- This topic has 1 reply, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Sweikert, we do not live in a capitalist system. We never did. It has always been an oligarchy; rule by the elite.
It is understandable that you are confused since I see where you are getting your information. Here is a clue for you: governments lie to their citizens.You are making remarks which clearly identify that you have bought, hook, line and sinker, the mainstream false world lies that seem to work on people who have undergone a good bit of mind control through so-called formal education and over exposure to the media.
There is unfortunately, no way to break through to people with your mind set with facts and evidence. Cognitive dissonance kicks in whenever facts contradict the false paradigm to which you are accustomed.[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”sprite”] Cognitive dissonance kicks in whenever facts contradict the false paradigm to which you are accustomed.[/quote]
I agree completely. But the only one here who has presented facts is me and the only one who has dismissed them is you.[/quote
You’re right. I didn’t bother with facts because I am not in the mood to put together multiple paragraphs with links to sources you will probably dismiss as biased or conspiracy theorist oriented. We are looking at the world with radically different perspectives. It has been my experience so far that people will not see what is really happening until they are ready to do so. All of the substantiated facts and logical arguments that exist would not be enough to move you from the mind conditioned perspective that has been imposed upon you. I hope you are able to shake it off one day.
[quote=”sprite”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”sprite”] Cognitive dissonance kicks in whenever facts contradict the false paradigm to which you are accustomed.[/quote]
I agree completely. But the only one here who has presented facts is me and the only one who has dismissed them is you.[/quote
You’re right. I didn’t bother with facts because I am not in the mood to put together multiple paragraphs with links to sources you will probably dismiss as biased or conspiracy theorist oriented. We are looking at the world with radically different perspectives. It has been my experience so far that people will not see what is really happening until they are ready to do so. All of the substantiated facts and logical arguments that exist would not be enough to move you from the mind conditioned perspective that has been imposed upon you. I hope you are able to shake it off one day.[/quote]
Don’t bother Sprite… there’s an explanation for the uphill battle with our friend from Chi-town.
It’s called… (Via Wiki)… The Normalcy Bias.
“The normalcy bias, or normality bias, refers to a mental state people enter when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the possibility of a disaster occurring and its possible effects. This often results in situations where people fail to adequately prepare for a disaster, and on a larger scale, the failure of governments to include the populace in its disaster preparations. The assumption that is made in the case of the normalcy bias is that since a disaster never has occurred then it never will occur. It also results in the inability of people to cope with a disaster once it occurs. People with a normalcy bias have difficulties reacting to something they have not experienced before. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, seizing on any ambiguities to infer a less serious situation.”
Anyone that would make the argument that it took 220 years to accumulate the current nation debt (Even thou most of it has been racked up in very recent history)… and then claim if we have another 220 years to pay it off then it’s not a big deal… MUST have some type of issue facing reality. Then again… Illinois has a big financial issue coming to a head with it’s retirement systems… perhaps after that crisis hits home we’ll see some change in attitude.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”johnnyh”]…there’s just no way we can get out of a 17 to 18 trillion Dollar debt plus another 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and a quadrillion of derivatives. [/quote]
That $17 trillion debt was 220 years in the making. We don’t have to pay it off immediately. The day I bought my condo I immediately had a debt that was several times my annual income but I had 30 years to pay it off. If we assume that we have 220 years to pay off the national debt it comes to $77 billion per year – about 2% of the current annual federal budget. Since annual federal revenue will increase as GDP increases that 2% would over time shrink to an even tinier fraction of the annual budget.
I don’t know where you’re getting this $200 trillion figure from.
Derivatives are part of the private financial system which is between a private buyer and a private seller and have no bearing on the nation’s financial situation.[/quote]
What do you think caused the banking crisis that created the financial mess in the US that we’re still paying to contain and clean up?
“…no bearing on the nation’s financial situation.” You’re joking right? What do you think is going on with monetary policy in the US and was the cause of the mess? The result was adding another $5 trillion to the national debt! I’d say that was a pretty big issue that had quite the bearing on the nation’s financial situation!
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”johnnyh”]…there’s just no way we can get out of a 17 to 18 trillion Dollar debt plus another 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and a quadrillion of derivatives. [/quote]
That $17 trillion debt was 220 years in the making. We don’t have to pay it off immediately. The day I bought my condo I immediately had a debt that was several times my annual income but I had 30 years to pay it off. If we assume that we have 220 years to pay off the national debt it comes to $77 billion per year – about 2% of the current annual federal budget. Since annual federal revenue will increase as GDP increases that 2% would over time shrink to an even tinier fraction of the annual budget.
I don’t know where you’re getting this $200 trillion figure from.
Derivatives are part of the private financial system which is between a private buyer and a private seller and have no bearing on the nation’s financial situation.[/quote]
A couple of issues with your 220 year repayment plan.
#1 You are apparently making the assumption that there will be no additional debt added. And that the US will have a surplus during that entire period to make these repayments. That’s not realistic.
#2 You’re also ignoring the fact that interest rates will not remain where they are now as Federal debt is rolled over… it will not. Interest rates only have one way they can go right now…. UP! This will make it more difficult to even service the debt…. never mind paying it off.
#3 As this debt is rolled over during your proposed 220 year repayment… who is it that’s buying our debt… seems buyers are getting harder and harder to find… unless of course you count the banks and the Fed with the shell game they’re playing currently.
Ms Rand said “you can ignore reality but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality”
When TSHTF people will wake up not only to what had been happening, but many will begin to understand why it happened. Of course, by then it will be too late to avoid the consequences of this terrible reality bearing down upon us.
[quote=”sweikert925″]#2 Interest rates are already up from their recent lows and yes, as they climb the annual debt servicing will climb. But see my answer above. Having them reach their historical rate in the 5-7% range will cost us more to service the debt but that isn’t an insurmountable problem. [/quote]
Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? The actual Prime Rate History would be a good guide to use as your basis http://www.moneycafe.com/personal-finance/prime-rate-history/
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? [/quote]
The prime rate is not what the US treasury pays to holders of US bonds. The answer your question is “1990” and the data can be found [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll]here[/url].
The average yield on 30 year bonds from 1990 to 2013 is 5.7%. If I had found a reference that went back to the 70s or 80s that average would be higher which is why I said “5-7%” but I couldn’t find a reference that went back that far.[/quote]
I suggested using it as a guide (ie at time of 22% PRIME the bond rates far exceeded your 5-7% rate). You’re not looking far enough back. You MUST factor in the pre-90 rates. Here’s a nice historic chart of the 10 year treasury rate. http://0.tqn.com/d/bonds/1/0/K/-/-/-/10-Year.jpg
And, remember, history does have a way of repeating itself.[quote=”pixframe”][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? [/quote]
The prime rate is not what the US treasury pays to holders of US bonds. The answer your question is “1990” and the data can be found [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll]here[/url].
The average yield on 30 year bonds from 1990 to 2013 is 5.7%. If I had found a reference that went back to the 70s or 80s that average would be higher which is why I said “5-7%” but I couldn’t find a reference that went back that far.[/quote]
I suggested using it as a guide (ie at time of 22% PRIME the bond rates far exceeded your 5-7% rate). You’re not looking far enough back. You MUST factor in the pre-90 rates. Here’s a nice historic chart of the 10 year treasury rate. http://0.tqn.com/d/bonds/1/0/K/-/-/-/10-Year.jpg
And, remember, history does have a way of repeating itself.
[/quote][quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Historic rate in the 5-7% rate? How far back did you look? [/quote]
The prime rate is not what the US treasury pays to holders of US bonds. The answer your question is “1990” and the data can be found [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldAll]here[/url].
The average yield on 30 year bonds from 1990 to 2013 is 5.7%. If I had found a reference that went back to the 70s or 80s that average would be higher which is why I said “5-7%” but I couldn’t find a reference that went back that far.[/quote]
[quote=”sweikert925″]OK [url=http://bonds.about.com/od/governmentandagencybonds/a/Historical-U-S-Treasury-Yield-Charts.htm]here[/url] is one that has an average for 10 year bonds from 1962-2013:
10-Year Note:
Chart Range: 1/2/62-10/16/13
High: 9/30/81 15.84% / Low: 7/25/12 1.43%
Average: 6.57%
[/quote]Statistics … averages … are meaningless when discussing this issue. The fact is we couldn’t sustain another 1980-86 cycle when debt service ranged from 10-16%.
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”pixframe”]Statistics … averages … are meaningless when discussing this issue.[/quote]
Hmm. So statistics are helpful and pertinent when you think they support your opinion but meaningless when – as it turns out – they support mine. OK.[/quote]
I don’t recall reciting any statistics in this thread.
[quote=”davidd”]You should try amazon.com and become a kindle author- I have friends that have 50 titles and make $5000 per month kindle sales.
or try adsense
or affiliate marketing
or lead generation for business
or CPA marketing
or work on a specific skillset and offer it on sites like fivver
or ebay craigslist
or PPC marketing
or video marketing
or membership site
or email marketing
or Blogging
etc etc
in todays world we are so fortunate to live in such opportunity and abundance.. its truly amazing!!!
the biggest challenge is these self limiting beliefs that stop any growth.[/quote]
David, what’s shaking my friend!! CR is back in the radar, belize is great I love it, but the wife gets spooked every time someone gets shot out side of our house. I told her not to be so sensitive about it, but if mama ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy….trust me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
