farewell to the dollar?

[Chinookman]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Be that as it may, I'm still waiting for the citation which will support and clarify the claims made.

Find them youselfe and quit being lazy......I have watche these vermin spew thier Maoist view form thier own words....you can do the same........yeah "embellishment"

Is that why Anita Dunn teh Communications czar refuse to call Glenn Back and tell him he is wrong....? right nice typical lame liberal argument....... Using Maobama's own words, the liberal media call it hate when replayed by a conservative..........Joseph Goebbels would be so proud....

[Chinookman]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

Yeah, I'm sure the seventy of them (whose ranks do not include the speaker, majority/minority leader or majority/minority whip) can pretty much run roughshod over the other 465 members of Congress and ram through whatever agenda they think is best for the rest of us.

Of course, to begin to believe the Socialists have taken over Washington, you'd have to blatantly ignore the fact that the actual agenda emerging from Congress has been a corporatist - imperialist agenda.

Wrong again, it mostly started by the ISS in 1905. (Intercollegiate Socialist Society) They now preach their Marxists Ideology throughout the entire infrastructure of our academic, media and political systems.

Keep on looking through dark glasses....and deny the incrementalism that has engulfed us into the state we are presently in.

[Chinookman]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

LOL

Yeah, they seem to pretty good at convincing people otherwise.

Liberalism is now defined as taxing the people and giving it private entities so they can provide discounted rates on your goods and services.

What's fascism?

Did you notice that Liberal Obama trying to pass a public healthcare bill that has absolutely nothing public about it whatsoever?

Fasism...Socialism...both are wrong and far from our center of power as originally founded...I defend neither one of the two.....but in turn condemn them as placing the American citizenry into financial servitude while you liberals attempt to excuse and accept and justify an unsustainable socialists model that has never worked in the history of humanity it will always lead to tyranny without fail............

[Chinookman]

A solid interview of the falling dollar with an economist that has sound monetary policy:

Sound Dollar Committee

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by Chinookman

Fasism...Socialism...both are wrong and far from our center of power as originally founded...I defend neither one of the two.....but in turn condemn them as placing the American citizenry into financial servitude while you liberals attempt to excuse and accept and justify an unsustainable socialists model that has never worked in the history of humanity it will always lead to tyranny without fail............

I think FDR was a pretty good president and I think the country did pretty good during his Presidency. , half of our still existing infrastructure was built on the cheap during his administration.

Lots of Farms in this area with HUGE beautiful barns were built during the same era and are now crumbling today as a result of the policies first started by republicans "let god sort it out" policies. His policies after they had time to work post WWII essentially made us the most prosperous nation in the world on so many levels that it's almost tear-jerking.

Democrats are no longer democrats and have adopted the same policies as the neocons.

I don't embrace your ideals of keeping government out of business. I want to keep business (mostly bankers) out of MY government. Reducing Government's power to regulate under the guise that's it's corrupt would be akin to dismantling the police force or legalizing everything in a city who's crime rate is uncontrollable.

You don't change the laws so that your police force has less power and you don't dismantle your police force. You change the people who are running it so they work for you instead of the criminals they are supposed to be regulating.

[BobR]

Originally Posted by checkthisout

I think FDR was a pretty good president and I think the country did pretty good during his Presidency. , half of our still existing infrastructure was built on the cheap during his administration.

How the country and FDR did during the 30's is subject to debate. There is plenty of evidence that his policies made the depression worse.

Originally Posted by checkthisout

Lots of Farms in this area with HUGE beautiful barns were built during the same era and are now crumbling today as a result of the policies first started by republicans "let god sort it out" policies.

What does this have to do with anything? Are you advocating that the government should be responsible for maintaining these great old barns, or supporting failing farmers?

Originally Posted by checkthisout

His policies after they had time to work post WWII essentially made us the most prosperous nation in the world on so many levels that it's almost tear-jerking.

How his policies "helped" us is again, not clear and subject to debate.

I will give him credit for playing a major role in starting the nanny state that is now bearing its inevitable fruit of bankrupting our once great nation.

Where our nation was once the worlds largest creditor, we are now the worlds largest debtor.

Thank you FDR (and those that followed)

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BobR

How the country and FDR did during the 30's is subject to debate. There is plenty of evidence that his policies made the depression worse.

Um, no, there isn't, and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.


The "FDR Failed" Myth | OurFuture.org

[BobR]

Doug-

If you move an inch to the right of the source you listed, then yes, there is plenty of evidence that FDR's policies didn't work.

Your source came from a web site titled "Campaign for America's Future". Click on their "about us link" and this is what you find

The Campaign for America’s Future is the strategy center for the progressive movement. Our goal is to forge the enduring progressive majority needed to realize the America of shared prosperity and equal opportunity that our country was meant to be.

"shared prosperity". I wonder what that looks like? How is it implemented?

I encourage the readers of this thread to take a look at the "Campaign for America's Future".

[drcampbell]

So in your mind, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board are now leftist organizations supplying false numerical data?

[BobR]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

So in your mind, the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Federal Reserve Board are now leftist organizations supplying false numerical data?

No.

I do not doubt the GDP numbers themselves. I just do not agree with the conclusion that artificially pumping a ton of borrowed money into the economy creates a healthy, sustainable economy.

FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau agreed with me. Eight years into FDR's "saving the economy", Henry Morgenthau said the following:

Originally Posted by Henry Morgenthau

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ...And an enormous debt to boot.

If the federal government borrows trillions of dollars and then places orders with every company in the US, the GDP *will* go up. Unfortunately, the boost is often temporary, and even worse, causes artificial distortions in an economy that can make it difficult for businesses to know how to plan for the future.

In starting this thread, it was not my goal to debate the merits of the New Deal. Putting this discussion back on the original track of the falling dollar. Let me ask you this: Is there any downside to all of this borrowing and printing money? Lowball, conservative estimates of our current debt obligations are now over $50 trillion dollars. That is half a million dollars for every household in the US.

Stick your neck out and take a stand: Will there come a day of reckoning from this mountain of debt?

You think it works. I don't.

We're giving the Progressive plan one heckuva a try right now.

We'll see what happens.

[drcampbell]

Originally Posted by BobR

Stick your neck out and take a stand: Will there come a day of reckoning from this mountain of debt?

I'm puzzled why you've framed the question in the future tense and a hypothetical format.

The day of reckoning - in the form of falling real wages, unemployment, inflation/stagflation, wealth transfer from taxpayers to bondholders, paper assets with little real foundation and a general erosion of prosperity (and expectations) for 95% of the people - took off in 1982 or so.

While the New Deal worked - that's simply a historical fact - I do not advocate deficit spending today. Instead, I support returning to tax policies which were in effect during the nation's most-productive and most-prosperous times (roughly 1938-1978) and enacting some new taxes to deal with today's problems - an excise tax on imported oil and a trading tax on paper financial securities, for example.

[BobR]

Originally Posted by drcampbell

While the New Deal worked - that's simply a historical fact...

That the economy recovered is a historical fact. That this was due to the New Deal is a matter of opinion.

Up to 1938, the government dumping borrowed dollars into the economy did drive up the GDP just as stimulus spending has boosted our most recent GDP figures.

Outside of a purely historical debate, the more important question is, will New Deal policies work in general in creating long term economic health?

The best example of these policies is of course the original New Deal during the 30's. As late as May of 1939 when Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau gave his "it does not work" quote to the US Congress, the success of the New Deal was very much subject to debate. FDR's secretary of the Treasury stated flatly that it had not worked.

Most fans of the New Deal acknowledge that the best effects of the New Deal took place down the road and point to the robust and sustained period of great prosperity for the US during the 40's, 50's and 60's.

Of course the first half of the 40's were during the WW2 years when the federal government spending dominated the GDP. Do we want this now? I say no, but wow, if a few years of it could guarantee decades of prosperity, it's something to consider.

The good news is that after the war, government spending quickly decreased, but the economy did great! A victory for the New Deal?

Again, this is subject to debate. I believe that you give credit to the New Deal for the prosperity this nation experienced during the post war years.

The problem with this view is it dismisses the incredible competitive edge our nation had worldwide because the rest of the industrialized world was in shambles!

Here are some post war pictures of:


Germany.


Japan.


England.


Soviet Union.

That was our competition!

The rest of the industrialized world had been bombed to rubble. Power plants, refineries, factories, roads, railroads, shipping, businesses, homes, etc. Much of it was reduced to piles of debris.

Their economies and capabilities were set back decades.

Yet the US was untouched by the war. The US helped many nations rebuild and in a few, directed the rebuilding! You think this may have helped our industry and exports?

This advantage lasted for many years as our competition rebuilt from scratch.

If today's Stimulus Package was accompanied by the utter destruction of all industry in China, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc, then sure enough, our economy would take off like a rocket.

Short of that, we do not have a good example where such large government spending and control has worked before.

Some point to the New Deal as a valid example that it will work.

I think that it will not.

I think that the recent boost to the GDP numbers are, like those during the 30's, temporary and not sustainable.

Again, time will tell. We'll see if today's New Deal leads to decades of prosperity like the original New Deal.

[checkthisout]

The difference is that FDR made INVESTMENTS to increase productivity and the market share for productive goods.

Such as getting more people electricity, getting cheaper electricity, industrializing farming and the like, money spent on projects (that were not investments) paid people to work rather than just giving them money for food.


So what does that mean?


Obama's administration or better yet Bush after 911, could have made those same sort of investments that would have eventually lead to better stabilization and growth of our economy by getting us off of foreign oil.

That would be an INVESTMENT rather than just an expenditure.

Instead we get neo-con "tax credits" where the government pays people to buy stuff.

And no, family farms were ultimately destroyed/degraded by a policy shift of Farm subsidies under the Nixon administration and of course so was our currency through the dismantling of Bretton Woods.


You guys got an early start.


Bretton Woods system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earl Butz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BobR]

Great point CTO that there is a big difference between an investment and an expenditure.

In my opinion, many expenditures these days are claimed to be investments, but aren't.

[checkthisout]

Originally Posted by BobR

Great point CTO that there is a big difference between an investment and an expenditure.

In my opinion, many expenditures these days are claimed to be investments, but aren't.

And the growth of the financial sector which is a parasite to the economy. More and more money going to Bankers and people who shuffle paper leaves less money for the wage earners and reinvestment in the company and product until at which point the wage earners are blamed for all the company's ills and low product quality and slave labor is sought overseas.