kertch

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

What you said is true up to a point. Financial power trumps military power - but only in peacetime. The power of the Soviet Union during the cold war was hardly financial power. It was based on the premis of the USSR using it's military might. Soviet economics on the other hand was laughable. The economic power of France was considerable in the 1930's, but when the German army rolled through France it became meaningless, and the value of the French franc was essentially zero. Don't assume that we will never have another world war, especially in these economically unstable times. When the bombs start falling it's the guys with the most military strength that come out on top.


On Nov 30 09:28 PM Evelyn wrote:

> Troy said;
>
> "2. American projection-of-power is now the world's new commodity.
> ... The United States is responsible for 41.5 per cent of the global
> military spend... ....Because our economic power is derived from
> our military power."
>
> "The U.S. Dollar is the default world fiat currency because, by its
> very definition, the mechanism for valuing a fiat currency is directly
> correlated to the ability of the government issuing the currency
> to ensure it remains legal tender. The United States projection-of-power
> is absolute, hence the U.S. dollar, and it's ability to both print
> currency, ensure it remains "legal tender", and issue Treasuries
> is at the moment infinite. "
>
> Fantasy. Probably related to Neocon fantasy.
>
> The Neocn agenda, as put forth in the PNAC document back in 1992,
> signed by Cheney etc. calls for American might to be PROVEN to the
> world as a kind of "Pax Americana" based on an ideal Pax Romana (ignoring
> that whole, you know, fall of Rome thing) by the US successfully
> carrying on wars on multiple fronts. So what was supposed to happen
> was the part where Iraq was this "cakewalk" and "Shock & Awe"
> worked. Then we waltz over to a couple more oil-rich countries next
> door and deliver more Shock & Awe. We win, we look good doing
> it, we have that big old "Mission Accomplished" banner hung out for
> real. And --- Ooooo -- the rest of the world respects us.
>
> What has happened instead is that we have debilitated our military.
> We are in trouble. We have proven we can really screw up. We blew
> our Social Security money doing all this. And we have pissed off
> right-thinking people everywhere in the process.
>
> Now we've stuck our military into the same tar-baby country we set
> up a a trap that effectively weakened Russia, as we set up NEW snares
> for ourselves in Pakistan, while continuing to let Iran know they'll
> be next if we can manage to get around to them. Oh, and while studiously
> ignoring North Korea.
>
> I'm really embarrassed by these demonstrations of US military might,
> and the decision making that puts us where we are now.
>
> I don't think the PNAC fantasy is going to come true.
>
> One of the Neocon memes was (for a while) "the end of history." which
> never stopped being a silly idea, but might apply, if we're really
> lucky, to the grosser military part of it.
>
> Control of money is not in the hands of the military. It is in the
> hands of financiers. The world got itself deeply enmeshed in Credit
> Default Swaps on a world-wide basis. Financial players from all the
> countries of the earth made huge bets with one another. They traded
> CDOs back and forth via their off-balance-sheet entities. Even little
> Iceland got to play. The unthinkably huge derivative's bubble that
> dwarfs what I still think of as the "real" economy was spun by financiers.
> Those guys with the big bonuses. Not military guys.
>
> The military guys skimmed dirty millions from the business of war,
> a few bagged billions. Hah! Those guys have been put to shame by
> geniuses who can create billions out of thin air with a few swaps;
> once they place their bets, they have an obligation, a debt, and
> a debt is the same as money. The Derivatives bubble is made out of
> gambling debt. No one had to launch a ship or hurl a bomb. They just
> say "I'll place this bet" and the money comes into existence.
>
> That's what the PNAC can't control. They couldn't even imagine it.
>
>
> The Derivative's Bubble is international. The US is being treated
> carefully because it is dangerous in the same sense as a guy with
> a lot of unexploded bombs taped to his chest. We could go BOOM real
> big; the rest of the world treats us with respect because they are
> way too likely to get hurt if we do.
>
> The "cure" the US is offering is to dilute the problem by feeding
> wealth into the bubble -- making funds available for the payment
> of World Casino bets.
>
> Show me how the military has anything to do with this wealth destruction
> by dilution!
>
> Military-backed dollar is just a fantasy, for those who can't understand
> how the computer, the "pen" if you will, is mightier at controlling
> financial flows than all those swords we keep waving around.

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

They are not antithetical in theory, but they are antithetical to OUR constitution. But it's just an old peice of paper right?


On Nov 30 12:38 PM Davewmart wrote:

> Chancer said:
> 'The secret plan of the VAT will also be to provide liberals with
> virtually unlimited funding to finance the complete conversion of
> the USA from a constitutional republic into a social democracy (socialist
> welfare state) like Europe.'
>
> It is interesting that you should think that the ideas of a constitutional
> republic and a social democracy are antithetical.
> This must involve definitions of the terms that I am unfamiliar with.
>
> Presumably Sweden, Norway and Finland are in fact communist totalitarian
> states in this analysis.

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

I guess the real cause of our mess was the lack of taxation. Who'd a thunk it? I guess I was wrong along with all those democrats who thought that Bush was spending too much. Now I know better. Spending doesn't matter! If he had just raised taxes to 50%, 60% or even 70% at the top bracket we'd all be swimming in gravy today. So now I have to critisize Obama for cutting taxes (in his stimulus plan). Obama you fool! Raise those taxes now before we are all doomed!!!


On Nov 29 06:40 PM American in Paris wrote:

> TraderMark,
>
> Where do you come up with some of this nonsense? A closer analogy
> to the US is Japan.
>
> And let's get over this public debt obsession ...
>
> Where were guys like you when Bush cut taxes and created huge structural
> deficits.
>
> I bet you were extolling the virtues of free enterprise and low taxes.
>
>
> Some people live in glass houses ...
>
> Their real motives are transparent ...

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

Oh yes! and let's not forget get their lackluster growth, strained healthcare system, and pervasive double digit unemployment!


On Nov 29 06:38 PM American in Paris wrote:

> The French have a huge bureaucracy just like Greece. But their system
> is many respects superior to the US. Public transportation is superb.
> The heath care system is very good. French longevity is 6th versus
> 45th for the US.
>
> So the 'Greek Problem' is more than just bureaucracy ....

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

I assume that when you turn 70 you'll be the first to call Dr. Kervorkian and lift the curse on your children.


On Nov 29 12:29 PM isaac the terrible wrote:

> For Greece and the US (among others), its really pretty simple.
>
> If you live and spend and grow beyond your means, then will come
> a time of reckoning and you've got make up your shortfall.
> We can't simply grow our debts away. We must/will-
> 1. devalue our currency
> 2. learn to not spend more than we can afford
> 3. drastically scale back our entitlements (and sense of entitlement)
>
> 4. get used to a lower standard of living, and a lower life expectancy.
>
> 5. learn to cherish good deeds and creativity, rather than status
> and "things"
> Some of this is bad, and some is good.
> It will be good when the USA comes to feel that it can't afford to
> embark on wars of choice.
> It will be good when people realize that to live beyond their 70's
> is a curse on the wealth of the nation, and a curse on financial
> well-being of their offspring.
> Change will be real tough, but it only gets tougher by kicking the
> can down the road.

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

Past performance (especially that of distant ancestors) is not an indication of future gains.


On Nov 28 08:44 PM Al-USA wrote:

> Greece was the source of Western Civilization, and civilized thousands
> of years ago when ALL of what is know western Europe where running
> around in rags of skin... Add to that recently living under the rule
> of Islamic Turkish overlords for hundreds of years well, yes, I'm
> sure a crisis of capitalism is something that the populace can imagine
> a way out of: with or without capitalism, as astute readers know.

What Will the U.S. Economy Look Like in 10 Years? Look to Greece

That's overly simplistic. Russia and the former Soviet Union where also built on cheap energy and a highly educated population. These two criteria are not sufficient for economic success.


On Nov 30 10:48 AM bottoms-up wrote:

> The economy of the United States was built on cheap energy and a
> highly educated populace.
>
> 1. Cheap energy (unless they can harness "cold fusion") is history.
>
>
> 2. Highly educated population... Our public schools have collapsed,
> higher education (including public institutions) have priced everyone
> out of the market. Educated foreigners are returning to their homelands
> for better opportunities...
>
> Don't look at Greece, look at the fall of Rome.

GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD

Insurance policy,

Clearly you are niether a scientist nor an intellectual. If you were either, you would would also have considered the question "what if I am wrong". The proposed "solutions" to global warming are not without consequenses. If you cannot be 100% certain that athropogenic CO2 is the cause of the warming than you cannot be certain that the it's removal will have the desired cooling effect. If temperatures continue to rise, or if they fall too far will you be proposing to "correct" the climate further? Even "micro-manage" the the climate? Don't laugh. We have many people around today who beliave that can can micro-manage a nation's economy even it has been demonstrated mathematically to be false. And at what cost? If I my doctor diagnosed me with cancer but was not 100% sure, I would not immediately start chemotherapy just as an "insurance polilcy". My point is that the proposed solution to global warming is extremely expensive with it's own unforseen consequenses so we had better be DAMN SURE it's accurate before we impose something like that on the world.


On Jul 23 11:19 PM insurance policy wrote:

> Warning!!!
> At first glance this entire article is hardly worthy of comment.
> At best it could be seen as an outrageous attempt at slander. I would
> suggest any person that would write such things was either uneducated
> or prone to repeating false rumours and innuendo. There are a lot
> of them about unfortunately.
> Then again, maybe this is how lobby groups work today for the rich
> and powerful.
>

High Gold Prices: It's the Oil, Stupid

Todd,

you are completely wrong on this point. The weak dollar policy will only make things worse. Manufacturing will not become more competative simply by devaluating the dollar. Even though production costs might go down, raw material and energy input costs will go up. But the real problem is business investment. Who in the rest of the world would invest in U.S. manufacturing if they know that in a year thier investment will be worth significantly less simply because of dollar devaluation? Since we're tapped out here, we will have to rely on outside investment. We will need business investment, especially in manufacturing, if we want to come out of this recession strongly. If you want business investment to expand then you need to have an investor-friendly environment, and dollar devaluation is definitly NOT friendly to foreign investment.


On Nov 24 10:23 AM Todd Peterson wrote:

> I'm in general agreement with your views on oil. However I don't
> really see gold as that big of an issue, or particularly related
> to oil. Gold was used as a means of exchange in the old days, but
> it doesn't have more value than anything else, unless you need a
> filling in your tooth.
>
> The main value of gold, as people buy it, is as a landing cushion
> if human civilization as we know it breaks down. In that case I'll
> rely more on my AK-47, 12 gauge, and .45. And my supply of rice and
> beans and hideout in the far north.
>
> The end of the world as we know it is a definite possibility; read
> Jared Diamond for a taste of history on Collapse of civilizations.
>
>
> But barring a sudden collapse of civilization, we must move with
> a weak dollar policy. Its the only way to reduce our trade deficit
> and revitalize our manufacturing sector. In actuality, in terms of
> purchase power parity, the dollar is not really misvalued, but China
> is throwing the whole world out of whack with their undervalued currency.
> But since we can't control them, and we can't cut off trade with
> them, our only recourse is a weak dollar policy. Most sensible economists
> will accept this, and the only reason it isn't more widely stated
> inside the Beltway is that it is politically incorrect.
>
> Regarding the price of oil again, it will soon begin to be listed
> in other currencies than the US $ and that will be painful, but it
> will lead to the type of changes that the author of this article
> has been seeking, so it will be healthy pain.
>
> In the meantime, because oil contracts are denoted in dollars, oil
> becomes cheap for Europeans and others who have currencies that get
> stronger on our weak dollar. If we want to strengthen our dollar
> we need higher interest rates, but that will raise the cost for our
> government and citizens to manage their debts. There is NO easy way
> out. A weak dollar policy is the ticket for now. And that will push
> oil up. But who cares about gold..... I don't.

High Gold Prices: It's the Oil, Stupid

Once again someone bandies about the falacy (and fantasy) that the current 30-year old Iranian foreign and nuclear policies are caused by the U.S and Israel. U.S and European diplomats have swung from hostile to servile and back again with no shift in Iranian policy at all. It's Iran's neighbors who really fear a nuclear armed Iran, which might prompt a regional nuclear arms race. The anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric is simply a way for the regime to focus the attention of it's people away from it's own tyranny and corruption and onto an "external enemy", much like Hitler did in the 1930's. Your argument is about as absurd as the argument that WWII was the fault of France, GB, and the U.S.


On Nov 24 07:11 AM Davewmart wrote:

> The assumption in the article that gas supplies for the US can be
> expanded indefintitely may be flawed, as with the progressive decline
> in public standards has led to an equivalent debasement of oil reserves
> figures to the notorious mark-to-fantasy in the financial markets.
>
> Gas reserves are now taken at pretty much whatever the various companies
> say it is - when they have huge financial incentives to overstate
> them:
> www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b42...
>
> And:
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> Please read all 3 parts - they are well worth it.
>
> Another point is that any responsible Iranian Government will certainly
> develop nuclear weapons.
> They have some of the largest oil reserves in the World, and are
> faced with a heavily nuclear armed superpower who has shown that
> it is prepared to at least arguably invade nearby countries to secure
> supply, and a similarly nuclear armed Israel which does not hesitate
> to use military force to secure it's objectives.
> Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton has overtly threatened Iran
> with nuclear obliteration.
> It amy be felt that this is not a fully objective picture, and does
> not show the other side of the story for either Israel or the US,
> but this is not germane to the argument, as this is certainly the
> way things will be seen by any Government of any complexion in Tehran.
>
> Claims that the Iranian nuclear program are for civilian use are
> therefore most certainly disengenuous.
> American and Israeli policy make it quite certain that Iran will
> develop nuclear weapons.
> What would America do if the Secretary of State of another power
> had threatened to obliterate them?

Bright Future for Petrobras and Brazil, Part 2

Sure - let's rectify the income inequlity in Brazil by making everyone poor again. After all, misery loves company.


On Nov 22 10:53 AM geomort wrote:

> What a fine, if totally uninspired analysis Mr owner of Petrobras.
>
>
> But what about the Brazilian people? Whilst the GDP has increased,
> the disparity between the rich and poor has increased disproportionately
> faster. Cities located on the coast such as Recife, Maceio and Rio
> continue to expand. The subterranean aquifers in the northeast has
> dropped 30 m in the past 20 years due to new building contracts which
> develop regions and extract the their water. Saline sea-water wedges
> therefore cutting under underneath the cities and taking away drinking
> water. The biofuel industries chuck millions of tons of crap into
> the rivers, lowering the pH and bleaching coral reefs on the coast,
> whilst maintaining a salary of 150 USD a month to those on the poverty
> line undertaking the back to harvest the sugar cane, which even in
> Brazil, won't by enough food for the month.
>
> So by all means invest in Brazil and make a bang for your buck. And
> then watch as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer and know
> you've done nothing with your lives to help anyone. In fact you've
> probably helped kill a load of people. Don't believe me? Try reading...
>
>
> Lehtonen, M. (2009) Social sustainability of the Brazilian bioethanol:
> Power relations in a centre-periphery perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy,
> in press, 1-10.
>
> Bocanegra, E., da Silva Jr, G.C., Custodio, E., Manzano, M. and Montenegro,
> S. (2009) State of knowledge of coastal aquifer management in South
> America. Hydrogeology Journal, Online first:
>
> Costa Jr., O.S. (2007) Anthropogenic nitrient pollution of the coral
> reefs in southern Bahia, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography,
> 55, 265-279.
>
> Nobre, R.C.M., Filho, O.C.R., Mansur, W.J., Nobre, M.M.M. and N.,
> C.C.A. (2007) Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping using GIS,
> modeling and a fuzzy logic tool. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,
> 94, 277 – 292.
>
> Gunkel, G., Kosmol, J., Sobral, M., Rohn, H., Montenegro, S. and
> Aureliano, J. (2007) Sugar Cane Industry as a Source of Water Pollution
> – Case Study on the Situation in Ipojuca River, Pernambuco, Brazil.
> Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 180, 261-269.
>
> Zancheti, S.M. (2005) Development versus urban conservation in Recife.
> A problem of governance and public management. City and Time, 1,
> 15-27.

Don't Believe Long-Term Oil Forecasts

Yes - we were certainly screwed when we ran out of wood for charcoal. Wait! we switched to coal! And we were royally screwed when we hunted the whales to near extinction and lost our supply of whale oil. Oh I forgot! We switched to petrolium! I wonder if people back then talked about "peak production" of whales or of "conserving our trees" so that we would have a lasting supply of charcoal to power our industry. Someone might have suggested that the industrial revolution would have to be "scaled back" to safeguard our shrinking wood supply. Did they consider giving up whale oil and going back to sustainable sources of light like candles? Were land-locked nations like Switzerland developing national alternatives like "sheep oil" to break thier addiction to foreign whale oil? I'm still searching the history books.

Of course we will eventually stop using oil, just as we have stopped using previous forms of inefficient energy. We have plenty of alternatives, although not all of them are efficient. Rising oil prices just means that the world will begin to move towards better forms of energy. Oil won't go up in price forever. Seen the price of charcoal or whale oil lately? This shift will happen sooner or later, but it will come, and I'm reasonably certain that civilization won't crumble when the oil stops flowing. We need more innovation and less doomsaying.


On Nov 09 09:48 AM The Dark Years wrote:

> This is one of the most relevant and salient observations I have
> seen in Seeking Alpha as it deals with an inconvenient reality that
> one day there just will not be enough oil to drive the world economy.
> Guessing, estimating, forecasting, or prognosticating exactly when
> or why that will happen defers the issue to an uncertain future.
>
>
> We argue about short term issues of supply and demand, price adjustments
> up or down, and what impact those forces will have on the economy
> without adequate attention to what happens when there is no oil,
> or substitute energy to maintain the world. We ignore, or fail to
> include in our contemplation that our 300 million or so population
> consume twenty or so percent of the daily WORLD supply. Although
> we have great military strength and reach it cannot last forever
> because it is based on a continued supply of cheap oil, just as our
> growth driven economy is, and the cheap stuff is disappearing. If
> we do not as individuals, or as a nation focus on muddling through
> toward frugality and conservation in energy consumption my oldest
> daughter will experience a very different and unpleasant future.
> Human nature is to deal with the here and now and immediately evident
> future. If we continue down this path for the next twenty to forty
> years we just might be scre235. What do you think?

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Sorry - you are a nut. The current administration could hardly be defined as the right wing lunatic fringe, yet thier policies are just as bad as those of the right. There is now more collusion between big industry and government than ever. Each company in each targeted industry is given the option to literally "buy in" to the administration's plans so that they can be spared any financial pain caused by the legislation. This is exactly what the Nazi's did in Germany, except that companies that didn't go along with the program had thier management changed (Oh, wait - we did that here too!). Don't let your idealogical fog blind you to what's going on right under your nose.

On Nov 06 11:11 AM tarantilla wrote:

> It's nice to see a bunch of right minded comments noted above. However,
> it's easy to predict a "crash". WHEN is another story. And note that
> the government/Goldman Sachs will do all in their power to keep/pretect
> their money, and in the case of "banks", their position of controlling
> the government. Nothing short of major, radical change will shift
> this scenario. Unfortuneately, the right wing lunatic fringe has
> the army, and the money, and will ultimately be used by elite/billionaire/banks
> to remain in power, and "keep order", like in Germany, when the Nazi's
> came. If there IS any "crash" and many are out of work, look for
> this right wing scenario. Sorry if I sound like a nut.

Charlie Gasparino: Another Crash 'Has to Happen Again'

Your comment reflects an ignorant and dangerous way of thinking:

"Not to absolve government, but..." - but of course you would like to absolve government.
"... these dopes would have immolated even without the incentives." - Dopes? These guys gamed the entire U.S. economy and banking system to thier advantatage and walked away with Billions, leaving us with the tab. We got immolated: the shareholders, the bondholders, and the taxpayers, not the bankers. The dopes are us, the ones paying for the mess, believing our "trusted public servants" will keep the "stupid evil bankers" from robbing us. If that's what you think then "moral hazard" is the only card you've got left to play. BTW, you're just the half-wit tinpot calling the kettle black.

On Nov 05 04:33 PM wobatus wrote:

> Not to absolve government, but these dopes would have immolated even
> without the incentives. Moral hazard is such an over-played card.
> Did all the shareholders and bond-holders of LEH really expect to
> get bailed? Well that was wrong, wasn't it? Same with ma and pa Citi
> shareholder. And then we get half-wit tinpot commentary from financial
> illiterates.

Why I'm Cutting RF Micro Devices and Skyworks Further

I bought this stock early this year at $1.24, rode it down to 88 cents, and back up to $5.08 where I sold out. I bougth it because I know the company and the industry and thought the stock severely undervalued at $1.24. However, given the fundamentals, I just don't trust it above $5.00 and feel lucky that it went as high as it did. Granted that it's outlook has improved significantly, it can't really justify a price in excess of even $4.00 when it's traded between $6.00 and $8.00 during the boom times with far better top line and bottom line numbers. Eventually, this stock will settle into a more realistic price range when the anticipation of the "imminent recovery" is over. My opinion is that right now with RFMD you're just playing the market swings not the fundamentals.