10/28/2007 7:35:17 PM

Quote :

"i think that in order to fix our problems alot of people at the top would lose power and wealth, the problem is that the people on top are in power, and the only solutions they accept are the ones that keep them in power"

That sounds like dirty socialist talk.

But really, that's somewhat accurate. power scales exponentially with wealth, which is why it's so easy for things to get out of control.

10/28/2007 8:09:32 PM

Quote :

"the modern world is a hell of a lot more stable and frankly I think it's pointless to worry what could happen in five hundred to a thousand years in the future"

the modern world is not a hell of a lot more stable. Soviet Union doesn't agree with you. The British Empire doesn't agree with you. Germany and Japan probably don't either. Not to mention every other African nation (I know I know, they're black therefore not as intelligent as everyone else so its unfair for me to count them in my point - James Watson)

When you're at the top there is only one place to go...each new generation of this country sadly brings this nation one notch lower.

[Edited on October 28, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ...]

10/28/2007 9:07:38 PM

Yes, Golovko, the Soviet Union existed and was unstable. It no longer exists, so the world is now more stable than it was in 1990. The British Empire existed and was unstable. It no longer exists, so the world is now more stable than it was in 1945.

You must have an odd definition for "stable" if you do not see how much more stable it is nowadays. The world is not only more stable politically (borders and the like), the beliefs which drove countries to invade and occupy each other in the 20th century has been discredited. Not to mention the philosophical war between liberal style government and socialism has been settled.

10/29/2007 7:42:50 AM

Quote :

"i think that in order to fix our problems alot of people at the top would lose power and wealth, the problem is that the people on top are in power, and the only solutions they accept are the ones that keep them in power "

Ron Paul 08'

10/29/2007 9:27:19 AM

Quote :

"i think that in order to fix our problems alot of people at the top would lose power and wealth, the problem is that the people on top are in power, and the only solutions they accept are the ones that keep them in power"

And which problems are those? Could you just give us a taste? I ask, because so often in today's society what people consider "problems that need fixing" are nothing of the sort.

10/29/2007 9:47:01 AM

^^^and Iraq is what? just another US State with a redneck uprising?

Afghanistan? Eastern Europe? Not to mention the countless terrorist organizations that didn't exist in the pre-WWII world. This is not stability.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ^^]

10/29/2007 9:47:07 AM

One other contributing factor to the fall of the roman empire was a general sense of apathy among the roman populace.

Quote :

"T]he decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness."

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

10/29/2007 9:56:12 AM

Quote :

"Somalia? no Vietnam? no Korea? no Desert Storm? no Bosnia? no "

Back to the first page: Somalia is debatable, Vietnam is an obvious no, but we were whooping ass by the end of Korea and it was through government decisions, not military ones, that we settled at the parallel. Desert Storm was obviously a tactical victory and a strategic one until this latest expedition. Bosnia, while not a whopping PR victory, was actually quite sucessful at stopping the fighting.

Quote :

"If we fall at all, it will be economically, but that won't happen for a very long time because the American enterprise is a pretty well oiled machine."

One of the biggest issues facing the United States, IMHO, is that we've become a consumption based economy rather than a production based one. We make money off selling things to each other, but the majority of the things we buy and sell were made somewhere else. This means that economic growth is dependent on increasing spending. This is a tenuous position to be in, and will require correction but I am confident that we'll survive . . . even if it is rough for a while. We do have to accept the fact that China will be the world economic power over the next century due to sheer size, but this doesn't have to destroy us.

All of that being said, no the United States could not conduct protracted operations in Iran without a draft.

10/29/2007 10:08:42 AM

Quote :

"Somalia? no Vietnam? no Korea? no Desert Storm? no Bosnia? no"

Somalia, Bosnia, Desert Storm (to a certain extent) were all wars backed and supported by the UN with external support from other nations in the world community; not just some cowboy in the White House.

Korean War was a draw with a reason for our involvement questionable.
Vietnam was def a loss, and our involvement much like right now in Iraq was not justified. Ignoring issues due to the draft; the Vietnam war in my opinion was more warranted than our dealings in Iraq.

10/29/2007 10:56:53 AM

Quote :

"One of the biggest issues facing the United States, IMHO, is that we've become a consumption based economy rather than a production based one."

I have yet to discover anyone willing to provide me with a free lunch, much less free gasoline and free electronics. As such, there is no consumption without at least the promise of production (borrowing).

While there is a lot of borrowing going on, it is always with a promise to pay back, which means earning money through production.

Maybe I can clarify your mistake through statistics:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/industrialoutput.gif
The Industrial output of America's factories has almost doubled in the last decade. At the same time, production of everything else has dramatically increased, from mines to agricultural products including timber. The reason this is all true while at the same time people like you are convinced America has stopped being a production economy is because we are doing it all with a far smaller percentage of the workforce. Back in the day it was obvious to everyone America was producing goods we all worked in the factories producing it. Now that none of us work in the factories or on the farms we just don't see it. Well, trust me; the production is there; and it is why Americans are able to consume so readily.

10/29/2007 12:41:50 PM

Quote :

"I have yet to discover anyone willing to provide me with a free lunch,"

If you are "underprivledged" student in the public school system you get free lunch.

10/29/2007 1:28:53 PM

DOOM!!!1

10/29/2007 1:32:41 PM

You do realize this isn't Chit Chat right?

You're fucking worse than treetwista and chance.

10/29/2007 1:38:18 PM

^ You didn't post any objection to marko's music video, chicken shit. Why the difference?

10/29/2007 1:56:32 PM

Because his video prompted a discussion whereas you're not doing anything but derailing the thread because you lack the mental faculties to actually add to anything apparently.

10/29/2007 2:25:12 PM

Quote :

"Somalia, Bosnia, Desert Storm (to a certain extent) were all wars backed and supported by the UN with external support from other nations in the world community; not just some cowboy in the White House."

Agreed, I'm just discusing the relative accuracy of the Mad Mesopotamian's commentary. I will point out that without the US, the UN isn't much of anything, but there was a consensus about each operation.

Quote :

"I have yet to discover anyone willing to provide me with a free lunch, much less free gasoline and free electronics. As such, there is no consumption without at least the promise of production (borrowing)."

Correct, I don't think I implied that people are getting items for free. However, as you stated:

Quote :

"we are doing it all with a far smaller percentage of the workforce."

This I know, and I am well aware of the increasing production as well as decreasing labor intensity of production in the United States, but that doesn't change my assertion that ever smaller amounts of middle class income are based on production and more and more are based on consumption. The promise of production (borrowing), at least recently, has been funded on the backs of home mortgages which were themselves inflated by the real-estate market which is based on the concept of consumption. The national savings rate is currently at -1%, which cannot be maintained indefinitely at the individual level. This is going to require a correction at some point and we're already feeling it with the housing market.

Let me be clear, I'm not arguing that we create jobs for the sake of creating jobs, but this is a paradigm shift in the American economy that we may have not yet caught up with.

10/29/2007 3:10:10 PM

not sure where you bought your lousy education but where I am from is not Mesopotamia. Rednecks

10/29/2007 3:13:49 PM

I was playing off another user's comments in The Garage

Personally, I couldn't care less where you're from from but, based on your statements in TSB, I'm pretty confident your ignorance eclipses mine.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2007 3:42:40 PM

that would be because you've got your head in the sand and wouldn't know any better



and judging by this

Quote :

"I was playing off another user's comments in The Garage"

I'll assume that you just take what you read on the internet and run with it...or in fewer words...a sheep.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 3:50:38 PM

Sand and sheep references, that is funny on a number of levels.

I'll pretend to be a gentleman and let you have the last word.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 3:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 3:55:12 PM

oh ok.

what else is funny is when I was generalizing that all Americans are rednecks to counter your Mesopotamia ignorance, turns out, you really are a fucking redneck. lol



[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 4:32:40 PM

Quote :

"but that doesn't change my assertion that ever smaller amounts of middle class income are based on production and more and more are based on consumption"

Well, I still must say that the concept you are describing is foreign to me. Perhaps you could describe to me a job providing income that would be consumption based? Are you talking about service jobs?

Quote :

"The national savings rate is currently at -1%, which cannot be maintained indefinitely at the individual level"

The national savings rate is a largely meaningless statistic because of the silly distinctions made between what does or does not count as savings. It does not count either investment or equity purchases as savings. As such, if I save 10% of my annual income every year into the stock market then I individually have a savings rate of 0%. If my friend borrows 10 times his annual income to buy a house then he has a savings rate of -1000% for the year. It does not matter that his net worth has not changed; only that his debt meets the definition used by the statisticians.

Quote :

"The promise of production (borrowing), at least recently, has been funded on the backs of home mortgages which were themselves inflated by the real-estate market which is based on the concept of consumption"

I am not sure I know what you mean here. I guess you are referring to the movement of promise from home buyers, which are promising to produce in the future, to home sellers, which are free to consume that promise today? This is simply moving money around; what you need to see is that when person A borrows money from person B to buy a house from person C, when person C spends that money on goods today it is not income from no where; it came from the lender, person B, which now cannot consume today. To put it more simply, real-estate markets do not drive consumption, they just move it between individuals (from lenders to sellers).

10/29/2007 5:39:28 PM

I nominate Golovko for the "trolled-out asshole of the day" award.

special mention goes to JCashFan for some fine angling skills to bait, hook, and land that one.





[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 6:12 PM. Reason : of course, i never do any of that sort of shit ]

10/29/2007 6:06:40 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps you could describe to me a job providing income that would be consumption based? Are you talking about service jobs?"

Yeah, pretty much. Galbraith covered this in The Affluent Society. When we were a net exporter, our economy was powered by cash flowing into the United States from outside sources. Of course, this was also prior to the parallel tech / info revolutions which have had a far larger impact on labor than simple opening of markets. Either way, as a net importer, the economic engine is powered not by our ability to produce goods that are purchased by the world, but by the ability to make money off providing services to consumers. When American consumers quit purchasing, as the #1 group of private consumers in the world right now, the fuel that drives the engine is reduced. (I say private as opposed to corporate or government, which would probably put China at or near the top.)

Quote :

"The national savings rate is a largely meaningless statistic because of the silly distinctions made between what does or does not count as savings. It does not count either investment or equity purchases as savings."

I'm not sure why they should be. Investments are investments precisely because they carry risk. While savings carry the risk of devaluation in the long run, in the short term they provide stability to individuals.

My real-estate example from earlier is a good example. You would count real-estate as "savings" because of the general trend of real-estate to hold value, but in an inflated market, those who got in at the peak experienced the opposite effect. The overall result is proving to be a tremendous loss in net worth for millions of Americans. This in turn dampens consumption which, in a service (read: consumption) based economy, has a net negative effect that isn't balanced by exports.

Quote :

"To put it more simply, real-estate markets do not drive consumption, they just move it between individuals (from lenders to sellers)."

Except that consumers were spending beyond their means based on an inflated housing market. Perceived wealth drove consumption, so yes real-estate did drive consumption.

Furthermore, the promise to pay was made based on deceptively low rates, rates encouraged because the banks knew they wouldn't be held accountable once the loans were bundled into securities. When the rates went up and the securities began to fail, investors saw (what you would categorize as "savings") evaporate.

I am not implying / suggesting that we should revert to protectionism or discourage a free market, but I think we need to realize the shift that has taken place at this point.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 6:17 PM. Reason : and I must say ^^^ that I'm a pretty good looking guy ]

10/29/2007 6:13:44 PM

I nominate joe_schmoe for best soap boxer of the year.

10/29/2007 6:47:35 PM

Quote :

""Somalia? no Vietnam? no Korea? no Desert Storm? no Bosnia? no""

firstly, Somalia and Bosnia were not 'wars' and they shouldnt even be included in your point.


winning and losing are no longer defined in warfare by clear lines so it makes Korea and Vietnam look murky. the victors used to occupy, dominate and tax the losers. that is no longer really the goal of military action. one could argue that the goal of the US was largely met in those conflicts by containing the spread of communism.

the US is the first superpower in the history of the world that holds back its forces from their fullest destructive capabilities and doesnt acquire land with victory. if the American people had more ruthless deposition, like those of the Mongols, Persians or Romans, these conflicts wouldve likely ended much differently.

10/29/2007 6:58:39 PM

^i mentioned them knowing full and well that someone would try and bring them in to claim them as 'wins' although they were not.

every conflict America has been in they've pulled out of after wasting lives and money because they realized its accomplishing nothing.

Quote :

"the US is the first superpower in the history of the world that holds back its forces from their fullest destructive capabilities and doesnt acquire land with victory. if the American people had more ruthless deposition, like those of the Mongols, Persians or Romans, these conflicts wouldve likely ended much differently."

you really believe that? Iraq is a perfect example of America trying to occupy a foreign country and well you've seen the news.

The world today is a lot Smaller in ways but at the same time its a lot bigger. Its impossible for anyone, regardless of their military might to successfully 'conquer' another country.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 7:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 7:00:20 PM

i didnt say they were necessarily 'wins' but i said that the line is muddy. i am not going to get into breaking down each conflict with you, but in all of them we left military options off the table (most notably Vietnam where targets were selected by the assholes in washington instead of those with actual military knowledge).

the occupation in Iraq would be a lot different if we turned into ruthless bastards. we tap dance with our military (as we should...innocent people should be spared) however we could go General Sherman like every other conquering people in the history of the world and things would be a lot bloodier on their side.

i want to be clear with you that thats not what i advocate i am just saying that there is a difference in trying to build a country and simply subjugating it to your will.

10/29/2007 7:43:44 PM

Quote :

"the occupation in Iraq would be a lot different if we turned into ruthless bastards. we tap dance with our military (as we should...innocent people should be spared) however we could go General Sherman like every other conquering people in the history of the world and things would be a lot bloodier on their side. "

The only reason we don't go all out is because of where we are in history.

Even as recently as Vietnam we weren't so careful to spare lives. Probably because of Vietnam we are so careful now. It's not because we are somehow uniquely generous. Any other first world nation would use the same level of restraint. Really, we should have used more restraint in the initial campaigns.

10/29/2007 7:49:41 PM

^^not going to debate it much more in this thread other than...thats what I meant by its a smaller world...because any country that does that would have the world knocking on its door step...aka WWII. The only reason Africa gets away with this is because its Africa.

to quote Hotel Rwanda "you aren't even a nigger, you're an African" Sad but thats pretty much how most of the world views it.

10/29/2007 8:25:08 PM

Quote :

"the US is the first superpower in the history of the world that holds back its forces from their fullest destructive capabilities and doesnt acquire land with victory. if the American people had more ruthless deposition, like those of the Mongols, Persians or Romans, these conflicts wouldve likely ended much differently."

you obviously do not understand how neo-colonialism works. No longer is it necessary to occupy physically a country in order to benefit from militaristic action.

10/29/2007 8:48:23 PM

Yes, we are going to attack with the surplus of troops we dont have.

This will not happen. It would require a draft. And if that happens

10/29/2007 9:10:50 PM

Quote :

"When we were a net exporter, our economy was powered by cash flowing into the United States from outside sources"

No it was not. "Cash" could not flow into the United States because foreigners are incapable of printing dollars. As such, in order to be a net exporter United States citizens (holders of dollars) either purchased equity from foreigners or loaned the money to foreigners.

Quote :

"as a net importer, the economic engine is powered not by our ability to produce goods that are purchased by the world, but by the ability to make money off providing services to consumers"

Again, this does not compute. I just don't understand the distinction you are drawing between services and goods. What does a company care why customers gave it money? It had to hire employees, buy inputs, and sell outputs, reinvest its profits. Why is General Electric selling refrigerators good but Dreamworks selling Cars the movie bad? Both are at the whim of customers. GE even more-so: when recessions hit, durable goods markets slack far more than nearly all other markets.

Quote :

"When American consumers quit purchasing, as the #1 group of private consumers in the world right now, the fuel that drives the engine is reduced."

Yes, you have just described the origins of every recession in economic history. Consumers slow purchasing growth, profits fall, investors get spooked and stop investing, unemployment rises; rinse and repeat until deflation has taken its toll. This is the business cycle, not the service cycle. It hits every corner of the economy, not just the service sector. So, again, what am I missing?

Quote :

"I'm not sure why they should be. Investments are investments precisely because they carry risk."

Everything has risk. If run away inflation destroys the dollar, then your dollar denominated savings account will be worthless and there is nothing the FDIC will do for you. But my equity stake in Delta Airlines will be fine because the airline still owns airplanes, terminals, parts, etc; all of which could be sold at new inflated prices and returned to shareholders.

Quote :

"The overall result is proving to be a tremendous loss in net worth for millions of Americans. This in turn dampens consumption which, in a service (read: consumption) based economy, has a net negative effect that isn't balanced by exports."

Again: why do you believe someone selling refrigerators is going to be immune from an economic downturn? They were not in 2001. They have never been. Falling domestic sales were not replaced by exports, they just built inventory, slashed production, and layed off their work-force like everyone else selling durable goods. In fact, many economists blame durable goods manufacturers for producing recessions: when they overproduce it builds inventory that must be sold before they will hire back their full workforce.

10/29/2007 9:17:03 PM

Quote :

"The SMARTEST most REALISTIC and most HUMANE thing ever said in the Soap Box by anyone, and that even by aaronburro: "

I don't know if that is sarcasm, but oh noes!

10/29/2007 9:22:37 PM

Quote :

""Cash" could not flow into the United States because foreigners are incapable of printing dollars."

Substitute capital for cash and you get the same effect.

Quote :

"I just don't understand the distinction you are drawing between services and goods. What does a company care why customers gave it money? It had to hire employees, buy inputs, and sell outputs, reinvest its profits. Why is General Electric selling refrigerators good but Dreamworks selling Cars the movie bad?"

Cars is a good. It is a good that can be exported should it be demanded around the world. It sounds like you're assuming I mean industrial goods, which I do not. I am referring more to marketing, consulting, real estate, investments etc. Each of those is driven by whatever value they add to a good as opposed to the "intrinsic" (so far as that can be defined) value of a good itself.

Quote :

"If run away inflation destroys the dollar, then your dollar denominated savings account will be worthless and there is nothing the FDIC will do for you."

I covered this. However, you're assuming that airline travel will be unaffected by runaway inflation. I highly doubt this will be the case. Stock in an airline with no passengers is worth less than fiat currency.

This could go on forever, and my recollection of economics has degraded 5 years after I graduated but I recommend the aforementioned The Affluent Society by Galbraith for a study on the American economy in the last 50 years. In the mean time I'll concede to you the last point.

10/29/2007 9:59:40 PM

Quote :

"Attacking Iran Could Doom the "

the thread title can be true in more ways the one

the other side of the coin is that iran is rich and well connected and with a few well placed strikes can cripple our economy for a short period of time, i think if we go to war with them it is not out of the question that we should expect a strike in our homeland
much as we anticipated from sadaam but he was too weak from bombings to be able to carry that out

10/29/2007 11:36:37 PM

Quote :

"Substitute capital for cash and you get the same effect."

Hmm, Europeans are perfectly capable of manufacturing capital goods (or simply printing Euros), so substituting 'Capital' for 'Cash' in that sentence makes no sense.

Quote :

"Cars is a good. It is a good that can be exported should it be demanded around the world...I am referring more to marketing, consulting, real estate, investments etc. Each of those is driven by whatever value they add to a good as opposed to the "intrinsic" (so far as that can be defined) value of a good itself."

Not according to the Federal Government. Foreign ticket sales to see U.S. movies is classified as "Service Sector Exports". More to the point, the list of jobs you provide are perfectly capable of being "exported". The Japanese went on a U.S. property buying binge in the 80s. Foreigners are always buying U.S. companies or simply buying stocks and bonds.

Ok, so, again, what is the difference between General Electric selling refrigerators to the Japanese or shareholders selling General Electric to the Japanese? In both cases Americans earned cash by selling something of value to Foreigners (which have a nasty habit of paying top dollar for failing companies).

Quote :

"Stock in an airline with no passengers is worth less than fiat currency."

No. A fiat currency has nothing backing it up. An airline owns airplanes, buildings, routes, fuel in the ground; all of which foreigners would be happy to buy with hard currency.

And why are you pushing a book published in 1958? What could it possibly have to say about the 49 years since its publication? If you don't mind, I can recommend Basic Economics; A Citizens Guide to the Economy. It was published in 2004. I also have the audiobook and could loan it to you.

10/30/2007 8:03:30 AM

Quote :

"I must say ^^^ that I'm a pretty good looking guy "

10/30/2007 8:59:39 AM

^^

Quote :

" the other side of the coin is that iran is rich and well connected and with a few well placed strikes can cripple our economy for a short period of time, i think if we go to war with them it is not out of the question that we should expect a strike in our homeland much as we anticipated from sadaam but he was too weak from bombings to be able to carry that out"

Do you mean physical strike or economic strike? If it's physical I seriously disagree with you.

^

Quote :

"Hmm, Europeans are perfectly capable of manufacturing capital goods (or simply printing Euros), so substituting 'Capital' for 'Cash' in that sentence makes no sense."

I think he means capital in the sense of money or investment, not capital goods.

Quote :

"Ok, so, again, what is the difference between General Electric selling refrigerators to the Japanese or shareholders selling General Electric to the Japanese? In both cases Americans earned cash by selling something of value to Foreigners (which have a nasty habit of paying top dollar for failing companies)."

The difference is, buying refrigerators gives physical meaning to the money they're paying. They're actually paying for something they will get use out of. Also, the only way they can get that value back is if there's a recall or they have a legitimate complaint. If they're only buying stocks, then what happens if people stop buying refrigerators? The stock is worth less, which makes them want to sell it, further devaluing the stock. Stocks are a gamble. A very precise and calculated gamble, but a gamble nonetheless.

Quote :

"And why are you pushing a book published in 1958? What could it possibly have to say about the 49 years since its publication?"

Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it's not relevant. I haven't read any books on economics so I'm in absolutely no position to say whether it's appropriate or not, but isn't the base of our current economy (capitalism) a 250 year old concept?

10/30/2007 9:55:09 AM

Quote :

"Yes, Golovko, the Soviet Union existed and was unstable. It no longer exists, so the world is now more stable than it was in 1990. The British Empire existed and was unstable. It no longer exists, so the world is now more stable than it was in 1945. You must have an odd definition for "stable" if you do not see how much more stable it is nowadays. The world is not only more stable politically (borders and the like), the beliefs which drove countries to invade and occupy each other in the 20th century has been discredited. Not to mention the philosophical war between liberal style government and socialism has been settled. "

and not to mention there aren't regions of the world like Germania where there were no states and barbarian tribes were busy warring on each other to define new borders constantly, Japan didn't exist as a state and obviously North and South America did not but you could argue some of their tribes were stable even though they did move around although there were war like tribes as well

I mean this was pre feudalism, I don't think there is any comparison between the Roman World and the 21st century

10/30/2007 11:53:03 AM

Quote :

"The difference is, buying refrigerators gives physical meaning to the money they're paying. They're actually paying for something they will get use out of."

The money was accepted in exchange for the stock as well; thus giving physical meaning to the money being paid. And they will get use out of owning General Electric. They can boss the employees around, attempt to sell refrigerators, or simply liquidate the whole company.

Quote :

"If they're only buying stocks, then what happens if people stop buying refrigerators?"

Then refrigerators become worthless as manufacturers cannot give them away; just what happened to Atari. There is nothing innate about the value of objects any more than there is about stocks.

Quote :

"Just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it's not relevant."

True. I was responding to his assertion that a book published 49 years ago would constitute "a study on the American economy in the last 50 years" which is cannot be, since it was written before the 50 years occurred.

I guess I have been taken away from my point. My point here is to dispel the myth that today's economy is somehow less stable than in earlier periods. My evidence is structural: the shrinking percentage of the economy dependent upon unpredictable weather (agriculture) and the shrinking percentage of the economy dependent upon the boom and bust cycle of durable goods markets. My evidence is also historical: compared to any earlier period in American history the past 30 years have been remarkably stable with very few recessions (one per decade) and remarkably shallow (unemployment never exceeded 7%). Back in the day recessions were far more frequent (averaging one every seven years) and remarkably severe (10+% unemployment).

10/30/2007 12:00:48 PM

And the exponential increase on the dependence of cheap foreign labor and materials.

Stability doesn't have to be defined strictly in terms of the reduction of risk, stability can also be defined by domestic control of most economic factors, and thats most definitely no longer the case.

10/30/2007 12:24:24 PM

Quote :

"stability can also be defined by domestic control of most economic factors"

Oh? Last I checked in a free market economy there was no "control" domestic or otherwise. Business managers do with their property whatever they wish within the law, whether they are in Raleigh, New York, or Beijing.

10/30/2007 12:34:03 PM

Quote :

"and not to mention there aren't regions of the world like Germania where there were no states and barbarian tribes were busy warring on each other to define new borders constantly, Japan didn't exist as a state and obviously North and South America did not but you could argue some of their tribes were stable even though they did move around although there were war like tribes as well I mean this was pre feudalism, I don't think there is any comparison between the Roman World and the 21st century "

Soviet Union and the likes wasn't around during the ancient world....

10/30/2007 2:10:02 PM

^You're right. Sparta doesn't count.

10/30/2007 2:18:08 PM

^Did you get lost on your way to tech talk?

10/30/2007 3:01:28 PM

just substitute Soap Box / Tech Talk as appropriate

]



hey! where else am i going to be able to use this again?

10/30/2007 8:29:23 PM

Quote :

" Oh? Last I checked in a free market economy there was no "control" domestic or otherwise. Business managers do with their property whatever they wish within the law, whether they are in Raleigh, New York, or Beijing."

Did you put control in quotes because we all know what the Fed is? Do you also put it in quotes because they do things such as inflation ex inflation by removing two of the most inflating components from the index, energy and food...so they can keep with their "inflation is low comments" and so on and so forth?

A recession is coming, an attack on Iran will precipitate that.

10/30/2007 8:37:32 PM

^ If the United States economy experiences two quarters in a row of flat or negative growth in the GDP, then it will be in recession. Frankly, I don't see that happening--there are just too many areas of the economy that are doing well.

10/30/2007 10:02:27 PM