|
DesideriScuri -> RE: The consequence of choice (11/9/2012 7:41:49 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
Loose on the facts be nice if "david" had thes strength of his convictions. But obviously not. Anyway, is bullshit since he wouldn't see any increase in taxes. Does he assume cost of health insurance was goint to remain static or lower with Romney in the White House? If he did....he is a fool.
Those are the wrong facts. Not that they are wrong in and of themselves, but wrong as to understanding the climate we are dealing with. Those facts are the Titanic deck chairs. David may or may not actually understand it, but he does perceive it. He may have mistakenly thought Romney was the solution. This is why I said he made the right decision even though his reasoning might be faulty.
People are focusing on the wrong thing!!! I've been trying to point this out for quite some time. Until the underlying problem is fixed it's all GIGO. Unfortunately, fixing the problem will be more painful than anyone anticipates. The social-economic system of this country will take one hell of a hit.
The following are excerpts -
What Bernanke has not done, but could and should have, is demand that the fraudulent leverage come out of the system. But he has not done that, and a big part of the reason why is that there is no support for it in the Congress. Incidents like Rochdale, which apparently put on a $700 million position in Apple stock with somewhere around $3 million in actual capital point to the intentional lack of risk controls up and down the line.
The entire world has played the same game -- allow "market participants" (big banks and other connected financial institutions) to cheat. It wasn't enough that we walked right over the cliff in 2008 due to massive, pervasive and outrageous levels of cheating -- fraud up and down the line.
That didn't lead to a single bankster going to jail and it didn't change one thing about how our financial institutions are structured, here or anywhere else.
CNBC this morning is talking about the "Fiscal Cliff" as if there's some sort of solution that does not involve admission of the frauds of the last four years at a fiscal and monetary level; a cessation of the claims that we can have "Economic Growth" that is literally all the result of credit creation in excess of production, and recognition of the embedded damage that has been done to the economy.
They're wrong.
Everyone who has made this claim is wrong.
They're wrong because 2 + 2 = 4, no matter what else you want to claim it is. It will never be other than 4.
Now consider folks what happens when we can't buy forward economic output with ever-increasing amounts of debt?
The economy collapses back to its sustainable size. The government is forced to collapse itself back to its sustainable size. Government will kick, scream and shove, and so will the so-called "entitled", but it doesn't matter; arithmetic doesn't care about politics nor shouting. It just is.
And by the way, from 2010 forward debt is no longer expanding; the total systemic debt change upward from 1Q 2010 to today, including the furious rate of new federal debt, is +0.9%.
The pattern from 1953 until 2010 has now been violated; we went off the Wile-E-Coyote cliff and have been furiously pedaling our legs in the air wondering why we're not moving forward any more -- but have yet to look down.
It's a long way down.
But, but, but, Keynesianism works! [8D]
I have been talking about taking the hit for almost 4 years now. DYB and I had a bit of a discussion where he concluded that I was basically an ass that wanted to see us all go through a depression. Completely wrong, and I could not get him to see what I meant. You get it, though. We have massive amounts of malinvestment that needs to be removed from the system. That's going to hurt. That could sink us into a depression deeper than the Great Depression, and that is more likely the longer we put it off. There is no "soft landing" that Bush and Co. wanted to get us to. Not anymore. That was never a credible option anyway. Had we taken the hit back in 2005/6/7, and allowed it to be precipitous, we'd be much better off today, IMO. We'd also be much better positioned for the future, too.
It's not too late to choose the timing, however. If the Market forces it on us (and it will eventually), it will be worse than if we bite the bullet by choice. I surely hope to be alive to see us take the responsible steps to take the hit and at least start rebuilding.
|
|
|
|
