Collapse of U.S. Economy Imminent

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,223
Points
219
Collapse of U.S. Economy Imminent
199 comment(s).
In its attempt to establish a world empire dominating every nation on the planet, the U.S. has exhausted its ability to finance the expansion and the country now faces imminent financial collapse. From all indications, it looks like 2006 will spell the end for America.
Consider these five important points:

Point #1 The U.S., Great Britain and Israel are preparing to attack Iran. As it appears the main reason for invading Iraq was to stop it from selling oil in Euros, likewise Iran has plans to dump the dollar come March 2006.

Point #2 U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow issued a warning recently that the U.S. Government is on the verge of collapse - as the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of $8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February - the government would then be unable to continue its normal operations. Considering the current total U.S. debt stands at $8.162 trillion dollars, once the official debt ceiling ($8.184 trillion) is reached, the U.S. government’s credit abroad (its borrowing power) is gone. Those countries (mainly China) who presently keep America afloat by holding U.S. Treasury Notes, will most likely no longer continue doing so.

Point #3 Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers (probably all other U.S. banks too) have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy - specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of Homeland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals and other valuables will not be released to U.S. citizens. The bank employees have been strictly prohibited from revealing the banks’ new "guidelines" to anyone. (however, employees have been talking to friends and family)

The next time you visit your bank, ask them about it - then ask yourself, why is this information being kept secret from customers and the public - what’s really going on?

Point #4 FEMA has activated and is currently staffing its vast network of empty internment camps with armed military personnel - unknown to most Americans, these large federal facilities are strategically positioned across the U.S. landscape to "manage" the population in the event of a "terrorist" attack, a civilian uprising, large-scale dissent ,or an insurrection against the government. Some of these razor-wired facilities have the capacity of detaining a million people.

Point #5 The Patriot Act and the US Senate’s vote to ban habeas corpus (Nov 14th) - along with George W. Bush having signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act, have together pretty much destroyed any notions of freedom and justice for Americans.

Summary: The U.S. economy is broken, the United States is bankrupt - the unchecked spending by this administration, the illegally waged wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of unprecedented weapons and military build-up - have all contributed to an irreversible emergency which is threatening our nation’s existence and our very lives.

Hospitals are closing, major corporations are declaring bankruptcy and/or moving their companies overseas, the monopolized news media spews nothing but lies, and our fearless leaders have turned out to be only ruthless criminals hell-bent on destabilizing our country and robbing us all.

Be aware - we stand at the threshold of total ruin - the international bankers and war profiteers care little for our lives and families - these demons worship money and all things vile and evil - they have very much to gain from war, misery, disease, famine, chaos and death (our deaths).

We are right on the edge - the Treasury is already overextended - the U.S. government cannot (and will not) care for its own citizens’ needs, nor secure our borders against illegal aliens - plus, the whole "terrorist" thing is a cruel hoax perpetrated against a trusting citizenry - and only designed to instill fear and garner support for the genocide taking place in Iraq.

Should America (along with British & Israeli forces) launch a war against Iran, or another country, without yet paying for, or even recovering from the current losses in Iraq and elsewhere - the costs of such of an invasion will overwhelm an already crippled economy and push the U.S. over the edge into oblivion.

Question: Considering the U.S. Treasury Notes that China currently holds (which keeps the U.S. economy going)...

Do you think China will continue to support a country’s economy (the U.S.) whose military launches a nuclear strike against its neighbor (Iran) - thus delivering a blanket of radioactive fallout over western Chinese provinces - killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of its citizens?

I think not.

Factoring in the aforementioned points of "preparation" engineered by U.S. authorities, I’d say there’s a stinking rat in the woodpile ...can you smell it too?

# # #



By : notepad
January Saturday 21st 2006
Source

Okay ignoring the steaming pile of bias for a moment, does anyone with a grasp of economics have a comment on this?
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,223
Points
219
January Sunday 22nd 2006 (06h07) :
Homeland Security To Confiscate Bank Safe Deposit Box Contents
22 comment(s).
BANK OF AMERICA & COMPASS BANK MANAGERS WERE TOLD HOMELAND SECURITY WILL CONFISCATE SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES
by notepad

While all the other points I mentioned in a previous post are fairly well documented and discussed elsewhere on the Internet, the bank information I reported is not. This information is from my own experience and research. I discovered the disturbing news quite by accident - and by virtue of its importance, I decided to post my findings here and on a few other forums.

What did I hear?

A family member from Irvine, CA (who’s a branch manager at Bank of America) told us two weeks ago that her bank held a "workshop" where the last two days were dedicated to discussing their bank’s new security measures. During these last two days, the workshop included members from the Homeland Security Office who instructed them on how to field calls from customers and what they are to tell them in the event of a national disaster. She said they were told how only agents from Homeland Security (during such an event) would be in charge of opening safe deposit boxes and determining what items would be given to bank customers.

At this point they were told that no weapons, cash, gold, or silver will be allowed to leave the bank - only various paperwork will be given to its owners. After discussing the matter with them at length, she and the other employees were then told not to discuss the subject with anyone.

The family member has since given her notice to quit the bank.

I found the news alarming and decided to find out more myself. On a trip to my bank here in Houston, I remarked to a young bank employee (who’s new there), "well I guess you’ve been told all that stuff by the manager and the Homeland Security about what to tell your customers" - and to my amazement, the young woman came right out and said yes she’d been through all that, then whispered to me across the counter, "but we’re not supposed to talk about - I could lose my job."

Why haven’t you heard more about this?

First of all, since maybe only banks’ upper management is privy to the new "rules", the information doesn’t trickle down so easily.

Also keep in mind that employees have been told NOT to say anything about this, that it’s a matter of National Security (with an allusion toward arrest if they do). They face possibly losing their job too. Another reason is that bank employees may not think it’s important, or they believe they’re a unique part of the effort towards curtailing "terrorism" and helping America’s internal defenses.

It is also important to realize that not everyone’s a writer, or Internet savvy - even if the employees moved beyond their banks’ warnings & constraints, most people don’t know how to get their experience published on the Web in the public domain - it’s a mystery they are not familiar with so you never hear their story.

How to get the information yourself:

Visit your bank, ask a few well-worded questions, being careful not to arouse suspicion - if that doesn’t work, talk to friends and other family members - maybe they’ve heard something - or as a last resort, just point blank call the bank manager in private and demand to know what’s all this business with the Homeland Security deciding what I can have from my safe deposit box - tell me now or I’ll close my account today.

I’ll bet if you put forth the effort you’ll get the answers you want.

What should you do with this information?

I’m not trying to "scare" anyone - just providing some news I think is relevant to Americans. Each must find his way through this dark forest - you will do with this information what best suits you and your loved ones - me personally, I see this as another indicator of how the criminals in charge over our lives intend to fleece U.S. citizens completely then dispose of them as only refuse.

Be prepared.

# # #



By : notepad
January Sunday 22nd 2006
Source

More from the same source, this sounds like alarmist FOAF stuff to me.
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
3
Points
49
Not an expert in economics but on the point concerning China holding most of the US debt. Would it be in their interest to stop supporting the US considering that the US must be one of the major markets for Chinese goods?

I expect the old saying applies here "If you owe the bank £1000 they own you. If you owe the bank £1000000 you own them"
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
I agree with your point mike prat33 but the Chinese may view the collapse of the usa and probably the EU as a result of that collapse as a good thing. It will mean that the oil will last a lot longer and the US wont be able to spend nearly so much on military projects. Don't forget that the majority of Chinese folk cant complain and 80% of them are rural peasants. Much as I dislike the currant leaders of the US/UK they are probably better than Chinese/Russian, from my selfish point of view I hope that the Iran oil bourse is stopped. The economic imperialism is totally unfair, but the change must be handled delicately over time that way the whole world would benefit, but the US/UK should start the process by admitting publicly what has gone on since ww2. I for one have 2 young boys and would like to see a carry on of our lifestyle to some, greener, degree.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is the result of artificial manipulating of economy since 2000. Feds hold a large quantity of real estates in the case. To keep the value of these estates, they keep the interest rate low so you all have seen an booming housing market. (Because the mortgage rate is low) The market thus lose the function of natural adjustment and reach its end.

When the dollar is at an unpractical rate and debt reaches historical high, a collapse is inevitable. Beware this government will activate an "terror attack" in the name of Al Qaida. To blame the coming economic crisis to terrorists. The recent Bin Laden's tape is part of this plot. Here are messages I wrote about it five months ago.

331. Interest rate (8/2/05)

At first, I thought the "terror attack:" on US would take place in early August. Because Feds arranged a trip for my relatives at that time. The trip will cover New York and Canada from 8/6 to 8/13. Anytime if possible, Feds always arranged a trip in the case because it's easy to plant to arrest during a trip or murder by an accident. The latest travel Feds arranged was in April. In that plot, H.A. gave a final date to fix garage door on 4/17 which I viewed as action date of Feds. It coincides with the return date of my relatives. That China trip took almost one month vacation date on my relatives so I thought there would be no more trip for them this year. But when Feds needs it, people have to obey, so do the companies they work for. It reflects the eagerness of Feds. (When I use the word "Feds", I mean D.O.J. and its accessories FBI, DEA... , not Federal Reserve.)

Why pick up this time? Because on 8/9, Federal Reserve likely will once again raise the bench interest rate. As I have said, Feds bought a lot of houses in my case, so they desperately try to make the interest rate low to keep the house value high.

What did they do to keep the interest rate low?

1. Intimidation on financial group not to raise the rate too fast. A trick Feds is good at. Despite the covert intimidation, there was an open one in last August(2004) when Feds raised alert of certain financial area to orange code. When people doubted, they said it was from a seized computer of Al Qaida. The seized Al Qaida was finally proved an informant of Feds.

As a result, Federal Reserve collaborated. Greenspan dropped the interest rates from 6.5% to 1.75% in 2001. (A 4.75 drop in 12 months) House market boosted. Now the economic situation forces Federal Reserve to raise the interest rate to anti inflation and housing market balloon and maintain dollar from collapsing. Greenspan raised the rate in a measured (stagnant) step. (A raise of 2.25 in 12 months from 1% to 3.25%)

2. To reduce the employment. A high employment means a hot economy that enterprises will chase capital investment to deal with the increased wage, raw material etc. That will significantly push up the interest rate. .

Bush administration carries out a weak dollar policy which makes merchandise made in US cheaper to the foreign buyers. Dollar depreciates almost 1/3 to Euro and 20% to Japanese Yuen. Bush also cut the tax to let people have more money to spend. (It's a trick though. He lets people spend on their debt. He has a historical budget deficit. People have to pay off the debt later by paying more tax)

Do these policies work? Yes, it creates demand but does little to boost employment. Because Feds tried their best to reduce the employment. How?

(1) By outsourcing jobs. When it was criticized, they threw out a strange theory that outsourcing will benefit US economy in future.

(2) Stop hiring new workers. Big firms did not hire workers when demand increased. Same workers have to do more job. The result you could see from media in later 2003. When they beat the drum to say "Growth is now super-super strong compared to super strong,'', "U.S. 3rd-Qtr GDP Grew at 8.2% Rate, Fastest Since '84". They never mentioned about the jobs. They only said the productivity is increased by a double digit. In another word, 10 workers must do the job originally 11 workers did. For this phenomenon, they invent a new word:"Jobless recovery".

(3) Lay off working people.
Jobless recovery went into year2004. It was an election year. Bush's economic advisers predicted in early February that the US economy would add 2.6 million jobs in 2004. But that was against Feds' interest. Then we saw, "MCI to slash 7500 jobs"(5/11/04), "Dupont will lay off at least 2500" (4/9) "Seagate to cut 2,940 jobs" (May or June 04) "AT&T to cut 7,500 more jobs"(10/8) ..... At last, Bush was unable to make it a positive topic in his election campaign.

The explanation from Greenspan was that enterprises still lacked of confidence. That in this economy recovery, enterprises had an unusual conservative attitude to increase new capital investment and hiring more people.

Rare people know all these problem were caused by Feds. Bush's election, public's interest are out of consideration. Feds' interest, how small it is, is always at first place. They control CEO of big firms.(see "291. CEO and company (2/14/05)" and #292) So by outsourcing, controlling hiring and spending, Feds can handle the process of economy. Experts are confusing with the development of interest rate and over-heated housing market. They will understand it if they view it from another angle.

And now you may understand why China can maintain its currency exchange rate without being punished. It's all about inflation. A low inflation will help the interest rate low. That's what Feds want.
 

ruffready

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
23
Points
69
The big question is whether the rest of the world will slow too. The good news is that growth is becoming more broadly based, as demand in the euro area and Japan has been picking up, and fears about an imminent hard landing in China have faded. America kept the world going during troubled times. But now it is time for others to take the lead.
America's economy

Danger time for America
Jan 12th 2006
From The Economist print edition

The economy that Alan Greenspan is about to hand over is in a much less healthy state than is popularly assumed

DESPITE his rather appealing personal humility, the tributes lavished upon Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, become more exuberant by the day. Ahead of his retirement on January 31st, he has been widely and extravagantly acclaimed by economic commentators, politicians and investors. After all, during much of his 18½ years in office America enjoyed rapid growth with low inflation, and he successfully steered the economy around a series of financial hazards. In his final days of glory, it may therefore seem churlish to question his record. However, Mr Greenspan's departure could well mark a high point for America's economy, with a period of sluggish growth ahead. This is not so much because he is leaving, but because of what he is leaving behind: the biggest economic imbalances in American history.

One should not exaggerate Mr Greenspan's influence—both good and bad—over the economy. Like all central bankers he is constrained by huge uncertainties about how the economy works, and by the limits of what monetary policy can do (it can affect inflation, but it cannot increase the long-term rate of growth). He controls only short-term interest rates, not bond yields, taxes or regulation. Yet for all these constraints, Mr Greenspan has long been the world's most important economic policy maker—and during an exceptional period when globalisation and information technology have been transforming the world economy. His reign has coincided with the opening up to trade and global capital flows of China, India, the former Soviet Union and many other previously closed economies. And Mr Greenspan's policies have helped to support globalisation: the robust American demand and huge appetite for imports that he facilitated made it easier for these economies to emerge and embrace open markets. The benefits to poorer nations have been huge.




So far as the American economy is concerned, however, the Fed's policies of the past decade look like having painful long-term costs. It is true that the economy has shown amazing resilience in the face of the bursting in 2000-01 of the biggest stockmarket bubble in history, of terrorist attacks and of a tripling of oil prices. Mr Greenspan's admirers attribute this to the Fed's enhanced credibility under his charge. Others point to flexible wages and prices, rapid immigration, a sounder banking system and globalisation as factors that have made the economy more resilient to shocks.

The economy's greater flexibility may indeed provide a shock-absorber. A spurt in productivity has also boosted growth. But the main reason why America's growth has remained strong in recent years has been a massive monetary stimulus. The Fed held real interest rates negative for several years, and even today real rates remain low. Thanks to globalisation, new technology and that vaunted flexibility, which have all helped to reduce the prices of many goods, cheap money has not spilled into traditional inflation, but into rising asset prices instead—first equities and now housing. The Economist has long criticised Mr Greenspan for not trying to restrain the stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s, and then, after it burst, for inflating a housing bubble by holding interest rates low for so long (see article). The problem is not the rising asset prices themselves but rather their effect on the economy. By borrowing against capital gains on their homes, households have been able to consume more than they earn. Robust consumer spending has boosted GDP growth, but at the cost of a negative personal saving rate, a growing burden of household debt and a huge current-account deficit.

Burning the furniture
Ben Bernanke, Mr Greenspan's successor, likes to explain America's current-account deficit as the inevitable consequence of a saving glut in the rest of the world. Yet a large part of the blame lies with the Fed's own policies, which have allowed growth in domestic demand to outstrip supply for no less than ten years on the trot. Part of America's current prosperity is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future. The words of Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist of the early 20th century, nicely sum up the illusion: “It may sometimes be expedient for a man to heat the stove with his furniture. But he should not delude himself by believing that he has discovered a wonderful new method of heating his premises.”

As a result of weaker job creation than usual and sluggish real wage growth, American incomes have increased much more slowly than in previous recoveries. According to Morgan Stanley, over the past four years total private-sector labour compensation has risen by only 12% in real terms, compared with an average gain of 20% over the comparable period of the previous five expansions. Without strong gains in incomes, the growth in consumer spending has to a large extent been based on increases in house prices and credit. In recent months Mr Greenspan himself has given warnings that house prices may fall, and that this in turn could cause consumer spending to slow. In addition, he suggests that foreigners will eventually become less eager to finance the current-account deficit. Central banks in Asia and oil-producing countries have so far been happy to buy dollar assets in order to hold down their own currencies. However, there is a limit to their willingness to keep accumulating dollar reserves. Chinese officials last week offered hints that they are looking eventually to diversify China's foreign-exchange reserves. Over the next couple of years the dollar is likely to fall and bond yields rise as investors demand higher compensation for risk.

When house-price rises flatten off, and therefore the room for further equity withdrawal dries up, consumer spending will stumble. Given that consumer spending and residential construction have accounted for 90% of GDP growth in recent years, it is hard to see how this can occur without a sharp slowdown in the economy.

Handovers to a new Fed chairman are always tricky moments. They have often been followed by some sort of financial turmoil, such as the 1987 stockmarket crash, only two months after Mr Greenspan took over. This handover takes place with the economy in an unusually vulnerable state, thanks to its imbalances. The interest rates that Mr Bernanke will inherit will be close to neutral, neither restraining nor stimulating the economy. But America's domestic demand needs to grow more slowly in order to bring the saving rate and the current-account deficit back to sustainable levels. If demand fails to slow, he will need to push rates higher. This will be risky, given households' heavy debts. After 13 increases in interest rates, the tide of easy money is now flowing out, and many American households are going to be shockingly exposed. In the words of Warren Buffett, “It's only when the tide goes out that you can see who's swimming naked.”

How should Mr Bernanke respond to falling house prices and a sharp economic slowdown when they come? While he is even more opposed than Mr Greenspan to the idea of restraining asset-price bubbles, he seems just as keen to slash interest rates when bubbles burst to prevent a downturn. He is likely to continue the current asymmetric policy of never raising interest rates to curb rising asset prices, but always cutting rates after prices fall. This is dangerous as it encourages excessive risk taking and allows the imbalances to grow ever larger, making the eventual correction even worse. If the imbalances are to unwind, America needs to accept a period in which domestic demand grows more slowly than output.

The big question is whether the rest of the world will slow too. The good news is that growth is becoming more broadly based, as demand in the euro area and Japan has been picking up, and fears about an imminent hard landing in China have faded. America kept the world going during troubled times. But now it is time for others to take the lead.

sorce http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... id=5385434
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
kathaksung1 said:
When the dollar is at an unpractical rate and debt reaches historical high, a collapse is inevitable. Beware this government will activate an "terror attack" in the name of Al Qaida. To blame the coming economic crisis to terrorists. The recent Bin Laden's tape is part of this plot.
Unlikely - it would be transparently obvious that the US economy would be suffering from more mundane problems. Plus the fact the US is unlikely to admit that it's economy has been so severely weakened by terrorism. Not only would that be giving terrorism (real or not) the publicity of success, it would also seriously effect investment in the US - something it would need if the economy were to falter badly.
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
crunchy5 said:
I agree with your point mike prat33 but the chinese may view the collapse of the usa and probably the eu as a result of that collapse as a good thing.
Not really no, because it would mean that it's markets in those economic areas would suffer badly. Especially for consumerables, like computer components, clothing, etc..

However, if China were to be able to hold out a lifeline to the US economy, that could put it in a more dominant position as far as the US is concerned.
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
By invading Iraq and cutting its oil production by 3 quarters the US has forced the price of oil up and thus the amount of $ the rest of the world needs to buy oil, nice one Dubbya ;)
 

Iggore

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
Points
32
crunchy5 said:
By invading Irac and cutting its oil production by 3 quarters the US has forced the price of oil up and thus the amount of $ the rest of the world needs to buy oil, nice one Dubbya ;)
How does that help the Us economy? By keeping the value of the Us dollar higher, yes. But beyond that, whats the point? High US$ slow down export and increase the trade deficit and decrease GIP.
 

Mighty_Emperor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,443
Reaction score
180
Points
129
I like this from the first post:

Point #3 Bank Of America and Compass Bank managers (probably all other U.S. banks too) have been instructing their employees in the last few weeks on how to respond to customer demands in the event of a collapse of the U.S. economy - specifically telling the employees that only agents from the Department Of Homeland Security will have authority to decide what belongings customers may have from their safe deposit boxes - and that precious metals and other valuables will not be released to U.S. citizens. The bank employees have been strictly prohibited from revealing the banks’ new "guidelines" to anyone. (however, employees have been talking to friends and family)

The next time you visit your bank, ask them about it - then ask yourself, why is this information being kept secret from customers and the public - what’s really going on?
So the proof of point #3 is that if you go into a bank and ask them about this they'll deny all knowledge of such plans proving the right?
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,223
Points
219
Mighty_Emperor said:
So the proof of point #3 is that if you go into a bank and ask them about this they'll deny all knowledge of such plans proving the right?
Yeah I agree, decidely hokey. At the same time it is probably a reflection of how distrustful people are of government at the moment that it doesn't seem that bizarre.
 

Jerry_B

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,054
Reaction score
59
Points
129
crunchy5 said:
Jerry B, if China became top world dog by facillitating the collapse of the US I dont think they would be crying about the lost market for export consumer goods.
Why not? After all, China makes a great deal of money from it's exports - of which the US is a major importer. The collapse of the US economy would have serious repurcussions for the whole world (try googling for 'the Wall Street Crash', for example). And whilst any collapse may usher in some new country as being the top dog, the process of getting there after that collapse would be hard for all of us.
 

ghostdog19

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
3
Points
54
Mighty_Emperor said:
So the proof of point #3 is that if you go into a bank and ask them about this they'll deny all knowledge of such plans proving the right?
No. The idea is, you're so damn paranoid that they won't give you what's yours back, people all over the country starting withdrawing their savings, investments start to lose value and not only does wall street crash, but America takes down a sizable chunk of the world with it.
 

Heckler

The unspeakable mass
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
5,289
Reaction score
2,223
Points
219
ghostdog19 said:
No. The idea is, you're so damn paranoid that they won't give you what's yours back, people all over the country starting withdrawing their savings, investments start to lose value and not only does wall street crash, but America takes down a sizable chunk of the world with it.
Now the idea that this is a deliberate piece of dis-info planted to create precisely the effect you describe is very interesting. Now all it needs is for someone official to deny it to really cement it in people's minds. :D
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
Whoa dont get me wrong Jerry I dont want a new top dog, for all their many many faults, el salvador, chile, vietnam, haiti, cambodia,loas,iraq, Hiroshima,et al, me and my family do, on a world scale, quite well out of our craven support of the USA. I was merely pointing out that china dosnt have to worry over much about public opinion or a major turn down in the world economy
 

ghostdog19

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
3
Points
54
Just so long as it doesn't interrupt the print run of DC comics' 52, I couldn't give a toss.
 

ghostdog19

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
1,593
Reaction score
3
Points
54
Heckler20 said:
ghostdog19 said:
No. The idea is, you're so damn paranoid that they won't give you what's yours back, people all over the country starting withdrawing their savings, investments start to lose value and not only does wall street crash, but America takes down a sizable chunk of the world with it.
Now the idea that this is a deliberate piece of dis-info planted to create precisely the effect you describe is very interesting. Now all it needs is for someone official to deny it to really cement it in people's minds. :D
Remember this?

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-23-98.html
 

Mike_Pratt33

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Messages
624
Reaction score
3
Points
49
crunchy5 said:
I was merely pointing out that china dosnt have to worry over much about public opinion or a major turn down in the world economy
This is becoming less true as prosperity increases. Do you think the newly wealthy chinese are going to be happy about a return to poverty because their government has destroyed its markets? The equation Money=Power is just as true in China as anywhere else. And its not just the big rich. Even a litlle money = a little power because these people will be taxpayers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hang on a second.

I read a link in a previous thread that most of the US debt is to US banks and corporations - around 60% in fact.

The USA also has a AA rating, only Japan who has no debt and who have a large surplus GDP profit have a AAA rating.

Furthermore, only 20% is owed to foreign countries like China.

If the USA still has a AA rating and is servicing it's debts, that means that it is paying them back with a return of around 4 or 5% interest which may well be quite profitable for the lenders, bond holders and creditors.

Why all the fuss?

Besides which, there has been no official news or press releases or bank information suggesting that people will switch from the Euro to the Dollar, and also the USA is still a big producer of products that are exported and which people buy.

Is the US economy really in danger I ask?
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
mike pratt33 wrote
This is becoming less true as prosperity increases. Do you think the newly wealthy chinese are going to be happy about a return to poverty because their government has destroyed its markets? The equation Money=Power is just as true in China as anywhere else. And its not just the big rich. Even a litlle money = a little power because these people will be taxpayers

A super power rich US is consuming way to much oil china wants that oil, and china plays a very long game. A poorer US means more oil for china, which will still sell all its produce but to new markets. IMHO we are at the beginning of a new chinese century to paraphrase our neocon buddies. The end of the $ oil levee could bring the end of fractional reserve banking which will hit so hard it might as well be a comet! This is why as I said earlier the US should concede the need for change and with the help of the eu russia and china make a slow change
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Doesn't China get most of it's oil from Russia these days?

Oh - I nearly forgot - the USA has one of the biggest oil producers (Saudi Arabia) firmly in it's back pocket.

No, the USA will not run out of oil yet.
 

Bertie_Akbar

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Points
22
A point about keeping interest rates low is that is makes servicing your debt easier. No one's brought this up so I thought I would mention it. ;)
 

Rubyait

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
8
Points
54
US military 'at breaking point'

The US military has become dangerously overstretched because of the scale of its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, two reports have warned.
One, by former officials in the Clinton administration, said the pressure of repeated deployments was very corrosive and could have long-term effects.

The second, ordered by the Pentagon and yet to be released, reportedly calls the army "stretched to breaking point".

The US defence secretary dismissed the claims as out of date or misdirected.

About 138,000 US troops remain in Iraq, on top of deployments to Afghanistan and Kosovo.

'Enormous strain'

The first study, commissioned by Democratic members of Congress, listed former Defence Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright among its authors.

It said the US military had performed admirably in recent operations but was under "enormous strain".

"This strain, if not soon relieved, will have highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force," it stated.

The report predicted problems recruiting new troops and retaining current ones in the face of repeated overseas tours and shortfalls in vital equipment.

It accused the Bush administration of having failed adequately to assess the size of force and equipment needed in post-invasion Iraq, creating "a real risk of 'breaking the force'."

The report also warned that the lack of a credible strategic reserve "increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States".

Recruitment

The second study, conducted for the Pentagon by military expert Andrew Krepinevich, suggested that the military at its current rate of deployment might not be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq.

He cited the problems experienced by the army in meeting its recruitment targets last year.

Speaking in Washington, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected the warnings given in both reports, saying: "The force is not broken."

He said the US military was enormously capable and battle-hardened and any report suggesting it was close to breaking point was "just not consistent with the facts".

Difficulties

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the reports echo the view held by some in Congress and even by some within the armed forces.

They fear that if the Iraq commitment lasts a great deal longer, or if the US is drawn into new conflict, the US armed forces could find it difficult to meet their commitments.

The report came as the British government announced the deployment of thousands of extra troops to Afghanistan as part of a Nato expansion plan in the region.

The troops are likely to be deployed to the south of the country. BBC correspondent Rob Watson says it is unclear whether their role will be to provide support to the Afghan government in the region or to participate in counter-insurgency operations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4649066.stm
 

tastyintestines

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
1,647
Reaction score
165
Points
94
(Quote)The first study, commissioned by Democratic members of Congress, listed former Defence Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright among its authors.(Quote)
 

TinFinger

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
269
Reaction score
0
Points
32
ok so america is in huge debt..
and a few countries are about to stop selling oil in dollars and convert to euro..
so what
just why dose this mean anything(sory but i just dont get it)
if it would help any economy why dose russia not sell oil in rubles(or what ever)
can anyone put this into leyman terms?
as ive no idea just why this is impotrant to the fact that america has a large debt.
and equally dont understand just who would like to recall such a dodgy loan?
:?:
 

crunchy5

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
10
Points
54
I am no economist, but it seems to be this while oil is priced in $ there can be no run on the $ ie getting rid of what $ you hold at whatever price you can get for them. If oil was sold in an other currency which had less borrowing and military overheads why would countries need $, thus folk would sell what $ they had and no-one wanted to buy the price would go to the bottom. Apart from $ the US only really sells services and raw materials and the price of these would fall as well. When Clinton was in power the US had a great economic profile and would've shrugged off a change in the reserve currency, but under dubbya things are very different and its mostly down to HUGE tax cuts for the very rich not the war in Iraq.
We in the UK recently sold loads of planes and support stuff to Saudi Arabia abt 23 bill I think the tax on this will pay for our Iraq involvement, phew, now if only we can join the euro in time Blair and Brown will deserve their eventual lordships for saving the British from the worst of the US collapse. I am no big europhile but I like their social model more than ours or the yanks ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ok folkes


I read one link in this thread that said the collapse of the US economy was going to happen in March 2006 when they reached the 'debt ceiling'.

I read another link in this thread that said that the US with Israel and Turkey will launch a nuclear war against Iran in March 2006 because they had been planning it from November 2004 and wanted to do this anyway - maybe just to try out the new tactical nukes they came up with.

How can both of these things be true at once?

Why would the USA if bankrupt then initiate what was touted in the link as being WWIII?

Is any of this really likely?


Are we all going to die ?!?!

:shock:
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
43,474
Reaction score
34,771
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Why would Turkey join in launching a war against Iran? I'd think they would stay pretty neutral. And why would they use nukes? That would make all the oil radioactive.

And as for the idea that oil will run out soon, perhaps we should change that to say 'all the cheap oil will run out soon'.
The Canadians have recently revealed that they will start exploiting their huge oil reserves (second only in size to Saudi Arabia's). This oil hasn't been exploited until now because the prevailing market rate for crude hasn't been high enough to make it financially worthwhile, as it will be expensive to mine.
So, expect oil to become more expensive, it won't run out just yet.
 
Top