User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:25:31 AM EST
[#1]
Quoted:
If you think the pre-recession housing market was not a bubble, then get busy flipping houses. Let us know how that works out for you. Houses in my neighborhood are selling for more right now than they were during the bubble. If I had not refinanced my house down below the average car payment, and making extra payments by the way, I would sell it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:35:26 AM EST
[#2]
Quoted:
Houses in my neighborhood are selling for more right now than they were during the bubble. If I had not refinanced my house down below the average car payment, and making extra payments by the way, I would sell it. All real estate is local (by definition). I don't think your experience follows a widespread trend or national average. Congratulations, though!!! I guess you get to pay higher property taxes now  .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:07:29 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted:
It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:33:12 PM EST
[#4]
A 21st Century Depression
http://dailyreckoning.com/a-21st-century-depression/ By Bill Bonner
09/24/09 London, England The inflation/deflation debate is hot… It crackles and pops like a pine fire. But it gives off little helpful light. Abe Lincoln may have read by the light of an open fire. But when tried it, we singed our eyebrows. It made us suspicious of Old Abe; maybe he wasn’t quite as truthful as he pretended to be. Later, we realized he was a mountebank. But that’s another story… Today, we light a candle and try to interpret the shadows on the wall… Yesterday, the Dow fell 81 points. Gold dropped $5 to $1009. Will the feds succeed in causing inflation? Or will they fail? Will the dollar continue to go down? Or will it prove to be a safe haven currency in a time of deflationary trouble? According to the papers, the feds have already done it. “Fed says recovery underway,” says a headline from yesterday’s press. Another headline tells us that the feds are considering how and when to ease themselves out of their interventions. But what would the economy look like after they stopped meddling? Just look at auto sales. People bought cars when the feds bribed them to do so. When the bribes stopped, so did car sales. Now, the clunker program has ended and spiders are busy building their webs in showrooms again. Sales fell 38% from August to September…to a 28-year low. House sales too have been goosed up by the feds’ tax credits. According to an estimate we reported yesterday, 350,000 new house sales since January were assisted by federal intervention – about 80% of the total. What will happen when this program ends in November? Hey…let’s guess…uh…housing sales will fall, right? And speculators are worried about what will happen when the feds stop their intervention in the financial industry, scheduled for December. Thanks to taxpayer money, the bankers were spared the consequences of their own stupidity. Instead, taxpayers will pay for their mistakes. No one is particularly upset about it. The taxpayers don’t know what is going on. And bankers are happy to continue living in the style to which they have become accustomed. Reuters reports: “You wouldn’t know it by his pay stubs, but Jiang Jianqing heads the world’s largest bank. “Jiang, chairman of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, made just $234,700 in 2008. That’s less than 2 percent of the $19.6 million awarded to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the world’s fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co. “The contrast illustrates the massive differences in pay among the CEOs of the world’s top banks. The compensation of the CEOs of the largest US banks towers above what’s paid to banking chiefs in other parts of the world, according to a Reuters analysis of pay at the 18 biggest banks by market value. “The United States is home to four of the nine largest banks in the world – JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup Inc. It is also home to four of the six most handsomely rewarded bank CEOs. “China, for example, boasts three of the world’s four biggest banks, yet the leaders of those banks – Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank Corp and Bank of China – are among the lowest paid of those surveyed by Reuters. The chairman and the president of each of the banks are paid roughly $230,000 per year.” If America’s make-believe capitalists want to pay their CEOs exorbitant wages, that’s their business. A pox on all of them. But in come the feds…and now we’re all paying the price. And if the program ends in December, as scheduled, we’ll get to see how far the economy without taxpayers’ money in the gas tank. Let’s see…it comes to a complete stop? But no matter how malign and imbecilic the feds are, the public is rooting for them. People think Bernanke has avoided a ‘Second Great Depression,’ and that the government has rescued the economy. Now they see nothing but clear highway ahead…perhaps with a little bump from time to time. What’s ahead? We don’t know. Neither does anyone else. There is no precedent. Never before has a major central bank reacted so recklessly to a market correction. Never before has the monetary based exploded so violently. Never before have so many people with so many bills to pay had to face such a downturn. But amid all the confusion, uncertainty and noise…your editor is calmly, cheerfully and confidently awaiting a depression. Yes, dear reader, we don’t know what markets will do. We don’t know how much gold will sell for next year…or what the actual GDP will be. But when we look at the shadows…we have a strong hunch that we are entering a depression…and that we won’t get out of it soon. That said, we caution readers not to expect soup lines or people selling apples on the street corners. This is a depression a la 21st century. A depression with iPhones and Twitter. This is NOT your grandfather’s depression. Keep reading… It’s not your grandfather’s depression, but it has many elements that your grandfather would recognize. This from David Rosenberg: “Frugality theme is secular, not just cyclical.” With so much noise…and so many distortions…it’s hard to tell what is really going on…and impossible to know how the markets will react. Still, there are some patterns that make sense. After a long period of credit growth, credit is now shrinking. At least in the private sector. And that is not likely to change. Well, it’s not likely to change unless the Fed goes nuclear. If they push the hyperinflation button, the whole picture changes radically and immediately. But that’s not likely to happen any time soon…so let’s ignore it for the present. What we have before us now is a consumer economy where the consumer is cutting back. Despite the odd shadow shapes on the wall, that means a slowdown in hiring, business revenues and real prices…and tax revenues. New York says its budget deficit will grow to $3 billion. And over on the sunny West Coast, California is selling $8.8 billion in notes to try to close its deficit. Apartment rents in New York City are falling. Credit card defaults hit a new record. And The Wall Street Journal says that holiday jobs in the retail sector are likely to be scarce. Not to mention the wave of mortgage loan defaults that is headed our way – and is already in progress. Another thing you’d expect is a decline in America’s relative economic power and political influence. Richard Duncan, along with your editor, has been following the story. Bloomberg reports: “US budget deficits will continue to pile up in the next decade, eventually reaching an unsustainable level that may result in an economic collapse, according to Richard Duncan, author of The Dollar Crisis. “The US has little chance of resolving its deteriorating financial position because the manufacturing industry continues to shrink, leaving the nation with few goods to export, said Duncan, now at Singapore-based Blackhorse Asset Management. “In The Dollar Crisis, first published in 2003, Duncan argued that persistent current account deficits by the US were creating an unsustainable boom in global credit that was destined to break down, resulting in a worldwide recession. “‘The bad news is at the end of a 10-year period we’re still not going to have fixed the problem,’ Duncan said in an interview in Hong Kong yesterday. ‘Eventually it will lead to high rates of inflation well down the line and really destabilize things to the point where there may be irreparable damage. A kind of ‘Fall of Rome’ scenario.’” Fall of Rome? Hey, Addison Wiggin and your editor wrote the book on the fall of Rome idea. Empire of Debt, we called it. It was such a hit that the publisher asked us for a new edition…which was released this summer. Richard Duncan, with Bloomberg on lead guitar, was singing our song: “The federal budget deficit will total $1.6 trillion this year, while combined shortfalls are forecast to total $9.05 trillion in the next 10 years, according to projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “The US has run a current account deficit every year since 1982 except one, with a peak of $788 billion in 2006. Foreign purchases of US debt has propped up the dollar and allowed a credit-fueled spending boom by the nation’s consumers, according to Duncan. “US workers are now likely to face declining wages and that may create a political backlash against free-trade policies, he said. The nation’s jobless rate jumped to a 26-year high of 9.7 percent in August, while wages logged a 2.6 percent increase from the previous year. “As unemployment remains above 10 percent well into the foreseeable future, it won’t be long before Americans start voting for protectionism,” Duncan said. “That’s going to be bad because protectionism will mean world trade will diminish and will overall reduce global prosperity.” Once the US debt burden becomes too large and the government can no longer sell debt to the public the Federal Reserve will likely step in and monetize it, resulting in high levels of inflation, he concluded. Until tomorrow, Bill Bonner The Daily Reckoning |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:36:30 PM EST
[#5]
Quoted:
A 21st Century Depression http://dailyreckoning.com/a-21st-century-depression/ By Bill Bonner
09/24/09 London, England The inflation/deflation debate is hot… It crackles and pops like a pine fire. But it gives off little helpful light. Abe Lincoln may have read by the light of an open fire. But when tried it, we singed our eyebrows. It made us suspicious of Old Abe; maybe he wasn’t quite as truthful as he pretended to be. Later, we realized he was a mountebank. But that’s another story… Today, we light a candle and try to interpret the shadows on the wall… Yesterday, the Dow fell 81 points. Gold dropped $5 to $1009. Will the feds succeed in causing inflation? Or will they fail? Will the dollar continue to go down? Or will it prove to be a safe haven currency in a time of deflationary trouble? According to the papers, the feds have already done it. “Fed says recovery underway,” says a headline from yesterday’s press. Another headline tells us that the feds are considering how and when to ease themselves out of their interventions. But what would the economy look like after they stopped meddling? Just look at auto sales. People bought cars when the feds bribed them to do so. When the bribes stopped, so did car sales. Now, the clunker program has ended and spiders are busy building their webs in showrooms again. Sales fell 38% from August to September…to a 28-year low. House sales too have been goosed up by the feds’ tax credits. According to an estimate we reported yesterday, 350,000 new house sales since January were assisted by federal intervention – about 80% of the total. What will happen when this program ends in November? Hey…let’s guess…uh…housing sales will fall, right? And speculators are worried about what will happen when the feds stop their intervention in the financial industry, scheduled for December. Thanks to taxpayer money, the bankers were spared the consequences of their own stupidity. Instead, taxpayers will pay for their mistakes. No one is particularly upset about it. The taxpayers don’t know what is going on. And bankers are happy to continue living in the style to which they have become accustomed. Reuters reports: “You wouldn’t know it by his pay stubs, but Jiang Jianqing heads the world’s largest bank. “Jiang, chairman of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, made just $234,700 in 2008. That’s less than 2 percent of the $19.6 million awarded to Jamie Dimon, chief executive of the world’s fourth-largest bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co. “The contrast illustrates the massive differences in pay among the CEOs of the world’s top banks. The compensation of the CEOs of the largest US banks towers above what’s paid to banking chiefs in other parts of the world, according to a Reuters analysis of pay at the 18 biggest banks by market value. “The United States is home to four of the nine largest banks in the world – JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup Inc. It is also home to four of the six most handsomely rewarded bank CEOs. “China, for example, boasts three of the world’s four biggest banks, yet the leaders of those banks – Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank Corp and Bank of China – are among the lowest paid of those surveyed by Reuters. The chairman and the president of each of the banks are paid roughly $230,000 per year.” If America’s make-believe capitalists want to pay their CEOs exorbitant wages, that’s their business. A pox on all of them. But in come the feds…and now we’re all paying the price. And if the program ends in December, as scheduled, we’ll get to see how far the economy without taxpayers’ money in the gas tank. Let’s see…it comes to a complete stop? But no matter how malign and imbecilic the feds are, the public is rooting for them. People think Bernanke has avoided a ‘Second Great Depression,’ and that the government has rescued the economy. Now they see nothing but clear highway ahead…perhaps with a little bump from time to time. What’s ahead? We don’t know. Neither does anyone else. There is no precedent. Never before has a major central bank reacted so recklessly to a market correction. Never before has the monetary based exploded so violently. Never before have so many people with so many bills to pay had to face such a downturn. But amid all the confusion, uncertainty and noise…your editor is calmly, cheerfully and confidently awaiting a depression. Yes, dear reader, we don’t know what markets will do. We don’t know how much gold will sell for next year…or what the actual GDP will be. But when we look at the shadows…we have a strong hunch that we are entering a depression…and that we won’t get out of it soon. That said, we caution readers not to expect soup lines or people selling apples on the street corners. This is a depression a la 21st century. A depression with iPhones and Twitter. This is NOT your grandfather’s depression. Keep reading… It’s not your grandfather’s depression, but it has many elements that your grandfather would recognize. This from David Rosenberg: “Frugality theme is secular, not just cyclical.” With so much noise…and so many distortions…it’s hard to tell what is really going on…and impossible to know how the markets will react. Still, there are some patterns that make sense. After a long period of credit growth, credit is now shrinking. At least in the private sector. And that is not likely to change. Well, it’s not likely to change unless the Fed goes nuclear. If they push the hyperinflation button, the whole picture changes radically and immediately. But that’s not likely to happen any time soon…so let’s ignore it for the present. What we have before us now is a consumer economy where the consumer is cutting back. Despite the odd shadow shapes on the wall, that means a slowdown in hiring, business revenues and real prices…and tax revenues. New York says its budget deficit will grow to $3 billion. And over on the sunny West Coast, California is selling $8.8 billion in notes to try to close its deficit. Apartment rents in New York City are falling. Credit card defaults hit a new record. And The Wall Street Journal says that holiday jobs in the retail sector are likely to be scarce. Not to mention the wave of mortgage loan defaults that is headed our way – and is already in progress. Another thing you’d expect is a decline in America’s relative economic power and political influence. Richard Duncan, along with your editor, has been following the story. Bloomberg reports: “US budget deficits will continue to pile up in the next decade, eventually reaching an unsustainable level that may result in an economic collapse, according to Richard Duncan, author of The Dollar Crisis. “The US has little chance of resolving its deteriorating financial position because the manufacturing industry continues to shrink, leaving the nation with few goods to export, said Duncan, now at Singapore-based Blackhorse Asset Management. “In The Dollar Crisis, first published in 2003, Duncan argued that persistent current account deficits by the US were creating an unsustainable boom in global credit that was destined to break down, resulting in a worldwide recession. “‘The bad news is at the end of a 10-year period we’re still not going to have fixed the problem,’ Duncan said in an interview in Hong Kong yesterday. ‘Eventually it will lead to high rates of inflation well down the line and really destabilize things to the point where there may be irreparable damage. A kind of ‘Fall of Rome’ scenario.’” Fall of Rome? Hey, Addison Wiggin and your editor wrote the book on the fall of Rome idea. Empire of Debt, we called it. It was such a hit that the publisher asked us for a new edition…which was released this summer. Richard Duncan, with Bloomberg on lead guitar, was singing our song: “The federal budget deficit will total $1.6 trillion this year, while combined shortfalls are forecast to total $9.05 trillion in the next 10 years, according to projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “The US has run a current account deficit every year since 1982 except one, with a peak of $788 billion in 2006. Foreign purchases of US debt has propped up the dollar and allowed a credit-fueled spending boom by the nation’s consumers, according to Duncan. “US workers are now likely to face declining wages and that may create a political backlash against free-trade policies, he said. The nation’s jobless rate jumped to a 26-year high of 9.7 percent in August, while wages logged a 2.6 percent increase from the previous year. “As unemployment remains above 10 percent well into the foreseeable future, it won’t be long before Americans start voting for protectionism,” Duncan said. “That’s going to be bad because protectionism will mean world trade will diminish and will overall reduce global prosperity.” Once the US debt burden becomes too large and the government can no longer sell debt to the public the Federal Reserve will likely step in and monetize it, resulting in high levels of inflation, he concluded. Until tomorrow, Bill Bonner The Daily Reckoning The Fed has already montezied a portion of our debt by purchaising bonds outside of the POMO instrument. Expect a lot more of that to happen and for it to somehow escape the mainstream media's attention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:44:52 PM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you think the pre-recession housing market was not a bubble, then get busy flipping houses. Let us know how that works out for you. Houses in my neighborhood are selling for more right now than they were during the bubble. If I had not refinanced my house down below the average car payment, and making extra payments by the way, I would sell it. One or two people lose their jobs, or take pay cuts, and go into foreclosure, and the bank has trouble selling them, whether due to high price, or difficulty arranging a mortgage, or simple lack of demand, and the whole neighborhood property values drop to match the empty units. It's happened all over the country. One part of "upside down" that doesn't seem to make the news...when all of a sudden your home's value on the market is too low to satisfy the mortgage, you can't sell it. The bank won't let you sell it unless you pay off the difference, in cash, right now. You might be able to borrow that money elsewhere, but credit is tight right now, and by definition, you can't use your home as collateral, since you won't own it anymore if the loan goes thru. That's when the domino effect can come into play. One minute hme values are higher than they've been in 50 years, and within a week, everybody in the neighborhood is upside down, and if even a few lose their jobs, bank's inability to sell the empties drives prices down even further. If you have a solid job or other ability to pay your mortgage, you can ride it out, but if you are running tight making payments now, best to keep your job options open, resume polished, and as many months mortgage payment saved up as you can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:01:57 PM EST
[#7]
“US workers are now likely to face declining wages and that may create a political backlash against free-trade policies, he said. The nation’s jobless rate jumped to a 26-year high of 9.7 percent in August, while wages logged a 2.6 percent increase from the previous year.
Ha ha. U1 I prefer U6 U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers*, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.. August '09 - 16.5% * NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 1:59:54 PM EST
[#8]
Quoted:
I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 6:26:47 PM EST
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 6:30:18 PM EST
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:33:16 PM EST
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. With honest money, that sentiment would be correct. But, with what is de facto legal currency now in the U.S. and interest rates much lower than the rate of inflation, it is the savers who are punished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:07:36 PM EST
[#12]
while a lot of this has been interesting reading, the facts for me are that i go to work each dayfor the state of new york and get paid for it. i used to work in the private sector and the garment industry i worked in went to china, then i worked inmedical supplies and had one company i worked for get sold because the owner was tired of fighting insurance cos for the pennies and was watching all thing go to managed care. he rightly predicted that we would all be looking at govt health care before it is all said and done because the costs and the penny pinching were both unsustainable in managed care.
so all this stuff about debt sounds wonderful right up until i deal with the fact that without a certain ratio of debt i couldnt afford to buy a car when i had to replace mine, i suppose all of the theorists here offering discourse on debt are independently wealthy or have amazingly secure jobs with high pay and low costs of living i am stuck controlling the costs and dealing with debt like most of us do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:21:15 PM EST
[#13]
Quoted: Quoted: It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what? hrybwm |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:22:57 PM EST
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. Every large successful corporation in the world got ahead by using debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:29:25 PM EST
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. When would you need 3-5k to save your life, not have it, and be unable to get it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:31:28 PM EST
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what? hrybwm I thought it was Modus who said this... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2009 10:36:02 PM EST
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what? hrybwm I thought it was Modus who said this... Modus said 50 days. Which is up Friday.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:25:46 AM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Snip........
[span style='color: red;']Nov 5th. What's the significance of this date? (Sorry, I get lost as hell on these threads.....) It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Dayum.... I didn't think it was coming so soon.... I was hoping for another full hunting season before it hits. Nothing for me to do in February, can we put it off till then??  [/quote]
Bilderbergers........almost sounds like a venison burger with maybe some giant beefsteak maters sliced on top..........mmmmmmmm. 50 years ago they wanted NWO or one world gubmint to be in place by 2000. Didn't happen. Then they tried for 2006. Fugged again. They want to let us down slow but now they are pannicking. Assholes like me giving away almost 4000 dvd's, waking people up. Way behind schedule, Lucifer is pissed. What to do, what to do. Another false flag, keep the sheep scared......Take what's left as they cower in the darkness.....force the poison shot. I ain't fuckin skeered. It's gettin time for some rope parties. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:29:32 AM EST
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what? He's referring to my 4 points on page 8.......and I say in the next 6 weeks these 4 things are my main concerns...... That and when the hell Bucky is gonna give me a shot at him with my bow.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:31:04 AM EST
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what?[/quote He's referring to my 4 points on page 8.......and I say in the next 6 weeks these 4 things are my main concerns...... That and when the hell Bucky is gonna give me a shot at him with my bow.........
Oh, I read your 4 points. Respectfully, they seem a bit tin foilish to me. And of course I hope you're wrong. Not saying it can't happen though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:33:01 AM EST
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is when the American economy as we know it, ceases to exist. Your prediction is based on what? hrybwm I thought it was Modus who said this... Modus said 50 days. Which is up Friday.
More tin foil. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 2:50:10 AM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
<snip> More tin foil. How much more ? Or should I switch over to Stainless heat treating wrap ? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 3:25:01 AM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. With honest money, that sentiment would be correct. But, with what is de facto legal currency now in the U.S. and interest rates much lower than the rate of inflation, it is the savers who are punished. How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. This is not personal to anyone here. I know that virtually everyone younger than me, and most who are older, do not see things my way. The difference in thinking is gut-level, hard-wired deep, and probably no one is going to change his beliefs about personal debt by reading anything here. But I say this: IF any of you reading this grew up believing that things like car loans are normal... please, think again. The entire concept of consumer credit as an industry and morally acceptable practice is younger than many of us here. In the course of history, consumer credit is a mere modern experiment. And I posit: A failed experiment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:08:33 AM EST
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. With honest money, that sentiment would be correct. But, with what is de facto legal currency now in the U.S. and interest rates much lower than the rate of inflation, it is the savers who are punished. How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. This is not personal to anyone here. I know that virtually everyone younger than me, and most who are older, do not see things my way. The difference in thinking is gut-level, hard-wired deep, and probably no one is going to change his beliefs about personal debt by reading anything here. But I say this: IF any of you reading this grew up believing that things like car loans are normal... please, think again. The entire concept of consumer credit as an industry and morally acceptable practice is younger than many of us here. In the course of history, consumer credit is a mere modern experiment. And I posit: A failed experiment. Well stated, Madam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:20:19 AM EST
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. This is not personal to anyone here. I know that virtually everyone younger than me, and most who are older, do not see things my way. The difference in thinking is gut-level, hard-wired deep, and probably no one is going to change his beliefs about personal debt by reading anything here. But I say this: IF any of you reading this grew up believing that things like car loans are normal... please, think again. The entire concept of consumer credit as an industry and morally acceptable practice is younger than many of us here. In the course of history, consumer credit is a mere modern experiment. And I posit: A failed experiment. Well stated, Madam. Yup. She's got it down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:55:12 AM EST
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. With honest money, that sentiment would be correct. But, with what is de facto legal currency now in the U.S. and interest rates much lower than the rate of inflation, it is the savers who are punished. How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. This is not personal to anyone here. I know that virtually everyone younger than me, and most who are older, do not see things my way. The difference in thinking is gut-level, hard-wired deep, and probably no one is going to change his beliefs about personal debt by reading anything here. But I say this: IF any of you reading this grew up believing that things like car loans are normal... please, think again. The entire concept of consumer credit as an industry and morally acceptable practice is younger than many of us here. In the course of history, consumer credit is a mere modern experiment. And I posit: A failed experiment. I agree with you 100% regarding the sentiments and misuse of words such as "homeowner". Unless one holds the title, if they have a loan, the bank owns it and they simply have an equity interest in the home. Yours is a very principled philosophy, one with which I would also agree. It is not a new nor unique concept. It is as old as usury. The idea I was attempting to convey by my statement regarding honest money vs the currency of the day is that we're really "through the looking glass" now. By that I mean, in order for your philosophy to be viable honest money is prerequisite. Indeed, I would submit that if your savings are in Federal Reserve Notes all you have is a bunch of depreciating I.O.U.s.. in a word: DEBT. Here is a photo of a $10,000.00 dollar bill or Federal Reserve Note, from 1918, which is no longer in print. Notice at the top it states, "Will pay to the bearer on demand." Federal Reserve Notes no longer have that notation on them - why?
 Let's here what the Fed has to say: "In 1914, Federal Reserve Notes, which comprise more than 99 percent of today's paper money, were issued by Federal Reserve Banks as direct obligations of the Federal Reserve System. They replaced National Bank Notes as the dominant form of paper money." [1] "Fiat money is similar to representative money except it can't be redeemed for a commodity, such as gold or silver. The Federal Reserve notes we use today are an example of fiat money." [2] And this is the currency we are required by law (legal tender) to accept.  Unless you are exchanging those debt notes for something tangible, you are in debt. Ironic neh?
So, in this perverse environment, where money is debt, etc.,. does the philosophy of savings work? Again, only if you exchange those debt notes for something that holds it's value. Irredeemable debt notes are the antithesis of that!! I am not happy about this situation. It saddens me deeply that the principle of saving is punished (inflation "tax") and punished severely. My heart especially goes out to those elders who have worked hard and have USD$ savings, "fixed income" folks, etc.,. Interest rates, in real (inflation adjusted) terms, are already negative. Soon they may be there in nominal terms as well. It's not just "consumer credit" that is a failed experiment. That is merely a symptom. The entire currency is an experiment. One that has failed many times in the past, I might add. There's not a lot, if anything, I can do solely to change this system. The congress has abdicated it's constitutional mandate. The Judiciary is nothing more than an enabler. They have left me no other option than to profit from their combined stupidity. Imagine someone offering to pay interest if you borrowed money. How much interest? Let's say 6%. That means in twelve years your "investment" would double. Double your money in 12 years for doing absolutely nothing. How may people would sign up for that? What other "investments" offer comparable returns? Now, how hypothetical is this? If you got a loan at 4% interest and inflation is 10%, it's not hypothetical at all. Now, can you blame people for going into debt when it is profitable to do so? Perhaps... but that is human nature. With fiat currency the entire system is at the whim of those who create the money. They set the rates, rules, etc.,. They control the entire "game" ~> Casino Capitalism. Capitalism without capital. 
It will not end well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:04:34 AM EST
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. With honest money, that sentiment would be correct. But, with what is de facto legal currency now in the U.S. and interest rates much lower than the rate of inflation, it is the savers who are punished. How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. This is not personal to anyone here. I know that virtually everyone younger than me, and most who are older, do not see things my way. The difference in thinking is gut-level, hard-wired deep, and probably no one is going to change his beliefs about personal debt by reading anything here. But I say this: IF any of you reading this grew up believing that things like car loans are normal... please, think again. The entire concept of consumer credit as an industry and morally acceptable practice is younger than many of us here. In the course of history, consumer credit is a mere modern experiment. And I posit: A failed experiment. /applause |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:11:35 AM EST
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> More tin foil. How much more ? Or should I switch over to Stainless heat treating wrap ?
I wonder if stainless heat treating wrap will protect from sound cannons and microwave guns?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:18:23 AM EST
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:19:23 AM EST
[#30]
Quoted:
How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it?[/span] People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. Which definition of hocking are you using? hock 3 (hk) Slang
tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks To pawn: hock a diamond ring. n. 1. The state of being pawned: put the diamonds in hock. 2. The state of being in debt: thought we'd never get out of hock. I'm thinking #1. So, isn't the difference completely obvious? (I must be missing something here with all the "+1s") Getting a loan to buy something means one has physical possession of the thing and that without having to pay the full price immediately. The real cost, purchase price + interest accrued, is something the individual would have to decide if it's worth it or not. By that I mean, is the use of the product now worth the extra cost associated or would waiting until it can be purchased w/o any loan more prudent. That is a simple ROI calculation and can not be answered generally. Pawning your possessions means you are getting $ for selling something. I'm sorry but this analogy just doesn't hold water. Lending and borrowing in and of themselves are not evil/usury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:32:36 AM EST
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> More tin foil. How much more ? Or should I switch over to Stainless heat treating wrap ?
I just use an aluminum dog bowl. Extra strength and kind of sporty too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:37:13 AM EST
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:47:29 AM EST
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> More tin foil. How much more ? Or should I switch over to Stainless heat treating wrap ? I wonder if stainless heat treating wrap will protect from sound cannons and microwave guns? or being arrested by seeming US Military at the G20 conference, being dumped into the back seat of a plain sedan by men in camouflage uniforms. If they are US military isn't this improper? what happened to both Posse Comitatus *and* The First Amendment? Part 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:59:47 AM EST
[#34]
Quoted: Quoted: How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it?[/span] People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. Which definition of hocking are you using? [span style='color: blue;'] hock 3 (hk) Slang [/span]tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks To pawn: hock a diamond ring. n. 1. The state of being pawned: put the diamonds in hock. 2. The state of being in debt: thought we'd never get out of hock. I'm thinking #1. So, isn't the difference completely obvious? (I must be missing something here with all the "+1s") Getting a loan to buy something means one [span style='font-style: italic;']has[/span] physical possession of the thing and that without having to pay the full price immediately. The real cost, purchase price + interest accrued, is something the individual would have to decide if it's worth it or not. By that I mean, is the use of the product now worth the extra cost associated or would waiting until it can be purchased w/o any loan more prudent. That is a simple ROI calculation and can not be answered generally. Pawning your possessions means you are getting $ for selling something. I'm sorry but this analogy just doesn't hold water. Lending and borrowing in and of themselves are not evil/usury. I'm not sure which parts you're actually hung up on, but I have plenty of opinions on the subject to lend Allow me to jump in. Debt, in itself is not evil or tragic or anything to be afraid of. It is a tool to be used sparingly, no differently than capital is, or any other asset for that matter. Private debt, is entirely at the risk of the individual borrower. I think we all already agree there. Public debt, is entirely at the risk of all of us. Some of our "leaders" are complete fools on this subject. Excessive debt, is a mistake, especially at the current scale that it is at for most Americans. Combined public and private debt, are indeed at excessive levels. This is cause for alarm, for most sane people who understand how debt really works. The problem, is the mentality that has lead us in to the 'excessive debt' situation. Consumers have been taught to look at the payment amount and how it relates to their present income, ONLY. Interest rates and total liability amounts are seldom spoken of at the consumer level. This practice has duped Americans in to thinking they can "afford" things that they really can not. See the foreclosure and default headlines unfolding near you for any examples you need. A consumer may sign up for a loan that the lender "says" is completely sustainable, (% of income proportionate, yada, yada, blah). But, it's all based on one great big "IF". ("If" the borrower doesn't fall ill, lose employment, etc..) If the borrower comes in to hard times, he's shit out of luck. And the lender doesn't give a fat fuck what happens to the borrower since he keeps the down payment, accrued interest, AND the collateral too. (Note that the "asset and liability" columns are reversed on the lenders balance sheets). Many folks listened to the banks' nonsense, when they should have listened to their parents or grandparents instead. (see; credit bubble) Now apply the same analogies to the public debts, and it becomes apparent that many folks listened to our current leaders, when they should have listened to this nations founders instead. Our debts are excessive and they are unsustainable. The only answer is to pay them off or write them off. Nobody likes either idea very much, and however it unfolds, it's gonna suck. So in summary: Debts' popularity is coming to an abrupt halt, for all of the reasons above. Some of us are even a little spiteful on the subject |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:10:29 AM EST
[#35]
hock 3 (hk) Slang
tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks To pawn: hock a diamond ring. n. 1. The state of being pawned: put the diamonds in hock. 2. The state of being in debt: thought we'd never get out of hock. I'm thinking #1. So, isn't the difference completely obvious? (I must be missing something here with all the "+1s") Pawning your possessions means you are getting $ for selling something. I'm sorry but this analogy just doesn't hold water. Lending and borrowing in and of themselves are not evil/usury. not quite, to pawn is not to sell, neither is to hock, both are loans made on a thing. Selling and pawning are two completely different things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:22:20 AM EST
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> More tin foil. How much more ? Or should I switch over to Stainless heat treating wrap ?
I wonder if stainless heat treating wrap will protect from sound cannons and microwave guns?
or being arrested by seeming US Military at the G20 conference, being dumped into the back seat of a plain sedan by men in camouflage uniforms. If they are US military isn't this improper? what happened to both Posse Comitatus *and* The First Amendment? Part 2 There they are: 
The kid, driver, crown vic, and the other two snatchers. A lot of talk about this already and it's been said the Pittsburgh SWAT has multi cam. The video looks really bad. Like a kidnapping right off the street. But obviously the kid did something stupid, but they did not want to make the full arrest at that location. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:32:34 AM EST
[#37]
The video is pretty simple, you have observers on buildings or airborne who call out and mark offenders. Then a snatch team swoops in and picks them up. What exactly is the problem?
Are we supposed to let anybody pull a WTO and “express” themselves by destroying how many millions of dollars of our property in our communities? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:41:09 AM EST
[#38]
Quoted:
The video is pretty simple, you have observers on buildings or airborne who call out and mark offenders. Then a snatch team swoops in and picks them up. What exactly is the problem? Are we supposed to let anybody pull a WTO and “express” themselves by destroying how many millions of dollars of our property in our communities? It looks bad without context. Very few people are going to see it the way you are right off the bat. It's on youtube as an obvious scare video. "OMG military at the G20!" "OMG, they violated his rights!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:47:48 AM EST
[#39]
Quoted:
[div style='margin-left: 40px;']hock 3 (hk) Slang tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks To pawn: hock a diamond ring. n. 1. The state of being pawned: put the diamonds in hock. 2. The state of being in debt: thought we'd never get out of hock. I'm thinking #1. So, isn't the difference completely obvious? (I must be missing something here with all the "+1s") Pawning your possessions means you are getting $ for selling something. I'm sorry but this analogy just doesn't hold water. Lending and borrowing in and of themselves are not evil/usury. not quite, to pawn is not to sell, neither is to hock, both are loans made on a thing. Selling and pawning are two completely different things. Really? I have to admit, I've only been to a pawn shop a couple of times (to use their FFL service) but I thought the whole business concept of them was buying and selling. So you are saying people go there and get loans on stuff they already own? Using their stuff as collateral? I thought all the stuff that the pawn shop had on display was for sale and presumed they bought it from people. Heh - learned something: A pawnbroker (or pawnshop) is an individual or business that offers monetary loans in exchange for an item of value that is given to the pawn broker. The word pawn is derived from the Latin pignus, for pledge, and the items having been pawned to the broker are themselves called pledges or pawns, or simply the collateral.
The pawnbroker/secondhand dealer also sells items that have been sold outright by customers to the Pawnbroker or secondhand dealer. I wonder what % of their biz comprises the second sentence. I see signs on one I drive past that say "will buy gold". At any rate, the analogy of purchasing via loan and pawning being similar still seems a stretch. They are two opposing sides of the same transaction at closest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:57:55 AM EST
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. Which definition of hocking are you using? hock 3 (hk) Slang
tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks To pawn: hock a diamond ring. n. 1. The state of being pawned: put the diamonds in hock. 2. The state of being in debt: thought we'd never get out of hock. I'm thinking #1. So, isn't the difference completely obvious? (I must be missing something here with all the "+1s") Getting a loan to buy something means one has physical possession of the thing and that without having to pay the full price immediately. The real cost, purchase price + interest accrued, is something the individual would have to decide if it's worth it or not. By that I mean, is the use of the product now worth the extra cost associated or would waiting until it can be purchased w/o any loan more prudent. That is a simple ROI calculation and can not be answered generally. Pawning your possessions means you are getting $ for selling something. I'm sorry but this analogy just doesn't hold water. Lending and borrowing in and of themselves are not evil/usury. I'm not sure which parts you're actually hung up on, but I have plenty of opinions on the subject to lend
Allow me to jump in. Debt, in itself is not evil or tragic or anything to be afraid of. It is a tool to be used sparingly, no differently than capital is, or any other asset for that matter. Private debt, is entirely at the risk of the individual borrower. I think we all already agree there. Public debt, is entirely at the risk of all of us. Some of our "leaders" are complete fools on this subject. Excessive debt, is a mistake, especially at the current scale that it is at for most Americans. Combined public and private debt, are indeed at excessive levels. This is cause for alarm, for most sane people who understand how debt really works. The problem, is the mentality that has lead us in to the 'excessive debt' situation. Consumers have been taught to look at the payment amount and how it relates to their present income, ONLY. Interest rates and total liability amounts are seldom spoken of at the consumer level. This practice has duped Americans in to thinking they can "afford" things that they really can not. See the foreclosure and default headlines unfolding near you for any examples you need. A consumer may sign up for a loan that the lender "says" is completely sustainable, (% of income proportionate, yada, yada, blah). But, it's all based on one great big "IF". ("If" the borrower doesn't fall ill, lose employment, etc..) If the borrower comes in to hard times, he's shit out of luck. And the lender doesn't give a fat fuck what happens to the borrower since he keeps the down payment, accrued interest, AND the collateral too. (Note that the "asset and liability" columns are reversed on the lenders balance sheets). Many folks listened to the banks' nonsense, when they should have listened to their parents or grandparents instead. (see; credit bubble) Now apply the same analogies to the public debts, and it becomes apparent that many folks listened to our current leaders, when they should have listened to this nations founders instead. Our debts are excessive and they are unsustainable. The only answer is to pay them off or write them off. Nobody likes either idea very much, and however it unfolds, it's gonna suck. So in summary: Debts' popularity is coming to an abrupt halt, for all of the reasons above. Some of us are even a little spiteful on the subject
It was just the pawning = borrowing analogy... no biggie really as I do agree 100% with the sentiment.
Yes, debt is becoming less popular. A correction is taking place. I've called this the Great Deleveraging (of debt) and also the Great Default. I guess the point of contention is where the blame lies. I find it difficult to place it solely with the consumer as, I've pointed out previously, the system is debt-based and inflationary, punishes those that save and rewards those who borrow. What else would anyone expect to happen?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 11:47:36 AM EST
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> More tin foil. How much more ? Or should I switch over to Stainless heat treating wrap ?
I wonder if stainless heat treating wrap will protect from sound cannons and microwave guns?
Only on Fridays |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:11:06 PM EST
[#42]
These threads have motivated me enough to start conducting simple tests….Elementary things like boiling water out on the patio without power and/or gas. When doing so, I realized just how boring things will be in post-collapse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:20:47 PM EST
[#43]
Quoted: These threads have motivated me enough to start conducting simple tests….Elementary things like boiling water out on the patio without power and/or gas. When doing so, I realized just how boring things will be in post-collapse. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mr_joshua/DSCN7289.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mr_joshua/DSCN7294.jpg Come On, it's good to get back to nature :/ I can't wait to cook on my wood stove, but then again since there won't be a job, I'll have plenty of time to slow cook the eggs and bacon (from the chickens and pigs I raised myself...) Then I'll work all day in the garden, retiring at sunset, happily satisfied with my work, knowing I'll be able to eat during the winter :/ .... the days will repeat themselves, and I'll content myself knowing I am living like a true 12th century peasant... Where has Modus been? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:23:11 PM EST
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
These threads have motivated me enough to start conducting simple tests….Elementary things like boiling water out on the patio without power and/or gas. When doing so, I realized just how boring things will be in post-collapse. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mr_joshua/DSCN7289.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/mr_joshua/DSCN7294.jpg Come On, it's good to get back to nature :/ I can't wait to cook on my wood stove, but then again since there won't be a job, I'll have plenty of time to slow cook the eggs and bacon (from the chickens and pigs I raised myself...) Then I'll work all day in the garden, retiring at sunset, happily satisfied with my work, knowing I'll be able to eat during the winter :/ .... the days will repeat themselves, and I'll content myself knowing I am living like a true 12th century peasant... Where has Modus been? Hiding because his prediction was wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:24:45 PM EST
[#45]
Here's what Obama has just said about the G20 meeting:
(from memory) He will not let another financial crisis such as the one we just had occur again. He will change regulations on the derivatives market. Executive pay will be changed making it based on long term performance rather than short term profits. They will also end subsidies for all fossil fuels to force Green fuels/jobs into the market. It was also noted from several international media types that there is "a lot of economic cooperation between the nations right now due to the economic crisis. Lots of things can happen now and get done as long as everyone continues to work together." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:51:25 PM EST
[#46]
Gee, I'm impressed, Al Gore bought one of the first cars (that haven't been designed yet..  ...)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:05:37 PM EST
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am glad I have no car or house payments. Wife wants a new car. I said, "Fine. If you can work it in your budget." But we keep the old one. It's cheap to insure and the tag is zilch. If one of us loses our job down the road the new one goes back. Does that mean "budget", as in "We can afford the payments on the car, month after month", or does that mean "budget" as in "We have $X0,000.00 saved up which is not designated for retirement or other specific purpose, and we can use it to outright buy the car"? Not picking on you personally, and I respect your decision not to answer if you prefer not to discuss personal finances here. I am highlighting the extreme difference between what words used to mean, and what they seem to mean now, as we were discussing here last night. When I say something is not within my budget, I mean I do not see spending the cash to outright buy it. Other (generally younger) people seem to usually mean they cannot make the monthly payments on a financed debt. I can plainly see your feelings towards “payments”…..and I agree. However, make no mistake about it; EVERY car company would be wiped out if people were not willing to commit themselves to “payments”. I don’t want to hi-jack this thread, but another topic called “circular dependency” would need to be discussed. Cash is king but seriously, who would be willing to drop 3-5k on a set of used wheels when you might need the money to save your life. anyone who understands you don't get ahead by being in debt. Every large successful corporation in the world got ahead by using debt. When you go into debt, you are pulling forward future income. That's not a problem when you use debt to increase productivity(like a business does) as the productivity increase should make up for the debt and the cost of servicing it, it is a problem when you use it to solely increase personal consumption. That's a distinction most people seem to miss. I have a rule to avoid debt in my personal life as much as possible, but I'm not above using it from time to time in a business setting. BTW I wasn't really talking to you in particular Sherrick, as I'm not really telling you anything you don't already understand. I was really speaking more to GD in general. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 2:04:09 PM EST
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How is "making payments" on something anything other than a fancy phrase for hocking it before you even own it? People who would shudder at the degradation of pawning their valuables have no problem signing up for a car loan. Which definition of hocking are you using? hock 3 (hk) Slang tr.v. hocked, hock·ing, hocks To pawn: hock a diamond ring. n. 1. The state of being pawned: put the diamonds in hock. 2. The state of being in debt: thought we'd never get out of hock. I'm thinking #1. So, isn't the difference completely obvious? (I must be missing something here with all the "+1s") Getting a loan to buy something means one has physical possession of the thing and that without having to pay the full price immediately. The real cost, purchase price + interest accrued, is something the individual would have to decide if it's worth it or not. By that I mean, is the use of the product now worth the extra cost associated or would waiting until it can be purchased w/o any loan more prudent. That is a simple ROI calculation and can not be answered generally. Pawning your possessions means you are getting $ for selling something. I'm sorry but this analogy just doesn't hold water. Lending and borrowing in and of themselves are not evil/usury. I'm not sure which parts you're actually hung up on, but I have plenty of opinions on the subject to lend Allow me to jump in. Debt, in itself is not evil or tragic or anything to be afraid of. It is a tool to be used sparingly, no differently than capital is, or any other asset for that matter. Private debt, is entirely at the risk of the individual borrower. I think we all already agree there. Public debt, is entirely at the risk of all of us. Some of our "leaders" are complete fools on this subject. Excessive debt, is a mistake, especially at the current scale that it is at for most Americans. Combined public and private debt, are indeed at excessive levels. This is cause for alarm, for most sane people who understand how debt really works. The problem, is the mentality that has lead us in to the 'excessive debt' situation. Consumers have been taught to look at the payment amount and how it relates to their present income, ONLY. Interest rates and total liability amounts are seldom spoken of at the consumer level. This practice has duped Americans in to thinking they can "afford" things that they really can not. See the foreclosure and default headlines unfolding near you for any examples you need. A consumer may sign up for a loan that the lender "says" is completely sustainable, (% of income proportionate, yada, yada, blah). But, it's all based on one great big "IF". ("If" the borrower doesn't fall ill, lose employment, etc..) If the borrower comes in to hard times, he's shit out of luck. And the lender doesn't give a fat fuck what happens to the borrower since he keeps the down payment, accrued interest, AND the collateral too. (Note that the "asset and liability" columns are reversed on the lenders balance sheets). Many folks listened to the banks' nonsense, when they should have listened to their parents or grandparents instead. (see; credit bubble) Now apply the same analogies to the public debts, and it becomes apparent that many folks listened to our current leaders, when they should have listened to this nations founders instead. Our debts are excessive and they are unsustainable. The only answer is to pay them off or write them off. Nobody likes either idea very much, and however it unfolds, it's gonna suck. So in summary: Debts' popularity is coming to an abrupt halt, for all of the reasons above. Some of us are even a little spiteful on the subject It was just the pawning = borrowing analogy... no biggie really as I do agree 100% with the sentiment. Yes, debt is becoming less popular. A correction is taking place. I've called this the Great Deleveraging (of debt) and also the Great Default. I guess the point of contention is where the blame lies. I find it difficult to place it solely with the consumer as, I've pointed out previously, the system is debt-based and inflationary, punishes those that save and rewards those who borrow. What else would anyone expect to happen? Agreed 1000% Punishing savings and encouraging spending has been an excellent revenue scheme for .gov. The manipulation itself is menacing enough, but the end result is the real tragedy for our nation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 2:08:06 PM EST
[#49]
Quoted: Here's what Obama has just said about the G20 meeting: (from memory) He will not let another financial crisis such as the one we just had occur again. He will change regulations on the derivatives market. Executive pay will be changed making it based on long term performance rather than short term profits. They will also end subsidies for all fossil fuels to force Green fuels/jobs into the market. It was also noted from several international media types that there is "a lot of economic cooperation between the nations right now due to the economic crisis. Lots of things can happen now and get done as long as everyone continues to work together." Superman to the rescue?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2009 2:20:15 PM EST
[#50]
Quoted:
When you go into debt, you are pulling forward future income. "Pulling forward future income" sounds like some more of the modern twist on the language which obcures what is really going on. It's not pulling anything forward. It's is relying upon something –– a hope, a promise, a calculation, or a cross your fingers and think dreamy thoughts –– that money will be there in the future, when it isn't there today. And it may not be there when needed in the future. Things work fine as long as no one loses his job, has health problems, divorce or other tragedy. In short, consumer credit –– such as a car loan –– is about hoping and gambling. Gambling that one will be able to keep up his payments. Drop the ball in any hundred dozen ways, or get knocked down by Fate or Mother Nature... and here comes the repo man at 0400 to deftly slip your vehicle up onto a wrecker. Sure, sure, nothing may go wrong, and you get to make your payments until your car goes out of warrrantee and starts breaking down when its paid for. Then you get to go do it again. You've still paid a few thousand dollars more than the value of the car. That's not a problem when you use debt to increase productivity(like a business does) as the productivity increase should make up for the debt and the cost of servicing it, it is a problem when you use it to solely increase personal consumption. Even I agree that there can be a time and a place for debt –– for thriving business to expand, and probably a few other good reasons. I just can't think of any others now. Let's call what's going on with "consumer credit" what it really is: "Debt". It's not some heroic-sounding "pulling future income forward". No lender "extends credit" to anyone. It's not some citizenship award. You're not being "given credit" for anything, no matter how decent and wonderful it sounds. You are entering into a contract to promise to pay money that you do not have. You have some reason, valid or otherwise, to think –– to wager, to gamble, and to hope –– that you will have it later on. At best, you will have it. And you will pay for the privilege of having gambled. At worst, you will not have it. And you lose the money you have paid towards the debt, plus whatever equity you might have built up in the purchased item. At not-quite-worst, you find yourself "upside down" and have to "short sell", and take a loss to sell off what you *thought* you "bought". Slightly more than one year ago, I did not even know what the phrase "upside down" meant. I didn't. Lots of people around me seemed to be "getting upside down in (their) car". I was stunned to learn it did not involve vehicular accident. I absolutely could not believe people –– educated, prosperous- looking people –– could be that damned stupid. Again, nothing personal. I guess I am mercifully backward in my ways, and live like a dinosaur in the traditions my parents taught me.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
