Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Obama also recently tried to enter the Whitehouse through a window- that was mistaken for a door:
Notice the actual door, a few feet off to the right.
I seem to have given you a bad case of Lemur's Disease.Obama also recently tried to enter the Whitehouse through a window- that was mistaken for a door:
Notice the actual door, a few feet off to the right.
Oh noes! The Bureau of Labor Statistics and Nancy Pelosi are working with the Nobel Committee to deceive Americans into doing bad things! Run!
It would be nice if those graphs had 2008/2009 data. Looks like the recession is going to stay here for a while. The past reccessioins have all taken 6-12 months to end.
Originally Posted by Lord Winter:
It would be nice if those graphs had 2008/2009 data. Looks like the recession is going to stay here for a while. The past reccessioins have all taken 6-12 months to end.
The historical norm is 6-24 months -- only the Great Depression lasted significantly longer. Some would argue that was because of the "cure." Others argue that without the New Deal, it would have gone on longer. Who can be sure?It would be nice if those graphs had 2008/2009 data. Looks like the recession is going to stay here for a while. The past reccessioins have all taken 6-12 months to end.
Just watched his first prime-time news conference. Thirteen questions, 10 minute answers apiece.
I've figured it out, I think: wait 'til he says the phrase "the bottom line" or "my bottom line". Words spoken after that phrase are the answer. Previous words are, I dunno, internal discussion, academic reflection, tutoring time? Whatever.
"Bottom line" is the key. Wait for it, and all will be revealed.
I've figured it out, I think: wait 'til he says the phrase "the bottom line" or "my bottom line". Words spoken after that phrase are the answer. Previous words are, I dunno, internal discussion, academic reflection, tutoring time? Whatever.
"Bottom line" is the key. Wait for it, and all will be revealed.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
"Bottom line" is the key. Wait for it, and all will be revealed.
I often do the same with long reviews, often all the info you need is in the conclusion."Bottom line" is the key. Wait for it, and all will be revealed.
Concerning windows vs doors, the actual door seems quite big for a door and looks more like a window to me, I might have made the same mistake(does that mean I can run for POTUS now?
).It's also great to have a big recession now, I hope it continues for a while, we can have a big boom afterwards, it's best if they wait with that until I am done studying.
It gets worse:
A new bureaucracy will be formed:
CR
A new bureaucracy will be formed:
Originally Posted by :
One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
And to think, this is only the first month of Obama's presidency.One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
CR
That actually sounds worse than our system, though i think for experimental treatments you may have to pay here as well, it seeme to be mostly decided by the insurance you have, which would be the same with a private insurance system, or can you currently get a 1 million dollar experimental treatment for free in the US when you don't have any insurance or do all insurance companies just pay anything?
Because the article sure makes it sound like currently you get any treatment for free, no matter how much it costs, but the way I always understood it you currently have to pay for every plaster you get from the doctor.
Because the article sure makes it sound like currently you get any treatment for free, no matter how much it costs, but the way I always understood it you currently have to pay for every plaster you get from the doctor.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
It gets worse:
A new bureaucracy will be formed:
And to think, this is only the first month of Obama's presidency.
CR
Don't forget the disturbingly protectionist, "Buy American" provisions:It gets worse:
A new bureaucracy will be formed:
And to think, this is only the first month of Obama's presidency.
CR
Originally Posted by :
As if the $900 billion stimulus package wasn't controversial enough, provisions requiring purchase of U.S.-made iron and steel for government contracts that were slipped into the House version, and of all manufactured goods in the Senate's, have annoyed more people than expected — across the world.
Last week, leaders from Canada, Brazil, China, the U.K., India, Mexico, Germany and the Czech Republic, among others, spoke out against such "Buy American" provisions as protectionist. Some threatened retaliation.
The most assertive voice came from the European Union, our top overseas market, which last year engaged in two-way trade with the U.S. totaling $709 billion.
EU ambassador to the U.S. John Bruton warned Congress that the "Buy American" provisions will damage the U.S. as well as world trade by building protectionist sentiment around the world.
Let's hope that gets let on the cutting room floor in the final version of the bill. As if the $900 billion stimulus package wasn't controversial enough, provisions requiring purchase of U.S.-made iron and steel for government contracts that were slipped into the House version, and of all manufactured goods in the Senate's, have annoyed more people than expected — across the world.
Last week, leaders from Canada, Brazil, China, the U.K., India, Mexico, Germany and the Czech Republic, among others, spoke out against such "Buy American" provisions as protectionist. Some threatened retaliation.
The most assertive voice came from the European Union, our top overseas market, which last year engaged in two-way trade with the U.S. totaling $709 billion.
EU ambassador to the U.S. John Bruton warned Congress that the "Buy American" provisions will damage the U.S. as well as world trade by building protectionist sentiment around the world.
Hi guys :wave: . I know I'm late.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
Does anyone notice a disturbing trend? The more recent the recession, the longer the recovery. From these pretties I'm not very concerned about this recession. I am concerned that it appears the economy is less robust than ever before. Possibly just reading too much into it... or looking at it the wrong way. For example the feb '01 recession probably wasn't helped by 9/11...
A more positive way to look at it would be the recent recessions seem to involve less of a downturn, amd the dec'07 one is one of the shortest recessions on there...
A more positive way to look at it would be the recent recessions seem to involve less of a downturn, amd the dec'07 one is one of the shortest recessions on there...
I'd like to shift gears for a moment and discuss the 2nd half of the financial bailout that Tim Geithner announed yesterday.
So, after weeks of hearing we need the money, but we need more oversight, more clarity... Barney Frank promising he's going to watch every nickel personally... he goes up to the Hill and... pulls a Paulson "Just give me the money... we need it and I can't tell you yet where it's going".
A couple of I think common sense questions...
-Everyone and his brother knows Geithner is putting together a bad bank. Why doesn't he just come out and say it? It can't be worse than the speculation.
-Why isn't Hank Paulson in jail? As far as I can tell, he told everyone he understood their concerns but would do what was necessary to keep the public plugged in. He then turned around and handed out $350B to his buddies at Citbank, Morgan Stanley and the like... I guess the CEO of Lehman Brothers wasn't one of Hank's buddies.
-Why does anyone have any hope that there will be more oversight on Treasury this time around? I'm not going to argue that it was the Bush Treasury department that stole $350 billion, it was. But wasn't Barney Frank chairman of the House Financial Services comittee last year? Wasn't he tasked with oversight of Paulson, especially on where TARP was going? Is there any reason to believe he's going to be more intrusive, more regulatory on the a Treasury Secretary that's part of a Democratic administration?
It just doesn't make any sense on any of this. Hank Paulson stole $350B. Tim Geithner is acting as though he expects the right to do the same. And Barney Frank is standing in the town square, pompously proclaiming "Twust me.. this time I'll get it wight"
So, after weeks of hearing we need the money, but we need more oversight, more clarity... Barney Frank promising he's going to watch every nickel personally... he goes up to the Hill and... pulls a Paulson "Just give me the money... we need it and I can't tell you yet where it's going".
A couple of I think common sense questions...
-Everyone and his brother knows Geithner is putting together a bad bank. Why doesn't he just come out and say it? It can't be worse than the speculation.
-Why isn't Hank Paulson in jail? As far as I can tell, he told everyone he understood their concerns but would do what was necessary to keep the public plugged in. He then turned around and handed out $350B to his buddies at Citbank, Morgan Stanley and the like... I guess the CEO of Lehman Brothers wasn't one of Hank's buddies.
-Why does anyone have any hope that there will be more oversight on Treasury this time around? I'm not going to argue that it was the Bush Treasury department that stole $350 billion, it was. But wasn't Barney Frank chairman of the House Financial Services comittee last year? Wasn't he tasked with oversight of Paulson, especially on where TARP was going? Is there any reason to believe he's going to be more intrusive, more regulatory on the a Treasury Secretary that's part of a Democratic administration?
It just doesn't make any sense on any of this. Hank Paulson stole $350B. Tim Geithner is acting as though he expects the right to do the same. And Barney Frank is standing in the town square, pompously proclaiming "Twust me.. this time I'll get it wight"
P.S. Wall Street was so impressed with Mr. Geithner's proverbial 'turd on the floor', indices dropped over 5% yesterday on the news, on broad concerns (i.e. across all sectors).
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
-Why isn't Hank Paulson in jail? As far as I can tell, he told everyone he understood their concerns but would do what was necessary to keep the public plugged in. He then turned around and handed out $350B to his buddies at Citbank, Morgan Stanley and the like... I guess the CEO of Lehman Brothers wasn't one of Hank's buddies.
Paulson got Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a bill giving him virtually unlimited authority to do whatever he wanted with the money short of putting it, directly at least, into his own retirement account. When he changed the ostensible plan, 15 minutes after receiving the money, he was met with a chorus of "Hey, wait a minute"'s to which he responded, "It's okay, I know better." Their response to this wondrous approach was to say, "okay." They then did what they really wanted which was to shelve it and get back to their districts for the October races. There is no jail option unless you indict at least 536 co-conspirators.-Why isn't Hank Paulson in jail? As far as I can tell, he told everyone he understood their concerns but would do what was necessary to keep the public plugged in. He then turned around and handed out $350B to his buddies at Citbank, Morgan Stanley and the like... I guess the CEO of Lehman Brothers wasn't one of Hank's buddies.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
-Why does anyone have any hope that there will be more oversight on Treasury this time around? I'm not going to argue that it was the Bush Treasury department that stole $350 billion, it was. But wasn't Barney Frank chairman of the House Financial Services comittee last year? Wasn't he tasked with oversight of Paulson, especially on where TARP was going? Is there any reason to believe he's going to be more intrusive, more regulatory on the a Treasury Secretary that's part of a Democratic administration?
Now these are good "questions." Not really questions of course, as you already know the answers.-Why does anyone have any hope that there will be more oversight on Treasury this time around? I'm not going to argue that it was the Bush Treasury department that stole $350 billion, it was. But wasn't Barney Frank chairman of the House Financial Services comittee last year? Wasn't he tasked with oversight of Paulson, especially on where TARP was going? Is there any reason to believe he's going to be more intrusive, more regulatory on the a Treasury Secretary that's part of a Democratic administration?
The Democratic leadership in Congress needs to be changed, a revolt within the party is needed to get more competent leadership in place. Pelosi may have been a good minority leader, but she does not have the ability to run the show. I knew as soon as Bush asked for "$700B, no oversight, immediately to avert disaster, disagree and you're a terrorist", it was a bad idea, he had used this tactic several times before. Yet they still caved, even when they had control. Deja vu.
The bankers get to face Congress today, should make for a good dog and pony show, with much vitriol from the lawmakers to show their constituents they are outraged. I'd give anything for the bankers to grill back why the TARP funds were not legislated with oversight in the first place. The look on Barney's face would be priceless.
The bankers get to face Congress today, should make for a good dog and pony show, with much vitriol from the lawmakers to show their constituents they are outraged. I'd give anything for the bankers to grill back why the TARP funds were not legislated with oversight in the first place. The look on Barney's face would be priceless.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Hi guys :wave: . I know I'm late.
Does anyone notice a disturbing trend? The more recent the recession, the longer the recovery. From these pretties I'm not very concerned about this recession. I am concerned that it appears the economy is less robust than ever before.
I ain't too edyookated on these matters but could this trend be linked to the decline of our industry and overall exports? With each passing year we make less and less 'stuff' and (to my limited knowledge) fewer nations consume materials and/or food from the US of A. Might I venture forth the idea that a nation that imports more than it exports is more susceptible to a prolonged recession/depression than one which exports more than it imports?Hi guys :wave: . I know I'm late.
Does anyone notice a disturbing trend? The more recent the recession, the longer the recovery. From these pretties I'm not very concerned about this recession. I am concerned that it appears the economy is less robust than ever before.
Might a service oriented economy be more prone to the pitfalls of a recession/depression than an industry oriented one?
Just a thought, don't take it too seriously as I'm only on my first cup of coffee...
Originally Posted by Spino:
I ain't too edyookated on these matters but could this trend be linked to the decline of our industry and overall exports? With each passing year we make less and less 'stuff' and (to my limited knowledge) fewer nations consume materials and/or food from the US of A. Might I venture forth the idea that a nation that imports more than it exports is more susceptible to a prolonged recession/depression than one which exports more than it imports?
Might a service oriented economy be more prone to the pitfalls of a recession/depression than an industry oriented one?
Just a thought, don't take it too seriously as I'm only on my first cup of coffee...
Interesting enough I was thinking of something simular but from a very different angle. To put it short, the current economic system requires eternal growth, something that by it's very nature is impossible. Currently there's been several signs, for years, indicating that the current system is close to its end in the western world and it's fairly safe to bet that the end will be unstable, with events simular to the current recession (or I'm off with 50+ years).I ain't too edyookated on these matters but could this trend be linked to the decline of our industry and overall exports? With each passing year we make less and less 'stuff' and (to my limited knowledge) fewer nations consume materials and/or food from the US of A. Might I venture forth the idea that a nation that imports more than it exports is more susceptible to a prolonged recession/depression than one which exports more than it imports?
Might a service oriented economy be more prone to the pitfalls of a recession/depression than an industry oriented one?
Just a thought, don't take it too seriously as I'm only on my first cup of coffee...
And then you suggest that the larger focus on the service sector, something that is in the current market's very nature, that causes deeper recessions...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spino, are you sure that the industrial production actually drops in the US and not just the employment in the industrial sector?
Originally Posted by Ironside:
Interesting enough I was thinking of something simular but from a very different angle. To put it short, the current economic system requires eternal growth, something that by it's very nature is impossible. Currently there's been several signs, for years, indicating that the current system is close to its end in the western world and it's fairly safe to bet that the end will be unstable, with events simular to the current recession (or I'm off with 50+ years).
And then you suggest that the larger focus on the service sector, something that is in the current market's very nature, that causes deeper recessions...
Interesting enough I was thinking of something simular but from a very different angle. To put it short, the current economic system requires eternal growth, something that by it's very nature is impossible. Currently there's been several signs, for years, indicating that the current system is close to its end in the western world and it's fairly safe to bet that the end will be unstable, with events simular to the current recession (or I'm off with 50+ years).
And then you suggest that the larger focus on the service sector, something that is in the current market's very nature, that causes deeper recessions...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well industry or not first and foremost an overhaul of our monetary policy is way overdue. Relying on a system that allows banks to generate ridiculous amounts of money vis a vis credit which ultimately places the entire system deeply into debt seems to defy all reason. I fail to see how a system is sustainable. So long as such a system is allowed to continue unabated it will only encourage foolishness and irresponsible practices (i.e. the sub-prime market) to take root to the detriment of the entire system. I suppose this is why the gold standard argument often comes up in these types of conversations, it deals with basing currency on something more than guarantees based on projected growth. It seems to me if your your currency/credit is based on nothing but on an empty guarantee of sustainable growth then incompetence combined with lack of confidence in the entities generating such credit can and will routinely wreak havoc. But my grasp of these matters is entirely superficial and based on the few articles and documentaries I've bothered to check out. I guess we'll see what happens once the dust settles.
Here's another question. What would happen to the existing system (and affected currencies) if someone else offered a more reliable and sustainable alternative during a global economic crisis? Meaning what would happen if someone decided to 'cheat' and take a dramatic step outside the widely accepted rules of the game? It seems to me that the current system works only because everyone seems to buy into the game. What would happen if some nation were to break ranks and back its currency with something more than an empty guarantee based on projections? I'm not necessarily talking about a gold standard but simply an alternative to the widely accepted norm.
Originally Posted by :
Spino, are you sure that the industrial production actually drops in the US and not just the employment in the industrial sector?
Well I'm not really sure which is why I put that question out there to begin with. I suppose my problem is in our dependence on industries that produce 'nothing' (i.e. service industries) versus those that produce 'something' (i.e. tangible items that can be used, rented, sold or scrapped/recycled). Based purely on my observations it is painfully apparent that all but a handful of consumer goods are made in the USA. If I were to take a tally of everything in my home I'll wager all but the raw materials used to make my home and a smattering of goods I've bought were made here in the US. It seems like everything I wear, watch, use, etc. (along with a growing percentage of the things I eat), are manufactured or produced outside the USA.Spino, are you sure that the industrial production actually drops in the US and not just the employment in the industrial sector?
So, I'm very, very confused. The White House and House & Senate majorities promised a new era of openness and inclusion for citizens in the government process.
So, could somebody explain to me why the compromise language was reached on Wednesday, but it was only posted to the Speaker's website last night at 11:30 PM Eastern, when the vote is schedule for 9AM this morning?
Could somebody explain to me why the House staff took the time to print a computer file out and scan it in, rather than posting the electronic version of the document? It couldn't possibly be so that we can't parse the document or use search terms, could it?
What Nancy Pelosi hoped you'd sleep through...
Could somebody explain to me why only Democrats were allowed to be on the bi-cameral compromise committee? Forget about the average citizens, even the 3 Senate Republicans that voted for the Stimulus didn't get to see it until close to midnight last night and have to vote on it at 9AM.
Does all of this sound open and inclusive to anyone else?
So, could somebody explain to me why the compromise language was reached on Wednesday, but it was only posted to the Speaker's website last night at 11:30 PM Eastern, when the vote is schedule for 9AM this morning?
Could somebody explain to me why the House staff took the time to print a computer file out and scan it in, rather than posting the electronic version of the document? It couldn't possibly be so that we can't parse the document or use search terms, could it?
What Nancy Pelosi hoped you'd sleep through...
Could somebody explain to me why only Democrats were allowed to be on the bi-cameral compromise committee? Forget about the average citizens, even the 3 Senate Republicans that voted for the Stimulus didn't get to see it until close to midnight last night and have to vote on it at 9AM.
Does all of this sound open and inclusive to anyone else?
Didn't you hear? It's got to be on Obama's desk by Monday morning. Letting the GOP in on the discussion might threaten that. 
That link is either down or slowed to a crawl. Anybody know what the software package used to generate the document was? They may have printed and scanned it to prevent the markups from being seen, I think that has bit them before.
That link is either down or slowed to a crawl. Anybody know what the software package used to generate the document was? They may have printed and scanned it to prevent the markups from being seen, I think that has bit them before.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Could somebody explain to me why only Democrats were allowed to be on the bi-cameral compromise committee? Forget about the average citizens, even the 3 Senate Republicans that voted for the Stimulus didn't get to see it until close to midnight last night and have to vote on it at 9AM.
Errr....because they won largish majorities in both houses and don't have to give the minority anything but the right to speak to the issue and to vote?Could somebody explain to me why only Democrats were allowed to be on the bi-cameral compromise committee? Forget about the average citizens, even the 3 Senate Republicans that voted for the Stimulus didn't get to see it until close to midnight last night and have to vote on it at 9AM.
The key dynamic is power. While the Dems have it, they intend to use it to re-shape things in the direction they think is best. The part that galls me is that, when the GOP had that power, they were too busy either feathering their own nests or trying to "make nice" with the media to actually attempt the same thing. All-in-all, the Dems are just better at wielding power. I wish to God they did so on anything APPROACHING an agenda I'd be happy with.
Originally Posted by Spino:
Well industry or not first and foremost an overhaul of our monetary policy is way overdue. Relying on a system that allows banks to generate ridiculous amounts of money vis a vis credit which ultimately places the entire system deeply into debt seems to defy all reason. I fail to see how a system is sustainable. So long as such a system is allowed to continue unabated it will only encourage foolishness and irresponsible practices (i.e. the sub-prime market) to take root to the detriment of the entire system. I suppose this is why the gold standard argument often comes up in these types of conversations, it deals with basing currency on something more than guarantees based on projected growth. It seems to me if your your currency/credit is based on nothing but on an empty guarantee of sustainable growth then incompetence combined with lack of confidence in the entities generating such credit can and will routinely wreak havoc. But my grasp of these matters is entirely superficial and based on the few articles and documentaries I've bothered to check out. I guess we'll see what happens once the dust settles.
The thing with that is that it (has) works(ed?), the speculated growth has been followed by an actual growth for decades, and is even pushed on as the system has to grow to work properly. A change needs to be able to handle 0 growth or deflation without it being terribly bad.Well industry or not first and foremost an overhaul of our monetary policy is way overdue. Relying on a system that allows banks to generate ridiculous amounts of money vis a vis credit which ultimately places the entire system deeply into debt seems to defy all reason. I fail to see how a system is sustainable. So long as such a system is allowed to continue unabated it will only encourage foolishness and irresponsible practices (i.e. the sub-prime market) to take root to the detriment of the entire system. I suppose this is why the gold standard argument often comes up in these types of conversations, it deals with basing currency on something more than guarantees based on projected growth. It seems to me if your your currency/credit is based on nothing but on an empty guarantee of sustainable growth then incompetence combined with lack of confidence in the entities generating such credit can and will routinely wreak havoc. But my grasp of these matters is entirely superficial and based on the few articles and documentaries I've bothered to check out. I guess we'll see what happens once the dust settles.
Originally Posted by Spino:
Here's another question. What would happen to the existing system (and affected currencies) if someone else offered a more reliable and sustainable alternative during a global economic crisis? Meaning what would happen if someone decided to 'cheat' and take a dramatic step outside the widely accepted rules of the game? It seems to me that the current system works only because everyone seems to buy into the game. What would happen if some nation were to break ranks and back its currency with something more than an empty guarantee based on projections? I'm not necessarily talking about a gold standard but simply an alternative to the widely accepted norm.
Hard to say, the system of grow or die is very integrated to the economy today and has been even before the loss of the gold standard. That indicates that the change has to be larger than a simple removal of fiat currency. But breaking the game depends on how its done, a brilliant reform would probably spread slowly at the start while being rejected by the others. Then it would settle in the industrial countries, but the question is what would happen for the rest? The aren't at the same point on the economical development trends as the west. Here's another question. What would happen to the existing system (and affected currencies) if someone else offered a more reliable and sustainable alternative during a global economic crisis? Meaning what would happen if someone decided to 'cheat' and take a dramatic step outside the widely accepted rules of the game? It seems to me that the current system works only because everyone seems to buy into the game. What would happen if some nation were to break ranks and back its currency with something more than an empty guarantee based on projections? I'm not necessarily talking about a gold standard but simply an alternative to the widely accepted norm.
Originally Posted by Spino:
Well I'm not really sure which is why I put that question out there to begin with. I suppose my problem is in our dependence on industries that produce 'nothing' (i.e. service industries) versus those that produce 'something' (i.e. tangible items that can be used, rented, sold or scrapped/recycled). Based purely on my observations it is painfully apparent that all but a handful of consumer goods are made in the USA. If I were to take a tally of everything in my home I'll wager all but the raw materials used to make my home and a smattering of goods I've bought were made here in the US. It seems like everything I wear, watch, use, etc. (along with a growing percentage of the things I eat), are manufactured or produced outside the USA.
Yet your industry is probably producing more than ever, but the focus are no longer on those consumer goods that has that note "made in XX". It's hard to tell without those raw numbers. The numbers employed has gone down, but has also the "today, 10 people produce 10 times more than what 100 people produced yesterday" factor.Well I'm not really sure which is why I put that question out there to begin with. I suppose my problem is in our dependence on industries that produce 'nothing' (i.e. service industries) versus those that produce 'something' (i.e. tangible items that can be used, rented, sold or scrapped/recycled). Based purely on my observations it is painfully apparent that all but a handful of consumer goods are made in the USA. If I were to take a tally of everything in my home I'll wager all but the raw materials used to make my home and a smattering of goods I've bought were made here in the US. It seems like everything I wear, watch, use, etc. (along with a growing percentage of the things I eat), are manufactured or produced outside the USA.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO