Discussion on civil unrest in the US [Archive]

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 03:05

Fair enough, I do think it's a good opportunity on some levels, really good public transport initiatives for major cities would be so beneficial and might mean I visit the US more, I don't drive so the US is a real pain to visit at times.
I don't drive and I live here. Imagine. :D

Far be it from me to piss on the chips of the pro-public works cabal,
Cabal? Is tinfoil the new black for hats this year? :p

but their analysis strikes me as simplistic; it presupposes either that there is sufficient work for all within their immediate proximity,
Does it? I have not heard any serious source suggest any such thing.

or that they will be prepared to relocate to find what I imagine would be low-paid employment.
Um...you do know that there are private construction companies and municipal public works departments that direct hire and deal with contractors all over the US, right? And you do realize that most of them already have workers on staff, right? And you do realize that increasing numbers of those companies have had to lay workers off, right? So that new public contracts would allow them to rehire the local workers they had to lay off. And you do realize that, in general, many laborers already travel to take work in different locations, right? And you further realize that there are also many jobs that can be generated in the services that support such companies -- such as office support, bookkeeping, banking, etc. And finally, you do realize that construction workers in the US make quite good money, right?

I doubt the former is valid, and I can't imagine the latter is plausible either.
Your lack of faith is disturbing.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:08

What's it like in Britain, strikes are starting up again and the unions are gaining influence, or so I've heard.

I think that the closer one is to the heart of the doom and gloom, the more pessimistic one is, so I'd suspect students to be a little more carefree about everything, I live in a major financial centre and I'm surrounded by some very pessimistic people, bankers laid off who, for once, have absolutely no idea when they might get to work again.

It's hard to say whether some are too close to see clearly or those that are far away cannot grasp the truth.

Look at that graph though, it's horrific, surely some consequences.

From my readings of current affairs, which, given that they're universally Torygraph, would report such news, no noticeable increase in Union power is discernible. Activity, perhaps, but I doubt such activities will accomplish anything substantial.

Reagrding the informal strikes, I assume you refer to those at power stations and such; if so, I'm not greatly worried. The strikes are over the awarding of contracts and commissions for extra work to foreign workers from the EU; the regular employment of the British workers is, thus far, unaffected. Strikes me as nationalistic sabre-rattling occassioned by a prevailing sense of working class dissatisfaction, and little else.

The greatest impediment to popular civil unrest in the UK, I suspect, however, is the endemic political apathy; such areas as will be sufficiently affected so as to induce riot are unlikely, given the moralistic content of the tabloids, to attract wider support.

Point conceded, however, regarding university; immured within my middle class bastion, I see little of the world personally, only reading about it, which probably offers an inferior portrayal.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:09

Your lack of faith is disturbing.http://www.adamsmash.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/darthchoke.jpg

:D

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 03:09

We had a recession in '90 and '01? Okay, I was 7 in '90, but I still remember everything going well for us.

Hmm it's probably safe to say (and "experts" from all over the "political spectrum" would be unanimous) that this one is the mother of all recessions, comparable to the 1930s great depression if not worse, in terms of widespread social displacement and wealth destroyed for all classes of society.

Granted, you might not be existentially bothered by the effects of our current recession if you are massively wealthy and live in an estate/fortified compound in the Hamptons so I don't presume to tell you that your personal experience is wrong. But most people will be feeling the effects of this current famous recession.

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 03:10

I suspect people will move if they have to.

Money is a powerful motivator. :p
But so is "staying home". Not sure which would win, but if I was a parent/part of a struggling family, and I couldn't find a job where I lived, you could be damn sure that I'd move wherever I had to to work to help support my family.
For me, moving is not an "if" but a "when." Jobs or no jobs, I really need to be living somewhere cheaper. People do what they have to do.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:10

Money is a powerful motivator. :p
But so is "staying home". Not sure which would win, but if I was a parent/part of a struggling family, and I couldn't find a job where I lived, you could be damn sure that I'd move wherever I had to to work to help support my family.

There are, curiously, however, enough jobs for the entirety of the British population, if only they would relocate to them; if they won't do so for ordinary employment, I fail to see why extra-ordinary employment would be treated any differently. I concede I'm equipped only to discuss the UK, not the USA, however, I suspect the two coincide on such issues.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:12

I concede I'm equipped only to discuss the UK, not the USA, however, I suspect the two coincide on such issues.There are many more unskilled workers in the US, and unskilled workers have limited choices.

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 03:13

There are, curiously, however, enough jobs for the entirety of the British population, if only they would relocate to them; if they won't do so for ordinary employment, I fail to see why extra-ordinary employment would be treated any differently. I concede I'm equipped only to discuss the UK, not the USA, however, I suspect the two coincide on such issues.
You seem to expect and imagine quite a bit. Have you actually compared the situations and histories of the US and the UK to provide a basis for your expectations?

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 03:14

Yea...got anything to back that chart up?
They just showed the same chart on MSNBC, the Rachel Maddow Show, following the President's speech.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:16

Cabal? Is tinfoil the new black for hats this year? :p

You heard it here first.

Does it? I have not heard any serious source suggest any such thing.

Interpretation of analysis, not reiteration of source.

Um...you do know that there are private construction companies and municipal public works departments that direct hire and deal with contractors all over the US, right? And you do realize that most of them already have workers on staff, right? And you do realize that increasing numbers of those companies have had to lay workers off, right? So that new public contracts would allow them to rehire the local workers they had to lay off. And you do realize that, in general, many laborers already travel to take work in different locations, right? And you further realize that there are also many jobs that can be generated in the services that support such companies -- such as office support, bookkeeping, banking, etc. And finally, you do realize that construction workers in the US make quite good money, right?

Ordinary construction workers require a degree of qualification and expertise; I doubt that such skills would be universal if the scheme is to provide the quantity of employment suggested.

Moreover, would such schemes only seek to rehire extant construction workers? If so, it's rather a storm in a tea cup no? Hardly the panacea it's held as.

Your lack of faith is disturbing.

One can always find a job if sufficiently motivated. Forgive me for having little faith in the majority of the unemployed.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:17

There are many more unskilled workers in the US, and unskilled workers have limited choices.

The majority of British jobs available are decidedly unskilled; strawberry picker, shelf-stacker et al.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:18

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:20

One can always find a job if sufficiently motivated. Not always. The only reason I have the job I have now is because I know the district and head manager of the chain personally. Finding a job in some areas of the US (rural especially) can be quite...difficult.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

10-02-2009, 03:20

I dont have much faith that Americans can have civil unrest anymore...

Our rebelliousness has prettymuch deteriorated to bitching on Forums, Blogs, and Radio shows and not much more, myself included unfortunately...
This is where I stand too. It'd be nice to imagine that there might be some serious repercussions for the powers that be coming out of this, but I doubt it. People will either eke by at the bottom, or quietly retire to die in a corner.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:20

There are many more unskilled workers in the US, and unskilled workers have limited choices.

I disagree, Im prettysure that with the continued hemorrhaging of our Industrial Capacity to places with much cheaper labor, like Mexico and China...

The primary employers of the future will be Fast Food, and Retail Outlets...which are primarily Unskilled Positions...

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 03:20

If you look at it over a longer time period, the unemployment figures are not so scary.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:22

I disagree, Im prettysure that with the continued hemorrhaging of our Industrial Capacity to places with much cheaper labor, like Mexico and China...

The primary employers of the future will be Fast Food, and Retail Outlets...which are primarily Unskilled Positions......Huh? Are you saying that unskilled workers have more choices than skilled workers, or that there are fewer unskilled workers in America than there are in the UK?

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 03:22

I dont have much faith that Americans can have civil unrest anymore...

Our rebelliousness has prettymuch deteriorated to bitching on Forums, Blogs, and Radio shows and not much more, myself included unfortunately...

Hmm that's a very good point. The internet and all its amusements, youtube, p2p filesharing, MMOs... will probably serve as a powerful social stabilizing force throughout this recession.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:22

Not always. The only reason I have the job I have now is because I know the district and head manager of the chain personally. Finding a job in some areas of the US (rural especially) can be quite...difficult.

Then the unemployed can move.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 03:22

I dont have much faith that Americans can have civil unrest anymore...

Our rebelliousness has prettymuch deteriorated to bitching on Forums, Blogs, and Radio shows and not much more, myself included unfortunately...

Hard to say, I suspect the world is in the denial stage of shock right now, anger will come soon enough.

Again, it really depends on quite how bad and how long this will last, the graph alone suggests that there's plenty more drop in the system.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:23

Then the unemployed can move....Which, uh, sort of requires money.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:24

...Huh? Are you saying that unskilled workers have more choices than skilled workers, or that there are fewer unskilled workers in America than there are in the UK?

Maybe not more choice, But I think that there will be alot more Skilled Laborers being demoted to Unskilled Positions due to it being much cheaper to hire your "Skilled" labor outside of America...

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 03:25

"Needless to say as unemployment rises, the likelihood of civil disturbances increases. Crime rates go up, etc.

In your opinion what should we expect in terms of civil unrest in the US? Demonstrations by the urban unemployed? Uprisings by syndicalists in the cities, and white supremacists in Montana? Rodney King-style race riots? Or just slight upticks in crime?"

I think your questons are naive and divisive in many respects. The questions you pose suggest that the potential for riots or "civil unrest" will be coming from discrete groups such as "urban unemployed," "white supremacits" and "Rodney King-style race riots."

The riots and civil unrest will be from the lower and middle classes which comprise 98% of the population. That is the rather large group who have been supporting the "trickle up" economic theory now for 8 years, without seeing living wages or wage increases, have had their salaries frozen and, now, are watching their jobs, home and food on the table disappear.

If this economic stimulus does not work, and we all should hope that it does, and if there continues to be this "let them eat cake" attitude from the top 1-3% of the population who have benefitted for the last 8 years and have a vested interest in not "spreading the wealth," then you will not be seeing riots from the "fringe" groups in oddball areas of the country at all--you will be seeing them from the masses, all over the country.

I will not be arming myself in any manner, because I will be among and one of them, which has been and will continue to be, a very safe place to be.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 03:25

The primary employers of the future will be Fast Food, and Retail Outlets...which are primarily Unskilled Positions...

Yes, a depression will see a rise in consumption in fast foods, McDonalds is already seeing quite the rise in sales.

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/06/27/recession-proof-stocks-mcdonalds.aspx

Buy McDonalds.

The sad part of a serious recession is that it literally affects the health of a nation as people turn to cheaper, crappier alternatives.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:26

Maybe not more choice, But I think that there will be alot more Skilled Laborers being demoted to Unskilled Positions due to it being much cheaper to hire your "Skilled" labor outside of America...They're still "skilled workers", even though they aren't in a "skilled" position. Unless I'm doing something wrong, or misinformed.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:28

They're still "skilled workers", even though they aren't in a "skilled" position. Unless I'm doing something wrong, or misinformed.

I suppose, but without a Skilled Position, its a moot point...

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 03:28

That is the rather large group who have been supporting the "trickle up" economic theory now for 8 years, without seeing wage increasesand, now, are watching their jobs, home and food on the table disappear.

We laughed last night over the idea of trickle down economics, which occurs at a very drip-by-drip rate, when it comes to the negative side, lay-offs and such, it turns into a flood.

Pay increases in the good times happen slower than lay-offs in the bad times.

Privatise profit, socialise loss - wheeee...

We didn't laugh for too long.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:30

"Needless to say as unemployment rises, the likelihood of civil disturbances increases. Crime rates go up, etc.

In your opinion what should we expect in terms of civil unrest in the US? Demonstrations by the urban unemployed? Uprisings by syndicalists in the cities, and white supremacists in Montana? Rodney King-style race riots? Or just slight upticks in crime?"

I think your questons are naive and divisive in many respects. The questions you pose suggest that the potential for riots or "civil unrest" will be coming from discrete groups such as "urban unemployed," "white supremacits" and "Rodney King-style race riots."

The riots and civil unrest will be from the lower and middle classes which comprise 98% of the population. That is the rather large group who have been supporting the "trickle up" economic theory now for 8 years, without seeing wage increasesand, now, are watching their jobs, home and food on the table disappear.

If this economic stimulus does not work, and we all should hope that it does, and if there continues to be this "let them eat cake" attitude from the top 1-3% of the population who have benefitted for the last 8 years and have a vested interest in not "spreading the wealth," then you will not be seeing riots from the "fringe" groups in oddball areas of the country at all--you will be seeing them from the masses, all over the country.

I will not be arming myself in any manner, because I will be among and one of them, which has been and will continue to be, a very safe place to be.

Don't reveal too much of your bias will you?

Bloody hell but do you honestly anticipate the middle classes, those reknowned civil activists and protestors, joining with their natural proletarian allies and overthrowing the nasty old upper classes? With all due respect, which, to you, is minimal, the middle classes are unlikely to react with any real physical vigour. They haven't done so in the west for decades.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:31

I suppose, but without a Skilled Position, its a moot point...But they're still not a part of the unskilled work group, so you can't count them in that group. o_0;

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 03:32

I think your questons are naive and divisive in many respects. The questions you pose suggest that the potential for riots or "civil unrest" will be coming from discrete groups such as "urban unemployed," "white supremacits" and "Rodney King-style race riots."

I think you're being extremely naive to assume that racism, xenophobia, and other such ideologies won't become more popular in hard economic times.

The riots and civil unrest will be from the lower and middle classes which comprise 98% of the population. That is the rather large group who have been supporting the "trickle up" economic theory now for 8 years, without seeing living wages or wage increases, have had their salaries frozen and, now, are watching their jobs, home and food on the table disappear.

98% of the population may be suffering but it's quite difficult for 98% of a very diverse national population to act in concert, and easier than you think for people to regress to ideologies like racism and xenophobia in times like these.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:34

But they're still not a part of the unskilled work group, so you can't count them in that group. o_0;

Im just talking for the sheer employment options...you can count them in any group you want...

But, without jobs available that are Skilled Positions its beside the point...

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 03:36

Yes, a depression will see a rise in consumption in fast foods, McDonalds is already seeing quite the rise in sales.

http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/06/27/recession-proof-stocks-mcdonalds.aspx

Buy McDonalds.

The sad part of a serious recession is that it literally affects the health of a nation as people turn to cheaper, crappier alternatives.

Hopefully things will only get so bad that people merely eat more often at McDonalds. And I think McDonalds will be hit by the recession soon, since bulk foods and home cooking are cheaper alternatives to even McDonalds, and people will be cutting their personal budgets even more. (Which may be a good thing since this could prove to be healthier than McDonalds)

During the Great Depression the problem the US was facing was hunger and malnutrition... if this situation returns there will be some tragic consequences.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 03:38

Here you go TBC, I've made a special effort to source your favourite reading material, I do hope you appreciate my consideration...

Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Greece and Iceland have all faced social unrest and rioting as unemployment soars and as many European countries have been forced to impose severe cuts to government spending.

A senior EU source has told The Daily Telegraph that a March summit of European leaders will examine the increasing unrest as unemployment rises across Europe and cuts to social programmes bite.

"There are concerns. The EU shares them. It is one of the major challenges for the Spring Council," said the senior European source.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy first raised the spectre of "May 1968" protests spreading across Europe at a Brussels Council in December and "intensive sharing of information" is now under way among a key group of EU governments, including France and Germany.

In the latest development, following days of violent street demonstrations, Iceland's, ruling coalition government, which is not an EU member, on Thursday bowed to protesters and called early national elections to be held this year.

Doesn't mean there will be civil unrest, the countries mentioned are relatively new and unstable anyway, but this is just the beginning and they're the tip of a potential iceberg, they simply among the more vulnerable and so feel the effects first.

The fact that senior governments are discussing the possibility means it's on the table at least.

The Torygraph Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/4316058/Crisis-meeting-called-on-violent-protest-across-Europe.html)

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:38

During the Great Depression the problem the US was facing was hunger and malnutrition... if this situation returns there will be some tragic consequences.

Meh, McDonalds has thankfully ensured that I can hibernate a few decades on my stored energy reserves, lol...

Ashmoria

10-02-2009, 03:39

We had a recession in '90 and '01? Okay, I was 7 in '90, but I still remember everything going well for us.
we've already lost more jobs than those 2 recessions, faster and steeper. and we havent hit bottom yet (not in the collected statistics for sure).

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 03:40

Meh, McDonalds has thankfully ensured that I can hibernate a few decades on my stored energy reserves, lol...

True, all the beer bellies of the world have finally come in handy :D :(

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:41

Im just talking for the sheer employment options...you can count them in any group you want... Unskilled workers do usually have less options than skilled workers. ;)

But, without jobs available that are Skilled Positions its beside the point...Are there any studies done about the loss of skilled/unskilled job loss?

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 03:41

Meh, McDonalds has thankfully ensured that I can hibernate a few decades on my stored energy reserves, lol...

When cannibalism comes, we'll be eating the fat people first :)

This is a slight deviation from an advert for a gym in L.A., which ran - when the aliens come, they'll eat the fat people first - as an incentive to get down to the gym.

Knowing L.A., it was probably taken quite seriously.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:42

Here you go TBC, I've made a special effort to source your favourite reading material, I do hope you appreciate my consideration...

Doesn't mean there will be civil unrest, the countries mentioned are relatively new and unstable anyway, but this is just the beginning and they're the tip of a potential iceberg, they simply among the more vulnerable and so feel the effects first.

The fact that senior governments are discussing the possibility means it's on the table at least.

The Torygraph Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/4316058/Crisis-meeting-called-on-violent-protest-across-Europe.html)

I'm reaching for the gin and tonic as I read...

Yet again, I doubt such activism will penetrate the thick set political apathy of the majority of the British. The French, especially, have ever had a commendably more febrile popular political world than the UK.

I'll be astounded if mass rioting occurs in the UK. For one, dear Tony's authoratarian apparatus should prevent such an occurance.

Lacadaemon

10-02-2009, 03:43

Yeah, I think civil unrest is likely. Governments are really paralyzed and in deep denial about what is really going on. They are pretending that this is an ordinary recession and if 'the banks can start lending again' and we 'prime the pump' everything can magically go back to 2005.

It won't happen.

It's not inevitable that there is civil disturbance, of course. Sometime between now, and when the shit finally hits the fan, the government could wake up and actually start to manage the crisis properly. But it doesn't seem very likely.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:48

Unskilled workers do usually have less options than skilled workers. ;)

Are there any studies done about the loss of skilled/unskilled job loss?

Not gonna argue with you there...Rheem comes to mind off the top of my head, abruptly moved to Mexico and laid off its entire workforce in the Midwest...

Here's the first link when I googled it, lol....

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2002-12-12-manufacture_x.htm

Jobs are increasingly being moved abroad as companies take advantage of lower labor costs and position themselves to sell products to a growing — and promising — market abroad. Economy.com, an economic consulting firm in West Chester, Pa., estimates 1.3 million manufacturing jobs have been moved abroad since the beginning of 1992 — the bulk coming in the last three years. Most of those jobs have gone to Mexico and East Asia.

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 03:50

You heard it here first.

Interpretation of analysis, not reiteration of source.
So, you just decided that, even though people never say anything like that, they're thinking it?

Ordinary construction workers require a degree of qualification and expertise; I doubt that such skills would be universal if the scheme is to provide the quantity of employment suggested.

Moreover, would such schemes only seek to rehire extant construction workers? If so, it's rather a storm in a tea cup no? Hardly the panacea it's held as.
Held out as a panacea? Is that another thing you imagined someone said or thought? Because no one has held it out as a panacea, only as a good part of a stimulus package.

One can always find a job if sufficiently motivated. Forgive me for having little faith in the majority of the unemployed.
Actually, one cannot always find a job, no matter how motivated, if there are no jobs to be had. Hence that rather shocking graph, and hence the past several months of US news.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:50

When cannibalism comes, we'll be eating the fat people first :)

Youll have to hunt me down first...6'3" 300lbs...Im not an easy kill, lol...

Plus, Im from South MS, I have an Arsenal in my Closet, lmao...

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 03:52

We laughed last night over the idea of trickle down economics, which occurs at a very drip-by-drip rate, when it comes to the negative side, lay-offs and such, it turns into a flood.

Pay increases in the good times happen slower than lay-offs in the bad times.

Privatise profit, socialise loss - wheeee...

We didn't laugh for too long.
Yes, so far, the "trickle down" applies only to nationalizing debts of the rich and the industries, who simultaneously want to keep assets privatized (for themselves). I wish I could laugh, perhaps when we all get through this my anger will subside.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:53

When cannibalism comes, we'll be eating the fat people first :)And losing another sixty pounds suddenly becomes an appealing prospect! :D

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 03:55

Hmm it's probably safe to say (and "experts" from all over the "political spectrum" would be unanimous) that this one is the mother of all recessions, comparable to the 1930s great depression if not worse
Get real. It is nowhere near as bad as the '30s, which in any case generated relatively few incidents of civil disorder.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 03:55

Don't reveal too much of your bias will you?

Bloody hell but do you honestly anticipate the middle classes, those reknowned civil activists and protestors, joining with their natural proletarian allies and overthrowing the nasty old upper classes? With all due respect, which, to you, is minimal, the middle classes are unlikely to react with any real physical vigour. They haven't done so in the west for decades.
My answer is far broader than the myopic question it answered.

I can tell you that when Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) spoke last week to a select group of people, he almost had a riot on his hands from middle class workers facing job losses who came to protest his continued "mantra" of "we need wall street bonuses to balance the city budget" and "the trickle down theory works." They ended up arresting quite a few of the people who protested, and the Mayor looked quite startled.

If he and others like him do not stop their "let them eat cake" attitude, it will be a very long, hot summer for him and them.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:56

Get real. It is nowhere near as bad as the '30s, which in any case generated relatively few incidents of civil disorder.

Germany, Spain and Italy doesnt count?

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 03:57

Germany, Spain and Italy doesnt count?

Exactly what I was about to say.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 03:57

Yes, so far, the "trickle down" applies only to nationalizing debts of the rich and the industries, who simultaneously want to keep assets privatized (for themselves). I wish I could laugh, perhaps when we all get through this my anger will subside.

Remove your flatcap and stop vibrating with self-righteous ire. Neither you, nor anybody else on NSG, would act any different to the much reviled bankers; you are simply cultivating your own interests as one of those left vulnerable to the tides of global economics.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 03:59

My answer is far broader than the myopic question it answered.

I can tell you that when Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) spoke last week to a select group of people, he almost had a riot on his hands from middle class workers facing job losses who came to protest his continued "mantra" of "we need wall street bonuses to balance the city budget" and "the trickle down theory works." They ended up arresting quite a few of the people who protested, and the Mayor looked quite startled.

If he and others like him do not stop their "let them eat cake" attitude, it will be a very long, hot summer for him and them.
Here, take a look for yourself at what is just the beginning:

Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By ProtestersFeb 3, 2009 ... Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By Protesters - The Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/bloomberg-speech-interrup_n_163605.html - 138k - Cached - Similar pages -

Queens Crap: PROTESTERS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECHFeb 3, 2009 ... About 100 protesters stormed a Manhattan hotel ballroom and interrupted a speech by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, shouting "this is what ...
queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/02/protestors-interrupt-mayor-bloombergs.html - 137k - Cached - Similar pages -

PROTESTORS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECH AT THE GRAND HYATT ...Feb 3, 2009 ... Shouting "This is what democracy looks like!", about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was ...
www.nypost.com/seven/02032009
/news/regionalnews/protestors_interrupt_mayor_bloombergs_sp_153380.htm - 67k - Cached - Similar pages -

Protestors stop Bloomberg speech - 2/03/09 - New York News and Tri ...About 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom and interrupted his speech.
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6638963&rss=rss-wabc-article-6638963 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages -

'Bloomberg to democracy: Drop Dead': Protestors - and supporters ...Oct 17, 2008 ... Day Two of the City Council's packed hearings on extending term limits, proved just as fractious Friday as they did the day before.
www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/10/17/2008-10-17_bloomberg_to_democracy_drop_dead_protest.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages -

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 03:59

Germany, Spain and Italy doesnt count?No, they don't. :rolleyes:

Exactly what I was about to say.Did you even read your own title? Discussion on civil unrest in the US

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 03:59

Remove your flatcap and stop vibrating with self-righteous ire. Neither you, nor anybody else on NSG, would act any different to the much reviled bankers; you are simply cultivating your own interests as one of those left vulnerable to the tides of global economics.

I know I wouldnt, and Because I know I wouldnt, I know they wouldnt either...

So why would we give them Money, knowing it wouldnt help matters?

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:00

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:00

remove your flatcap and stop vibrating with self-righteous ire. Neither you, nor anybody else on nsg, would act any different to the much reviled bankers; you are simply cultivating your own interests as one of those left vulnerable to the tides of global economics.
huh?

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:01

Yes, so far, the "trickle down" applies only to nationalizing debts of the rich and the industries, who simultaneously want to keep assets privatized (for themselves). I wish I could laugh, perhaps when we all get through this my anger will subside.

I know you're a Democrat partisan but you have to realize trickle up economics hasn't been going on for just 8 years. Inflation, coporatism, fascism, and erosion of the middle and lower class's purchasing power have all been Bill Clinton's and Alan Greenspan's active policy too. Our current Democratic president can only gain credibility if he repeals Bush's bank bailouts and takes back all the taxpayer money that have gone to socializing bank losses. Instead Obama and Geithner propose to shovel more endless billions of dollars to their monocled friends.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:01

And if you can't source this, intellectual rigour will force me to dismiss as it unreliable testimony. If you can, please do.

Frankly, the social, political and economic institutions of the west will endure. Are you genuinely naive enough to believe otherwise, and that from the fires of recession you might forge a fairer world?
Here you go for sources--read it and weep, it is just the beginning:

Here, take a look for yourself at what is just the beginning:

Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By ProtestersFeb 3, 2009 ... Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By Protesters - The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_163605.html - 138k - Cached - Similar pages -

Queens Crap: PROTESTERS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECHFeb 3, 2009 ... About 100 protesters stormed a Manhattan hotel ballroom and interrupted a speech by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, shouting "this is what ...
queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/02/protestors-interrupt-mayor-bloombergs.html - 137k - Cached - Similar pages -

PROTESTORS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECH AT THE GRAND HYATT ...Feb 3, 2009 ... Shouting "This is what democracy looks like!", about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was ...
www.nypost.com/seven/02032009
/news/regionalnews/protestors_interrupt_mayor_bloombergs_sp_153380.htm - 67k - Cached - Similar pages -

Protestors stop Bloomberg speech - 2/03/09 - New York News and Tri ...About 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom and interrupted his speech.
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6638963&rss=rss-wabc-article-6638963 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages -

'Bloomberg to democracy: Drop Dead': Protestors - and supporters ...Oct 17, 2008 ... Day Two of the City Council's packed hearings on extending term limits, proved just as fractious Friday as they did the day before.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...d_protest.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages -

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:02

I know you're a Democrat partisan but you have to realize trickle up economics hasn't been going on for just 8 years. Inflation, coporatism, fascism, and erosion of the middle and lower class's purchasing power have all been Bill Clinton's and Alan Greenspan's active policy too. Our current Democratic president can only gain credibility if he repeals Bush's bank bailouts and takes back all the taxpayer money that have gone to socializing bank losses. Instead Obama and Geithner propose to shovel more endless billions of dollars to their monocled friends.
I guess you must be in the top 1-3% of the US population that benefitted?

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:02

I know I wouldnt, and Because I know I wouldnt, I know they wouldnt either...

So why would we give them Money, knowing it wouldnt help matters?

Why capitalise "money"? Or "because"?

To be candid, that strikes me as so much bollocks; you haven't the slightest notion how you'd think as a highly educated, rapacious banker, however, since they all act in much the same fashion, I suspect you'd do the same.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:04

Here you go for sources--read it and weep, it is just the beginning:

Here, take a look for yourself at what is just the beginning:

Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By ProtestersFeb 3, 2009 ... Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By Protesters - The Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_163605.html - 138k - Cached - Similar pages -

Queens Crap: PROTESTERS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECHFeb 3, 2009 ... About 100 protesters stormed a Manhattan hotel ballroom and interrupted a speech by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, shouting "this is what ...
queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/02/protestors-interrupt-mayor-bloombergs.html - 137k - Cached - Similar pages -

PROTESTORS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECH AT THE GRAND HYATT ...Feb 3, 2009 ... Shouting "This is what democracy looks like!", about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was ...
www.nypost.com/seven/02032009
/news/regionalnews/protestors_interrupt_mayor_bloombergs_sp_153380.htm - 67k - Cached - Similar pages -

Protestors stop Bloomberg speech - 2/03/09 - New York News and Tri ...About 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom and interrupted his speech.
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6638963&rss=rss-wabc-article-6638963 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages -

'Bloomberg to democracy: Drop Dead': Protestors - and supporters ...Oct 17, 2008 ... Day Two of the City Council's packed hearings on extending term limits, proved just as fractious Friday as they did the day before.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...d_protest.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages -
By the way, I am not advocating a loss of any institutions in the US--that is your idea.

I am saying, however, that the economic engine has to shift dramatically so that benefits in fact DO trickle down, and not up.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:04

Here, take a look for yourself at what is just the beginning:

Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By ProtestersFeb 3, 2009 ... Bloomberg Speech Interrupted By Protesters - The Huffington Post.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/03/bloomberg-speech-interrup_n_163605.html - 138k - Cached - Similar pages -

Queens Crap: PROTESTERS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECHFeb 3, 2009 ... About 100 protesters stormed a Manhattan hotel ballroom and interrupted a speech by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, shouting "this is what ...
queenscrap.blogspot.com/2009/02/protestors-interrupt-mayor-bloombergs.html - 137k - Cached - Similar pages -

PROTESTORS INTERRUPT MAYOR BLOOMBERG'S SPEECH AT THE GRAND HYATT ...Feb 3, 2009 ... Shouting "This is what democracy looks like!", about 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom Tuesday where Mayor Michael Bloomberg was ...
www.nypost.com/seven/02032009
/news/regionalnews/protestors_interrupt_mayor_bloombergs_sp_153380.htm - 67k - Cached - Similar pages -

Protestors stop Bloomberg speech - 2/03/09 - New York News and Tri ...About 100 protesters stormed a hotel ballroom and interrupted his speech.
abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6638963&rss=rss-wabc-article-6638963 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages -

'Bloomberg to democracy: Drop Dead': Protestors - and supporters ...Oct 17, 2008 ... Day Two of the City Council's packed hearings on extending term limits, proved just as fractious Friday as they did the day before.
www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/10/17/2008-10-17_bloomberg_to_democracy_drop_dead_protest.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages -

And you will still achieve bugger all. Absolutely bugger all. Because, the moment the economy rectifies itself, and growth returns, the majority will return to political apathy.

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 04:05

Here you go for sources--read it and weep, it is just the beginning:
How many deaths?
Zero?
Yawn.

Lacadaemon

10-02-2009, 04:05

The universities will be the first things to close.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:06

I guess you must be in the top 1-3% of the US population that benefitted?

Why would I criticize Obama if I benefited from the billions of dollars he is giving me and my fellow bankers?

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:06

Get real. It is nowhere near as bad as the '30s, which in any case generated relatively few incidents of civil disorder.

Not yet, the full effects of the 1929 crash didn't really hit until 30/31, people were talking as airily as we are.

The simple fact is that it's an unknown, it really is, no one can definitively state even an approximation of what will happen, history will determine whether it's the Chicken Littles or the Ostriches in the Sand who are closer to the truth.

None of the economic indictors are promising though.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:08

I guess you must be in the top 1-3% of the US population that benefitted?

1-3%? Jesus Christ but do you subscribe to an antiquated half-baked Marxist demographic thesis? High Medieval states had an aristocracy of perhaps 5% at the least....

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 04:08

Why capitalise "money"? Or "because"?

To be candid, that strikes me as so much bollocks; you haven't the slightest notion how you'd think as a highly educated, rapacious banker, however, since they all act in much the same fashion, I suspect you'd do the same.

Thats what Im saying, and because I know I would do the same, I know beforehand that the Bankers are going to do just that, line their own pockets...

So, if we both know that the Bankers arent going to help their constituents, then why should we give them Money...

And the main reason I capitalize in that fashion, is because in text format I cant put the emphasis on the words I would normally put emphasis on in real life, therefore, Capitalizing helps get the tone of my conversation across...

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:08

Did you even read your own title?

The title of this thread concerns the US. Doesn't mean we can't learn things from events in other countries.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:09

Thats what Im saying, and because I know I would do the same, I know beforehand that the Bankers are going to do just that, line their own pockets...

So, if we both know that the Bankers arent going to help their constituents, then why should we give them Money...

And the main reason I capitalize in that fashion, is because in text format I cant put the emphasis on the words I would normally put emphasis on in real life, therefore, Capitalizing helps get the tone of my conversation across...

But it is a little crude no?

Frankly, why concern yourself with it greatly? Neither individual nor collective action will change the system; exploit it instead.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 04:10

But it is a little crude no?

Frankly, why concern yourself with it greatly? Neither individual nor collective action will change the system; exploit it instead.

Not going to argue with you there...Doesnt mean I have to like it particularly though, lol

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:11

The universities will be the first things to close.

Yeah, right.

Anti-Social Darwinism

10-02-2009, 04:11

A whole bunch of people who would like to retire are going to find that they can't - because Social Security will go into the toilet and corporations and bankrupt states will raid retirement funds to shore up their crumbling economies. This will leave retirement funds bankrupt. Those of us who have retired will find our pensions gone for the same reasons. There will be a gray revolution as the retirees and would be retirees march on various capitals. Since we are the sixties generation and have experience in these matters, we will probably be leading in sit-ins, be-ins, sing-ins and general nuisance-value attention getting demonstrations which will, without violence, cause embarrassment to the government.

Also, as the baby-boomer generations starts flooding back into the job market, jobs, including part-time jobs, will become even more scarce - there will be a lot of inter-generational strife.

It could, and probably will, get uglier.

Lacadaemon

10-02-2009, 04:11

Not yet, the full effects of the 1929 crash didn't really hit until 30/31, people were talking as airily as we are.

The simple fact is that it's an unknown, it really is, no one can definitively state even an approximation of what will happen, history will determine whether it's the Chicken Littles or the Ostriches in the Sand who are closer to the truth.

None of the economic indictors are promising though.

It was the biggest credit bubble in history. Bigger than the 1929 bubble. So it's pretty easy to figure out what is going to happen.

On the plus side, many countries are materially richer than back then, so even the relative fall in living standards will be greater than 1929-1932, the baseline standard of living will be much higher. And, since social safety nets are - in theory - more extensive, there probably won't be the homelessness and mass internal migrations. Think of the UK in the 30s, rather than somewhere like Aus, or the US.

There really is no way that there is a happy ending to this.

The producer nations, Germany, Japan, China, are probably more fucked than the consumer nations, UK, US. Not that it's at all relevant, I just find it funny.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:12

An interesting collection of letters to Government in the 30's, some of the same 'goddamn bankers', some serious racism but mostly just desperation.

http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/depression_letters.pdf

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 04:14

1-3%? Jesus Christ but do you subscribe to an antiquated half-baked Marxist demographic thesis? High Medieval states had an aristocracy of perhaps 5% at the least....
The above post is so funny -- I just want to thank you for it. :D "High medieval..." :D :D

Also, I'm really enjoying the way you criticize GOBAMAWIN for his bias while you post the things you've posted, and you criticize Skallvia for speculating while almost all your posts have been filled with things you doubt, imagine, and suspect, and your prognistications of what other people think. You really are entertaining.

But let's get serious for a moment: Is it your view that there will be no civil unrest in the US, per the OP question? I base that on a couple small remarks in some of your posts. If that is so, do you have anything to add to that, or are you just going to spend your time ridiculing other people?

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:17

The producer nations, Germany, Japan, China, are probably more fucked than the consumer nations, UK, US.

Hmm that's a good point. China in 2009 is in a similar position as US in 1929, both countries being the world's biggest creditors, industrial manufacturers, and owners of foreign exchange in their respective eras.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:19

Here is what occurred in Iceland:

Protests over economic crisis topple Icelandic governmentJan 28, 2009 ... Protests over economic crisis topple Icelandic government ... youth and middle-class people who are being impoverished by the collapse of ...
www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/icel-j28.shtml - 30k - Cached - Similar pages -

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:24

Lacadaemon

10-02-2009, 04:24

Yeah, right.

There is a higher education bubble.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:24

Here is what is happening across Europe:

Governments across Europe tremble as effects of global recession ...Jan 31, 2009 ... Greek farmers block the road into Bulgaria in protest at low prices for their produce. ... Alexandros Grigoropoulos, a 15-year-old middle-class boy going .... 19 Jan 2009. European commission: UK economy will shrink 2.8% ...
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/31/global-recession-europe-protests - 88k - Cached - Similar pages -
Social unrest spreads in Europe | The Economic PopulistWhat is in The Economic Stimulus Bill of 2009? .... The previous day a protest of 10000 against the government in Latvia turned into a riot. ... Although throughout History, the minute the middle class is flattened is an opportune time ...
www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/social-unrest-spreads-europe - 69k - Cached - Similar pages -

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:26

Hmm that's a good point. China in 2009 is in a similar position as US in 1929, both countries being the world's biggest creditors, industrial manufacturers, and owners of foreign exchange in their respective eras.

One could argue that it's not dissimilar to Britain and the US just prior to the 1st World War.

America grew on investment and exports, cotton and tobacco among others. Britain was still running the global economy, China is currently in a similar position compared to the US.

WW1 bankrupted Britain, overextended around the world coupled with internal production loss, leaving a rough equilibrium until the 30s, America was, as you say, a creditor nation. They're huge manufacturers, have large foreign deposits etc.,

The huge public works in the 30s meant America came out of the WW2 in a globally dominant position.

China has the same huge distribution inefficiencies as America did, huge public works over the next 5-10 years might also leave China in a very strong position compared to a bankrupted US.

I suspect this is a shady comparison, China has enormous environmental, education and population issues, it's there though.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:28

How many deaths?
Zero?
Yawn.
I am surprised that you feel only bloodshed will make the difference.

Again, what you see just starting in NYC (not in the boondocks surmised by this thread) is already occurring across Europe, in Iceland and other areas.

Feel free to yawn now, but sooner or later you will wake up.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:30

And you will still achieve bugger all. Absolutely bugger all. Because, the moment the economy rectifies itself, and growth returns, the majority will return to political apathy.
That may be so, but it will be because they have jobs, food and shelter again.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:30

I am surprised that you feel only bloodshed will make the difference.

Again, what you see just starting in NYC (not in the boondocks surmised by this thread) is already occurring across Europe, in Iceland and other areas.

Feel free to yawn now, but sooner or later you will wake up.

Are you advocating armed resistance to the Obama government and the Obama-Geithner-Wall Street axis?

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:31

There is a higher education bubble.

It's fantastic to inhabit. Warm, comfortable, and thoroughly insulated against the vicissitudes of the outside world.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:32

A whole bunch of people who would like to retire are going to find that they can't - because Social Security will go into the toilet and corporations and bankrupt states will raid retirement funds to shore up their crumbling economies. This will leave retirement funds bankrupt. Those of us who have retired will find our pensions gone for the same reasons. There will be a gray revolution as the retirees and would be retirees march on various capitals. Since we are the sixties generation and have experience in these matters, we will probably be leading in sit-ins, be-ins, sing-ins and general nuisance-value attention getting demonstrations which will, without violence, cause embarrassment to the government.

There's something quite lovely about this image :)

Go gray revolution go!

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 04:33

Feel free to yawn now, but sooner or later you will wake up.To what, the sun rising again? There's nothing to "wake up" to. The American middle and lower class isn't going to rise up in some sort of revolution.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:33

Are you advocating armed resistance to the Obama government and the Obama-Geithner-Wall Street axis?
I have not "advocated" for armed resistence to anything. Your thread posited a very narrow idea that there would be protests in "boondock" areas of the country or by groups who, apparently, in your view do not matter.

I responded to your thread by pointing out that your limited view of civil unrest in this economic millieu, which is worldwide, is too limited. I have now shown you that civil unrest is occurring in NYC, across Europe and Iceland.

You are the one talking about violence, anarchy, the overthrow of institutions and armed resistance. None of which was the topic of this thread as far as I know or knew when I responded.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:34

That may be so, but it will be because they have jobs, food and shelter again.

Because it is then a natural response to unemployment to riot? That must explain the conspicuous absence of over 1 million unemployed rioting Britains everyday then?

Moreover, people still have "food and shelter". Can you provide evidence for the untold thousands starving on the streets that your conceit informs you must have arisen from republican government?

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:34

There's something quite lovely about this image :)

Go gray revolution go!
Exactly right, and there will be lots and lots of good company!

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:34

To what, the sun rising again? There's nothing to "wake up" to. The American middle and lower class isn't going to rise up in some sort of revolution.

Perhaps not, I can certainly see greater civil unrest, we're already seeing parts, much like the economy, it's just unknown as to the extent.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:35

To what, the sun rising again? There's nothing to "wake up" to. The American middle and lower class isn't going to rise up in some sort of revolution.

It will in GOBAMAWINland.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:36

A scary picture for the US: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/SY845fmAqNI/AAAAAAAAFkM/AX6K0pwVexU/s1600-h/job-losses.png

Needless to say as unemployment rises, the likelihood of civil disturbances increases. Crime rates go up, etc.

In your opinion what should we expect in terms of civil unrest in the US? Demonstrations by the urban unemployed? Uprisings by syndicalists in the cities, and white supremacists in Montana? Rodney King-style race riots? Or just slight upticks in crime?

For people in the US -what preparations are you making, if any at all? Are you buying guns, ammunition, water, canned food, and 50-lb. bags of dried beans? Or do you forecast that things will not get so bad?
This was your question and I thought I answered it. Are you onlylasking about whether there will be riots? The topic was "civil unrest." We already have it as do other countries, and they are in large metropolitan and other areas.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:37

It will in GOBAMAWINland.

It's a difference of degrees, I don't think we'll be seeing a mass uprising resulting in the overthrow of government a la 1917 Russia or 1789 France - although, honestly, some commentators think it a possibility - but there will be civil unrest and, as has been shown in this thread, there already is.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:38

I have not "advocated" for armed resistence to anything. Your thread posited a very narrow idea that there would be protests in "boondock" areas of the country or by groups who, apparently, in your view do not matter.

I responded to your thread by pointing out that your limited view of civil unrest in this economic millieu, which is worldwide, is too limited. I have now shown you that civil unrest is occurring in NYC, across Europe and Iceland.

You are the one talking about violence, anarchy, the overthrow of institutions and armed resistance. None of which was the topic of this thread as far as I know or knew when I responded.
Where did I "posit" the idea there would be unrest only in boondock areas? I referred to the urban unemployed and workers' unions in my original post, which you then dismissed as irrelevant and "divisive". You're repeatedly contradicting yourself.

Lacadaemon

10-02-2009, 04:38

China has the same huge distribution inefficiencies as America did, huge public works over the next 5-10 years might also leave China in a very strong position compared to a bankrupted US.

I suspect this is a shady comparison, China has enormous environmental, education and population issues, it's there though.

It's a matter of timeframes. Eventually what you say about china is true. It's a creditor nation and can use that to grow internal demand and build infrastructure, so eventually it will end up in a relatively stronger position.

But in the short term, over the next few years, it will go through relatively much more pain because it is so geared towards an export market which has effectively ceased to exist. So unemployment will be much more severe compared to the US most likely. You have to add to that the fact that America is materially much wealthier, which acts as a far greater social safety net.

If you look at the Great Depression as a comparison, the exporting nations; US, Aus &c. suffered economically (GDP contraction wise) far more during the collapse phase than the importers, France, UK &c.

Of course it's never exactly the same play twice, for example we haven't recently been through anything like WWI - though the cold war had some similar effects. But the reasons for the difference still sort of hold, so it's a good guide.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:39

It will in GOBAMAWINland.
Read the articles about where "civil unrest" is occurring and the "unrest" is by the middle classes each time--perhaps you will learn something, or perhaps this prospect scares you.

Gauntleted Fist

10-02-2009, 04:39

Perhaps not, I can certainly see greater civil unrest, we're already seeing parts, much like the economy, it's just unknown as to the extent.Perhaps, but I don't see "civil unrest" going as anything other than "unrest". Sure, people are bound to be discontent with the situation. Doesn't mean they'll do much about it.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:41

It's a difference of degrees, I don't think we'll be seeing a mass uprising resulting in the overthrow of government a la 1917 Russia or 1789 France - although, honestly, some commentators think it a possibility - but there will be civil unrest and, as has been shown in this thread, there already is.

I agree with you, however, I doubt the pan-societal concerted effort to overturn the institutions of the west that GOBAMAWIN envisages will occur. More localised and isolated expressions of frustration than revolutionary zeal.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:42

One could argue that it's not dissimilar to Britain and the US just prior to the 1st World War.

America grew on investment and exports, cotton and tobacco among others. Britain was still running the global economy, China is currently in a similar position compared to the US.

WW1 bankrupted Britain, overextended around the world coupled with internal production loss, leaving a rough equilibrium until the 30s, America was, as you say, a creditor nation. They're huge manufacturers, have large foreign deposits etc.,

The huge public works in the 30s meant America came out of the WW2 in a globally dominant position.

China has the same huge distribution inefficiencies as America did, huge public works over the next 5-10 years might also leave China in a very strong position compared to a bankrupted US.

I suspect this is a shady comparison, China has enormous environmental, education and population issues, it's there though.

The comparisons are probably valid. A frightening comparison to make is 2009 US and Weimar Germany, two countries dealing with unserviceable foreign debts. Even if no latter day Hitler comes to the US (he would come from Canada, since the original Hitler migrated from upper Austria :D ), the national debts of a US or Weimar Germany are depressing to contemplate.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:42

One thing I've personally noticed in regards to jobs, I used to receive maybe 1-2 CVs a month, mostly from HK people.

I'm now receiving, at least, 1 a day, and from all over the world, a lot of Indians laid off in Guangzhou, a lot of Italians oddly, a lot of Europeans and Americans,

They're flooding in, I should set up an auto-response.

It's genuinely noticeable and I suspect, by April, we'll have a much clearer and incontrovertible view on the ultimate direction.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:43

Read the articles about where "civil unrest" is occurring and the "unrest" is by the middle classes each time--perhaps you will learn something, or perhaps this prospect scares you.

Terribly, yes. In fact, my thoroughly middle class girlfriend, friends and I were discussing only this morning how to letterbomb the tax office. This may be a trans-Atlantic difference, but, frankly, the British middle class won't be doing anything more revolutionary than shopping at George instead of Boden.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:43

It's fantastic to inhabit. Warm, comfortable, and thoroughly insulated against the vicissitudes of the outside world.

For you people in UK, Oxford and Cambridge would survive the harrowing of the universities. I don't know if many others will.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:44

Where did I "posit" the idea there would be unrest only in boondock areas? I referred to the urban unemployed and workers' unions in my original post, which you then dismissed as irrelevant and "divisive". You're repeatedly contradicting yourself.
Here is your question:

"Demonstrations by the urban unemployed? Uprisings by syndicalists in the cities, and white supremacists in Montana? Rodney King-style race riots? Or just slight upticks in crime?"

You are suggesting only "white supremacits in Montana," "syndicalists in the cities" and "Rodney King-style racists" will participate in civil unrest due to the economic crisis in the US and worldwide.

I have pointed out now, several times, that your questions or "suggestions" about who will participate in civil unrest lacks any depth and any real understanding of the problem and who is likely to be participating in civil unrest.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 04:44

For you people in UK, Oxford and Cambridge would survive the harrowing of the universities. I don't know if many others will.

I'd bet good money on it. Most universities are expanding to accomodate increased admissions, not contracting.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:46

I agree with you, however, I doubt the pan-societal concerted effort to overturn the institutions of the west that GOBAMAWIN envisages will occur. More localised and isolated expressions of frustration than revolutionary zeal.
You use big words, but they don't mean anything and, once again, no one has suggested the overthrow of any institutions but you and the thread poster.

Just like a republican to twist and recharacterize the responses they don't like because they have no other way of intellectually responding themselves.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:46

This was your question and I thought I answered it. Are you onlylasking about whether there will be riots? The topic was "civil unrest." We already have it as do other countries, and they are in large metropolitan and other areas.

I asked an open ended question about the next few years in the US, and the thread's discussion can go where it will. Your links about Europe and NYC are informative certainly.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 04:48

Thank you. I have done my best.

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 04:50

There is a higher education bubble.
Harvard University is already considering lay-offs. I live nearby. It's all the talk locally.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 04:52

Here is our question:

"Demonstrations by the urban unemployed? Uprisings by syndicalists in the cities, and white supremacists in Montana? Rodney King-style race riots? Or just slight upticks in crime?

You just took my quote out of context and misquoted me. This was my original question, which you purposely deleted from your post: "In your opinion what should we expect in terms of civil unrest in the US?"

"Demonstrations by the urban unemployed, syndicalists, race riots" - these are just to start the discussion. I'm not asking you to insist there are race riots, and neither am I claiming there must be race riots.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 04:52

I'd bet good money on it. Most universities are expanding to accomodate increased admissions, not contracting.

Well, housing prices were shooting through the roof prior to the collapse, hence Lacadaemon's use of the word bubble.

Lord Tothe

10-02-2009, 04:59

I'd say the odds are better than 50/50 for a looming major depression. If so, we face some huge hurdles - far fewer farmers and gardeners to supply food locally, and a crippling dependence on Uncle Sam to fix everything.

Lacadaemon

10-02-2009, 05:01

Harvard University is already considering lay-offs. I live nearby. It's all the talk locally.

The endowment lost billions. Officially 18%, but the rumor is that they are pulling a 'bank job' and overvaluing a lot of the stuff.

And credit for student loans is drying up rapidly.

There is going to have to be some mass consolidation across the sector eventually. The growth just isn't/wasn't sustainable. I think, given the cost/benefit, we're going to see the better quality state schools get a surge, and see a lot more people doing part-time locally.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 05:02

You just took my quote out of context and misquoted me. This was my original question, which you purposely deleted from your post: "In your opinion what should we expect in terms of civil unrest in the US?"

"Demonstrations by the urban unemployed, syndicalists, race riots" - these are just to start the discussion. I'm not asking you to insist there are race riots, and neither am I claiming there must be race riots.
Anyone can re-read what you posted, and I have re-posted it, and it is not as you characterize it. For the time being, I will pretend along with you that you never included references to "white supremacists in Montana" and "Rodney King-style racists" as if these are the types of people you would expect to participate in civil unrest due to economic conditions. Perhaps you thought it was funny and I missed the joke.

Now, I will assume that you now understand my point, that the middle and lower classes in the US are LARGE, and the potential for widespread civil unrest is similarly LARGE, and this is already occurring worldwide and has started here in NYC due to the economic conditions of the last 8 years.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 05:09

Anyone can re-read what you posted, and I have re-posted it, and it is not as you characterize it. For the time being, I will pretend along with you that you never included references to "white supremacists in Montana" and "Rodney King-style racists" as if these are the types of people you would expect to participate in civil unrest due to economic conditions. Perhaps you thought it was funny and I missed the joke.

Yeah, you missed the joke. I should probably have added "riots by Sesame Street muppets" to make the discussion even more open ended.

Now, I will assume that you now understand my point, that the middle and lower classes in the US are LARGE, and the potential for widespread civil unrest is similarly LARGE, and this is already occurring worldwide and has started here in NYC due to the economic conditions of the last 8 years.

I never disputed that. Of the "urban unemployed, Montana militias, and race rioters" you keep referring to, I personally believe there will be the most unrest from the urban unemployed.

Anti-Social Darwinism

10-02-2009, 05:11

It's fantastic to inhabit. Warm, comfortable, and thoroughly insulated against the vicissitudes of the outside world.

Not really. I worked for a University for over twenty years. The higher level administration and the tenured professors are "warm, comfortable, and thoroughly insulated against the vicissitudes of the outside world." The students whose parents can afford the costs are insulated. The adjunct professors, untenured teachers, clerical workers, janitorial workers, lab assistants, research assistants, technicians and field workers have no such protections. I survived through "trimming the fat" (i.e. laying off necessary workers and piling more work on the remaining workers) until I was doing the work of three people (as was everyone around my except the administrators). Then one day I was told that the budget had been cut once again and I was facing either layoff or time cut. In our Department (a support department that was supposed to work for the entire Bio-Ag department in a large University) there were 10 field workers (and over 800 acres of varied experimental plantings requiring a high level of skill) and two clerical workers - these twelve people were expected to do the work that had originally been done by 48 people - and do it accurately and in a timely fashion (this is when I retired -enough was enough). Oh, and promotions and lateral transfers were frozen.

Work study, financial aid, and scholarships have also been frozen. Middle class and poor students are having a hard, if not impossible time, while the children of the wealthy are having their usual easy ride.

I'd say this is going to be happening in universities everywhere, private and public, and soon if it isn't happening already.

Barringtonia

10-02-2009, 05:12

fightin' talk

fightin' talk

See, it's starting already..

There's nothing civil about unrest.

GOBAMAWIN

10-02-2009, 05:17

See, it's starting already..

There's nothing civil about unrest.
Right you are!

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 05:19

See, it's starting already..

There's nothing civil about unrest.

Alright, I'll mellow out now. :tongue:

GOBAMAWIN, to make sure we're on the same page, there is a reason this thread is entitled "Discussion on civil unrest in the US" and not "Race riots will come to the US." It's an open ended discussion, I never made any strong claims in the original post, because I want to learn what you all think since I myself am quite confused and uncertain about the future of this country. If I offended you by inadvertently appearing to believe race riots will come to this country then I apologize.

Zilam

10-02-2009, 05:31

If unrest happens, I'll be ready. Got me guns and my gear. I'll hold my own.

Skallvia

10-02-2009, 05:31

I myself am quite confused and uncertain about the future of this country.

Im not, Im fairly certain the future is going to suck for this country, and most other countries...

Im also quite Certain that itll be business as usual, because the Rich'll get richer, and the poor poorer, and like the Joker was fond of saying "Its all part of the plan" people expect these things, and noone's going to really bitch about it...

I do expect that the Middle Class will shrink, as McDonalds and their ilke, and Walmart and their ilke Gobble up all the shrinking Middle Class jobs, as those continue to hemorrhage into foreign economies...

But, because those people will still have subsistence incomes, and people are easily distracted by good entertainment(ala the Roman Coliseums) and a feeling that the aforementioned Forums, Blogs and Radio programs actually mean anything, the ramifications will be tame at best...

greed and death

10-02-2009, 06:07

Crime rates in the US are not affected by the economy. not certain but i think i read somewhere that crime rates went down during the great depression.

As for civil disobedience. not really a US problem in regards to the economy, our problem is mostly the police tend to over react.

One-O-One

10-02-2009, 07:51

The world degenerating, or evolving (depending on how you look at it) into city-states is a pipe dream of mine...

I think I just want to be a dictator.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 07:53

Crime rates in the US are not affected by the economy. not certain but i think i read somewhere that crime rates went down during the great depression.

Hmm that is encouraging.

greed and death

10-02-2009, 09:12

Hmm that is encouraging.

nothing worth stealing if we are all poor.

Cameroi

10-02-2009, 09:21

only if wall mart offers a two for one special on land mines and similar devices.

The blessed Chris

10-02-2009, 14:40

You use big words, but they don't mean anything and, once again, no one has suggested the overthrow of any institutions but you and the thread poster.

Just like a republican to twist and recharacterize the responses they don't like because they have no other way of intellectually responding themselves.

Republican? moi?

God no.

Mogthuania

10-02-2009, 15:30

My preparations:

I'm buying some real estate while the prices are low and snatching up large amounts of GM and Ford stock while they are in the single digits.

Wanderjar

10-02-2009, 16:17

I doubt anything of that sort will happen. The stimulus package currently in Congress looks like it may help out a bit, and the psychological effect on the market will likely be positive as well. We may see an increase in crime, but riots? Probably not.

I seriously doubt the stimulus package is going to help at all, but thats neither here nor there. I do not know whats going to happen, but I CAN tell you that the world is in for some interesting times.

Call to power

10-02-2009, 18:14

hasn't the US been on the brink of collapse for decades now?

surely all this talk I heard about the US being a nation that needs war to sustain itself means that we just need to invade Iran :p (also OP source is irrelevant as the US now has a population of 303,824,640 which is like [I can't be arsed to find US pop during the 30's] more)

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 18:24

Call to power

10-02-2009, 18:40

We passed the brink this winter.

didn't the US pass it with the fall of the soviet union or something?

you see I'm confused on the one hand I have qualified people saying its not going to be so bad (http://web.worldbank.org/external/default/main?theSitePK=612501&pagePK=2904583&contentMDK=20665990&menuPK=612532&piPK=2904598) and on the other I have random people on the internet going "zomg we are all going to die"...and I'm left wondering where is Israel in all this and the global war with China?

Chumblywumbly

10-02-2009, 18:41

We passed the brink this winter.
The US is collapsing?

Call to power

10-02-2009, 19:03

The US is collapsing?

haven't you seen it? just the other day a local McDonald's was pillaged by bloodthirsty little chef employees

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 19:05

For people in the US -what preparations are you making, if any at all? Are you buying guns, ammunition, water, canned food, and 50-lb. bags of dried beans? Or do you forecast that things will not get so bad?

I have always owned the necessities of survival in a SHTF scenario.

It pays to already be prepared, and already have contingency plans, just in case the world gets stupid.

Call to power

10-02-2009, 19:09

I have always owned the necessities of survival in a SHTF scenario.

lots of beer and a few greatest hits of the 80's albums?

It pays to already be prepared, and already have contingency plans, just in case the world gets stupid.

7 women to every man you say :)

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 19:16

lots of beer and a few greatest hits of the 80's albums?

And a waterbed.

7 women to every man you say :)

Of course, every man will be required to put forth prodigious effort in repopulating the human race...

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 19:19

lots of beer and a few greatest hits of the 80's albums?
And a waterbed.

Damn, I need to make these preparations...

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 19:36

didn't the US pass it with the fall of the soviet union or something?
No.

you see I'm confused on the one hand I have qualified people saying its not going to be so bad (http://web.worldbank.org/external/default/main?theSitePK=612501&pagePK=2904583&contentMDK=20665990&menuPK=612532&piPK=2904598) and on the other I have random people on the internet going "zomg we are all going to die"...and I'm left wondering where is Israel in all this and the global war with China?
On the third hand, I have qualified people, such as the economic experts of the US government and various private-sector economic experts (one example: Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics, so no matter what one might think of his philosophy, he must be able to read a spreadsheet at least), telling me that it is that bad. And they don't even mention either Israel or China.

Call to power

10-02-2009, 19:39

And a waterbed.

if you also have a pool, a BBQ and a snooker table I will gladly accept you as my new messiah :wink:

Damn, I need to make these preparations...

kick start the world economy, throw a party!

Call to power

10-02-2009, 19:43

On the third hand, I have qualified people, such as the economic experts of the US government and various private-sector economic experts (one example: Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics, so no matter what one might think of his philosophy, he must be able to read a spreadsheet at least), telling me that it is that bad. And they don't even mention either Israel or China.

I heard a rumour going round that people predict the end of the world all the time especially the less well known ones looking for popularity...course it is just a rumour and not anything like an exact science (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926788668376195177)

also give me a non-crackpot who is predicting the end of the united states

Truly Blessed

10-02-2009, 19:46

Anti-Social Darwinism

10-02-2009, 21:19

I think for civil unrest to occur you need an issue bigger than money.

The labor movement was more about the rights of workers when it started, they just wanted a fair shake. It has since become something else.

Civil rights is a great example.

Women getting the vote is another.

It has to transcend the culture in play at the moment.

Money = resources. I think allocation and use of resources is a pretty big issue. It was pretty much the source issue for all major revolutions and civil wars (religion and slavery issues were used in some cases to give a moral justification for wars and upheavals, but the base issue is who had the resources and who wanted them). Resource allocation is also the big issue in the upheavals today. Who has the money - the first world. Who wants it - the third world. Who uses it to control it's populations - every government in existence. Think about this - Civil rights is, in essence, about minority groups getting access to resources hitherto reserved for the elite - like education (which costs money), housing (which costs money), jobs (which require education and produce money), health care (which costs money). Women getting the vote (a subset of civil rights) is about women getting direct access to resources hitherto reserved for men (yes, votes do translate into money - when a group that didn't have the vote before suddenly gets it, they get, indirectly, all sorts of other perqs - like access to jobs, education and financial independence). So I would say that resources (translation money) is a huge issue and one likely to cause revolution when enough people lose resources or have their access to resources limited.

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 21:22

I have qualified people, such as the economic experts of the US government and various private-sector economic experts (one example: Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel Prize in Economics, so no matter what one might think of his philosophy, he must be able to read a spreadsheet at least), telling me that it is that bad.
I must have missed the Krugman column where he talks about upcoming slaughter in the streets.

The Lone Alliance

10-02-2009, 21:23

Well if there IS a civil war it'll be a pretty damn short one.

Rednecks "Rise up to overthrow the Ebil Commies"
Then they are quickly gunned down by everyone else.

greed and death

10-02-2009, 21:30

The US is collapsing?

not likey we owe the world too much money. even if external forces do it we will be propped up at least to ensure we pay our debt.
Like Donald Trump said you really want to hold a bank by the balls have 20% of their assets loaned to you.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 21:33

not likey we owe the world too much money. even if external forces do it we will be propped up at least to ensure we pay our debt.
Like Donald Trump said you really want to hold a bank by the balls have 20% of their assets loaned to you.

Nice. IIRC his words were to the effect of: "if you owe the bank a little bit of money, then you're in trouble... if you owe the bank a lot of money, then the bank's in trouble."

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 21:35

I must have missed the Krugman column where he talks about upcoming slaughter in the streets.

I must have missed the part where Krugman actually knows what he's talking about.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 21:36

I must have missed the part where Krugman actually knows what he's talking about.

You apparently missed the part where he has a nobel prize in Economics.

greed and death

10-02-2009, 21:36

Nice. IIRC his words were to the effect of: "if you owe the bank a little bit of money, then you're in trouble... if you owe the bank a lot of money, then the bank's in trouble."

I didn't remember the exact quote. just remember after the Asian financial crisis he told his bank look either I default on these 20 mil in loans or you loan me another 20 million more.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 21:36

You apparently missed the part where he has a nobel prize in Economics.

That doesn't mean anything. Especially when he's been so wrong for the past few years.

Anti-Social Darwinism

10-02-2009, 21:37

not likey we owe the world too much money. even if external forces do it we will be propped up at least to ensure we pay our debt.
Like Donald Trump said you really want to hold a bank by the balls have 20% of their assets loaned to you.

Doubtful. Bad debts will be written off with no more loans forthcoming. Essentially the US will be declared bankrupt and raided for assets. Pretty soon every useful asset in the US will be owned by Saudis who will also buy out the Japanese interests in this country (because the Japanese, whose wagon is pretty much hitched to the same team as the US's, will be going down, too). We'll all be pretty much wage slaves to Saudi owned business who won't be paying income taxes. That'll leave residents of the US to pay taxes to the Federal Government - the middle income and lower income residents - the wealthy will have left.

Oh, and kiss the environment, civil rights, women's rights and human rights in general, good bye.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 21:38

That doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, it actually does. And it's rather telling that instead of addressing what he said, you went straight for a complete dismissal.

Especially when he's been so wrong for the past few years.

So he's wrong, according to you, because he doesn't know what he's talking about, according to you, because he's been wrong before, according to you?

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 21:39

I didn't remember the exact quote. just remember after the Asian financial crisis he told his bank look either I default on these 20 mil in loans or you loan me another 20 million more.
Haha nice.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 21:39

So he's wrong, according to you, because he doesn't know what he's talking about, according to you, because he's been wrong before, according to you?

He didn't see the current economic crisis coming, so he's full of shit.

Pompous world

10-02-2009, 21:40

CDOs are a market place timebomb and they are going to blow possibly this week!,

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/A-tsunami-of-hope-or-terror-LHRJP?OpenDocument&src=sph

civil unrest will go into overdrive with total global economic meltdown of biblical proportions.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 21:45

He didn't see the current economic crisis coming, so he's full of shit.

Oh, I get it. Being wrong once, allegedly, means you "don't know what you're talking about," and are "full of shit."

I guess everyone doesn't know what they're talking about, and everyone is full of shit. Except maybe God. So, we're back to where we started. Address what he has to say, or not.... but this laughably contorted reasoning of yours does not serve to dismiss anything at all.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 21:46

Oh, I get it. Being wrong once, allegedly, means you "don't know what you're talking about," and are "full of shit."

I guess everyone doesn't know what they're talking about, and everyone is full of shit. Except maybe God. So, we're back to where we started. Address what he has to say, or not.... but this laughably contorted reasoning of yours does not serve to dismiss anything at all.

Sure it does. Summers, Geithner, and Krugman were all wrong about the economic crisis - none of them saw it coming at all.

They were wrong, repeatedly, for 15 years prior. What credibility does that give them?

Zero.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 21:46

not likey we owe the world too much money. even if external forces do it we will be propped up at least to ensure we pay our debt.
Like Donald Trump said you really want to hold a bank by the balls have 20% of their assets loaned to you.
Doubtful.

Not doubtful...

Bad debts will be written off with no more loans forthcoming. Essentially the US will be declared bankrupt and raided for assets. Pretty soon every useful asset in the US will be owned by Saudis who will also buy out the Japanese interests in this country (because the Japanese, whose wagon is pretty much hitched to the same team as the US's, will be going down, too). We'll all be pretty much wage slaves to Saudi owned business who won't be paying income taxes. That'll leave residents of the US to pay taxes to the Federal Government - the middle income and lower income residents - the wealthy will have left.

...if the Saudis and other foreigners own that many American assets, it would given them even more incentive to prop up the social order here so their stake isn't a complete waste.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 21:49

Oh, I get it. Being wrong once, allegedly, means you "don't know what you're talking about," and are "full of shit."

I guess everyone doesn't know what they're talking about, and everyone is full of shit. Except maybe God. So, we're back to where we started. Address what he has to say, or not.... but this laughably contorted reasoning of yours does not serve to dismiss anything at all.

Being wrong about the biggest and most significant economic event in our lifetimes calls Krugman's Sv. Bank Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel into question.

His prize should've gone to any one of the far more highly qualified economists who accurately forecast and described the economic collapse before it occurred.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 21:51

Sure it does. Summers, Geithner, and Krugman were all wrong about the economic crisis - none of them saw it coming at all.

They were wrong, repeatedly, for 15 years prior. What credibility does that give them?

Zero.

Yes this does call into question their ability to prognosticate with infallibility. No, this doesn't mean they have "zero credibility," nor "are full of shit," nor "do not know what they're talking about."

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 21:54

Yes this does call into question their ability to prognosticate with infallibility. No, this doesn't mean they have "zero credibility," nor "are full of shit," nor "do not know what they're talking about."

It does mean the economic/econometric models they were using to make predictions have zero credibility and are full of shit. And yet they're not attempting to correct or amend their models. They are continuing to relying on the same old broken models to make predictions of the future, including regarding the effects of their economic policies.

greed and death

10-02-2009, 21:56

Doubtful. Bad debts will be written off with no more loans forthcoming. Essentially the US will be declared bankrupt and raided for assets. Pretty soon every useful asset in the US will be owned by Saudis who will also buy out the Japanese interests in this country (because the Japanese, whose wagon is pretty much hitched to the same team as the US's, will be going down, too). We'll all be pretty much wage slaves to Saudi owned business who won't be paying income taxes. That'll leave residents of the US to pay taxes to the Federal Government - the middle income and lower income residents - the wealthy will have left.

Oh, and kiss the environment, civil rights, women's rights and human rights in general, good bye.

the idea of assets being seized while the military still exist seems unlikely.
And much of the worlds currency is floated on the belief that bonds hold value.
To declare those null and void would hurt the currency of the declarer. Not to mention any drastic affect on dollar would destroy ever other currency in the world, because the dollar is 70% of all foreign reserves in the world.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 21:58

Yes this does call into question their ability to prognosticate with infallibility. No, this doesn't mean they have "zero credibility," nor "are full of shit," nor "do not know what they're talking about."

given that they missed utterly and completely the most significant event in economic history (at least in their own lifetimes) it certainly makes them look pretty stupid.

Zero credibility.

There are economists and brokers who saw this coming, and knew exactly when and how each event would take place.

One used to work for a hedge fund, and made 600 million dollars betting against his employer's positions. When he left, he left an email describing what fools and idiots supposedly highly educated economists were.

Krugman is an idiot.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:01

Here's a smart fellow:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/24/nouriel-roubini-credit-crunch

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:03

Steven Keen should've won the economics prize instead of Krugman. Krugman should be out of a job in academia and be picking vegetables in a field somewhere.

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:03

One used to work for a hedge fund, and made 600 million dollars betting against his employer's positions. When he left, he left an email describing what fools and idiots supposedly highly educated economists were.

Heh, who was this?

Trostia

10-02-2009, 22:05

given that they missed utterly and completely the most significant event in economic history (at least in their own lifetimes) it certainly makes them look pretty stupid.

Zero credibility.

I guess if you just repeat your illogical conclusion over and over again it will become true through magic.

There are economists and brokers who saw this coming, and knew exactly when and how each event would take place.

And there are those who didn't. This does not make them full of shit, stupid, ignorant, incredible, etc etc whatever other bile you wish to throw up here.

One used to work for a hedge fund, and made 600 million dollars betting against his employer's positions. When he left, he left an email describing what fools and idiots supposedly highly educated economists were.

Krugman is an idiot.

Your questionable anecdote here does not in any way support your conclusion.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:07

Heh, who was this?

Here's a must-read exit letter from Andrew Lahde, a hedge-fund manager who earned an 866 percent return last year by betting on a subprime mortgage collapse. Enjoy:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b0a40c72-9c83-11dd-a42e-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fb0a40c72-9c83-11dd-a42e-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2008%2F10%2F18%2Fhedge_fund_manager_so_long _idiots_smoke_pot&nclick_check=1

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, "What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it." I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don't worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer's company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life -- where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management -- with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government.

Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man's interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft's near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won't see it included in BP's, "Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions," television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM's similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country?

Ah, the female. The evil female plant -- marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let's stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.

With that I say good-bye and good luck.

All the best,
Andrew Lahde

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:09

Your questionable anecdote here does not in any way support your conclusion.

It's not questionable, it's real, see the previous post.

Also, I posted a link to the economist who "exactly" predicted the whole economic disaster - and he's wondering why no one else couldn't see the obvious.

So Krugman, by comparison, is a fool and an idiot.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:10

Here's a must-read exit letter from Andrew Lahde, a hedge-fund manager who earned an 866 percent return last year by betting on a subprime mortgage collapse.

"Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt"? Damn, it's too bad this guy's letter is full of Chicago School agitprop and garbage.

The crisis is proof for the failure of government intervention, and a resounding validation of capitalism.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:11

"Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt"? Damn, it's too bad this guy's letter is full of Chicago School agitprop and garbage.

The crisis is proof for the failure of government intervention, and a resounding validation of capitalism.

He's pretty clear on how the government bought into the whole mess.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:11

Heh, who was this?
There were many instances of this. One reason Goldman Sachs didn't collapse last year was because some of its traders were able to recoup some staggering losses, by betting against their employer's positions.

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:13

That guy sounds pretty wise.

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:14

There were many instances of this. One reason Goldman Sachs didn't collapse last year was because some of its traders were able to recoup some staggering losses, by betting against their employer's positions.

I know that, I meant specifically what Hotwife described, with the letter and everything.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 22:14

It's not questionable, it's real, see the previous post.

Also, I posted a link to the economist who "exactly" predicted the whole economic disaster - and he's wondering why no one else couldn't see the obvious.

So Krugman, by comparison, is a fool and an idiot.

I say again - your anecdote does not support this judgment. Period. You're missing steps in what some of us like to call 'reasoning.'

But I see you are now moving the goalposts to try and say you were making a "comparison," instead of definitive statements. Sorry. No. You say he's full of shit, "period."

Why? Because you don't agree, and would prefer to attack the source rather than address the material.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:14

He's pretty clear on how the government bought into the whole mess.

No he's not. He's either erroneously or maliciously ignoring the true causes of the crisis - government regulation and price-fixing in the money market - and absurdly advocates even more government "regulations".

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:15

I know that, I meant specifically what Hotwife described, with the letter and everything.

Ah, ok.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:16

I say again - your anecdote does not support this judgment. Period. You're missing steps in what some of us like to call 'reasoning.'

But I see you are now moving the goalposts to try and say you were making a "comparison," instead of definitive statements. Sorry. No. You say he's full of shit, "period."

Why? Because you don't agree, and would prefer to attack the source rather than address the material.

You haven't proven that Krugman even knows how to tie his own shoes, much less make a sage economic prediction.

Show me a link where he saw all of this coming - in the same detail as Nouriel Roubini, who most certainly is not an anecdote.

I bet you're wishing he would go away because was right about EVERYTHING.

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 22:17

He didn't see the current economic crisis coming, so he's full of shit.
Krugman did so see the current crisis coming: he was very prominent for years among those predicting a crash. YOU are the one who is full of shit.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:19

Krugman did so see the current crisis coming: he was very prominent for years among those predicting a crash. YOU are the one who is full of shit.

He didn't see anything coming. Nouriel saw it - Krugman did not.

Here's more Krugman idiocy:

Asked Krugman regarding Obama’s comments on Reagan, “But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed? For it did fail.”

While “the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans” during the Reagan years, 1981 to 1989, Krugman argued.

In fact, a 1990 Bureau of the Census study shows that all income groups realized income gains from 1980 to 1989. More significantly, regarding upward mobility between income groups, a Treasury Department study shows that 86 percent of households in the poorest income quintile in 1979 had moved into higher income quintiles by 1989.

The median income, adjusted for inflation, of black households increased by 17 percent between 1982 and 1989, reversing a 10 percent decline from 1978 to 1982.

Additionally, the inflation rate in 1980 was 13.5 percent, a jump in the cost of living that’s least affordable for those at the bottom. By 1983 and 1986, respectively, the inflation rate had dropped to 3.2 percent and 1.9 percent.

The prime interest rate, 15.27 percent in 1980, was reduced to 9.32 percent by 1988.

The unemployment rate in the civilian labor force, rising to 7.1 percent in 1980, was cut to 5.5 percent by 1988, a decline that disproportionately benefited the lowest income households.

Measured in terms of total national output, a -0.2 percent decline in real (adjusted for inflation) GDP in 1980 was reversed to a 4.2 percent growth rate by 1988.

All told, with more jobs and lower inflation, the price-adjusted income of the poorest fifth of U.S. households increased by 12 percent in the 1980s, reversing a 17 percent slide between 1979 and 1983 before the economic recovery of the Reagan era kicked in.

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:19

The crisis is proof for the failure of government intervention, and a resounding validation of capitalism.

In what magical world does this conclusion come from your premise?

It must be easy to see it as a validation for laissez fair capitalism when you just imagine what you want to see.
He didn't see anything coming. Nouriel saw it - Krugman did not.

Here's more Krugman idiocy:

We get it. You dont like Krugman. Too bad you havent shown him to be wrong, just that you dont like him.

Your opinion does not a fact make.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 22:19

You haven't proven that Krugman even knows how to tie his own shoes

Do they regularly give out Noble prizes in economics to people who don't?

You're the one making the claim. It's your fault for not supporting it, not my fault for not refuting.

, much less make a sage economic prediction.

Show me a link where he saw all of this coming

I don't need to, because I never claimed he made "sage economic predictions" or that if he did they were 100% accurate.

- in the same detail as Nouriel Roubini, who most certainly is not an anecdote.

I bet you're wishing he would go away because was right about EVERYTHING.

I recommend you avoid casinos.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:19

I say again - your anecdote does not support this judgment. Period. You're missing steps in what some of us like to call 'reasoning.'

But I see you are now moving the goalposts to try and say you were making a "comparison," instead of definitive statements. Sorry. No. You say he's full of shit, "period."

Why? Because you don't agree, and would prefer to attack the source rather than address the material.

Krugman's "material" is garbage. His Keynesian economic model failed to predict our current economic crisis because he assumed that the deficits+government spending of the George W. Bush era would lead to indefinite economic growth, and he uses the same model to make the bold prediction that deficits+government spending of the Barack Obama era will lead to even more indefinite economic growth. Krugman is an alchemist who believes in perpetual motion machines and the principle of "something for nothing."

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 22:22

I heard a rumour going round that people predict the end of the world all the time especially the less well known ones looking for popularity...course it is just a rumour and not anything like an exact science (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926788668376195177)

also give me a non-crackpot who is predicting the end of the united states
I never said the US was ending, only that several important aspects of it appear to have passed the brink of collapse.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:22

In what magical world does this conclusion come from your premise?

It must be easy to see it as a validation for laissez fair capitalism when you just imagine what you want to see.

We get it. You dont like Krugman. Too bad you havent shown him to be wrong, just that you dont like him.

Your opinion does not a fact make.

He was wrong about the Reagan recovery. He even admits in the following column that Roubini was way ahead of him (in predicting the current crisis).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/doomsayer/

So, it looks like Krugman is an idiot, which I've proven.

On the other hand, Trostia has proved nothing.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:23

In what magical world does this conclusion come from your premise?

It must be easy to see it as a validation for laissez fair capitalism when you just imagine what you want to see.

In a laissez faire system the government would not be tampering and tinkering and intervening with interest rates.

For the past few decades the government has not for one day ceased to intervene and distort interest rates, forcing them down to unnaturally and unsustainably low levels, thereby inducing one asset bubble after another.

Had the free market been allowed to do its job, and freed from government interventions, interest rates set by the natural free market process would've been much, much higher and more sustainable throughout the 1990s and 2000s, preventing our famous bubbles from even existing in the first place, and the subsequent tragic social dislocations completely avoided.

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 22:24

I must have missed the Krugman column where he talks about upcoming slaughter in the streets.
I must have missed the part where I said he had said that.

The "it's that bad" I was talking about was the "bad" of several important aspects of the US (such as its economic systems) appearing to have gone past the brink of collapse.

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 22:25

He didn't see anything coming. Nouriel saw it - Krugman did not.
He has been talking about this impending crisis for a decade (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090223/avishai).

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:25

Krugman has made some accurate predictions, not all of them have been inaccurate.

Trostia

10-02-2009, 22:26

He was wrong about the Reagan recovery. He even admits in the following column that Roubini was way ahead of him (in predicting the current crisis).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/doomsayer/

So, it looks like Krugman is an idiot, which I've proven.

"wrong about the Reagan recovery" =/= "idiot"

Repeating yourself doesn't make your logic any more valid.

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:26

He was wrong about the Reagan recovery. He even admits in the following column that Roubini was way ahead of him (in predicting the current crisis).

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/doomsayer/

So, it looks like Krugman is an idiot, which I've proven.

By this logic, any time someone has been wrong about anything, that makes them an idiot.

Are you sure you want to go down this path DK?

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:27

Also, he is still a major influence on economists, even those who have totally different conclusions to him. I don't think you should dismiss him as an idiot, he's pretty clever.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:27

Krugman has made some accurate predictions, not all of them have been inaccurate.

Which ones?

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:28

In a laissez faire system the government would not be tampering and tinkering and intervening with interest rates.

For the past few decades the government has not for one day ceased to intervene and distort interest rates, forcing them down to unnaturally and unsustainably low levels, thereby inducing one asset bubble after another.

Had the free market been allowed to do its job, and freed from government interventions, interest rates set by the natural free market process would've been much, much higher and more sustainable throughout the 1990s and 2000s, preventing our famous bubbles from even existing in the first place, and the subsequent tragic social dislocations completely avoided.

lol.

Me thinks the laizze fair troll needs to learn history before he defends a system that history shows is disasterous.

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 22:28

I must have missed the part where I said he had said that.

The "it's that bad" I was talking about was the "bad" of several important aspects of the US (such as its economic systems) appearing to have gone past the brink of collapse.
You were responding to a post which was talking about the topic of this thread: are there going to be outbursts of civil unrest in the US? The poster was saying that informed people don't think so, but random Internet guys are screaming ZOMG! so, which should he believe. You chime in that experts like Krugman are on the pro-catastrophe side: I assumed you understood what this thread was about.

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:29

Krugman has made some accurate predictions, not all of them have been inaccurate.

He's admitted in his own column that Roubini outdid him.

He's supposed to be some great expert at predicting economic collapses - but in comparison to Roubini, it just looks like Krugman was making wild ass guesses - and Roubini was exactly, completely, dead on.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:29

lol.

Me thinks the laizze fair troll needs to learn history before he defends a system that history shows is disasterous.

So you believe that government intervention in setting interest rates somehow magically "doesn't count" as government intervention?

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 22:29

lol.

Me thinks the laizze fair troll needs to learn history before he defends a system that history shows is disasterous.

Calling people a troll just because you disagree with them is flaming.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:31

Also, he is still a major influence on economists, even those who have totally different conclusions to him. I don't think you should dismiss him as an idiot, he's pretty clever.

Krugman is only a major influence on other erroneous economists. Economists who come to totally different conclusions to him regard him as a saboteur.

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:32

So you believe that government intervention in setting interest rates somehow magically "doesn't count" as government intervention?

laizze fair has more to do with setting interest rates. The market setting interest rates isnt even on my radar when it comes to my issues with laizze fair economics.

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:33

Economists who come to totally different conclusions to him regard him as a political cancer.

Like? And don't show me some nuttly libertarian.

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:33

Calling people a troll just because you disagree with them is flaming.

We get it. All those times Trostia called you a troll hurt your feelings. Move on.

Kamsaki-Myu

10-02-2009, 22:36

So you believe that government intervention in setting interest rates somehow magically "doesn't count" as government intervention?
Whether Government or the heads of a federal bank, somebody has to set interest rates. The free market can't just tweak them itself. It's not an active agent.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:38

laizze fair has more to do with setting interest rates. The market setting interest rates isnt even on my radar when it comes to my issues with laizze fair economics.

Wow, you are seriously lacking in understanding of economics.

Interest rates represent the price of money. That's our very medium of exchange the government is price-fixing and distorting. The consequences are far-reaching and severe, maybe even more insidious than when Bolsheviks attempt to price-fix the price of leather shoes.

The reason there was a housing bubble and all these empty McMansions in California is because the government forced interest rates down so low and used monetary policy to direct paper wealth into real estate, with disastrous consequences.

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:38

Also, can someone show me a source showing that Krugman didn't see it coming?

Tmutarakhan

10-02-2009, 22:39

He's admitted in his own column that Roubini outdid him.
He and Roubini have a great deal of respect for each other: you, who don't anything about the field, ought to show more respect to people who have devoted their lives to figuring these things out.
Roubini was involved in picking up the pieces and learning what could be learned from the Argentine meltdown of 1999, but did not start predicting that a similar thing could happen in an economy the size of the US until 2004. Krugman had been talking about the probability of an eventual US meltdown even before 1999 (when his book on the subject came out).

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:40

The reason there was a housing bubble and all these empty McMansions in California is because the government forced interest rates down so low and used monetary policy to direct paper wealth into real estate, with disastrous consequences.

Seriously, it's really bad form to make assertions like this without providing sources and evidence, I know there are some sources that argue this, but that isn't the point. Saying 'I have great knowledge of economics' is not evidence.

Hydesland

10-02-2009, 22:41

This is a good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:41

Whether Government or the heads of a federal bank, somebody has to set interest rates. The free market can't just tweak them itself. It's not an active agent.

You have no idea about how this works. Of course interest rates can be set by the free market! Who do you think "tweaked" interest rates before the year 1913 when the government established its central bank? Largely the free market - resulting in economic stability - but with some occasional government intervention that inevitably produced asset bubbles and economic crashes.

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:42

Wow, you are seriously lacking in understanding of economics.

orly?

Interest rates represent the price of money.

WOW! REALLY?:rolleyes:

That's our very medium of exchange the government is price-fixing and distorting. The consequences are far-reaching and severe, maybe even more insidious than when Bolsheviks attempt to price-fix the price of leather shoes.

lol.

The reason there was a housing bubble and all these empty McMansions in California is because the government forced interest rates down so low and used monetary policy to direct paper wealth into real estate, with disastrous consequences.

Yep, thats not really the whole story. Not even close. And its not even the part everyone agrees is relevent.

Its funny how I just said my biggest issue with laizze fair has nothing to do with interest rates and you flew off the handle.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:45

orly?

WOW! REALLY?:rolleyes:

lol.

Yep, thats not really the whole story. Not even close. And its not even the part everyone agrees is relevent.

Its funny how I just said my biggest issue with laizze fair has nothing to do with interest rates and you flew off the handle.

Don't worry about it, I'm just trying to clue you in. You are seriously ignorant if you think we've been living under a laissez faire system all these years - when our very medium of exchange is 100% regulated by government technocrats.

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 22:47

Don't worry about it, I'm just trying to clue you in. You are seriously ignorant if you think we've been living under a laissez faire system all these years -

Cuz I lik totally said that, rite?

Oh, no wait, I implied it had happened in history! And said it wasnt great.

But you know, good try with the whole reading comprehension thing. A for effort. Kinda.

Muravyets

10-02-2009, 22:49

You were responding to a post which was talking about the topic of this thread: are there going to be outbursts of civil unrest in the US? The poster was saying that informed people don't think so, but random Internet guys are screaming ZOMG! so, which should he believe. You chime in that experts like Krugman are on the pro-catastrophe side: I assumed you understood what this thread was about.
No, I wasn't. I was responding to a post that was responding to something I said about some parts of the US appearing to have slipped past the brink of collapse. I said it had. The other guy said he had all these experts saying "it wasn't that bad." I said I had these other experts saying it was.

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:50

Cuz I lik totally said that, rite?

Oh, no wait, I implied it had happened in history! And said it wasnt great.

But you know, good try with the whole reading comprehension thing. A for effort. Kinda.
Oh yeah? What historical event do have in mind?

Trilateral Commission

10-02-2009, 22:54

This is a good article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1

What is this supposed to mean? That Krugman's unoriginal and wrote his belated article concerning the economic crisis a full two months after the New York stock exchange crash?

Risottia

10-02-2009, 22:55

Needless to say as unemployment rises, the likelihood of civil disturbances increases. Crime rates go up, etc.

For people in the US -what preparations are you making, if any at all? Are you buying guns, ammunition, water, canned food, and 50-lb. bags of dried beans? Or do you forecast that things will not get so bad?

Eh. If crime rates go up because of unemployment, of course the solution is crime repression, not new workplaces. :rolleyes:

Hotwife

10-02-2009, 23:16

Eh. If crime rates go up because of unemployment, of course the solution is crime repression, not new workplaces. :rolleyes:

More police = more jobs
More prisons = more construction jobs, more guard jobs
More arrests = more lawyer jobs

The US should start a World War (WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression, and as government deficit spending programs go, it was the biggest). We should then write a lot of new laws and start arresting people wholesale.

And it won't be fascism if the Democrats do it...

Knights of Liberty

10-02-2009, 23:19

More police = more jobs
More prisons = more construction jobs, more guard jobs
More arrests = more lawyer jobs

The US should start a World War (WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression, and as government deficit spending programs go, it was the biggest). We should then write a lot of new laws and start arresting people wholesale.

Hey maybe youd get to kill some Muslims right? Better then sex right? And you talked on UMP how much you like to kill for fun.

And it won't be fascism if the Democrats do it...

No, it pretty much still would be.

Risottia

10-02-2009, 23:25

More police = more jobs
More prisons = more construction jobs, more guard jobs
More arrests = more lawyer jobs

The US should start a World War (WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression, and as government deficit spending programs go, it was the biggest). We should then write a lot of new laws and start arresting people wholesale.

Gee, and here I thought that G.W.Bush had ALREADY done that.

edit: on a second thought, not having regular trials for Gitmo prisoners lessened the request for lawyers, I guess...

Anti-Social Darwinism

10-02-2009, 23:31

the idea of assets being seized while the military still exist seems unlikely.
And much of the worlds currency is floated on the belief that bonds hold value.
To declare those null and void would hurt the currency of the declarer. Not to mention any drastic affect on dollar would destroy ever other currency in the world, because the dollar is 70% of all foreign reserves in the world.

Not siezed, purchased. People are already selling assets to foreign countries, have been for quite a while. This is going to increase. It benefits the seller in the short run - it benefits the buyer in the long run.

Call to power

10-02-2009, 23:43

I never said the US was ending, only that several important aspects of it appear to have passed the brink of collapse.

such as? its takes something like a food shortage for a nation to suddenly start discombobulating

Not siezed, purchased. People are already selling assets to foreign countries, have been for quite a while. This is going to increase. It benefits the seller in the short run - it benefits the buyer in the long run.

and US bigwigs have been buying assets all around the world for instance Barclays Bank is owned by an American as is Kenya's tourism sector (which is a big problem in itself)

Autumn Wind

11-02-2009, 00:14

Rednecks "Rise up to overthrow the Ebil Commies"
Then they are quickly gunned down by everyone else.

Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't. ;)

Andaluciae

11-02-2009, 00:26

Muravyets

11-02-2009, 00:26

such as? its takes something like a food shortage for a nation to suddenly start discombobulating
Such as...our investment banking and lending systems...

Did you miss that memo?

Andaluciae

11-02-2009, 00:31

Gee, and here I thought that G.W.Bush had ALREADY done that.

So, there's a world war on and laws Bush passed have gotten huge numbers of new people being arrested?

Muravyets

11-02-2009, 00:38

I can see an increase in crime, but we'd need to see a significant, long run depression to see significant unrest in the United States. You'd see, of course, increased crime rates, but I doubt that civil unrest, rioting and violence would occur without a large-scale war.
I doubt that civil unrest would occur short of widespread hunger in the country, and possibly very obvious displays of non-suffering by the rich.

To me, the idea of American citizens getting mad enough for the result to be called "civil unrest" would be something akin to the 1863 Draft Riots in NYC.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm

That was three days of significant violence, murder and destruction set off by a combination of long-standing, simmering, general public dissatisfaction plus a grossly and obviously unjust government action (the match tossed into the gasoline). It had to be put down by the army. Witnesses to the events said it was the closest the country had come to revolution since The Revolution, and some historians since then have agreed with that assessment.

Since then, there have been many injustices inflicted on the American people, and many instances of gross failure and exposed criminality in the US government that have had horrible effects on the people. Yet we have not seen a repetition of anything remotely like the Draft Riots. I have said for a long time that Americans are not a rioting people. I think it would take a lot to get us as desperate and angry as people were in 1863.

However, that is not to say it is not possible. But I think the suffering of the people would have to be equivalent to what it was then, and frankly, I think most Americans still feel that they can figure something out for themselves, even if the government isn't there for them. I think the government and most social systems could come completely apart, and the most you would see would be isolated outbursts of violence in high pressure areas, while the rest of the people pick up and do for themselves. If they lose that self-confidence, or if they come to believe that the government is deliberately stopping them from getting themselves out of whatever hole they are in, then things could get dangerous.

EDIT: Don't mistake me. I think if things get really bad for the majority of people, most Americans will simply turn to crime. They will cooperate with gangs or the mob. They will steal food and traffick in stolen goods. They will squat in empty properties. They will not pay their taxes. And they will likely think nothing of it, because it is what they will have to do. You will see an increase in crime, but that is not the same as "civil unrest." I think NYC of the 1970s/1980s is more likely to be the model than NYC of 1863.

Kamsaki-Myu

11-02-2009, 00:39

You have no idea about how this works. Of course interest rates can be set by the free market! Who do you think "tweaked" interest rates before the year 1913 when the government established its central bank? Largely the free market - resulting in economic stability - but with some occasional government intervention that inevitably produced asset bubbles and economic crashes.
Well, before that, banks had state backing. And generally, before a central bank, what most nations had was... well, coins and barter.

Even so, can you really allow currency itself to be open up to the forces of competition? I mean, if you allowed banks to print their own varieties of dollar and decide interests rates for themselves, how would they even go about doing that when they've got to factor in both the state of their own markets and their competitors'? Has there been anything written about how competing and unregulated money-printers might choose to define their rates of interest?

Call to power

11-02-2009, 00:50

Such as...our investment banking and lending systems...

not really something thats going to cause any sort of collapse though is it? the US is not the only nation ever to have an economic crisis and it certainly won't be the last.

give it till the next crisis and you will hear the exact same talk of impending doom maybe even some comparisons between the roman empires fall

but I doubt that civil unrest, rioting and violence would occur without a large-scale war.

even then I'd hazard at a no its just not the Anglo way of doing things

Muravyets

11-02-2009, 01:06

not really something thats going to cause any sort of collapse though is it? the US is not the only nation ever to have an economic crisis and it certainly won't be the last.

give it till the next crisis and you will hear the exact same talk of impending doom maybe even some comparisons between the roman empires fall
You don't think so? I look at 3.6 million jobs gone, half of which were lost in just the last three months. I look at single days seeing 400,000, 500,000 jobs gone. I see healthy businesses forced to shut down. I see financially sound homeowners losing their properties because of financial factors far beyond their control or influence. All of it precipitated by the collapse of those systems shutting down the flow of credit. I am not as cavalierly confident as you. I see a collapse in progress, and my only question is can it be stopped before it hits its bottom?

Call to power

11-02-2009, 01:28

I look at 3.6 million jobs gone, half of which were lost in just the last three months.

the US still has an unemployment within 7% which is rather good in terms of a recession and not pushing things as far as it goes globally at the best of times

I look at single days seeing 400,000, 500,000 jobs gone.

the economy contracts and expands thats just how it is, the numbers look scary but when you put that into terms of 300 million people (with many guest workers) you can sleep rather easy at night no?

I see financially sound homeowners losing their properties because of financial factors far beyond their control or influence.

this happens all the time :confused:

All of it precipitated by the collapse of those systems shutting down the flow of credit.

banks have become wary of lending out money...and this signals a collapse of the US to you?

the economy is going to go slow even shrink for awhile but its all because banks are acting cautious which as past recessions show doesn't really last long, the money is staying put safe from any combustion that marked 2007-8

I am not as cavalierly confident as you.

if I cried over every economic banana slip that ever happened I'd be living in the woods by now

Muravyets

11-02-2009, 01:40

the US still has an unemployment within 7% which is rather good in terms of a recession and not pushing things as far as it goes globally at the best of times
It is the speed of ongoing losses that matters. The percentage unemployed is rising.

the economy contracts and expands thats just how it is, the numbers look scary but when you put that into terms of 300 million people (with many guest workers) you can sleep rather easy at night no?
No. And the cyclical nature of economic vagaries is irrelevant. The trouble is real now. The fact that it will change in future has nothing to do with now. Even a full collapse will eventually be followed by a regeneration, but that doesn't change that a downturn is a downturn and a collapse is a collapse.

this happens all the time :confused:
No, it does not. It does not happen all the time that people perfectly capable of paying their mortgages, who are not in arrears in their payments, are still being foreclosed on. Also it does not always happen that so many foreclosures happen all at once and keep happening over such a long period of time. I have seen several housing bubbles since the 80s. All of them popped, and all of them were followed by waves of foreclosures, but they were always on people who defaulted on their loans and the waves did not last long. The current wave of foreclosures is affecting homeowners based on the condition of their lender, not their own finances, and it shows no sign of stopping. Just tonight MSNBC, which I have on in the background while I cook dinner, floated a number of about 2.5 million homeowners facing foreclosure right now. This does not always happen.

banks have become wary of lending out money...and this signals a collapse of the US to you?
No, the results of their refusal to extend business credit signals the beginning of a collapse to me.

the economy is going to go slow even shrink for awhile but its all because banks are acting cautious which as past recessions show doesn't really last long, the money is staying put safe from any combustion that marked 2007-8

if I cried over every economic banana slip that ever happened I'd be living in the woods by now
Your obvious ignorance of what is actually happening in the US prompts me to dismiss you. If you had your facts right and made your airy predictions, I would simply say you had a different opinion -- one that I would think is unrealistic, but whatever, at least it would be a conclusion drawn from the available information. But since you clearly hve no idea what is actually going on, your opinion and predictions are worthless.

Also, I would like to point out to you, I am not predicting a collapse. I am saying that the US has entered the beginning stages of a collapse -- i.e. has passed the brink of collapse, if you recall your own words that started this exchange. As I said, I wonder if it will be stopped, which presupposes that it may be possible to stop the collapse from coming to fruition.

EDIT: By the way, just now on MSNBC, a report is being discussed of just how bad the initial US financial crisis was. Representative Paul Kajorski, (D) Penn, was on C-Span talking about how, way back when Lehman Brothers failed, it triggered a massive and sudden drawn-down on money market funds all over the world. The Fed stepped in and guaranteed money market deposits, effectively stopping the run, but apparently, many in the US federal government are saying if that had not happened, it could have triggered the actual collapse of the US economy and possibly of some other countries' economies, too, because that is how big, how widespread, and how sudden the draw-down was. Here in the US, we did not hear about that until just now, but it certainly explains why everyone was going on and on about the horrific effect internationally of the Lehman Brothers failure, and why they were all so in love with Paul Bernanke who was in charge of the fed at the time. Just thought I'd mention that, fyi.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Discussion on civil unrest in the US