realize that even he admitted he was wrong, right?

(also, QE is quite clearly not the reasons US bonds are so low. Even in periods where QE was not happening rates were very low.)

 

[OverVolt]

I'm not too worried, the stock market has been in nice steady rise for the last 4 years or so. I am looking for the DJIA to get to 20000 before Obama's term ends. My rate of return these last 4 years has been incredible. The people who are putting their money where their mouths are, seem to have a great deal of confidence in our economy.... I am with them whole-heartedly. It is a shame that all the people who have no faith America are missing out on this tidal wave of asset appreciation in the market. They should have stayed in the market as I have done.

The market took a dive in August 2011 and is only a hair above those highs for the stocks I care about, but the underlying risks are huge, much worse than in 2011. The consumer base is so tapped out, my opinion is that the stocks are rather fragile at these prices.

You know people like you are a key thing I look for. Just like Oil at $200 a barrel in 2008 was a silly call, saying the DJIA is going to hit 20,000 without really any justification means people have gone crazy :awe: