U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2010, 05:19 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
7,136 posts, read 7,864,604 times
Reputation: 3244

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by king's highway View Post
I refer to the ethnos and culture that founded the nation.

Before the 1960s, US immigration policy favored immigrants
from the same gene pool that founded America [Europe.]

After the 1960s, US immigration policy favored third world nations.

As I said in my first post here... first world nations were the
first to experience lower birthrates, so they began massive
third world immigration. That is why today Mohammad is one
of the most popular baby names in England.



~
The immigrants that founded our nation, or are you talking about the indians?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2010, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,769 posts, read 2,143,305 times
Reputation: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post


The immigrants that founded our nation, or are you talking about the indians?

You know perfectly well of what I speak.

But now that you mention it... Indians
know first hand how immigrants destroy
ethnos and culture.

As I said in my first post here... Japan
was one of the few first world nations
who chose not to destroy their ethnos
and culture via massive immigration.



~
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2010, 07:17 PM
 
Location: Sputnik Planitia
7,031 posts, read 9,811,547 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilgi View Post
Inflation helps the little guy by making his debt cheaper but that also would make banks assets (your debt) worth less to them. Who do you think the government will help?
doesn't matter as the government is infusing the banks with cash to absorb any losses. Bernanke has repeatedly said that he will print any amount necessary to prevent deflation even if the currency is utterly destroyed.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2010, 10:01 PM
 
Location: South Jordan, Utah
7,136 posts, read 7,864,604 times
Reputation: 3244
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
doesn't matter as the government is infusing the banks with cash to absorb any losses. Bernanke has repeatedly said that he will print any amount necessary to prevent deflation even if the currency is utterly destroyed.
How does it help to fill the banks when they aren't loaning it out?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2010, 10:37 PM
 
Location: USA
1,501 posts, read 2,569,711 times
Reputation: 1915
To those who are worried about falling birthrates, I have two words for you: pyramid scheme. The problem you are defining is that people are living longer and so the supposed solution is to produce more kids to expand the bottom of the pyramid. But there's no reason to assume that the increases in lifespans that we've had in the past 60 years are unique. Rather we're likely to have an even greater expansion in lifespans in next 60 years. So these working adults that are propping up today's seniors will become an even larger pool of seniors, which will require a larger pool of kids/working adults, which will become a larger pool of seniors, etc. This is not sustainable (even if it were feasible for a democratic government to try to coerce people into having more kids). Rather we need to realize that with people living longer, they will be productive longer. Unfortunately aging societies will have to raise the ages at which retirement is guaranteed (not to say that you can't save on your own and still retire at 62 or under, just that the govt. retirement benefits can't stay static when lifespans are increasing).

As for a stagnant economy, I think it's almost guaranteed for the next decade but not because of falling birthrates. Rather, the country has been living on grossly-inflated stock and housing prices. The inflated prices we thought we could get for our houses or stock portfolios did not reflect their true values. Or to put it another way, if you're used to living on unlimited credit and that credit dries up your standard of living has to go down.

Last edited by xeric; 08-10-2010 at 10:56 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Sputnik Planitia
7,031 posts, read 9,811,547 times
Reputation: 7752
U.S. May Be Trapped in Japan-Like Deflation Within 3 Years, Schroder Says - Bloomberg
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 09:27 PM
 
53 posts, read 47,506 times
Reputation: 51
I don't see how we can print all of this money and expect anything but inflation. The gov. has removed commodities from the inflation equation. We are already in an inflationary environment. Prices of oil and other commodities are on a general upward trend.

When Japan entered their lost decade they had 3% (aprox) unemployment and no national debt, along with a savings rate of near 15%. We have none of these. If it were deflation we were looking at, the price of gold would not be where it is. People would keep their dollars rather than invest in gold. We may have some deflation first. But inflation will be last and severe.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Sputnik Planitia
7,031 posts, read 9,811,547 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Pepperoni View Post
I don't see how we can print all of this money and expect anything but inflation. .
Because printing money is meaningless if you can't LEND it... companies will not borrow money unless there is demand for inventory, demand cannot exist unless people borrow money, people are not going to borrow money unless they have jobs and jobs cannot exist unless companies sell more stuff... vicious circle
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 09:52 PM
 
53 posts, read 47,506 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by k374 View Post
Because printing money is meaningless if you can't LEND it... companies will not borrow money unless there is demand for inventory, demand cannot exist unless people borrow money, people are not going to borrow money unless they have jobs and jobs cannot exist unless companies sell more stuff... vicious circle

Just so you know, I'd prefer to be wrong on this issue. Or at least I hope I am. But obarry is printing money and bailing out the states and giving it to the unions, banks, home owners and the unemployed and any other vote he can buy. You're saying it's sitting in a room somewhere

Everytime someone cashes an unemployment check the value of the money you've earned goes down. Just my POV. Tell me where I'm wrong?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2010, 02:58 AM
 
5,426 posts, read 10,391,147 times
Reputation: 4514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Pepperoni View Post
Just so you know, I'd prefer to be wrong on this issue. Or at least I hope I am. But obarry is printing money and bailing out the states and giving it to the unions, banks, home owners and the unemployed and any other vote he can buy. You're saying it's sitting in a room somewhere

Everytime someone cashes an unemployment check the value of the money you've earned goes down. Just my POV. Tell me where I'm wrong?
If someone pees in the ocean -- does the level go up?

Maybe in theory, but not in practice.

As the water evaporates, everyone peeing in ocean would not make the water go up.

Over the last two to three years, so much credit-currency that had been in circulation has evaporated that the new additional money being placed (so far on the circulation level) into the system not making up for it for the losses.

By normal fractional reserve lending -- once a dollar is placed into the bank, it should make 10 dollars available for borrowing. That should put 10 dollars in circulation -- or if one were Bear Sterns, around 33 dollars, as they were more highly leveraged and only had around 3% reserves.

But Bear Sterns (and folks who operated like them) are gone Buh Bye. The remaining banks are happy lending back to the .gov by buying bonds, and there is no longer any credit-currency for the masses of asses.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top