Au Revoir SARKOZY

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
one reason why china cant devalue their currency is that they own nearly 2 trillians of us bonds... so you create yourself and the world a problem by this. - also for china, it forces their inflation and creates new bubbles.

US debt is merely a place for China to shove some of it's cash. China's currency games aren't dependent on US debt.

also is the "save haven" of us bonds, only a myth. your gov and fed is forcing inflation, to lower their debts. thats nothing else as a lost for everyone who owns us bonds

US debt is a safe haven compared to most financial instruments. The government isn't trying to force inflation to lower it's debts, nobody in the US government really cares about the debt.

Shit people are buying US debt at negative interest rates still, because it's so safe.

That's not meant to be a blanket approval of the US's economic policy, I'm just trying to explain to you how US debt works, since you appear to have bad info.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
US debt isn't actually a problem for most countries. It's bought because it's seen as a safe investment.
Exactly. The point is, it would suddenly become a problem if (when) the US defaults. The reason other countries bought US bank debt was because it was cast-iron safe. I do not regard US debt as safe as it was, and nor do the professional rating agencies. Exactly as was the case with the bank debt, the perceived risk is small but the exposure is VAST.
 
Last edited:

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
US debt is a safe haven compared to most financial instruments.
And if you stop and consider what you just said, you just said it is better than the other alternatives. Exactly the problem: there are NO good choices.

Part of the rolling problem is that people are making forced investments in bad risks because the money has to go somewhere.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
US debt is merely a place for China to shove some of it's cash. China's currency games aren't dependent on US debt.

you ever take a look at the data, how mutch of Us bonds china owns? - do you know how china finances their spendings? by loans on us debts they own... so its very importent to china, what happens to the value of their USbonds in dollar

US debt is a safe haven compared to most financial instruments. The government isn't trying to force inflation to lower it's debts, nobody in the US government really cares about the debt.

Shit people are buying US debt at negative interest rates still, because it's so safe.

That's not meant to be a blanket approval of the US's economic policy, I'm just trying to explain to you how US debt works, since you appear to have bad info.

no need to try to explain it to me :wink:
but only your gov doesnt care, it doesnt mean it wount do any damage

also is your gov allread forcing inflation, or what do you think will all these massive QE create?
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Exactly. The point is, it would suddenly become a problem if (when) the US defaults. The reason other countries bought US bank debt was because it was cast-iron safe. I do not regard US debt as safe as it was, and nor do the professional rating agencies. Exactly as was the case with the bank debt, the perceived risk is small but the exposure is VAST.

If the US defaults, you're going to see WWIII. The US rating agencies are playing politics, there will never be a default without a massive global upheaval, and as much as Congress tries to play brinksman, they'd be writing their own death sentence if they let it happen.

US debt is not a major part of the financial dangers of the rest of the world. You don't understand how it works, and the numbers are not nearly as large as the exposure of the private banking industry to it's own instruments.

And if you stop and consider what you just said, you just said it is better than the other alternatives. Exactly the problem: there are NO good choices.

Part of the rolling problem is that people are making forced investments in bad risks because the money has to go somewhere.

Again, US debt isn't the issue, an unregulated banking industry is.

you ever take a look at the data, how mutch of Us bonds china owns? - do you know how china finances their spendings? by loans on us debts they own... so its very importent to china, what happens to the value of their USbonds in dollar

Yes, have you? China has massive assets that are nationalized, or quasi-nationalized. The interest it earns off our debt is good, but not critical.

China uses are debt as place to park it's cash, and an investment in it's biggest consumer.

no need to try to explain it to me :wink:
but only your gov doesnt care, it doesnt mean it wount do any damage

No, really, I do, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

also is your gov allread forcing inflation, or what do you think will all these massive QE create?

Excess cash which causes speculative bubbles, which are not the same as core inflation. Inflation is nearly flat, but certain commodities and assets are booming. That's a bubble, not inflation.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Excess cash which causes speculative bubbles, which are not the same as core inflation. Inflation is nearly flat, but certain commodities and assets are booming. That's a bubble, not inflation.

thats a momentum
Or do you can controll where doese the money flows??? it can switch into the real economy and force inflation...
okay it creates bubbles. and bubbles are really really good as we noticed lately... OH, no, it isnt :rolleyes:

start to read at least what one economic has published... im done
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Bubbles fuelled with specualtive debt are the problem, and always have been. I was given the old gambling advice as a kid, "Only bet what you can afford to lose".

The fundamentals of Banking are in opposition to this, until you get to the too big to fail syndrome which also applies to countries, only they both do and will continue to fail. No one stops the tide coming in which is what I think Mr. Soros has built his career on.
 
S

superbot

Guest
SARKOZY goes down .

I think this will be the beginning of the Right wing falling having been such a failure in their attempts at austerity which has now caused the UK to go back into a recession.

We can only HOPE that we (the USA) sees that the dangers of austerity far outweigh the reality of our debt and the way Romney wants to take us would be BUSH & co. on steroids. We all known how that Administration turned out, GOOGLE says it better than anyone :

MISERABLE FAILURE !!!



HH
Right wing????...How do you work that out??
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Sarkozy was a middle-right neoliberal(that's an econ term, not a political one), he certainly was right wing. He was farther left than the US right including most Democrats, but that doesn't make him a leftist.

The new guy is slightly better.

Sarkozy, I agree, was further left than most US Democrats. Hollande's party is the Socialist Party, having grown out of the International Workers movement.

As I have just commented in another thread, socialism has a near perfect 100% record of bankrupting countries. I can't see that Germany will bankroll France to make this the exception. Circumstances were different for Mitterand, yet his successor still managed to poll less votes than the far right national front.

The French State already accounts for 53% of its GDP. This has given France an amazing quality of social services etc etc, but it has also given her major economic competitiveness issues. France isn't Norway.

How high do you think Hollande can take the State GDP percentile?

Fortunately Europe allows for the freedom of movement of people and capital.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Sarkozy, I agree, was further left than most US Democrats. Hollande's party is the Socialist Party, having grown out of the International Workers movement.

As I have just commented in another thread, socialism has a near perfect 100% record of bankrupting countries. I can't see that Germany will bankroll France to make this the exception. Circumstances were different for Mitterand, yet his successor still managed to poll less votes than the far right national front.

The French State already accounts for 53% of its GDP. This has given France an amazing quality of social services etc etc, but it has also given her major economic competitiveness issues. France isn't Norway.

How high do you think Hollande can take the State GDP percentile?

Fortunately Europe allows for the freedom of movement of people and capital.

Socialism has nothing to do with government involvement. Hollande identifies as a social democrat, which is quite different from the socialism moniker of his party.

Capitalism has a near 100% record of fucking over everyone but the top 1% and ramming the economy into the ground repeatedly.

Perhaps we should move away from the bombastic economic summaries?
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Socialism has nothing to do with government involvement. Hollande identifies as a social democrat, which is quite different from the socialism moniker of his party.

Capitalism has a near 100% record of fucking over everyone but the top 1% and ramming the economy into the ground repeatedly.

Perhaps we should move away from the bombastic economic summaries?

On a very basic level, people want jobs, security of all types and prosperity. I don't care too much if 1% get very wealthy in a capitalist economy so long as the vast majority are also benefiting from a successful economy.

Almost noone benefits from a bankrupt economy, and I can not see that socialism's history is other than strewn with economic failure.

It is purely a pragmatic issue for me.

How high do you think Hollande will take the State's % of GDP by the way?
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
On a very basic level, people want jobs, security of all types and prosperity. I don't care too much if 1% get very wealthy in a capitalist economy so long as the vast majority are also benefiting from a successful economy.

Almost noone benefits from a bankrupt economy, and I can not see that socialism's history is other than strewn with economic failure.

It is purely a pragmatic issue for me.

How high do you think Hollande will take the State's % of GDP by the way?

If it's purely pragmatic, I would think you'd go for more of a social democratic way. Regardless, countries don't go bankrupt, that's just silly. Countries default unless they're pressured, like Greece, not to by a runaway bank industry.

Socialism is merely workers owning the company. You're confusing that with social democracy, but you'd be wrong either way.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Almost noone benefits from a bankrupt economy, and I can not see that socialism's history is other than strewn with economic failure. It is purely a pragmatic issue for me.
Then we have to brak up and control the current private banking sector? What about other multinational companies which are able to dictate their own terms? (and not to our benefit should, for example the entire british car manufacturing sector decide to move to china.)

How high do you think Hollande will take the State's % of GDP by the way?
Why does it matter? the issue is not how much state production there is but whether the private sector can be grown.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
You're confusing that with social democracy, but you'd be wrong either way.

I don't think I am, but then I don't really understand what you are saying.

Then we have to brak up and control the current private banking sector? What about other multinational companies which are able to dictate their own terms? (and not to our benefit should, for example the entire british car manufacturing sector decide to move to china.)

Why does it matter? the issue is not how much state production there is but whether the private sector can be grown.

I said somewhere else that government had also failed to check banking. That is a government failure. They need to do their job properly. But the think is, it suited Gordon not to, it suited the consumers not to. All, including the banks, are to blame for the debt crisis in the West. Some people think that they can get out of debt by taking on more debt. Interesting, but I think it has mre to do with promises that get people elected.

Several people have tried to explain to you Dandy, why State expenditure is at best an inefficient form of wealth creation, and you have never accepted that view. I'll say that it is naive to think that people work hard when it makes no difference to their reward.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
the interesting thing is...

since we started traiding with cows, chicks and pigs, later with money.
we allways used somehow free markets (the fundamental detail of capitalism).
and as more as we used it as more everyone could afford. - so it looks like the system proofed the last 10,000 years, that it works.

two other systems, we tried, failed. sozialism and comunism... why should we try it again?

its like churchill sayd about democracy

capitalsim is the worst of all market systems, expect of every other
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
I don't think I am, but then I don't really understand what you are saying.

Socialism pretty much only refers to "the workers owning the means of production, rather than having their labor exploited for the profit of the owner or investor class". It's often confused with social democracy, because there's a hell of a lot of scaremongering propaganda about socialism. Simply put, any business where the workers are also the owners is a socialist one, most often practiced in co-ops. There are plenty of successful co-ops in the US and around the world, including the best known one, Mondragon, which has something like 80k employees and is quite competitive in the many fields it works in.

A social democracy is a political ideology that supports social rights for citizens, like univeral healthcare, universal education, fair wage and labor laws, etc. Many leftist parties and governments in europe claim to be, or are, this. Their parties are often called Socialist(in France) or Labor(in UK). However, it gets confusing because they're not referring to merely a way of doing business, and often aren't heavily into socialist businesses at all.

Furthermore, opponents tend to refer to them as socialists because it ties in with communism, which is entirely different from social democracy, but has a really negative connotation. Socialist businesses do not have to be communist, but neither are relevant in the political context.

Labour and and the French Socialist party are really only barely leftist when it comes to social democracy, they've moved pretty hard to he right in recent years. SYRIZA in Greece is a better of example of a leftist social democrat party.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
the interesting thing is...

since we started traiding with cows, chicks and pigs, later with money.
we allways used somehow free markets (the fundamental detail of capitalism).
and as more as we used it as more everyone could afford. - so it looks like the system proofed the last 10,000 years, that it works.

Except for all the socialist and communal system used all around the world in various cultures and continents for beyond 10,000 years. Capitalism as you recognized it has only existed for several hundred, and in that time it's largely created a worse wealth disparity and more widespread suffering than previous systems.

At least under feudalism the upper class had a mandate to care for the poor folk at some level.

And if you think ancient barter economies were free market, you seriously need to crack open a history book. You're talking about systems that weren't remotely capitalist and making things up to support your uneducated stance, not to mention that you're being entirely eurocentric in your history.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Except for all the socialist and communal system used all around the world in various cultures and continents for beyond 10,000 years.
what do you think, would they have done, as soon as they got in contact with the next village? they traded, not out of pure good will, but cause everyone benefits... the fundamental element of capitalism

Capitalism as you recognized it has only existed for several hundred, and in that time it's largely created a worse wealth disparity and more widespread suffering than previous systems.

At least under feudalism the upper class had a mandate to care for the poor folk at some level.

And if you think ancient barter economies were free market, you seriously need to crack open a history book. You're talking about systems that weren't remotely capitalist and making things up to support your uneducated stance, not to mention that you're being entirely eurocentric in your history.

you really have no clue... does the name Fugger or Patricier tells you something? - how long do you think does the silkroad exist? it has nothing to do with trading, sure:rolleyes:

what do you think is a free market? everyone can trade everything, with everyone, for the price he wants... nothing else shows my just named examples
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
what do you think, would they have done, as soon as they got in contact with the next village? they traded, not out of pure good will, but cause everyone benefits... the fundamental element of capitalism

A barter economy for the benefit of the community is most definitely NOT capitalism. Unfortunately for you, capitalism isn't "anything that sounds good when goods are exchanged", it's quite a bit more specific.

you really have no clue... does the name Fugger or Patricier tells you something? - how long do you think does the silkroad exist? it has nothing to do with trading, sure:rolleyes:

what do you think is a free market? everyone can trade everything, with everyone, for the price he wants... nothing else shows my just named examples

All of those markets you consider "free" had heavy governmental and religious involvement. Trade does not automatically equal "capitalism".

People who spend their lives studying this(ie not you!) generally can't agree on what historical economies can be considered even partially capitalist, but here is Perados to inform everyone that capitalism has in fact existed for 10000 years!

I eagerly anticipate your PhD presentation.

And thanks for highlighting post-feudal names like Fugger to support your argument for ancient capitalism....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited: