The New plan or Whatever for the U.S.A

[Barotix]

If people just gave it a chance... I know it would work. In the beginning, in it's infancy, times will be hard but those "hard times" will be short lived. In today's market all currencies are connected and backed by the dollar, if America falls it will take the world with it.

[XemnasXD]

If people just gave it a chance... I know it would work. In the beginning, in it's infancy, times will be hard but those "hard times" will be short lived. In today's market all currencies are connected and backed by the dollar, if America falls it will take the world with it.

lol the Euro is quickly taking over...

[Barotix]

If people just gave it a chance... I know it would work. In the beginning, in it's infancy, times will be hard but those "hard times" will be short lived. In today's market all currencies are connected and backed by the dollar, if America falls it will take the world with it.

lol the Euro is quickly taking over...

O.O my bad grammar, fixed*: Not as quickly as is necessary to save the world's economy. Meh, w/e. It'll create a vacuum and it will be a battle ground between socialist, constitutionalist, and free market enthusiast. Of course you will have some totalitarian leaning thugs. Ready to kill as many men to set up your dream gov't? >_> I probably shouldn't make bad jokes like that.

[whiteraven]

loooool,,

american market will loose his leading role.... if it doesnt controle the crisis pretty fast,, export products americans cant afford anymore will be send to other places, azia etc..

and europeon market is made to be self sestainance,, europeon market can do without america,, but it will be a bit harder,, europeon company´s would just search an other country to export their stuff to,, china, russia etc.... dollar wouldnt be appreciated anymore as money, dollar would devaluate,,

this is mainly america´s problem

[whiteraven]

history teaches us a guided marked doesnt work (stalins 5 year plans)

A guided market is a regulated market. You don't even know what a free market is. I even gave a brief explanation of a free market. So which one is it? What does history tell us? History tells us one thing: regulated markets only postpone financial crisis but when the crisis finally comes it is so staggering that no amount of gov't meddling can fix it. Gov't meddling is usually the primary cause. It's people like, people that don't even know how a free market works that give it a bad name. You think the rich like a free market? They're the ones that are always pushing for more regulations. It gives them the opportunity to take part in risky ventures without worrying about competition or natural market controls. Learn from history, that's all I'm asking you to do. It works for Holland but it won't work in America unless our system is restructured from the ground up. Regulations reduce market competition causing a gap to grow between the poor and the rich. I can't believe you tried to pass Stalin's economy as a free market.

Keynesian Economics highlights issues that wouldn't occur in a true free market.

loool guide market -> 1 peep tells what should be made and how much, completely ignoring the wishes of people...

a regulated market still listens to the needs of the market,, but protects the people more.... less liberal, less comunistic,,

if free market is 1, guided market is -1 then regulated market is 0 its in the middle

[Barotix]

Any gov't institution, be it by one person or many, that brings about control in the market, even for the supposed "common good" (no such thing, individual sovereignty will reign supreme) is a regulated market; therefore, no matter how you spin it, a guided market is a regulated market. Now on the subject of America being on it's own, in all likelihood, if the nations of Europe and Asia cut off trade with America there would be a declaration of war. Did you know that the recent, modern, "new deal" makes provisions to "bail out" foreign enterprises. Our bureaucrats may be greedy but they're not stupid, the plan is obvious; they want to line their own pockets. Take over the world's industry and make them reliant on our fiat so when we collapse everyone goes with us. Asian and European markets keep the dollar afloat, they buy and sell dollars on their market to keep rampant inflation from destroying the currency. Of course, this can't last. It won't be the dollars initial collapse that brings the world tumbling down with America, it will be the bank failure as people scramble to protect their savings. Every industry runs on the dollar as it's backing. It seems our goal is to become "to big to fail." I hope the people of Europe and Asia have more common sense than Americans because if they don't, well let's just wait and see. It's also interesting to note that the way the modern "new deal" is set up allows for abuse of power, the establishment of a "secret" police, and the repossession of any private asset. When they come to your house to steal your property for the "good of the people," will you let them?

[SM-Count]

First I'd like to say I'm going into dom's corner regarding all 'intellectual' discussion on SRF until multiple people with concrete evidence come out and argue their point.

Second, seriously? Putting Hoover and Roosevelt next to each other? Come on, you can't be serious.

Third, the world is better prepared to take on the fall of the U.S. if it happens. The proof lies in the growth of countries in South America and Northern Africa. (Sub-saharan still has a long way to go) Their growth rate are only matched by the industrializing U.S. in the 1800's. In case you guys don't know, Japan is also failing in the economic sector. They were part of the four tigers in Asia who were the fastest growing industrialized nations in Asia. Now they are stagnating just like the U.S. Spain, Britain, Germany all went through this, it is natural and the world economy will not die. Unless there's a civil war, which is high unlikely due to connotations associated with it, the U.S. will bounce back in less prominence economically (although still among the top in the world), but with NATO and UN it's unlikely that the U.S. will ever diminish militarily as a world power.

Finally, before I retire from this stuff and focus on posting nonsense in the WoW thread, I thought I could provide some evidence for you guys so when I browse through threads like this there's actually a touch of factual evidence rather than the same quasi-philosophical arguments over and over again.

New Plan:
$800 billion to buy troubled mortgages and save insurance companies.

Pros:
People will keep their homes and not spend money paying off [house] loans, this will allow more domestic spending = sales taxes etc.
High house values will start a trend reverse inflation and the dollar will likely rise. (prediction)

Cons:
$800 billion for theoretical yield is not the best way to play it. (economists' opinion)
$800 billion means more deficit for us to dig out, and some are skeptical if whether the investment will pay out.

Nomination stances on Wall Srt.(This is the part where I'll try to be as objective and basic as possible. I'm not going to outline their plan point by point but will try to explain the gist of it. Unfortunately, it's not going to sound like an attack ad.)

Similarities:
Create government mandated (I probably shouldn't say mandated because it's the incorrect term, but since you guys don't know the difference, mandated sounds cool and powerful) guidelines on how banks can / can not spend their money. (i.e. extremely risky investments etc.)
Emphasize regulation upon credit lenders.

McCain (alphabetical order, keep in mind, this is only relating to Wall srt.):
Congressional and executive oversight of financial businesses and increase government control over said businesses.

Obama:
Create new rules guarding finances and create new [independent] regulatory agencies to enforce the new regulations. Wants more bureaucratic control over credit.

And that's all I have to say about this thread.

[Barotix]

No offense, SM. Maybe you didn't read the whole thread but I mentioned all of that and more already; although, I didn't outline the basics of the bill because I provided several links to the bill itself and summaries of the most notable parts. W/e, Have fun with the dollars short term growth in value. Keynesian economics is intellectually bankrupt, a failure of an economic theory. Austrian Economics will, in the end, reign supreme.

Personally i favor socialism. Not complete socialism but some form of regulation would've stopped business from going overseas and stopped the banks from doing all that ridiculous and impossible lending that ended us in this foreclosure crisis.

False, when the IRS was created tariffs were lowered allowing cheap foreign goods to flood the market; furthermore, the creation of a minimum wage resulted in jobs being lost. Minimum wage rates and unemployment is directly proportional, in other words; As minimum wage goes up so does unemployment. This happens because jobs that would exist are effectively "outlawed" and companies must outsource to fill the niches that Americans refuse to fill. All jobs cannot work at the same minimum wage level, also some entrepreneurs and small business may lack the capital required to pay a sizable staff at the accepted minimum wage rates. This means that less people will have jobs.

This can be noticed when you look back to 1973-1974 when, I believe, there was a recession and inflation. Because of inflation the worth of minimum wage (was 4.15 at that time, I believe) fell by 23% (correct me if I'm wrong here) and unemployment fell from 11% to 6%. You'll notice that the people always lobbying for increasing the minimum wage are Unionizers. Do you know why? Unionizers fight to increase the minimum wage because it decreases market competition for jobs. History is also quick to note that unions are tools of the rich not the poor, unions have never been popular (only during the great depression where union membership increased by 160% then later doubled because FDR funded the creation of unions, this led to widespread unemployment because those who would have normally worked just to feed their families were prevented from working by Union organizers and their minimum wage rates), unions use the initiation of force to prevent people from getting jobs, and unions, with their want of higher minimum wage rates, lead to outsourcing. Companies leave the country because there is a lack of workers. If a job is not worth the going minimum wage the company will leave for a country without minimum wage rates. What one should ask socialist, unionizers, and followers of Keynesian economics is if minimum wage is so great why not increase the minimum wage to 1000 USD per hour or 100 USD per hour? It's obvious, companies will leave the country and jobs will be lost. If gov't then mandates that companies must stay and hire workers despite the absurdly high minimum wage capital will be lost. What is to stop unionizers from asking for more? Technically speaking, nothing because welfare-warfare states are always on the side of unionizers. Socialism is just the bastard child of fascism, and has proven to be a failure from Rome to France, (after the french revolution, socialism took a foothold and led to fascism under Napoleon. The only way to sustain france was through a warfare state), from France to Soviet Russia, and soon the burgeoning empire of America will join their ranks. Fiat money (that is money with no worth. it gains it's worth from the confidence of those who use it, once confidence in the currency runs dry the currency itself falls out of favor and loses all worth.) allows, as I said earlier, countries to print "unlimited" amount of money. They do this to fund the welfare-warfare states typical of 21st century gov't. Other economies around the world are suffering from similar fiscal policy failures. I already outlined how gov't led to the boom and bust cycle typical of a Keynesian system.

Free market is the tool of the rich man.

False. This conclusion is false because your premise was false. Your premise is applicable to socialist forms of Government. I guess you enjoy the welfare-warfare state America has created? Do you believe taxation is voluntary? People that are critical of the free market should learn to differentiate from free markets and mixed (bastard child of socialism) markets. If socialism has proven to be a failure and mixed(this gradual shift to socialism) markets are proving to be failures, then why not, give Austrian Economics a chance? Of course, the ruling class would not like this.

I know there's a .pdf on this subject somewhere on the net. Maybe even an audiobook. I love spreading knowledge of Austrian Economics, the failure of Keynesian economics, and the absurdity that is socialism. When I find it, I'll pm you. <3