I guess that's the difference. And the funny thing is, it really isn't that hard to be a millionaire. Besides your not deserved federal pension, just put away $600 a month, assume an 8% return (now you're going to have to learn to invest), and voila, by the time you are 60 you will be a millionaire. You may have to cut back on the the weed and hookers to get there. Read the book 'The Millionaire Next Door'. It's a classic. And the top 5% you seem to despise, well 95% of that group are just like the guy next door.
Last point, I agree with Priapus, zisk and JohnGalt and not wishing harm or death to any poster. But remember, you are protected by your anonymity on the Internet. Just be careful in the real world and avoid using the term "pigs", or making a really bad joke about Sarah Palin's baby. Somebody might take offense to it, and no you won't be hit by a bus, but you could end up in the emergency room. I know you are young, but you need to act a bit more mature.
Newsweek's Clift: U.S. Won't Face Greek Debt Tragedy 'Because We Can Print Money'
We all probably knew the sentiment of the American left for just not getting the entire Tea Party movement concept, but this statement ought to cement that notion.
On the July 18 broadcast of "The McLaughlin Group," host John McLaughlin asked his panelists what the long-term implications of national debt could be for the United States.
"Is America in danger of the current debt crisis becoming a sovereign debt crisis as Mort [Zuckerman] mentioned, like the one that is now hitting Greece, yes or no?" McLaughlin asked.
MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan warned it was more "imminent" than many people have forecast. He cited British historian and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson, who has declared the country to be on the brink of a Greek-like collapse."Not only yes, but it's a lot sooner than the 10 years Mort is talking about," Buchanan said. "Niall Ferguson is talking about two years. It could be imminent. The Greek thing hit - bam."
However, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift - a proponent of many of the spending policies the Obama administration has put in place, said this wasn't a danger. Why? The ability of the government to monetize debt.
"No - because we can print money and Greece can't," Clift declared. "And the Bush tax cuts are for the people at the upper-end of the income scale - not the middle class."
But U.S. News & World Report editor and real-estate tycoon Mort Zuckerman didn't look at the fiscal implications. Instead, he alluded to the political implications.
"There's one thing that's going on in this country that is close to your point," Zuckerman said. "A lot of people have found they have mortgages that exceed the value of their homes, and credit card lines that they can't pay. They suddenly realize that debt is really important. It hasn't been an issue for a long time. Now everybody knows it is a serious issue. And it is going to be an issue that will have much more political traction, in fact because everybody knows. We are way over."
Buchanan noted the Tea Party phenomenon, which seems to be driven by the concern of government spending.
"It's what's driving the Tea Parties - deficits," Buchanan said.
But McLaughlin's conclusion wasn't as doom-and-gloom as Buchanan's, but unlike Clift he didn't dismiss the significance.
"The answer is not Greece, but very serious," McLaughlin said.
Given that we're up to our necks in debt, I don't see the downside of printing more money. The only people it really hurts are those with a lot of savings (the wealthy), and that's just fine by me.
The Tea Party isn't concerned about deficits. They're worried about a black guy being in the White House and taxes. Only 5% of the American populace cares about the deficit, so I could care less.
The long term implications of our debt is that the value of our currency will decrease, making it easier to export American goods. That will put pressure on purchasing power, which will put pressure to raise the minimum wage. Again, hardly a down side.
At worst, we would default on that debt, which given Argentina's rather spectacular recovery after they defaulted, it might not be that bad of an option.
But if you're concerned with solving our debt problem, then perhaps you shouldn't be in favor of tax cuts.
There's only two ways out of the debt problem: Raise taxes and cut spending significantly, or default on our debt. Pick your poison. Until you do, then the hole we're in will just get deeper.
Everything is worth less and no one is better off.
My house which is worth $400,000 is now worth $800,000 because there is more money. Soon, you need a wheel barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread. A million Deutch Marks will buy a loaf of bread. Ten million units of Zimbawe currency get a quart of milk.
In the meantime, the little guy is no better off. He used to have $50, and could go to the movies 3 times. Now he has $10,000,000, and can go to the movies 3 times.
You worked and saved $10000 which used to be able to get 20 pairs of pants. You still have that $100, but now it will buy 1 pack of gum.
Sure does the little guy a lot of good to wipe out the value of his saving.
The value of your home didn't increase because the money supply doubled, unless you bought your 400k home in 1985.
Currently, the US inflation rate is at 1.10%, or at least it was last June. The inflation rate of the Zimbabwean dollar, as of December of 2008 was estimated to be 6.5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent.
I'm no mathematician, but I imagine that would be like comparing the size of Phil's brain to Jupiter or Saturn.
Yeah, that's typical Willie. Insult in response and ignore history.
What do you think happened to the costs of homes or any other item of property or services when there is massive printing of money?
You cite the difference in the rate of inflation between two countries, but do not mention the relationship to the rate of printing money. Yes, Zimabwea was many, many, many times more in terms of inflation. But that was because the printed many, many, many times more money.
It is in relation. Make it two many times more printed money and you have two many times inflation. Make it 6 many times printed money, and you have 6 many times more inflation.
Okay, Brilliant One: So what WOULD happen if you printed ten times as much money as there is now?
It's not typical Phil. I rarely insult people here. I insult you all the time, and for good reason. 
If you think inflation is the primary cause of home values to increase, then I think I can rest my case that you're a simpleton.
It seems to me that your basic arguement is this: Inflation = bad. Lots of inflation = lots of bad. Brilliant analysis.
This isn't a hard concept to grasp Phil. If you have most of the people in a given country in debt, than moderate slow inflation is good for most of the people. Deflation is bad. If you have most of the people in a given country with savings then moderate deflation is good for most of the people, inflation is bad.
Hyperinflation, which is something else entirely, is always bad. Don't conflate the two.
Ah, yes. Make up the argument of the opponent and it is easy to refute.
I never said that the primary cause of increase in home values is inflation. It is one cause, and I use homes just as an example of a product. The same is true of bread, milk, cars, and widgets.
Yes, you disagree,so I must be a simpleton. Doesn't matter that my simpleton brain has achieved several graduate degrees, won arguments in state supreme courts and federal courts of appeal. (Normally, I would not tout accomplishments, and only do so to wonder how such a dolt could achieve anything beyond digging ditches.)
The problem that we are facing is not "moderate" inflation. If you double the money supply, it won't be moderate.
Bush, THE MOST EVIL ONE, ran up a deficit of 3.5%. In 18 months it is 10%. Even if you cut the rate of increase in half, trouble is brewing.
If you then decide to cut the approaching 17% in half by printing money, you are playing with fire.
Then you print money just once to have 15% inflation to solve the problem that way, but you have just treated symptoms and are still spending like a sailor on leave, so you increase debt and cut it again by printing.
What California(which can't print money and can only borrow) has learned is that passing the ball down the road each year only increases the problem by going from 1 to 4 to 8 to 10 to 14 to 20 billion in debt. (Since I get paid by the state for some of my work, I have followed this for 15 years.) Yes, just a little more,and don't deal with the structural problems that caused it.
And just look how well this worked in Western Europe.
They are trying to get out of a burning building that we are trying to run into.
Make up the argument? Phil, the quote you:
"My house which is worth $400,000 is now worth $800,000 because there is more money."
You didn't add any qualifiers there. No caveats. You said home values increase because of the printing of "more money"...i.e. inflation. At least be man enough to admit that you should have been more clear.
Now you're touting accomplishments. I guess I hurt your feelings. I might be inclined to apologize if you weren't an ass as well as a simpleton.
Let's see, Bush turned a surplus into a deficit, and doubled the national debt in the process and only ran up a 3.5% deficit? Right. You forgot to mention this as a percentage of GDP. A figure a bit low considering we were at the peak of an economic bubble.
The deficit as a percentage of GDP is high right now because we're in a recession, and to get out of that recession, we got to spend money. This is like being on a mend from an illness, and fretting over the taste of the medicine.
Given that US annual GDP is some 16 trillion, and Americans have lost 14 trillion in household wealth since 2007, I'm surprised that the rate hasn't gone far higher. For historical comparison, during WW2 the deficit as a percentage of GDP was at nearly 30%.
In other words, try not to shit your pants Phil.
-- Modified on 7/20/2010 8:56:32 AM
And you could not understand that I was using one item as an example???
Yeah, I mentioned houses. I also mentioned gum and pants and other type of property. The fact that I talked about those should have been pretty clear I was not limiting it to real property.
Jesus! Yes. I could have been clearer. However, using other examples was a pretty good indication that I was not limiting it to houses. Or could you not see the connection?
One can always be clearer. Or rather is the vast majority of situations most people would be able to communicate in a more precise manner.
But when you are casually posting on this type of forum, or casually taking to someone, you don't use the precision that is used with the anticipation that everything will be taken literally.
And your historical justification is mind-blowing. WW II was an exceptional situation. In emergencies you do things you would not do in non-emergencies. Facing the threat the world was facing, yes we went hog wild. That is hardly a justification for quadupling the deficit now.
Indeed, if running up the deficit is not a legit concern, why is Obama talking about steps to control the deficit? Mr. Articulate should just explain why it isn't an issue. Why don't the Dems just get out there and say that we can run up more deficit without worry?
All their media connections and they can't make the case. No. Many, many Dems also think it is a danger. But not Willie.
Finally, I am an ass because I responded to your comment about being a simpleton. You accuse me of being a simpleton, I refute it with intellectual accomplshments, and I am an ass for trying to refute your point.
It reminds me of an old French adage which roughly translates, "imagine beast so viscious that it defends itself when attacked."
You insult, I respond, and I am the ass for answering.
Well, now that we've established that you're willing to backpeddle, maybe in the future we can work on you being able to admit that you're wrong. The sweet joys of progress, Phil.
I didn't say you're an ass because you're a lawyer. Although, I guess most people might say that qualifies you as one, I'm a bit more open minded. You're an ass because you've demonstrated it time and time again on this board.
The deficit has been going up for quite some time...you know, ever since the economy tanked. Remember Phil...as a percentage of GDP.
But you seemed to missed the glaringly obvious. Yes, we needed to spend a shit ton of money in WW2. Yes, the deficit skyrocketed. But did that lead to the end of America? Hardly. It marked the dawning of the American Century that saw the United States become the strongest superpower the world had ever seen. Hardly a doomsday scenario.
Obama is taking steps to curtail the deficit because he's a milque-toast clown who doesn't know the first thing about macroeconomics. If the Dems were smart they'd push for more stimulus, which incidently is what 60% of the American People want.
It would be pretty easy to cut the deficit. Just hack half the money off the Defense Department and intelligence, and get rid of the Reagan tax cuts. No one is serious about doing that, or accepting that the only way out of this 13 trillion monkey on our backs is to raise taxes and cut spending. So, I'm not very serious about it either. If we're going to dig the hole deeper, we might as well help the poor out in the process instead of subsidizing BBBJs for the Chamber of Commerce.
This one is somewhat bogus. While it is run by a conservative, Christopher Chantrill, he is using budget data not actual data. For example, in 1943 the actual deficit was 32.4% and in 2000 it never went negative. Of little import to this discussion, just an observation.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
what am I missing here Ed?
Debt is simply the sum of each of the annual deficits. Subtract the total debt at the end of fiscal year 2008 from FY 2009 and that is the deficit for 2009.
well, that would be including the supplimental budget as well then. I don't know offhand if that's included in the numbers I was using.
Budgeted expenditures are the planned or predicted spending. The actual numbers have been ending up much higher since forever.
The Treasury claims to count the actual money as it's spent and printed/circulated.
The government reports inflation by doing all sorts of hocus pocus.
The remove stuff from the calculation that might skyrocket -- such as energy.
Then, if the price of steak goes up from $5 to $7, but you can get a pound of turkey burger for $5, they will say that turkey burger is equivalent to steak; and say that inflation was zero when it was really 40%.
If you look closely as BLS numbers, you will see they have deliberately cooked the books so that incomes and CPI have increased IDENTICALLY for the past X years.
Does anybody really BELIEVE that crap?
Our standard of living has gone through the floor. Only by sending wifey to work has that standard been maintained; and then by working 2nd and 3rd jobs.
You want to know what REAL inflation is? Look at the price of services that can't be offshored to India.
How is the price of medical care? Dental care? Lawyers? Houses? College education?
If you compare the prices of any of these things from 1970 to present and then compare incomes from the same period; you will quickly discover that REAL inflation is MUCH higher than reported by the government.
Here is an education for you on real inflation numbers by someone with an economic clue:
http://www.shadowstats.com/primers-and-reports
Gov't is in the business of lying. They've been lying with BLS data ever since LBJ realized he could make things look a wee bit better by screwing with who is counted as employed and unemployed. The trick is to figure out how they're screwing with the numbers so you can more accurately interpret them. When I get a chance to take a closer look at that link, I hope it will help me out in that endeavor.
... it also covers how government lies in unemployment statistics, etc.
-- Modified on 7/21/2010 6:21:16 AM
those in debt love inflation (mortgage, student loans etc.) especially if they have automatic COLA. Their debts are set in fixed amounts, so the real value of what they owe is reduced.
as you say, those with savings, if the interest rate is fixed, or other creditors, are worse off. Most interest rates, though, will adjust to money supply changes. Some don't. Inflation-indexed bonds were trotted out a number of years ago but never sold very well.
So there are true distributional issues at stake. Some do gain, whereas others lose. Of course the largest debtors tend to be governments, so they have a strong incentive to inflate to pay down their debts. That's when hyperinflation tends to take hold.
I guess that's the difference. And the funny thing is, it really isn't that hard to be a millionaire. Besides your not deserved federal pension, just put away $600 a month, assume an 8% return (now you're going to have to learn to invest), and voila, by the time you are 60 you will be a millionaire. You may have to cut back on the the weed and hookers to get there. Read the book 'The Millionaire Next Door'. It's a classic. And the top 5% you seem to despise, well 95% of that group are just like the guy next door.
Last point, I agree with Priapus, zisk and JohnGalt and not wishing harm or death to any poster. But remember, you are protected by your anonymity on the Internet. Just be careful in the real world and avoid using the term "pigs", or making a really bad joke about Sarah Palin's baby. Somebody might take offense to it, and no you won't be hit by a bus, but you could end up in the emergency room. I know you are young, but you need to act a bit more mature.
For me, it's going to be really easy to become a millionaire. All I have to do is just wait. I'm on track (in 10-15 years) to reach the top 15%. The big money will come from inheritance, which will make me a multi-millionaire probably in less than 10 years. This gives me no real joy, mind you.
I did read The Millionaire Next Door. I thought it was claptrap. A friend who waited tables for a living beemed about it in thinking she could actually get rich. Americans are so easily deluded.
St., I could give two shits about offending right wingers. As far as I'm concerned, I'm right, they're wrong, and they can kiss my ass if they have a problem with it. Strangely, no one has ever threatened violence towards me unless they themselves were protected by internet anonymity. That tells me all I need to know.
Oh, in case you missed it...
Well then you will be a prime example of a person with money that has no class
-- Modified on 7/20/2010 12:59:50 AM
willy" All I have to do is just wait. I'm on track (in 10-15 years) to reach the top 15%. The big money will come from inheritance, which will make me a multi-millionaire probably in less than 10 years."
I used to know someone that often talked about all the money he would inherit, and it wouldn't be long, since his source of money were in their 70s. They are in their 80s now and he is dead.
I'm not wishing you dead but just saying..
Its also possible they might figure out who you are, and leave the money to the SPCA.
...the idea of this inheritance gives me no real joy. Since 2002 I've lost most of my family. I've grown accustomed to taking years out of my life so I can be an executor of an estate. I guess that's just part of the deal when your parents decide to have kids in their mid 40's. This has given me a great deal of financial security that I in no way earned, but I would trade that in a heartbeat to be able to sit down with my father and play a few Bill Monroe tunes again.
That one is more recent; but previously I had done the "wealth without risk" (modified by my common sense) &c.
Bottom line is that you are right. I'm not a very materially acquisitive person anyway so I've always just socked money away. It works.
Just reduce spending and start saving. Nowadays, with all the cool online brokerage tools and stuff, it can actually be fun and you can watch your assets in nearly real-time.
As an aside, I don't believe anyone who gets a check from federal or state government -- whether for employment or benefits -- should be allowed to vote.
YEAH PRINTING MONEY IS GOOD FOOR EVERYONE, WHAT A JOKE YOU ARE, ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE KNOWS RAMIFICATION OF PRINTING $$$$$$$$. NO WONDER BOARD IS TIRED OF YOU, KEEP ON POSTING 200 POSTS A DAY. YOU MUST SLEEP BY COMPUTER!!!!!!!!!!
-- Modified on 7/20/2010 1:26:20 PM
Go find out what % is debt. All are journalists and pundits paid to sensationalize Cow Manure.