GlockTalk Forum banner

41 - 58 of 58 Posts

·
G22 4 Me
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
What is it about this topic that brings out the stupid in people?
Your opinion?

I think that's what it is, because no one knows what will happen and many have an educated guess. I think it's fear and ignorance more than stupidity, I know it is for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
538 Posts
Our economy is the strongest in the world, and we dominate the global marketplace.

The only reason we "dominate the global marketplace" is because 1) the petrodollar - almost all global oil purchases are made using dollars, and 2) almost every other country is borrowing huge amounts of money printed out of thin air from private banks, so there is no better option available than the dollar, since all the other major fiat currencies are equally or even more untrustworthy than the dollar in terms of value stability.


The strength of our economy has driven massive wealth creation in the stock market and in real GDP.

During my career, over the last 22 years my investments have returned about 16% on average. That adds up a WHOLE lot faster than 2% inflation.
Ah yes, the precious casino economy stock market, which is totally untethered from economic reality and puffed up with inflationary trillions of dollars in stimulus money. :rolleyes:


Headline in Wall Street Journal under President Kalama:

"US Unemployment hits 100%, Dow Jones rallies to record high!"

:laughabove::animlol:




I’ll take the inflation, thanks.
So basically what you're saying is that you're willing to decrease the value of your fellow Americans' money WHILE putting future generations of Americans into debt slavery, just so you can make some profits in the stock market.

Nice. :rolleyes:


If you bury your money in a hole and then complain it’s worth less 30 years later. That’s on you.

Why should someone have to invest money in the stock market in the hope of their stock values exceeding the rate of inflation?


Under a sound economic policy, money should have the same value today that it did 30 years ago, even if you buried your money in a hole.


But that money buried in the hole doesn't have the same value it did 30 years ago, since the "Federal Reserve" has been flooding the economy with trillions of dollars which the US government must pay back with interest, enriching the "Federal Reserve" while decreasing the purchasing power of everyone's money.




In the 1970s, gold cost something like $100 per ounce. Today, gold costs over $2,000 per ounce.






That's because the value of the US dollar is continually declining due to Uncle Fed's constant money printing.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
538 Posts
You’re right. Wages have not risen at the same pace as inflation.

In fact, wages have risen FASTER than inflation.

Not in terms of purchasing power.


While the amount of dollars someone earns may have increased, the value of those dollars is less due to inflation caused by Uncle Fed's irresponsible money printing.


Thus, a wage amount (say, $20,000) that would give you a middle class lifestyle in the 1970s, would have you below the poverty line today.



Take a look at the gold chart in my previous post. 50 years ago you could by an ounce of gold for around $100. Today, that same ounce of gold would cost you $2,000 because the value (purchasing power) of the US dollar has decreased drastically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,790 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
Not in terms of purchasing power.


While the amount of dollars someone earns may have increased, the value of those dollars is less due to inflation caused by Uncle Fed's irresponsible money printing.


Thus, a wage amount (say, $20,000) that would give you a middle class lifestyle in the 1970s, would have you below the poverty line today.



Take a look at the gold chart in my previous post. 50 years ago you could by an ounce of gold for around $100. Today, that same ounce of gold would cost you $2,000 because the value (purchasing power) of the US dollar has decreased drastically.
I was actually going to list gold as an example of a stupid place to put your money.

Newsflash: The price of gold isn’t being driven by inflation. It’s being driven by speculation. <snip>. Never mind. Not going to bother getting into it.


Look...

You don’t believe in the stock market.

You don’t believe America is a global economic super power and the largest, most successful economy in the world... because that doesn’t fit your “we’re all broke slaves” narrative.

You want a constant value dollar that would result in an economically ruinously strong dollar in relation to other currencies, crippling trade.

Just so that somebody can still be living on the same amount they lived on 30 years ago and can bury their money in a hole, instead of investing it.

It’s a stupid goal for no reason that would wreck the economy.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You’re just cut and pasting stuff you find on the internet.

I don’t think we have anything further to discuss. You’ve already wasted too much of my time.

I see you joined in July. Didn’t take you long to earn a spot on my Ignore list. Congrats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,853 Posts
2 Trillion. Every article I saw said 2 Trillion. That's huge enough, don't add to it!
Let's take the $6.7 Trillion stimulus from March 2020 for example.


Here's how it worked: The "Federal Reserve" printed $6.7 Trillion out of thin air, and loaned it to FedGov. FedGov will have to pay that money back in the future, with interest. In other words, future generations of Americans will be paying back these loans (with interest) to the private "Federal Reserve" bank.


In contrast, if the Treasury Department printed the $6.7 Trillion directly without needing to borrow from anyone (as it did before 1913), that money would not need to be paid back to anyone, since the Treasury Department printed it out of thin air, instead of letting someone else (the "Federal Reserve") print it out of thin air and then borrow it with interest from the "Federal Reserve."


Of course, money printing is bad since it causes inflation, but if you are going to print $6.7 Trillion for a stimulus, it is better to have the government print debt-free money, which will only cause inflation.


As opposed to having the private "Federal Reserve" bank print the money and loan it to FedGov, which causes inflation AND puts the government (and hence the American people) in debt to a private bank.


If the decision has been made to print $6.7 Trillion (as the government did in March), what would you rather have?

1) Inflation.


2) Inflation AND the American people owing $6.7 Trillion to a private globalist bank, which must be repaid with interest.



If you're printing money out of thin air, you're going to have inflation. So you might as well print debt-free money, instead of money that has to be repaid with interest to a private bank by future generations of Americans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,713 Posts
Default on who? These are 2018 numbers.

Capture.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,520 Posts
Not in terms of purchasing power.


While the amount of dollars someone earns may have increased, the value of those dollars is less due to inflation caused by Uncle Fed's irresponsible money printing.


Thus, a wage amount (say, $20,000) that would give you a middle class lifestyle in the 1970s, would have you below the poverty line today.



Take a look at the gold chart in my previous post. 50 years ago you could by an ounce of gold for around $100. Today, that same ounce of gold would cost you $2,000 because the value (purchasing power) of the US dollar has decreased drastically.
$20,000 in 1970's dollars is $134,164.95 today, hardly an average wage considering median US income is $68,400 this year. Interestingly, median US income in 1970 was $9,870 which equates to $65,606 today. So median income has been almost completely static over the last 50 years when accounting for inflation. Meanwhile US GDP was 1.073 trillion in 1970 while it was $21.43 trillion in 2019. US workers are 21 times as productive now than they were in 1970...but they make the same amount of money. The richest single person in 1970 was Howard Hughes and worth $1-1.5 billion while the richest person in 2019 was Jeff Bezos at $114 billion, 100 times what Howard Hughes was worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,619 Posts
I'd rather stop all aid to foreign countries
Problem - foreign aid comes in many different forms and from many motivations.
1. The US "lent" m1 rifles to Greece after WW2 to fight the Communists. Eventually, the ones not used up were returned and distributed in the US through CMP.
2. With German permission, the US airdropped food into starving western Holland during early 1945.
3. There was a time (not in decades) when the US government bought up grain and stored it in many silos - and then gave it to support favorable governments in third world countries.
4. Sometimes, the US would "give" foreign aid to a country in exchange for permission to build and maintain a US military installation.
5. The US does not "give" the latest military aircraft to Arab countries. It "allows" some of the countries to buy the aircraft.
6. It takes a long time in the supply line to produce military jet aircraft for the US. It is not like I think was in 1945 that a B25 bomber was made in 24 hours. Moreover, the US Congress funding doesn't necessarily permit smooth operation of the supply chain. So, sometimes military aircraft will be sold at lower price just to keep the supply chain going.
Comment - if you think that it doesn't make sense and is stupid, I want you to remember that Iraq got loans and bought one h--l of a lot of tanks and aircraft from the Russians and the Soviets and never ended up paying the bill for all that material. That was Russian and Soviet military "aid" to keep its supply chain going. And, when the Russians fired intercontinental missiles from a ship in the landlocked Aral Sea to targets in Syria a few years ago, you can only imagine how difficult it was to construct replacement missiles.
7. The US gave millions of aid to the Wuhan labs. Oops! Guess it was cheaper than creating and maintaining epidemic viruses in the US. Aid went to the lowest bidder!
8. US aid in training special forces troops for Mexico ended up with the trained soldiers forming the first cartel in Mexico!
9. The US makes contributions to UN operations in excess of what is actually assessed. Rather than end foreign aid, I propose that the excess contributions to that organization be repurposed. Take the excess and build new UN buildings in Somalia, Kenya and Mali to replace the buildings in New York City and Switzerland. The cost of operations of the UN will be reduced and the intellectual diplomats will quickly figure out real world solutions to the unrest in those countries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,114 Posts
My favorite topic.

The debt will not only not be paid off but it was never designed to be.

The growth of the federal government into areas it never should have been allowed to go into (pensions, social security, pension insurance) Has slowly created a model which is unsustainable.

Case in point: unfunded liabilities. Depending on whose numbers you want to believe the government has somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 trillion dollars in debts it’s liable for in the form of pension guarantees, long term leases, purchase agreements, etc.

It’s been awhile since I ran the numbers but the government operates like a household making $40K a year with $300K in credit card debt and a mortgage of $2 million dollars. Its only a matter of time before it sovereign defaults or monetizes the debt fully-either way will be catastrophic to the world financial markets.

Imagine for a moment the fed became 100% fiscally responsible in 2021. Amortized the current debt would take centuries to pay off.

The financial failure of the fed is almost a certainty by now. I’m 51 and have a standing $1,000 bet it happens in my lifetime...it does and the money is worthless anyway. It doesn’t it’s buying power won’t buy a stick of gum.
 

·
Sarcasm Inc.
Joined
·
15,092 Posts
Problem - foreign aid comes in many different forms and from many motivations.
1. The US "lent" m1 rifles to Greece after WW2 to fight the Communists. Eventually, the ones not used up were returned and distributed in the US through CMP.
2. With German permission, the US airdropped food into starving western Holland during early 1945.
3. There was a time (not in decades) when the US government bought up grain and stored it in many silos - and then gave it to support favorable governments in third world countries.
4. Sometimes, the US would "give" foreign aid to a country in exchange for permission to build and maintain a US military installation.
5. The US does not "give" the latest military aircraft to Arab countries. It "allows" some of the countries to buy the aircraft.
6. It takes a long time in the supply line to produce military jet aircraft for the US. It is not like I think was in 1945 that a B25 bomber was made in 24 hours. Moreover, the US Congress funding doesn't necessarily permit smooth operation of the supply chain. So, sometimes military aircraft will be sold at lower price just to keep the supply chain going.
Comment - if you think that it doesn't make sense and is stupid, I want you to remember that Iraq got loans and bought one h--l of a lot of tanks and aircraft from the Russians and the Soviets and never ended up paying the bill for all that material. That was Russian and Soviet military "aid" to keep its supply chain going. And, when the Russians fired intercontinental missiles from a ship in the landlocked Aral Sea to targets in Syria a few years ago, you can only imagine how difficult it was to construct replacement missiles.
7. The US gave millions of aid to the Wuhan labs. Oops! Guess it was cheaper than creating and maintaining epidemic viruses in the US. Aid went to the lowest bidder!
8. US aid in training special forces troops for Mexico ended up with the trained soldiers forming the first cartel in Mexico!
9. The US makes contributions to UN operations in excess of what is actually assessed. Rather than end foreign aid, I propose that the excess contributions to that organization be repurposed. Take the excess and build new UN buildings in Somalia, Kenya and Mali to replace the buildings in New York City and Switzerland. The cost of operations of the UN will be reduced and the intellectual diplomats will quickly figure out real world solutions to the unrest in those countries.
And what does WWII aid have to do with today? You used a whole lot of words to say mostly nothing. I am for pulling out of the united nations to and kicking United States hating countries embassies out of the United States too.
We have become a joke and an atm with other countries they need to survive with out us. We lost alot of face respect with Obama in office
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,619 Posts
And what does WWII aid have to do with today? You used a whole lot of words to say mostly nothing.
Yes, I would like us out of the UN as well.

What does WW2 aid have to do with it? Good question. Simple, someone comes up with an idea to aid an ally or fund a resistance group. And, it gets done. We had an ambassador to Libya killed because the US was buying up missiles or trying to buy them and give them (not sell them) to people in Syria. So, I should have used that example. It is using standins so Americans are not killed in combat. That is why we gave supplies to the Ukranians (current) and the weird Afghan government.

Sure, I used a lot of words to say nothing. If you want to be an isolationist, that is fine. I respect that. But never suggest that any food be sent to starving people using the taxpayers money; never suggest that American troops be sent overseas as trainers of other people. Then you are no longer an isolationist. Those are foreign aid as well.
 

·
Sarcasm Inc.
Joined
·
15,092 Posts
Yes, I would like us out of the UN as well.

What does WW2 aid have to do with it? Good question. Simple, someone comes up with an idea to aid an ally or fund a resistance group. And, it gets done. We had an ambassador to Libya killed because the US was buying up missiles or trying to buy them and give them (not sell them) to people in Syria. So, I should have used that example. It is using standins so Americans are not killed in combat. That is why we gave supplies to the Ukranians (current) and the weird Afghan government.

Sure, I used a lot of words to say nothing. If you want to be an isolationist, that is fine. I respect that. But never suggest that any food be sent to starving people using the taxpayers money; never suggest that American troops be sent overseas as trainers of other people. Then you are no longer an isolationist. Those are foreign aid as well.
We can't take care of the whole world, they expect it now and won't even try to deal with their own problems just easier to beg for help instead. If there is no food ,move where their is food. If they don't like their government let them stand up and fix the problem themselves.We keep giving and giving while our own people are suffered from alot of the same things and yet we don't help or own people as much as we do other nations. Illegal immigrants get more benefits then then our disabled vetrans do. We are becoming a third world country ourselves and should think of us first, especially when other contries hate us but keep sucking up the free stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdcochran

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,619 Posts
If they don't like their government let them stand up and fix the problem themselves.

Oh, I agree. Do you get tired reading every year about hurricanes lashing Central American and the pleas for money aid. Do you wonder why the people put up with their corrupt governments and those governments don't make an effort to anticipate the annual hurricanes.

. Illegal immigrants get more benefits then then our disabled vetrans do.

I have been pissed for years at the fact that the successive American governments since 1945 have promised to take care of the vets and have failed to do so. Do I like that someone come illegally and takes benefits that could be given to citizens? I have heard of just one hospital in Las Vegas that has some 40 illegals on dialysis alone. /QUOTE]

If you have read some of my posts like Germany not having any operations subs today, few operational aircraft and tanks????? Where is the anger at the last few administrations who didn't enforce the pledges of European countries to spend 2% of some figure on military???
 
41 - 58 of 58 Posts
Top