Jump to content

Recession


Mrsjetfan13

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply
if being debt free and able to retire at 50 is tough, yeah than it's tough. i'll keep whining then

That is great. I'm happy you have been so succesful. It's obvious that success had nothing to do with economics though. ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
And what happens if this food-to-fuel thing really gains steam? Imagine the debates as all of a sudden vast amounts of food stocks dwindle and people start crying about how the greedy "Big Fuel" farmers aren't planting enough to feed the world's hungry because they are more concerned with growing crops for fuel. And the price increase to corn will not be just affecting actual corn to the consumer, but a whole wide range of products that use the crop.

There has been a surplus of "food" in this Country for the last 30 years. Why has the goverment been handing out money to farmers since the 70s?

There will never be a shortage of corn, wheat, or any other crop here. Unless those things are imported (like they are now).

well, if the food-to-fuel idea really sinks in then you have another use for the crops other than consumption. IF it turns out that farmers can make more by selling it to ethanol refineries than as a food product than what do you think will happen? You can't use the last 30 years as proof that this would not be a problem, there was never an alternative use for corn like there is now.

I'm not sure what planet you live on but with the global economy we get most of our produce from overseas. At the same time American farmers are producing crops at record levels. Sadly, most of those crops are thrown away.

looks like my prediction of the debates that would come in the biofuel vs human consumption arguement came a liitle sooner than i thought they would.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080414/sc_afp/euunfarmpovertyenergypoliticsbiofuel_080414143918

EU defends biofuel goals amid food crises

Mon Apr 14, 10:39 AM ET

BRUSSELS (AFP) - The EU Commission on Monday rejected claims that producing biofuels is a "crime against humanity" that threatens food supplies, and vowed to stick to its goals as part of a climate change package.

"There is no question for now of suspending the target fixed for biofuels," said Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

"You can't change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives," which could see the EU landmark climate change and energy package disintegrate, an EU official said.

Their comments came amid growing unease over the planting of biofuel crops as food prices rocket and riots against poverty and hunger multiply worldwide.

UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told German radio Monday that the production of biofuels is "a crime against humanity" because of its impact on global food prices.

EU leaders, seeking to show the way on global warming, have pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

As part of a package of measures the 27 member states have set a target of biofuels making up 10 percent of automobile fuel by the same year.

"We don't have an enormous danger of too much of a shift from food production to biofuels production," said Michael Mann, spokesman for EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel.

Mann, like Helfferich speaking to reporters in Brussels, stressed that the 10 percent target would in part be achieved through higher yields and increased production.

Ziegler also accused the European Union of subsidising its agriculture exports with effect of undermining production in Africa.

"The EU finances the exports of European agricultural surpluses to Africa ... where they are offered at one half or one third of their (production) price," the UN official charged.

"That completely ruins African agriculture," he added.

In recent months, rising food costs have sparked violent protests in Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritania, the Philippines and other countries.

In Pakistan and Thailand, troops have been deployed to avoid the seizure of food from fields and warehouses, while price increases fuelled a general strike in Burkina Faso.

The European Environment Agency, advisors to the European Commission, on Friday recommended that the EU suspend its 10 percent biofuels target.

It argued that the target would require large amounts of additional imports of biofuels leading to the accelerated destruction of rain forests. The agency also questioned the environmental benefits of biofuels.

Also in a recent report the World Bank said bluntly "biofuel production has pushed up feedstock prices".

Meanhwile Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, head of Nestle, the world's biggest food and beverage company, last month argued that "to grant enormous subsidies for biofuel production is morally unacceptable and irresponsible".

"There will be nothing left to eat," he added.

European leaders are aware of the growing body of opinion opposed to biofuels but Dimas has stressed the use of "second generation" biofuels; including leaves, straw and pond algae.

The first generation of green fuels -- biodiesel and ethanol-- are made from wheat, maize, colza, sugar beet etc, also used for human and animal feed.

However, according to French Ecology Minister Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the methods for utilising the second generation sources are far from complete.

"That will take 10 to 20 years," she told AFP.

The 27 EU nations are due on May 7 to approve strict criteria for the production of biofuels, according to the European Commission.

Speaking in Luxembourg on Monday French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier, meeting with his EU counterparts, said that food production must be the priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm hardly an economics expert or anything close to it, but I've been trying to get a better understanding of things lately, especially after the whole Bear Stearns thing.

China and Japan are basically paying for our budget deficit right now, and of course government is doing nothing to reign in spending because Republicans aren't going to want to cut defense spending and Democrats aren't going to want to cut social spending. The unfortunate reality is that tax increases may be necessary to make the government solvent again, and paying for Iraq is certainly not doing anything to help the economy.

It also doesn't seem right that the govt can give Bear Stearns an a$$load of money to save them, but all the people whose homes are being foreclosed on sure aren't getting any help like that from the govt. Corporate welfare is a serious problem IMO and the last decade or so has proven the ineffectiveness of the laissez-faire system. It's true that it works for people at the top of the economic ladder, but it basically *****s everybody else. It's shocking to me that free trade agreements are still being passed so nonchalantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm hardly an economics expert or anything close to it, but I've been trying to get a better understanding of things lately, especially after the whole Bear Stearns thing.

China and Japan are basically paying for our budget deficit right now, and of course government is doing nothing to reign in spending because Republicans aren't going to want to cut defense spending and Democrats aren't going to want to cut social spending. The unfortunate reality is that tax increases may be necessary to make the government solvent again, and paying for Iraq is certainly not doing anything to help the economy.

It also doesn't seem right that the govt can give Bear Stearns an a$$load of money to save them, but all the people whose homes are being foreclosed on sure aren't getting any help like that from the govt. Corporate welfare is a serious problem IMO and the last decade or so has proven the ineffectiveness of the laissez-faire system. It's true that it works for people at the top of the economic ladder, but it basically *****s everybody else. It's shocking to me that free trade agreements are still being passed so nonchalantly.

You're right, it's NOT right. That's what the free market system is all about. You sink or swim based on the decisions you make. Think how different your life would turn out had you taken certain risks knowing the Gov't would bail you out. Of course company's pay lobbiests :evilgrin0037: to make sure politicians vote for these bailouts....WITH OUR MONEY !! :curse:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, it's NOT right. That's what the free market system is all about. You sink or swim based on the decisions you make. Think how different your life would turn out had you taken certain risks knowing the Gov't would bail you out. Of course company's pay lobbiests :evilgrin0037: to make sure politicians vote for these bailouts....WITH OUR MONEY !! :curse:

Bernanke obviously slept through PYSCH 101. Anybody who can grasp the concept of a Skinner Box understands the concept of negative reinforcement. Bernanke is rewarding bad behavior but I guess the motive behind it is so many Americans have their entire retirement savings in mutual funds and politicians are scared sh*tless about those funds going under. It's bad enough these bastards bankrupted SSI while still stealing money from you and I when they know we won't get anything back, but the very notion that our largest population demographic-- senior cititzens--- will lose half their retirement savings and have inflation eat away at the rest, would at best compromise the current political status quo, and at worse lead to a violent bloodletting in the streets. The corrupt, shifty investment bankers know this and know they can get away with alot of crap they normally wouldn't get away with.

Corrupt politicians also know they can leverage the public fears for personal nefarious purposes. And when the current Sec of the Treasury was a former CEO of Godman Sachs, it's hard not to think that conflicting interests are in play here.

Rest assured, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernanke obviously slept through PYSCH 101. Anybody who can grasp the concept of a Skinner Box understands the concept of negative reinforcement. Bernanke is rewarding bad behavior but I guess the motive behind it is so many Americans have their entire retirement savings in mutual funds and politicians are scared sh*tless about those funds going under. The corrupt, shifty investment bankers know this and know they can get away with alot of crap they normally wouldn't get away with.

Corrupt politicians also know they can leverage the public fears for personal nefarious purposes. And when the current Sec of the Treasury was a former CEO of Godman Sachs, it's hard not to think that conflicting interests are in play here.

Rest assured, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It's about as appealing as the tip of Max's penis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm hardly an economics expert or anything close to it, but I've been trying to get a better understanding of things lately, especially after the whole Bear Stearns thing.

China and Japan are basically paying for our budget deficit right now, and of course government is doing nothing to reign in spending because Republicans aren't going to want to cut defense spending and Democrats aren't going to want to cut social spending. The unfortunate reality is that tax increases may be necessary to make the government solvent again, and paying for Iraq is certainly not doing anything to help the economy.

It also doesn't seem right that the govt can give Bear Stearns an a$$load of money to save them, but all the people whose homes are being foreclosed on sure aren't getting any help like that from the govt. Corporate welfare is a serious problem IMO and the last decade or so has proven the ineffectiveness of the laissez-faire system. It's true that it works for people at the top of the economic ladder, but it basically *****s everybody else. It's shocking to me that free trade agreements are still being passed so nonchalantly.

I agree with you about Bear Sterns. But debt is not necessarily a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about Bear Sterns. But debt is not necessarily a bad thing.

If we borrow money from some at 5% and lend it out to others at 6% I would classify that as good debt. Newspapers only report on the former and leave out the latter because it just doesn't quite have the same bite. What journalist would want to write an article on our net 1% return in that example? Boooooooring.

That's not to say the government doesn't piss away countless billions. They always will as long as they have access to it.

They should be only taking care of things that individuals shouldn't have to: national defense, crime, education, emergency services for Katrina or forest-fire type national disasters, paving roads, building/repairing bridges, and "appropriate" international efforts (though that is clearly subject to ideology). Other than that, hands off my money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we borrow money from some at 5% and lend it out to others at 6% I would classify that as good debt. Newspapers only report on the former and leave out the latter because it just doesn't quite have the same bite. What journalist would want to write an article on our net 1% return in that example? Boooooooring.

That's not to say the government doesn't piss away countless billions. They always will as long as they have access to it.

They should be only taking care of things that individuals shouldn't have to: national defense, crime, education, emergency services for Katrina or forest-fire type national disasters, paving roads, building/repairing bridges, and "appropriate" international efforts (though that is clearly subject to ideology). Other than that, hands off my money.

What about states like California who sell bonds and cities like NY who sell tax free muni's but instead of reinvesting the money, blow it on "social justice" (ie marxist programs)?

Then they create more debt to pay off the old debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about states like California who sell bonds and cities like NY who sell tax free muni's but instead of reinvesting the money, blow it on "social justice" (ie marxist programs)?

Then they create more debt to pay off the old debt.

Lex Luthor had the right idea about what to do with California...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about states like California who sell bonds and cities like NY who sell tax free muni's but instead of reinvesting the money, blow it on "social justice" (ie marxist programs)?

Then they create more debt to pay off the old debt.

NYC recently rolled over their 1977 bonds from whent eh city almost decalred bankruptcy. So the basically refinanced their credit from 30 years ago, which is moronic and typical of most American municipalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC recently rolled over their 1977 bonds from whent eh city almost decalred bankruptcy. So the basically refinanced their credit from 30 years ago, which is moronic and typical of most American municipalities.

Wow. :confused0058:

But at least now I can understand how the filthy rich red diaper doper babies on the upper east side can afford to live in NYC---

They invest in TAX FREE municipal bonds.

:love0055:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm hardly an economics expert or anything close to it, but I've been trying to get a better understanding of things lately, especially after the whole Bear Stearns thing.

China and Japan are basically paying for our budget deficit right now, and of course government is doing nothing to reign in spending because Republicans aren't going to want to cut defense spending and Democrats aren't going to want to cut social spending. The unfortunate reality is that tax increases may be necessary to make the government solvent again, and paying for Iraq is certainly not doing anything to help the economy.

It also doesn't seem right that the govt can give Bear Stearns an a$$load of money to save them, but all the people whose homes are being foreclosed on sure aren't getting any help like that from the govt. Corporate welfare is a serious problem IMO and the last decade or so has proven the ineffectiveness of the laissez-faire system. It's true that it works for people at the top of the economic ladder, but it basically *****s everybody else. It's shocking to me that free trade agreements are still being passed so nonchalantly.

You're right, it's NOT right. That's what the free market system is all about. You sink or swim based on the decisions you make. Think how different your life would turn out had you taken certain risks knowing the Gov't would bail you out. Of course company's pay lobbiests :evilgrin0037: to make sure politicians vote for these bailouts....WITH OUR MONEY !! :curse:

Well, the fed didn't save Bear Stearns because they cared about Bear Sterns, they were saving the average Joe by doing that. Bear informed the fed that they were going to file chapter 11, which most likely would have set off a chain of events where a run on the bank and the bear sterns defaults would have destroyed the other big banks/investment firms. This would have been a catastrophe of momumental proportions and could very well have brought the financial system to its knees as all the other dominos fell, something every one of us has a stake in, from your investment portfolio, ira/401k, pension, mortgage, and loans, to the guy who owns or works in the deli in NYC that gets 80% of his business from serving lunch to the wall street area. New Yorkers would be even further hit as 5% of jobs in NYC and 23% of wages in NYC come from the financial industry, which means tons of lost tax revenue and consumer spending in the city.

So yeah, this was a bailout of the economy, not one individual firm.

As for helping out the average person, I have it on good authority that congress and the president are gonna pass the bill pretty soon that will raise the FHA borrowing limits for a year so that people with this idiotic variable jumbo mortgages can get out of them and get into something with a livable rate. Right now the FHA loan limits preclude most people from qualifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

............

They should be only taking care of things that individuals shouldn't have to: national defense, crime, education, emergency services for Katrina or forest-fire type national disasters, paving roads, building/repairing bridges, and "appropriate" international efforts (though that is clearly subject to ideology). Other than that, hands off my money.

Well, that was the idea our founding fathers had for national government. The social programs really didn't come until the great depression. I am a member of the NY Young Republicans and all, pretty much because of fiscal policy, so I agree with you to an extent, but I do believe there should be a safety net for those that are left behind. I don't think it should be the monolithic outdated programs we have today like social security and the welfare system which for every genuine hardship person it helps has 5 people defrauding it, but yes, there should be a system to help people get back on track and back as productive members of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about states like California who sell bonds and cities like NY who sell tax free muni's but instead of reinvesting the money, blow it on "social justice" (ie marxist programs)?

Then they create more debt to pay off the old debt.

I'm sure that happens and debt does need to be kept under control. But it's the same principle as taking out a mortgage. You are doing so to not only invest in a place to live - but also to build wealth by investing in your future. You are paying it back at a decent rate - but inflation and the increasing value of your investment should hypothetically pass your original investment. This is the same idea the gov't uses. The only problem with this is when you don't get any value back for your investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of our grand national experiment in living beyond our means is now coming due, and not just in the form of the housing crash. If the country indeed goes into a long, deep recession, forcing austerity and worse on the general public, the full social cost of casting aside traditional communal bonds and moral values

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...