Can The Fed Really Stop Printing???

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
link54's picture
link54
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 8 2009
Posts: 44
Can The Fed Really Stop Printing???

Over the past two years of being a member of this community and reading all that I can here and on other sites on the net,  I have a simple question that I have not really seen addressed in the common sense manner. Where Is The Three Trillion Coming From For This Years Bills?

As I understand the data, the U.S. is running this year a 1.75 trillion dollar debt.  In addition we have anorther trillion or so in bonds that  need to be refinanced (More Debt) this year. So the bottom line is we need in excess of 3 trillion of money (real or not) to pay the bills of the country that the taxpayers are on the hook for just this year.

It does not take a rocket scientist to fiqure that the normal buyers of our debt may not be in a position or may not think buying U.S. Treasury Bonds are prudent.  Japan needs all the money they can to rebuild their country.  The British are in very bad financial shape and probably need to cut back to the least amount possible other then the dollars needed to conduct their international trade. China has been signaling for some time that they are very unhappy with the printing and are not likely to buy any future large portions of our debts.  Finally the Fed has said it will stop printing at the end of QEII in June and the Fed have been buying approximatly 70% of the treasury bonds that pay the U.S. day to day bills!

So for a moment forget about next year or the zillions of dollars of past debt or future debt we know are real. I would like this thread to focus just on how this years current debt and rollover debt will be financed.  The reason I am so focused on this is because I feel like there is something else going on we do not know about. 

Note: Yes, I have listened to Jim Rickards explanation of our future 6 month financing coming from the interest being created off the Feds existing balance sheet and have concluded this may be a small portion of the financing needed, but I have fully discounted that the bulk of the financing required will come from this tactic.

Note: Yes, I have sat for the last month considering that the Fed is goning to play out some scheme to rationalize to the nation a QEIII scenario by some other name.  I'm guessing, but my gut gives me the feeling that many people in this community believe that the Fed will stop for a couple of months due to the heat from the International Community and then restart the process after some series of real or contrived events creates some rationalization for further monetizing. 

My Assumption:  They will finish QEII in June and stop printing money in the way that we all understand it. What I am sure of is that that these folks have already determined what they are going to do and the powers that be already are positioned to profit from the outcome. To assume otherwise I think is naive.

So once again, how is the U.S.  going to come up with the approximate three trillion needed for this year?   I get the feeling the magician     (The Fed) is showing us one hand while they are doing something else (New & Different) with the other hand.  Since the beginning of this crisis I have been able listen,study and learn to at least make a couple of guesses about what the Fed is going to do and have been not to far off.  But now I am clueless.  It is making me very nervous for the first time since this crisis started!

Since I am not a finacial person nor a market person with any stocks, bonds or any paper financial instruments maybe I am missing something or don't understand how the financial system works.

How Does the Government Get More Money To Pay The Bills

Existing Tax Base This Year (In a downward spiral)

New Incremental Taxes This year ( Don't think so in an election cycle)

Economy Grows Significantly To Create a Lot More Government Revenues This Year ( Don't Think So)

Borrowing The Money This Year (From Who, unless you believe we threaten to invade the non borrowers / Don't think so)

More Printing This Year ( Don't thinks so)

              -Existing debt lenders will not stand for it

              - Faster loss of the dollar's value increasing the risk of  a currency crisis that I cannot think of a way the Fed could benefit from

              -Oil producers start to desire other curriencies for their product other then the dollar

Bottom line I am hoping that some of you out there in this community that have far more experience then I can answer the simple or not so simple question of, Where Is The Three Trillion Coming From For This Years Bills?   

 

Michael

 

 

 

I

 

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
How Does the Government Get

How Does the Government Get More Money To Pay The Bills

Existing Tax Base This Year (In a downward spiral)

New Incremental Taxes This year ( Don't think so in an election cycle)

Economy Grows Significantly To Create a Lot More Government Revenues This Year ( Don't Think So)

Borrowing The Money This Year (From Who, unless you believe we threaten to invade the non borrowers / Don't think so)

More Printing This Year ( Don't thinks so)

              -Existing debt lenders will not stand for it

              - Faster loss of the dollar's value increasing the risk of  a currency crisis that I cannot think of a way the Fed could benefit from

              -Oil producers start to desire other curriencies for their product other then the dollar

Good post Link

I've thought about this too.

My conclusion is the obvious answer. There isn't any place else to get the money other than creating it out of thin air. They only hitch to that is what you have stated above. So the next obvious conclusion is that it will be done secretly or let's say obfuscated in some manner. Since the creation of 'money' only requires a keyboard it really wouldn't be difficult to send that 'money' to whomever.

They could also use the forthcoming market crash/dip as a reason to keep printing money. Lets say they stop printing and the market and commodities tank badly. Then people get scared and all of a sudden money printing doesn't sound so bad anymore.

They could stop selling treasuries all together and funnel printed money in many other directions, either into the markets directly or what I think may already be happening which is to control the market directly. Either way they have to print.

delete.me's picture
delete.me
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Posts: 9
Stop printing, ummm, no.

from Gonzalo Lira:

Gonzalo wrote:

As I have shown elsewhere—and this isn’t controversial or anything anyone seriously debates—the Fed is monetizing roughly 50% of the Federal government’s FY 2011 deficit by way of QE-lite and QE-2. That’s roughly $100 billion a month that the Fed provides, $75 billion of which it is printing out of thin air.

The Federal government needs this money printing—as I’ve said repeatedly, Washington is a junkie, and the Fed is its friendly neighborhood dealer. Washington can’t afford to go off the horse—the Federal government would go broke if it did. Broke as in bankrupt—broke as in full government shut-down. Broke as in no more money to pay for entitlements, the military, or regular government services.

Broke as in broke.

Think it through: If the Fed suddenly cut off it’s $100 billion monthly purchases of Treasuries, where would the Federal government get its funding? From China? They’re selling Treasuries and getting into commodities. From Japan? They’ve got Fukushima to deal with. From Europe? They’ve got Portugal on deck, Spain and Italy warming up.

There’s no one to buy the massive amounts of Treasuries the Federal government needs to sell in order to fund its deficit. The Federal Reserve is the Treasury Department’s buyer of last resort. Scratch that—buyer of only resort.

That’s why QE-2 will never end, come June when it’s supposed to end—it’ll just keep on going: The Bernank and the Fools at the Fed will just keep on printing money, month after month, propping up a literally bankrupt government, because they have no other choice.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
I don't know...

I agree that printing is the logical choice but I can imagine situations where it stops.

What happens when there are  literally no buyers of our debt?  The FED can then raise interest rates to attract buyers or it will remain the only buyer.  If it remains the only buyer it seems obvious something must change quickly or it risks losing complete control of the situation.  Printing at that point may be the easiest solution but it is not clear to me that the powerful interests will risk destroying the very system that gives them their power.  After all when a new system is created, what makes them think that they will get to keep their ill gotten gains from an old system that they manipulated and destroyed.  The mob might be looking the next Marie Antoinette, and the extermely rich and powerful people will be prime targets.

The FED is also under far more scrutiny now than ever before.  Those bank bailouts were absolutely toxic with the public of all ideological bents and an awakened populace might slowly come to realize that the FED's first priority has always been to look after the big banks, all others be damned.  This could make the FED less eagar to continue to favor big bank so obviously.

I think the most likely results is the FED uses the lack of buyers as an excuse to raise rates to starve the economy and force austerity from the government.  Once deflation sets in, they can start another round of QE with political cover, kind of taking turns being economic good cop / bad cop.  If done correctly this cycle could continue through several iterations, allowing the current system to continue far longer than it would otherwise.  Also real money can be made when the economy vascilates back and forth between QE and austerity as those in the know can position themselves on the right side of each swing and grift all the suckers that are stupid enough to believe that we still have is some sort of free and fair market.

Then again, maybe they are not that smart and will just create money until their computers run out of zeros.

 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
goes211 wrote: I agree that
goes211 wrote:

I agree that printing is the logical choice but I can imagine situations where it stops.

What happens when there are  literally no buyers of our debt?  The FED can then raise interest rates to attract buyers............ 

Raising rates may not have the desired effect of attracting buyers. Consider Julian Phillips assertion that high rates may be insufficient to attract lenders if the borrower appears unable to repay the debt.

 

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/julian-phillips/if-interest-rates-rise-will-gold-go-down-and-the-dollar-rise

Take for instance an individual that is over-borrowed and his business declines to the point where he cannot service his loans, the bank would usually call in those loans and if not able to, will sell the clients assets in an attempt to cover the debt. If that man were to approach another bank for more loans with which to delay sequestration it may be that he gets the loan, but what impact on his balance sheet. He will, of course be made to pay a higher interest rate. This will ensure the eventual likelihood of repayment is reduced. The higher interest rate will by no means raise his credibility in the market place. Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have moved into that category. The U.S. debt situation has been likened to Greece recently. So to attract more foreign capital, would higher interest rates add credibility to the U.S. debt position? In that case no.

So back to the question: Where does the Fed get 1 1/2 trillion/year if not by printing? All other doors are locked.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
yes

I have been wondering about this very issue.  We talk about it at work and the general consensus is:

1) Current spending levels will basically continue until after the Nov 2012 election.  There is not sufficient political will in DC to make the cuts that will be necessary.  There are some tea party people but not enough.  The democrats just do not seem to be interested in cutting for reasons I have grown tired of talking about.  Paul Ryan is at least trying to get some cutting started but there are not enough votes to pass it.  Besides, Obama will veto it if it does pass and there is no way there are sufficient votes to override a veto.

2) The Fed Res will just keep buying the deficit through one mechanism or another as there really are not a lot of choices.  If they stop buying it there will be gigantic financial emergency the likes of which people in America have never seen.

3) We are spending at or about 4 trillion and the inbound revenue stream is about 2.6 trillion.  The size and nature of the cuts required to balance the streams are mind boggling.  Pretty much nobody in America could comprehend what would happen if we cut down to a balanced budget.  Everything would experience huge cuts - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the military, every kind of welfare there is, every single gov agency, department, you name it - would be cut big time.  The entire country would come unglued.  There would be riots etc..  The military would have to be deployed to stop the civil unrest.  The mainstream media would simply go insane.  It would be chaos.  After the violence was over and the standard of living reduced we would be a different country.

4) They could raise interest rates to try to make our debt instruments more interesting.  But the general consensus is this would not really work in a big way if the world lost confidence in our abillity to manage ourselves in a responsible manner.  The loss of confidence process is happening now.

So, basically we are all in very big trouble.  We lost our will to create, build, inovate, and produce - what America was about for 200 years.  We traded that in for debt, financialization, welfare and entitlements.  As a people we have elected politicians that reflected our eroded views and we/they have made astounding mistakes.  And now we are going to pay the price for our mistakes.

In my opinion, no matter what path you pick it comes to a bad end.

1) Massive cuts and the country runs amok and comes unglued.

2) Fed Res keeps buying our debt and the dollar at some point tanks resulting in the loss of reserve currency status.  If we lose reserve currency status the jig is up.  Shortly thereafter there will be the mother of all financial emergencies.  The average person in America is incredibly ignorant about these issues.  They simply do not comprehend what is going on around them.  When faced with an immediate and large reduction in their standard of living really crazy stuff will happen.  Basically, there will be massive defaults - mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, the works.  If you only have enough money to buy food you simply just stop paying all the other stuff.  A classic case of implosion.

3) National debt default - similar results as number 2.

Years ago we could probably recover from where we are now.  We were a manufacturing powerhouse.  We had a large and viberant middle class.  As the world recovered from the credit/debt bubble bursting, the demand for our products would increase and the people would go back to work at decent paying jobs.  Real GDP would increase.  The level of economic activity would increase.  Our exports would increase.  The trade balance would turn positive.  As a result, revenue into the government would increase and offset the temporary deficit spending we had during he down turn.  At some point we would be back to some reasonable balance and be in a position to pay on our debt.  This is not going to happen now.  Getting a temp or low paying job in the service sector to get survival pay is not going to make any difference.  Taxing the crap out of rich people is like spitting in the ocean trying to raise the tide.  The numbers are so big it is not clear how these issues are going to be resolved without some kind of upheaval.

 

jturbo68's picture
jturbo68
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 4 2009
Posts: 208
dshields wrote: So,
dshields wrote:

So, basically we are all in very big trouble.  We lost our will to create, build, inovate, and produce - what America was about for 200 years.  We traded that in for debt, financialization, welfare and entitlements.  As a people we have elected politicians that reflected our eroded views and we/they have made astounding mistakes.  And now we are going to pay the price for our mistakes.

In my opinion, no matter what path you pick it comes to a bad end.

 

I think the Energy Resource Dog  wags the economy tail.

The tail will show movement first, but it is the dog that is ill.

We gave up our manufacturing base and began accumulating debt in a ever increasng way when we hit peak oil in our

own country.

 

In other words, we could support the monetary bloat of it wasnt for the collapsing of our resource base.  Not that the

debt based money system was ever really sustainable either.

 

 

link54's picture
link54
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 8 2009
Posts: 44
Can The Fed Really Stop Printing?

From the responses to this thread the concensus seems as though the Fed CANNOT STOP PRINTING!  I agree with you all on this point.  But that is not the primary reason I posted the topic.  What is bothering me is how they will increase the money supply to continue paying the post June  bills.  By what mechanism and what will be the consequences.  I also think that we do not live in a world where there are any more secrets for very long. Big governments, big money players, institutional entities, large creditors must be sitting thinking how much dilution to my current investment (Treasuries) are at risk pst June.  It is not a issue anymore of who will buy new bonds.  The issue now is what will the existing bond holders do when the post June mystery funding mechanism is discovered.

Don't you think at least our creditors (foreign & domestic) are already aking themselves this very question / issue that arrives in just a little less than 90 days.  The creditors have a gigantic vested interest in what happens next.  How many trillions of investors dollars will be at risk here from a significant devaluation. It is not only the possible loss of confidence in the dollar, but the very risk  (Losses) of their existing investments of from the Post June money will be created (Thin Air) to pay this years bills.

Example:  Is the post June funding mechanism the primary or secondary reason Bill Gross (Pimco) the largest bond fund enity in the world has liquidated Treasuries to zero and when asked why he sold evrything his cover story was the return was too low and he is  chasing higher yields for the fund's investment pool.

Example:  Is the upcoming post June new scam tactic the reason Carl Ican closed his Hedge Fund all of a sudden and returned all the money to his investors.  With this guy it is not about making more money.  He is a preditor by nature and has an enormous ego and he loves and lives the game.  The financial game is who he is and just suddenly a few weeks ago says he is through without a peep as to a reason.

Example: A couple of months ago George Soros announces he is out of the game and buys a ton of gold a few months before that and he announced his departure.

Again it is the post June money funding mystery mechanism that I know that the Fed have already thought out that has me worried and is something large enough to be concerning Pimco, Ican, Soros and a host of others that I won't go into.  It looks like the begining signs of the rats fleeing the ship!

So what do TPTB know, that we don't know that is just a few months away??? 

Michael

P.S. Even more worrisome is why more people on this site in particular are not even discussing this post June funding issue and it's consequences!

 

Stan Robertson's picture
Stan Robertson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 665
Are we overlooking something?

Several contributors to this thread have expressed the opinion that the Fed has no choice but to continue monetizing debt because there are no other buyers of T-bills in the wings. At the present time, thanks to high oil prices, the Arab world is awash in about an extra $2 billion per day, compared to last year.  Where are they going to put these dollars?  They had a similar windfall in the 1970s when oil prices increased from $3 to $15 per barrel after the embargo of 1973 and then doubled again to $30 after the Iranian revolution in 1979. At that time they parked their dollars in our TBTF banks. The banks, being obliged to pay interest on the deposits tried to earn it by making loans of dubious value. They lent to south american countries and, where better, to new oil companies in the oil states of the U.S.   Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma became like third world debtor nations with money pouring into worthless drilling prospects. (The word "sub-prime" hadn't been invented yet.)  Those with long memories may recall that we also bailed out the TBTF banks in the aftermath. Smaller banks, such as every one in the western half of Oklahoma, were liquidated.

If I were in charge of the Saudi oil fields, I would long ago have pegged the price of oil at about 1/15 ounce of gold per barrel and would have taken any currency in equivalent amount . Fortunately for us, they have not done that. As long as they will settle for dollar assets, why not use our TBTF banks again?  Unlike the 1970s and 80s, in this best of all possible worlds, the banks have a great safe place to put the dollars. Would you believe T-bills?  Maybe someone should bow to the Saudi king.

delete.me's picture
delete.me
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 29 2009
Posts: 9
It could be it
link54 wrote:

Again it is the post June money funding mystery mechanism that I know that the Fed have already thought out that has me worried and is something large enough to be concerning Pimco, Ican, Soros and a host of others that I won't go into.  It looks like the begining signs of the rats fleeing the ship!

So what do TPTB know, that we don't know that is just a few months away??? 

Michael,

You are asking to know the unknowable. We've all got guesses, but that is it. Unless you are in the In Crowd, you will find out at the same time as all of the rest of us.

I can see a few ways that they could continue to extend and pretend, but they (the FED) may choose to stop in June to give the economy another downward jolt so the politicians "force them" into QE3. That's just one of over a dozen plausible senarios. But if that is the game, would it be too late? Would the investors you mention already be rushing towards the exits on treasuries? Maybe. Maybe not.

For me and my family, we are planning for this to be "it." The event that many people refer to as TSHTF. If we are wrong - meh - no big deal. Getting out of debt, saving a nest egg, becoming more self sufficient - none of it is bad either way. Eventually, "it" will happen. It is a feature of every debt based fiat money system that has ever existed, except the ones that are still alive today.

I think we have reached the point where the perfect storm is going to flip our ship over. I'm more focused on what to expect on the other side than the mechanisim behind how it will ultimately happen. There are so many land mines in our path, and it takes but one to forever change our lives. What I find interesting that no-one is talking about on this site or others is the derivatives issue, as well as the potential end of the petro-dollar. Those issues are even bigger than the FED missing $100B in monthly payments, it's just that the smaller issue will be the trigger for the avalanche that follows. It's like clapping for Alaska...

 

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Example:  Is the post June

Example:  Is the post June funding mechanism the primary or secondary reason Bill Gross (Pimco) the largest bond fund enity in the world has liquidated Treasuries to zero and when asked why he sold evrything his cover story was the return was too low and he is  chasing higher yields for the fund's investment pool.

Example:  Is the upcoming post June new scam tactic the reason Carl Ican closed his Hedge Fund all of a sudden and returned all the money to his investors.  With this guy it is not about making more money.  He is a preditor by nature and has an enormous ego and he loves and lives the game.  The financial game is who he is and just suddenly a few weeks ago says he is through without a peep as to a reason.

Example: A couple of months ago George Soros announces he is out of the game and buys a ton of gold a few months before that and he announced his departure.

Maybe this means they are all asking the same question you are and would rather be safe than sorry.

Perhaps Bernanke has decided its time to let hyperinflation take its course so he can pay off the debt.

I don't have any good guesses left.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
we are right

This is the only thread I can think of off hand where everyone is pretty much in agreement.  Pretty amazing - LOL

The Fed Res either keeps purchasing the Fed Gov deficit or they do not.  I do not see how any good comes from either path.  It is a sad story.  The history of America is really wonderful (with a few black marks) and shows what a considerate and determined people can do.  Our list of accomplishments is incredible.  And, this is how we ended up.  What a disaster.  We have nobody to blame but ourselves.  We elected the politicians that did this.  Politicians run the works.  They did this.  They allowed it.  It is directly their fault.  When I see them on TV acting all shocked and dismayed I want to just start kicking the TV.  What a load of crap they feed us.  They fed us a poop sandwich and we ate it.  They told the people they could get something for nothing and we believed it.  Like the Iron Lady said - "The problem with socialism is sooner or later you run out of other people's money.".  And that is the story of America.  We ran out of our money and then we ran out of other people's money.  Now, one way or another, we are going to have to take our medicine.

If there is any light in this at all, it would be that after the implosion we will rise again.  The new America will be a lot more like the old America.  The people will believe in self sufficiency, honesty, hard work, family, community, education, and all that old conservative stuff.  I will once again ask the question -

Why is what used to be considered "normal" now considered "right wing" ?

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Different Side Of The Same Coin
dshields wrote:

If there is any light in this at all, it would be that after the implosion we will rise again.  The new America will be a lot more like the old America.  The people will believe in self sufficiency, honesty, hard work, family, community, education, and all that old conservative stuff.  I will once again ask the question -

Why is what used to be considered "normal" now considered "right wing" ?

Maybe I'm just the subject of a cruel trick. I read what someone writes, giving their words and ideas due consideration, but they have me on "Ignore". :-)

But once again, I'll answer your question, which you have asked several times before, which I will reply to once again, with another question. Why is it that a lot of American values - that we Americans believe in - are now being referred to as conservative values?

Not that I would consider myself a liberal (I hold a bunch of different views that don't fit neatly into a single category), but hey, don't forget that liberals go to church and they love their families, too. Religion and family is not the exclusive domain of conservatives.

They study hard and go to school. They work hard to provide for their families. They believe in honesty and self-sufficiency, community and service and sacrifice. These are all American "stuff". But somehow, some people say these are "conservative" values and want to deny them these American values.

And sadly enough, equally American values such as fighting for a living wage, fighting for the middle class, protests against expensive and ruinous wars that make up the biggest chunk of deficit spending, fighting tax cuts that add to the deficit, and joining together to fight against injustice and abuse, against government secrecy and illegal wiretaps and indefinite detention and extraordinary rendition, daring to question authority  - that's somehow "un-American" and unpatriotic. Why is what used to be considered "normal"  now considered "left wing"?

For my previous replies to the same question from Dshields, click below:
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/102981#comment-102981
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/105941#comment-105941
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/105944#comment-105944

Poet

grondeau's picture
grondeau
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 10 2008
Posts: 35
Interest rates will tell the

Interest rates will tell the story once the Fed ends QEII.  If, as most here figure, there are no buyers out there from govnmnt bonds, then interest rates will rise until there are buyers.  Who would want governement bonds??  If the rates were good enough - just about anybody - but certainly pension funds.  Stocks are pretty high right now.  Would you want to be in stocks when things fall apart?

More likely the rates will not go up very much.  Reason is that for rates to go up much - it would mean that the economy as a whole was after more credit.  But, the economy is still suffering from very high unemployment rate, so there is little incentive for additional investment and borrowing. Hence, money and credit remain cheap.  In fact - the current climate of austerity is more likely to tip us down deeper rather than toward higher rates.  

Even given the "worst case" that we need to resolve $2.5T right now.  With our economy generating $15T we could do that with modest inflation or taxes.  We are talking policy choices - not end of the world economics.

Presently, taxes aimed at those able to pay are off the table.  This just shows that we are dealing again with "bait and switch" tactics that are designed to allow the powerful to increase their share of the pie - rather than really address deficits.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
There real problem is a disconnect between costs and benefits.
dshields wrote:

If there is any light in this at all, it would be that after the implosion we will rise again.  The new America will be a lot more like the old America.  The people will believe in self sufficiency, honesty, hard work, family, community, education, and all that old conservative stuff.  I will once again ask the question -

Why is what used to be considered "normal" now considered "right wing" ?

I probably look at the world through "right wing" glasses ( I am trying not too ) due to my many years as a fiscal conservative Repulican but I have to agree with Poet.  You cannot look at our problems as left/right, liberal/conservative, capitalism/socialism.... , and say that only one is the cause.  Most liberals are appalled by America's war-mongering ways.  Can you really say that our foreign escapades did not greatly contribute to Americas problems?  How about all that corporate wellfare?  I truly think that there is plenty of blame to go around and it does not fall largely on any one ideology.

You are probably correct that it is our (so-called) leaders that have gotten us here but in reality they are just extensions of our own irrationality.  We have all wanted something for nothing and the system we created allowed us the illusion that we were getting it.  I really think the worst part of our system is how it disconnects costs and benefits and it allows these imballances to build and grow without any visible consequences for a very long time.  I am not in total favor of a gold standard but can anyone imagine that we would not have been better off if we had paid the price for our systems imbalances in the 1970's instead of doubling down?  Would we have continued to add to entitlements if the system forced us to fully pay for them at their time of creation?  Would we have choosen to start all these wars if our general population was not insulated from their consquences?  Would we have created alternative fuel sources if our military industrial complex was not effectively subsidizing cheap oil and therefore hiding our true energy costs?

Now we only notice the imbalances when they areso extreme that they actually threaten the very system itself and by that time it is probably too late.

link54's picture
link54
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 8 2009
Posts: 44
Funding The U.S. Bills Post June

Although I agree with most all of the posts on the changing political climate and changing values within the country, I think that we are getting off topic as to how the post June funding will be accomplished.  I want to restate the obvious. 

1. We got trillion in bills to pay this year.

2. They will not default (Not this Year Or Until Forced To)

3. Yes countries have to buy a certain amount of treasuries to get dollars needed to perform the absolute need to import and export goods and services.  But consider that the Fed has been buying 70% of the Treasuries currently utilizing the banks as middlemen.  Therefore it is a certainty that these countries do not need to purchase enough bonds to make up for the open hole of 70% that the Fed has been buying currently.

4. The Fed already has planned the post June mechanism(s) to replace their current overt monetization via buying treasuries. It would be unthinkable, and against their very core not to be in control.

Reality Check:  Would you personally loan the U.S. government money (Buy Treasuries) with what you know presently, never mind what you don't know??? Why would we assume that any potential worldwide potential government buyer of Treasuries is dumb and doesn't possess even more factual truth then we here do about our current fiscal situation?

Note:  Stan you could be right and the extra 2 billion a day sloshing into the middle eastern oil producers is a target for funding but again if you are those supposedly intelligent, properly briefed sovereign wealth funds, could you not find a better way (Less Risk) to invest / hedge your additional earned wealth.

My Best Conclusion / Guess  (Short Term / For 4 Months)

1.  Stan could be onto to something as in an off balance sheet funding from the middle east or some other source steeped in cash. The deal would have to be done in the back room with a much higher interest rates that would not be made public to the world and thus manipulating the stock market & commodity sector correction by 25-30%.  Commodity price / asset reduction would then serve the Fed by saying see there really isn't any core inflation.

Then with the screaming from Wall Street to Washington, unemployment edging just a few ticks higher,and the housing market continuing to do what it is doing, the stage will be set for the Fed seeming acquiescing to further stimulus. (QEIII or By Whatever Name). 

In this way (Fed Manipulation) they can claim they were being fiscally responsible by officially (publicly) ending the printing for a period but then turn around in October / November and play the role of the reluctant but necessary Calvary serving the needs of the screaming of the government & markets. Just in time for the Election Cycle.

In the end this is just another way to kick the can down the road even if each kick is now producing  less time until the next unnatural irresponsible act is required. I cannot figure out why this topic is not one of the central conversation happening in  our world at the moment especially when the Fed has to start signaling or not within the next 30 days with some sort of story.

Again I will say that I am dumber than a box of rocks on markets and our financial systems and therefore really appreciate all of your posts in this thread. Most likely my conclusion is dead wrong and I would encourage any of you to continue this conversation  This is coming from a guy that hates to post and has this being my second post in two years as a member.

Michael

 

 

abhills's picture
abhills
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 7 2011
Posts: 7
Treasury bill buyers

Perhaps the reason foreign buyers left the debt auctions is the fact that the fed was printing money and devaluing the dollar. When the printing stops maybe they will return with a bargain priced dollar and higher interest rate as an incentive. Japan has been able to kick the can down the road for a long time albeit with local savings from their own population. China has plenty of money to park and they would like to see the dollar higher to purchase their goods. Bill Gross may be back buying again  too if the fed stops printing. Also a lot of oil money out there as some have pointed out. Maybe armageddon can be postponed? 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
goes211 wrote: dshields
goes211 wrote:
dshields wrote:

If there is any light in this at all, it would be that after the implosion we will rise again.  The new America will be a lot more like the old America.  The people will believe in self sufficiency, honesty, hard work, family, community, education, and all that old conservative stuff.  I will once again ask the question -

Why is what used to be considered "normal" now considered "right wing" ?

I probably look at the world through "right wing" glasses ( I am trying not too ) due to my many years as a fiscal conservative Repulican but I have to agree with Poet.  You cannot look at our problems as left/right, liberal/conservative, capitalism/socialism.... , and say that only one is the cause.  Most liberals are appalled by America's war-mongering ways.  Can you really say that our foreign escapades did not greatly contribute to Americas problems?  How about all that corporate wellfare?  I truly think that there is plenty of blame to go around and it does not fall largely on any one ideology.

You are probably correct that it is our (so-called) leaders that have gotten us here but in reality they are just extensions of our own irrationality.  We have all wanted something for nothing and the system we created allowed us the illusion that we were getting it.  I really think the worst part of our system is how it disconnects costs and benefits and it allows these imballances to build and grow without any visible consequences for a very long time.  I am not in total favor of a gold standard but can anyone imagine that we would not have been better off if we had paid the price for our systems imbalances in the 1970's instead of doubling down?  Would we have continued to add to entitlements if the system forced us to fully pay for them at their time of creation?  Would we have choosen to start all these wars if our general population was not insulated from their consquences?  Would we have created alternative fuel sources if our military industrial complex was not effectively subsidizing cheap oil and therefore hiding our true energy costs?

Now we only notice the imbalances when they areso extreme that they actually threaten the very system itself and by that time it is probably too late.

You and Poet - And Poet, I forgot to answer your question before.  I shall try to do so now.  Forget religion.  I do not believe it has anything to do with it.  And, I completely agree with most of what you both said.  The Iraq war was a mistake and so is the Lybia adventure.  So, that is not a dem or repub thing - they both screw up.  Both dems and repubs have voted for the bills that have bankrupted us up until recently.  Recently, the repubs are actually trying to cut and the dems are opposing meaningful cuts any way they can while knowing good and well that if we do not cut we are going to have an economic disaster.  Why do the dems want to have an economic disaster  ?  Those are just the facts.

I am talking about the people.  Something has happened to the people of America.  We have changed, and changed for the worse.

For instance,

100 years ago, people worked.  People worked hard.  Taxes were very low.  And yet, we did just fine.  Why is that ?

Why are 73% of black children born into single parent homes ?  Why is that ?

Why do approximately half of all first marriages end in divorce ?

Why do women have children they can not afford and force the rest of us to pay for them ?  Why is that ?

Why are 43 million people on food stamps and millions more on some type of welfare -- many on generational welfare, the parents on welfare, the children grow up and stay on welfare, and so on.  How could that happen ?

I used to live in Kansas City.  It is amazing what goes on there.  I would not have believed it if I had not seen it myself.  Rampant blatant welfare system abuse.  Why is that ?

How did the government get so big that it is the biggest employer, creditor, debtor, you name it.  How did that happen ?  Look at what it is doing to us - it is destroying us.

How did Obama, Pelosi, and Reid get elected ?  How could that have happened ? 

Why do more people work for the Agriculture Department than there are farmers ?

Why do half the kids in urban areas drop out of high school while the kids in Africa beg to go to school ?

Why do litterally millions of households receive section 8 housing funds ?

Why do we "adjust" test scores for some people and not others for jobs, college, etc. ?  Why does merit not count ?  And, why does merit no longer count ?

Why are there set asides and quotas and affirmative action and all that ?  Why do we have that stuff ?  That is not equal opportunity, that is government sponsored discrimination.  Why was there a New Haven firefighters suit ?  Why was there a reason for that suit ?  How could that possibly have happened in America ?

Why do people think rich people do not pay their fair share when they pay most of the taxes already ?  The tax system is not supposed to be a wealth redistribution system.

The list goes on and on - there are so many examples.  I think you get the point.

For all practical purposes, none of this existed 100 years ago and we did just fine.  The reason is a shift from equal opportunity to equal outcome.  This thinking is so pervasive in our society it is shocking.  Everywhere you look you see it.  America was founded on equal opportunity.  Freedom and equal opportunity is what made us different.  It made us great.  People did not migrate to America to get welfare.  They came to America to get a chance, an even shot, that if they worked hard and acted responsibility they could get some where, make something of themselves.  People came here, learned English, and worked their asses off.

Congress spends a lot of their available time these days arguing over transfer payment systems.  That is crazy.  If the founding fathers could see what we have done to ourselves they would be shocked speechless.  This is not the America they envisioned when they developed the constitution and the bill of rights.  It was about freedom in a civil society.  Freedom to make your own way.  Work hard.  Take care of your family.  The right to own private property - you do not own it if the government can take it away if you do not pay taxes on it.  Everything has a tax on it.  If it exists it is taxed.  That's crazy.  My wages are my private property.  I work for them.  Between the fed, state, and local governments they take half my wages.  That is totally broken and totally out of control.  It is an outrage.  The entire welfare, war-fare, entitlement, greedy corrupt banksters, failure of the family, bazaar military adventures - all of it, the entire mess is a malfunction. 

However, if you get on TV and say we have strayed so far from the constitution, the bill of rights, equal opportunity, the right to private property, the right to privacy, the right to own guns, equality, getting ahead based on merit, and the values the founders of America established for a free and civil society, the very things that made us a great country, if you get on TV and say that then you are called a right wing wacko even though it is all true to the bone.  So, what used to be considered normal is now called right wing.

 

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Reply To Dshield's Questions, Quotes In Italics

Dshields

"Recently, the repubs are actually trying to cut and the dems are opposing meaningful cuts any way they can while knowing good and well that if we do not cut we are going to have an economic disaster.  Why do the dems want to have an economic disaster  ?  Those are just the facts."

Those are facts to you. But everyone operates on different sets of facts. I see the Republicans want some $60 billion in cuts. The Democrats want some $6 billion. But the deficit is $1,700 billion. They're posturing and arguing over crumbs. And the deficit would probably be closer to $800 billion if we didn't have two costly wars to finance each year and tax cuts that were put in place without any spending cuts to go along with them. We have tax-cut/borrow/spend Republicans and tax-raise/borrow/spend Democrats. Both are catering to Big Business. Like the stinging scorpion atop the trusting frog, we're doomed by nature.

"I am talking about the people.  Something has happened to the people of America.  We have changed, and changed for the worse."

I wouldn't want to live in the America of 100 years ago. For one, I wouldn't be legally able to marry my wife in most states. I might have been beat up for it. My children would suffer the heavy hand of discrimination in social life, on the job, and elsewhere. Maybe a White person would love a time when they got extremely preferential economic and political treatment, and were kept out of wage scales, jobs, areas, social life, etc. in ways that benefited them economically and gave them higher measures of happiness and social status and success.

"100 years ago, people worked.  People worked hard.  Taxes were very low.  And yet, we did just fine.  Why is that ?"

I'm not so sure people did just fine. We tend to romanticize the past. 100 years ago, exploited workers were fighting government troops and private corporate thugs with baseball bats and guns and knives. They were fighting for the right to an 12-hour day, or in some cases an 8-hour day, the right to be paid in dollars instead of company script, the right to buy groceries at private stores instead of company stores. We've come a long way. Taxes were low back then. Then again, I don't think coal workers had OSHA inspectors, did they? (By the way, OSHA was created under Nixon.)

"Why are 73% of black children born into single parent homes ?  Why is that ?"

This a question that many books have been written about, with numerous contributing factors covering multiple generations even if you only go as far back as the 1950s. Let's just agree that I know that you prefer a much more simple answer. One that I would consider simplistic. However, allow me to point out that the crushing power of poverty and ignorance on the one hand, combined the way welfare is geared towards paying for children is probably one of the biggest factors. And as more people of all races become poor, the more you'll see this. However, you won't see Republicans fighting to take away food or money from children, I bet ya.

"Why do approximately half of all first marriages end in divorce?"

I'm glad people get to divorce if things don't work out. In the past, women didn't have the economic opportunities that they do now. Many stayed in unhappy marriages. Women used to be beat up by husbands trapped in abusive marriages - and counseled by their pastors not to leave. Even today, the number one cause of young women visiting the hospital emergency room is domestic abuse. I prefer women have the freedom to leave, and since they now are better educated and have jobs and higher self-esteem, they can better leave a bad situation rather than cling to it. If a man can't keep a woman with love, he doesn't deserve to keep her with violence or law.

"Why do women have children they can not afford and force the rest of us to pay for them ?  Why is that ?"

I think you should ask the Big Business-controlled mass media why we sexualize girls and trivialize sex. And the conservative right why they don't allow public funding of condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills, or abortions - but then complain about paying for the kids that the women can't afford to raise. (Even raising wards of the state is expensive.) As- the economists behind the book, Freakanomics, have written, access to abortion - even controlling for a large number of other factors - has led to a decrease in crime.

Youtube link explaining their claims (4 minutes, 30 seconds):

"Why are 43 million people on food stamps and millions more on some type of welfare -- many on generational welfare, the parents on welfare, the children grow up and stay on welfare, and so on.  How could that happen?"

The more the income inequality continues in America, the less those at the bottom have. Especially when corporations outsource unskilled jobs to foreign countries in their (entirely understandable capitalistic) bid to lower costs and avoid pollution regulations in order to gain more profit. So of course the poor will look to whatever sources of food may be available.( The farmers like their crop subsidies and having a captive market, that's for sure. So do the makers of soda and snacks.) As time goes on, we will see more and more people become more and more redundant in the jobs economy.

"I used to live in Kansas City.  It is amazing what goes on there.  I would not have believed it if I had not seen it myself.  Rampant blatant welfare system abuse.  Why is that?"

I agree on this. Welfare recipients need to work for assistance. I'd prefer to see able-bodied adults spending the mornings working at public landscaping, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, then afternoons in classes on financial sense, childrearing, education or skills, going on job interviews, and evenings searching for jobs on-line or taking night classes. We also need to make it so that soda, most fruit juice, and Twinkies aren't eligible for food stamp purchases. If people had to WORK hard for welfare, they'd probably try to find easier jobs in the private sector. And no exceptions for people just because they are "depressed" or suffer "anxiety". I'm sure we can find jobs for them in solitary locations if need be. Then there would be no more need for as many city landscaping crew or expensive motorized street sweepers.

"How did the government get so big that it is the biggest employer, creditor, debtor, you name it.  How did that happen ?  Look at what it is doing to us - it is destroying us."

It takes two parties to tango. Always. We have a bloated military and a bloated domestic government. And the military's budget doesn't even include veterans' pensions and benefits, which really should be accounted for under the Department of Defense rather than lumped in with all the social services. Then we'd get a better idea of the true cost of war.

"How did Obama, Pelosi, and Reid get elected ?  How could that have happened ?"

The same way anyone gets elected. Money and votes, social wedge issues, empty political promises. (Don't tell me you're a birther! That'd would be beneath your dignity.)

"Why do more people work for the Agriculture Department than there are farmers?"

I don't know where you got your numbers. Even Republican Senator George LeMieux complains that it's 1 USDA worker for every 30 farmers. However, when you consider that the USDA also runs inspectors at meat-packing plants and meat packers aren't farmers, and also runs the U.S. Forest Service, the food stamp program serving 43 million Americans (most of whom are children), agricultural customs inspectors at border checkpoints and ports of entry (unless you want foreign disease and pests invading), and many of the workers are seasonal. Come back with proof, please.

Although with cheap fossil fuels, one American farmer can support over over a hundred or more people or more in the U.S. and throughout the world. That's pretty impressive.

"Why do half the kids in urban areas drop out of high school while the kids in Africa beg to go to school?"

Again, those huge problems with multi-dimensional answers, but again, I'll agree that you believe the answer is simple. I believe your answer is simplistic.

"Why do litterally millions of households receive section 8 housing funds?"

Hmmm... 3.1 million households out of 115 million, or 2.7%. Low-income households, obviously. And the government wants to help. Just as it helps millions of homeowners with mortgage interest deductions, which makes homes less affordable for renters like me. (By the way, I pay my own rent.)

"Why do we 'adjust' test scores for some people and not others for jobs, college, etc.?  Why does merit not count?  And, why does merit no longer count?"

"Why are there set asides and quotas and affirmative action and all that ?  Why do we have that stuff ?  That is not equal opportunity, that is government sponsored discrimination.  Why was there a New Haven firefighters suit ?  Why was there a reason for that suit ?  How could that possibly have happened in America ?"

There'd be a lot more Asians in college if test scores weren't adjusted, that's for sure...

But honestly, merit never quite counted. Until the early part of the last century, most colleges wouldn't admit women. Until the 1960s, some public universities - like public schools - were segregated. Affirmative action was an attempt - albeit misguided - to try to even the generational. Personally I think we should adjust test scores for economic background, not race. The son of a rich Black doctor shouldn't have an easier time gaining admission into a public university than the son of a poor White Walmart employee if both have the same test scores and grades.

"Why do people think rich people do not pay their fair share when they pay most of the taxes already ?  The tax system is not supposed to be a wealth redistribution system."

Well, I guess one question is, do the rich have more property that needs more protections, and more varied kinds of protection? More need for the legal system to enforce their contracts or to engage in legal actions that tie up the court system?

"The list goes on and on - there are so many examples.  I think you get the point."

I get your point. And I agree with some of them. However, I still think a lot of what used to be American and used to be as much a part of what it means to be normal is now considered "left-wing".

"For all practical purposes, none of this existed 100 years ago and we did just fine."

Still, I don't think we did "just fine". 100 years ago, we lived in the age of robber barons who exploited people to the point of cruelty and misery.

Lynching of Blacks were considered normal. Women couldn't vote, in some states they couldn't even open a bank account without a husband's sayso until the 1960s. It was perfectly legal to pay people different wages for the same job, based on RACE - and they did! Maybe it was fine for privileged White men, but it wasn't fine for others.

100 years ago, hatred and discrimination was in the very fabric of society itself, and plain in the ordinary goings on of its institutions: government, schools, the military, business, courts, commerce, the workplace,  you name it. Are you saying you want to go back to that? How about reforming today's much more egalitarian society instead?

"The reason is a shift from equal opportunity to equal outcome.  This thinking is so pervasive in our society it is shocking.  Everywhere you look you see it.  America was founded on equal opportunity.  Freedom and equal opportunity is what made us different.  It made us great.  People did not migrate to America to get welfare.  They came to America to get a chance, an even shot, that if they worked hard and acted responsibility they could get some where, make something of themselves.  People came here, learned English, and worked their asses off."

Oh, I agree with a lot of the above paragraph here. I personally came here legally. And I personally work my ass off to support my family. I don't like seeing people cheating on welfare, just as I don't like seeing banks get away with free bail-outs. But I think you gloss over the gross and rampant inequalities and injustices that were commonplace and part and parcel of society 100 years ago. 100 years ago, politicians were already in the pockets of Big Business and corporate interests to a great degree, and there were major monopolies, oligarchies, etc. There were few protections against their abuses.

 

"Congress spends a lot of their available time these days arguing over transfer payment systems.  That is crazy.  If the founding fathers could see what we have done to ourselves they would be shocked speechless.  This is not the America they envisioned when they developed the constitution and the bill of rights.  It was about freedom in a civil society.  Freedom to make your own way.  Work hard.  Take care of your family.  The right to own private property - you do not own it if the government can take it away if you do not pay taxes on it.  Everything has a tax on it.  If it exists it is taxed.  That's crazy.  My wages are my private property.  I work for them.  Between the fed, state, and local governments they take half my wages.  That is totally broken and totally out of control.  It is an outrage.  The entire welfare, war-fare, entitlement, greedy corrupt banksters, failure of the family, bazaar military adventures - all of it, the entire mess is a malfunction."

I agree with the above. Unfortunately, your political heroes, the Republicans won't rescue this nation because they helped put us where we are.

"However, if you get on TV and say we have strayed so far from the constitution, the bill of rights, equal opportunity, the right to private property, the right to privacy, the right to own guns, equality, getting ahead based on merit, and the values the founders of America established for a free and civil society, the very things that made us a great country, if you get on TV and say that then you are called a right wing wacko even though it is all true to the bone.  So, what used to be considered normal is now called right wing."

Hey, I donated to and voted for Ron Paul, and I'm vehemently for the right to bear arms, ending of all corporate welfare amongst other small "c" conservative ideals. So maybe I'm also a "right wing wacko". I hear ya and I agree with some of what you say. But I still say, a lot of what used to be considered normal or noble, is now called left-wing. And a lot of what used to be American values, is now expropriated in a culture war by the conservatives as things apparently liberals apparently can't have.

Poet

link54's picture
link54
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 8 2009
Posts: 44
Can The Fed Stop Printing

Poet & Dsheilds & Goes211

I started this thread to have a discussion on the subject of getting people thinking of the consequences of post June funding for the United States Government.  No matter how the TPTB decide to handle this is a critical issue with a lot riding on their methods for all of us to recognize, understand, prep and be flexible enough to handle the outcome.

I know both of you are very passionate and are debating a different but very important set of topics. Never the less your specific discusions are not what this thread was created for.  I would respectfully ask you both to find another place on the forum(s) to debate these critical issues so as not to distract the thread's intended purpose.  Thank you.   Michael

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1892
Back To The Issue At Hand
link54 wrote:

Poet & Dsheilds & Goes211

I started this thread to have a discussion on the subject of getting people thinking of the consequences of post June funding for the United States Government.  No matter how the TPTB decide to handle this is a critical issue with a lot riding on their methods for all of us to recognize, understand, prep and be flexible enough to handle the outcome.

I know both of you are very passionate and are debating a different but very important set of topics. Never the less your specific discusions are not what this thread was created for.  I would respectfully ask you both to find another place on the forum(s) to debate these critical issues so as not to distract the thread's intended purpose.  Thank you.   Michael

Michael

Agreed. I'm not a fan of thread hijackings myself, so I apologize. I am guilty as charged - I just couldn't let those repeated assertions go unanswered... :-)

Poet

Septimus's picture
Septimus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 200
dshields wrote:The entire
dshields wrote:

The entire country would come unglued.  There would be riots etc..  The military would have to be deployed to stop the civil unrest.  The mainstream media would simply go insane.  It would be chaos.  After the violence was over and the standard of living reduced we would be a different country.

Some people want this to be the outcome...

Septimus's picture
Septimus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 19 2008
Posts: 200
Poet wrote: dshields
Poet wrote:
dshields wrote:

If there is any light in this at all, it would be that after the implosion we will rise again.  The new America will be a lot more like the old America.  The people will believe in self sufficiency, honesty, hard work, family, community, education, and all that old conservative stuff.  I will once again ask the question -

Why is what used to be considered "normal" now considered "right wing" ?

Maybe I'm just the subject of a cruel trick. I read what someone writes, giving their words and ideas due consideration, but they have me on "Ignore". :-)

But once again, I'll answer your question, which you have asked several times before, which I will reply to once again, with another question. Why is it that a lot of American values - that we Americans believe in - are now being referred to as conservative values?

Not that I would consider myself a liberal (I hold a bunch of different views that don't fit neatly into a single category), but hey, don't forget that liberals go to church and they love their families, too. Religion and family is not the exclusive domain of conservatives.

They study hard and go to school. They work hard to provide for their families. They believe in honesty and self-sufficiency, community and service and sacrifice. These are all American "stuff". But somehow, some people say these are "conservative" values and want to deny them these American values.

And sadly enough, equally American values such as fighting for a living wage, fighting for the middle class, protests against expensive and ruinous wars that make up the biggest chunk of deficit spending, fighting tax cuts that add to the deficit, and joining together to fight against injustice and abuse, against government secrecy and illegal wiretaps and indefinite detention and extraordinary rendition, daring to question authority  - that's somehow "un-American" and unpatriotic. Why is what used to be considered "normal"  now considered "left wing"?

For my previous replies to the same question from Dshields, click below:
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/102981#comment-102981
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/105941#comment-105941
http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/105944#comment-105944

Poet

It seems to me that BOTH of your philosophical outlooks would entirely be at home with the founders of the U.S. Liberal and conservative do not cut it and have polarized and divided us for too long, allowing the U.S. to be brought to its current situation. Think back to the founders (not perfect by any means) but too their ideals and I think you both will find common ground.

link54's picture
link54
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 8 2009
Posts: 44
Can The Fed Stop Printing???

Poet

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  I understand the emotions and the many indirect thought processes that come up when our country is in trouble. That said, we are in a very short window of time and some events that could be a tipping point.  Funding and the tactical mechanism's are the heart of the issue in the thread because this issue is front and center now. 

Look at how hard they are fighting at the present moment over the possible government shut down over (2%) of the budget (30-40 billion). The question they are facing is what to fund at the present moment.  In a couple of weeks, the fight will be on the deficit ceiling to fund the government at further levels of debt. This will be a multi -trillion dollar fight. The stakes are are infinitely higher with potential technical or real defaults. This fight is what is the appropriate amount for the deficit ceilingThen we will have the post June funding that you hear nothing about practically anywhere at this time!!!

Washington politicians can fight over the what and the amount , but since the country is broke / insolvent the above question really seem irrelevant!

The only discussion that is real is HOW / by what mechanism will they create, borrow or steal the funding.  That is what will effect all of us on a day to day basis.  As you can see the fighting has already begun but the dangerous part about the post June funding is the the players change and the dark shadowy people implementing funding tactics of unknown origins, with almost no transparency.  I just can't think of any entity that would lend the U.S. government this amount of money without a gun to someone's head or a deal that any of us would approve of!!!

Even on a site such as this one, which I hold in the highest regard I do not hear a debate or conversation on this post June funding topic. And we are the ones supposed to be awake.  Are we? Has this figured into anyone's prep timetables of to dos, as a precautionary measure to this fast upcoming funding risk.

It is still my hope that more people on this site will engage their thoughts and insights in this thread or some other on such an important issue.  Poet thank you again for your thoughtful response.   Michael

P.S.  I still think Stan is onto a possible scenario with middle eastern money.  The petro dollar undeclared deal with Saudi Arabia done long ago went something like this.  You sell us the oil, you price the oil in dollars and we will protect you militarily against your enemies.  Seems like Saudi Arabia may want to buy some extra protection in the turmoil at present in the region. Just a follow on thought to Stan's idea.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Poet
Poet wrote:

Dshields

"Recently, the repubs are actually trying to cut and the dems are opposing meaningful cuts any way they can while knowing good and well that if we do not cut we are going to have an economic disaster.  Why do the dems want to have an economic disaster  ?  Those are just the facts."

Those are facts to you. But everyone operates on different sets of facts. I see the Republicans want some $60 billion in cuts. The Democrats want some $6 billion. But the deficit is $1,700 billion. They're posturing and arguing over crumbs. And the deficit would probably be closer to $800 billion if we didn't have two costly wars to finance each year and tax cuts that were put in place without any spending cuts to go along with them. We have tax-cut/borrow/spend Republicans and tax-raise/borrow/spend Democrats. Both are catering to Big Business. Like the stinging scorpion atop the trusting frog, we're doomed by nature.

"I am talking about the people.  Something has happened to the people of America.  We have changed, and changed for the worse."

I wouldn't want to live in the America of 100 years ago. For one, I wouldn't be legally able to marry my wife in most states. I might have been beat up for it. My children would suffer the heavy hand of discrimination in social life, on the job, and elsewhere. Maybe a White person would love a time when they got extremely preferential economic and political treatment, and were kept out of wage scales, jobs, areas, social life, etc. in ways that benefited them economically and gave them higher measures of happiness and social status and success.

"100 years ago, people worked.  People worked hard.  Taxes were very low.  And yet, we did just fine.  Why is that ?"

I'm not so sure people did just fine. We tend to romanticize the past. 100 years ago, exploited workers were fighting government troops and private corporate thugs with baseball bats and guns and knives. They were fighting for the right to an 12-hour day, or in some cases an 8-hour day, the right to be paid in dollars instead of company script, the right to buy groceries at private stores instead of company stores. We've come a long way. Taxes were low back then. Then again, I don't think coal workers had OSHA inspectors, did they? (By the way, OSHA was created under Nixon.)

"Why are 73% of black children born into single parent homes ?  Why is that ?"

This a question that many books have been written about, with numerous contributing factors covering multiple generations even if you only go as far back as the 1950s. Let's just agree that I know that you prefer a much more simple answer. One that I would consider simplistic. However, allow me to point out that the crushing power of poverty and ignorance on the one hand, combined the way welfare is geared towards paying for children is probably one of the biggest factors. And as more people of all races become poor, the more you'll see this. However, you won't see Republicans fighting to take away food or money from children, I bet ya.

"Why do approximately half of all first marriages end in divorce?"

I'm glad people get to divorce if things don't work out. In the past, women didn't have the economic opportunities that they do now. Many stayed in unhappy marriages. Women used to be beat up by husbands trapped in abusive marriages - and counseled by their pastors not to leave. Even today, the number one cause of young women visiting the hospital emergency room is domestic abuse. I prefer women have the freedom to leave, and since they now are better educated and have jobs and higher self-esteem, they can better leave a bad situation rather than cling to it. If a man can't keep a woman with love, he doesn't deserve to keep her with violence or law.

"Why do women have children they can not afford and force the rest of us to pay for them ?  Why is that ?"

I think you should ask the Big Business-controlled mass media why we sexualize girls and trivialize sex. And the conservative right why they don't allow public funding of condoms, birth control pills, morning after pills, or abortions - but then complain about paying for the kids that the women can't afford to raise. (Even raising wards of the state is expensive.) As- the economists behind the book, Freakanomics, have written, access to abortion - even controlling for a large number of other factors - has led to a decrease in crime.

Youtube link explaining their claims (4 minutes, 30 seconds):

"Why are 43 million people on food stamps and millions more on some type of welfare -- many on generational welfare, the parents on welfare, the children grow up and stay on welfare, and so on.  How could that happen?"

The more the income inequality continues in America, the less those at the bottom have. Especially when corporations outsource unskilled jobs to foreign countries in their (entirely understandable capitalistic) bid to lower costs and avoid pollution regulations in order to gain more profit. So of course the poor will look to whatever sources of food may be available.( The farmers like their crop subsidies and having a captive market, that's for sure. So do the makers of soda and snacks.) As time goes on, we will see more and more people become more and more redundant in the jobs economy.

"I used to live in Kansas City.  It is amazing what goes on there.  I would not have believed it if I had not seen it myself.  Rampant blatant welfare system abuse.  Why is that?"

I agree on this. Welfare recipients need to work for assistance. I'd prefer to see able-bodied adults spending the mornings working at public landscaping, picking up trash, cleaning up graffiti, then afternoons in classes on financial sense, childrearing, education or skills, going on job interviews, and evenings searching for jobs on-line or taking night classes. We also need to make it so that soda, most fruit juice, and Twinkies aren't eligible for food stamp purchases. If people had to WORK hard for welfare, they'd probably try to find easier jobs in the private sector. And no exceptions for people just because they are "depressed" or suffer "anxiety". I'm sure we can find jobs for them in solitary locations if need be. Then there would be no more need for as many city landscaping crew or expensive motorized street sweepers.

"How did the government get so big that it is the biggest employer, creditor, debtor, you name it.  How did that happen ?  Look at what it is doing to us - it is destroying us."

It takes two parties to tango. Always. We have a bloated military and a bloated domestic government. And the military's budget doesn't even include veterans' pensions and benefits, which really should be accounted for under the Department of Defense rather than lumped in with all the social services. Then we'd get a better idea of the true cost of war.

"How did Obama, Pelosi, and Reid get elected ?  How could that have happened ?"

The same way anyone gets elected. Money and votes, social wedge issues, empty political promises. (Don't tell me you're a birther! That'd would be beneath your dignity.)

"Why do more people work for the Agriculture Department than there are farmers?"

I don't know where you got your numbers. Even Republican Senator George LeMieux complains that it's 1 USDA worker for every 30 farmers. However, when you consider that the USDA also runs inspectors at meat-packing plants and meat packers aren't farmers, and also runs the U.S. Forest Service, the food stamp program serving 43 million Americans (most of whom are children), agricultural customs inspectors at border checkpoints and ports of entry (unless you want foreign disease and pests invading), and many of the workers are seasonal. Come back with proof, please.

Although with cheap fossil fuels, one American farmer can support over over a hundred or more people or more in the U.S. and throughout the world. That's pretty impressive.

"Why do half the kids in urban areas drop out of high school while the kids in Africa beg to go to school?"

Again, those huge problems with multi-dimensional answers, but again, I'll agree that you believe the answer is simple. I believe your answer is simplistic.

"Why do litterally millions of households receive section 8 housing funds?"

Hmmm... 3.1 million households out of 115 million, or 2.7%. Low-income households, obviously. And the government wants to help. Just as it helps millions of homeowners with mortgage interest deductions, which makes homes less affordable for renters like me. (By the way, I pay my own rent.)

"Why do we 'adjust' test scores for some people and not others for jobs, college, etc.?  Why does merit not count?  And, why does merit no longer count?"

"Why are there set asides and quotas and affirmative action and all that ?  Why do we have that stuff ?  That is not equal opportunity, that is government sponsored discrimination.  Why was there a New Haven firefighters suit ?  Why was there a reason for that suit ?  How could that possibly have happened in America ?"

There'd be a lot more Asians in college if test scores weren't adjusted, that's for sure...

But honestly, merit never quite counted. Until the early part of the last century, most colleges wouldn't admit women. Until the 1960s, some public universities - like public schools - were segregated. Affirmative action was an attempt - albeit misguided - to try to even the generational. Personally I think we should adjust test scores for economic background, not race. The son of a rich Black doctor shouldn't have an easier time gaining admission into a public university than the son of a poor White Walmart employee if both have the same test scores and grades.

"Why do people think rich people do not pay their fair share when they pay most of the taxes already ?  The tax system is not supposed to be a wealth redistribution system."

Well, I guess one question is, do the rich have more property that needs more protections, and more varied kinds of protection? More need for the legal system to enforce their contracts or to engage in legal actions that tie up the court system?

"The list goes on and on - there are so many examples.  I think you get the point."

I get your point. And I agree with some of them. However, I still think a lot of what used to be American and used to be as much a part of what it means to be normal is now considered "left-wing".

"For all practical purposes, none of this existed 100 years ago and we did just fine."

Still, I don't think we did "just fine". 100 years ago, we lived in the age of robber barons who exploited people to the point of cruelty and misery.

Lynching of Blacks were considered normal. Women couldn't vote, in some states they couldn't even open a bank account without a husband's sayso until the 1960s. It was perfectly legal to pay people different wages for the same job, based on RACE - and they did! Maybe it was fine for privileged White men, but it wasn't fine for others.

100 years ago, hatred and discrimination was in the very fabric of society itself, and plain in the ordinary goings on of its institutions: government, schools, the military, business, courts, commerce, the workplace,  you name it. Are you saying you want to go back to that? How about reforming today's much more egalitarian society instead?

"The reason is a shift from equal opportunity to equal outcome.  This thinking is so pervasive in our society it is shocking.  Everywhere you look you see it.  America was founded on equal opportunity.  Freedom and equal opportunity is what made us different.  It made us great.  People did not migrate to America to get welfare.  They came to America to get a chance, an even shot, that if they worked hard and acted responsibility they could get some where, make something of themselves.  People came here, learned English, and worked their asses off."

Oh, I agree with a lot of the above paragraph here. I personally came here legally. And I personally work my ass off to support my family. I don't like seeing people cheating on welfare, just as I don't like seeing banks get away with free bail-outs. But I think you gloss over the gross and rampant inequalities and injustices that were commonplace and part and parcel of society 100 years ago. 100 years ago, politicians were already in the pockets of Big Business and corporate interests to a great degree, and there were major monopolies, oligarchies, etc. There were few protections against their abuses.

 

"Congress spends a lot of their available time these days arguing over transfer payment systems.  That is crazy.  If the founding fathers could see what we have done to ourselves they would be shocked speechless.  This is not the America they envisioned when they developed the constitution and the bill of rights.  It was about freedom in a civil society.  Freedom to make your own way.  Work hard.  Take care of your family.  The right to own private property - you do not own it if the government can take it away if you do not pay taxes on it.  Everything has a tax on it.  If it exists it is taxed.  That's crazy.  My wages are my private property.  I work for them.  Between the fed, state, and local governments they take half my wages.  That is totally broken and totally out of control.  It is an outrage.  The entire welfare, war-fare, entitlement, greedy corrupt banksters, failure of the family, bazaar military adventures - all of it, the entire mess is a malfunction."

I agree with the above. Unfortunately, your political heroes, the Republicans won't rescue this nation because they helped put us where we are.

"However, if you get on TV and say we have strayed so far from the constitution, the bill of rights, equal opportunity, the right to private property, the right to privacy, the right to own guns, equality, getting ahead based on merit, and the values the founders of America established for a free and civil society, the very things that made us a great country, if you get on TV and say that then you are called a right wing wacko even though it is all true to the bone.  So, what used to be considered normal is now called right wing."

Hey, I donated to and voted for Ron Paul, and I'm vehemently for the right to bear arms, ending of all corporate welfare amongst other small "c" conservative ideals. So maybe I'm also a "right wing wacko". I hear ya and I agree with some of what you say. But I still say, a lot of what used to be considered normal or noble, is now called left-wing. And a lot of what used to be American values, is now expropriated in a culture war by the conservatives as things apparently liberals apparently can't have.

Poet

 

LOL - I had to read this twice.  I rarely do that.  We actually agree more than you might think.  I did mention there were some black marks in the past in America.  You missed one - the treatment of the America Indians.  The treatment of the America Indians is so shocking it is difficult to even describe.  I would suggest a book by Dee Brown called "Bury My Heart At Wonded Knee".  I actually went to the reservation at Wonded Knee one time.  I have been on a number of Indian reservations over the years.  It was a genocide.  American genocide.

A lot of your points are absolutely true.  And, that is a good thing.  However, I believe the vast majority of my points still stand.  You pointed out mitigating aspects that I did not mention and for the most part I agree with.  I am an engineer and therefore not an eliquant writer but I study history and I have a decent grasp of the facts.  It is difficult to explain, be we have changed.  I suppose it all depends on your perspective.

Lincoln, a republican, stood up one day and read a thing called the Emancipation Proclamation.  America changed for the better that day.  It has certainly been a long and difficult road since Sherman's March To The Sea.

No, the American mind set has changed.  It is hard to put my finger on it, it is hard to describe.  It is the mind set.  Basically, I agree with the stuff you said.  Your views add more depth to the points I was making.  But that does not change them.  It just enhances them with more data.

Not a birther.  I could not give a rat's ass about that.  I object to Obama on policy and direction.  Not where he was or was not born.

Thanks for taking the time.  It was interesting.

If the Fed stops buying the Fed Gov debt there is going to be some pretty serious stuff go down.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
also agree
Poet wrote:
link54 wrote:

Poet & Dsheilds & Goes211

I started this thread to have a discussion on the subject of getting people thinking of the consequences of post June funding for the United States Government.  No matter how the TPTB decide to handle this is a critical issue with a lot riding on their methods for all of us to recognize, understand, prep and be flexible enough to handle the outcome.

I know both of you are very passionate and are debating a different but very important set of topics. Never the less your specific discusions are not what this thread was created for.  I would respectfully ask you both to find another place on the forum(s) to debate these critical issues so as not to distract the thread's intended purpose.  Thank you.   Michael

Michael

Agreed. I'm not a fan of thread hijackings myself, so I apologize. I am guilty as charged - I just couldn't let those repeated assertions go unanswered... :-)

Poet

I also agree.  I will endeavor to be a good boy.

 

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
link54 wrote: Poet Thank you
link54 wrote:

Poet

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  I understand the emotions and the many indirect thought processes that come up when our country is in trouble. That said, we are in a very short window of time and some events that could be a tipping point.  Funding and the tactical mechanism's are the heart of the issue in the thread because this issue is front and center now. 

Look at how hard they are fighting at the present moment over the possible government shut down over (2%) of the budget (30-40 billion). The question they are facing is what to fund at the present moment.  In a couple of weeks, the fight will be on the deficit ceiling to fund the government at further levels of debt. This will be a multi -trillion dollar fight. The stakes are are infinitely higher with potential technical or real defaults. This fight is what is the appropriate amount for the deficit ceilingThen we will have the post June funding that you hear nothing about practically anywhere at this time!!!

Washington politicians can fight over the what and the amount , but since the country is broke / insolvent the above question really seem irrelevant!

The only discussion that is real is HOW / by what mechanism will they create, borrow or steal the funding.  That is what will effect all of us on a day to day basis.  As you can see the fighting has already begun but the dangerous part about the post June funding is the the players change and the dark shadowy people implementing funding tactics of unknown origins, with almost no transparency.  I just can't think of any entity that would lend the U.S. government this amount of money without a gun to someone's head or a deal that any of us would approve of!!!

Even on a site such as this one, which I hold in the highest regard I do not hear a debate or conversation on this post June funding topic. And we are the ones supposed to be awake.  Are we? Has this figured into anyone's prep timetables of to dos, as a precautionary measure to this fast upcoming funding risk.

It is still my hope that more people on this site will engage their thoughts and insights in this thread or some other on such an important issue.  Poet thank you again for your thoughtful response.   Michael

P.S.  I still think Stan is onto a possible scenario with middle eastern money.  The petro dollar undeclared deal with Saudi Arabia done long ago went something like this.  You sell us the oil, you price the oil in dollars and we will protect you militarily against your enemies.  Seems like Saudi Arabia may want to buy some extra protection in the turmoil at present in the region. Just a follow on thought to Stan's idea.

Other than my previous ranting, this is an import thread.  The Stan proposal is interesting but I have a hard time thinking it is going to happen like that.  Figuring out a course of action for the country is difficult.  We have to ditch the wedge issues, as correctly pointed out, and apply some serious brain power.

I do not see how the Fed Res stops buying the Fed Gov debt.  I work in FX and the morning Uncle Ben gets on TV and says the Fed Res is not going to buy any more Fed Gov debt there is going to be a poop storm.  Right now they are saying June 30th is the end.  But you know what, people do not believe it.  Or at least a lot of people do not believe it.  Some do.  It is hard to imagine what will happen if they actually stop.  The Treasury auctions will continue.  If one auction fails and they are unable to sell Treasury instruments, even with higher interest rates, it will be a landmark event.  If the Fed Res announces the next day that they are going to start QE3 or they say nothing but start buying again through some back door method, then we go on grinding down a slow crappy road to inflation, the loss of the reserve status, and other bad stuff.  If they do not, the Fed Gov will basically start to implode and there will be a rush to sell Treasuries and the prices will plunge.  If the buy side of the market dries up, there will be a flash crash - just like the ones we have seen over the last couple of years with one big exception, I believe the prices will will have to go low indeed before buyers show up.  PIMCO already dumped theirs.  I thought that was a big deal.  Once the rush to dump starts, computers will take over and it will be a dash to the bottom unless buyers move in to the market.  Of course the Fed Res could move in at that point and buy up a boat load of super cheap Treasuries.  They would claim they were taking this action to save the world financial system but if it worked and they sold the instruments later they would make a mountain of money - the lotto jackpot of all time.  Remember, the Fed Res is in business to make money.  I am not sure that I really trust the Fed Res because of that.  I have a Ron Paul edge when it comes to the Fed Res.

When I think about this, it seems all bad.  America slipped a gear - a financial gear.  Yes, Wall Street went crazy, yes we bailed the crooks out with tax payer money, yes the credit boom was caused by the Fed Res and the Fed Gov (too long a story for here), yes, yes, and yes.   It does not do us any good now.  Now we are stuck with what we have.  A few brave souls in congress are trying to cut spending, it has to be cut a lot, it has to be cut no matter what the outcome in the markets in the end. 

It is the markets that will tell the story.  I know about the BANCOR and the SDR and all that.  I suppose if the emergency was bad enough those might actually look good.  It is still hard to imagine either of those taking the dollars place.  Maybe I am just slow on the uptake.  I don't know what is going to happen.  All I know is that it is going to be bad.  I do not see how anything good can come from any of it.

grondeau's picture
grondeau
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 10 2008
Posts: 35
Lets go back to supply an

Lets go back to supply an demand.  Right now there is little demand for treasuries precisely because the intrest rate is so low.  One reason it is so low is that the Fed is trying to do and end run on the liquidity trap we are in with QEII.  But all good things must end, and with it one major source of demand for treasuries will go away.  That should cause interest rates to rise.  That will bring buyers.

Whats wrong with this simplistic analysis?

Do you think rates have to become "hyperinflated" to attract any buyers?  

Right now rates on 10 year notes are about 3.5%.  If it cracks 4.5% when QEII is over, I'd be very surprised.

Nothin wrong with a bit of inflation either...  It makes you get up in the morning and do something.   Money, like everything else, is a wasting asset. Expecting money to hold value, or grow in value by itself, is just magical thinking!  It defies entropy.  Get to work!

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
grondeau

What worries me is if I try to sell you something and you don't want it then you will not buy it pretty much no matter how much I cut the price.  If given a choice between buying Treasuries which could be high risk as America may well have an economic emergency or buying say cotton or silver or zinc or CHF or you name it - things that will not loose value and may well gain value (maybe a lot of value), then why would I buy Treasuries at say 8 or 10 percent when they might go to 15 percent shortly and I would loose my shirt ?  If nobody wants to buy Treasuries because there are better plays elsewhere they will go elsewhere.  PIMCO sold all their Treasuries.  They were all at low rates (held down by the Fed Res for the last few years) and when the rates rise to 5 or 10 percent, the low rate Treasures would have to be sold at a fantastic discount - called taking a bath.  The world''s view of US Treasuries can change in one week.  Foreign buyers are already drying up.  That is why the Fed Res is buying them.  Recently they have been buying enormous quantities.  If they really stop buying them and the first auction after that is a failure there will be an emergency.

link54's picture
link54
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 8 2009
Posts: 44
Post June U.S.Debt Funding

Dsheilds

Thank you for your efforts to refocus.  As I said to Poet and now to you, I really get it and there is a lot wrong with this country. It has taken many decades to create these problems and probably only a total reset will allow for the wrongs to be righted. But for now our attention to our prep has to take into account a major set of risk circumstances upon us NOW.

I know that a portion of each of our logical thought and emotions look around at each of our existing world's and still feel it can't happen or they (TPTB) won't let this happen. Let's not kid ourselves, denial is a powerful behavioral mechanism that works in everyone of us. I am no different then anyone else in fighting the denial that is left inside of me of the upcoming changes.  My, logical hopeful mindset still looks at our present world inclusive of my town, my house, my family, our country's way of life etc.,  and says, how could all of this happen.  The when is now becoming the critical time left to prepare based on LOGICAL REALITY when I can get outside of my own denial mechanisms.

Current Trends

Dr. M. has said to us, be aware of a period of time when interest rates are climbing and the dollar is declining.  Well we are there.  Take a look at the dollar index over the last 11 months (Scary Chart) and then look at how far the dollar has fallen this week alone.  Also take a look at the 10 year treasury yields (interest) over the past 6 months. Look at the precious metal temperature thermometer. Now add atop of this, the Post June Funding Challenge.

Groneau, I love simple and would love it if the world would buy our debt at a interest rate only expanding one percent to 4.5%.  The effects of one percent rise in additional interest on new debt paid out alone is huge. But this one percent in my opinion will not bring buyers to the table to cover a  70 % hole left by the Fed. The real question is who can or would be motivated by what to the huge risk of being replacement buyers at this time.

I think we can safely say that Japan cannot step up to the plate even if they wanted to.  China has shown it's hand in diversifying heavily into the Euro. The fundamentals of the European Union don't warrant the valuation of their currency at this time, but the boatload of China buying their debt could explain the current status of their currency. Or you can look at it another way. 

Is the Euro and the Pound Sterling debt risk so attractive to the Chinese or is the risk reward ratio that bad on the dollar. The fact is that Europe is China's biggest export customer and they are even buying Greece and Portugal debt currently. Lets double the 1% to a 2% increase.  Would this convince the Chinese government that they will get their money back in real returns (Not Nominal Re terms). It may be that the Chinese believe at present, that the European Continent's Austerity actions make across the pond a better risk then the money printers in America. 

Full disclosure my wife is a Mainland Chinese citizen and has been a permanent resident in the U.S.for a long time.  I lived and worked  in China for a few years and so I have access and listen to the mood of the non translated, non manipulated government of China and it population's current mindset.  My listening leads me to believe they will only buy what they need in dollars to fund their import and export trade.

So with their own funding problems in the European Union and England's finances looking in worse shape then ours,  I just don't see these countries in a position to buy more of our heavy risk oriented debt.  As I said the Middle Eastern countries seems to be the only abundance of money out there.  Dr. M. always reminds us of solutions that have the ability to scale up, to produce the necessary results.  The question is then, will the Middle East be able to or want to fill the 70% crater?  I said it a few times in this thread, would you personally loan the U.S. government money for any period of duration? Then why would the Middle East scale up their risk to such large numbers even on a ten year note?  If there is a justification or reward for the funding, what would be the cost. Could you just imagine what they might ask for (Not Dollars).   I would want to know the T&C's of such a deal and they sure as hell will not disclose this! This is the mechanism that I am very concerned about!!!

Other Options

Dsyheilds with all due respect I do not think they will run naked bond auctions with any chance of the auction failing.  The consequences globally would be catastrophic. So they will have to have a different mechanism then before to ensure a failed auction does not happen as an option.  I also considered the option if they were just to out right print, I mean just plain old counterfeit by increasing the digitized money supply to pay the monthly bills. Do you think that the world (Our Creditors / Enemies) would not notice.  Wouldn't the world ask without an auction, Mr. America where did you get the money from you sent us for this month's balance of trade payments. I think that our creditors and or our enemies keep lots of eyes on the Fed's Public Balance Sheet and they would quickly realize the devaluation of the dollars they were sent.

Conclusion

First the Fed is smarter then all of us and have had plenty of time to prepare.  Second they are more creative then we all are in creating new monetary flows. Third and most importantly they have shown with their actions (Not Fed Speak) and their decisions that they have made in the recent past and more distant history that their only intent is to protect the banking cartel. 

So I still think they will attempt some sort of off balance sheet short term funding deal. But it has to be a deal that is agreed to by some of our creditors with the real terms and conditions never disclosed.  Is this a viable strategy that be successful?  I don't know, but I don't see any options except Jim Rickard's theory.  But this theory is based on 4-6 months of bridge financing created through interest rolling over off the Fed's Balance Sheet and the assumption the world will not only tolerate, but scream for a very open and public open QEIII of some sort by year end. Keep in mind to keep the ponze scheme going we need to fund more than 3 trillion in the short term. 

Why Is this  Important To All Of Us

Dsheilds I agree it is all bad and will end badly.  The whole point of this thread was to emphasize that the most highly guarded secrets are right in front of our face and that is why we can't see or accept such a reality. The thread issue is what time is it?  Is it 11:30 (Baseball Park Time Zone / Crash Course Reference) or not.

I guess it depends if you think the 2012 budget discussions, coupled with the debt ceiling fight, the Fed signaling that the printing will stop in June and no mention of how Post June Debt Funding will be all be accomplished, all without a hitch. And they are all happening within the same 75 day period

Our enemy and our most valuable asset right now is the time remaining to start and finish everything in our preparations.  The increased risk probability of a potential sudden rush to the exits in the next 75-90 days for our existing assets as well as assets you need to ride out a undetermined length of a storm seems to be increasing significantly.   We all have to assess the current state of risk!  Sorry for the length of the post, I do not have good writing skills.  

Michael

 

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
Sure you do.
link54 wrote:

 Sorry for the length of the post, I do not have good writing skills.  

Michael

 

I think this is the only thing you wrote that I would disagree with.

Thanks for the observations and the time spent sharing them. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments