# Economic Collapse



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Would a Second Great Depression be the best possible medicine for America?

1. It solves the illegal problem. As the jobs dry up and Uncle Sugar cannot afford to pay benefits to illegal aliens, they will leave.

2. It solves the marriage rate problem. Without the funds to support the massive welfare state, more traditional forms of support will re-emerge. Get a girl pregnant? You marry her. Maybe with daddy prompting you with the end of a shotgun, but married nonetheless.

3. It promotes local business. In the old days, lots of small towns existed about 1 days horse travel apart. With gas prices through the roof, due to an inflated dollar, people will shop local first.

4. The re-emergence of rail and water. Because of fuel prices, rail and water - the most efficient way to ship goods - regain their prominence.

5. Local agriculture. Because of shipping costs, perhaps we see the return of local agriculture. Local truck farms, local dairies, local ranches. And people will start to grow some of their own food again. Fresher is better.

6. Stay at home moms. Or dads. Sometimes, doing things cheaper requires more labor. I think you could see one bread winner and the spouse taking care of most things domestic, from gardening to child care.

7. Finally, does an economic collapse solve some of our Constitution problems? With less money, for less departments, do things like the Department of education go away? Do we start to pull our military back home? Do we use less executive orders and pay more attention to the appropriation process? Do states see a return to their proper powers as outlined in the Constitution?

Lots of things to think about...


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

It is the intermediate "solution" that I dread the most.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Would a Second Great Depression be the best possible medicine for America?
> 
> 1. It solves the illegal problem. As the jobs dry up and Uncle Sugar cannot afford to pay benefits to illegal aliens, they will leave.
> *Or maybe not. There are still more resources here and more productive land than much of Mexico. More to scavenge, etc. We might actually see the reverse!
> ...


Very thought provoking!


----------



## hawgsquatch (May 11, 2014)

Since when did the government sugar daddy stop spending money when they ran out of it? We are going to have to fight a war and lose it over debt some day.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

It could very well end up like your scenario runs, but before sanity returns insanity will reign. When Uncle Sugar can't pay the bills for those who have come to depend on him, and even an inflated $100 bill won't buy a loaf of bread, there'll be lots of pain felt by all.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Sure beats my idea of a massive pandemic.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Would a Second Great Depression be the best possible medicine for America?
> 
> *No. It would create an economic state impossible to recover. Millions of starving people just wondering around?*
> 
> ...


The only thing i can see is utter chaos, which we will never recover from


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I'm just going to explain about 1 point right now, since I have limited time...

Why do I think citizens and legal aliens will take jobs away from illegal aliens?

In an economic crunch, welfare and unemployment benefits will be trivial to non-existent. People who formerly would have turned their nose up at manual labor jobs will be glad to get them.

They will take those jobs away from the illegals. They will make sure the penalties for hiring illegals are severe. They may even run the illegals off the job (or their employer) with a pitchfork or shovel.

No, an illegal alien doesn't stand a chance of employment in a truly depression type economy.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Jolly said:


> I'm just going to explain about 1 point right now, since I have limited time...
> 
> Why do I think citizens and legal aliens will take jobs away from illegal aliens?
> 
> ...


From the perspective of the person doing the hiring - do you want to hire someone who already has callouses on their hands and knows about hard physical work, probably has their own tools, or do you want the out of shape former cubicle tenant who might not even know the names of the tools and has a steep learning curve where you have to babysit them, even if they are willing to put forth the effort? 

People might be glad to get the job, but if they can't DO the job, why would someone hire them? Especially in a "desperate" economy. People don't hire as many illegals as they do simply because they are cheaper - so many of them still know how to WORK, have a good work ethic. Something that has been slipping away in our culture, which has come to look down on physical labor.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Jolly said:


> I'm just going to explain about 1 point right now, since I have limited time...
> 
> Why do I think citizens and legal aliens will take jobs away from illegal aliens?
> 
> ...


During the last recession, a lot of the Mexican nationals who lost jobs went back to Mexico, abandoning houses. But when the economy picked up, they came back.
Me- I think theft and riot would be the main effect of loss of welfare benefits and the businesses in the heavy welfare areas would be so trashed, there would not be any jobs available anyway. It would be gang and crime rule.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> I'm just going to explain about 1 point right now, since I have limited time...
> 
> Why do I think citizens and legal aliens will take jobs away from illegal aliens?
> 
> ...


whose "they"? Greedy and nearly broke companies (yes it's a depression) will hire those who work the hardest, for the least money.

that's not going to be an unemployed stock broker, or welfare mother.

With massive Government layoffs/budget cuts, who's going to enforce hiring laws?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The recession will continue for another 4 or 5 years, but I don't see economic collapse in our future.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> whose "they"? Greedy and nearly broke companies (yes it's a depression) will hire those who work the hardest, for the least money.
> 
> that's not going to be an unemployed stock broker, or welfare mother.
> 
> With massive Government layoffs/budget cuts, who's going to enforce hiring laws?


The people.

Through armed insurrection, although I doubt it comes to that. As long as a vote matters, I don't think large companies have the political clout to continue to hire illegals.

As for welfare mothers...Well, I suspect there is going to be a lot less of those. If you follow history and you look at what Pat Moynihan (a NY liberal) said about LBJ's vast increase in the welfare state, and it's effect on illegitimate births in the population, a good argument can be made for the reverse, as those monies dry up.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> The recession will continue for another 4 or 5 years, but I don't see economic collapse in our future.


Maybe not, but it is inevitable if we cannot cure our borrowing behavior.

The question is, beside the short term economic pain, would a Second Great Depression actually be beneficial in the long run?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> The question is, beside the short term economic pain, would a Second Great Depression actually be beneficial in the long run?


Peter Schiff thinks so, but recession always hurts more people than it helps. Recession is just the hand that was dealt to us in 2008. We were pretty much doomed to a decade of depression at that point. It's just our reality.

As someone on a fixed income, the recession hurts me. But I've done some belt tightening and am acquiring silver. I wouldn't do that unless I was as sure as I can be that silver is going to do huge things.

So the recession is what we make of it. It's all about the choices we make. The alternative is trying to make sense of Cramer's stock advice.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000313277

Good luck on that...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> The people.
> 
> Through armed insurrection, although I doubt it comes to that. As long as a vote matters, I don't think large companies have the political clout to continue to hire illegals.
> 
> As for welfare mothers...Well, I suspect there is going to be a lot less of those. If you follow history and you look at what Pat Moynihan (a NY liberal) said about LBJ's vast increase in the welfare state, and it's effect on illegitimate births in the population, a good argument can be made for the reverse, as those monies dry up.



Turn off EBT, Medicaid medicare, Social security, SSDI, VA etc. ATMs because there will be no money for any of it and banks are broke.

See how long it is, before the guns come out.

Frankly I'd give it about 3 days.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

I think we are going to find out. The truth is every scenario has it's pros and cons. As far as the issues that the OP suggested, YES I think the second coming depression will have those effects and many more.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Jolly said:


> In an economic crunch, welfare and unemployment benefits will be trivial to non-existent.


You don't understand how the monetary system works. You're thinking in terms of everyday folks, and how when they have more month than paycheck, and their credit cards are maxed out, they have to quit spending.

That simply isn't how the federal govt works. 

40-50% of the money Uncle Sam is spending right now is simply created by a stroke of the keyboard over at the Federal Reverse. They then 'buy' the debt issued by the Treasury, turning keyboard strokes into actual "money", and Uncle Sam uses that, along with income from taxes, etc, to do what they do.....send out the checks.

If they can create 1/2, *why not the other 1/2* ? 

In other words, let's assume ZERO comes in from taxes (it won't), and the FED simply puts in a little overtime at the keyboard, and buys twice what they are now....or 3 times....or 10 times. Once you get on the merry-go-round of phony money, there is very little to stop you from printing all you need !

The last depression, US currency was tied to gold......even though Roosevelt devalued the paper dollar significantly by increasing the official price of gold from 20 dollars/ounce to 35. They simply couldn't create TOO much paper money, because gold was the check. Other countries had the right to redeem our paper for REAL ACTUAL MONEY....gold. (Even though that right was denied the American people after 1933).

But Nixon cut off the redemption of gold for paper dollars in 1971 because it was clear by then that we would soon run out of gold based on the number of paper dollars being printed at the time. Since then, the US dollar is tied to nothing. There is very little to keep them from printing and printing and printing. All the rest of the countries in the world are doing the exact same thing.....racing to the bottom. Sometimes, rinky ---- little countries like Zimbawae get way out in front of the pack, but every single country today is running the same game.

How long can it continue ? Who knows ? Once we run out (or short) of some real, critical resource, like oil, then we're gonna find out how the game ends.

But my guess is they can string it out quite a bit longer if nobody (major) calls "BS".


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

AFAIK, no country has successfully run a fiat money system for any long stretch of time. Sooner or later, hyperinflation kicks in.

Surely, we can do better than the Weimer Republic?


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

TnAndy said:


> If they can create 1/2, *why not the other 1/2* ?


Because they know it would undermine the faith of the US dollar world wide


> *How long can it continue ?*


Only so long as they can force the world to accept US dollars as a thing of value. The BRICS nations are already hording gold and exiting the US dollar, making deals to trade in their respective currencies.

They can't simply print whatever they want. There is a limit. At some point the debt to GDP will scare investors away, and there could be a flight from the dollar.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> 1. It solves the illegal problem. As the jobs dry up and Uncle Sugar cannot afford to pay benefits to illegal aliens, they will leave.
> 
> *No. Illegal aliens come here for the work not the "benefits". In a collapsed economy, they will still hire a Mexican to pick produce, not an unemployed banker.*


They USED to not come here for the benefits but today one of the first things many of them do is head for the welfare office. Ask anyone who works there.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> They USED to not come here for the benefits but today one of the first things many of them do is head for the welfare office. Ask anyone who works there.


They wouldn't get anything from the welfare office in this state. I know that for a fact.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The Treasury is between a rock and a hard place right now. The foreign buyers of their T-bills are either reducing their buying or outright ignoring the auction. This leaves the Fed the primary source of "money". It's become a vicious circle wherein the more the Fed buys (in some cases through laundered purchases) the less foreign buyers want. 

The answer of course is for the Treasury to increase interest rates to bring back the outside buyers. Unfortunately, increased interest rates will even further indebt the US, and it's already well beyond its ability to repay.

That vicious circle I mentioned? It's very similar to what you see in your toilet bowl right after flushing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I've been hearing predictions of economic collapse for as long as I can remember -- at least 50 years. The doomsday predictions are always loudest during democratic administrations, since many doomsday foreseers are right wing and oppose democrats. But that doesn't make them correct.

I can't help but remember when I predicted the mortgage crisis. I ran away to northern Nevada in 2006 and built my depression shelter to weather the bad economic times I foresaw. Conservatives in this forum laughed, accusing me of political grandstanding against Bush. They couldn't imagine that a republican president might have us on a collision course with economic disaster.

The real problem here is the these predictions of economic collapse are not based on fact, history, or sound economic theory. It only warns that if the doomsday predictors don't get their political way that we will suffer the worst kind of economic disaster.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've been hearing predictions of economic collapse for as long as I can remember -- at least 50 years. The doomsday predictions are always loudest during democratic administrations, since many doomsday foreseers are right wing and oppose democrats. But that doesn't make them correct.
> 
> I can't help but remember when I predicted the mortgage crisis. I ran away to northern Nevada in 2006 and built my depression shelter to weather the bad economic times I foresaw. Conservatives in this forum laughed, accusing me of political grandstanding against Bush. They couldn't imagine that a republican president might have us on a collision course with economic disaster.
> 
> The real problem here is the these predictions of economic collapse are not based on fact, history, or sound economic theory. It only warns that if the doomsday predictors don't get their political way that we will suffer the worst kind of economic disaster.


That's exactly the tactics this administration is using! "Never let a good crisis go to waste"!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They wouldn't get anything from the welfare office in this state. I know that for a fact.


You've asked people who actually worked there or are you just taking it on faith? Better yet find find an illegal which will talk to you and ask them about how to beat the system. You might just be shocked at how many are sucking on the government teat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You've asked people who actually worked there or are you just taking it on faith? Better yet find find an illegal which will talk to you and ask them about how to beat the system. You might just be shocked at how many are sucking on the government teat.


Before my girlfriend lived with me, and before she was a US citizen, she tried to get welfare. She could get some for her son (a citizen) but nothing for herself.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Before my girlfriend lived with me, and before she was a US citizen, she tried to get welfare. She could get some for her son (a citizen) but nothing for herself.


California never turns any illegal aliens away!! Billions of dollars flow freely from the taxpayers to Mexico!


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The real problem here is the these predictions of economic collapse are not based on fact, history, or sound economic theory. It only warns that if the doomsday predictors don't get their political way that we will suffer the worst kind of economic disaster.


I can promise you the majority of people active or just reading on the S&EP forum were doing so well before obama came along. The deficit nearly doubling under obama certainly puts more immediacy to the problem, but predicting a collapse isn't much more difficult than looking to the Southwest on a spring day to see a funnel cloud heading your way.

You say history doesn't bear out predictions of societal collapse? Does your history book only go back 20 years? Nearly every great society that ever existed came crashing down due to economic malfeasance.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> They USED to not come here for the benefits but today one of the first things many of them do is head for the welfare office. Ask anyone who works there.


Absolutely true because the system is set up to gladly accommodate them, but they would still be here, without it.

A I has stated, every dime given to the poor goes right back into the a capitalist's cash register. 

You don't think they fight for and welcome them and not just the Liberals?



> Immigrant spending accounted for *$1.6 billion worth of total production in Nebraskaâs economy* and generated roughly* 12,000 jobs for the state *in 2006, according to a study from the University of Nebraska-Omaha.


http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/new-americans-nebraska


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Folks need to look up the "misery index". The coming collapse will be very, very bad!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Before my girlfriend lived with me, and before she was a US citizen, she tried to get welfare. She could get some for her son (a citizen) but nothing for herself.


Gee whiz- you're the whole ball of liberal wax, aren't you......

Pull-eeze don't give any more details of your life.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Absolutely true because the system is set up to gladly accommodate them, but they would still be here, without it.
> 
> A I has stated, every dime given to the poor goes right back into the a capitalist's cash register.
> 
> ...


You keep saying that but never respond to the issue of the fact the money came from the capitalists in the first place and passed through the digestive system of the government to get their share before landing with the poor.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Folks need to look up the "misery index". The coming collapse will be very, very bad!


Just a guess, but if we get a conservative president in 2016 the financial collapse can be avoided?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> They wouldn't get anything from the welfare office in this state. I know that for a fact.


What you "know for a fact" is that your lady friend failed to receive benefits. But she was honest when she went in, right? Used her real identity and told the truth about her circumstances? Other people, not so much. Fake IDs, lie on the forms, whatever it takes. Then they're on the rolls and on the dole.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Folks need to look up the "misery index". The coming collapse will be very, very bad!


Misery index doesn't work that well anymore. According to the data there is next to no inflation. After all a can of tuna still cost $0.50, the government doesn't take the fact that can used to hold 8 oz but now is only 5 oz.

Any day now I'm expecting to see gallon milk jugs that have 120 oz in them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just a guess, but if we get a conservative president in 2016 the financial collapse can be avoided?


Nope. If we got a house, a senate and a pres who had the political courage to do some hard work we *MIGHT* be able to avoid it. 

But considering there are so many leaches sucking on the government's body there's no way any pol is going to do anything. They don't even have guts enough to stop increasing spending every year much less cut anything.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

The economy collapsed already in '08. It never recovered. A true recovery would have to include productive employment and either wage increases or deflated asset prices. We got neither, all we got was the Fed printing up money and holding interest rates down. All this is supposed to give the impression of recovery and reinflate the bubbles. In spite of the fact that they printed up more money and held interest rates down lower, longer than at any other time in history, the economy still did not enter another boom phase. All that the money printing and interest rate manipulation was able to accomplish is an absurd stock market rally based on corporate buy backs from cheap loans.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Just a guess, but if we get a conservative president in 2016 the financial collapse can be avoided?


No, but you'll be out there telling us that Obama had us on the road to recovery until the evil conservatives pulled us back in the ditch.

Pot meet kettle.:frypan:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trainwrek said:


> The economy collapsed already in '08. It never recovered.


In 2006 I said that we were headed for a decade long depression, which started in 2008. I expect another 4 to 5 years of hard times. Why does that surprise anyone? After all, the Great Depression lasted 12 years.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nevada said:


> In 2006 I said that we were headed for a decade long depression, which started in 2008. I expect another 4 to 5 years of hard times. Why does that surprise anyone? After all, the Great Depression lasted 12 years.


I said almost the same thing in '06. Only I didn't predict a ten year depression, I predicted that it would be the beginning of our economy unraveling. We were able to get passed the Great Depression because we had natural deflationary forces still at work. Jobs were scarce but prices were allowed to come down to meet the reality of reduced incomes. The government is short circuiting that process by trying to force prices higher. So what we have now are reduced incomes, reduced employment, and higher prices. We will never have a recovery until we have a correction, prices must fall or wages must rise otherwise demand will remain anemic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trainwrek said:


> I said almost the same thing in '06. Only I didn't predict a ten year depression, I predicted that it would be the beginning of our economy unraveling.


I was laughed at in this forum for predicting depression, and was accused of Bush bashing. No conservative in this forum could believe that the economy could collapse under a republican president. They said I was only saying those things because of political sour grapes.

One conservative thought that my depression predictions were so funny that he used my prediction, word for word, in his signature line. Everyone got a good laugh out of that.

But I put my money where my mouth was. I moved to northern Nevada in 2006 and built a cabin to weather the depression in. Again, conservatives liked that because I was too busy building a shelter to post here. I lived there for 4 years.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> In 2006 I said that we were headed for a decade long depression, which started in 2008. I expect another 4 to 5 years of hard times. Why does that surprise anyone? After all, the Great Depression lasted 12 years.


And it would have lasted longer if it hadn't been for WWII. FDR et al would have seen to that. The depression was a major boon for him/them it allowed him/them to snatch all kinds of unconstitutional powers with the people cheering him/them on because he/they were "helping" the poor working man. The longer and deeper they could make it the more power they could gain.

He wanted a tax of _*100%*_ of net incomes over $25K he had to settle for _*ONLY *__*94%!*_ Can you imagine what that would have done to a depressed economy?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I was laughed at in this forum for predicting depression, and was accused of Bush bashing. No conservative in this forum could believe that the economy could collapse under a republican president. They said I was only saying those things because of political sour grapes.
> 
> One conservative thought that my depression predictions were so funny that he used my prediction, word for word, in his signature line. Everyone got a good laugh out of that.
> 
> But I put my money where my mouth was. I moved to northern Nevada in 2006 and built a cabin to weather the depression in. Again, conservatives liked that because I was too busy building a shelter to post here. I lived there for 4 years.


Didn't matter what president was in office if someone is going to have a run on the federal reserve. And that is exactly what happened in sept 2008. Now if only our goverment would tell us who did it and also where a few trillion $ have gone missing to. We could have another run anytime "someone" wants to do it. I suspect the current regime has backers with all that power,that is why we are not being told exactly who Obama is and noone is gutsy enough to do something about him breaking the law whenever he wants.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Didn't matter what president was in office if someone is going to have a run on the federal reserve. And that is exactly what happened in sept 2008. Now if only our goverment would tell us who did it and also where a few trillion $ have gone missing to. We could have another run anytime "someone" wants to do it. I suspect the current regime has backers with all that power,that is why we are not being told exactly who Obama is and noone is gutsy enough to do something about him breaking the law whenever he wants.


It happened on Bush's watch, and I don't believe that nobody saw it coming. I saw it coming, and sounded the alarm right here in this forum.

The worst you can say about Obama is that he's not fixing it fast enough. But I don't believe there is anything the government can do to make it go any faster.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It happened on Bush's watch, and I don't believe that nobody saw it coming. I saw it coming, and sounded the alarm right here in this forum.
> 
> The worst you can say about Obama is that he's not fixing it fast enough. But I don't believe there is anything the government can do to make it go any faster.


It was Clintons legacy, Bush had no power to stop it, especially with a liberal senate. He did try, but the socialists stopped him.
The best that can be said about Obama is epic failure of everything, I'll repeat that... epic fail at everything. (Except giving away trillions of dollars)


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Clinton and the terrible things that he set forth to go into effect in the next few years after he was long gone. Bad bad bad.


----------



## RWeThereYet (Aug 31, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I can't help but remember when I predicted the mortgage crisis. I ran away to northern Nevada in 2006 and built my depression shelter to weather the bad economic times I foresaw.


Really? Your prediction was a year behind.
I sold my townhouse in June of 05'. Because I saw the mortgage crisis coming. 
You moved to Nevada as a shelter to weather the economic times? 
Yet another bad move.
Have you seen the recent reports of the SW (to include NV) and a mega drought? To continue for another few to decades? 
In order for the SW to recover, it would require a multi-year above average rainfall amount.
All reports from NASA to UCLA have indicated the drought will continue.


----------



## han_solo (Aug 31, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> It was Clintons legacy, Bush had no power to stop it, especially with a liberal senate. He did try, but the socialists stopped him.
> The best that can be said about Obama is epic failure of everything, I'll repeat that... epic fail at everything. (Except giving away trillions of dollars)


I think that the bad economy started way before Clinton maybe even from the 1st one. Clinton helped by some of the things he did though. This country just keeps borrowing and spending money and not saving or paying.


----------



## han_solo (Aug 31, 2014)

Nevada said:


> It happened on Bush's watch, and I don't believe that nobody saw it coming. I saw it coming, and sounded the alarm right here in this forum.
> 
> The worst you can say about Obama is that he's not fixing it fast enough. But I don't believe there is anything the government can do to make it go any faster.


Maybe the only thing Obama did that i liked was the car companies loans. Not the best things the way he/they did it. The cash for clunkers soaked though


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> You keep saying that but never respond to the issue of the fact the money came from the capitalists in the first place and passed through the digestive system of the government to get their share before landing with the poor.


The money comes from you and me.

Ok, so the capitalists take a cut and so does uncle Sam, 

What is your point?

$1.6 billion in additional revenue is $1.6 billion. Are you stating that these businesses pay that much in additional taxes, because of immigrants?

Seriously?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

han_solo said:


> I think that the bad economy started way before Clinton maybe even from the 1st one. Clinto helped by some of the things he did though. This country just keeps borrowing and spending money and not saving or paying.


I thought Bush didn't blame Clinton for anything, much less something that happened 8 years after Clinton left office.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> A I has stated, every dime given to the poor goes right back into the a capitalist's cash register.


This is NOT a good thing! For one thing, almost half of that money is being stolen from future generations to put into the pockets of today's capitalists. Also, when it comes to immigrants (regardless of legal/illegal) a lot of the money they receive (wages/welfare/whatever) goes back home to their families, not back into OUR economy.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Just a guess, but if we get a conservative president in 2016 the financial collapse can be avoided?


Of course not. Only a moron would say that.



Nevada said:


> In 2006 I said that we were headed for a decade long depression, which started in 2008. I expect another 4 to 5 years of hard times. Why does that surprise anyone? After all, the Great Depression lasted 12 years.


Why do you seem so impressed with your own ability to predict something that had already started by the time you predicted it? Heck, I predicted it BEFORE it started.



Nevada said:


> The worst you can say about Obama is that he's not fixing it fast enough.


Nope, I can say MUCH worse about Obama. He's not fixing it at all. Not that he could fix it. That's not within the power of the president or the government. But he is making it worse.


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I was laughed at in this forum for predicting depression, and was accused of Bush bashing. No conservative in this forum could believe that the economy could collapse under a republican president. They said I was only saying those things because of political sour grapes.
> 
> One conservative thought that my depression predictions were so funny that he used my prediction, word for word, in his signature line. Everyone got a good laugh out of that.
> 
> But I put my money where my mouth was. I moved to northern Nevada in 2006 and built a cabin to weather the depression in. Again, conservatives liked that because I was too busy building a shelter to post here. I lived there for 4 years.


I got similar resistance from conservatives when I said the economy was headed downward back then. Alot of democrats readily agreed with me. Now the democrats are the ones resisting the bad news and the conservatives are lapping it up. My friend, a hardcore conservative, and I had lengthy discussions that turned to downright arguments back in '06-'07. I was a "liberal" who had no idea what I was talking about in his opinion. Now when we converse he basically mimics all the things I said to him before. When I speak to liberals now I'm a "right winger", who just hates Obama because he's black. I've agreed with liberals when they were protesting and resisting all these wars, but now that a liberal is in office they are silent even though the wars rage on, guantanamo is still open, and the body counts continue to rise.

Thats what happens with partisanship. For alot of people, its really about "their side winning" the issues are irrelevant and they spin their own self deluded reality. I've got to the point where I've figured out that most people just are not capable of objective logic. It's all tied up with their emotions.


Personally, I only care about the economics of it. Bush was as bad as Obama in so far as doing what needed to be done for the good of the economy. Romney, Hillary, Bush III, they are all the same. They are establishment candidates backed by TPTB to keep the status quo and represent their interests. Because of that, nothing is going to change and the economy is going over the cliff. Thats a foregone conclusion. The only thing worth discussing IMO is how to best prepare and avoid as much pain as possible.



PS. Why would you build a survival cabin in one of the most hostile environments for human habitation?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

The hearings were on tv,one still go see them at u-tube. Barny Frank and Todd (forgot) It was all denyed that it was going happen,but it happened as planned to get a Dem back in office. They put the same 2 loosers back inplace to redirect the ovbious cause. The Community Reinvestment Act. IIRC 1993.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Trainwrek said:


> I got similar resistance from conservatives when I said the economy was headed downward back then.


Yeah, I know. Everyone saw it coming if you ask them today.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I have to ask some things.

If you owned a business do you think it'd be a good business plan to go out and borrow money then give away to people so they would then have money to buy your goods?

If not then what makes you think the government borrowing money and giving it to people to spend is a good plan?

If you were a business owner do you thing it'd be a good business plan to forcibly take money from you employees and customers to give to other people so those others would have money to buy your goods?

If not what makes you think the government doing the same thing is smart?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, I know. Everyone saw it coming if you ask them today.


Too bad we can't see all those prophetic postings now to check it out. Because, having gone back and forth about other things, I know that misinterpretation works as well in hindsight as it does in the present.

I sorely suspect your version of predicting the recession was that you complained that letting Wall Street loose of regulation would lead to failures while seeing no problem with legislating subprime mortgages to allow poor people to buy homes they couldn't afford, however conflicting that would be.

I admit that I would be impressed if you had put those two neccessary parts together to predict what happened. I certainly didn't think of it.


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

locally-more empty houses,less factory jobs,more low paying service jobs.i've got 2 adult children.1 is renting-can't afford a house dad! other is paying for his house&going broke with taxes=WTH!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, I know. Everyone saw it coming if you ask them today.


I could prove I saw it coming if I could find the receipts from all the survival supplies I bought leading up to it...of course, it wouldn't convince you because I didn't start in 2006. That isn't when the crisis started, that's just when it began to boil up. I didn't feel the need to "sound the alarm" back then because I thought it was obvious to anyone with half a brain. I was wrong about that part.

ETA: To be clear, I never predicted when the crisis would boil over...I just knew it was coming. I'm no economics expert and I didn't follow Peter Schiff or any of the other "forecasters" so I didn't have details. It was just inevitable that things could not continue as they were for much longer.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

jtbrandt said:


> I could prove I saw it coming if I could find the receipts from all the survival supplies I bought leading up to it...of course, it wouldn't convince you because I didn't start in 2006. That isn't when the crisis started, that's just when it began to boil up. I didn't feel the need to "sound the alarm" back then because I thought it was obvious to anyone with half a brain. I was wrong about that part.
> 
> ETA: To be clear, I never predicted when the crisis would boil over...I just knew it was coming. I'm no economics expert and I didn't follow Peter Schiff or any of the other "forecasters" so I didn't have details. It was just inevitable that things could not continue as they were for much longer.


Jtbrandt, what kind of survival supplies did you buy, and have they come in handy?


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Ozarks Tom said:


> That vicious circle I mentioned? It's very similar to what you see in your toilet bowl right after flushing.


The $60,000 question is.........will the turd make through the pipe, or will we be tip-toeing through the turd field?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Scott SW Ohio said:


> Jtbrandt, what kind of survival supplies did you buy, and have they come in handy?


Mostly gardening tools, seeds, and that kind of thing. Yeah, they've come in handy. I could have survived without them, but it would have been rough, especially if I hadn't taken other measures to increase my income (and replace much of what was lost) through the downturn. I'm not convinced we've seen the worst of it yet, either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> In 2006 I said that we were headed for a decade long depression, which started in 2008. I expect another 4 to 5 years of hard times. Why does that surprise anyone? After all, the Great Depression lasted 12 years.


I hate to burst your bubble, but the Great Depression lasted a bit longer than 12 years. It began with the bust in 29, and is still very much alive and well today. FDR pumped enough phoney money into the economy during WW2 to make it "appear" to have gotten better, but every dime of his borrowed money, and the inflationary devaluation of our dollars is still very much with us eighty five years later...... along with a lot more added along the way. If our economy was so great during the fifties and sixties and seventies I wonder why the government had to keep expanding its social programs? If we have had such a great economy why arent we all wealthy today? :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If we have had such a great economy why arent we all wealthy today? :shrug:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


>


It seemed an honest valid question to me... After all those years of prosperity one would think we should be able to shut down all the social programs, everyone should be riding high today. And yet here we are, borrowing and borrowing to feed the poor. :shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seemed an honest valid question to me... After all those years of prosperity one would think we should be able to shut down all the social programs, everyone should be riding high today. And yet here we are, borrowing and borrowing to feed the poor. :shrug:


There is never an economic climate where everyone is wealthy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There is never an economic climate where everyone is wealthy.


Lets just say that doesnt happen when the people are in debt to their eyeballs, and the government keeps driving them deeper in. One would think everyone would be better off if they were allowed to keep the product of their labors. That is "prosperity". Its also something this country hasnt seen in a very long time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lets just say that doesnt happen when the people are in debt to their eyeballs, and the government keeps driving them deeper in. One would think everyone would be better off if they were allowed to keep the product of their labors. That is "prosperity". Its also something this country hasnt seen in a very long time.


The point is that if everybody is wealthy then nobody is wealthy. Who's going to dig ditches for you if everybody is wealthy?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The point is that if everybody is wealthy then nobody is wealthy. Who's going to dig ditches for you if everybody is wealthy?


Ah but that's the operative theory of most welfare programs- that despite the total lack of reason of holding that people will work at unpleasant jobs even though they have the option of not doing it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The point is that if everybody is wealthy then nobody is wealthy. Who's going to dig ditches for you if everybody is wealthy?


I guess you do what a lot of the wealthy already do.... dig their own ditches. 

I guess the concept of saving and accumulating real wealth is lost on some of us. Sad we have gone so long without having that capacity that no one seems to even understand it. The notion that not everyone can be wealthy is absurd. There is no realistic reason that everyone cannot create their own wealth, save and stockpile it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I guess the concept of saving and accumulating real wealth is lost on some of us.


But I'm the silver stacking advocate around here.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But I'm the silver stacking advocate around here.


Right, how much real "wealth" have you accumulated over the course of your lifetime? I am not talking about representative wealth... stocks bonds gold silver and cash, but actual "wealth"? You do know the difference right? Money isnt wealth, its just the stuff you use to buy your wealth when you need it. Most money is nothing more than a flow of electrons broken into bits and bytes, not much nutrition, nor warmth, nor shelter there.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If our economy was so great during the fifties and sixties and seventies I wonder why the government had to keep expanding its social programs? If we have had such a great economy why arent we all wealthy today? :shrug:


Seriously?

On one side of town an aerospace worker, auto worker or IBM scientist was making $40 hr - for decades and on the other side of town, someone was living in a tenement on welfare.

The latter's lifestyle was determined solely by the strength (or weakness) of the U.S. economy?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Seriously?
> 
> On one side of town an aerospace worker, auto worker or IBM scientist was making $40 hr - for decades and on the other side of town, someone was living in a tenement on welfare.
> 
> The latter's lifestyle was determined solely by the strength (or weakness) of the U.S. economy?


I would say the weakness in the U.S. economy had more to do with it than anything. If we had had a strong economy there would have been no welfare programs, and those poor fellers would have had jobs to go to, and been able to support themselves and their families, along with accumulating some tangible wealth along the way. Instead they were taught they were poor and helpless, handed just enough to keep them alive and breed like rats in a cage.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say the weakness in the U.S. economy had more to do with it than anything. If we had had a strong economy there would have been no welfare programs, and those poor fellers would have had jobs to go to, and been able to support themselves and their families, along with accumulating some tangible wealth along the way. Instead they were taught they were poor and helpless, handed just enough to keep them alive and breed like rats in a cage.


Yep sounds like more fun when you can get paid to breed than to work to me :thumb:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would say the weakness in the U.S. economy had more to do with it than anything. If we had had a strong economy there would have been no welfare programs, and those poor fellers would have had jobs to go to, and been able to support themselves and their families, along with accumulating some tangible wealth along the way. Instead they were taught they were poor and helpless, handed just enough to keep them alive and breed like rats in a cage.


 So, using your logic, the U.S. economy has always been weak. If, so why does it matter now?


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

watcher said:


> Misery index doesn't work that well anymore. According to the data there is next to no inflation. After all a can of tuna still cost $0.50, the government doesn't take the fact that can used to hold 8 oz but now is only 5 oz.
> 
> Any day now I'm expecting to see gallon milk jugs that have 120 oz in them.


fifty cent a can for tuna not in my neck of the woods $1.89


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> So, using your logic, the U.S. economy has always been weak. If, so why does it matter now?


It hasnt always been weak, just since the Great Depression... which is still going on in spite of what some would have us believe. We are still (as a nation) trying to borrow ourselves rich, spending more than we have and getting deeper into trouble every day. We are NOT producing wealth, we are simply devaluing dollars.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It hasnt always been weak, just since the Great Depression... which is still going on in spite of what some would have us believe. We are still (as a nation) trying to borrow ourselves rich, spending more than we have and getting deeper into trouble every day. We are NOT producing wealth, we are simply devaluing dollars.


It's capitalism on steroids.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's capitalism on steroids.


"capÂ·iÂ·talÂ·ism noun \&#712;ka-p&#601;-t&#601;-&#716;liz-&#601;m, &#712;kap-t&#601;-, British also k&#601;-&#712;pi-t&#601;-\
: a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

Full definition of capitalism:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Our current economic system has little to do with free markets or private ownership of business. While private entrepreneurs quite often do pay for the privilege of running a business, more often than not it is our government that makes the decisions on what they can and cannot do or what product they can produce as well as determining their markets. Those who control are the actual "owners" no matter what the deed or corporate declaration might say. In our country today... that is the government in most cases. Need I bring forth the definition of socialism for you? Or do you "get it"?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It hasnt always been weak, just since the Great Depression... which is still going on in spite of what some would have us believe. We are still (as a nation) trying to borrow ourselves rich, spending more than we have and getting deeper into trouble every day. We are NOT producing wealth, we are simply devaluing dollars.


Dollar value isn't the holy grail of economics. During the great depression the problem was deflation, where the dollar actually went up in value. In truth, deflation is a real possibility today.

What are conservatives going to complain about if deflation becomes a reality and the dollar gets stronger?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes sir the economy is bunching back.
Well Tell THAT to these folks when they get the AXE.
*Sprint Announces Layoffs, Number of Affected Employees Unknown*


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Dollar value isn't the holy grail of economics. During the great depression the problem was deflation, where the dollar actually went up in value. In truth, deflation is a real possibility today.
> 
> What are conservatives going to complain about if deflation becomes a reality and the dollar gets stronger?


Deflation was NOT the problem during the thirties... it was one of the results of the depression. Deflation in and of itself is never a problem. Personally I would love to see the day when my dollar will buy me what I now have to pay 10 dollars for. That would bring the price of gasoline back down to 35 cents a gallon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Yes sir the economy is bunching back.
> Well Tell THAT to these folks when they get the AXE.
> *Sprint Announces Layoffs, Number of Affected Employees Unknown*


Brace for 4 to 5 more years of recession. We'll have good a bad days, but we won't have sustained prosperity for a long time to come.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Deflation was NOT the problem during the thirties... it was one of the results of the depression. Deflation in and of itself is never a problem. Personally I would love to see the day when my dollar will buy me what I now have to pay 10 dollars for. That would bring the price of gasoline back down to 35 cents a gallon.


The point is that a strong dollar does not always mean a strong economy.

Whether it be inflation or deflation, there are always winners and losers. If we have deflation and the dollar doubles in value I'll lose my shirt, since I have everything in real estate and silver. I won't benefit from a fixed income either, since SS will track the dollar value. I'll be left with worthless property, worthless silver, and my pension cut in half.

Obviously I'm betting that the dollar will go the other way.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It hasnt always been weak, just since the Great Depression... which is still going on in spite of what some would have us believe. We are still (as a nation) trying to borrow ourselves rich, spending more than we have and getting deeper into trouble every day. We are NOT producing wealth, we are simply devaluing dollars.


Can you elaborate on how the economy was strong prior to the great depression.

I'm not seeing it.



> The aftermath of the canal failures, the Panic of 1837 and the collapse in agricultural commodity prices, particularly cotton prices, were all factors in the depression that lasted from 1839-1943. The timing for cotton was made worse by the saturation of the cotton textile market at the ending stage of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The depression was one of the most severe in the nation's history.[45] See: For additional information see Historical examples of credit deflation
> Despite the deflation and depression, GDP rose 16% from 1839-43.[3]





> During the period, a series of recessions happened. Panic of 1873 had New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days, of the country's 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt, a total of 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875, unemployment reached 14% by 1876, during a time which became known as the Long Depression. The end of the Gilded Age coincided with the Panic of 1893, a deep depression that lasted until 1897 and marked a major political realignment in the election of 1896.





> An major economic downturn in 1906 ended the expansion from the late 1890s. This was followed by the Panic of 1907. The Panic of 1907 was a factor in the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913.
> The mild inflation of the 1890s, attributed to the rising gold supply from mining, continued until World War I, at which time it rose sharply with wartime shortages including labor shortages. Following the war prices corrected.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The recession will continue for another 4 or 5 years, but I don't see economic collapse in our future.





Nevada said:


> Peter Schiff thinks so, but recession always hurts more people than it helps. Recession is just the hand that was dealt to us in 2008. We were pretty much doomed to a decade of depression at that point. It's just our reality.
> 
> As someone on a fixed income, the recession hurts me. But I've done some belt tightening and am acquiring silver. I wouldn't do that unless I was as sure as I can be that silver is going to do huge things.
> 
> ...


I'm just curious why you're acquiring silver if you don't believe an economic collapse is in our future?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> I'm just curious why you're acquiring silver if you don't believe an economic collapse is in our future?


I believe that in 4 to 5 years industrial silver demand will outstrip mine production and supply. That can still happen regardless of the condition of the economy or dollar. In fact it can even happen without gold going up.

Safe haven is only one reason to invest in silver.


----------



## just_sawing (Jan 15, 2006)

It is interesting that the cause of the banking crisis is not highlighted. When a court settled a class action lawsuit that it was illegal to deny mortgages to people that could not afford them and the government went wild with the banks to loan to anyone that was the cause. 
What is totally forgot or hidden is that the young lawyer that represented the people in that lawsuit was in fact Obama.
So if you want accuracy Obama cause the 2008 crisis.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

just_sawing said:


> It is interesting that the cause of the banking crisis is not highlighted. When a court settled a class action lawsuit that it was illegal to deny mortgages to people that could not afford them and the government went wild with the banks to loan to anyone that was the cause.
> What is totally forgot or hidden is that the young lawyer that represented the people in that lawsuit was in fact Obama.
> So if you want accuracy Obama cause the 2008 crisis.


Define "accuracy". http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Can you elaborate on how the economy was strong prior to the great depression.
> 
> I'm not seeing it.


You arent looking in the right places. Look at the production of wealth this country was creating and stockpiling from the early eighteen hundreds up until the 1930s, much of which is still in use today. Again we are not talking about cash, stocks nor bonds here, but the true "wealth" created, things like our infrastructure, raw materials and land being put into useful production. Wall st will always have its ups and downs.... but the fact that our nation steadily grew and prospered throughout the 19th century isnt up for question.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You arent looking in the right places. Look at the production of wealth this country was creating and stockpiling from the early eighteen hundreds up until the 1930s, much of which is still in use today. Again we are not talking about cash, stocks nor bonds here, but the true "wealth" created, things like our infrastructure, raw materials and land being put into useful production. Wall st will always have its ups and downs.... but the fact that our nation steadily grew and prospered throughout the 19th century isnt up for question.


Most of the critical infrastructure I see is post 1930. The interstate highway system, the St. Laurence seaway, Hoover Dam, hospitals, nuclear power plants, and even modern sea & air ports. The 1930s also provided a lot of infrastructure that's been replaced, such as schools and post offices.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Most of the critical infrastructure I see is post 1930. The interstate highway system, the St. Laurence seaway, Hoover Dam, hospitals, nuclear power plants, and even modern sea & air ports. The 1930s also provided a lot of infrastructure that's been replaced, such as schools and post offices.


This is also true, "some" of our more modern infrastructure is from later eras, but you have to admit that basis for our nation per se was "built" prior to FDR. In the past 40 years how much have we really done towards improving our nations wealth? Since FDR's administration how much of our nations wealth was paid for... how much of it was and is being done with borrowed money that will most likely never be repaid? I remember when Reagans "trillion dollar debt" was considered to be outrageous.... today we borrow that much and more every year!


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Would a Second Great Depression be the best possible medicine for America?
> 
> 1. It solves the illegal problem. As the jobs dry up and Uncle Sugar cannot afford to pay benefits to illegal aliens, they will leave.
> 
> ...


 .............I don't see the linkage.........the Great depression was the reason FDR initiated the many social work programs of the 1930's ! , fordy


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Define "accuracy". http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp


Mostly true! How's that! He was a member of the 8 member team that caused this. Even Slopes admits this, and their highly partisan.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Mostly true! How's that! He was a member of the 8 member team that caused this. Even Slopes admits this, and their highly partisan.


Mostly false and the cases had little to do with the deceptive loan practices and bundling of bad mortgages that actually caused the crisis but if you can't tell the difference between "false" and "true" nothing I say will sway you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The point is that a strong dollar does not always mean a strong economy.
> 
> Whether it be inflation or deflation, there are always winners and losers. *If we have deflation and the dollar doubles in value I'll lose my shirt, since I have everything in real estate and silver.* I won't benefit from a fixed income either, since SS will track the dollar value. I'll be left with worthless property, worthless silver, and my pension cut in half.
> 
> Obviously I'm betting that the dollar will go the other way.


Deflation is not going to have any affect on the true value of your real estate... your house is still going to be there, still keeping the rain off your head and whatever else it does for you right now. Same with your silver.... it will still be just as useful to you as it is now... basically useless.... which is why I dont stockpile such useless junk.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Deflation is not going to have any affect on the true value of your real estate... your house is still going to be there, still keeping the rain off your head and whatever else it does for you right now. Same with your silver.... it will still be just as useful to you as it is now... basically useless.... which is why I dont stockpile such useless junk.


There's a silver pundit who makes that argument. He says that silver never goes up or down in value, since one ounce of silver is always worth one ounce of silver. The dollar goes up & down in relation to silver, but silver stays the same.

The problem with that is that we don't normally exchange silver for silver, we exchange silver for dollars so we can spend it. At some point the dollar value if silver matters.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There's a silver pundit who makes that argument. He says that silver never goes up or down in value, since one ounce of silver is always worth one ounce of silver. The dollar goes up & down in relation to silver, but silver stays the same.
> 
> The problem with that is that we don't normally exchange silver for silver, we exchange silver for dollars so we can spend it. At some point the dollar value if silver matters.


It matters little to me. If the dollar is weak, more of them can be exchanged for a pound of silver.... but what you buy will also cost you more dollars.... if the dollar is strong, you wont get as many of them for your silver... but they will buy just as much as they would if you got a lot of them during the weak dollar. What silver does not do is draw interest. it just sits in the corner being silver.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What silver does not do is draw interest. it just sits in the corner being silver.


That's true. the P/E ratio (price/earnings) for all precious metals is infinite, since precious metals have zero earnings. P/E is an important parameter for stock investors, so some investors wrinkle their noses at precious metals for that very reason.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> That's true. the P/E ratio (price/earnings) for all precious metals is infinite, since precious metals have zero earnings. P/E is an important parameter for stock investors, so some investors wrinkle their noses at precious metals for that very reason.


I have never been big on stocks and bonds either. I have my "money" in real estate where it can not only earn me more money on a monthly basis (rentals) but also increases in value over time. As our population grows, the law of supply and demand kick in with real estate.... the worn out saying becomes very real... "They aint making anymore of it". Just plain old dirt beats silver and gold... example, my grandfather bought a piece of dirt in 1945 for 2K... today that same dirt is "worth" somewhere in the 400K range. How does that compare with the price of gold or silver in the same time frame? Bear in mind this dirt has produced thousands of dollars every year along the way in rent.


----------

