From +$236B . . . . to . . . . -$1.2T

[Stinky The Clown]

THAT . . . . . is destroyed wealth.

THAT . . . . . is what cheney and his pet man did to our economy in eight years.

THAT . . . . . is what the repubicans don't want to talk about when they get to talking about fiscal responsibility

THAT . . . . . is why you can't trust the fuckers.

THAT . . . . . is why they want to talk about mosques.

THAT . . . . . is why they want to talk about Spain vacations.

THAT . . . . . is why we are where we are.

[LAGC]

1. So what's Obama doing to FIX it?

So far we're just digging ourselves deeper into the hole, deficit-wise.

When are we going to not just repeal the Bush tax cuts, but really tax the progressive fuck out of the rich like we did back in the late 1940's-1950's when we had so much debt after WWII?

The longer we hold off on raising taxes, the more we're going to have to do it later, or drastically cut government services, or BOTH.

The time to act is now. We can't afford to wait while wars and bank bail-outs bankrupt our country, and the "Chinese credit card" debt continues to mount...

[Orsino]

57. Directing some spending in less odious ways.

However, "fixing" it it can't happen this year or next. Fixing it would mean not only spending in wiser ways, but also spending far more to make up for all those years of not doing the right things.

Digging a hole isn't a very complete metaphor. We might include the house we haven't been building above it.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. If someone had "predicted" this..they would have been committed to an insane asylum

[Stinky The Clown]

3. Awww ...... what a lonely, unreplied-to thread

Poor thread. Lemme kick ya while yer down.

[indepat]

4. Stinky, when these extremely crucial issues are spoken, most people, including most who post on this

board imo, just roll their glazed eyes, intending to worry about this issue tomorrow if ever. But trust me, one day, and no one can say just when, the fiscal insanity practiced in earnest during Republican administration since the gipper foisted his voodoo economics upon us, will ferociously come down on us like we were being hit by several tons of bricks. :)

[Stinky The Clown]

5. You're right. And we keep trying to apply 1990s solutions to 2020 problems.

Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations.

[Beetwasher]

6. "Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

You know Stinky, you had me up until this. While it's a nice fantasy, do you really believe this is in any way accomplishable, realistic or even a good idea? How would you accomplish this? Are there serious fundamental problems with our economic system? Hell yeah there are. But please tell me how you would accomplish tearing it down and rebuilding it from scratch without causing more pain, damage and destruction than is already happening. And don't tell me it can't be worse than it is now, because if you "tear down" our entire economic system and rebuild it from it's foundations, you can be damn sure things would be much, much worse for a lot more people and for a longer period before we arrive at your economic utopia (assuming it's even possible to ever get there).

This whole idea that you can somehow raze our entire system and then instantly and painlessly replace it with some progressive, utopian dreamworld is either very childish and naive or anarchically nihilistic, IMO.

[JNelson6563]

9. +1

Tiny world views come up with tiny ideas on how to fix gigantic problems. Oy.

Julie

[Hannah Bell]

10. um, the ruling class is currently engaged in replacing one economic system with another.

changes can in fact happen very quickly.

[Beetwasher]

13. Name One Time An Economic System Was Successfully Completely Dismantled

And started over from scratch without severe, painful repercussions.

And the ruling class is doing no such thing in this country. They are entrenched now and they've always been entrenched and they are merely gaming the current system to stay that way. Did it get worse uder the Bush admin? Yup, but it didn't happen over night and they didn't raze the current system to the ground to do it, they utilized the weaknesses in the current system effectively.

[Hannah Bell]

15. The ruling classes restructure both the domestic & the global economy every 30 years or so in a big

way. It's always been so.

There are severe and painful repercussions, & we are presently experiencing them.

[Beetwasher]

16. No They Don't, The System Is Already In Place, They Move The Pieces Around

And deregulate, but that ain't scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch.

Again, HOW would YOU accomplish this without making things way worse for a lot more people first? And how would you guarantee it would lead to YOUR vision of a progressive economic Utopia?

[Hannah Bell]

17. yes, they do. they're doing it as we speak.

[Beetwasher]

19. Well! Hannah Bell Says So, So It MUST Be True!

Provide evidence of how they scrap the WHOLE system as Stinky wants to do and then build it up again from scratch. You can't, can you?

I see you fail to answer my question on HOW you would accomplish scrapping the system and building up your utopian paradise. Why is that?

Provide a SINGLE example of an economic system that was successfully and painlessly totally scrapped and then built up again into your vision of a progressive utopia (whatever that may be).

[Hannah Bell]

23. it *is* true. i made no claims about progressive utopias. i made the claim that the ruling class

restructures the domestic & global economy every 30 years or so, generally with major pain for the masses, who take the brunt of it.

as they are now.

[Beetwasher]

25. Name One Time An Economic System Was Successfully Completely Dismantled

You can't. So instead you try to discuss something different. And you're still wrong and still can't provide evidence to back up your assertion that has nothing to do with what I was asking for.

Name One Time An Economic System Was Successfully Completely Dismantled.

That is the challenge. Name one. You can't.

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

That's Stinky's vision that you seem to be defending. Defend away and answer my challenge.

[Hannah Bell]

30. Your "challenge" carries with it assumptions about what "completely dismantled" means.

such that only revolutionary or imperial situations would fit the bill -- as in the continuing occcupation of iraq.

I'm not interested in unraveling your assumptions.

I'm stating: The ruling classes restructure the global & domestic economies in a major way every 30 years or so, & are engaged in doing so as we speak -- for THEIR benefit, not for the benefit of the majority. The process is painful, and indeed murderous.

Let those who have ears to hear, hear.

[Beetwasher]

31. It's Not My Assumptions, It's Stinky's, And Whatever The "Ruling Class" Does, It Ain't That

Not at all, despite your unsupported assertions to the contrary.

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

I'll take your failure to rise to my challenge as an admission that you can't.

[Hannah Bell]

33. It *is* your assumptions -- about what "torn down from the foundations" means.

The ruling class is currently engaged in tearing down the New Deal system from its foundations. The ruling classes in Europe & elsewhere are doing something equivalent. And lets not even speak of the third world.

[Beetwasher]

34. LOL! Well, Let's Redefine That To Mean "Whatever Hannah Bell Decides It Means"

Because that's what you're doing.

[Hannah Bell]

36. The ruling class tears down economies from the foundations regularly.

[Beetwasher]

38. And It's Painful, Is It Not? Thanks For Proving My Point!

:rofl:

"...please tell me how you would accomplish tearing it down and rebuilding it from scratch without causing more pain, damage and destruction than is already happening."

Let's assume what you say is true. It proves my point. Thanks. Doesn't matter what you tear it down for and I never said it would only be painful if you tore it down for a progressive vision. So you think we should tear it down for YOUR (or Stinky's) vision and will somehow be LESS painful?

[Hannah Bell]

42. which = pain isn't the issue. the issue is, who bears the brunt of the pain.

the ruling class gives the pain to the majority; stinky wants to give it to the minority -- which is to say, relieve the rulers of much of their wealth & power -- painful to them, perhaps, but not any "pain" which most people would recognise. whereas the pain the ruling class deals includes death, starvation, breakup of families & communities, homelessness, disease, war.

i agree with stinky.

[Beetwasher]

44. Ummm, You Think If An Economic System Is Razed To It's Foundations For A Progressive Vision

Only the rich will suffer during the transition? Again, please show me how this will be done, or how it's been done successfully, otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

[Hannah Bell]

46. those who have ears, can hear.

[Beetwasher]

49. Tell It To A Corn Stalk

n/t

[mrdmk]

50. Here is a big one (with links), changing from the gold standard to a fiat currency

Remembering 1971 (link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

The gold standard, removed more than once in the U.S.A. (link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

If people do not get to bored on the subject, try reading the following links:

Monetary, Fiscal, and Trade policies; a sudden change in any of these will be a economic shock to the system. The latest, corporations receive subsidies and pay no taxes (fiscal), banks must have a certain percentage of deposits in their vaults called a 'Reserve Requirement.' (link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_finance

Of course, we need to mention the Fed (link): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Monetary_policy


I did mention 1971 and the shock to the system. Here is a graph of the unemployment rate, it took 20 years and a bunch of statical manipulation to get it to the acceptable 4 to 6 percent of all non-institutional working age persons in the U.S.A. The came Bush Jr.




Here is some data from the Federal Reserve. Lowering the Reserve Requirement expands the money supply. They knew they were in trouble in 2007 when a sudden 180 occurred in the Reserve Requirement.

Short analysis:

year
2000, up $60 (in millions of dollars)
2001, up $154
2002, down $201
2003, down $689 (who says the Fed does not throw an election)
2004, down $506 (2003, 2004, and 2005 equals the big bubble)
2005, down $369 (is there any money left in the bank vaults?)
2006, down $146 (somebody, please turn-on that economic AC)
2007, up $57 (oopses, too little too late)
2009,* down $270 (that and a 760 billion dollar bailout, the banks will lend)
2009, down $1,240* (that will show those banks, now they have to lend)

* not a mistake, just people screwing-up big-time in the name of recovery, or are they?


Federal Reserve Data:

93. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 28, 2000, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was reduced from $44.3 million to $42.8 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $5.0 million to $5.5 million. The actions raised required reserves by an estimated $60 million.

94. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 27, 2001, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was reduced from $42.8 million to $41.3 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $5.5 million to $5.7 million. The actions raised total required reserves by an estimated $154 million.

95. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 26, 2002, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was increased from $41.3 million to $42.1 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $5.57 million to $6.0 million. The actions lowered total required reserves by an estimated $201 million.

96. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 25, 2003, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was increased from $42.1 million to $45.4 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $6.0 million to $6.6 million. The actions lowered total required reserves by an estimated $689 million.

97. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 23, 2004, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was increased from $45.4 million to $47.6 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $6.6 million to $7.0 million. The actions lowered total required reserves by an estimated $506 million.

98. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 22, 2005, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was increased from $47.6 million to $48.3 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $7.0 million to $7.8 million. The actions lowered total required reserves by an estimated $369 million.

99. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 21, 2006, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was reduced from $48.3 million to $45.8 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $7.8 million to $8.5 million. The actions raised total required reserves by an estimated $146 million.

100. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 20, 2007, the low reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was reduced from $45.8 million to $43.9 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $8.5 million to $9.3 million. The actions raised total required reserves by an estimated $57 million.

101. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning January 1, 2009, the low-reserve tranche for net transaction accounts was raised from $43.9 million to $44.4 million. The reserve requirement exemption was raised from $9.3 million to $10.3 million. The actions lowered total required reserves by an estimated $270 million.

102. Effective for the reserve maintenance period beginning December 31, 2009, the low-reserve tranche for net transaction accounts will rise from $44.4 million to $55.2 million. The reserve requirement exemption will rise from $10.3 million to $10.7 million. These actions will lower total required reserves by an estimated $1.24 billion.


Reading the earlier information just gets better and better, especially around the election time of 1991 and 1999.
(link): http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/hist/annualreview.htm#reservetranche

Now you did want to talk about major changes to the economy, didn't you?

[Beetwasher]

52. Umm, That's Tearing It Down To It's Foundations? Really?

Yes, a major, radical change, but NOT tearing it down to it's foundations.

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

Try again. Those are the conditions. One example of an economic system torn down to it's foundations and rebuilt, without pain and turmoil ensuing. One example. I'll wait.

[mrdmk]

53. Dude, you have the value of the countries currency based on the holdings of gold

in that countries vault (gold standard), then change the value of the currency based on the worth of the country as a whole (fiat standard), if that is not changing an economic foundation, I do not know what is? By the way, the proceeding is not a claim of ignorance!

Let me throw another one at you. In 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve was an independent entity (both private and government controlled) that was designed to control and stabilize the U.S. economy through the supply of money. Another foundation change.

[Beetwasher]

54. It Is NOT Rebuilding The ENTIRE System

Neither example is. They are both big, significant changes, absolutely, but not, for example, on the level of the Marxist Revolution, which would be a good example of rebuilding an entire system, but one that was obviously not painless. I will give you that changing from the gold standard did change a PART of the foundation of the system, but not the WHOLE thing.

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

That's the statement. It was proferred without qualification. It's not "Parts of our economic system need to be torn down and rebuilt from the foundation", it's "Our ENTIRE economic system..." Changing from the gold standard did not tear down the ENTIRE system and rebuild it from it's foundation. It just didn't. It was STILL foundationally a free-market, capitalist system afterward.

I have no problems with radical and immediate changes to parts of our system. I think our system can handle those types of changes, obviously. It's razing the whole thing to the ground and starting over from scratch that I have problems with. And that's what Stinky is proposing and he sure hasn't popped in to make any clarifications on his statement. And that's why YOU had to qualify what you said by saying "A" foundation was changed, as opposed to claiming the whole thing was changed. It wasn't and you know it.

[mrdmk]

55. There are many agreements with your points and to say the least the term of foundation is subjective

You asked, "Name One Time An Economic System Was Successfully Completely Dismantled?" My post gave you modern examples of our economic system was revamped in its foundation. There are more extreme examples going back in time. In 1777 the United States was a confederacy of independent states. Starting 1777 each state printed money according to the laws of that state. In 1789 the U.S. Treasury was formed by congress to print a national currency. In 1791 the (First) Bank of the United States was given a charter by congress handle and promote the economic needs of the country. This lasted until 1811 when the charter was not renewed. There is more after that...

The following link is a history of the U.S. Central Banking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

Written history of the world has a record of goods and services being exchanged for some sort of currency. This history also contains the barter system which still occurs today ex. a service being rendered in exchange for company treasury stock. Even so-called communistic countries had a form of currency for an exchange of goods and services. If you consider the dollar (money) as the foundation of our economy, no matter what type of government or economy can considered for this country, you still need a monetary exchange such as the dollar. Please clarify what a foundation is to you!

btw: I sent a message to stinky to clarify what a foundation is to him...

[Beetwasher]

56. See, But That's Not Completely Dismantled, Is It?

Even you have to use the term "revamped", not "dismantled". None of those examples fit the bill. Like I said, the Marxist Revolution is an example of completely tearing down a system and building up again from the foundation. None of your examples are anything like that, and nothing like that has ever happened without lot's of suffering.

The dollar is 'a' foundation of our economy, not 'the' foundation. I already explained, our economy remains a capitalist system (for the most part) despite all of the admittedly major and radical examples of change that have been proferred, none of them have changed that and that, to me, is the foundation of our economy. The principles upon which it is based. Some of them made fundamental changes TO that system, but none of them "tore the entire thing down and rebuilt it from it's foundations". That's a high bar Stinky set and the only times when something like that has happened, such as the Marxist Revolution, have all been followed by long periods of turmoil.

Tearing it down and rebuilding it from it's foundations would mean it's NO LONGER a captialist based system, IMO. It would be something else. The closest example to something like that happening without major turmoil and pain would be the New Deal, IMO. But even that while adding healthy doses of socialism into the mix still left our economy primarily a market based capitalist system at it's foundation.

I'd argue that the switch from the "Articles of the Confederation", which was the original system of governement for the US, to the Constitution, was really just part of the ongoing process of the Revolution, which was far from painless and hardly bereft of turmoil, and again, left the capitalist system intact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. New Deal is as close as a true restructure

as you have seen in US History.

it worked.

Why do you think FDR was called an enemy to his class?

Mind you he saved capitalism and that is the kind of reforms we truly need.

We could start with EFCA, and move into a full repeal of bush tax cuts and actually raise those taxes to 70%... notice I ain't going all the way to 90%... but that is just my uninformed opinion. And we are getting close where they will have to start thinking in "these radical terms," or face something ugly. There is just so much patience any people has.

[Beetwasher]

18. It Didn't Scrap The Whole Think And Rebuild It From It's Foundatiions Though, Did It?

That's what's being proposed here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. From the point of view of walth owners yes, yes it did

it made strikes legal, the horror, and it taxed their earnings upwards of 90%. It was radical, and it scrapped capitalism. Why do you think they've been fighting it for the last seventy years?

I forgot it also created the National Labor Relations Board and a few other COMMIE things, like social security. So yes, it did.

In this case it truly depends on your POV, not whether it really did.

[Beetwasher]

21. I Would Argue It Was Radical Change, But It Did Not Scrap The Entire System

Sorry, we were capitalist then and we're capitalist now. It mixed in a good and healthy dose of socialism, and radically changed the system, but it wasn't razed to it's foundations. We're not talking about "restructuring" here.

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

The New Deal did not do this no matter how radical it was for it's time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. It was so damn radical we even had an attempted coup

so from the POV of those directly affected (At the top that is) it was a true and full restructuring. IN effect the full restructuring came in the 1950s, with the MIXED economy... again, another thing the radicals have been fighting against for decades and having a small victory lap.

I probably quote Kennedy here, but I won't. After all he wasn't talking of the US... but the thought comes to mind.

[Beetwasher]

24. It Was Radical Change, But NOT Revolutionary

Which is what Stinky is talking about:

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Go ask a few people connected to money

that might clue you in as to how REVOLUTIONARY it was.

Just because it remained mostly, a peaceful revolution, does not mean it wasn't.

In fact, we have revolutions in the US every generation to generation and a half, and most have been mostly peaceful. The nature of the system is that it allows for that.

Now I am not going to talk for Stinky, but knowing what I know of US History... yes we do need a revolution, just like the New Deal. And if that doesn't happen, then we may actually see a VIOLENT one, which would go against the grain of US History.

[Beetwasher]

27. Sorry, New Deal Was Radical Change, But Doesn't Fit Stinky's Bill

"Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

The New Deal did not do that.

And I'm not disagreeing with you that we need a new new deal, but that would not be "Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations" either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. You may disagree but that is ok

If I polled most "new democrats" right now, they are dead set against a New Deal because they see it as a complete (and wrong headed too) restructuring of the system.

That's ok. You can disagree, but it was seen exactly as that, a full restructuring of the economic system. And in many respects it WAS a full restructuring of the system. It was not futzing around the edges, that's for sure. Which is what is going on right now.

[Beetwasher]

29. I Agree It Was Not Futzing Around The Edges, But We're Not Talking About "Restructuring"

We're talking about: "Our entire economic system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from its foundations"

As radical as it was, it was not that.

And yes, we an agree to disagree! :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

32. "futzing around the edges" also = "radical"?

[Beetwasher]

35. According To Whom?

I never said that. Please show where I did. In fact, I said the oppossite. But I realize you like to redefine everything according to your whim. Carry on.

[Hannah Bell]

37. you're right, my misreading.

unlike some, i admit when i make a mistake.

[Beetwasher]

39. Well, You'd Be Hard Pressed Not To Admit That

Considering the evidence is plain for all to see.

[Hannah Bell]

40. The evidence is often plain to see. Doesn't prevent people from not copping to it.

Unlike some, I admit my mistakes.

Which is to say: unlike some, I'm an honest discussant.

[Beetwasher]

41. Yes Hannah, You Are The Ultimate Paragon Of Internet Discussion Board Virtue

You deserve a medal for copping to a blatant and irrefutable mistake. Let me check my pockets and see what I have available. Nothing but lint, guess it will have to do.

[Hannah Bell]

43. you know, your tactics - bullying & personal denigration -- demonstrate who you are and what you're

about.

[Beetwasher]

45. Aww, Poor Hannah, Not Happy With Her Medal

How about a Happy Meal?

[Hannah Bell]

47. i'll leave you to wallow in the shit.

[Beetwasher]

48. No! Don't Leave! I'm So Attached To You!

What will I do without you?

[Stinky The Clown]

58. I'll give this reply and then I'm done with this thread since it got to be a flame war of sorts.

I don't think anyone thinks it would be smart to switch off the economy like the kitchen lights.

Reform would happen over time, the timeline determined by people smarter than me. But among what needs to changed at the foundation are such things as the banking system and corporate regulation.

No more Too Big To Fail banks. When they get too big, break them apart. Better yet, craft laws that prevent them from getting too big. Regulate heavily the activities in which they can engage.

Same with corporations. Take away much of the advantage of being big. Limit market share, perhaps. Absolutely limit executive pay and tie it to a multiple of what the janitor makes. And not just the CEO.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about - but only as a start. In short, heavily regulated capitalism.

[indepat]

8. And the establishment ain't willingly going to let that happen

:)

[madinmaryland]

7. That is NOT destroyed wealth. It was all TRANSFERRED to the wealthiest of the wealthy. nt

[spanone]

11. and the media had absolutely no concerns whatsoever

[laughingliberal]

12. K & R nt

[mrdmk]

51. kick this to the top