Occupy Wall Street

dane · Post by **dane** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:02 am

and yet the most prosperous times in our nation's history has been where top rate tax bracket is between 50-90%.... Wonder why? Because they're forced to invest their money back into companies in the US/the country instead of hoarding it offshore and using every grey tax loophole so that they're never even paying their fair share due to never actually reporting the correct amount of income... PIC started it's decline from 70% to the current rate starting with reaganomics in the 80s and up until the point we're at today.. Wonder why the economy has slowly started it's gradual decline as the top earners aren't investing their wealth back into the country, instead shipping jobs overseas and using loopholes to get out of paying the measly 35% that they're required too now. Hoarding wealth and shipping middle class american jobs overseas in the name of bigger profit margins and bucks in their pocket has slowly shrank the middle class to the point where there isn't hardly one left to buy their products.. But hey man, your dad makes 100k! (no clue what you do, or if you even work, wouldn't be shocked to find out you don't) so lets protect those top earners who hold way too much influence on the way our nation is ran through special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington.. As long as the 99% can pay the burden for them stuffing their coffers, it's all good right?

You're a fucking idiot.

dane · Post by **dane** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:03 am

and your blind defense of the banks/1%/so forth is just astonishing.. God forbid the top earners in this country (the country they live in and were able to make so much money!) are being asked to give back to make the country better, what a shock... God forbid having to help other people who aren't as fortunate as you to have a greater society as a whole.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:04 am

If you're going to make the argument the 'bottom don't pay anything', then you're patently ignoring state and local taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

The bottom pay a huge proportion of their income to taxes. The top do not because of clever financial tools.

Like, yeah, there are a lot of idiots at Occupy Wall Street. There are also a lot of people who are tired of a system that is subsidizing ridiculous financial risk to the tax payer while allowing the profits to remain privatized.

America needs the Glass-Steagall Act badly.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:50 am

God forbid the top earners in this country (the country they live in and were able to make so much money!) are being asked to give back to make the country better, what a shock... God forbid having to help other people who aren't as fortunate as you to have a greater society as a whole.

I would be willing to bet that any given super rich person has given back via foundations or donations more in the last quarter than your entire family tree has throughout its entire exsistance.

Who the fuck are you to tell someone how they "should" spend their money again?

in the name of bigger profit margins and bucks in their pocket has slowly shrank the middle class to the point where there isn't hardly one left to buy their products..

And what would you have them do? Hire people just for fun? Reduce profit margins intentionally? Crush their own market share and drive off cheaper capital?

Business is business. People are in business to make money.

Why don't you open your little fairy tale business and practice what you preach. It won't be long before it's in bankruptcy.

so lets protect those top earners who hold way too much influence on the way our nation is ran through special interest groups and lobbyists in Washington..

If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free, it expects what
never was and never will be.---

The people control who gets to Washington and who stays in Washington. I'm sorry the average American is retarded, completely lazy and ignorant and doesn't fight for their best interests. A lot of people don't even vote period, let alone actually know what they're voting for or against. Sorry some people have organized and fought for things in their best interests.

If such a small group of people are dominating decisions against the "helpless" majority, then why doesn't the majority rise up and vote...and get what favors them instead. Create their own "little special interest group" of sorts.

Oh, that's right they're too busy texting on their blackberry and watching dancing with the stars to do anything proactive (apathy and dependence stage of the fall of great civilizations).

Pointing out problems does not solves anything. Create a solution to the problem and begin working towards it. If you learn one thing it's that if you want something done, the only way it's going to happen is if you take charge and do it. If you wait for someone else to do it or for it to just fall from the heavons, you're going to be waiting a long fucking time.

If you're going to make the argument the 'bottom don't pay anything', then you're patently ignoring state and local taxes, payroll taxes, etc.

I will agree that local and state types of taxes are regressive in nature and hurt low income earners more (However, at least these taxes they are paying is going directly to THEIR roads and THEIR schools), but when I said they don't pay anything I was clearly referring to federal income tax rates (like they were in the video). If you really want to get into it, the rich pay state and local taxes as well..so.

The top do not because of clever financial tools.

CORPORATIONS ARE DOUBLE TAXED. Even if the entity itself does not pay federal income taxes because of taking advantage of provisions in the code, by buying new machinery or donating or whatever, the EARNINGS PAID TO SHAREHOLDERS ARE STILL HIT.

If a corporation grows tremendously from being given breaks, it means they will still pay more state and local taxes for materials or payroll taxes, and their donations help reduce government burden (hense they get a break for it). Their federal liability may be lowered because they're smart enough to invest in accountants(spending THEIR MONEY and paying more payroll taxes, on computers, on whatever to reduce other kinds of taxes), but again, it's all double taxed. IT'S DOUBLE TAXED.

If they taxed the corporations more (IE taking money away that could be invested)....there's less earnings to pay out to shareholders....If they tax corporations less, and STIMULATE the economy in many of the ways I've already mentions, HEY HEY there's more earnings paid to shareholders (and access to cheaper capital)...that get hit with taxes anyways.

If you're referring to high earners like an athlete, movie star, or CEO, then it works in a very similar way to corporations. Every cent is eventually taxed and taken somewhere along the line. The code merely specifies who gets which break where---while encourging or discouraging certain behavior.

You're a fucking idiot.

Uh huh. If we could somehow magically reset the income distribution, how long do you think it would take for the stupid, lazy people to be poor again and the successful to be succesful again? It wouldn't be long before these idiots shouting in parks would be requesting for things to be made "fair" again.

(no clue what you do, or if you even work, wouldn't be shocked to find out you don't)

I'm a CPA. Don't question my work ethic. Thanks.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:16 am

HAHAHA I'M A CPA DON'T QUESTION MY WORK ETHIC.
p.s. you're posting on an internet forum at 2pm in the middle of the week.

You completely missed dane's point, by the way. He's not saying that rich people shouldn't try to make money, he's saying that our tax policy encourages actions by those rich people that drive our economy into the shitter. Whether poor people are uninformed/ignorant isn't relevant to the truth of the statement. Whether or not the available solution is there if the ignorant/uninformed can vote for it isn't relevant. Our tax policy sucks, our corporate structure sucks, and so long as our economy sucks (due to #1 and #2) people don't have a choice but to deal with it.

Also:
Given that no super rich person has gone to war for this country in the last quarter, their "giving back via foundations or donations" pales in comparison to what dane's family tree has given to our country in just one generation. It's easy to "give back" when giving back is free (at least our tax code makes donating to [the bureaucrats running] non-profits free!).

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:24 am

HAHAHA I'M A CPA DON'T QUESTION MY WORK ETHIC.
p.s. you're posting on an internet forum at 2pm in the middle of the week.

And so are you. People do not work 24 hours every day. What's your point?

It's easy to "give back" when giving back is free (at least our tax code makes donating to [the bureaucrats running] non-profits free!).

[/quote]

Right....
Say $100,000 of their taxes went to feeding poor. Instead, they give $100,000 directly to a charity of their choice....and THEN get a tax break. Only because they reduced the government burden. What part of that was "free"? They're meeting the social burden directly instead of the government doing it, but it's the same result.

The tax code "sucks", yet you don't seem to know the first fucking thing about it.

Spare me the military speach. We're one of the most aggressive and greedy empires the world has ever seen. If anything, all it has done is sown the seeds of our own destruction. Americans are brainwashed beyond measure when it comes to the American military.

Our tax policy isn't why the economy sucks. I'm not going to bother explaining the actual reason, but if you'd like to give yourself the slightest bit of a clue read this.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1 ... 54,00.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=3482
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

Get a clue.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:33 am

I won't get my CPA certification for a few more months so I don't have that superb work ethic that Brent Musburger has (by the way, who the fuck are you? Did you ever even play DOD?) but for the record I agree with Dane and Scorch. Please don't judge all CPA's by this guy.

He is however partially right that its not the tax code's fault the economy sucks. Its more the fact that George Bush took over the economy in 2001 and decided that we could have all the great economic growth from the 1990's but we wouldn't have to pay for it. The clinton era taxes are what we need to go back to.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:38 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
HAHAHA I'M A CPA DON'T QUESTION MY WORK ETHIC.
p.s. you're posting on an internet forum at 2pm in the middle of the week.
And so are you. People do not work 24 hours every day. What's your point?

Also:
It's easy to "give back" when giving back is free (at least our tax code makes donating to [the bureaucrats running] non-profits free!).
Right....
Say $100,000 of their taxes went to feeding poor. Instead, they give $100,000 directly to a charity of their choice....and THEN get a tax break. Only because they reduced the government burden. What part of that was "free"? They're meeting the social burden directly instead of the government doing it, but it's the same result.

The tax code "sucks", yet you don't seem to know the first fucking thing about it.

Our tax policy isn't why the economy sucks. I'm not really going to get into it, but our economy sucks because we abused our privaledge as the world's reserve currency, and we're about to pay a very high price for it if/when we lose said power----which unfortunately seems likely at this point. Then you'll see what a really shitty economy is.

One is completely compulsory the other is only if the wealthy individual chooses to do so. I know charities, especially right now, feel desperate every year. There is no "guarantee" that guy that gave $100 or $200 or $5,000 or whatever will do so ever again.

There is a reason why we quit banking on the wealthiest simply to be charitable as some sort of social safety net.

Contrary to your popular belief, the poor and the lowest class are the mostly likely to give, and they do so in fairly meaningful contributions in relation to their income. Source.

It might not seem like it's a big deal to you, but charitable giving is down across the country, but the poor are the ones the most willing to part with their money.

Just so you know, the BCS games like the Orange Bowl is a registered non-profit and counts as a charity because it "encourages tourism to Miami." I wager when you start putting in perspective of what qualifies at a 501(c), then you'll see how a lot of wealthy people in particular circumvent the system. That's just anecdotal, but if you were to start combing through the 501s and donor lists you wouldn't be surprised with the results.

Maybe we can deconstruct that myth that the wealthy will just give to charities if they didn't have to pay taxes, right up there with "businesses will act in their long term best interests."

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:38 am

Please don't judge all CPA's by this guy.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It says nothing about my character or how I conduct myself personally or professionally.

I don't agree with them. Deal with it.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:40 am

mg_ wrote:
Just so you know, the BCS games like the Orange Bowl is a registered non-profit and counts as a charity because it "encourages tourism to Miami." I wager when you start putting in perspective of what qualifies at a 501(c), then you'll see how a lot of wealthy people in particular circumvent the system. That's just anecdotal, but if you were to start combing through the 501s and donor lists.

Maybe we can deconstruct that myth that the wealthy will just give to charities if they didn't have to pay taxes, right up there with "businesses will act in their long term best interests."

only 501(c)3 organizations allow for deductible contributions, the orange bowl may be a 501c but its not a c3. For example when I was in college I was the treasurer for my fraternity, it was a 501c7. So we were non profit obviously but you couldn't get a tax deduction for contributing money to it.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:43 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
Please don't judge all CPA's by this guy.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It says nothing about my character or how I conduct myself personally or professionally.

I don't agree with them. Deal with it.

I was just making the point that not all CPA's are right wingers. Deal with it.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:43 am

only 501(c)3 organizations allow for deductible contributions, the orange bowl may be a 501c but its not a c3. For example when I was in college I was the treasurer for my fraternity, it was a 501c7. So we were non profit obviously but you couldn't get a tax deduction for contributing money to it.

Shhh, he was on a roll.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:46 am

I was just making the point that not all CPA's are right wingers. Deal with it.

I wouldn't really consider myself a right winger either. I fail to see how many opinions would shed any bad light on CPA's anyways. They may disagree with me, and that's fine, but I disagree with them on certain things as well. Sooo...

But yeah, I'm sure the Partners and Managers at your firm are all liberals

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:48 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
I was just making the point that not all CPA's are right wingers. Deal with it.
I wouldn't really consider myself a right winger either. I don't follow politics, because it's a sham.

Anyways, I'm sure the Partners and Managers at your firm are all liberals

Actually they are. The beauty of living in Seattle. As they are at many other firms in the city.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:50 am

gwolf_ wrote: Actually they are. The beauty of living in Seattle. As they are at many other firms in the city.

So, you're just starting your career and you went up to the partners and said "You there, are you a liberal?".

lol...

Just because the firms are about creating a positive image in the community, doesn't mean they're liberals. They want you out in the community to get clients for the firm--sure it makes you feel all warm inside--but the firms are a disgusting business monster just like any other company. Don't let the recruitment period where they kiss your ass left and right lead you away from this fact.

"Sure, sport"
"anyways, get back to working like a slave again, I have a bonus to collect"

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:51 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
only 501(c)3 organizations allow for deductible contributions, the orange bowl may be a 501c but its not a c3. For example when I was in college I was the treasurer for my fraternity, it was a 501c7. So we were non profit obviously but you couldn't get a tax deduction for contributing money to it.
Shhh, he was on a roll.

I didn't say anything about tax exemptions. I said we shouldn't count on discretionary spending in any meaningful way when providing our social safety net. It was illustrative to point to how ineffective "charitable giving" can be, and what is passed off as "charitable giving.

But hey, you thought you made a point, so I'll award you half a star to make you feel like you contributed something worthwhile to this conversation.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:52 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
gwolf_ wrote: Actually they are. The beauty of living in Seattle. As they are at many other firms in the city.
So, you're just starting your career and you went up to the partners and said "You there, are you a liberal?".

lol...

Just because the firms are about creating a positive image in the community, doesn't mean they're liberals.

Nope, I don't open my mouth about politics at work. Pure observations as well as stories I've heard from friends at other firms. There are many wealthy liberals here.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:56 am

But hey, you thought you made a point, so I'll award you half a star to make you feel like you contributed something worthwhile to this conversation.

Well, gee, you're saying it so it must be true.

Just because you don't agree with what I've said sometimes, doesn't mean it hasn't contributed anything of value. Sorry.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:56 am

My point is that certified professional accountants have no more or less of a guarantee of work ethic by the nature of their certification than any other employed person. Also, that I think it's funny when people say things like that, and for some reason I felt the need to convey that on this stupid forum instead of doing something else with my lunch break. Sue me (hint: try, there's probably a tort I'm incurring by saying that CPAs don't have a guaranteed work ethic. Thanks interest groups!).

Also, exactly how much do I need to know about the tax code before commenting on it? Do I need to be a certified tax professional to comment on its level of suckiness? Do I need to limit my statements to those of exact fact? Do I need to admit that when someone is donating to a charitable cause run by their friends, they actually are giving some money to people that need it? You're right, I haven't studied the tax code because I consider that endeavor to be a pointless waste of my time. I know enough about it to know that it's pretty shitty and that it's been written by rich people and people generally operate in their self-interest. I'm willing to pay turbotax 100$ a year to not end up in prison or indebted to the IRS in exchange for not having to learn the tax code.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:56 am

mg_ wrote:
BrentMusburger wrote:
only 501(c)3 organizations allow for deductible contributions, the orange bowl may be a 501c but its not a c3. For example when I was in college I was the treasurer for my fraternity, it was a 501c7. So we were non profit obviously but you couldn't get a tax deduction for contributing money to it.
Shhh, he was on a roll.

I didn't say anything about tax exemptions. I said we shouldn't count on discretionary spending in any meaningful way when providing our social safety net. It was illustrative to point to how ineffective "charitable giving" can be, and what is passed off as "charitable giving.

But hey, you thought you made a point, so I'll award you half a star to make you feel like you contributed something worthwhile to this conversation.

Lol. Whatever you say MG. I don't think of donations to non profits (like bowl games and fraternal organizations) as being charitable giving. I think of charitable giving as being to organizations like the red cross, unicef, educational foundations etc. So does the IRS, that's why they don't allow for a charitable contribution deduction.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:01 pm

My point is that certified professional accountants have no more or less of a guarantee of work ethic by the nature of their certification than any other employed person.

I never said they did.

He asked me what I did, and he implied that I never had a job and sat around collecting checks from daddy.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:10 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:
My point is that certified professional accountants have no more or less of a guarantee of work ethic by the nature of their certification than any other employed person.
I never said they did.

Well you did, but now I guess you didn't... and back to work.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:25 pm

gwolf_ wrote: Lol. Whatever you say MG. I don't think of donations to non profits (like bowl games and fraternal organizations) as being charitable giving. I think of charitable giving as being to organizations like the red cross, unicef, educational foundations etc. So does the IRS, that's why they don't allow for a charitable contribution deduction.

You honestly think people won't claim this? I have some land in the Everglades to sell you. I'm not saying it's good or bad that people do donate money like this, but to claim we shouldn't be taxing these people to provide programming like Foodstamps and Low income housing because people donated some money to the Red Cross (or some sort of esoteric 'social development' group) is nonsensical.

I'm sorry you seem to be under the impression people won't do it claim they're giving back to the community by donating to such organizations.

And before you get all butt-hurt like I'm making this up, the BCS bowls are registered as 501(c)(3) organizations. Hence, why Playoff PAC is suing them.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:26 pm

Basically, boom. You can bring your weak shit later on another topic.

gwolf_ · Post by **gwolf_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:26 pm

mg_ wrote:Basically, boom. You can bring your weak shit later on another topic.

I guess you're right. You win, I concede. I agree with that lawsuit though, they shouldn't have 501c3 status. That violates at the very least the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:10 pm

Nah.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:42 pm

dane · Post by **dane** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:50 pm

This thread is a peach.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:55 pm

A peach. That must be one of those fancy fruits the 1% eats.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:19 pm

“The wealth of the computer era and other innovations have made this generation so prosperous that it’s hard for them to remember what life was like not long ago.”

Ohio State University economist Richard Steckel tries to put this in perspective for his new students. “To imagine what living standards were not long ago here and are in much of the world, Steckel suggests they turn off their electricity. To really understand, he says, shut off the plumbing.”

The term "irrational exuberance" derives from some words that Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, used in a black-tie dinner speech entitled " The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society" before the American Enterprise Institute at the Washington Hilton Hotel December 5, 1996. Fourteen pages into this long speech, which was televised live on C-SPAN, he posed a rhetorical question: "But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?" He added that "We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs and price stability."

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:41 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:“The wealth of the computer era and other innovations have made this generation so prosperous that it’s hard for them to remember what life was like not long ago.”

Ohio State University economist Richard Steckel tries to put this in perspective for his new students. “To imagine what living standards were not long ago here and are in much of the world, Steckel suggests they turn off their electricity. To really understand, he says, shut off the plumbing.”

"Be happy with your lot because it could be worse." Not sure how this relates to anything other than a discussion of how educators can optimally encourage ignorance and apathy in their pupils.

The term "irrational exuberance" derives from some words that Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, used in a black-tie dinner speech entitled " The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society" before the American Enterprise Institute at the Washington Hilton Hotel December 5, 1996. Fourteen pages into this long speech, which was televised live on C-SPAN, he posed a rhetorical question: "But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?" He added that "We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs and price stability."

So, he says that the people setting interest rates don't need to be concerned with the devaluation of overpriced assets when it isn't related to an actual depression of the real economy. That would be applicable in cases of not-an-actual-depression, right? Are you implying that this economic recession/depression is imagined?

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:13 pm

I guess it is good business to choke of those who demand the things your produce so they can't buy your products anymore.

Something about myopia and short-term thinking yadi yadi yada...

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:06 pm

"Be happy with your lot because it could be worse."

No, it's more like Americans have become a spoiled and entitled lot that don't understand how good they had it, and still do have it. Look at how a kid grew up in the 1940's vs how a kid grew up in the 1990s'. It's night and day.

So, he says that the people setting interest rates don't need to be concerned with the devaluation of overpriced assets when it isn't related to an actual depression of the real economy. That would be applicable in cases of not-an-actual-depression, right? Are you implying that this economic recession/depression is imagined?

That's not at all what he was saying. He was asking (I would say warning) that if a real estate bubble was being created, and this bubble was fueling consumption that was not sustainable...."irrational exuberence" that it was going to lead to a situation like the " lost (two) decades" in Japan---speculative bubbles pop and cause major problems in the REAL economy---jobs gone, production/construction falling off a cliff, and price instability (deflationary spirals).

Of course, he retired in 2007, one year before the collapse happened at the end of 2008. Ben Bernanke, someone who spent his entire life writing about and researching the Great Depression, was brought in to contain the damage that they knew full well was coming.

Everything he wrote about years ago that he thought would save us has been tried, and either failed or did not work as effectively as he expected it would. Now, we're treading water much like what happened in the great depression----there's no bullets left to be fired with fiscal stimulous or monetary policy....If a second wave hits now...like then...we're in for a rude surprise.

I guess it is good business to choke of those who demand the things your produce so they can't buy your products anymore.

Something about myopia and short-term thinking yadi yadi yada...

If anything it's the exact opposite of short-term thinking. It's a long-term vision.

The American consumer base may shrinking, but they've created a world wide market with globalism and as those markets mature, they can simply start to sell consumer goods to that emerging middle class as well as Americans. Those people will start to want new clothes, shoes, tv's, video games, and the like. The fortune 500 are doing incredibly well right now, mostly fueled by increasing market share overseas---and slashing costs domestically, which is accelerating the transition.

As the dollar devalues by intentional (loose monetary policy) and forced means (horrible fiscal management), Americans will continue to take up less and less of the world pie. The problem is a social expirement of this magnitude (essentially taking away the high standard Americans have come accustomed to) has a high potential to end in disaster----the social classes turn against each other...rich vs poor...young vs old....government worker vs private sector worker and eventually nation vs nation when governments seek to stave off their collapse by blaming a foreign enemy for their woes-----central banks create massive wars....and the anger is building day by day.

We often hear the phrase, "Saved by WWII" when talking about the Great Depression and the 1930s. Back then, the world was in disarray, based on economic constraints rooted in WWI reparations, the expansion and bursting of the stock market, and worldwide abject poverty.

Saved by a war that cost 60 million lives? What was the option? The starvation of the poorest had begun in Eastern Europe, and revolution was in the air in the United States. No one can contemplate the extent of the disaster that is coming now, since we don't conceptualize WWII as being caused by economics.

Perhaps it's time to promote this explanation, so it would be clearer just what kind of a precipice we are now looking over.

dane · Post by **dane** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:51 pm

mg_ wrote:I guess it is good business to choke of those who demand the things your produce so they can't buy your products anymore.

Something about myopia and short-term thinking yadi yadi yada...

Always emerging markets overseas though!!!!

Sorry Brent but your argument that "shit can get worse, people take it for granted" isn't very good and doesn't make it ok.

rehpyc · Post by **rehpyc** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:39 am

excited for a global recession of 2012

Airnick15 · Post by **Airnick15** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:38 am

Anybody more scared by the National Defense Authorization Act than any economic policy in this country?

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:42 am

Airnick15 wrote:Anybody more scared by the National Defense Authorization Act than any economic policy in this country?

Anyone think they're not related and part of the same agenda?

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:58 am

mg_ wrote:Anyone think they're not related and part of the same agenda?

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:04 am

Sorry Brent but your argument that "shit can get worse, people take it for granted" isn't very good and doesn't make it ok.

Actually, it is. Life isn't easy and it never was---outside of about two times in world history--the 20's and 90's--both of which were followed by severe contractions because the central banks allowed the party to get out of control.

When was the easy and fun time?

The 80's had two financial crisis' at the start and end of the decade.

Was it the 70's with double digit inflation, gas shortages, and high unemployment?

The 60's with race riots and Vietnam tearing the country apart?

Was it the 40's with rations and a world war?

Was it the 30's during the height of the Depression?

Going back any further isn't really worth it because we know the standard of living sucks--as we lose cars, electricity, pretty much all home products like fridges, microwaves, and the like.

What we're expirencing now is the pain that needed to be brought on to stop the insanity. Deflationary spirals are incredibly hard on the world.

[youtube]RJpLMvgUXe8[/youtube]

Savings rate is being boosted. Company balance sheets are being strengened. The value of the dollar is going down to pay down debt and to close the trade gap---and slow/reverse hemoraging of jobs----but this comes at the price of price increases in essentials like food, gas, education, healthcare. They're artifically boosting the stock market to convince the boomers to retire and open up a huge slot in the work force.

It's going to take time---most likely 10-15 years--and we're in about year 4 or 5.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:24 am

rehpyc wrote:excited for a global recession of 2012

While the world press has focused on Iran's plans to move ahead with enriching uranium, Tehran continues to wage economic war against the U.S. dollar behind the scenes.

Tehran has reached a decision to end all oil sales in dollars

April 2011: Iran inaugurated the third phase of oil bourse with vast opportunities for foreign companies. All types of contracts in the oil bourse will be based upon global standards of purchase and sale and in accordance with Islamic rules.

As you can see, it continues to hammer the United States because they have the second largest reserves in the world. But don't worry, we're working on a plan to convince them of the right choice.

The Iranians had the nerve to "steal" our spy plane last week, we're pushing for tougher sanctions, and concern is growing more and more about those dreaded WMD's!!! The Folks in London and New York will have us "fighting for their freedom" if they don't reverse course soon.

Yesterday, another brick was taken out of the dollar's fundament. China and Russia announced they were quitting the dollar and instead going to trade in renminbi and rubels from now on. The announcement couldn't be less pungent. It was made by both countries' top officials, Premier Wen Jiabao and Premier Putin, not just their finance ministers or some lower ranked politicians. All of this on the Eve of the Thanksgiving Day, a day very special to America

They say a butterfly can set off a storm. But these were two elephants thumping and making the earth shake. At the same time, the Fed has very quietly become the biggest holder of U.S. debt. Right. Not China. Not Japan. Ben.

Somebody is getting upset with the dollar. When more and more countries join the crowd and gradually start refusing it, the times when America was buying up the world's production with suitcases of freshly printed greenbacks will be over. And stuff will become expensive.

It's going to be tougher with these two~

In the short run, the issuer of a fiat reserve currency can accrue great economic benefits. In the long run, it poses a threat to the country issuing the world currency. In this case that's the United States. As long as foreign countries take our dollars in return for real goods, we come out ahead.

It sounds like a great deal for everyone, except the time will come when our dollars — due to their depreciation — will be received less enthusiastically or even be rejected by foreign countries. That could create a whole new ballgame and force us to pay a price for living beyond our means and our production. The shift in sentiment regarding the dollar has already started, but the worst is yet to come.

For the most part the true victims aren't aware of how they pay the bills. The license to create money out of thin air allows the bills to be paid through price inflation. American citizens, as well as average citizens of Japan, China, and other countries suffer from price inflation, which represents the “tax” that pays the bills for our military adventures. That is, until the fraud is discovered, and the foreign producers decide not to take dollars nor hold them very long in payment for their goods. Everything possible is done to prevent the fraud of the monetary system from being exposed to the masses who suffer from it. If oil markets replace dollars with Euros, it would in time curtail our ability to continue to print, without restraint, the world's reserve currency.

It is an unbelievable benefit to us to import valuable goods and export depreciating dollars. The exporting countries have become addicted to our purchases for their economic growth. This dependency makes them allies in continuing the fraud, and their participation keeps the dollar's value artificially high. If this system were workable long term, American citizens would never have to work again. We too could enjoy “bread and circuses” just as the Romans did, but their gold finally ran out and the inability of Rome to continue to plunder conquered nations brought an end to her empire.

The same thing will happen to us if we don't change our ways. Though we don't occupy foreign countries to directly plunder, we nevertheless have spread our troops across 130 nations of the world. Our intense effort to spread our power in the oil-rich Middle East is not a coincidence. But unlike the old days, we don't declare direct ownership of the natural resources — we just insist that we can buy what we want and pay for it with our paper money. Any country that challenges our authority does so at great risk.

Using force to compel people to accept money without real value can only work in the short run. It ultimately leads to economic dislocation, both domestic and international, and always ends with a price to be paid.

But really, this is all Bush and Obama's fault and our tax code!!!!!!! Maybe we can blame some CEO's and rich athletes too!

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:04 am

Since printing paper money is nothing short of counterfeiting, the issuer of the international currency must always be the country with the military might to guarantee control over the system. This magnificent scheme seems the perfect system for obtaining perpetual wealth for the country that issues the de facto world currency. The one problem, however, is that such a system destroys the character of the counterfeiting nation's people — just as was the case when gold was the currency and it was obtained by conquering other nations. And this destroys the incentive to save and produce, while encouraging debt and runaway welfare.

The pressure at home to inflate the currency comes from the corporate welfare recipients, as well as those who demand handouts as compensation for their needs and perceived injuries by others. In both cases personal responsibility for one's actions is rejected.[/b]

When paper money is rejected, wealth and political stability are lost. The country then must go from living beyond its means to living beneath its means, until the economic and political systems adjust to the new rules — rules no longer written by those who ran the now defunct printing press.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:15 am

So, let me make sure I get who we blame according to Thatsright.

First, we blame homeowners because banks were engaged it patently illegal activities, like commissions per mortgage authorized, failing to properly file securities paperwork, recklessly labeling MBS, CDOs, and other obscure derivatives as AAA rated in quality. And, it's also their fault real wages haven't risen while futures markets are running high on market speculation causing the daily life of the same people to quickly move well beyond their means based on what they're paid.

Then, it's still not their fault because these people have lobbied to effectively remove any teeth from the SEC, gut regulations, kill laws which protect low level investors.

And then finally, it's still not their fault when these guys engage in a global economics game with other countries and tweaking currencies and pushing a foreign policy that has dangerous implications for key resources, all the while playing alchemist-type monetary policy as some sort of miracle answer to stable domestic financial policy.

It's weird, it's never the fault of the guys who control and rig the system that they very much designed.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:48 am

First, we blame homeowners because banks were engaged it patently illegal activities

It's also illegal to sign and default on mortgages.

What the banks did was wrong, but just because something is being offered does not mean you have to take it.

And, it's also their fault real wages haven't risen while futures markets are running high on market speculation causing the daily life of the same people to quickly move well beyond their means based on what they're paid.

I've said numerous times, the blame can be spread far and wide---the printing press has destroyed the charactor of the country. But more than anyone, I blame Alan "the maestro" Greenspan---he allowed the insanity of homeowner and banker alike happen.

And, it's also their fault real wages haven't risen

Americans wanted cheaper and cheaper goods. More computers, shoes, or what ever. It would have never happened if there wasn't demand for it. Now, it's a catch-22. Americans make less and less money(as a result of their insatiable demand for cheap goods)--squeezing their budgets--so they have to buy foreign goods--which leads to lower wages and further squeezing of their budget.

And then finally, it's still not their fault when these guys engage in a global economics game with other countries and tweaking currencies and pushing a foreign policy that has dangerous implications for key resources, all the while playing alchemist-type monetary policy as some sort of miracle answer to stable domestic financial policy.

Ther American people pay for the military to run rampant across the globe. The American people elect the officals who employ such policies.

Then, it's still not their fault because these people have lobbied to effectively remove any teeth from the SEC, gut regulations, kill laws which protect low level investors.

The average American thinks the SEC is only a football conference. If these small groups can get what they want, an organized group of the majority demanding what they want instead would be pushed through---the problem is getting people educated or motivated to actually do something.

It's weird, it's never the fault of the guys who control and rig the system that they very much designed.

The American people sit back and allow it to happen by ignorance and apathy.

"It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." — Henry Ford

"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." — Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers — Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and unforgivable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." — John Danforth (R-Mo)

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." — James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." — President Woodrow Wilson

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." — SIR JOSIAH STAMP, (President of the Bank of England in the 1920's, the second richest man in Britain):

...I am convinced that the agreement [Bretton Woods] will enthrone a world dictatorship of private finance more complete and terrible than and Hitlerite dream. It offers no solution of world problems, but quite blatantly sets up controls which will reduce the smaller nations to vassal states and make every government the mouthpiece and tool of International Finance. It will undermine and destroy the democratic institutions of this country - in fact as effectively as ever the Fascist forces could have done - pervert and paganise our Christian ideals; and will undoubtedly present a new menace, endangering world peace. World collaboration of private financial interests can only mean mass unemployment, slavery, misery, degradation and financial destruction. Therefore, as freedom loving Australians we should reject this infamous proposal. -- Labor Minister of Australia, Eddie Ward, during the inception of the World Bank and Bretton Woods, he gave this warning.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." — Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." — Congressman Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

img · Post by **img** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:02 am

Get a job hippies

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:13 am

The occupy movement needs to head to Washinton D.C. They shouldn't go to the White House. They shouldn't go to the Capital building. Not some stupid park, a bridge, or Wall Street.

They should be parked right outside this building and demand that money is no longer created by issuing debt against it. Then, their voices will be heard. The reason that dollar in your pocket says federal reserve NOTE is because it's a debt instrument. Demand that the Congress take their power back---which gives the people their power back.

Get tens of thousands of people occupying there, and then they will shake with fear. Trust me.

Better yet, for those too far away from Washington just head to the branch offices in Boston, New York, Philadelpia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Fransico.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:13 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
First, we blame homeowners because banks were engaged it patently illegal activities

It's also illegal to sign and default on mortgages.

Actually, it's not illegal. It's a breach of contract, which is entirely different.

What the banks did was wrong, but just because something is being offered does not mean you have to take it.

Lots of people took loans that were more than affordable when given them, lots of people lose their jobs, which had nothing to do with them. Again, banks across the country are more than capable of eating up $30 billion in the subprime mortgages they made. What banks weren't capable of doing is eating the losses in the capital markets based on them.

People in homes didn't create non-regulated capital markets. You know, the part that cost these people their jobs, which caused other probably legitimate securities to collapse too.

These guys were building flimsy self-reinforcing markets. Demand kept up for mortgages that were being turned into security packages.

I do blame these asswipses buying multiple residential properties with ARMs and grossly inflating the markets. However, again, 99% of American consumers weren't doing this.

Americans wanted cheaper and cheaper goods. More computers, shoes, or what ever. It would have never happened if there wasn't demand for it. Now, it's a catch-22. Americans make less and less money(as a result of their insatiable demand for cheap goods)--squeezing their budgets--so they have to buy foreign goods--which leads to lower wages and further squeezing of their budget.

Actually, competition from foreign places and share holder demands for greater profits had more to do with that, than the average American being at the core of this change. 2 or 3 generations of disgruntled business majors have exacted their revenge on the American worker after being forced to provide a livable wage, clean working conditions, and other hard-fought labor wins.

The American consumer only demanded cheaper products in the last 30 years because of practical necessity. Again, the top was getting wealthier, but wages down at the bottom were getting smaller or staying the same at best.

The American consumer never had a choice.

Ther American people pay for the military to run rampant across the globe. The American people elect the officals who employ such policies.

The American people have 2 shills propped up by the same corporate interests every 4 years.

The average American thinks the SEC is only a football conference. If these small groups can get what they want, an organized group of the majority demanding what they want instead would be pushed through---the problem is getting people educated or motivated to actually do something.

The problem is finding quality information. The fact our MSM looks the way it does is lol-worthy.

The American people sit back and allow it to happen by ignorance and apathy.

It's not a coincidence the last 30 years have seen a complete gutting of our public education system. Even if people are being educated it doesn't mean they've got a degree in economics to critically assess something. People have to have the skills necessary to do make the assessment. We've shortchanged public education forever.

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:36 am

BrentMusburger wrote:
"Be happy with your lot because it could be worse."
No, it's more like Americans have become a spoiled and entitled lot that don't understand how good they had it, and still do have it. Look at how a kid grew up in the 1940's vs how a kid grew up in the 1990s'. It's night and day.

Failing to see the difference.

BrentMusburger wrote:
So, he says that the people setting interest rates don't need to be concerned with the devaluation of overpriced assets when it isn't related to an actual depression of the real economy. That would be applicable in cases of not-an-actual-depression, right? Are you implying that this economic recession/depression is imagined?
That's not at all what he was saying. He was asking (I would say warning) that if a real estate bubble was being created, and this bubble was fueling consumption that was not sustainable...."irrational exuberence" that it was going to lead to a situation like the " lost (two) decades" in Japan---speculative bubbles pop and cause major problems in the REAL economy---jobs gone, production/construction falling off a cliff, and price instability (deflationary spirals).

Not reading that at all from that quote.

"We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs and price stability."

That says that central bankers shouldn't overreact to the collapse of overvalued financial asset markets because it won't necessarily affect the real economy. Nothing in the quote says anything about speculative market collapses affecting the real economy. I'm not saying that speculative markets don't have real effects on the economy, just that it's not exhibited in that quote.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:08 pm

"We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs and price stability."

That says that central bankers shouldn't overreact to the collapse of overvalued financial asset markets because it won't necessarily affect the real economy. Nothing in the quote says anything about speculative market collapses affecting the real economy. I'm not saying that speculative markets don't have real effects on the economy, just that it's not exhibited in that quote.

It actually says that Central banks should not be concerned IF a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten the real economy....however, in 2008, a collapsing asset bubble did threaten the real economy and they were HIGHLY concerned---demonstrated by their immediate and unprecadented moves.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... efault.htm

So, is deflation a threat to the economic health of the United States? Not to leave you in suspense, I believe that the chance of significant deflation in the United States in the foreseeable future is extremely small, for two principal reasons. The first is the resilience and structural stability of the U.S. economy itself. Over the years, the U.S. economy has shown a remarkable ability to absorb shocks of all kinds, to recover, and to continue to grow. Flexible and efficient markets for labor and capital, an entrepreneurial tradition, and a general willingness to tolerate and even embrace technological and economic change all contribute to this resiliency. A particularly important protective factor in the current environment is the strength of our financial system: Despite the adverse shocks of the past year, our banking system remains healthy and well-regulated, and firm and household balance sheets are for the most part in good shape.

The second bulwark against deflation in the United States, and the one that will be the focus of my remarks today, is the Federal Reserve System itself. The Congress has given the Fed the responsibility of preserving price stability (among other objectives), which most definitely implies avoiding deflation as well as inflation. I am confident that the Fed would take whatever means necessary to prevent significant deflation in the United States and, moreover, that the U.S. central bank, in cooperation with other parts of the government as needed, has sufficient policy instruments to ensure that any deflation that might occur would be both mild and brief.

Of course, we must take care lest confidence become over-confidence.

Take care indeed, Mr. Bernankee.

Lots of people took loans that were more than affordable when given them, lots of people lose their jobs, which had nothing to do with them. Again, banks across the country are more than capable of eating up $30 billion in the subprime mortgages they made. What banks weren't capable of doing is eating the losses in the capital markets based on them.

People in homes didn't create non-regulated capital markets. You know, the part that cost these people their jobs, which caused other probably legitimate securities to collapse too.

These guys were building flimsy self-reinforcing markets. Demand kept up for mortgages that were being turned into security packages.

I do blame these asswipses buying multiple residential properties with ARMs and grossly inflating the markets. However, again, 99% of American consumers weren't doing this.

I'll give you this. When credit was flowing easy and stoking inflation and bubbles everywhere, the average person could have had no idea that a black hole of a deflationary spiral would slam the world and make it IMPOSSIBLE for people to pay their loans back.

Actually, it's not illegal. It's a breach of contract, which is entirely different.

Contract a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law

So, you sign a peice of paper stating that you will pay the principle plus interest for the entirety of the loan. Defaulting on this obligation is............

scorch- · Post by **scorch-** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:24 pm

BrentMusburger wrote:
Actually, it's not illegal. It's a breach of contract, which is entirely different.
Contract a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law

So, you sign a peice of paper stating that you will pay the principle plus interest for the entirety of the loan. Defaulting on this obligation is.......

Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes or, in organized athletics, codified rules.

Illegality is defined by law. A contract is not a law. A contract is enforceable by law, meaning that there are codified rules guiding recovery and compensation for a breach of contract. The actions which constitute a breach of contract are not, generally, violations of the codified statutes of law.

Defaulting on a mortgage is not illegal unless it is defined as an offense by law.

BrentMusburger · Post by **BrentMusburger** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 1:36 pm

scorch- wrote:
BrentMusburger wrote:
Actually, it's not illegal. It's a breach of contract, which is entirely different.
Contract a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law

So, you sign a peice of paper stating that you will pay the principle plus interest for the entirety of the loan. Defaulting on this obligation is.......
Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes or, in organized athletics, codified rules.

Illegality is defined by law. A contract is not a law. A contract is enforceable by law, meaning that there are codified rules guiding recovery and compensation for a breach of contract. The actions which constitute a breach of contract are not, generally, violations of the codified statutes of law.

Defaulting on a mortgage is not illegal unless it is defined as an offense by law.

Perhaps I should put it another way....I forgot I'm dealing with lawyers who'll crucify one word.

defaulting on a mortgage isn't smart..?
advisable?
morally acceptable?

The point is, it's a decision (whether intentional or not) that isn't acceptable. It's not "ok".