US borrows more money from itself...

[ThaBigP]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaYkzVJ3cZcc&refer=home

Sorry folks...I'm starting to see method behind the madness (to paraphrase Shakespear). I'm thinking now this is a deliberate act by the string-pullers to crush the dollar to worthless status. Then, when the call comes for world currency, we will have no choice...unelss we resign ourselves to 3rd world status for the next few generations as we start rebuilding our economy from scratch.

Now riddle me this: with a nation full of folks who would (and HAVE) KILLED a man for a Wii on sale (and if not for him, would have killed the woman and her unborn child he gave his life protecting) - do you think for one minute these folks would suffer the storm of our own making, or scream LIBERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR STUFF!!!!

They already exchanged a life for stuff....

[ThaBigP]

By the way, don't think that the "easy way out" is for the US alone to simply flip the bird at the notion of a world currency. If the rest of the world does sign on, they will jump right out of the dollar since they will be required to hold SDR-backed assets. The fact that they've been using our dollar as a reserve currency and buying up our Treasuries is the only thing now that's giving our dollar any value.

We don't make anything anymore for the most part. We pour one another coffee and hang out at book stores. And watch American Idol...produced with equipment made...overseas.

[STAR GAZER]

US borrows more money from itself...Don't you mean from the Tax Payers.

[STAR GAZER]

I'm thinking now this is a deliberate act by the string-pullers to crush the dollar to worthless status. Then, when the call comes for world currency, we will have no choice...unelss we resign ourselves to 3rd world status for the next few generations as we start rebuilding our economy from scratch.This has crossed my mind (Amero). But it just seems too far fetched. Not that I wouldn't think so if there was more evidence. Nothing would surprise me anymore.

[Cajuncowboy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaYkzVJ3cZcc&refer=home

Sorry folks...I'm starting to see method behind the madness (to paraphrase Shakespear). I'm thinking now this is a deliberate act by the string-pullers to crush the dollar to worthless status. Then, when the call comes for world currency, we will have no choice...unelss we resign ourselves to 3rd world status for the next few generations as we start rebuilding our economy from scratch.

Now riddle me this: with a nation full of folks who would (and HAVE) KILLED a man for a Wii on sale (and if not for him, would have killed the woman and her unborn child he gave his life protecting) - do you think for one minute these folks would suffer the storm of our own making, or scream LIBERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR STUFF!!!!

They already exchanged a life for stuff....

I agree....

Read this thread if you haven't already...

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149597

[CowboyWay]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaYkzVJ3cZcc&refer=home



Now riddle me this: with a nation full of folks who would (and HAVE) KILLED a man for a Wii on sale

.

A couple of nuts out there and you're going to generalize that our nation is "full of folks" who would do this?

Overgeneralize much?

[ShiningStar]

A couple of nuts out there and you're going to generalize that our nation is "full of folks" who would do this?

Overgeneralize much?


a couple? more and more gangs are getting daring because they know the police cant touch them. Its gotten so bad Police are finally admitting they cant keep up.

Now once all the gun laws go thru and this country is nice and defenseless, yes you will see more and more violence. Its a cycle people dont understand.

[masomenos]

Our allys wouldn't sign on to a one world currency. The UK wouldn't, Germany wouldn't, Australia wouldn't, Japan wouldn't, Canada wouldn't, Israel wouldn't and South Korea wouldn't. Of those 9 countries, 8 are in the top 15 economies in the world. The countries who want to push towards a global currency, let them. Our coalition of the strongest economies in the world would place huge tariffs on the other countries or simply ban trade with them altogether. Let's see how the rest of the world would fair without the largest supplier of food (the U.S.) sending them grain.

No one in the government is trying to collapse the economy, there's no conspiracy by the higher ups to crush the dollar. You're talking about the economic version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

And we have the third largest export economy in the world, with a huge gap between us and Japan who is 4th. We're not just a service based economy. So what if part of our economy is dedicated towards pouring coffee for one another and sitting in bookstores, that's a privelage that we have earned through economic strength. We're a leisure nation and that's a good thing. People who don't have to spend all of their time in coal mines or sweat shops are able to consume art, literature and music. They are able to ponder philosophy and theology and politics. And yes, they are able to watch American Idol and knock back a few Bud Lights.

[theogt]

Wake me when the hyper-inflation gets here.

[iceberg]

Wake me when the hyper-inflation gets here.

and when it does, what will be your excuse for getting THIS wrong?

[theogt]

and when it does, what will be your excuse for getting THIS wrong?I haven't gotten anything wrong yet with regard to the economy. Thanks.

[iceberg]

I haven't gotten anything wrong yet with regard to the economy. Thanks.

so this is a soft recession???

[ThaBigP]

I haven't gotten anything wrong yet with regard to the economy. Thanks.

And the government did not buy stakes in banks and other companies.

Nice.

Not only wrong, but defiantly so.

[ThaBigP]

Our allys wouldn't sign on to a one world currency. The UK wouldn't, Germany wouldn't, Australia wouldn't, Japan wouldn't, Canada wouldn't, Israel wouldn't and South Korea wouldn't. Of those 9 countries, 8 are in the top 15 economies in the world. The countries who want to push towards a global currency, let them. Our coalition of the strongest economies in the world would place huge tariffs on the other countries or simply ban trade with them altogether. Let's see how the rest of the world would fair without the largest supplier of food (the U.S.) sending them grain.

No one in the government is trying to collapse the economy, there's no conspiracy by the higher ups to crush the dollar. You're talking about the economic version of a 9/11 conspiracy.

And we have the third largest export economy in the world, with a huge gap between us and Japan who is 4th. We're not just a service based economy. So what if part of our economy is dedicated towards pouring coffee for one another and sitting in bookstores, that's a privelage that we have earned through economic strength. We're a leisure nation and that's a good thing. People who don't have to spend all of their time in coal mines or sweat shops are able to consume art, literature and music. They are able to ponder philosophy and theology and politics. And yes, they are able to watch American Idol and knock back a few Bud Lights.

I wish you were right. But you're not. Germany HAS ALREADY CALLED for it. France as well. Russia. China. I'm not sure England has chimed in. The UN called for it as well. And as for your liesure society...OMG. You realize that the rest of the world is funding that lifestyle? We don't do it ourselves anymore. We used to. We used to have both...a hard day's work then a hard weekend's play. Now we just play and lounge and demand more stuff. The rest of the world isn't going to (and indeed can't) pay for us to sit around and pass laws preventing us from producing anymore.

Edit: and by the way, I'm not "certain" by any stretch this is a deliberate act...but it's just starting to smell like one. If a person believes that you can start manufacturing money by the trillions and it will not collpase the monetary system are either A) absolute idiots, or B) deliberately destroying the currency. Neither is a good option, as either one is running things (and has been for some time - this is not about Obama or even the Dems here). There IS NO OTHER explanation. Sorry. If you load a gun, chamber it, unsafety it, put it to your head, pull the trigger, and blow a hole in your head - you either didn't know any better due to age or being mentally infirm, or you intended to kill yourself.

[Vintage]

So you mean to tell me.... the EU cannot get every European nation on board with the Euro...

Yet... one world currency is going to happen.

OK.

[iceberg]

So you mean to tell me.... the EU cannot get every European nation on board with the Euro...

Yet... one world currency is going to happen.

OK.

it's not so much getting on board, but the debt we're putting ourselves into is something that's going to give more power than we'd like to *any* other country.

[Vintage]

it's not so much getting on board, but the debt we're putting ourselves into is something that's going to give more power than we'd like to *any* other country.

We'd have to agree to use this hypothetical one world currency.

Then, every nation in the world would have to agree to use this one world currency.

Seeing as how the EU cannot even accomplish this (on a much smaller scale), consider me EXTREMELY skeptical this ever happens.

[iceberg]

We'd have to agree to use this hypothetical one world currency.

Then, every nation in the world would have to agree to use this one world currency.

Seeing as how the EU cannot even accomplish this (on a much smaller scale), consider me EXTREMELY skeptical this ever happens.

overall, i agree. if the euro can't do it, going on a larger scale would be even harder. but we do seem hellbent on trying to screw ourselves up.

[masomenos]

I wish you were right. But you're not. Germany HAS ALREADY CALLED for it. France as well. Russia. China. I'm not sure England has chimed in. The UN called for it as well. And as for your liesure society...OMG. You realize that the rest of the world is funding that lifestyle? We don't do it ourselves anymore. We used to. We used to have both...a hard day's work then a hard weekend's play. Now we just play and lounge and demand more stuff. The rest of the world isn't going to (and indeed can't) pay for us to sit around and pass laws preventing us from producing anymore.

Edit: and by the way, I'm not "certain" by any stretch this is a deliberate act...but it's just starting to smell like one. If a person believes that you can start manufacturing money by the trillions and it will not collpase the monetary system are either A) absolute idiots, or B) deliberately destroying the currency. Neither is a good option, as either one is running things (and has been for some time - this is not about Obama or even the Dems here). There IS NO OTHER explanation. Sorry. If you load a gun, chamber it, unsafety it, put it to your head, pull the trigger, and blow a hole in your head - you either didn't know any better due to age or being mentally infirm, or you intended to kill yourself.

So even if you drop Germany off the list, you have 7 of the top 15 economies int he world that aren't on board with a new global reserve currency. I guarantee that Germany would back off if there access to the UK and the US were greatly limited by tariffs. And so what if the U.N. calls for it, we have veto power.

What are you talking about, the rest of the world funds our leisure? And we don't work hard anymore? Our workers put in more hours every year than almost any other country.

As to your edit: Maybe you just don't understand monetary theory as well as you think you do.

[theogt]

so this is a soft recession???Not right now it isn't. But I said it was a soft recession at the time and that it would continue to be unless the financial crises was allowed to bleed over into the real economy. That happened, to an extreme extent, when the government allowed Lehman to fall.

So, I was right in both (1) stating that it was a soft recession at the time, and (2) predicting that this would no longer be a soft recession when something like Lehman happened.

Of course, you're absolutely clueless as to the effect that something like Lehman falling has on the economy, so you're unable to comprehend what I'm talking about.

And the government did not buy stakes in banks and other companies.

Nice.

Not only wrong, but defiantly so.You said it was the plan to buy stakes when, at the time you said it, that wasn't true. It was on the table, as was everything else, but at that time it wasn't the plan. Over the next few weeks (after you said that), the plan changed, obviously. I never said it wouldn't change. I said that wasn't the case at that time.

Of course, this has been explained to you time and time again. I'm not sure what's preventing you from understanding it.

[iceberg]

Not right now it isn't. But I said it was a soft recession at the time and that it would continue to be unless the financial crises was allowed to bleed over into the real economy. That happened, to an extreme extent, when the government allowed Lehman to fall.

So, I was right in both (1) stating that it was a soft recession at the time, and (2) predicting that this would no longer be a soft recession when something like Lehman happened.

Of course, you're absolutely clueless as to the effect that something like Lehman falling has on the economy, so you're unable to comprehend what I'm talking about.

You said it was the plan to buy stakes when, at the time you said it, that wasn't true. It was on the table, as was everything else, but at that time it wasn't the plan. Over the next few weeks (after you said that), the plan changed, obviously. I never said it wouldn't change. I said that wasn't the case at that time.

Of course, this has been explained to you time and time again. I'm not sure what's preventing you from understanding it.

so you're making excuses.

like i said you would.

dude, you just got played. for someone so smart able to see what's comin, you missed my open book by a mile and dove right into where i was leading.

like i knew you would.

arrogance is easy to beat.

[theogt]

so you're making excuses.

like i said you would.

dude, you just got played. for someone so smart able to see what's comin, you missed my open book by a mile and dove right into where i was leading.

like i knew you would.

arrogance is easy to beat.You can't refute anything I said can you?

[iceberg]

You can't refute anything I said can you?

you can't refute anything i said either, can you?

this is another fun game.

i don't CARE what you said, only said exactly what you do - have excuses for being wrong.

[ThaBigP]

You said it was the plan to buy stakes when, at the time you said it, that wasn't true. It was on the table, as was everything else, but at that time it wasn't the plan. Over the next few weeks (after you said that), the plan changed, obviously. I never said it wouldn't change. I said that wasn't the case at that time.

Of course, this has been explained to you time and time again. I'm not sure what's preventing you from understanding it.

Nope, I was QUOTING them....AT THAT TIME. You read the quotes and dismissed them. For some reason. AT THAT TIME. You do not get to sit there with folded arms going "hmpf" and say "well, it changed since then". Nope. I was quoting their own words, AT THAT TIME. Barney Frank was one of them, during the TARP debates, that said they would try to steer this toward buying up bank stakes. AT THAT TIME. And I quoted him to you...AT THAT TIME.

nice try though.

[ThaBigP]

You said it was the plan to buy stakes when, at the time you said it, that wasn't true. It was on the table, as was everything else, but at that time it wasn't the plan. Over the next few weeks (after you said that), the plan changed, obviously. I never said it wouldn't change. I said that wasn't the case at that time.

Of course, this has been explained to you time and time again. I'm not sure what's preventing you from understanding it.

I further find it very funny and quite evasive in how you defend your assertions and "refute" mine. Aside from the fact that I was posting contemporary quotes, we were discussing how these bailouts would evolve. I said they would evolve very rapidly into buying up stakes in banks and other companies. You said "no, they wouldn't". Now, after-the-fact, you attempt to "refute" my predictions by (get this...), stating that they happened shortly after my prediction, therefore my prediction was .... inaccurate....somehow.

Edit: I'll say it again as well...I was by no means going out on a limb with my "predictions". I was just listening to them, and applying what I know about the nature of government - to continually seek to empower itself. Their own statements simpy reinforced that. There's no crystal ball over here in front of my monitor or anything...

[MetalHead]

Nope, I was QUOTING them....AT THAT TIME. You read the quotes and dismissed them. For some reason. AT THAT TIME. You do not get to sit there with folded arms going "hmpf" and say "well, it changed since then". Nope. I was quoting their own words, AT THAT TIME. Barney Frank was one of them, during the TARP debates, that said they would try to steer this toward buying up bank stakes. AT THAT TIME. And I quoted him to you...AT THAT TIME.

nice try though.

At that time is the new monday morning QB.

[MetalHead]

I further find it very funny and quite evasive in how you defend your assertions and "refute" mine. Aside from the fact that I was posting contemporary quotes, we were discussing how these bailouts would evolve. I said they would evolve very rapidly into buying up stakes in banks and other companies. You said "no, they wouldn't". Now, after-the-fact, you attempt to "refute" my predictions by (get this...), stating that they happened shortly after my prediction, therefore my prediction was .... inaccurate....somehow.

Edit: I'll say it again as well...I was by no means going out on a limb with my "predictions". I was just listening to them, and applying what I know about the nature of government - to continually seek to empower itself. Their own statements simpy reinforced that. There's no crystal ball over here in front of my monitor or anything...

Better be careful BigP...you are not allowed to think,predict or even have an imagination.
That constitutes a conspiracy theorist label.

[theogt]

you can't refute anything i said either, can you?

this is another fun game.

i don't CARE what you said, only said exactly what you do - have excuses for being wrong.Actually, I pretty clearly did.

[theogt]

Nope, I was QUOTING them....AT THAT TIME. You read the quotes and dismissed them. For some reason. AT THAT TIME. You do not get to sit there with folded arms going "hmpf" and say "well, it changed since then". Nope. I was quoting their own words, AT THAT TIME. Barney Frank was one of them, during the TARP debates, that said they would try to steer this toward buying up bank stakes. AT THAT TIME. And I quoted him to you...AT THAT TIME.

nice try though.

I further find it very funny and quite evasive in how you defend your assertions and "refute" mine. Aside from the fact that I was posting contemporary quotes, we were discussing how these bailouts would evolve. I said they would evolve very rapidly into buying up stakes in banks and other companies. You said "no, they wouldn't". Now, after-the-fact, you attempt to "refute" my predictions by (get this...), stating that they happened shortly after my prediction, therefore my prediction was .... inaccurate....somehow.

Edit: I'll say it again as well...I was by no means going out on a limb with my "predictions". I was just listening to them, and applying what I know about the nature of government - to continually seek to empower itself. Their own statements simpy reinforced that. There's no crystal ball over here in front of my monitor or anything...Like I said, there were talks about that possibility at the time. But you said something to the effect of "the plan is to buy stakes in banks." While it was true that there were talks about doing so, it was NOT the plan at the time.

I made no prediction as to how the plan would eventually unfold, I was only stating that it was NOT the plan at the time. And it wasn't. If you meant that you thought it would eventually evolve into that, then I simply misunderstood you. No, you're right, it wasn't going out on a limb to "predict" that at the time. But I didn't read it as a "prediction," and therein lies my misunderstanding of what you were saying.

To say I was predicting that it wouldn't evolve into that is wrong, though, since I make no claim as to predicting behavior of Congress. That's silly to do so.

[iceberg]

Actually, I pretty clearly did.

heh, i'm sure in your mind you did.

ok, theo. you win. you rule. rah.

[theogt]

heh, i'm sure in your mind you did.

ok, theo. you win. you rule. rah.I'm glad you're finally moving on. You bring up the topic weekly.

[iceberg]

I'm glad you're finally moving on. You bring up the topic weekly.

see you next week.

[Vintage]

Better be careful BigP...you are not allowed to think,predict or even have an imagination.
That constitutes a conspiracy theorist label.


Well, it seems a bit tinfoil hat-ish to suggest a one world currency is going to take place pretty soon.

[iceberg]

Well, it seems a bit tinfoil hat-ish to suggest a one world currency is going to take place pretty soon.

maybe. but conspiracy theories are usually void of real life examples to give them pause for ponder.

how else can you explain the drastic actions going on today now?

if there was ever a time a conspiracy theory was on the money,this is a time to pay attention.