Marc Faber: All Western Governments Will Default

[JMapleton]

Marc Faber aka Doctor Doom almost certainly has a new book to peddle. I don't deny there is a long term problem, but he is definately Johnny One Note.

I've never seen him promote any of his books on any interview he's done. He does write books, but he's not a Jim Rogers who really tries to get people to read his books, not that Jim Rogers needs the money. He writes the books to educate the public and because he probably enjoys it.

 

[boomerang]

This is one annoyance I have with most people when they discuss politics.

They blame the politicians. It's the citizens that voted these individuals in office and it's the citizens you should blame. If such a person as you describe does come along, they will not vote for them. "Oh blame Washington." No. Blame Main Street. They voted Washington in office.

Most people don't have a clue as to how big of a mess the US Government is in financially and they do not care. They just want as much as they want get and they want it now, thinking the US government is just a bottomless pit of money and it can "never go broke."

Not disagreeing but campaigns are highly choreographed magic shows. There is no way to tell what you're really getting these days. The name of the game is to lie as much as is humanly possible to achieve the office. Our press excels at fielding questions that are trivial. Our press gives candidates a free pass that it agrees with. How does one pick a candidate?

Along those lines I've been saying for many years that our election cycles should be shortened drastically - by law if necessary. Look at how Canada and the UK do it. Our system is a breeding ground for corruption. Shorten the cycle. In this day of 24 hour news, satellite up-links, the internet, etc., there's no need for a Presidential campaign to go on for 24 months. Make it 4 months - 6 tops.

I agree wholeheartedly that most people don't have a clue. I do however, hold out hope that we could pull out of this mess if it was presented to the public. No surprise to anyone here that I no longer watch liberal news shows. I quit in the run-up to Obama getting the nomination when people like Olberman and Matthews on MSNBC couldn't even begin to act like professionals. The question is, are they even covering the financial meltdown like the conservative stations are?

If the press doesn't cover it, how are people to know? If the TV news and the newspapers deem coverage of it counter to their goals are they serving the public? We're all over the internet for news. That's not how many out there get theirs.

I got this link in email today. I found it nearly unbelievable. It dovetails right in with people being clueless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys

Forget who's show it is. Listen to the caller.

 

[sandorski]

Not disagreeing but campaigns are highly choreographed magic shows. There is no way to tell what you're really getting these days. The name of the game is to lie as much as is humanly possible to achieve the office. Our press excels at fielding questions that are trivial. Our press gives candidates a free pass that it agrees with. How does one pick a candidate?

Along those lines I've been saying for many years that our election cycles should be shortened drastically - by law if necessary. Look at how Canada and the UK do it. Our system is a breeding ground for corruption. Shorten the cycle. In this day of 24 hour news, satellite up-links, the internet, etc., there's no need for a Presidential campaign to go on for 24 months. Make it 4 months - 6 tops.

I agree wholeheartedly that most people don't have a clue. I do however, hold out hope that we could pull out of this mess if it was presented to the public. No surprise to anyone here that I no longer watch liberal news shows. I quit in the run-up to Obama getting the nomination when people like Olberman and Matthews on MSNBC couldn't even begin to act like professionals. The question is, are they even covering the financial meltdown like the conservative stations are?

If the press doesn't cover it, how are people to know? If the TV news and the newspapers deem coverage of it counter to their goals are they serving the public? We're all over the internet for news. That's not how many out there get theirs.

I got this link in email today. I found it nearly unbelievable. It dovetails right in with people being clueless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys

Forget who's show it is. Listen to the caller.

I think the biggest difference, with Election Campaign length, is the difference between Fixed Election Dates and non-Fixed. In the US you always know when the next Election occurs, so you can plan your Campaigns around that Date.

In Canada and Britain an Election is required within a set period of time, but can happen at any point within that period. The Political Parties need to always be ready for an Election, but can''t be sure when to start a Campaign until an Election is called.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Not disagreeing but campaigns are highly choreographed magic shows. There is no way to tell what you're really getting these days. The name of the game is to lie as much as is humanly possible to achieve the office. Our press excels at fielding questions that are trivial. Our press gives candidates a free pass that it agrees with. How does one pick a candidate?

Along those lines I've been saying for many years that our election cycles should be shortened drastically - by law if necessary. Look at how Canada and the UK do it. Our system is a breeding ground for corruption. Shorten the cycle. In this day of 24 hour news, satellite up-links, the internet, etc., there's no need for a Presidential campaign to go on for 24 months. Make it 4 months - 6 tops.

I agree wholeheartedly that most people don't have a clue. I do however, hold out hope that we could pull out of this mess if it was presented to the public. No surprise to anyone here that I no longer watch liberal news shows. I quit in the run-up to Obama getting the nomination when people like Olberman and Matthews on MSNBC couldn't even begin to act like professionals. The question is, are they even covering the financial meltdown like the conservative stations are?

If the press doesn't cover it, how are people to know? If the TV news and the newspapers deem coverage of it counter to their goals are they serving the public? We're all over the internet for news. That's not how many out there get theirs.

I got this link in email today. I found it nearly unbelievable. It dovetails right in with people being clueless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys

Forget who's show it is. Listen to the caller.

The problem is that these companies need to make money... if you really wanted to present the information at an intellectually honest level, you would have to have at least 30 minute-talking-chunks where real experts could spew the facts. In short... it'd have to be academic. Stuff like the SS issues are pretty complex... and there's no way at all to capture the real depth of the issue with 5 minute talking points on tv.

Frankly though... that's too much work. No one really wants to sit down and have to do a bit of work after a long days work to really discern the truth from the FUD --- or listen to these guys drone on about minute, but important, detail on these topics. It's just about the money... ie: compare the revenue streams of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer versus Glenn Beck or Keith Olberman's show.

 

[Slew Foot]

The biggest budget surplus in US history was 200 billion at the height of the internet bubble. DO you honestly think that a 14 TRILLION dollar deficit is getting paid back by anything else than monopoly bucks?

 

[ShawnD1]

We already have the lowest actual corporate tax rate of the first world countries

????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

Look at the purple line. United States and Japan are tied for highest corporate tax, about 38% it looks like. Hardcore socialist Norway is at ~28%, Canada ~35%, Britain 30%, Mexico 28%, Ireland ~13%.

Fixing America's budget problem is actually quite easy. Raise taxes. There ya go, done. You'll immediately lose the election if you promise to eliminate medicare or social security. Look at how quickly Ron Paul was shot down when he said he wanted to cancel most government projects.

 

[bamacre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys

I want to believe that caller was a charade.

 

[nick1985]

????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

Look at the purple line. United States and Japan are tied for highest corporate tax, about 38% it looks like. Hardcore socialist Norway is at ~28%, Canada ~35%, Britain 30%, Mexico 28%, Ireland ~13%.

Fixing America's budget problem is actually quite easy. Raise taxes. There ya go, done. You'll immediately lose the election if you promise to eliminate medicare or social security. Look at how quickly Ron Paul was shot down when he said he wanted to cancel most government projects.

lol owned

 

[Brainonska511]

????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

Look at the purple line. United States and Japan are tied for highest corporate tax, about 38% it looks like. Hardcore socialist Norway is at ~28%, Canada ~35%, Britain 30%, Mexico 28%, Ireland ~13%.

38% on paper - what's the effective rate in the US?

 

[Trianon]

some data:

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html

 

[boomerang]

I want to believe that caller was a charade.

Well I must say that it's hard to believe that ignorance on that level exists. But I have talked to people that are totally apolitical. The woman that cuts my hair for one. She is totally clueless about anything going on in our country or the world. At the height of the health care debacle she asked me what it was all about. She didn't want my views, she wanted to know what was happening in that regard. I started to explain in a simple manner but her eyes glazed over almost immediately and she said she didn't really need to hear about it. She said she'd wait until it was settled to see how it affected her. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I couldn't dumb it down any further. Remember, she is self-employed as she rents her chair from the owner. This is going to affect her in a big way IMO. It's going to cost her more.

I envy her in a way. There must be some degree of serenity in going through life fat, dumb and happy. Taking things as they come and never planning or being concerned about tomorrow.

My jaw dropped when I heard that clip.

BTW, don't take the fat, dumb and happy expression too literally. I have to give credit where due. She's 50 and has the body of an 18 year old. Very attractive too.

 

[JMapleton]

The biggest budget surplus in US history was 200 billion at the height of the internet bubble. DO you honestly think that a 14 TRILLION dollar deficit is getting paid back by anything else than monopoly bucks?

Well said. I'm glad some people know math.

 

[Aegeon]

Well said. I'm glad some people know math.

Frankly that sort of commentary ignores many math realities involving the US government and economy.

The short version is when you're talking about government debt, especially with the dollar being a solely US currency, inflation also greatly factors into the picture. Basically even if you just break even every year, over the long run inflation makes the effective debt you owe much lower. I.E. the amount represented by 200 billion percentage type surplus becomes substantially larger simply because of inflation. (This means that serious inflation in the US would also lead to conditions where the US debt gets paid off more easily.)

Another significant factor, at least for the US specifically, is that the US population is growing over time, which along with still ordinarily seeing economic growth overall in the long run, means the percentage surplus to pay off the debt is lower.

It should be noted there are definite significant differences between the US and Greece with the US not having to worry about paying pensions for the general population and the US not having the same degree of issues with an aging population. (Greece has somewhere around a birth rate of 1.37 people per person while its around 2.1 for the US. In both cases they have gotten influxes of younger workers as immigrants.)

While US government debt is certainly a concern, sometimes it is not put in the proper perspective.

 

[ShawnD1]

Well said. I'm glad some people know math.

What seems more concerning than the actual budget is peoples response to the budget. The expenses are more than revenues, so it's the end of the world??

Let's try an analogy. You go to Red Lobster (you'll probably go to hell for this) and you order some food. You expected to spend maybe $40 but you went a bit nuts and spent $50. If you're a normal human being, you admit you fucked up and pay the $50. If you're an American tax payer, you refuse to pay the $50, borrow the $10 difference from your friend, then repeat the exact same thing every single week for several decades.

That analogy sounds retarded, so how could it possibly be true? It just is. USA has been running at a loss for decades and people refuse to raise taxes to pay for it. Don't just say "cut spending" because we're talking about paying for shit that has already been consumed. That's what national debt is - debt to pay for things that you've already built (tanks) or used (medicare). You can't send the tanks back for a refund or kill your grandma and ask for a refund, so all that is left is to raise taxes and start paying for this stuff.


Americans are talking about some kind of death spiral where the country can't possibly make any money. USA's GDP per person is quite a bit higher than Canada, so Canada must be even more fucked!
Canada's budget:

Looks like Canada is doing pretty ok, but how? They tax the fuck out of rich people until the country has a surplus budget.