U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: What is going to happen to ABQ's Kirtland stuff in the next 10 years?
No change in next ten years. 18 90.00%
Kirtland and DOE still here, Sandia gone. 0 0%
Sandia still here, Kirtland and DOE gone. 0 0%
All gone. 2 10.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 08-05-2012, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
2,805 posts, read 4,410,647 times
Reputation: 1639

Advertisements

Mortimer, your poll is retarded. Option two and option three are synonymous but merely phrased differently.

New Mexico has yet to see its first congressman, senator, or serious candidate for office (sorry Gary) who advocates any sort of cut in military spending anywhere.

With both political parties way to the right of normal, I see zero potential for KAFB to be shuttered. It's never made a BRAC list to my knowledge, and BRAC would be its only means of removal.

I vote that Kirtland will be much the same in 10 years. I would have liked to have the poll option that the AFB closes but the Sandia/DOE functions remain.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,553 posts, read 9,556,918 times
Reputation: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Mortimer, your poll is retarded. Option two and option three are synonymous but merely phrased differently.
Actually, I"m retarded. I meant them to say different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
New Mexico has yet to see its first congressman, senator, or serious
candidate for office (sorry Gary) who advocates any sort of cut in military spending anywhere.
What's that got to do with it? Of course no NM pol is going to advocate a closing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
I see zero potential for KAFB to be shuttered.
It's never made a BRAC list to my knowledge, and BRAC would be its only means of removal.
Yes it did. I remember it clearly and remember all five congressonal representatives lining up to prevent it.
It was during the 1990's. I have failed to find a cite for it, but it was a big deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
I vote that Kirtland will be much the same in 10 years.
OK. Then you are also voting that the Federal Government will undergo no significant modification in the
way that it does business and that our international creditors will contiue to accept the dollar as the
world's international reserve currency and will continue to lend us as much money as we want them to?

That is; we, as a country, can continue to live on our credit cards for the next ten years unchanged?

Or is it that other less important bases will bite the big one? I just can't imagine other states in the
union, facing hardships and cutbacks, continuing to allow New Mexico's free ride for much longer.

Note that I'm not saying stuff is good or bad, just that it will continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
I would have liked to have the poll option that the AFB closes but the Sandia/DOE functions remain.
Well, if I wasn't an idiot there would be. Perhaps those with more power can fix that for us.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,553 posts, read 9,556,918 times
Reputation: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
It's never made a BRAC list to my knowledge, ...
I found a cite See second line down. It takes you to the following link.

I'd copy the text, but it would be too long. You can look it up here. It's on page 71 of the 1995 report.

I only looked up the cite to prove that I remember it correctly. They wanted to shut it, but it was prevented.
In 1995 our Federal fiscal situation was considerably better than it is now or likely to be anytime in the next ten years.

I'll only quote this bit here: As an installation, Kirtland AFB rated low relative to other bases ....
It said it would increase unemployment by 3.6%.

Kirtland is only here for political purposes - not national defense and the NM delegation of
congresscritters will have no say in whether it survives in the coming fiscal shee-ite-storm.

Last edited by mortimer; 08-05-2012 at 08:39 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
2,805 posts, read 4,410,647 times
Reputation: 1639
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Actually, I"m retarded.
Well, I would never say that. I might be thinking it loudly though.

Quote:
Yes it did. I remember it clearly and remember all five congressonal representatives lining up to prevent it.
It was during the 1990's. I have failed to find a cite for it, but it was a big deal.
Perhaps an "under consideration" moment but not a "made the list" moment. In any case, for someone who seems to think congressional representatives aren't pertinent it's odd you'd mention their influence.

Quote:
OK. Then you are also voting that the Federal Government will undergo no significant modification in the
way that it does business and that our international creditors will contiue to accept the dollar as the
world's international reserve currency
Yes. I don't have to like everything about it to predict it.

Quote:
and will continue to lend us as much money as we want them to?
There's an expression I like. When you owe the bank $10,000 and you don't have it, you have a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million and you don't have it, the bank has a problem.

The biggest holders of US debt are Americans, by far. Foreign creditors are of minor consequence by comparison. The US dollar is the dominant fiat currency and recent troubles in the eurozone further cement that status for the next several years. There's just no substitute method of storing that much wealth in a stable yet liquid way.

Now that we're in a down economy with lingering unemployment, particularly in the public sector, it's not particularly important what the government spends its money on as long as it employs people with it (I'm a bigger fan of burying power lines than building fighter aircraft and tanks, but those are just details). When you have a slow month in your business because the economy is slow, you don't stop advertising, cut your hours, keep the lights off even with customers in the store, and liquidate your inventory. If you're in business for the right reasons you in fact do the opposite for when the economy comes back.

Quote:
That is; we, as a country, can continue to live on our credit cards for the next ten years unchanged?
But we're the ones issuing the credit cards. And the credit cards have a negative real rate. Amazing how people will rationalize taking on debt at 20+% when times are good but warn against over taking on debt at -0.5% when times aren't. Remember "buy low, sell high?" It's low now. What do you do when things are low?

Quote:
Or is it that other less important bases will bite the big one? I just can't imagine other states in the
union, facing hardships and cutbacks, continuing to allow New Mexico's free ride for much longer.
How short a memory so many people have. The hardships and cutbacks of late are hardly armageddon compared to the last 70 years'. Recessions happen. Recoveries happen. I predict a modest number of base closures with this next BRAC round, approximately 1/3 of the number recommended for closure, and many of them overseas.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,553 posts, read 9,556,918 times
Reputation: 2462
Cheers to Rich who de-tard-ed my poll questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Well, I would never say that. I might be thinking it loudly though.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you have company, but that's just a guess -- like this poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
... for someone who seems to think congressional representatives
aren't pertinent it's odd you'd mention their influence.
I think that if things get really bad ( ie. slash the defense budget by 1/3rd or more ) then their influence will be much less than it was in 1995.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Yes. I don't have to like everything about it to predict it.
That's all this poll is - a prediction. I'm guessing that you are saying the US's borrowing days will come to an end, but that it will take
longer than 10 years to do it. I guess I should have put a 5th option there: [No change in our lifetimes], but I was too retarded.

You're not supposed to use that term any more, but it really sums stuff up at times ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
There's an expression I like. When you owe the bank $10,000 and you don't have it, you have
a problem. When you owe the bank $10 million and you don't have it, the bank has a problem.
I like it too, but remember that it was not too long ago when supermodels were requesting to be paid in Euro and not dollars. The only thing that is different is the euro is worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
The biggest holders of US debt are Americans, by far. Foreign creditors are of minor consequence by comparison. ...
All that stuff was relevant when US debt was less than 1/2 GDP. Where's the tipping point? My poll question asks if it's ten years or less. In ten years, debt > 300% GDP is my bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
But we're the ones issuing the credit cards. ...
.... that have to be paid off in less than one year. We don't get the good rates unless we do that. The government isn't even smart enough to refinance into 10-year notes - let alone 30 or 50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
How short a memory so many people have. The hardships and cutbacks of late are hardly armageddon compared to the last 70 years'.
I have a very long memory. I remember the Weimar Republic. China used to be the biggest holder of US debt. Now, it's the Fed.
That "money" was created out of thin air. In the Weimar Republic, everything was fine for a few years - and then it wasn't.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2012, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
2,805 posts, read 4,410,647 times
Reputation: 1639
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I think that if things get really bad ( ie. slash the defense budget by 1/3rd or more ) then their influence will be much less than it was in 1995.
I see no likelihood of a plurality of congressmen opting to even keep the military from growing even larger in the next 8 years, let alone cut it. They're even putting breast cancer research into the military budget because American voters like their pork as long as it's military pork.

Quote:
I like it too, but remember that it was not too long ago when supermodels were requesting to be paid in Euro and not dollars. The only thing that is different is the euro is worse.
The same population that gave us Zoolander? When college professors or lobbyists start requesting pay in euros I'll take notice.

Quote:
All that stuff was relevant when US debt was less than 1/2 GDP. Where's the tipping point? My poll question asks if it's ten years or less. In ten years, debt > 300% GDP is my bet.
In related news, I have a bridge for sale. Our government would have to more than double from its current bloated size and/or our GDP would have to shrink to half its current size to meet those numbers in 10 years.

Quote:
.... that have to be paid off in less than one year. We don't get the good rates unless we do that. The government isn't even smart enough to refinance into 10-year notes - let alone 30 or 50.
We set the rates. They're all good rates.

Quote:
I have a very long memory. I remember the Weimar Republic.
I had no idea you were a centenarian.

Quote:
China used to be the biggest holder of US debt.
Nonsense. Citable reference?

Quote:
Now, it's the Fed.
If we owe ourselves the debt then why are we worried again?

Quote:
That "money" was created out of thin air.
Yes, that's how fiat currency works. Has been that way for decades and things have worked pretty well for us and particularly the government. Why the handwringing all of a sudden?

Quote:
In the Weimar Republic, everything was fine for a few years - and then it wasn't.
Same with Middle Earth, and also the same was that there were very few commonalities with our economy.

Weimar had onerous reparations to pay (more than 50% of the gold ever mined in history) at a currency peg they could not control (gold certificates) - we have a national debt in a currency peg we do control (dollars from thin air).

I think every reader of this thread but one agrees that that base and lab will change in the next 10 years, but not so you'd notice.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,553 posts, read 9,556,918 times
Reputation: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
China used to be the biggest holder of US debt.
Nonsense. Citable reference?
I can't tell from your quote what you are calling nonsense. China has been the biggest holder of US debt since they passed Japan a while ago.

Since nothing I wrote was bogus, I'm stumped. This is the latest list:
Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

If you are going to poo-poo my stuff, you should, at least, know what you are talking about.

( Note that the #9 holder is the banks - as a group. This is how they paid back their bailout, but that's not the topic. )
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
2,805 posts, read 4,410,647 times
Reputation: 1639
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
I can't tell from your quote what you are calling nonsense. China has been the biggest holder of US debt since they passed Japan a while ago.
Looking at your reference, I'm stumped how you get "biggest" from "2. China", particularly when the difference between "2. China" and "1. Federal Reserve" is so marked.

Likewise, China was never #1 on the list, which is what you said here:

Quote:
I have a very long memory. I remember the Weimar Republic. China used to be the biggest holder of US debt. Now, it's the Fed.
I'll agree that China is the largest foreign holder of US debt, but note that they only hold 9% more than Japan, who held that distinction for decades prior. That says very little about the internal state of affairs in this country and says a lot more about the relative state of affairs of those two countries.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Old Town
1,652 posts, read 1,576,909 times
Reputation: 1231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg View Post
Looking at your reference, I'm stumped how you get "biggest" from "2. China", particularly when the difference between "2. China" and "1. Federal Reserve" is so marked.

Likewise, China was never #1 on the list, which is what you said here:



I'll agree that China is the largest foreign holder of US debt, but note that they only hold 9% more than Japan, who held that distinction for decades prior. That says very little about the internal state of affairs in this country and says a lot more about the relative state of affairs of those two countries.
Your statement above:

Quote:
The biggest holders of US debt are Americans, by far.
Holds very much true. According to that link posted by Mortimer. Americans hold Positions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 , 9 and 10.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,553 posts, read 9,556,918 times
Reputation: 2462
Japan used to be the #1 holder of US debt.
Then they were passed by China who became #1 and became #2 around 2005.
After 2008 and QE2, the Fed passed China to become #1, China #2, Japan #3.

Any problems with those three lines?

Fed holdings of US debt were insignificant as recently as 2008.

I'm amused by the poll results running 11:1. ( I did not vote. )
Where TF are all the pessimists? You bunch of rosy-eyed optimists really peece me off!
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top