Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree80Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 5th, 2016, 07:51 AM   #171
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The Sandersí video has two major flaws:
1. It only has Sandersí addressing and criticizing Greenspan, but I have no idea what Greenspan said or any way to evaluate what Greenspan said.

2. Sandersí is making an unqualified and sophomoric comparison of the state of the economy in 2003 with the state of the economy in 1993. The state of the economy in 2003 was in the middle of a recession, which coincidently was caused by the tech bubble bursting that was created by Clinton, who was President in 1993. What Sanders also does not address is the longest peacetime expansion of the U.S. economy that benefited Clinton and the economy of 1993.
I have to interrupt you here. There is not a good reason for that peace to not continue. I know some folks destroyed the World Trade Organization and hit the Pentagon and another plane was taken down. But this was not a nation mobilized for war with the US. Many of us elected Obama or would have elected anyone else, because we opposed the neo cons that include Bush and Cheney, and their plans to take military control of the mid east that were made long before 9/11. Clinton had to handle a disturbance in Europe and the neo con's were pressuring him to invade Iraq.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attack on US citizens. It was an attack on the Military Industrial Complex, and considering what the neo con's were doing, it was fully justified.

Quote:
The Savings and Loan crisis is a pretty simple issue.

There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the Savings and Loan industry or the regulations that controlled the industry under normal circumstances. The crisis was initiated by two problems in 1979:
1. The inflation rate had dropped from a high of 11% in 1974 to 5.8% in 1977. From 1977, the inflation rate that doubled from 1976 to 1979.

2. The prime interest rate increased from 6.25% to 15.5% in 1979 and continued to 20% in early 1980.
The Savings and Loans were limited by regulations to what they could pay in interest rates to attract deposits and banks were not. This caused an exodus of capital from the Savings and Loans industry and moved to banks and other banking industry institutions that paid a higher interest rate. The primary income of Savings and Loans was from long-term mortgages ranging from ten years to thirty years. The value of the Savings and Loansí long-term mortgage portfolios were decimated by high-interest rates. Example: the average prime interest rate from 1960 to 1977 was seven percent. The mortgages written by the Savings and Loans during this period with these relative rates were still on the books at the Savings and Loans as the prime rate had increased to twenty percent. The Congress and Carter passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act on March 31, 1980. This deregulated the industry and allowed Savings and Loans to charge any rate they wanted in an attempt to increase the Savings and Loansí profits to negate the losses. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act cause the assets of the Savings and Loans to increase by sixty percent from the date of the deregulation by Carter and 1985 compared to convention banks twenty-five percent as the Savings and Loan industry was paying a much higher rate of return. This was a disastrously reckless maneuver by the Savings and Loans in an attempt to offset their losses as quickly as they could by attracting assets and being forced to invest these new assets in investments that were perilous in the hope of high returns to cover the rates they were paying and offset losses from older mortgages. From a technical standpoint, these Savings and Loans were already insolvent before these risky investments, and then when the risky investments did not perform, coupled with the lack of funds in the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the Savings and Loan crisis became a literal crisis perpetrating the bankruptcy of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. George H. W. Bush signed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act on August 9, 1989.
That is a great explanation of what went wrong, except you didn't mention the OPEC oil embargo that hit when Carter was in office. I am going to be nice about this. Specialist have too narrow of a view. Economist have ignored what resources have to with the economy, and everyone ignored the 1920 newspaper warning, "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possible war." Sure enough, all industrial economies crashed the world went to war. We are not understanding anything of importance without understanding what oil has to do with our economy.

That said, there was absolutely no better time to bail out an industry than when the savings and loans fell. The problem should have been identified before the change in the interest rate, and measures should have taken immediately to protect the Saving's and Loans. The problem was not caused by mismanagement of the S & L's until later in the game when they were in a position they could not get out of. One has to wonder where the economist were on this one? Perhaps it was this experience that led to bailing out banks that were corrupt and mismanaged.

Quote:
By the time Reagan was elected President, the Savings and Loan malignancy had reached terminal velocity and that momentum was unstoppable.
True, and he lied to us about our oil situation, knowing the only way to resolve the problem was to get control of oil countries, that would mean a huge military build up. Well, he probably didn't have much understanding of all this, but the folks who put him in office did. He just had to play heroic President and he did that very well. So did Eisenhower, but when he left the Presidency he did warn us about what was in motion.

Quote:
There is a term called ďThe Great InflationĒ that lasted from 1965 to 1984. The simple explanation is that it was a monetary event based on monetary actions and expansionary fiscal actions colliding.
Also on a simple note, examine the rate of inflation and the price of oil from 2006 through 2015.
From only 2006 to 2015?! Hum, did I mention the neo con's?

Quote:
The price of oil first hit $100 per barrel in November of 2007 and peaked at $144 per barrel in June of 2008, dropped in November of 2008, then spiked over $100 per barrel in March 2011 and stayed over $100 per barrel until late in 2004. The average rate of inflation from 2007 through the end of 2015 was 1.8%.

Using inflation adjusted dollars is a tricky subject in a bubble. There are myriad variables to consider when attempting to paint a picture of say the price of oil and its effect on other variables. Variables that must be considered are income, sales, profits, GDP, the value of the dollar, and earnings all have to be taken into consideration over time and calculated to give context. All variables need to be considered such as the variable in the rising price of oil in the context of a dollar denominated variable creating an inflation-adjusted variable of dividing a price index into a monetary timeline. An example is from 1970 to 1981, the price of a gallon of gasoline increased from .35 cents per gallon to over $1.00 per gallon. Using just the value of the dollar, the price in real purchasing terms had increased by 286% because of the value the dollar was the negative value, this gives a simplified, but not necessarily complete picture of the price of a gallon of gas adjusted for inflation. This 286% increase in inflation-adjusted dollars seems high, but it is the result of the trend of downward inflation of 11% in 1974, 9.1% in 1975, and 5.8% in 1976, the year before Carter took office. The price of oil was not a factor in the increasing rate of inflation between 1977 and 1980. This is nuanced and not that relevant as the sharp increase in 1980 was an economically bad situation regardless of what caused it and calculating exercises do not alleviate that scenario.
For sure I need my cup of coffee because all those fancy words have my head spinning. Hold on, I'll be back with a cup of coffee.

Last edited by Athena; February 5th, 2016 at 08:11 AM.
Athena is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 11:29 AM   #172
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 606
How does the chart of US oil production work with the figures for the US economy? I would copy and paste, but for some reason I can't copy and paste images.

If anyone cares, the oil production for Syria is alarming as its production crashed, its social problems erupted. We can expect this to happen as the world supply of oil continues to decrease.

World Oil Yearly Production Charts - Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

We serious need to imagine a new reality of economic equality or our future could look like Syria.

I said Reagan lied to us about oil. Carter convinced us to conserve and had us on the track to developing alternative energy sources. Reagan told us we did need to conserve oil, and he dismantled the programs for developing alternative energy. This Neo-con energy plan meant pouring money into military spending. He also lied about the growing homelessness caused by the recession, saying we had no homeless people only bums. He fed us lies, and unfortunately, people believed them with the help of a conservative think tank that intentionally created the myth they wanted us to believe.

Unfortunately, when I struggling with the media and economist to recognize the oil problem, it was not so easy to access the charts in this post.

Last edited by Athena; February 5th, 2016 at 11:40 AM.
Athena is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 12:19 PM   #173
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 606
Quote:
I do not know what to say about this CNBC proclamation. First, this is regarding the third quarter of 2014, and the GDP growth rate was not 5% as the article claims, but 4.3%, and for the year it was 2.5%. The year since, 2015, the GDP growth rate was 1.8%. In February of 2015, the dollar dropped soon after the article and has not regained all the losses from the date of the article, and dropped in January of 2016 further, and dropped today as well.

Using economic data over the past century, Obama has the worst record of any president.
I am not understanding your explanation. The dollar hit a 71.32 low in 2008 and has gone to 98.871 and slipped and is going back up.

United States Dollar | 1967-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

However, I admit the complexity of these charts is greater than I expected. I am not overly confident in my ability to understand economics and the ups and downs of the dollar. I just believe as the economy of Rome soared high with gold and crashed when the mines were exhausted and soared high again with new conquest taking control of gold, so the economies of nations today ride on a wave of oil. The same time the value of the dollar hit its low, so did our oil production hit its low. Or am I confused?

Last edited by Athena; February 5th, 2016 at 12:25 PM.
Athena is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 12:26 PM   #174
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
I am not understanding your explanation. The dollar hit a 71.32 low in 2008 and has gone to 98.871 and slipped and is going back up.

United States Dollar | 1967-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

However, I admit the complexity of these charts is greater than I expected. I am not overly confident in my ability to understand economics and the ups and downs of the dollar. I just believe as the economy of Rome soared high with gold and crashed when the mines were exhausted and soared high again with new conquest taking control of gold, so the economies of nations today ride on a wave of oil. The same time the value of the dollar hit its low, so did our oil production hit its low.
I can't find a definition of their index, but this link gives a USD index where it is ranked against a basket of 6 other currencies as defined in the link. The chart is virtually identical.

US Dollar Index - FXStreet
Thanks from Athena
RNG is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 12:56 PM   #175
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
I can't find a definition of their index, but this link gives a USD index where it is ranked against a basket of 6 other currencies as defined in the link. The chart is virtually identical.

US Dollar Index - FXStreet
Thanks. Let me tell you the interactive charts totally through me off. Today is the first time I have seen them. I am also totally frustrated by the lack of explanations. I need charts geared for students with an 8th grade education and before the technology for interactive charts.

However, I googled for a gross national product chart and our gross national product was increased ever since Obama was in office, so I am confused by the idea that things have gotten worse?

United States GDP | 1960-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast | News

I don't know if things would be so well if it were not for fracking and I don't know how long fracking will mean an abundance of oil. I think we better learn from what the ups and downs relating to our supply of oil, and plan for a future without an abundance of oil. Fracking gave us another chance to get things right, and if we don't use our present wealth for a better, more equal future, our future reality will not be a good one. We need to treat internet like a utility shared among all people, not a product that can be sold to those with the most money, and denied to the poor, or leaving only substandard service for low-income people. All housing needs to be up-graded for the lowest possible energy consumption.
Athena is offline  
Old February 5th, 2016, 03:59 PM   #176
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
I have to interrupt you here. There is not a good reason for that peace to not continue. I know some folks destroyed the World Trade Organization and hit the Pentagon and another plane was taken down. But this was not a nation mobilized for war with the US. Many of us elected Obama or would have elected anyone else, because we opposed the neo cons that include Bush and Cheney, and their plans to take military control of the mid east that were made long before 9/11. Clinton had to handle a disturbance in Europe and the neo con's were pressuring him to invade Iraq.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attack on US citizens. It was an attack on the Military Industrial Complex, and considering what the neo con's were doing, it was fully justified.



That is a great explanation of what went wrong, except you didn't mention the OPEC oil embargo that hit when Carter was in office. I am going to be nice about this. Specialist have too narrow of a view. Economist have ignored what resources have to with the economy, and everyone ignored the 1920 newspaper warning, "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possible war." Sure enough, all industrial economies crashed the world went to war. We are not understanding anything of importance without understanding what oil has to do with our economy.

That said, there was absolutely no better time to bail out an industry than when the savings and loans fell. The problem should have been identified before the change in the interest rate, and measures should have taken immediately to protect the Saving's and Loans. The problem was not caused by mismanagement of the S & L's until later in the game when they were in a position they could not get out of. One has to wonder where the economist were on this one? Perhaps it was this experience that led to bailing out banks that were corrupt and mismanaged.



True, and he lied to us about our oil situation, knowing the only way to resolve the problem was to get control of oil countries, that would mean a huge military build up. Well, he probably didn't have much understanding of all this, but the folks who put him in office did. He just had to play heroic President and he did that very well. So did Eisenhower, but when he left the Presidency he did warn us about what was in motion.

From only 2006 to 2015?! Hum, did I mention the neo con's?



For sure I need my cup of coffee because all those fancy words have my head spinning. Hold on, I'll be back with a cup of coffee.
Quote:
I have to interrupt you here. There is not a good reason for that peace to not continue. I know some folks destroyed the World Trade Organization and hit the Pentagon and another plane was taken down. But this was not a nation mobilized for war with the US. Many of us elected Obama or would have elected anyone else, because we opposed the neo cons that include Bush and Cheney, and their plans to take military control of the mid east that were made long before 9/11. Clinton had to handle a disturbance in Europe and the neo con's were pressuring him to invade Iraq.

What happened on 9/11 was not an attack on US citizens. It was an attack on the Military Industrial Complex, and considering what the neo con's were doing, it was fully justified
I have to be honest; I cannot find the remotest connection in your post to this post of mine:
The Sandersí video has two major flaws:

1. It only has Sandersí addressing and criticizing Greenspan, but I have no idea what Greenspan said or any way to evaluate what Greenspan said.

2. Sandersí is making an unqualified and sophomoric comparison of the state of the economy in 2003 with the state of the economy in 1993. The state of the economy in 2003 was in the middle of a recession, which coincidentally was caused by the tech bubble bursting that was created by Clinton, who was President in 1993. What Sanders also does not address is the longest peacetime expansion of the U.S. economy that benefited Clinton and the economy of 1993.
Quote:
That is a great explanation of what went wrong, except you didn't mention the OPEC oil embargo that hit when Carter was in office. I am going to be nice about this. Specialist have too narrow of a view. Economist have ignored what resources have to with the economy, and everyone ignored the 1920 newspaper warning, "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumption, we are headed for economic disaster and possible war." Sure enough, all industrial economies crashed the world went to war. We are not understanding anything of importance without understanding what oil has to do with our economy.
The OPEC oil embargo is irrelevant. The timeline: The embargo started in January of 1979 and oil prices doubled between April of 1979 and April of 1980.

Inflation timeline: When Carter took office, the inflation rate was 5.8%, by the end of 1977, the rate was 6.5%, by the end of 1978 the rate was 11.3%, and by the end of 1979, the rate was 13.5%. The rate of inflation under Carter had doubled before the oil embargo. And you have not reconciled this with this, which according to the methodology you are using, the inflation rate would be in the teens:
The price of oil first hit $100 per barrel in November of 2007 and peaked at $144 per barrel in June of 2008, dropped in November of 2008, then spiked over $100 per barrel in March 2011 and stayed over $100 per barrel until late in 2004. The average rate of inflation from 2007 through the end of 2015 was 1.8%.

Quote:
That said, there was absolutely no better time to bail out an industry than when the savings and loans fell. The problem should have been identified before the change in the interest rate, and measures should have taken immediately to protect the Saving's and Loans. The problem was not caused by mismanagement of the S & L's until later in the game when they were in a position they could not get out of. One has to wonder where the economist were on this one? Perhaps it was this experience that led to bailing out banks that were corrupt and mismanaged.
You are correct. The problem was identified in 1979, and Carter signed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act on March 31, 1980. At that point, Carter could have either have bailed out the Savings and Loans or kicked it down the road.

Quote:
True, and he lied to us about our oil situation, knowing the only way to resolve the problem was to get control of oil countries, that would mean a huge military build up. Well, he probably didn't have much understanding of all this, but the folks who put him in office did. He just had to play heroic President and he did that very well. So did Eisenhower, but when he left the Presidency he did warn us about what was in motion.
You have yet to explain what this lie was by Reagan.

Quote:
From only 2006 to 2015?! Hum, did I mention the neo con's?
I have to be honest; I cannot find the remotest connection in your post to this post of mine:
There is a term called ďThe Great InflationĒ that lasted from 1965 to 1984. The simple explanation is that it was a monetary event based on monetary actions and expansionary fiscal actions colliding. Also on a simple note, examine the rate of inflation and the price of oil from 2006 through 2015.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 8th, 2016, 07:27 AM   #177
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I have to be honest; I cannot find the remotest connection in your post to this post of mine:
The Sanders’ video has two major flaws:

1. It only has Sanders’ addressing and criticizing Greenspan, but I have no idea what Greenspan said or any way to evaluate what Greenspan said.

2. Sanders’ is making an unqualified and sophomoric comparison of the state of the economy in 2003 with the state of the economy in 1993. The state of the economy in 2003 was in the middle of a recession, which coincidentally was caused by the tech bubble bursting that was created by Clinton, who was President in 1993. What Sanders also does not address is the longest peacetime expansion of the U.S. economy that benefited Clinton and the economy of 1993.


The OPEC oil embargo is irrelevant. The timeline: The embargo started in January of 1979 and oil prices doubled between April of 1979 and April of 1980.

Inflation timeline: When Carter took office, the inflation rate was 5.8%, by the end of 1977, the rate was 6.5%, by the end of 1978 the rate was 11.3%, and by the end of 1979, the rate was 13.5%. The rate of inflation under Carter had doubled before the oil embargo. And you have not reconciled this with this, which according to the methodology you are using, the inflation rate would be in the teens:
The price of oil first hit $100 per barrel in November of 2007 and peaked at $144 per barrel in June of 2008, dropped in November of 2008, then spiked over $100 per barrel in March 2011 and stayed over $100 per barrel until late in 2004. The average rate of inflation from 2007 through the end of 2015 was 1.8%.



You are correct. The problem was identified in 1979, and Carter signed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act on March 31, 1980. At that point, Carter could have either have bailed out the Savings and Loans or kicked it down the road.



You have yet to explain what this lie was by Reagan.



I have to be honest; I cannot find the remotest connection in your post to this post of mine:
There is a term called “The Great Inflation” that lasted from 1965 to 1984. The simple explanation is that it was a monetary event based on monetary actions and expansionary fiscal actions colliding. Also on a simple note, examine the rate of inflation and the price of oil from 2006 through 2015.
Okay here is Greenspan's response. I am surprised about how easy it was to get. At least the internet is improving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwpnH_OTZio

Things don't get much clearer than this, Greenspan says the he thinks the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and that he preferred Clinton's management of national debt to what Bush did, and he really wants us to believe he did not support Bush junior's tax cuts, but only the idea that taxes cuts are a good thing. He says he expected the bankers and Bush to act more responsibly. I think we could say, Reagan and Greenspan were dreamers, and both were wrong because they were acting on their dreams of the world, not the realities of it.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/new...deaths-put-12m

The OPEC oil embargo is irrelevant?! You think it has nothing to do with the military buildup during the Reagan administration and the neo con's who planned the military takeover of the mid east long before 911 and the invasion of Iraq? OCEP had us by the balls! I am stopping here to wait for an answer, because if one of us does not change our reasoning, there is no point in continuing, and really don't think my reasoning will change. Where were you when Reagan was mobilizing us for war and using everything he had to get control of the mid east?

Last edited by Athena; February 8th, 2016 at 07:43 AM.
Athena is offline  
Old February 8th, 2016, 01:17 PM   #178
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athena View Post
Okay here is Greenspan's response. I am surprised about how easy it was to get. At least the internet is improving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwpnH_OTZio

Things don't get much clearer than this, Greenspan says the he thinks the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and that he preferred Clinton's management of national debt to what Bush did, and he really wants us to believe he did not support Bush junior's tax cuts, but only the idea that taxes cuts are a good thing. He says he expected the bankers and Bush to act more responsibly. I think we could say, Reagan and Greenspan were dreamers, and both were wrong because they were acting on their dreams of the world, not the realities of it.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/new...deaths-put-12m

The OPEC oil embargo is irrelevant?! You think it has nothing to do with the military buildup during the Reagan administration and the neo con's who planned the military takeover of the mid east long before 911 and the invasion of Iraq? OCEP had us by the balls! I am stopping here to wait for an answer, because if one of us does not change our reasoning, there is no point in continuing, and really don't think my reasoning will change. Where were you when Reagan was mobilizing us for war and using everything he had to get control of the mid east?
Quote:
Bernie
Okay here is Greenspan's response. I am surprised about how easy it was to get. At least the internet is improving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwpnH_OTZio
That is not Greenspanís response. That is a morning talk show giving their opinion of what Greenspan said with little snippets of an hour-long hearing. To put the entire exchange in context, it requires a linear and uninterrupted exchange.

Greenspan was testifying before the Committee on Financial Services in the House of Representatives on July 15, 2003. Greenspan also testified the next day before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the U.S. Senate on July 16, 2003. He presented the identical testimony on July 16th. If you want to read what Greenspan said in his testimonies, here is a link to the Federal Reserve website and the testimony: Link

This still has no connection to Sandersís attempting to compare a prosperous economy of 1993 to a recession economy of 2003.

Here is a little snippet of Sandersí lying and attempting to twist Greenspanís words:
Today you have a new low by suggesting that manufacturing in America does not matter. "It does not matter where the product is produced!" We lost 2 million manufacturing jobs in the last two years alone --- 10% of our workforce.
This is what Greenspan said:
Thank you. For a major industrial country, we have created the most advanced technologies, the highest standard of living for a country of our size. Our economic growth is crucial to us. The incomes, the purchasing power of our employees, our workers, our people are, by far, more important than what it is we produce.

The major focus of monetary policy is to create an environment in this country which enables capital investment and innovation to advance. We are at the cutting edge of technologies in the world. We are doing an extraordinary job over the years.

And people flock to the United States. Our immigration rates are very high. And why? Because they think this is a wonderful country to come to.
Quote:
Things don't get much clearer than this, Greenspan says the he thinks the invasion of Iraq was about oil, and that he preferred Clinton's management of national debt to what Bush did, and he really wants us to believe he did not support Bush junior's tax cuts, but only the idea that taxes cuts are a good thing. He says he expected the bankers and Bush to act more responsibly. I think we could say, Reagan and Greenspan were dreamers, and both were wrong because they were acting on their dreams of the world, not the realities of it.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/new...deaths-put-12m
Greenspan never said the invasion of Iraq was motivated by oil. There are out of context quotes by Greenspan floating around from In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World.

Greenspanís remarks were from an economistís point of view regarding the world economy. Greenspan said that the motivation was not about oil. Greenspan said it was fortunate that the U.S. took out Saddam regarding the global economy. Greenspan stated that with Saddam gone, the global economy will continue to work until other energy sources acquired.

Greenspan also stated that he was only partially wrong regarding credit default swaps in the same sentence in a warning against an increase in oversights and regulations. Greenspan also stated that regulations fail all the time: "I think that it's interesting to observe that we find failures of regulation all the time." The context of his being partially wrong regarded the shareholders of banks.

Quote:
The OPEC oil embargo is irrelevant?! You think it has nothing to do with the military buildup during the Reagan administration and the neo con's who planned the military takeover of the mid east long before 911 and the invasion of Iraq? OCEP had us by the balls! I am stopping here to wait for an answer, because if one of us does not change our reasoning, there is no point in continuing, and really don't think my reasoning will change. Where were you when Reagan was mobilizing us for war and using everything he had to get control of the mid east?
You were using the OPEC oil embargo as a reason for inflation. I pointed out why that was not accurate and irrelevant in that context. I am not addressing Reaganís military buildup to compensate for Carterís decimating the military and the morale of the military and the threat of a rogue and nuclear USSR. Moreover, Reagan dropped the inflation rate during the rebuilding of the military, which had nothing to do with inflation doubling under Carter from before the OPEC embargo.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016, 08:52 AM   #179
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 606
Quote:
You were using the OPEC oil embargo as a reason for inflation. I pointed out why that was not accurate and irrelevant in that context. I am not addressing Reagan’s military buildup to compensate for Carter’s decimating the military and the morale of the military and the threat of a rogue and nuclear USSR. Moreover, Reagan dropped the inflation rate during the rebuilding of the military, which had nothing to do with inflation doubling under Carter from before the OPEC embargo.
You have not changed my opinion about the cause of our economic crash when OPEC embargo oil to the US, and the following decisions involving our economy and military actions.

Inflation and CPI Consumer Price Index 1970-1979
Quote:
Economically, the major driving force was the “Arab Oil Embargo” which was partially the result of retaliation against U.S. support for Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Arab–Israeli War. It was also partially the result of the downfall of the U.S. dollar. Due to the declining value of the dollar, gold was under-priced and France was insisting on buying all the cheap gold possible. So Nixon was forced to admit that the dollar was no longer “as good as gold”. Thus he canceled the long standing policy of converting dollars to gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. This is referred to as “closing the gold window”. This resulted in a repudiation of the dollar by most of the rest of the world and its value fell even faster.

In an effort to shore up the value of the dollar and patch up relations with Saudi Arabia, Nixon and Kissinger cut a deal that appeared so beneficial that the Saudi’s couldn’t refuse. Shortly thereafter the other OPEC nations signed similar agreements.

Simply stated the agreement provided that the U.S. would supply military support to Saudi Arabia in exchange not for oil as the Saudi’s expected, but instead for a simple agreement that all oil sales would be denominated only in U.S. dollars. Prior to this, oil was priced in dollars but settlement could be made in any local currency. This deal required that other countries actually pay only in U.S. dollars and then Saudi Arabia would deposit its excess dollars into the purchase of U.S. treasury bills. This boosted the flagging demand for dollars worldwide since everyone needed to buy dollars first in order to purchase oil, while at the same time it also boosted the sale of Treasury obligations. This allowed the U.S. to export much of its inflation over the coming decades as excess dollars remained offshore rather than circulating within the U.S and causing inflation. See Oil, Petrodollars and Gold.
Reagan lied to us about not needing to conserve oil, because closing the gold window and dependency on foreign oil were severe blows to the value of the dollar.

The US demobilized after war until the Koran war when the Eisenhower administration institutionalized the Military Industrial Complex. There was no cause for us to maintain military spending at a wartime level, but the oil problem lead to Texas backed Reagan greatly increasing our military spending and military action in the mid east. This is what the Military Industrial Complex is about, and Eisenhower warned us of it's possible misuse. It is about oil, and Greenspan has acknowledged that.

Another explanation InflationData: Inflation and Recession

Quote:
The 1980 recession was closely related to the 1973 Oil embargo recession because the Iranian Revolution sharply increased the price of oil around the world in 1979, causing the 1979 energy crisis. This sucked capital out of the system causing both recessions.

On "Black Monday" of October 1987 a stock collapse lopped 22.6 percent off the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The collapse which was larger than that of 1929, drastically decreased the money supply and although the economy quickly began to recover it was hit by the one-two punch of the savings and loans collapse which sent the economy into a tailspin.

So this was once again a result of a collapse of liquidity in the system.

Surely you have heard it is possible to lie with statistics. On this page of the link
Please note, in the 1920's we were warned "Given our known oil supply and rate of consumptions, we are headed for economic disaster and possible war." Hello, there is a relationship between economics oil and war, and the Texas backed Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush were about handling this with the Military Industrial Complex.

U.S. Cumulative Inflation by Decade since 1913 :InflationData

Quote:
How Much Inflation have we had since 1913?

Just like compound interest compound inflation grows faster and faster. The average annual inflation since 1913 is "only" 3.24%. See Average Annual Inflation Rates by Decade

But as you can see from the chart below compounding something for almost 100 years at 3.24% will result in over 2000% inflation. The Consumer Price index (CPI-U) for January 1913 was 9.8. The CPI-U for September 2013 was 234.149. This means that something that cost $9.80 in January of 1913 would cost $234.15 today!

Total Cumulative Inflation

Click Chart for Larger Image

If that isn't bad enough, actually the situation is even worse than that. If you look at the chart carefully you will see that inflation was fairly steep during the "teens" from 1913 - 1920 actually almost 100% (See: Total Inflation by Decade). Then during the 1920's and 1930's inflation actually declined. The CPI-U index stood at 13.9 in January of 1940.

So actually most of the 2000% inflation occurred since 1940. The average annual inflation rate in the 1940's was 4.86% in the 1970's it was 7.25% and the 1980's was 5.82%. Each of those decades were especially hard economically for people trying to make ends meet while prices increased and wages didn't keep up.
Sorry the chart didn't come through, but there was been end to inflation, or wonderful improvement with Reaganomics, and there can not be an end to inflation with our banking system.

Greenspan was wrong and Sander's did not lie and Greenspan is wrong, because inflation and even a growing GNP do not equal the good life for those who are not among the 1%. The 1% like Trump not only have dangerously disproportionate wealth and power, but this is what a civilization looks like just before the fall. Turchin's book "War, and Peace, and War" gives an excellent explanation of why this is so.

Our democracy was supposed to break the cycle of the birth and death of civilizations, but unfortunately, we did not pay attention to our reality and our WWI war cry, "Democracy and autocracy can not co-exist". Our industry was built on England's model of autocracy, and although we have mass education, that education does not include the study of money, and what it has to do with resources and banking, so only the 1% have that knowledge and the power to drive political and economic decisions. Greenspan is among the 1% who are clueless about what resources, including the resource of labor, has to do with economics. Economist, in general, are living a fantasy separate from the real world, where paper money really has no value other than the value we imagine it to have, and Sanders is not lying. What we produce or do not produce matters a lot, and if the problem is not corrected soon, it will become much worse, and could bring our civilization to an end.

Fracking is only a temporary relief postponing economic disaster, because oil is finite and when it is gone it is gone, and all industrial economies will fall unless there is a technological breakthrough that dramatically changes the reality of the world.

Last edited by Athena; February 9th, 2016 at 08:59 AM.
Athena is offline  
Old February 9th, 2016, 09:17 AM   #180
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 6,003
The "mini-depression" that occurred at the end of the "70's was not simply caused by the oil embargo.....It was the result of very poor economic policy going back to the Johnson Administration.....LBJ thought he could fight a war in Vietnam, put a man on the moon, fight the war on poverty and keep tax rates to pay for all this down, all at the same time.....The federal Government was sucking up all the available credit and there was very little left over for business expansion.....The resulting inflation caused Nixon to implement wage and price controls which was exactly the wrong thing to do....The oil embargoes, and the resulting jump in fuel prices, at this time added to the financial instability, and the "misery index"....When Carter inherited this mess he simply had no idea what to do with it..

With the resulting high un-employment rates, Reagan's tax cuts freed money up from federal taxes into economic expansion....That led to employment increases whose payroll taxes increased the revenues taken in to the Treasury.....and then we had the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the country...
Jimgorn is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
end, reaganomics, rich, rich or, tax



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The One Rich Guy skews13 Political Humor 1 February 17th, 2014 11:58 AM
Coumo attacks conservatives the EMBRACES REAGANOMICS. TNVolunteer73 Current Events 0 January 23rd, 2014 04:05 PM
Reaganomics miscredited pana8 Americas 46 November 21st, 2013 03:04 PM
Government For the Rich, By the Rich and ONLY for the Rich ManOfTrueTruth Political Talk 9 February 6th, 2006 06:42 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.