Skip to main content

43 replies

America is too Rich for its own good

Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
In about 1568 Jean Bodin attempted to explain the reason for raging inflation in Europe. He did it by proposing that Silver from Spanish Colonies in the New World was causing both shortages in Spain, and the resulting increased demand for imported commodities. He was right.

The added wealth in Spain caused Spanis Aristocracy to STOP producing commodities because they could use their new found wealth to buy them.
When they bought Spanish goods, the price rose and they found they could get the goods from foreign sources at bargain prices, so, they quit supporting the local producers and started buying from foreigh producers. The result was inflation, first in Spain, then in the rest of Europe.

We're doing the same thing, and about the same pace, AND, we may well be headed to the fate Spain suffered, a Fascist Dictatorship that began in 1936, and lasted until 1975. Remember communism, 1917 till ??? Franco, did not become political until the Center Right Government Closed the Joint Military Academy where he was comondante. The Spanish civil war launched his dictatorship.

The US did not apply serious pressure on Spain, it had remained neutral during WW II, And Franco had some nominal support in his rise to power from Great Britain. Besides, the US was never an opponent of Fascism.

We are genuinly headed he same direction, and it is apparent in the present political Climate, the Conservatives supporting unregulated Capitalism, and the Liberals more socialism.

Spain has also had internal problems with a minority, the Basques. And that includes Terrorism. Early in the investigation of the Madrid Train Bombings there was deep suspicion that the attack had been carried out, not by Al Qa'eda but by the Basque Seperatists.

Eisenhower Normalized relatons with Spain in 1953, and American Air Force units are stationed there even today.

Sopurces, wikipedia, and the New School
"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

KindredKindredOld Faithful
I certainly HOPE so, because Bush is going to ask for 245 BILLION more dollars for the war today... but for ONCE he is doing it RIGHT, by going through the proper channels..

RICH... then Americans who are poor should not be suffering the way they are, to allow any person that is an American Citizen to suffer is a travisty of justice since we have given way too much money to Iraq and Bush's/Cheney's HOBBY over there.
I interventorPost Master
Inflation could be tracked from arrival of treasure ships from the new world to the first port of arrival. Economists at the University of Madrid suggested the treasure be house in a fortress and released in small amount to control price rise.

The US's riches are from the labor of the mind and sweat of the brow of her citizens, not the sweat of Aztec and other slaves.

Besides, without the wealth produced we could not send 4 billion dollars to Africa to stop AIDS -- a wholly preventable disease.

And to pay for the retirement of the boomers.
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
First article is very interesting, don't have time right now for the second.

A very important statement from the first article.

"This will all make sense when you realize that private bankers can not exist without debt - our debt. The banklords must keep us people in debt if those banklords are to survive and maintain a tight control over us people and our economy. "

This is why I don't have a credit card. The reason most people are poor is because they acquire more debt than they can pay off. Debt reduces your income, so if you want to make money, stay out of debt.

With quick loans, credit cards, and the instant gratification mentality we have today, we've lost the concept of saving. My wife and I are about to buy a large capacity washer & dryer set. It's going to be expensive, but we're going to pay cash. Are we rich? Of course not, we have very average incomes. We've saved the money over time, now that we have enough we'll get what we want with no bills to pay afterwards. No debt to deduct from our income. I've also been saving for a car, I plan on getting it next year and paying cash.

It's all a numbers game, just like the article said. You take one big number, subtract smaller numbers from it, and move the numbers to different places. Move some of those numbers to the right places and they become big numbers as well. That's called saving for retirement, you don't need the government to retire. Dollars are nothing more than easily transferable checks representing your numbers. When you control your own numbers, you'll always have money.
midknightridermidknightriderHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Good topic, if I get some time I could really wax here.

A couple of points:

http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/moncur.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

And google fractional reserve banking too.



That should be required reading !!!
The majority of Americans don't know what the national debt is. While we argue over which one is worse, Republicans or Democrats, the banklords really don't care. They'll continue their operations either way.
Look what happened to the last guy that tried to do something about it. Eeker
KindredKindredOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
First article is very interesting, don't have time right now for the second.

A very important statement from the first article.

"This will all make sense when you realize that private bankers can not exist without debt - our debt. The banklords must keep us people in debt if those banklords are to survive and maintain a tight control over us people and our economy. "

This is why I don't have a credit card. The reason most people are poor is because they acquire more debt than they can pay off. Debt reduces your income, so if you want to make money, stay out of debt.

With quick loans, credit cards, and the instant gratification mentality we have today, we've lost the concept of saving. My wife and I are about to buy a large capacity washer & dryer set. It's going to be expensive, but we're going to pay cash. Are we rich? Of course not, we have very average incomes. We've saved the money over time, now that we have enough we'll get what we want with no bills to pay afterwards. No debt to deduct from our income. I've also been saving for a car, I plan on getting it next year and paying cash.

It's all a numbers game, just like the article said. You take one big number, subtract smaller numbers from it, and move the numbers to different places. Move some of those numbers to the right places and they become big numbers as well. That's called saving for retirement, you don't need the government to retire. Dollars are nothing more than easily transferable checks representing your numbers. When you control your own numbers, you'll always have money.


I totally AGREE!!!! The only "plastic" people should have in this day and age is the debit/check cards, because it is THEIR money and NO interst added.

Credit Card companies SHOULD be illegal, they prey on 18 year olds, who don't have a clue the pit they are stumbling into... that everlasting 'black hole'...

And Baby Boomers, as mentioned above, has paid into the retirement systems, Social Security as everyone else has in the past... if the gov't had of left SS alone, THAT would not be a problem.
KindredKindredOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dkjpika:
America too wealthy? LOL. Now all we need is Hillary to take our hard earned money away and give it to those that wont get off their lazy butts and work. Yeah, that sounds like a REAL good idea.


Let me preface this by saying that I do NOT like Hillary.... but I do have to say that there is no way under the sun she can do as bad as our present Administration has.... She could "ACCIDENTLY" do better than them!!
D dkjpikaSmall Talker
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
Let me preface this by saying that I do NOT like Hillary.... but I do have to say that there is no way under the sun she can do as bad as our present Administration has.... She could "ACCIDENTLY" do better than them!!


The way its looking, we may find out. I care, but i dont at the same time. I'm pretty sure America will stay America no matter who is in office and I KNOW Alabama will stay Alabama.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Inflation could be tracked from arrival of treasure ships from the new world to the first port of arrival. Economists at the University of Madrid suggested the treasure be house in a fortress and released in small amount to control price rise.

The US's riches are from the labor of the mind and sweat of the brow of her citizens, not the sweat of Aztec and other slaves.

Besides, without the wealth produced we could not send 4 billion dollars to Africa to stop AIDS -- a wholly preventable disease.

And to pay for the retirement of the boomers.


EXACTLY Except, the wealth of this nation is NOW BEING INVESTED IN OFF SHORE FACTORIES, SERVICE INDUSTRY AND NATURAL RESOURCES. In the same way the wealth of the treasure ships to SPAIN was invested in farms and industries in FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY MORROCO AND OTHER NATIONS. Spain lost in the long run, and we are in the final sprint to our own demise. It does not matter what the source of the wealth is. When it is used up by paying inflated costs for any goods and services, it is gone.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by MentalFloss:
quote:
Is America really in that bad of shape to you?


Good link here to answer you question. I think it's on topic.

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html


dkn

MentalFloss is correct. The proof is in the economy following WW II, despite the expenditure of a HUGE part of our money resource, and the resultant inflation, The indebtedness was not only wiped out, THE ECONOMY BOOMED.
Kennedy Johnson, another war, and Reagan/bush I tax cuts for the rich. CARTER...Stagflation. The Iran Hostage situation did not help Carter at all, BUT THE ECONOMY IS WHAT LIMITED HIM TO ONE TERM.

Borrowing adds to the money supply. Consumer borrowing or government borrowing. Increasing the money supply increases the PRICE because there's a limited supply of stuff or labor is available to purchase.
Equation is money times velocity EQUALS transactions times price. When supply increases, either velocity or money supply increases, or price decreases. The equation ALWAYS BALANCES.

Deficit spending INCREASES ONLY MONEY SUPPLY. that forces an increase in prices, either instantly or as the equation balances itself over time.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Good topic, if I get some time I could really wax here.

A couple of points:

http://www.uhuh.com/unreal/moncur.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

And google fractional reserve banking too.


I will not take a position, in this debate on the intrinsic value of money or currency. It does not apply.

What does apply is the SUPPLY OF MONEY. It does not matter if the money has intrinsic value or fiat value.

What matters is the quantity of legal tender in circulation, and the fractional reserve does apply. That increases the amount of money in circulation. Ideally, the money in RESERVE, that is banked, is equal to the money in CIRCULATION. fractional reserve knocks that balance off. It allows more money to be in circulation than actually exists (intrinsically)
in the form of currency.
When you borrow money, you use your reserve to back your spending. But not to DO your spending. Credit provides you with more buying power NOW than you actually have, and puts you in debt for the spending, meaning that you cannot spend more till you generate more intrinsic value.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
First article is very interesting, don't have time right now for the second.

A very important statement from the first article.

"This will all make sense when you realize that private bankers can not exist without debt - our debt. The banklords must keep us people in debt if those banklords are to survive and maintain a tight control over us people and our economy. "

<SNIP>

NashBama
You are correct, banks depend on the interest on loans for their existance. That is their function. Banks collect small amounts of money in the form of deposits, and lend Money for investment, much of it consumer goods, but a very large part of it in productive ventures.
Without BANKS Capitalism CANNOT exist. Are you anti capitalism?
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
No, I am not anti-capitalism. My point is that poverty is created by excessive debt. We took out a loan to buy our house, but it was a loan that we can handle. When people run up credit car bills, car payments, mortgages, and other such loans it reduces their income which leads to repossession, foreclosure, and poverty.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
No, I am not anti-capitalism. My point is that poverty is created by excessive debt. We took out a loan to buy our house, but it was a loan that we can handle. When people run up credit car bills, car payments, mortgages, and other such loans it reduces their income which leads to repossession, foreclosure, and poverty.


NashBama

Thanks for the clarification of YOUR stand on capitalism. I am pro capitalism too. But a note of caution here, both of the links you posted are ANTI CAPITALIST ARGUEMENTS. They propose elimination of the foundation of banking, MONEY. Lack of money is poverty. Lack of resources is lack of money. Productive work, is called that because it produce intrinsic value.

You said you borrowed money to buy a home. You could have rented it, but the HOME ITSELF WAS BUILT WITH BORROWED MONEY.

That money was borrowed from a bank. WITHOUT THE BANK....NO HOUSE...JUST NO HOUSE. You desperately need the Bank to gather capital in the form of deposits to LEND the money to build or buy the house. When you took out a mortgage, the money paid off the loan that the contractor took out to build the house, or it paid back the person who did that and owned the house before you.

Most conservative arguement rests on the principal that NON PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE should not be encouraged to be non productive. Most liberal arguement rests on the idea that NO ONE CAN BE PRODUCTIVE FOR A WHOLE LIFETIME.

Public education provides a foundation for becoming productive. Retirement pensions provide a reward for having been productive.

Between the end of school, and the end of productive life, some things can interfer with the ability to be productive. Dying during those periods, or becoming homeless, or desperate RUINS the productive capacity of the rest of that life.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by dkjpika:
America too wealthy? LOL. Now all we need is Hillary to take our hard earned money away and give it to those that wont get off their lazy butts and work. Yeah, that sounds like a REAL good idea.


I think you missed the point, AMERICAN WEALTH IS BEING DRAINED BECAUSE WE THINK IT UNLIMITED.

Has nothing to do with Hillary, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Bush, or elections. It has to do with the EXPORT OF AMERICAN WEALTH TO THE REST OF THE WORLD, AND THE ECONOMIC EFFECT.

I guess you only read the head, and not the body.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by dkn:
Is America really in that bad of shape to you?


Not yet dkn but on course for becoming Spain Like. We are operating a fascist economy. Our productive capacity is in decline because people with a lot of money are unwilling to do certain kinds of work, Like Forging Steel, or picking onions. We have CHOSEN to use our wealth to RETIRE FROM INDUSTRY.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Without debt, people could not borrow to expand businesses. We grow at a 3 to 4 percent rate in GDP every year. During the medieval era, when debt was small, society grew at a 2 percent level every generation. Responsible use of debt is the answer.


Exactly the point.

Responsible use of debt means NEVER BUY ANYTHING THAT WILL WEAR OUT BEFORE YOU AMORTIZE THE COST.
It is perfectly fine to buy lunch with a credit card, if your next paycheck will cover the cost. You need the lunch to keep working. It is perfectly foolish to buy lunch with a credid card if you are not going to be able to at least cover the bill for the lunch with your next paycheck.

Borrowing to buy a luxury is always a mistake. Borrowing to cover the cost of a risk, gambling for example, may or may not be foolish, if the risk is small enough, and the debt does not increase the risk.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by elijah435:
Inventor...
Boomers paid for their own retirement...Ive been paying it for almost 50 years and I'll never live to draw out what I have put in...


AMEN to that Elijah!!!!! AMEN TO THAT!!! I have MORE than paid for myself.


Kindred Spirit, That statement would be true if it weren't for the economic power of the USA. The Neo Con Lie that Social Security is doomed is A LIE. Plain and simple. IT IS NOT TRUE. The US economy produces 32 thousand dollars a year for EVERY PERSON in the country. That includes Illegal Aliens, Babies, Retired folk snd Disabled. The only reason that this nation could possibly be UNABLE to care for the Sick, the young and Aged is because some of our citizens want their cake and their smoked salmon, and to eat yours too.
Fighting IlliniFighting IlliniHall of Famer
ED, our economy might produce what averages out to be 32,000 a year for every person, but how many people actually produce 32,000 a year for the economy. So what you are saying is that if you produce 64,000 a year, half of that should go to someone who produces nothing a year. What if some one produces 6.4 million a year should that person get 32,000 and the rest de distributed to thousand's who don't produce anything. I just don't get your last statement. That this country can't care for the sick, young, and aged because some of the citizens want their cake and yours too. People just want what they worked for. Where is this other "yours too" coming from?
dkndknEverybody Knows My Name
Bush actually was trying to give it back with the invesment acccount. I have a problem with not reaching age to get my money back. I doubt I will make it to my seventies. My son will be older and not be able to collect any of it. Is it fair to just take it all? I don't think so. I would like to chip in but not give away.
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
ED, our economy might produce what averages out to be 32,000 a year for every person, but how many people actually produce 32,000 a year for the economy. So what you are saying is that if you produce 64,000 a year, half of that should go to someone who produces nothing a year. What if some one produces 6.4 million a year should that person get 32,000 and the rest de distributed to thousand's who don't produce anything. I just don't get your last statement. That this country can't care for the sick, young, and aged because some of the citizens want their cake and yours too. People just want what they worked for. Where is this other "yours too" coming from?


First, that is not what I said, and not what I meant.
Second, the distribution of wealth as a function of contribution is skewed. OWNERSHIP OF A SHARE OF STOCK IN A COMPANY DOES NOT GUARANTEE INCOME. It is the equity of the company you own, and without the labor of the employees of that company the equity is less than a paperweight to hold the stock certificates down.

Generally shareholders contribute nothing, not even loyalty to the companies they hold shares in. They want a high return on their investment. They want to see the profit maximized and they could care less how it is done. No matter that the employee is living on 15 dollars a day, if the Jacket she sewed sells for sixty dollars, with 17 cents of its cost her labor.
Every American Car Maker has announced mass layoffs, and EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS INCREASED IN VALUE ON THE STOCK MARKET. Would they become infinitely valuable if they laid off ALL their workers?
Karl LeubaKarl LeubaPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
And the fiddler keeps on playing... just NOT our song... Roll Eyes


There are over 114 million housholds in the USA, half of them have annual incomes of less than 47 thousand dollars. THE AVERAGE houshold income is over 60 thousand dollars. OR, Median Houshold income in the USA is less than 47 thousand dollars. Mean Houshold income in the USA is over 60 thousand dollars. THE 13 THOUSAND DOLLAR DIFFERENCE IS WHAT IS TAKEN BY THE TOP 5% OF HOUSHOLDS IN THE COUNTRY.

All these "conservative" liberal haters are trying their hardest to make sure that the 13 thousand dollars continues to increase.

I am not urging the destruction of the wealthy, I am urging that they pay their fair share for the goverment OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

Government of the people by the RICH and for the rich is called Fascism. We are a nation based on the LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY that people are best governed by a nation that seeks the general welfare.
Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×