Repudiation of Sovereign Debt as a strategy
Crony-bankers, who should pay for their sins, do not represent Capitalism in the Greek debt crisis. Greece should repudiate its sovereign debt, and start anew with the drachma, liberalization, and a "balanced" budget. Syriza is incapable of setting the right blueprint however.
As for social security, those receiving it now are closer to the roots of this problem than I am and continued to vote for polticians who would not tamper with this ponsi scheme for which I am now paying.
Do I want to have my benefits cut? I don't think that will be a personal choice. In spite of the perception that government programs are a contract with the citizens, I have no doubt that there will be an excuse for breaking that contract, as there has been with Medicare ($500B of that fund transferred to support Obamacare). Even though I saved my own money in an IRA, I suspect that before long the government will find a way to raid those private savings, as there's no way they can resist the estimated $5T in those IRA, Keogh, and 401K accounts.
Jan
The IRS already operates on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent," and sometimes not even then. Trying to outmaneuver government agencies is a task not lightly attempted.
During the Depression, he ordered the banks closed, ostensibly to give the banks a chance to catch their collective breath. In reality, it was the opportunity for federal agents to seize gold from safety deposit boxes, which was illegal to own in anything other than jewelry form at the time.
Executive Order 6102.
Bears a striking resemblance to Directive 10-289, wouldn't you say?
Oxymoron of the day: Sympathetic IRS.
Jan
I'm not an expert on these things certainly, but there are numerous caveats such as if it is a rental property, is the rent collected considered a distribution? (Yes). If you're under 59 1/2, you'd owe the tax plus a 10% penalty.
In short, talk with an attorney.
are now paying us retirees with yours. -- j
Jan
Now there is a thought.
A contract presumes power on both sides - to achieve or fail to achieve. I do not have that power, yet I am obliged to pay for the failure to achieve.
Jan
What! from his helpless Creature be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent him dross-allay'd--
Sue for a Debt he never did contract,
And cannot answer--Oh, the sorry trade!
Jan
Why is the business of the gov to finance that project? (The individuals who support that project should finance it.)
Jan
Sigh.
Jan
Very soon there will be more money going out then coming in and it will be a burden on the general fund not an asset.
At this point I expect the politicians to 'reform' Social Security from a mandatory pension plan to a pure welfare one and fund it out of taxes so that the 1% can pay their 'fair' share.
This may well involved canceling the debt to the Social Security trust fund as part of the reform.
1). The death rate had to remain constant or increase.
2). The birth rate had to remain constant or increase
3). Wages needed to increase.
Well, we've violated not one, not two but all three of these conditions. By 2025, it's expected that we will be down to TWO workers per retiree. This isn't some theory folks, this is arithmetic.
The mills of the gods grind slowly.
Jan
Jan
So, how do we do this? Get the government the hell out of the way of business. Eliminate most of the regulatory load put on over the last 40 years, stop sacrificing industry to save smelt, build the damned pipeline, build power plants, burn coal, make things.
Take the vast amount of land currently held by the federal government and start slowly selling it off at a good price to people who are going to put it to productive use. Retire debt with the profits.
I said it was simple, not that it was easy -- or that anyone who believes that government is the solution will do it.
retirees -- particularly hard. . the effect is that the
overspenders get our value by virtue of inflation.
it pisses me off. -- j
Like now, so-called financial advisors tell you not to pay off your mortgage because you're paying on it with "cheap inflated money." B!S! The cheap money also means that your savings are losing value, pretty much no matter what interest rate you can get, which isn't much. Anytime you have one less bill to pay is an indication that you just might be able to survive.
my wife, who had never experienced that since her
childhood (especially after her first husband left her
holding the bag on some of his gambling losses) --
she just jumps for joy every time it is brought up.
so, we have a little savings, some land, this house
and some gold somewhere ... but, mostly, we
have one another. . hiding here and braced for
the future.
may it treat you and yours gently, sir!!! -- j
it wasn't quite as good as the first one, but fine
nevertheless! -- the $200 per month machine, all
costs included with 7500 miles of commuting and
many side trips. . great car!!! -- j
I just mentioned. . tough car. . my wife and I did the
sound for a wedding and reception / dance in VA
years ago, and packed it with the kilowatt system
plus 350 pounds of CDs and tapes . . . we blew
their circuit breakers! . whatta party! -- j
people can hear their feet shuffle and it just ain't right. -- j
p.s. I carry a meter to check this.
Having some wealth and no debt gives you the freedom to go out and make some positive future if you so desire. Hiding and bracing for what comes next, IMHO, are for those with no wealth or lots of leverage. :)
vulnerable to unseen dark forces out of his control --
we have prepared for the future as best we could,
and now it is happening. -- j
p.s. our health makes us more vulnerable, and
we are dealing with that as best we can.
I agree with this approach. I think they're "right" in the investment sense but wrong in the insurance sense. You should be able to make more return than today's insanely low long-term interest rates, BUT if things turn to worms there's huge value in not having to service debt. If your investments work, you should borrow as much 5% money as they'll lend and invest in things that make a good return. Forgoing the return on that spread is like sending a check to an insurance company on a policy you hope you'll never make a claim on. Having the policy in place, though, allows you to take other risks and survive downturns and investing mistakes.
In this case people selling utilities, food, gas,cars, and everything but whatever you happen to produce can raise prices. This is another way of saying the real price of what you're selling is decreasing.
I would NEVER say that. I advocate for a short term deep austerity. A correction that would be painful but not as painful as what is going to happen. I do not support expanding the money supply. that is theft. Some sectors were spared in the last crisis. they would not be spared if the markets were allowed free movement unhindered by the printing of money. Raising prices due to theft affects everyone except the top of the ponzi scheme pyramid. It is the worst sort of lying and theft. It is racketeering-yet if you work for the government or are an economist who advocates it-you never go to jail.
I thought you were saying inflation affects everything but whatever you happen to be selling. I now think you were saying any inflationary monetary policy results in inefficiencies that hurt growth. So maybe your wealth grows at 10% nominal, 6% real under a central banking system that tries to smooth the peaks and valleys with monetary policy. It might average 8% nominal, 8% real, I think you may be saying, if the central bank did not pursue inflationary policy. Trying to prevent unused production capacity, you're saying, the central bank allows inefficiencies, like keeping a plant running that would be utilized better if shut down a re-purposed.
Am I getting closer to understanding? I don't mean to put words in your mouth; I'm just re-stating in my own words for clarity.
stronger than mine. -- j
p.s. if the union was driven out of S.C.,,, maybe
the threat of something could drive the overspenders
away? . indefatigable optimism?
That has been the solution for a long time. In fact the US would likely have been better of if we had done so in the 1930's. That would have terminated the fed and any need for income tax. REAL Capitalism might have sprung from those bankster ashes.
I only wish it would mean that nobody would ever willingly lend to a national government again; that may be the only way to stop them from spending the money of future generations. But as Davidson and Rees-Mogg point out in "The Great Reckoning", there are plenty of other bankers out there, eager to do business.
Actually, the wording in the 14th amendment says the national debt "shall not be questioned." Sooner or later somebody will enforce that by ruling that the country doesn't have to pay the debt at all -- but nobody is allowed to question whether they ever intend to.
Yes, there is no way out without pain. Earlier, it looked like the fairy godmother was the 'supra-national' institutions and the German taxpayer. But the drunk did not reform.
In addition the German economy is in decline as they bring in policies to satisfy the greens, economic suicide for their industries. The big unions are waking up, many jobs will be lost as the big motor and chemical corporates pay higher energy costs and higher taxes to pay for green scams. As for Greece, perhaps there can be an even wider reach for more bail out money, perhaps the EU, ECB, IMF and other supras will find a way to intervene in the Greek economy, I suspect it is too late.
Another point raised by Vinay is interesting- the sanctity of contacts, but when is an agreement not a contract? I suggest that is the case here - when neither party sees the contract as fulfill-able, to both sides it is other people's money - fraud.
I'm all for repudiation. Let the EU suffer for their stupidity and inability to properly vet a loan, and let Greece pay for its fiscal problems with the inevitable international trade issues that come with default.
asking for Another Loan, only someone who can
afford Another Repudiation would be wise to say yes.
as a retiree, I would say no. . and it is sad. -- j