What is Digg?216 Comments
- notque, on 11/17/2007, -6/+69World Bank Economists are evil bastards. Read John Perkins. They destroy countries, and use the World Bank as tools to corporitize their natural resources for U.S. profit.
- doublehead, on 11/17/2007, -18/+70the Federal Reserve itself is the problem
- waynetheman, on 11/17/2007, -7/+44And if this interests you... you should take note of the FBI's raiding of a private precious metals warehouse--likely orchestrated to squash competition to the Federal Reserve Note: http://digg.com/politics/Feds_raid_Liberty_Dollar_ ...
You WILL use the Fed's funny money, you WILL continue to bleed wealth as they inflate the supply, and you WILL shut up and accept it. - batdan, on 11/17/2007, -0/+23Greenspan supported tax cuts of course to boost the economy, but only if congress reduced spending to go along with that. Instead they increased spending, making the problem even worse. He can't control congress. I actually remember reading an article when this happened a few years ago that he was very upset as he wouldn't have supported the tax cuts if he had know they were going to increase spending. Interestingly Greenspan is a supporter of laissez-faire economics, and has supported a gold standard in the past, although I don't know if he still does. Greenspan certainly leans towards the libertarian side of things so why all the hate?
Although it is true the housing bubble was strongly influenced by the low interest rates set by the fed. But low interest rates are a boost for the economy. too, so who knows what would have happened.
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil"
-Alan Greenspan - patience, on 11/17/2007, -18/+39Its not his fault people bought houses they couldn't afford.
- TheOther1, on 11/17/2007, -4/+25Because no one is responsible for their own actions. Haven't you been paying attention?
- cliffzdude, on 11/17/2007, -0/+21There was *NEVER* a surplus of even one dollar. There was a ***** *projected surplus*, and more accounting smoke and mirrors that showed a $360 billion reduction of debt.
The only debt that matters is the total national debt. And the national debt went up every single year under Clinton. The U.S. Treasury's historical record of
the national debt verifies this. - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -2/+23andrew jackson on a central bank note is the epidemy of irony
- jahurt, on 11/17/2007, -1/+21What about the morons who were stupid enough to give loans to people that couldn't pay them?
I can remember when it was hard to get a loan. Nowadays I've got financial institutions trying to loan me money left and right. - theshizzler, on 11/17/2007, -3/+21They spent it on the war.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -9/+26Wtf do you mean risks?
You ARE in a recession.
The dollar went down 40% in the last 5 years ffs. The housing market is doomed. America's economy has been sold to China. How will you gain your strength back when the working class is Chinese? Every dollar you spend on Chinese products leaves the economy forever. America created it's own cycle of economic depression. Money goes out, never comes back, and funds the competition. Stupid. - skews13, on 11/17/2007, -8/+23he is quite correct.it was real easy for bush to give away the surplus created in the 90's.when you go from a surplus of $300 billion,to a deficit of $9 trillion.you are the one acting like a teenager with a new credit card.what a ***** failure on so many fronts.
- GMorgan, on 11/17/2007, -2/+16Nothing new there. Just the same system they used to kill gold currency trading before. Steal everyone's gold and the use of gold as a currency becomes risky. The government promises not to steal your paper money (though they may siphon off it's value via expansion).
That government steals is not in question. The question is what can you do about it?
The obvious out is gold but you need to take it out of the jurisdiction of the thieves. - FLUX, on 11/17/2007, -4/+17the surplus was only on paper and never existed it used the social security income as general funds and then was extrapolated out to 2009 to try and get the so called 300 billion surplus.
the tax cut stimulated the economy and we are now taking in more in taxes that ever in history
Who the hell thinks taxes are a good thing there is not one single thing the govt does in an economically thrifty manner but you idiots think the answer is more govt spending and programs IT IS MY MONEY LET ME SPEND IT - captbbq, on 11/17/2007, -0/+13and what good is a surplus? its money doing nothing but just sitting there. Its not generating capital, its not creating jobs. I'm not saying debt is good either, but a surplus in the government hands means they took too much from me. (balanced budget = good) What is Bushes fault is the spending he let congress get away with. Thats what got us the deficit.
- DraconWolf, on 11/17/2007, -0/+11I agree with jahurt. Bush and Greenspan had NOTHING to do with the irresponsibility of the stupid banks and idiot borrowers in this country. I have no idea how anyone could think it was a good idea to lend people money who had no ability to pay it back.
- Look4Truth, on 11/17/2007, -3/+14Greenspan was just doing what he was told, it's all by design.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -1/+11 It's Bush's fault , no it's Greenspans fault, no Bernanke is messing up!
This is all illusion that any one man has brought us to our current situation. The entire political and economic system of the United States exists to enrich a small group of families who control the banking system and it is they who have intentionally robbed us. Lets not be dumb enough to argue over which individual did this when it should be clear that no one man had the power to wreak that kind of havoc on our economy. - RobTyree, on 11/17/2007, -1/+10I'd suggest YOU read Ayn Rand. She was not a fan of central banks or fiat money.
- wetmetalthong, on 11/17/2007, -1/+10The beginning was in 1913, not 2001. It was all downhill from there.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -1/+10buried for saying "I see what you did there" now die.
- klpowell, on 11/17/2007, -0/+8No the problem is people who recently bought houses using sub-prime lending. Knowing they couldn't afford the home.
- fakeollie, on 11/17/2007, -0/+7It's all about the Hamiltons, baby.
- lead2thehead, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8Uhhh no, that's ONE currency with 30,000 ways to move it around.
- OUChevelleSS, on 11/17/2007, -2/+9Yeah. I find it pretty good. He didn't care much for many of Bush Jr.'s policies.
- bratpack8, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8While we are in store for a major correction, and perhaps worse, for this World Bank economist to blame tax cuts is ludicrous. It is all about the Federal Reserve and the easy credit policies. But this occurred major in the 90's under Clinton, and proof is our money supply rising 800% since 1980. Think about that for a moment.
- dynastypartners, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8Anyone read Greenspan's book yet?
- afruff23, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8Free market capitalism is the opposite of fiat money and central banks. Free-market capitalism would have competing value-backed currencies.
- acidbass, on 11/17/2007, -6/+13greenspan is what you call a "figure head" like the president is a "figure head"
They dont decide what to do, they only serve the purpose of giving the illusion of deciding what to do.
Its an avitar created by design to direct your anger at when things go wrong.
These official positions were here before you and i were born, and they will be here long after were gone.
These governmental systems of social control out live us all and therefore,
have the potential to be more evolved and cunning than us.
Who ever owns the Federal Reserve calls the shots, this is old old news.
A Question though:Does anybody know who actually owns/runs the Federal Reserve?
It would be nice to know since they are in charge of our money and essentially our whole economy.
I was never tought that in college and i was asking too. - Look4Truth, on 11/17/2007, -3/+10Rockefellers, Rothchilds, etc. NWO, Bilderbergs, Bohemian Grovers, people like that. Bunch of evil lunatics if you ask me.
- URnotheonly1, on 11/17/2007, -1/+8Oh so Tax cuts made you get a mortgage you couldn't afford? To ignore the benefit of the tax cuts means you cannot be trusted to have an informed knowledge of economics.
- voisine, on 11/17/2007, -1/+7He's right about the fed, but how are the tax cuts a problem? Having taxpayers keep the money they earn to spend on what is valuable to them can only help the economy. That's pretty much the whole point of having an economy. I can see there's a problem with cutting taxes and not cutting government spending, but saying the problem is the tax cuts rather than government spending is pretty twisted logic.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -0/+6Your doing a little apples and orange mixing with your figures. $300 billion surplus for a given year, $9 Trillion dollar total debt.
That surplus wasn't built of fiscal responsibility but on an overheated economy which was generating huge tax revenues. - scottknick, on 11/17/2007, -3/+9Here's an ardent Democrat who's unwilling to ignore the fact that tax cuts wiped out the surplus, created a skyrocketing deficit, and resulted in a huge shift of wealth from the middle class to the rich. All of which we will have to undo -- again -- when we retake the White House in '08.
- mckirkus, on 11/17/2007, -0/+6Summarized:
Greenspan was worried about a recession after 9/11 so he cut rates to record lows.
Banks made loans to anybody with a heartbeat because Greenspan was practically giving money to banks.
The vast majority of Americans, either due to greed or ignorance, decided that housing was a can't lose investment.
The housing bubble grew to a size we've never seen before.
It's all over now. The Fed's attempt to print more money is just making prices go up this time.
We lived beyond our means for years and now it's time to pay off the debt by living below our means. - GMorgan, on 11/17/2007, -3/+8Yeah this effect is known as the Laffer effect (based upon the Laffer Curve). The curve is different for every nation and generally depends upon aversion to taxation. Britain has a lower Laffer threshold than most of Europe, America will be much lower again likely. This is why taxation levels of one country are not necessarily the right taxation levels for another. Lower taxes really are right for America.
Of course the level that best stimulates economic growth is far lower again. - obliviousfool, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6Greenspan didn't actually approve of tax cuts as large as the ones we got.
- kaelyiesta, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6Agreed. However, it is the fault of the lenders for predatory irresponsible loaning and the feds for their manipulation of the market. You and I are paying right now for the folly of greedy and stupid borrowers and lenders.
- physphd, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5...and spending exceeded that revenue by how much? Seriously, was that a trick question or do you not know what a budget deficit is? You can have record revenue and a record budget deficit at the same time.
- Pake, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Wow, nice post. I've been trying my ass off on here hoping to have people realize just how little Clinton did and how much of the economy during the late 90's was fueled by the Dot-com companies who went broke in 2000 and left the US in a pretty tight situation that was only going to hurt for years to come.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -3/+8Ayn Rand was wrong. And a terrible writer.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6Of crouse the GDP isn't affected, your government spends trillions of dollars of borrowed money in warfare.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/17/2007, -1/+6Epitome too
- mrs279, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5The article description has about 99% of the content of the article. Interesting topic, not much of an article.
- inactive, on 11/17/2007, -0/+5Some are telling us in a round about ways that we have already passed the event horizon towards the pit of doom.
They now code speak of recession when they really mean unrelenting depression ! - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -2/+6How about reduce spending? Why is that never an option for you liberals?
- captbbq, on 11/17/2007, -8/+12wow the only sensible comment so far and its getting digged down... WTF?!
- roodammy44, on 11/17/2007, -7/+11"There were 30,000 different currencies in the US"
Sounds like credit cards/store cards today. - inactive, on 11/17/2007, -0/+4 Excellent post. One of the things I have noticed about bubbles is sometimes they are just targeted inflation. When excess money and credit is made available for housing and school loans those things go up in price. That's why housing and education soared so high, government money in the form of loans was thrown at it to make it easier for people to afford. With the housing that inflation burst out into the wider economy due to all of the people who had a financial stake in the loans.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is