http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14680

Do you believe this?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14680

Do you believe this?

thepope2the9s said:

The United States of North America (the soon to be new name of the North American Union) will make its "shocking" debut right before it gets to that point. And we're have no one to blame but 2 Bushes & a Clinton.

And look for the USA dollar to be replace with an Amero.

There is also such thing as a healthy recession.
People, especially Americans, have lived on credit for too long.
I think what we'll see in the future is a bit of a lower standard of living.
Lower, because not every family will own three SUV's and have a flatscreen TV in every room.
Not every family will dine out three times a week.
not every family will go on vacation every summer.
If people spend the money that they actually have, the standard of living will go down a bit, but I don't think it's a bad thing.

TonyVanDam said:

Why the hell would it be called the united states of north america??

It would just be called North America. If it were the united states, that would imply mexico and canada became american states. If that happened, then it would just be called the united states of america again. That's the stupidest name I ever heard.

And how the fuck long does it take to get this amero thing anyway? I've been hearing about it for like 8 years now and still no announcement from anyone? What the hell are they waiting for, if it's been known about for so damn long?

The thing is that the US has been living on credit too much and for far too long.

In order to finance its insatiable desire for more materialism, more tax cuts, more wars, more profit and more growth, its governments, corporations and citizens have been borrowing much more than they can actually afford.

Government wages wars and cuts taxes it can't afford, corporations pay out bonuses and take over other corporations they can't afford and citizens buy homes and cars and go on vacations they can't afford.

The US has been doing this so much and for so long that its entire financial system has been allowed to take outrageous risks to "finance" all that "demand", borrowing and lending trillions of dollars they can't afford either and creating money making systems based on algorythms they themselves do not understand either.

This has led to failing system banks, that to an enormous credit crunch, and that to an economic recession that has already proven to be one of its worst, with millions of bankruptcies, home disclosures and mass unemployment and banks still not out of trouble.

The US has seen its economy falsely "grow", because of false credit growth, not because of actual growth in productivity. Especially under Bush jr. who blew up the federal defecits, derugalated everything and gave way completely to the most insane risk inducing bonus payments ever.

This false growth can ultimately only really be corrected by a recession that strips the US off of all its assets that were collected with it.

That means the entire US should not just stop living above its means, it should also say goodbye to much of the "wealth" it has gathered with its false growth.

Since the US wants to do everything it can to prevent that, it has decided to stay the course and borrow even more to spend its way out of this recession.

While that could be helpfull to get the economy back on track on the short term, it creates an even larger problem on the long term.

The flip side is that the need to cut back on spending and wealth is going to be even more necessary within a couple of years.

This means the recession will continue.

Perhabs the economy will live up for a short while because of the stimulus spendings, but in time it will have to scale back.

It's inevitable.

MrSoulpower said:

The thing is that the US has been living on credit too much and for far too long.

In order to finance its insatiable desire for more materialism, more tax cuts, more wars, more profit and more growth, its governments, corporations and citizens have been borrowing much more than they can actually afford.

Government wages wars and cuts taxes it can't afford, corporations pay out bonuses and take over other corporations they can't afford and citizens buy homes and cars and go on vacations they can't afford.

The US has been doing this so much and for so long that its entire financial system has been allowed to take outrageous risks to "finance" all that "demand", borrowing and lending trillions of dollars they can't afford either and creating money making systems based on algorythms they themselves do not understand either.

This has led to failing system banks, that to an enormous credit crunch, and that to an economic recession that has already proven to be one of its worst, with millions of bankruptcies, home disclosures and mass unemployment and banks still not out of trouble.

The US has seen its economy falsely "grow", because of false credit growth, not because of actual growth in productivity. Especially under Bush jr. who blew up the federal defecits, derugalated everything and gave way completely to the most insane risk inducing bonus payments ever.

This false growth can ultimately only really be corrected by a recession that strips the US off of all its assets that were collected with it.

That means the entire US should not just stop living above its means, it should also say goodbye to much of the "wealth" it has gathered with its false growth.

Since the US wants to do everything it can to prevent that, it has decided to stay the course and borrow even more to spend its way out of this recession.

While that could be helpfull to get the economy back on track on the short term, it creates an even larger problem on the long term.

The flip side is that the need to cut back on spending and wealth is going to be even more necessary within a couple of years.

This means the recession will continue.

Perhabs the economy will live up for a short while because of the stimulus spendings, but in time it will have to scale back.

It's inevitable.

-
[Edited 8/8/09 7:14am]

Tremolina said:

Not inevitable at all . . . .
Spending has been cut back and $13 trillion in accumulated wealth has vanished.
But it's not the first time.
And although accumulated wealth has vanished, most assets haven't. Tangible assets don't vanish because they were overpriced, nor shrink because they were overvalued.

Tremolina said:

I think you're absolutely correct, but this recession is "forcing" people to change their ways, both business and working stiffs.
I tell people that this is the "new" normal economy for the foreseeable 5 years, so we should get used to it.

Maybe, this recession should last a little longer so folks get used to living within their means, but I know as soon as the economy picks up again, all lot of us are going to revert back to our old ways.

I have worked with some real old timers that lived through the great depression here in construction industry, and as wealthy as some may have become, they were still big-time frugal fanatics, saving all scrap, nails, and warped boards, wasting nothing. I think this stuff kinda gets ingrained if it hurts, you only really learn it after experiencing it first hand.
Maybe as a nation we will come out for the better.
-

There is also such thing as a healthy recession.
People, especially Americans, have lived on credit for too long.
I think what we'll see in the future is a bit of a lower standard of living.
Lower, because not every family will own three SUV's and have a flatscreen TV in every room.
Not every family will dine out three times a week.
not every family will go on vacation every summer.
If people spend the money that they actually have, the standard of living will go down a bit, but I don't think it's a bad thing.

MrSoulpower said:

The thing is that the US has been living on credit too much and for far too long.

In order to finance its insatiable desire for more materialism, more tax cuts, more wars, more profit and more growth, its governments, corporations and citizens have been borrowing much more than they can actually afford.

Government wages wars and cuts taxes it can't afford, corporations pay out bonuses and take over other corporations they can't afford and citizens buy homes and cars and go on vacations they can't afford.

The US has been doing this so much and for so long that its entire financial system has been allowed to take outrageous risks to "finance" all that "demand", borrowing and lending trillions of dollars they can't afford either and creating money making systems based on algorythms they themselves do not understand either.

This has led to failing system banks, that to an enormous credit crunch, and that to an economic recession that has already proven to be one of its worst, with millions of bankruptcies, home disclosures and mass unemployment and banks still not out of trouble.

The US has seen its economy falsely "grow", because of false credit growth, not because of actual growth in productivity. Especially under Bush jr. who blew up the federal defecits, derugalated everything and gave way completely to the most insane risk inducing bonus payments ever.

This false growth can ultimately only really be corrected by a recession that strips the US off of all its assets that were collected with it.

That means the entire US should not just stop living above its means, it should also say goodbye to much of the "wealth" it has gathered with its false growth.

Since the US wants to do everything it can to prevent that, it has decided to stay the course and borrow even more to spend its way out of this recession.

While that could be helpfull to get the economy back on track on the short term, it creates an even larger problem on the long term.

The flip side is that the need to cut back on spending and wealth is going to be even more necessary within a couple of years.

This means the recession will continue.

Perhabs the economy will live up for a short while because of the stimulus spendings, but in time it will have to scale back.

It's inevitable.

-
[Edited 8/8/09 7:14am]

I don't want the recession to end. I want it to get worse and worse. I want nearly everyone unemployed and furious. I want people clamoring for the taste of corporations' blood.

The socialist revolution amidst capitalism failed. The socialist revolution before capitalism failed. Catastrophe is the only answer now.

Smile while it all burns and crumbles. It's the only way to penetrate political apathy.

Tremolina said:

I don't think it's ineviatable at all. Possible yes, but not inevitable. Interest rate rises and public sector spending cuts are inevitable, but competent economic management should allow them to be done in a prudent, sensible fashion that matches them off against underlying economic growth.

Just as some people argued that printing money would lead to hyper-inflation (it hasn't and won't) and that we didn't need the bank bailouts and that they wouldn't be succesful (we did and they have) so some still believe the stimulus is some sort of one-off boost that will simply revert when the money runs out. It won't. The whole point of the various national stimulus packages was to ward off genuine depression, and then stimulate self-sustaining growth. They have been extraordinarily succesful in the firt regard and are showing good signs in the second. If we have good finacial managers in charge of policy then there is no reason why we shouldn't see steady, if unspectacular, growth over the next 2-5 years. The worst is over, but it will take 10 years plus to get back to the living standards we enjoyed pre-bust.

PurpleKnight said:

Or maybe it's that socialism is a failure.

RodeoSchro said:

I'm all for a massive movement in the direction of socialism, but I'm not hoping my fellow workers will loose their jobs in order to radicalize them. I can understand the anger and sarcasm, PurpleKnight, but economic catastrophes can also have a stunning effect and not lead to an immediate political radicalization at all. In the '30s it took 3 to 4 years in the US before the first broader struggles took place (the Teamster rebellion in Minneapolis - led by Trotskyites, the sit in strikes,...).

As for socialism being a failure: stalinism, bureaucratic dictatorship, proved to be a failure but I don't think democratic socialist planning and workers' democracy should be written off too early. It's private property of the means of production by a small elite which led to the current crisis, socialism remains the only logical alternative to it as a system, in my opinion.

marxisreal said:

yeah we could be like folks in cuba. dont matter what you are, doctor ,lawyer,teacher, everyone is paid by the government and then everyone is given a ration card to get their food. sounds awesome!

Tremolina said:

I don't think it's ineviatable at all. Possible yes, but not inevitable. Interest rate rises and public sector spending cuts are inevitable, but competent economic management should allow them to be done in a prudent, sensible fashion that matches them off against underlying economic growth.

Just as some people argued that printing money would lead to hyper-inflation (it hasn't and won't) and that we didn't need the bank bailouts and that they wouldn't be succesful (we did and they have) so some still believe the stimulus is some sort of one-off boost that will simply revert when the money runs out. It won't. The whole point of the various national stimulus packages was to ward off genuine depression, and then stimulate self-sustaining growth. They have been extraordinarily succesful in the firt regard and are showing good signs in the second. If we have good finacial managers in charge of policy then there is no reason why we shouldn't see steady, if unspectacular, growth over the next 2-5 years. The worst is over, but it will take 10 years plus to get back to the living standards we enjoyed pre-bust.

razor said:

It will take 10 years to get back to the "pre-bust living standards"? Do you mean the living standards of the more than 25% of children living in poverty in the UK, due to almost 30 years of Thatcherite policies by the lady herself and her Blairite successors? Or the living standards of the managers and CEO's? Averages in income and wealth are sometimes misleading.

How could the spending cuts which you favour not lead to more people losing their jobs, less social services and more exclusion? What you seem to be saying is that governments should be saving the banks with newly created debt and then this debt should be paid for by ordinary workers and youth, through cuts in public utilities? How cynical...

I think it isn't excluded that the government stimulus plans will hold the contraction of the economy back a bit. This much the ruling class learned from the 1930's: that doing nothing for years isn't an option. But it's a bit too early to say that several years of deep recession (a depression) is excluded. When will private investment take off again, in a situation where much more people will be unemployed, lending conditions won't return to the old days, profitability will need to be restored on the basis of wage cuts or new job losses, in a situation of very weak or non-existent growth,...? And the market will be further undermined by significant budget cuts by almost all governments in the industrialized world, once the bills have to be paid.

A series of crises, interspersed with much shorter periods of feeble growth, is in my opinion the most likely scenario. None of the underlying problems of capitalism have been solved. The gap between the purchasing power of the mass of the people and the productive capacities of the system will only have become more pronounced. This was after all the basic reason for the biggest debt bubble in history: trying to restore the rate of profit by heightened exploitation + an enormous injection of fictitious capital (created out of nothing, by the banks).

marxisreal said:

Hi Marx.

Since I know from previous discussions where any debate with you will end up (i.e. you rejecting capitialism and all its evils whilst promoting demotractic socialism), I will simply agree to disagree with you here on the basis that your mind is simply not open to change on these issues.

Cheers