Newspeak Alert!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Patientrenter: The assertion was not that France is a loser country, rather, it’s that France has significant structural problems, not least of which is a huge pension overhang. France also has a hugely bloated social sector and declining productivity, which is largely a result of union mandated hours and the 35 hour work week.

Additionally, French policies regarding labor, taxation and unionization have driven many of their most profitable companies and industries out of the country. Sarkozy is an improvement, but you’re still dealing with decades of counterproductive legislation and policies and all based on a socialist philosophy.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.
The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.[/quote]

When Ben stated last week that he hates the AIG problem, but he doesn’t know what to do, I for once believed he was being sincere.

What do you want Ben to do? Nothing?
Do you really want half the life insurance companies in the USA to liquidate? Do you want half the annuities to diappear? Many people bought these contracts years ago when the companies were financially sound. Among the AIG counterparties are these types of parties. Of course many foriegn govt are also on the other side of AIG and the USA can fold on them but at a huge cost.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.
The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.[/quote]

When Ben stated last week that he hates the AIG problem, but he doesn’t know what to do, I for once believed he was being sincere.

What do you want Ben to do? Nothing?
Do you really want half the life insurance companies in the USA to liquidate? Do you want half the annuities to diappear? Many people bought these contracts years ago when the companies were financially sound. Among the AIG counterparties are these types of parties. Of course many foriegn govt are also on the other side of AIG and the USA can fold on them but at a huge cost.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.
The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.[/quote]

When Ben stated last week that he hates the AIG problem, but he doesn’t know what to do, I for once believed he was being sincere.

What do you want Ben to do? Nothing?
Do you really want half the life insurance companies in the USA to liquidate? Do you want half the annuities to diappear? Many people bought these contracts years ago when the companies were financially sound. Among the AIG counterparties are these types of parties. Of course many foriegn govt are also on the other side of AIG and the USA can fold on them but at a huge cost.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.
The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.[/quote]

When Ben stated last week that he hates the AIG problem, but he doesn’t know what to do, I for once believed he was being sincere.

What do you want Ben to do? Nothing?
Do you really want half the life insurance companies in the USA to liquidate? Do you want half the annuities to diappear? Many people bought these contracts years ago when the companies were financially sound. Among the AIG counterparties are these types of parties. Of course many foriegn govt are also on the other side of AIG and the USA can fold on them but at a huge cost.

[equalizer]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.
The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.[/quote]

When Ben stated last week that he hates the AIG problem, but he doesn’t know what to do, I for once believed he was being sincere.

What do you want Ben to do? Nothing?
Do you really want half the life insurance companies in the USA to liquidate? Do you want half the annuities to diappear? Many people bought these contracts years ago when the companies were financially sound. Among the AIG counterparties are these types of parties. Of course many foriegn govt are also on the other side of AIG and the USA can fold on them but at a huge cost.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Equalizer: I agree. Most of my ire is not so much directed at Ben as Greenspan, and the realization that Greenspan’s loose monetary policy brought us to this spot.

The FED is supposed to provide sound monetary policy and protect the viability and stability of the financial system. Unfortunately, we’re now deeper and deeper down this particular rabbit hole and because the very organization tasked for our protection, the FED, led us astray.

I don’t think Ben is going to save us. I don’t think Obama is going to save us. And I sure as hell don’t think the Chinese are going to save us.

In the short-term, we have no good choices. Ben has to run the printing presses, because the other alternative is worse. My fear is that, once this particular genie is out of the bottle, no one will be able to put it back in.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Equalizer: I agree. Most of my ire is not so much directed at Ben as Greenspan, and the realization that Greenspan’s loose monetary policy brought us to this spot.

The FED is supposed to provide sound monetary policy and protect the viability and stability of the financial system. Unfortunately, we’re now deeper and deeper down this particular rabbit hole and because the very organization tasked for our protection, the FED, led us astray.

I don’t think Ben is going to save us. I don’t think Obama is going to save us. And I sure as hell don’t think the Chinese are going to save us.

In the short-term, we have no good choices. Ben has to run the printing presses, because the other alternative is worse. My fear is that, once this particular genie is out of the bottle, no one will be able to put it back in.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Equalizer: I agree. Most of my ire is not so much directed at Ben as Greenspan, and the realization that Greenspan’s loose monetary policy brought us to this spot.

The FED is supposed to provide sound monetary policy and protect the viability and stability of the financial system. Unfortunately, we’re now deeper and deeper down this particular rabbit hole and because the very organization tasked for our protection, the FED, led us astray.

I don’t think Ben is going to save us. I don’t think Obama is going to save us. And I sure as hell don’t think the Chinese are going to save us.

In the short-term, we have no good choices. Ben has to run the printing presses, because the other alternative is worse. My fear is that, once this particular genie is out of the bottle, no one will be able to put it back in.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Equalizer: I agree. Most of my ire is not so much directed at Ben as Greenspan, and the realization that Greenspan’s loose monetary policy brought us to this spot.

The FED is supposed to provide sound monetary policy and protect the viability and stability of the financial system. Unfortunately, we’re now deeper and deeper down this particular rabbit hole and because the very organization tasked for our protection, the FED, led us astray.

I don’t think Ben is going to save us. I don’t think Obama is going to save us. And I sure as hell don’t think the Chinese are going to save us.

In the short-term, we have no good choices. Ben has to run the printing presses, because the other alternative is worse. My fear is that, once this particular genie is out of the bottle, no one will be able to put it back in.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Equalizer: I agree. Most of my ire is not so much directed at Ben as Greenspan, and the realization that Greenspan’s loose monetary policy brought us to this spot.

The FED is supposed to provide sound monetary policy and protect the viability and stability of the financial system. Unfortunately, we’re now deeper and deeper down this particular rabbit hole and because the very organization tasked for our protection, the FED, led us astray.

I don’t think Ben is going to save us. I don’t think Obama is going to save us. And I sure as hell don’t think the Chinese are going to save us.

In the short-term, we have no good choices. Ben has to run the printing presses, because the other alternative is worse. My fear is that, once this particular genie is out of the bottle, no one will be able to put it back in.

[underdose]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.[/quote]

Thank you. Very kind. I’m also deeply grateful for your concrete elaborations. It really helps drive the point home.

[quote=arraya]Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.[/quote]

arraya, I’m puzzled by a couple of things you say. Money grows by compound interest strikes me as an odd claim.

Suppose there is a Lender named Lenny, and a Borrower named Bob. Lenny lends Bob $100 at 10% interest. At the end of two years, Bob owes Lenny $121 dollars. Compound interest at work.

There are essentially two possible extreme outcomes (and degrees in between). 1). Bob pays back in full. 2). Bob defaults.

In scenario 1, Lenny is -$100, +$121, Bob is +$100, -$121. Add it all up, the sum is zero. Net, Lenny +$21, Bob -$21. Money didn’t grow, it just changed hands.

In scenario 2, Lenny is -$100, Bob is +$100. Again, sum zero. It doesn’t matter that Bob may have spent the $100. It transferred from Bob to someone else, maybe Sal the Supplier. Lenny -$100, Bob +$100, -$100, Sal +$100. Still zero. The compound interest only existed on paper and was never paid.

Compound interest only transfers purchase power from one entity to another, it does not make the money supply grow. Right now the US government is on the wrong side of compound interest, transferring purchase power to our creditors.

I’m also with patientrenter concerning your invisible hand/Santa Claus claim. It’s a rather empty dogmatic claim. No one claimed there really is a magical invisible hand. It’s a metaphor, not a myth. My example above of the housing bubble absent government intervention shows the metaphorical invisible hand at work. A shortage of loanable funds causes interest rates to rise, encouraging savings and squeezing out would-be borrowers. The “invisible hand” is just an idiomatic way of describing market forces. Are you suggesting market forces are comparable to Santa Claus? You astutely observe that oil will run out, and when it does (barring we’ve gotten off our oil addiction with alternatives before that day) the price will go through the roof. The “invisible hand” of the oil shortage will stifle consumption by making it prohibitively expensive. Will you call it a myth on that day?

[underdose]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.[/quote]

Thank you. Very kind. I’m also deeply grateful for your concrete elaborations. It really helps drive the point home.

[quote=arraya]Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.[/quote]

arraya, I’m puzzled by a couple of things you say. Money grows by compound interest strikes me as an odd claim.

Suppose there is a Lender named Lenny, and a Borrower named Bob. Lenny lends Bob $100 at 10% interest. At the end of two years, Bob owes Lenny $121 dollars. Compound interest at work.

There are essentially two possible extreme outcomes (and degrees in between). 1). Bob pays back in full. 2). Bob defaults.

In scenario 1, Lenny is -$100, +$121, Bob is +$100, -$121. Add it all up, the sum is zero. Net, Lenny +$21, Bob -$21. Money didn’t grow, it just changed hands.

In scenario 2, Lenny is -$100, Bob is +$100. Again, sum zero. It doesn’t matter that Bob may have spent the $100. It transferred from Bob to someone else, maybe Sal the Supplier. Lenny -$100, Bob +$100, -$100, Sal +$100. Still zero. The compound interest only existed on paper and was never paid.

Compound interest only transfers purchase power from one entity to another, it does not make the money supply grow. Right now the US government is on the wrong side of compound interest, transferring purchase power to our creditors.

I’m also with patientrenter concerning your invisible hand/Santa Claus claim. It’s a rather empty dogmatic claim. No one claimed there really is a magical invisible hand. It’s a metaphor, not a myth. My example above of the housing bubble absent government intervention shows the metaphorical invisible hand at work. A shortage of loanable funds causes interest rates to rise, encouraging savings and squeezing out would-be borrowers. The “invisible hand” is just an idiomatic way of describing market forces. Are you suggesting market forces are comparable to Santa Claus? You astutely observe that oil will run out, and when it does (barring we’ve gotten off our oil addiction with alternatives before that day) the price will go through the roof. The “invisible hand” of the oil shortage will stifle consumption by making it prohibitively expensive. Will you call it a myth on that day?

[underdose]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.[/quote]

Thank you. Very kind. I’m also deeply grateful for your concrete elaborations. It really helps drive the point home.

[quote=arraya]Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.[/quote]

arraya, I’m puzzled by a couple of things you say. Money grows by compound interest strikes me as an odd claim.

Suppose there is a Lender named Lenny, and a Borrower named Bob. Lenny lends Bob $100 at 10% interest. At the end of two years, Bob owes Lenny $121 dollars. Compound interest at work.

There are essentially two possible extreme outcomes (and degrees in between). 1). Bob pays back in full. 2). Bob defaults.

In scenario 1, Lenny is -$100, +$121, Bob is +$100, -$121. Add it all up, the sum is zero. Net, Lenny +$21, Bob -$21. Money didn’t grow, it just changed hands.

In scenario 2, Lenny is -$100, Bob is +$100. Again, sum zero. It doesn’t matter that Bob may have spent the $100. It transferred from Bob to someone else, maybe Sal the Supplier. Lenny -$100, Bob +$100, -$100, Sal +$100. Still zero. The compound interest only existed on paper and was never paid.

Compound interest only transfers purchase power from one entity to another, it does not make the money supply grow. Right now the US government is on the wrong side of compound interest, transferring purchase power to our creditors.

I’m also with patientrenter concerning your invisible hand/Santa Claus claim. It’s a rather empty dogmatic claim. No one claimed there really is a magical invisible hand. It’s a metaphor, not a myth. My example above of the housing bubble absent government intervention shows the metaphorical invisible hand at work. A shortage of loanable funds causes interest rates to rise, encouraging savings and squeezing out would-be borrowers. The “invisible hand” is just an idiomatic way of describing market forces. Are you suggesting market forces are comparable to Santa Claus? You astutely observe that oil will run out, and when it does (barring we’ve gotten off our oil addiction with alternatives before that day) the price will go through the roof. The “invisible hand” of the oil shortage will stifle consumption by making it prohibitively expensive. Will you call it a myth on that day?

[underdose]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.[/quote]

Thank you. Very kind. I’m also deeply grateful for your concrete elaborations. It really helps drive the point home.

[quote=arraya]Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.[/quote]

arraya, I’m puzzled by a couple of things you say. Money grows by compound interest strikes me as an odd claim.

Suppose there is a Lender named Lenny, and a Borrower named Bob. Lenny lends Bob $100 at 10% interest. At the end of two years, Bob owes Lenny $121 dollars. Compound interest at work.

There are essentially two possible extreme outcomes (and degrees in between). 1). Bob pays back in full. 2). Bob defaults.

In scenario 1, Lenny is -$100, +$121, Bob is +$100, -$121. Add it all up, the sum is zero. Net, Lenny +$21, Bob -$21. Money didn’t grow, it just changed hands.

In scenario 2, Lenny is -$100, Bob is +$100. Again, sum zero. It doesn’t matter that Bob may have spent the $100. It transferred from Bob to someone else, maybe Sal the Supplier. Lenny -$100, Bob +$100, -$100, Sal +$100. Still zero. The compound interest only existed on paper and was never paid.

Compound interest only transfers purchase power from one entity to another, it does not make the money supply grow. Right now the US government is on the wrong side of compound interest, transferring purchase power to our creditors.

I’m also with patientrenter concerning your invisible hand/Santa Claus claim. It’s a rather empty dogmatic claim. No one claimed there really is a magical invisible hand. It’s a metaphor, not a myth. My example above of the housing bubble absent government intervention shows the metaphorical invisible hand at work. A shortage of loanable funds causes interest rates to rise, encouraging savings and squeezing out would-be borrowers. The “invisible hand” is just an idiomatic way of describing market forces. Are you suggesting market forces are comparable to Santa Claus? You astutely observe that oil will run out, and when it does (barring we’ve gotten off our oil addiction with alternatives before that day) the price will go through the roof. The “invisible hand” of the oil shortage will stifle consumption by making it prohibitively expensive. Will you call it a myth on that day?

[Author]

Posts