Took them a while to realize this. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews Quote:
|
Shocker.... |
Someone finally crawled out from under their rock. |
Hmmm, imagine that. You make $1,000.00 a week every week but you spend $10,000.00 in those same weeks, every week and that causes a cumulative dept problem? Who would have thunk.... 1 of 2 things will happen. Either the income will be brought up to the level of spending (tax increases), or spending will come down to income level (getting rid of the wasteful government programs). In either case, sh*t is going to hit the fan.... |
I blame the fed. |
Isn't it weird how Bernanke was running the Fed (like that means anything :roll:) when the financial "crisis" began and spiraled out of control under his stewardship is still holding his position? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not having the Fed involved would be a sign that we are going in the right direction. Like thats ever going to happen. Here's how fawked up thier thinking is... Quote:
And if it does, we're doubly screwed because it will effectively lessen the value of our dollar on the global market. So now we may be increasing our GDP, but the interest rates on our loan just went up with it. |
Quote:
Quote:
I'm assuming they'll introduce the Amero as the savior to all our problems right about then. |
Quote:
Quote:
You can't have a welcomed savior without a pre-emptive catastrophy. Well you can, but you'd have skip the slow decline and gradual acceptance and jump right ahead to revolution and revolt. |
Quote:
http://www.rccrawler.com/forum/showp...1&postcount=22 |
Quote:
But hey, at least they're willing to give us a backrub first. |
Quote:
I noticed that you have a habit of mispelling their. Quote:
................. While thinking it over when this does happen, what will the global effect be? Not that I care about the rest of the world, what does concern me is whenever something affects the US it causes whiplash. I doubt that countries owning large amount of debt, organizations that are dependant and have a vested interest in the US will allow it to happen. Perhaps this is how Obama will give the UN control of the US. As you all mentioned, what better way to assume and consolidate power under the guise of avoiding catastrophe? |
Quote:
http://rlv.zcache.com/it_was_on_fire...55t5tr_400.jpg Quote:
btw, you left out a word in this next quote. :mrgreen: Quote:
Don't forget who's in control here. If the Fed and the World Bank wants the Amero, they'll get it. The US is a consumer nation. If our dollar tanks, it hurts everybody. There will be a global need to restore our purchasing power. Debts may be forgiven or at the very least reduced just to get us buying other nations crap again. Its our only chance to turn the tables on China...kind of like going bankrupt, but starting over will all new money instead of reviving the old. |
From wikipedia...items of interest are in red... The World Bank has long been criticized by non-governmental organizations, such as the indigenous rights group Survival International, and academics, including its former Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz who is equally critical of the International Monetary Fund, the US Treasury Department, US and other developed country trade negotiators.<SUP id=cite_ref-18 class=reference>[19]</SUP> Critics argue that the so-called free market reform policies which the Bank advocates are often harmful to economic development if implemented badly, too quickly ("shock therapy"), in the wrong sequence or in weak, uncompetitive economies.<SUP id=cite_ref-19 class=reference>[20]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-20 class=reference>[21]</SUP> In Masters of Illusion: The World Bank and the Poverty of Nations (1996), Catherine Caufield argued that the assumptions and structure of the World Bank harms southern nations. Caufield criticized its formulaic recipes of "development". To the World Bank, different nations and regions are indistinguishable and ready to receive the "uniform remedy of development". She argued that to attain even modest success, Western practices are adopted and traditional economic structures and values abandoned. A second assumption is that poor countries cannot modernize without money and advice from abroad. A number of intellectuals in developing countries have argued that the World Bank is deeply implicated in contemporary modes of donor and NGO imperialism, and that its intellectual contributions function to blame the poor for their condition.<SUP id=cite_ref-21 class=reference>[22]</SUP> One of the strongest criticisms of the World Bank has been the way in which it is governed. While the World Bank represents 186 countries, it is run by a small number of economically powerful countries. These countries choose the leadership and senior management of the World Bank, and so their interests dominate the bank.<SUP id=cite_ref-22 class=reference>[23]</SUP> The World Bank has dual roles that are contradictory: that of a political organization and that of a practical organization. As a political organization, the World Bank must meet the demands of donor and borrowing governments, private capital markets, and other international organizations. As an action-oriented organization, it must be neutral, specializing in development aid, technical assistance, and loans. The World Bank’s obligations to donor countries and private capital markets have caused it to adopt policies which dictate that poverty is best alleviated by the implementation of "market" policies.<SUP id=cite_ref-23 class=reference>[24]</SUP> In the 1990s, the World Bank and the IMF forged the Washington Consensus, policies which included deregulation and liberalization of markets, privatization and the downscaling of government. Though the Washington Consensus was conceived as a policy that would best promote development, it was criticized for ignoring equity, employment and how reforms like privatization were carried out. Many now agree<SUP style="WHITE-SPACE: nowrap" class=Template-Fact title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from May 2009">[citation needed]</SUP> that the Washington Consensus placed too much emphasis on the growth of GDP, and not enough on the permanence of growth or on whether growth contributed to better living standards.<SUP id=cite_ref-24 class=reference>[25]</SUP> Some analysis shows that the World Bank has increased poverty and been detrimental to the environment, public health and cultural diversity.<SUP id=cite_ref-25 class=reference>[26]</SUP> Some critics also claim that the World Bank has consistently pushed a neoliberal agenda, imposing policies on developing countries which have been damaging, destructive and anti-developmental.<SUP id=cite_ref-26 class=reference>[27]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-27 class=reference>[28]</SUP> It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for the promotion of US or Western interests in certain regions of the world. Even South American nations have established the Bank of the South in order to reduce US influence in the region.<SUP id=cite_ref-28 class=reference>[29]</SUP> Criticism of the bank, that the President is always a citizen of the United States, nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the "approval" of the other member countries). There have been accusations that the decision-making structure is undemocratic as the US has a veto on some constitutional decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank;<SUP id=cite_ref-wade_29-0 class=reference>[30]</SUP> Decisions can only be passed with votes from countries whose shares total more than 85% of the bank's shares.<SUP id=cite_ref-30 class=reference>[31]</SUP> A further criticism concerns internal management and the manner in which the World Bank is said to lack accountability.<SUP id=cite_ref-31 class=reference>[32]</SUP> Criticism of the World Bank often takes the form of protesting as seen in recent events such as the World Bank Oslo 2002 Protests,<SUP id=cite_ref-32 class=reference>[33]</SUP> the October Rebellion,<SUP id=cite_ref-WP_Georgetown_33-0 class=reference>[34]</SUP> and the Battle of Seattle.<SUP id=cite_ref-34 class=reference>[35]</SUP> Such demonstrations have occurred all over the world, even amongst the Brazilian Kayapo people.<SUP id=cite_ref-35 class=reference>[36]</SUP> In 2008, a World Bank report which found that biofuels had driven food prices up 75% was not published. Officials confided that they believed it was suppressed to avoid embarrassing the then-President of the United States, George W. Bush.<SUP id=cite_ref-36 class=reference>[37]</SUP> The World Bank has also been criticized for not publishing reports related to the Palestinian economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza. Economists in the region have often written damning reports of the Israeli occupation and its effects on the economy, but these reports remain internal and are not published. |
Quote:
What I was rambling on was not the Amero, rather the Debt-Mageddon. Read it again old man and try and keep up. :mrgreen: Edit: It was a pain to edit your second quote, so I gave up. That sounds *gasp* correct. None of that surprised me.:| |
Quote:
I stand by what I said. As a nation on the world market the Amero will be our way out. However I do not know what that will mean to the American people...oops, I mean, the good citizens of the NAU. I do understand what you are saying...what does it mean to the nations that are dependant on the value of our dollar or our mass consumerism? They will go down with us I suppose. And that makes it all the more convinient for the WB to step in and "save the day". Also, China is a member of the WB. What do you think they'll do? |
Here's another good read. Skip down to the section titled "Value". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar |
Quote:
True, but old people die eventually. Invade to repossess the country? I feel these summed it quite well. Quote:
Quote:
I really hate, and I mean HATE HATE banks. I can't wait for them to go under. "thumbsup" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Something else I learned: The Fed is a non-profit. :shock: So where does that money go? The US gov't makes loan payments to the Fed, the Fed then takes the money made from the interest of that loan and pays its employees. Whatever is left is taken by the US gov't and deposited back into the US Treasury to help repay what it owes to the Fed. Now if that isn't a circle jerk, I don't know what is. This debt system is the most idiotic thing ever conceived. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2004-2014 RCCrawler.com