Discussion in 'Trading' started by harrytrader, Apr 25, 2004.
since 1913. It's not from me I found it from another forum.
Shit didn't take the attach because of the 60s delay it didn't keep the attach. So once again
(debts in red)
soo what is your meaning, what do you think this chart is telling you ?
Same old story than all financial scams since John Law at least and that will terminate in the same manner for the "rich" people who will discover one day that they own only papers not real wealth. As for the poors nobody cares except when one take them as pretext to furnish more debts for "social" wellfare when it is to prevent them to have the dignity to work because the economy has been stolen by a monopoly created thanks to this fake money. May I remind that a monopoly is nothing but free enterprise but communism from economic point of view. Since I don't care about politics it doesn't matter for me that it is communist monopolism or not the result is the same for the economy. Above all when the Big Crash of the stock market WILL come (because it hasn't come yet) the devastation will be worldwide as US Stock Market is the leader.
Law's "Real Bills Doctrine" of money applied the "reflux principle" to the money supply. Money, Law argued, was credit and credit was determined by the "needs of trade". Consequently, the amount of money in existence is determined not by the imports of gold or trade balances (as the Mercantilists argued), but rather on the supply of credit in the economy. And money supply (in opposition to the Quantity Theory) is endogenous, determined by the "needs of trade".
Same thing for the Monopoly upon control of Money and Trade:
"MONOPOLY: a single supplier of a business or service, usually created by governmental regulations that prevent competition."
"Law would create cash flow from new economic activity. It turns out that the Mississippi Company was a small part of a much grander empire he was about to create. In September 1718 the company acquired the monopoly in tobacco trading with Africa. Law's Bank Generale was taken over by the French government in January 1719 and was renamed the Bank Royale. Law remained in charge, however, and the crown further guaranteed the bank's note issue. In May he obtained control of the companies trading with China and the East Indies. He renamed his entire business interest the Compagnie des Indes, but most people still called it the Mississippi Company. In effect, Law now controlled all trade with France and the rest of the world outside of Europe. "
looking from what you just wrote there seems to be a great deal of confusion in your mind as to what exactly a debt is.
first i should note that it isn't a very bright idea to sum up private&public debt for any nation as you just did, for they have completely different legal status.
with this caveat in mind however it is obvious that there is nothing wrong with total US debt to growth faster than the US gdp (or the dow for that matter) over extended periods of time, for the simple accouting reasons that debt doesn't represent a claim on the gdp but instead on the source of gdp
for instance total us marketed debt (gov&private) currently stands (if memeory serves) at arround 400% of gdp
that would equate to somebody making $100 a year with just over $400 of debt -hardly a source of worry.
i sould also add that when refering to marketed debt the single most important figure isn't the sovability ratios per see (whish are to some exend a subjective measurment) but rather what yield creditors are demanding for the risk of landing you money,and from that point of view alone i can say that US total endebtness isn't anywhere near being worrying
hope that was clear
First if you have read english I've added anything I said I picked the chart from another forum. Secondly I didn't comment on "US debt to growth faster than the US gdp" at all I pointed that THE LAW OF ECONOMIC DOESN'T CHANGE AND THAT IT IS THE SAME SCAM THAN THE MISSISSIPI SCAM USED BY JOHN LAW WHEN HE FOUNDED THE CENTRAL BANK FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FRANCE THAT IS USED TODAY. The MISSISSIPI CORPORATION WAS ALSO PRIVATE AND SO WHAT ???
And you have at least two eminent economists from opposite side normally that agree : John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman.
The Economics of Innocent Fraud
by John Kenneth Galbraith
Kenneth Galbraith has been at the center of the American economy since before the First World War. In this his new book, he offers a distillation of these years in both the public and the private sectors, the academy and the government, and explains where we are and how we got there. Galbraith argues that inherent in our economic system is a continuing divergence between reality and "conventional wisdom," or as he puts it self-serving belief and contrived nonsense, or "fraud."
Milton Friedman, who is a Republican Economist, is saying the same thing:
Here's his interview at federal reserve of Mineapolis
Friedman: One unsolved economic problem of the day is how to get rid of the Federal Reserve.
The Stock Market is feeded by Credit that what it means and so the consequence is expected. Once again not tomorrow but this is 100% probability that it will occur when money will have to be retired so it is once again a monstruous scam to make people who worked all their life believe in their retirement with Pension Funds !
first it should be noted that the federal reserve systeme only plays a very limited role -a mostly symbolic one in the economy.
while i think that it could in theory easely be replaced by a bunch of competing private institutions (as was the case in many cases during history) there is however a probleme with that : it seems that having several private company each printing competing money with different facial value and rates of interests (as again was the case during much of the history of money)
creats alot of unnecessary sets of difficulties that could make free trade difficult, to that extend it is recognized that money printing (like water distribution or justice or police forces or the army or ...) is one part of our society that is better served by a monopoly, whish when they are recognized as bein necessary are left to the governements to exercice as by legal definition the governement represents the comon interests of a nation
i hope that was clear
Hahahahahaha ! I think this one I should put it above my bed
Separate names with a comma.