It couldn't go on forever

December 09, 2006

It couldn't go on forever

34 comments:

Paul E. Math said...: I agree with the authors conclusion that Bernankes bark is a lot more serious than his bite when it comes to fighting inflation with increased interest rates. But his big talk also means that no rate reduction is imminent - remember, Bernanke believes in telegraphing all his moves.

So get used to more of the same: a declining dollar and stagnant economy as inflation ominously peers in the window of this house of cards.; December 09, 2006 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Looks like it was about to settle out, untill 2000. What happened then? Oh ya GWB; December 09, 2006 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: The people just do not get it.
"As long as I have a job that can pay the bills, I am Happy"
- Jos Sixpack.

Well, the time is coming where the jobs that pay the bills will be overseas, and the only jobs around will barely put food on the family, er, I mean table (ha ha Bush jab).
I saw this coming from a mile away, and yet today, the people still do not understand the consequenses of money creation and the destructive forces of inflation that follow.
Well, they will soon be privey to the pain, first hand, mono a mono, up and in their faces.
Then they will cry for help to the same people who DID THIS TO THEM.
The U.S.A. has become a joke, and we will NOT be laughing when all those dollars come home from off-shore central bank accounts.
People will be using the money to heat their homes (literally).
Neither a borrower or debter be-
the bible states; more people should read the book.; December 09, 2006 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Casey serin lost his new job once again. Chris fired him for cooking the books and be offensive towards his clients.He is now looking for othe real estate ventures overseas.; December 09, 2006 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: $4 a gallon gas by next summer...; December 09, 2006 4:08 PM
Roccman said...: Interesting how he is holdong the dollar - back facing out with the All Seeing Eye of Horus unabscured.

http://www.cynthiaf orcongress. com

The following statement was submitted to the Congressional Record:

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
Floor Statement
December 8, 2006

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of
the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that
commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused
to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the
stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at
the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then
continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable -
what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the
Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be
undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty
and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this
Administration' s actions because they believed in our President. They
believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws
and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of
everything being considered, two values were rock solid - trust and
truth.

From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the
American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but
rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of
Iraq.

President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National
Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American
people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with
President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a
nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent - the President
then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our
standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and
women in the military and their families - who have been asked to make
sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - to keep us safe.

Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by
the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President
failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful
spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and
he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once
the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his
offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue
statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior
members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the
trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise
my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us.
To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not
been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the
power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will
not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our
democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an
unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this
is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the
high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was
founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President
Bush - along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice -
should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H.
Res. 1106 in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands -
to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the
courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.

__._,_.___; December 09, 2006 4:31 PM
Anonymous said...: "Well, the time is coming where the jobs that pay the bills will be overseas, and the only jobs around will barely put food on the family"

The scary thing is this might actually be really true. I saw an article about the sands corporation bidding on a casino where the bethlehem steel plant used to be and wondered, "if the steel industry left, why won't my job?"; December 09, 2006 4:32 PM
Roccman said...: "Neither a borrower or debter be-
the bible states; more people should read the book. "

It also says yo go forth be fruitful and multiple - and that is not working.

People should think critically about thier actions before blindlessly reading and believing opinions.; December 09, 2006 4:33 PM
Roccman said...: "$4 a gallon gas by next summer..."

And that would stil be incredibly cheap.

I say between 4 and 7 if we do not bomb Iran and 10-25 if we do and even at that price may not be available.

The end is nigh.; December 09, 2006 4:35 PM
Roccman said...: Major U.S. $ Crisis Looming
by Julian D. W. Phillips

From - www.silverforecaste r.com 4th December 2006.

We are approaching rapidly a series of currency crises of a greater magnitude than ever seen before in history. Whilst the U.S.$ will be the prime recipient of these, many currencies trying to protect their international competitiveness or their own stability will be dragged into the crisis that will affect to a greater or lesser extent the bulk of currencies across the world. There will be few currencies and consequently their economies that will escape the ripple effects of the dramatic changes in exchange rates. Why will this happen? To understand this a look at the history of the 4 over the last 50 years becomes pertinent. We take a brief look at the monetary system and its recent past to see how the toppling from financial power and its extent is likely and the full extent of that power.

snip; December 09, 2006 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Why is Bush waging war on the dollar?; December 09, 2006 5:02 PM
Roccman said...: "Why is Bush waging war on the dollar? "

To bring about an economic collapse that will lead to enslaving the middleclass...

...is the short answer.; December 09, 2006 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Yep. (sigh); December 09, 2006 5:47 PM
Roccman said...: Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned

AP
Friday, December 8, 2006

In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals.

The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere. Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in unconstitutional.

At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people or only to "a well regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a challenge to California's ban on assault weapons.

In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who want guns for protection.

Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.

"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim, the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have had the authority to ban all weapons.

"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."

Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in the District.

Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however, with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right to bear arms still necessary?

"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs, replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase any part of the Constitution?"; December 09, 2006 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey richard take a f**kin' breath!; December 09, 2006 6:29 PM
Roccman said...: "Hey richard take a f**kin' breath! "

Now now...kids post here.; December 09, 2006 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Keith paints the US in a bad light too often. Sure, real estate is overpriced. But the country isn't going down. Debt is no worse than it was in 1950:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif; December 09, 2006 8:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I think one of the interesting
opinions I've seen floating around
is that the fed and fcbs are out of
control. That is, private (ie JPM etc)
corporations are creating credit out
of control, at a faster more scary
pace than the fed. If this is true,
it could get very interesting. The
big question is, is there another
bubble after housing? It could be
the equities. It could be gold and
energy.

-mc; December 09, 2006 9:19 PM
foxwoodlief said...: Don't take much stock in graphs or any data that isn't inflation adjusted. Such distortions don't really serve to promote the truth.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize that our national debt has soared or that our exports have plummeted, still if I say look, in 1964 a house was only $16 a sq ft and today it is $160 a sq ft it doesn't look as out of whack. Nor does saying I paid only $175 in rent in 1975 to live in Miami in a small one bedroom apartment or today $650 a month. Plotted on a graph without adjusting for inflation looks a whole lot different that adjusting for inflation.; December 09, 2006 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonympus said...
>Neither a borrower or debter be-
>the bible states; more people
>should read the book.

Actually, that was Shakespeare:
Hamlet (1.3.69)

No all (in fact very little) wistom comes from the Bible.; December 09, 2006 11:47 PM
Anonymous said...: What does the helicopter stand for?; December 10, 2006 12:01 AM
FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...: Helicopter Ben Bernake, I reckon.; December 10, 2006 12:13 AM
Roccman said...: I have often wondered what level the world could support where every
citizen got an equal share. So here are some quick figures - in 2006 per capita energy usage for the world was 1,674 Kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person and in the US 7,794.

If my math is correct US citizens on the average would have to drop
80% of their current usage to get down to the world average.

As a rough way of translating that into what it would feel to use only
20% of the energy we now use I will now switch to annual income. Also in 2003 median family income per white household was close to $50,000.

This is just an estimate so I am doing even figures. So lets say the
average household is 4 people - Divide 50,000 by 4 and multiply by 20% and you get $2,500 per year or about $8 per day per person. We should also slash our current assets by 80% but that will help us live on less. 80% less house is less to heat, furnish, etc.

All right folks lets get ready to potlatch 80% of our assets (more if
you have more stuff than that median family of 4 living on $50,000 per year). Then when we have given all that away (to great public aclaim)we can proceed to live on $2,500 per person while giving the rest of our income to others in the world. Tough but we are setting the stage for a more equitable, peaceful world. The sacrifice will be most altruistic.

Of course that is just the start - we are at or near peak oil so once we get to that fair and equitable place be prepared to start cutting back. Let the fair world potlatch begin....; December 10, 2006 12:20 AM
foxwoodlief said...: Well just spent two hours looking at real estate online for Phoenix. If there was a meltdown you'd not know it from the listings or the new home builder web sites.

Prices are still higher than when I left there in April.

Homes are still selling too at those prices. Looked at recent sales on the AZ Republic sight that shows sells in zip codes and the ones I checked all have a steady stream of sales and at last years prices (mostly central Phoenix is where I looked).

Home builder sites? Homes in Litchfield Park where I use to live are still selling for double what we paid in 2002 and no real incentives worth paying those prices as far as I am concerned. Saw a few new subdivisions way out west in lower Buckeye and they were selling pretty cheap if you want to drive an hour plus to get into the central city for work and would more than pay in gas any savings in mortgage payments for those homes.

Will be out there in a little over a week and plan on checking out areas and going into quite a few model home centers to gauge for myself what I see online.

If the news report today that 8 out of 10 Americans believe home prices will remain flat or rise more slowly rather than fall is true it seems to be verified in all the people who still have jobs and still are getting loans to buy those over priced homes.; December 10, 2006 12:53 AM
Anonymous said...: yeah man, i want to drink that free bubble up and eat that rainbow stew.; December 10, 2006 12:53 AM
Anonymous said...: $4/gal...yep that's possible.

see this here; December 10, 2006 9:52 AM
Roccman said...: A quote from that article (thanks ANON for posting)

"Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq."; December 10, 2006 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: "$4/gal...yep that's possible."

In UK we're paying on average about $6.50/US.gal now!!; December 10, 2006 5:24 PM
foxwoodlief said...: The price of gas can go up without OPEC raising prices. All they have to do is switch to Euros and as the dollar falls in value to the Euro the price of gas goes up for us but stays the same for Europeans. Of course depending on other nations exchange rates with the Euro their cost may or may not go up either. The only advantage is to the economic region in which oil is priced. Maybe China can persuade OPEC to use the Yuan? Or Japan the Yen? Or why not the Riyal since Saudi produces the most oil.; December 10, 2006 11:31 PM
Roccman said...: Actually, Russia is the top oil producing country.

Russia now world's largest oil producer

Dennis Morrison
Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Dennis Morrison
In trying to follow developments on the world oil market, it is important to have a clear picture of the major forces that are influencing the demand for and supply of oil. Generally, it is known that the USA is the major consuming nation and that China has emerged as a large consumer, causing prices to rise sharply over the last three years. It is also well known that the OPEC countries are the largest block of producers, with Saudi Arabia topping the list.

What is not as well known is the magnitude of the changes taking place on both the supply and demand side. But this is critical information, since price movements are determined by changes either in supply or demand, and are more extreme where capacity utilisation is high and expansion in production requires large investment, which takes time. The experience of the last two to three years amply demonstrates how these factors work, as global oil demand rose by over six million barrels per day, while production went up by just under five million barrels per day, resulting in sharp price movements. Of course, the uncertainty factor has been playing a key role, but this is within the context of a tight supply and demand balance.

The USA leads the major consuming countries by a wide margin and is projected to use 20.8 million barrels per day in 2005 out of a global demand of 84.3 million barrels per day, or 25 per cent. It is hard to believe that with a smaller population, the USA uses more oil per day than all the countries of Europe combined, as Europe is slated to consume 20.2 million barrels of oil per day this year. These blocks will therefore be responsible for close to 50 per cent of global oil demand this year. As important as China has become, one cannot therefore ignore the stark reality that not too large changes in conditions in these countries can move oil prices sharply up or down.

The significance of the change in China's status as an oil-consuming country can be judged by the fact that, whereas its consumption of five million barrels per day in 2002 placed it behind Japan, which was then at 5.5 million barrels per day, it is projected to reach 6.9 million barrels per day in 2005, as against the same level of 5.5 million barrels for Japan. In other words, China's oil consumption would have grown by 38 per cent in three years, at a time when its own production of oil is expected to climb to a maximum of 3.6 million barrels per day, just slightly above the 3.4 million barrels per day it produced in 2002. Thus, it has been turning to the world market to secure oil supplies to meet the growth in consumption.

In this sense, the USA was somewhat less of a factor in the past three years, as its consumption is projected to move from 19.8 million barrels per day in 2002 to 20.8 million barrels per day this year, an increase of five per cent, while its production is expected to be around 7.8 million barrels per day this year, roughly the same as it was in 2002. Europe is also in a similar position, as its consumption is expected to go from 19.4 millions barrels per day in 2002 to 20.2 million barrels per day in 2005. And its oil production should reach 17.4 million barrels per day this year, compared with 16.7 million barrels in 2002.

In terms of major oil-producing countries, we have been accustomed to tracking developments in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East and North African regions.
Saudi Arabia has, however, been surpassed in recent times by Russia, which is expected to produce 9.4 million barrels per day this year, just ahead of 9.2 million barrels by Saudi Arabia and be the source of the largest increase in output over the past three years. Together with the other countries that were part of the former USSR, Russia has therefore emerged as a major growth area in oil production, while output in the other European countries has stagnated.

It is therefore fair to say that in looking ahead we need to monitor the USA, Europe and China as the main drivers of oil demand, and to a lesser extent the newly industrialised countries of the Pacific region. Where supply is concerned, the Middle East remains vital because of its level of production and also the size of its reserves, but the former Eastern Bloc, a cold war foe of the West, has become the major element in the non-OPEC producing countries.; December 11, 2006 2:51 AM
Anonymous said...: Europe doesn't have any oil of its own to speak of and always had to import it. Therefore the high tax. Europeans love to pay taxes and they worship their secular/nihilist governments.

The US is a huge producer of oil and is accustomed to using cheap oil since it always had its own supply.

So go F-yourself Richard and masturbate to the extinction of the human race like all the other nihilist ecofascists.

Leftist piece of sh*t!

Richard never recovered from the collapse of the Soviet Union.; December 11, 2006 10:25 PM
Roccman said...: www.dieoff.org

cheers anon; December 12, 2006 2:23 AM
Roccman said...: http://www.guardian .co.uk/russia/ article/0, ,1970064, 00.html

$20bn gas project seized by Russia

· Russia seizes control of world's biggest liquefied gas project
· Shell forced to give up controlling stake after pressure from Kremlin

Terry Macalister, Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Tuesday December 12, 2006

Guardian

Shell is being forced by the Russian government to hand over its controlling stake in the world's biggest liquefied gas project, provoking fresh fears about the Kremlin's willingness to use the country's growing strength in natural resources as a political weapon.

After months of relentless pressure from Moscow, the Anglo-Dutch company has to cut its stake in the $20bn Sakhalin-2 scheme in the far east of Russia in favour of the state-owned energy group Gazprom.

The Russian authorities are also threatening BP over; December 12, 2006 2:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's see now; an asian country will kick our asses, national debt is too high, exports are too low, imports are too high, oil is too expenisve, the middle east is too volatile, all our jobs are going overseas, GM and Ford are laying people off, stock market is overvalued....the end of the US is just around the corner.

Oh wait this was the crap I kept hearing in 1985 with Japan being the bad guy instead of China. And what became of the apocalyptic predictions? Nothing except 20 years of unprecedented economic growth, albeit with a couple of small bumps along the way in 1990 and 2002.

In 2026 you idiots will be making the same dire predictions. I wonder who the evil Asians will be then...Taiwan? Korea? Malasya? And just like in the 80s, today you will be wrong again.

I will be laughing at you from my current $500K "overpriced" home which by then will be worth $1.5M while you doofuses will be paying $3K for your one bedroom apartment.; December 12, 2006 2:59 AM

HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008

December 09, 2006

It couldn't go on forever

34 comments:

About Me

HP blogs & websites

Blog Archive