What Economy

MB MLB 728x90 Jpg

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I have a lot of faith in what this guy thinks, he is a pretty straight shooter, as far as I can tell over the years. - C

There's Nothing Left to Recover

What Economy?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

There is no economy left to recover. The US manufacturing economy was lost to offshoring and free trade ideology. It was replaced by a mythical ?New Economy.?

The ?New Economy? was based on services. Its artificial life was fed by the Federal Reserve?s artificially low interest rates, which produced a real estate bubble, and by ?free market? financial deregulation, which unleashed financial gangsters to new heights of debt leverage and fraudulent financial products.

The real economy was traded away for a make-believe economy. When the make-believe economy collapsed, Americans? wealth in their real estate, pensions, and savings collapsed dramatically while their jobs disappeared.

The debt economy caused Americans to leverage their assets. They refinanced their homes and spent the equity. They maxed out numerous credit cards. They worked as many jobs as they could find. Debt expansion and multiple family incomes kept the economy going.

And now suddenly Americans can?t borrow in order to spend. They are over their heads in debt. Jobs are disappearing. America?s consumer economy, approximately 70% of GDP, is dead. Those Americans who still have jobs are saving against the prospect of job loss. Millions are homeless. Some have moved in with family and friends; others are living in tent cities.

Meanwhile the US government?s budget deficit has jumped from $455 billion in 2008 to $2,000 billion this year, with another $2,000 billion on the books for 2010. And President Obama has intensified America?s expensive war of aggression in Afghanistan and initiated a new war in Pakistan.

There is no way for these deficits to be financed except by printing money or by further collapse in stock markets that would drive people out of equity into bonds.

The US government?s budget is 50% in the red. That means half of every dollar the federal government spends must be borrowed or printed. Because of the worldwide debacle caused by Wall Street?s financial gangsterism, the world needs its own money and hasn?t $2 trillion annually to lend to Washington.

As dollars are printed, the growing supply adds to the pressure on the dollar?s role as reserve currency. Already America?s largest creditor, China, is admonishing Washington to protect China?s investment in US debt and lobbying for a new reserve currency to replace the dollar before it collapses. According to various reports, China is spending down its holdings of US dollars by acquiring gold and stocks of raw materials and energy.

The price of one ounce gold coins is $1,000 despite efforts of the US government to hold down the gold price. How high will this price jump when the rest of the world decides that the bankruptcy of ?the world?s only superpower? is at hand?

And what will happen to America?s ability to import not only oil, but also the manufactured goods on which it is import-dependent?

When the over-supplied US dollar loses the reserve currency role, the US will no longer be able to pay for its massive imports of real goods and services with pieces of paper. Overnight, shortages will appear and Americans will be poorer.

Nothing in Presidents Bush and Obama?s economic policy addresses the real issues. Instead, Goldman Sachs was bailed out, more than once. As Eliot Spitzer said, the banks made a ?bloody fortune? with US aid.

It was not the millions of now homeless homeowners who were bailed out. It was not the scant remains of American manufacturing--General Motors and Chrysler--that were bailed out. It was the Wall Street Banks.

According to Bloomberg.com, Goldman Sachs? current record earnings from their free or low cost capital supplied by broke American taxpayers has led the firm to decide to boost compensation and benefits by 33 percent. On an annual basis, this comes to compensation of $773,000 per employee.

This should tell even the most dimwitted patriot who ?their? government represents.

The worst of the economic crisis has not yet hit. I don?t mean the rest of the real estate crisis that is waiting in the wings. Home prices will fall further when the foreclosed properties currently held off the market are dumped. Store and office closings are adversely impacting the ability of owners of shopping malls and office buildings to make their mortgage payments. Commercial real estate loans were also securitized and turned into derivatives.

The real crisis awaits us. It is the crisis of high unemployment, of stagnant and declining real wages confronted with rising prices from the printing of money to pay the government?s bills and from the dollar?s loss of exchange value. Suddenly, Wal-Mart prices will look like Nieman Marcus prices.

Retirees dependent on state pension systems, which cannot print money, might not be paid, or might be paid with IOUs. They will not even have depreciating money with which to try to pay their bills. Desperate tax authorities will squeeze the remaining life out of the middle class.

Nothing in Obama?s economic policy is directed at saving the US dollar as reserve currency or the livelihoods of the American people. Obama?s policy, like Bush?s before him, is keyed to the enrichment of Goldman Sachs and the armament industries.

Matt Taibbi describes Goldman Sachs as ?a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentless jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.? Look at the Goldman Sachs representatives in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. This bankster firm controls the economic policy of the United States.

Little wonder that Goldman Sachs has record earnings while the rest of us grow poorer by the day.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
 

znine_7

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 26, 2003
269
0
0
45
That was a good read. Thanks for sharing Chad....and if that doesn't make you nervous...i dont know what will.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I think it is a pretty objective frank way to deal with what got us here and what is being done to deal with things, and both are concerning to me. When you start messing around with our monetary unit possibly being removed as the reserve currency of the world, that bothers me. I think both the conservatives have to understand the Bush policies helped make the situation bad to start with, and liberals need to realize that some of the money that's being thrown at problems and the aggressive agenda might not be good for us now or down the road.

I don't pretend to know what is right or wrong on a lot of these economic stimulus ideas. I heard from countless "experts", on both sides of the aisle saying we had to throw money at these companies and support the monetary system or it would collapse. Bush and Co. did it, Obama did it, and I don't know what would have happened had we not done those things. It could have been much worse, I guess, I don't know. But to keep throwing money at things when we are so far in debt is just short sighted at best and just plain wrong at worst.

I also don't like being ignorant on what all of this means, but it's too late to get smart about it. And there seems to be plenty of smart people that were wrong and probably are wrong now. So, what do you do?

I think a focus on renewables is a smart thing to do. To get off of foreign oil as much as possible makes economic, security, and environmental sense - all good things. And we simply have to force some people to make those things happen, for the good of all of us. How to do it? Not sure, but it won't get done without some help, I don't think. And while I am all for healthcare reform - drastic reform at that, I'm not sure ramming something through THIS year is the best approach. I think we are in dangerous territory with the economy, and we have to re-examine our viewpoints and come together a little for the good of the country.

How's that for saying nothing and typing a lot? :rolleyes:
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

RAYMOND

Registered
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2000
45,166
492
83
usa
they gave our country away plain and simple!
life as we knew it is gone forever , like it or not:sadwave:
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

Hard Times

Registered
Forum Member
Jan 17, 2005
809
0
0
THANKS, RAYMOND !!

THANKS, RAYMOND !!

Well Raymond... glad to see you post in a civil manner !!
Death to all tyrants , Obama isn't a tyrant yet !! But he's weak, and he's in way over his head.
Chads post mentions gangsters, none worst that the Chicago politicians that have ruled that city forever.
It's all about the richest getting richer and the poor getting fulked.
The tax man cometh and we'er really going to get fulked.
It's to late to change any of this... new laws , the constitution being rewritten has i post this shit... at one time we could of marched on the state capitols and has a nation of free people , we would hang the SOB . To late, big brother is listening.
We are fulked!!!
Raymond... no one gave this country away .. it was sold to the highest bidder and sold cheap ... now if you want to kill someone... i'm for hanging all the bankers.... Paulson would be the first.
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I got a kick out of Robert's coining a new term: "Banksters." Sure seems appropriate. The thing is, I think they can get away with most of it, as they are for the most part paying back the loans and avoiding oversight somehow. I don't pretend to understand it all, but to say that these people don't need oversight is just ridiculous at this point.
 

Sun Tzu

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 10, 2003
6,197
9
0
Houston, Texas
I was telling some folks after Obama got elected it was only a matter of time til treasury started up the printing presses and inflation kicks in. Throw in the absurd taxes we are headed straight to Jimmy Carter's late 1970s America.
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

auspice3

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2009
41
0
0
When Ronald Reagan and his sorry ass 'think tank' decided that america was going to be a 'service industry', our futures were sealed. Reagan engineered the tax code to cut out all the immediate bigtime benefits of investing in manufacturing equipment. Out went the ITC and R&D tax credits which big business just loved.

It's killed us. When companies put togeather 'work senarios' they have some 25 year old accountant put togeather projections on spread sheets which determine if a factory is going to get new equipment or if the work will be 'exported' to some third world country. The ITC and R&D credits had enough 'factor' in them to offset a lot of the labor cost dispartity. We really blew it. We should have doubled the credits and continued manufacturing here stateside. Now we're sqrewed, with no obvious way of ever getting it back.

Guess his Ouiji board didn't see the absolute devastation of his think tank's solution on our economy.....but boy he could sure turn a phrase and deliver a good speech so it's all worth it. Thanks Ronnie :mj06:
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,400
120
63
Bowling Green Ky
Fortunately Many of us here grew up in the best of times--catching just the end of Carter admin double digit unemployment and 20% interest rates--appears we now have carbon copy of Carter's agenda's with same results--compliments of the- Yes we can-crowd

Appears even the CBO can't look the other way anymore--will probably be shakeup of personel there soon ;)

Congressional Budget Office
Director?s Blog




<HR>? Intergovernmental Mandates in Federal Legislation


The Long-Term Budget Outlook

Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO?s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook.
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO?s Long-Term Budget Scenarios (Percentage of GDP)

Keeping deficits and debt from reaching these levels would require increasing revenues significantly as a share of GDP, decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.
Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs?Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.
In CBO?s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for fiscal policy.
Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, but much less sharply. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level. Meanwhile, as depicted below, government spending on all activities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on federal debt?a broad category that includes national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs?is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future decades.
Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)

Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging. As shown in the figure below, between now and 2035, aging is projected to make the larger contribution to the growth of spending for those three programs as a share of GDP. After 2035, continued increases in health care spending per beneficiary are projected to dominate the growth in spending for the three programs.
Factors Explaining Future Federal Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (Percentage of GDP)

The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.
<SMALL>This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm and is filed under Budget Projections, Long-Term Budgetary Issues. </SMALL>
 
MB NCAAF 728x90 Jpg

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Thanks for the great read Chad. Bin Laden couldn't have asked for anything more. But instead of Arab terrorist we were done in by the greed of those who had too much already.

Yeah, Bush let it happen and Obama is barking up the wrong tree. The end will be the death of the middle class.

I believe it was Ed Reid, who wrote the Green Felt Jungle, who said when speaking of Las Vegas that he felt less fear looking into the eyes of the early gangster owners of Las Vegas than he does when he looks into the eyes of the Wall Street guys that own it now. He claims these Wall Street guys are more ruthless than the Racket Guys ever thought of being.

That being said Obama, if he is serious about helping us get out of this mess, has to help the middle class. Sadly, so far, New boss, looks like the old boss.......
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,400
120
63
Bowling Green Ky
This guy got some balls--the CBO on O saying new healthcare will save money--

Lengthy article--
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003168293


CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs

<UDRDOCUMENT documentId="3168293" />By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff

The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.
That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills----
 
Top