Rolling US Economy Into The Shitbin Thread

drudge headline by icanhascheezburger.com

http://i36.tinypic.com/1zqbl3c.jpg

the main reason I think an enforced floor for gas prices would be a failure is because any govt intervention regarding fuel prices is going to wind up having an exception for diesel. If the intention is to actually reduce per capita carbon footprint in the most effective way possible without trying to fuck with the price of milk and eggs, then any legislation should stick to emissions standards for passenger (commuter) automotives and a progressive tax on the fuels used by same. White collar internet fags should be reminded that some motor vehicles are actually part of the industrial base.

http://www.treehugger.com/2008-01-23_093749-TreeHugger-glass-house.jpg

white collar internet fags at home

Dimitri Martin: "There is an old saying, 'people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.' Throwing stones is just bad behavior. It should be, 'no stone throwing regardless of housing situation.' Unless you were trapped in a glass house, then by all means, if you have a stone, use it. So really its, 'only people in glass houses should throw stones. If they are trapped inside.'"

yeah don't mess with diesel pls it's still more expensive tho if you do i'll just put wesson or kerosene or fuel oil or whatever in mine. kthx.

I am definitely trapped inside a glass house thanks to my not owning a car and having a govt contractor job that requires me to be in an office on the internet

but thanks for clearing that up irony pedant squad

the house IS carbon neutral. i read that as a shot at me tbh

I am definitely trapped inside a glass house thanks to my not owning a car and having a govt contractor job that requires me to be in an office on the internet

I don't know if you're kidding or what.

No you don't.

http://media.economist.com/images/20081122/CUS484.gif

no Demetri Martin quoting til we hit bottom

ha yes ty morbs

I am looking forward to the Broadway musical version of this economic meltdown.

people in stone houses shouldn't throw glass cause like wtf dogg u put up some impenetrable walls and then u gonna throw vases around and shit well there's no helpin you now boss cause u in a STONE HOUSE motherfucker what u want me to do

u lifted

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/7744355.stm

no Demetri Martin R. Kelly quoting til we hit bottom

― Dr Morbius, Saturday, November 22, 2008 11:44 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=arEE1iClqDrk

Another $8 trillion? Sure, throw it on the fire. Rooms a bit chilly, ain't it?

Treasury Sec. Paulson bets all-in on Citigroup with Bush's approval. In about 8 months this will look as stupid as most of Bush's big bets to date, including $150 million for A-Rod.

$150 million for A-Rod was worth it.

Not when the franchise had no other players around him. But I digress...

re: citigroup have you guys read this: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/le-citi-toujour.html?

u guys come on bush was not even a decision maker at the rangers - guy owned like 1.3%

also long gone by a-rod contract, no?
was at the helm when sosa traded tho

Big Picture says total cost of bailouts including Citi is now about 4.5 trillion. This is more than the sum of:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

Note: total cost of US nuclear weapons program ca. 1980 = $5.5tn. As Carl Sagan noted, this was enough to buy everything in the United States except the land.

hay hay hay not all of that bailout money is or will be spent - most of it is guarantees that will never have to be called in - and some of it went to buy stakes which can later be cashed out - it only adds up to 4.5tn if the financial sector collapses completely - and if that happens who cares how much lol money was spent

Note: total cost of US nuclear weapons program ca. 1980 = $5.5tn. As Carl Sagan noted, this was enough to buy everything in the United States except the land.

― caek, Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:54 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and all the sweet ass weapons right!

for real! beautiful, golden weapons.

That's a good point about not all the money actually being used; and of the money that is used some will be returned to the Treasury.

Something seems unreal about these numbers. Is it partly that the US holds the world's reserve currency and can "create money" i.e. debt without having to ever pay it back? As I understand it, Treasury bonds are like checks the Treasury writes that seldom get cashed. Is there ever a reckoning? I know people talk about the deficit. You never stop hearing about the deficit. Especially when Democrats want to actually spend tax money on things that need to be done.

Can any of the whiz kids here explain to me the consequences of giant, ever-increasing deficits in the US? Other countries have to pay the money back. Sweden, the UK, Iceland, Zimbabwe - none of these places can just run up deficits and print more money to cover their costs - the the US sort of can because of its "extravagant privilege" right?

"the the" = "BUT the"

i think the whole "extravagant privilege" angle might be played up too much. i mean lots of countries are willing to hold american debt and there's lots of demand for dollars, but each one of those pieces of paper is still an obligation to pay interest and repay the principle in x amount of time.

people aren't going to lend to robert mugabe because they can be pretty sure they're never going to be paid back

But being 'paid back' by the US means that they'll borrow the money from the next country over to pay their debt to you, then come back to you and point to their excellent credit record, in order to borrow the money they owed to the next country? It does just seem like they're balancing credit cards with ever-rising credit limits.

Ron Paul anti-Fed/Treasury zealots to thread (or not)

>Is it partly that the US holds the world's reserve currency and can "create money" i.e. debt without having to ever pay it back?

Isn't a short term consequence of just printing money and flooding all the (so much for "transparency") undisclosed banks in this latest version of TARP going to be inflation, no matter what?

My understanding is that the US doesn't suffer the same inflationary consequences as other countries do when banks or the govt. just creates more money to pay debts but I'm not quite sure how that works. For instance, everyone is now saying deflation is the big problem.

read good piece i think in krugmans blog abt deflation addressing the lol just print more money and create inflation then angle - basically he said to create serious inflation the currency markets have to be convinced that youre going to continue to print too much money - but that w/responsible countries like the us and japan everyone just assumes that theyll just take the extra money out of circulation once its done its job - there by never letting serious inflation happen

here u go http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/macro-policy-in-a-liquidity-trap-wonkish

My big question is, do deficits actually matter? If so, why?

The US gets away with big debts because Japan, Korea and, to a lesser extent, china have a vested interest in buying US debt to keep their currencies and their exports competitive.

Normally where one country was running big trade deficits with another the relative value of the currencies should make the exporter's currency more expensive unless the exporter sells the money back to the importer as cheap debt.

obv a hueg question that lol serious professionals disagree abt no doubt above my pay grade but ill give it a shot

1 you do have to pay that money back w/interest so thats a drag on yr bottom line in it self obvs

3 theres all sorts of day to day monetary funky macro economic etc consequences that im sure i dont fully understand past the lol china wants to sell us crap real bad angle ed just mentioned

2 the doomsday scenario: where the us has borrowed so much that one day every country looks at us and simultaneously goes lol yr debt is like 1mx yr gdp were not lending u anymore money - we default on our payments cause we cant roll them over our money ceases to be worth anything and we all have to give back our iphones - obv our economy would have to seriously shrink from its current global bully size - cause right now if china or whoever let us die theyd die to

lol tracer said deficit not debt - anyway thats my 2cents on a question no one asked

Argh yeah the trade deficit is entirely different. Sorry. What I meant was US govt debt, not the trade imbalance whereby the US buys more from the world than it sells to the world.

As to your 1) the US doesn't have to pay it back if no one ever cashes it in, cf. Treasury bonds.

I'm starting to come away with the impression that at least in the short to medium term, the debt burden doesn't actually matter.

yah as far as this current crisis spend spend spend ffs

u do eventually have to pay at least some of the money back or stop borrowing otherwise #3 eventually - but yah obv pretty much everyone for the foreseeable future is just gonna keep sending us those 0% interest platinum cards

if china or whoever let us die theyd die to

U.S. "Too big to fail"?

haha yah i wrote that initially except like 2 big 2 fail but then i deleted it

2 legit 2 enter inflationary spiral as a result of massively increasing national monetary base