[WestieJeff]

So they can trade them for greek bonds?

I suspect any issues with the USD will be delayed until the Euro is stabilized, which, who knows how long that will be.

Originally Posted by eventusstultorummagister

Interest rates... watch for investors who start shorting U.S. Treasury Bonds, you will know what's afoot.

[fishordie]

Originally Posted by RCCCB

Not quite, they are low to keep things like increases to SS and payments on the debt low.
Of course it caused people who were retired with money in the bank to take risky investments putting many on welfare, also made homes cost more at one point than they should of, but those are the breaks according to our government's infinite wisdom.

Actually for this reader I believe there are much more substantial reasons for keeping the interest rates low and none of them are good.

Number 1 reason, in my opinion, is to promote business transactions of any kind. The illusion of cheap money will almost always stimulate the economy. Almost always meaning now the only folks getting stimulated are located well north of Mr. Obama's 250,000 threshold. Those in lower and moderate income levels are stimulated to rent, go on less vacations, shop in cheaper markets and in short try and make a few dollars go further. These are folks who have had their credit reduced or eliminated for a variety of reasons.

Number 2 reason is to buoy the Banking system which in turn buoys the economy (No I do not believe this works in the long term myself). The percentage return on borrowing investment by the lending institutions is many times higher than I have ever seen. Basically free money is issued by the government and or by passbook or CD savers and the banks are lending at hundreds and perhaps thousands of percent markups depending on the lending vehicle. That is unprecedented and is required to get the banks back up to snuff without the illusion of a Tarp or ??? Bailout. Either way the American Public is supporting this industry.

Number 3 reason:The illusion of cheap money promotes risky investments both by individuals and corporations. The short term effect is the economy looks more robust than it is. However, when 2006 thru present occurs the number of corporations and individuals who choose to take risk is reduced. HOWEVER, I have said this for years, this point in history will see more transfer of wealth to the hands of fewer and fewer individuals than possibly any time in history. All one has to do is look at these great ROI properties in Nevada or ??? going into the hands of investors NOT homeowners. The upside of these investments is a monster while the present returns are fabulous. Though I was called a heretic I did note years ago the transfer of huge quantities of real estate was being done without showing up in the multiples. Giant blocks of real estate was being transferred at huge reductions to entities in the know and coming up with the huge bucks to handle the deals. Only rarely did the public become informed of such goings on and then it was by intimation only. Silly us.

Of course the problem with the above scenarios is what we are seeing today. This is a Ponzi Scheme on a scale which makes Bernie Madoff look like a school boy.

With that said, the governments have created all sorts of stop gap measures to perpetuate these myths. Printing of monies, issuing of more and more debt, deals with foreign investors who are scared to death of the U.S. defaulting on its debt the results of which would devastate world markets. Now with other governments investing in countries we are actually seeing governments, outside of the country in question, making fiscal policy with a threat of foreclosure should the country tell the investor to pound sand. Austerity measures for Countries??? How about spending less than you make and stop funding "Feel Good" loss leaders until the country, state or individual is fiscally sound. For those of you who say the resolve is not so simple I say to you. YES IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!!! Stop spending more than you make and create a budget based on reality not on fantasy and hopes for returns on huge risk.

So what does this have to do with Nevada.... Everything. Nevada is ground zero for foreclosures so one has to look at Nevada and make the analysis accordingly.

Best of luck

FOD

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by fishordie

For those of you who say the resolve is not so simple I say to you. YES IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!!! Stop spending more than you make and create a budget based on reality not on fantasy and hopes for returns on huge risk.

Hear hear! And to balance our budget, let's get rid of our defense department ENTIRELY. (Except for the Coast Guard.) It will be easy to live within our means without a military.

The problem with most "lower the budget" people is that defense spending is always completely off the table. As far as they're concerned, we need to lower spending levels on everything EXCEPT defense. The military gets everything they want -- about 20% of our total budget. And everyone else can pound sand.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Hear hear! And to balance our budget, let's get rid of our defense department ENTIRELY. (Except for the Coast Guard.) It will be easy to live within our means without a military.

That is an absolutely terrible idea. There is no doubt we would be attacked and then taken over. Ron Paul has the right idea about getting us out of all the foreign bases, but never to get rid of the military.

[dano]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Hear hear! And to balance our budget, let's get rid of our defense department ENTIRELY. (Except for the Coast Guard.) It will be easy to live within our means without a military.

The problem with most "lower the budget" people is that defense spending is always completely off the table. As far as they're concerned, we need to lower spending levels on everything EXCEPT defense. The military gets everything they want -- about 20% of our total budget. And everyone else can pound sand.

Yep, that'll make America stronger - just get rid of our entire military with the exception of our coast guard. Earth to Scoop?

[aitchem]

Originally Posted by las vegas drunk

That is an absolutely terrible idea. There is no doubt we would be attacked and then taken over. Ron Paul has the right idea about getting us out of all the foreign bases, but never to get rid of the military.

Just out of interest, who do you think will attack us?

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by aitchem

Just out of interest, who do you think will attack us?

It could be anyone. Russia, China, the Arab nations perhaps? There is zero doubt we would be invaded. It would be like someone walking around in my neighborhood with $100,000 worth of jewelry on them and no weapons. It would not be if, but when.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by aitchem

Just out of interest, who do you think will attack us?

And also out of interest, why does everyone seem to think that we should bankrupt ourselves to provide free security for the rest of the planet? The rest of the world doesn't pay for our defense budget. So those nations can take that money and have decent (not great, but decent) healthcare and schools for 100% of their citizens.

Even I am not in favor of getting rid of our military entirely (the above post was sarcasm). But I AM in favor of scaling it back by several orders of magnitude. If we weren't spending three quarters of a trillion dollars on defense every year, there would be a LOT more money available to pay down our debt and keep the social safety nets alive.

The "balance the freakin' budget" devotees almost to a man will not put defense on the table for cuts. Cut everything else. But defense? NEVER!

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by las vegas drunk

It could be anyone. Russia, China, the Arab nations perhaps? There is zero doubt we would be invaded. It would be like someone walking around in my neighborhood with $100,000 worth of jewelry on them and no weapons. It would not be if, but when.

Ridiculous. Our police forces, combined, are larger and better trained than most countries' armies. Our citizenry is armed to the teeth. We're also quite hard to invade -- as history has proven.

We maintain a military that we cannot afford because our priorities are hopelessly out of whack, not because we're in any danger of being invaded. And it's not like our nuclear deterrent will suddenly disappear if we were to scale back our conventional forces to reasonable levels. Our military spending accounts for 40% of the world's total. That isn't sustainable.

[las vegas drunk]

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

And also out of interest, why does everyone seem to think that we should bankrupt ourselves to provide free security for the rest of the planet? The rest of the world doesn't pay for our defense budget. So those nations can take that money and have decent (not great, but decent) healthcare and schools for 100% of their citizens.

Even I am not in favor of getting rid of our military entirely (the above post was sarcasm). But I AM in favor of scaling it back by several orders of magnitude. If we weren't spending three quarters of a trillion dollars on defense every year, there would be a LOT more money available to pay down our debt and keep the social safety nets alive.

The "balance the freakin' budget" devotees almost to a man will not put defense on the table for cuts. Cut everything else. But defense? NEVER!

Ron Paul would do all that. Too bad most people do not support him.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Ridiculous. Our police forces, combined, are larger and better trained than most countries' armies. Our citizenry is armed to the teeth. We're also quite hard to invade -- as history has proven.

We maintain a military that we cannot afford because our priorities are hopelessly out of whack, not because we're in any danger of being invaded. And it's not like our nuclear deterrent will suddenly disappear if we were to scale back our conventional forces to reasonable levels. Our military spending accounts for 40% of the world's total. That isn't sustainable.

I am all for cutting the military big time, just not eliminate it. Since you said that was sarcasm, it is now a moot point.