Digits wanted!
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7660409.stm

Should that be a threat to the rest of the world...!? :roll:

If you think that's bad, just give it a few more years.

Can'T disagree with him on most things. Just that lack of monitoring (lack of regulation) allowed business rules that ecouraged risky business models that encouraged low criterions for credit and that encouraging bigger spending than what epopel could afford by their income - that he does not see. So, the current crisis should be allowed to kill banks and business pratcices that accepted to much risk by thinling they could take the profit from it by selling the risk to the rtest of ther world. but in the market emerging after that crisis, there surely must be rules that are tight and strict in that bilances must be much more trasnparent and have less opportunities to hide unwelcome dinformation, and risks from giving credit must be accepted by the giving banik so that it has a vital self-interest to insist on healthy conditions being fulfilled in order to get credit from it. This, and some other rules, must be enforced on the business, sinc eit has proven that it will go into the oppopsite direciton with today's consequences if you leafve it to itself. The good news here is that the Fed or Washington is no longer in the position to prevent this anymore, after years of blockade and rejection. American finance rules and models no longer will dominate global markets as they did before. The price for that victory is very high and costly, though. It could include not only the collapse of national economies, but the bancruptcy of whole states.

Instead of adding more digits to that damn counting clock, the US has the duty to finally start to pay back it's debts which are money that got spend althiugh it was not owned. By that, as many digits as possible must be made obsolete on that clock - that would be the right way - not just getting familiar with the idea of even more rising debts. a redution and balöancing of the mad and crazy import.export-deficit also is mandatory. You can only spend as much as you earn, you have to pay back your debts - that should not be too difficult for any nation to understand. Spending more than what one earns, is not illustrating a functioning system - it illustrates a failing system.

How about the nations that owe the US money...

Remember that silly 'lend lease' thing?

Lack of regulation certianly allowed the abuse to happen. What about those that encouraged.. hell even demanded that abuse?

Britain has payed back the last rate two or three years ago, and russia owns so much state bonds (second strongest holder behind China) that I would not dare to ask for that calculation. ;)

It was encouraged and fro0m top to down: demanded indeed. It was formed into a busines model, a product to be sold. And that exactly is what the lack of regulation made possible, and what future regulation needs to put under penalty. Becasue market regulates itself to allow best and fastest profit. Market does not regulate itself to be sensible to responsibilities for higher interests, or the interests of the community. To secure that protec tion - that is what regulation should be therefore. It sets a frame, within business should do busniess freely. It just should understand that "not anything goes". More than that, "regulation" should not mean and does not want. It is a safety against humans' flaws causing catastrophic failures, like you have speed limits on public roads. Even on many parts of German Autobahnen - where speeders and "Drängler" get sacked by the police even on parts where there is no speed limit. ;) But closing in to the car in front of you until there is less than two meters distanc ebetween both cars, with a speed in excess of 180 km/h simply cannot be tolerated, period. Is that the tyranny of the state? Hardly.

I never knew such a clock existed. :huh:

You learn something new everyday. :yep: :D

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The spenders (Reagan, Bush senior, Bush junior) and the savers (Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Clinton) :
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

funny how the spenders oppose taxes to some degree

and the savers love to tax the **** out of us. :doh:

Carter, Clinton :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Know what... I give up on Skybird, hes been into the cool aid there is no hope.

If you can prove that graph is wrong, Steam Wake, then do so. Giving up on Skybird who has been into the cool aid instead - says nothing except that you have nothing to say on that graph, and shooting the messenger is no argument in itself for anything. ;)

Oh, i forgot, this is GT forum - anything goes...

It's not funny, but somewhat logical. Three variables: spendings, income from taxes (private, trade), income from borrowing money. these three in principle determine wether you increase or decrease the debts. Military spendings due to their absolutely insane level, play a special role here, of course.

Thats some extreme symbolism there.

At least it isn't the inflation clock for Zimbabwe!:huh:

What really bugs me is they're adding two digits.

Many Americans think of credit as cash. If they have $5,000 in credit limit available on a card, they think of it like having $5k in the bank.

I just hope the members of congress don't look at the extra digits as money in the bank available to spend.

Well, all thats needed for debt to have real value is for everyone to think it does.
If the bank thinks it will get payments on the debt and the party that received the
loan thinks the money it has received has some real value, then everyone is happy.
The bank can count the debt promise as an asset and the party that received the
loan has cash in hand. Value has been created from nothing.

So long as all the banks believe the debt promise has value and all the parties
that received the loans believe the money they have is worth something, debt
is a good thing. Essential for the economy as it is.

Weather this is a good state of affairs or not is another matter.

I love how they call it public debt....:hmm: I didn't know you guys are all responsible for this?

Bad citizens you all are.:rotfl:

The irony.:-?

pffft :rotfl:

Well, you see the "income tax" is what is used to pay the interest on the "public debt". It has been admitted by congressmen is the past. I know many folks think their tax dollars go to paying for things like roads and education and all these wonderful things. But public roads and hiways are paid for with the tax collected on every gallon of gasoline sold. That's just an example. But as long as congress pays the interest on the principle it owes, the Federal Reserve gives them an unlimited ammount of credit.

I find it infuriating that it is called "public debt" when the public has no say on what that debt is accumulated from. And as long as the American People continue to agree to pay this interest on the debt that their elected officials have an unlimited credit card to spend on, it will never get reduced. It will only increase. This is far from what the Founding Fathers had envisioned for the American People. And if I were the parasite receiving the interest on the debt, I would do nothing to stop the lending or slow it. As it would make me the actual ruler of the nation, as I would control it's monetary system. That's why it's business as usual in DC anymore. Reguardless of who is elected.

And education. For the most part it is paid for with property taxes, and local and state sales taxes. And when it comes to the 16th Ammendment, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land has stated that this ammendment did "not" give congress any new taxing power. Not just once, but there are at least 6 or 7 references to this by the court, that I can think of right off.

So it's more accurate to say, bad slaves, not bad citizens. Power corrupts men, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is a good one: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173