Obama Is Destroying The Economy

[benny]

What are talking about. That isn't a point no matter how deep you think it sounds.

Human relationship is about trust.

[punked]

Human relationship is about trust.

What does that have to do with anything?

[benny]

What does that have to do with anything?

Economic exchanges are human relationships.

[punked]

Economic exchanges are human relationships.

What does that have to do with gold?

[benny]

What does that have to do with gold?

Gold symbolizes poorly the power of trust.

Edited March 22, 2009 by benny

[punked]

Gold symbolizes poorly the power of trust.

So you are against the Gold Standard? Seriously I can not tell what you are saying it is a bunch of gibberish to me.

Edited March 22, 2009 by punked

[benny]

Is Obama Destroying the economy? I answer not at all.

[sharkman]

If we think about it, it takes a lot of trust but only a little bit of gold to marry a woman.

Groovy man, sometimes I sit for hours and just think about it.

The economy lies within each one of us. Obama can not destroy that which lies within.

Edited March 23, 2009 by sharkman

[benny]

Groovy man, sometimes I sit for hours and just think about it.

The economy lies within each one of us. Obama can not destroy that which lies within.

If you want to solve any political or economic problem, you will have to come to terms with intersubjectivity first.

[GostHacked]

Gold is real hard currency. And has been for centuries. Paper, bank notes, bonds and the like are trust notes. You trust the bank has the hard currency to back up the trust notes and the so called value that is placed on the bank note. This all changed in 1913 for the US and in 1947 in Canada, were banks became centralized/privatized to make the federal reserve that introduced fractional reserve banking.

The paper money you have is worthless essentially. All this wealth is all simply electronic. because you cannot physically move that much money on a daily basis. So you take 'money' away and give it to someone else with the click of a button.

I get paid by direct deposit now ... and I use my debit/credit card. I don't ever have to see real printed money because it really does not matter or exist anyways. Why do you think we have been pushed towards a money system that is all electronic. All it takes is a couple key strokes to 'destroy' wealth. Virtual wealth is virtually worthless.

There is not enough gold to cover the money in current circulation. That we agree on. However, on the same note, there is not enough paper money to cover all the virtual dollars that seem to exist in peoples accounts.

----

So we are putting our trust into these banks in hoping they will keep their promise of keeping the cash flow open.

A woman puts trust into a man, but trust don't mean shit, if there is nothing of substance to back it up.

----

This is what Benny means, but many of you could not figure that out or were unwilling to actually think about the comparison.

[benny]

A woman puts trust into a man, but trust don't mean shit, if there is nothing of substance to back it up.

No. What I'm saying is that trust (in others) is per se the most worthy capital we have to keep a society up and running .

[GostHacked]

No. What I'm saying is that trust (in others) is per se the most worthy capital we have to keep a society up and running .

Good hard work is the best and most worthy capitol we have. If you trust them to work, you have to be trusted to pay them .. but when you can't pay ... you loose the trust (no matter what the reason is) .. so you still need something to back the trust up. That might be the problem with the old "promise note". The promise or guarantee that you can withdraw cold hard cash without the worry of it being there or not.

The capitol is created out of thin air. Money today is created out of thin air, and can be destroyed by a few keystrokes.

Do you trust the banks at this stage?? If so .. why??

[Shady]

Well, I have to give praise when praise is due. The Obama Administration, at least temporarily, has ceased its destruction of the economy, and has actually decided to address the primary economic problem, the financial sector. And it seems, so far, the market likes the plan. I'm glad they've finally decided, some 2 months into office, that they'd actually address the most pressing issue, instead of the litany of less significant or unrelated ones. Now if they'd just give up on the ridiculous cap-and-trade, and card-check programs, we might actually see an economic recovery.

Keep your fingers crossed that Obama & Geithner finally see the light! And hopefully Obama looks at the market reaction, and concludes that when you stop attacking business, good things can happen.

[benny]

Good hard work is the best and most worthy capitol we have. If you trust them to work, you have to be trusted to pay them .. but when you can't pay ... you loose the trust (no matter what the reason is) .. so you still need something to back the trust up. That might be the problem with the old "promise note". The promise or guarantee that you can withdraw cold hard cash without the worry of it being there or not.

The capitol is created out of thin air. Money today is created out of thin air, and can be destroyed by a few keystrokes.

Do you trust the banks at this stage?? If so .. why??

Work is a production factor, (social) capital is another one. Social capital is "shared norms or values that promote social cooperation, instantiated in actual social relationships" (Francis Fukuyama). If you don't trust Obama, be prepared to live like Robinson Crusoe.

[August1991]

Well, I have to give praise when praise is due. The Obama Administration, at least temporarily, has ceased its destruction of the economy, and has actually decided to address the primary economic problem, the financial sector. And it seems, so far, the market likes the plan.

Market? I'd say so far that US financial institutions like the plan and that is showing up in market indices.

Clearly though, the Administration is using Obama to lay public support for the plan (TV, town halls) while Geithner deals with Wall Street and Bernanke, Congress.

They (Obama, Geithner, Romer, Summers, Bernanke) are paternalistic, and they've destroyed the Fed's independence. They are solving an immediate problem without concern for what broader problems their solution will cause. None of them can comprehend the sums of money involved.

It is dangerous to concentrate such power in such few hands.

[BubberMiley]

-

Edited March 24, 2009 by BubberMiley

[benny]

They (Obama, Geithner, Romer, Summers, Bernanke) are paternalistic, and they've destroyed the Fed's independence. They are solving an immediate problem without concern for what broader problems their solution will cause. None of them can comprehend the sums of money involved.

In the circumstances, too much care about the long-term would be the worst kind of paternalism one can envision.

[sharkman]

If one can envision nationalistic paternalism, then one can grow beyond the bonds of patronizing socialism.

[Pliny]

There is not enough gold to cover the money in current circulation. That we agree on. However, on the same note, there is not enough paper money to cover all the virtual dollars that seem to exist in peoples accounts.

The amount of money in circulation is not that important. This is the mistake of Keynes and similar monetarists.

The purchasing power of money will vary according to it's quantity. Many people, especially social activists unfamiliar with economics whatsoever, feel that there is not enough money to go around and insist it be redistributed. It looks very charitable to do so. But let's not mistake money for wealth. It is only a measure of wealth especially if it is paper or an electronic entry. The more paper the less it's purchasing power.

If you have noticed, a house today is about ten times the "value" it was 40 or fifty years ago. Had the quantity of money remained the same over that time period the value of a house would be less than it was forty or fifty years ago. In other words money would become more valuable (meaning it's purchasing power) over time. What the central bank does is inflate the supply of money every year, it is easy enough to do when you own the rights to create it, inflating the supply of money causes a general rise in prices. In other words the same amount of "money" will purchase less. A general sustained rise in prices is due to one thing, and one thing only, that is an increase in the supply of money.

If Obama signs his spending bill into law, what can we expect? Double digit inflation. A devaluation of the American dollar. Americans will all be millionaires but will be able to afford to buy nothing. It will have nothing over Zimbabwe. It will create spending alright, as people try to get rid of their American dollars before they become totally worthless.

As the new money enters the market the people who get it first will have the advantage, the economy will pick up slightly and you will see the Obama administration heave a sigh of relief that the stimulus package is working effectively. The celebration will be short lived. Prices will start to rise, caused by the introduction of the new money in the market place, and it's availability coupled with rising prices will result in a buying frenzy as people attempt to spend while they have some purchasing power left.

It isn't Obama that is going to destroy the economy. It is an inevitable consequence of current Economic practices. Obama is continuing to maintain the system which can't help but destroy itself. In the long run, he would have done better to do nothing. Of course, the failed government policies will never be the reason the economy is doing bad, it is always something external when the economy turns sour but every upturn earns congratulatory backslapping and accolades from within political ranks.

[Shady]

In the circumstances, too much care about the long-term would be the worst kind of paternalism one can envision.

Unfortunately, long-term isn't 4 or 5 years from now, which also unfortunately, is the time-frame people are worried about.

Graph of American Money Supply

This chart accurately depicts a brazenly sudden and incomprehensible increase of 75% in the number of dollars floating about the U.S. economy. What took the Federal Reserve 23 years to accomplish until 2008 was literally replicated overnight. For every $100 that was in circulation, another $75 was added. And know it well: the consequences will be lasting

Link

[benny]

If one can envision nationalistic paternalism, then one can grow beyond the bonds of patronizing socialism.

No one really fears socialism. Also no one really fears inflation that is losing the purchasing power of the money they actually keep idle. People are afraid of losing their jobs because no one is now buying anything. Obama doesn't have to be called paternalist because he understands that economic recovery will happen only when the fear of inflation will become stronger than the fear of unemployment; when one fears that his money may become worthless, he spends it. That is how one restarts economic activities.

[GostHacked]

In the circumstances, too much care about the long-term would be the worst kind of paternalism one can envision.

If we as a whole cared about the long term and not the immediate short term gains and losses, we would never get into these messes.

Work is a production factor, (social) capital is another one. Social capital is "shared norms or values that promote social cooperation, instantiated in actual social relationships" (Francis Fukuyama). If you don't trust Obama, be prepared to live like Robinson Crusoe.

That does not answer my question .. do you trust the banks .. if so why?

[benny]

If we as a whole cared about the long term and not the immediate short term gains and losses, we would never get into these messes.

White collar criminals (Kenneth Lay, etc.) are usually bright people, they also usually say to their judges that they were convinced that in the long run they would have been able to return their companies to real profitability.

Edited March 24, 2009 by benny

[Pliny]

No one really fears socialism. Also no one really fears inflation that is losing the purchasing power of the money they actually keep idle. People are afraid of losing their jobs because no one is now buying anything. Obama doesn't have to be called paternalist because he understands that economic recovery will happen only when the fear of inflation will become stronger than the fear of unemployment; when one fears that his money may become worthless, he spends it. That is how one restarts economic activities.

The serious flaw in that conclusion is that economic activities for the sake of economic activities are not productive and thus do not create wealth. They create activities that soak up dollars - like real estate bubbles, subprime mortgages, wasted resources in over supplying a market and a myriad of other wasteful activities.

It is true too few people are chary of socialism or inflation - ignorance is bliss.

[Shady]

EU presidency: US economic plans 'a way to hell'

STRASBOURG, France (AP) -- A top European Union politician on Wednesday slammed U.S. plans to spend its way out of recession as "a way to hell."

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, told the European Parliament that President Barack Obama's massive stimulus package and banking bailout "will undermine the stability of the global financial market."

AP

Obviously not good when Europe is warning you of over-spending.