Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday December 29 2014, @12:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-shouldn't-spend-what-you-can't-afford dept.

"Forget Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, and Syria this is where WWIII will start"

Should the rise of conflicts across the Middle East and Ukraine serve as a warning sign that something much more dangerous is approaching? According to Jim Rickards, the CIA's Asymmetric Warfare Advisor, the answer is yes. In a startling interview he reveals that all 16 U.S. Intelligence Agencies have begun to prepare for World War III. Making matters worse, his colleagues believe it could begin within the next 6 months.

However, what is being forecast is not a war but is a massive US financial collapse leading to 'a 25 year-long depression' which could 'possibly begin within 6 months'. The link provided points to a (I believe) video of a 46-minute American TV interview with Jim Rickards on a program called "Money Morning".

I, as a European, do not know whether this program is highly regarded or whether this is a interview which has already been discounted by many. Indeed, I do not even know when the program was initially aired. I will leave it to the viewer to make his own decisions. It is also worth noting that Jim Rickards is also using the interview to push his book on the same topic.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @12:36AM

    by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @12:36AM (#129816)

    Ummmm

    --
    subicular junctures
  • (Score: 2) by doublerot13 on Monday December 29 2014, @12:51AM

    by doublerot13 (4497) on Monday December 29 2014, @12:51AM (#129818)

    Sounds like the CIA is holding a big short position...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:19AM (#130094)

      It turns out the guy isn't a "CIA insider" he's a civilian lawyer, pundit, and author, who published his first end-is-nigh genre book in 2011.

      On March 24, 2009, Rickards presented his view at a symposium at Johns Hopkins, that the U.S. dollar is vulnerable to attack from foreign governments through accumulation of gold and establishment of a new global currency.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Rickards [wikipedia.org]

      So, yeah. Take that with a few buckets of salt. We can see just the past few weeks with the Euro weakening and everybody running back to the dollar just how close we are to a global non-dollar currency that would be so well positioned to be a threat to us.

      He's got a 30 year history on Wall Street, I assume he's heavily invested in gold these days... lol

    • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:44AM

      by mtrycz (60) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:44AM (#130159)

      Only a madman would shell his gold in this situation.

      This guy has a very informational and very clear and to-the-point series on why. He also sells gold as a business, so use your own judgement. It's really informational, tho
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyV0OfU3-FU [youtube.com]

      --
      In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:54AM (#129819)

    ...but few will pay attention to them

    same as in 1999-2000 and 2006-2007

    ignorance is bliss

    the Keynesian experiment is almost over, and many will suffer as a result

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:58AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:58AM (#129820)

      The stock market looks high because of the inflation the money supply has seen for the last several years which has been extraordinary.

      • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @02:53AM

        by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:53AM (#129845)

        Inflation? We need a little inflation. Thus stagnation sucks, except for energy prices. I'm a sucker for filling up my van for less than $50...and I'm an environmentalist minded individual.

        --
        subicular junctures
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:17AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:17AM (#129854)

          hehe you almost whooshed me you cheeky bastard :p

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by CirclesInSand on Monday December 29 2014, @05:57AM

          by CirclesInSand (2899) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:57AM (#129882)

          No, we don't need any inflation. Technology should actually be causing prices to deflate drastically. Money supply inflation is theft by counterfeiting, and getting all the can't-do-but-can-teach university economists to cheer for inflation is not persuasive to anyone who can reason.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 29 2014, @08:34AM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:34AM (#129900)

            Ahh no, you need some amount of inflation. The exact amount is up for a lot of debate... obviously Zimbabwe level inflation is bad, but a deflating currency is one that is in imminent collapse. Deflating currency would mean that people that have debt (a huge portion of the population in an industrialized nation) would never be able to pay off their debt.

            Think of it this way, if you put in a loan for 50k for a house, and suddenly deflation hits and your house is worth only 40k, now you are sitting on top of a too big loan for a house. This encourages people to simply walk away from loans they cannot pay off. This gets us right into the situation we had in the housing bubbles, where people had loans for houses that were not worth as much as their loans. A different way to get to the same stupid result.

            Of nobody borrows, the economy goes into a big depression.

            The opposite is also true, having too much inflation and too low of interest rates does the same dumb thing. People take out loans they simply can't afford. The real evil here is having too volatile of an economy. But fucking around with the economy can sometimes make it worse (see the housing bubble).

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by CirclesInSand on Monday December 29 2014, @11:48AM

              by CirclesInSand (2899) on Monday December 29 2014, @11:48AM (#129930)

              You buy a house worth 100k on pure debt. A loaf of bread costs $1.

              You'd have to spend 100k loaves of bread to pay off your debt.

              Wham bam technology, and now bread costs $0.95. This is price deflation.

              Now you have to spend 105,263 loafs of bread to pay off your debt. However, your house is now worth, amazingly, 105,263 loafs of bread.

              To say that inflation is detrimental to those with debts is very myopic (and appropriately the popular opinion, people are dumb). It is only detrimental to those who persistently make malinvestments. It is incredibly beneficial to those who make good investments, because their investments increase in value as much.

              Technology causes price deflation. Preventing this injures an economy, that should be obvious.

              Printing money is supply inflation. It can't improve an economy any more than pulling up on your own boots can make you fly. And it is barely concealed theft.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:34PM (#129934)

                And it is barely concealed theft.

                nod

                anyone with half a brain should be shocked by the table here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Value [wikipedia.org]

                inflation is designed to allow governments to spend. its a form of taxation

                problem is a lot of people don't understand no matter which way you put it

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:50PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:50PM (#129937)

                  one could go further and call "inflation" slavery.
                  so how much you work doesn't give you a chance to relax ... ever. stuff will cost more tomorrow, so keep on working :)

                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @02:37PM

                  by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:37PM (#129956)

                  Doesn't this have to do with population growth? New people means more money is needed.

                  --
                  subicular junctures
                  • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:32AM

                    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:32AM (#130140)

                    Two people are on an island, they have 100 pennies each. They sell (different types of) bread to each other, takes them 1 hour to make each loaf.

                    A third person comes to the island with no pennies. He starts making his own kind of bread himself, takes him 1 hour to make each loaf. Will the price of bread increase, decrease, or stay the same?

                    To represent a larger economy, assume the overall demand for bread per person hasn't changed. Demand and supply both went up 50%, so then price wouldn't change.

                    Suppose each islander wants to keep on hand enough savings to buy 10 loafs of bread. Now the demand for pennies has increased by temporarily. The amount of the increase will depend on how soon the new island wants to get his savings started. Regardless, the buying power of the penny just increased, causing price deflation.

                    So it would seem like "no", population growth shouldn't be causing price inflation. It should cause price deflation. When you see the price of crap going up at the supermarket, someone (probably not you, but an insider) is making money gambling their fresh Federal reserve notes on the stock market.

                • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:19AM

                  by CirclesInSand (2899) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:19AM (#130137)

                  And that's only if you trust the CPI, and everyone knows that it is hugely underestimated in order to support the Federal Reserve and to inflate stock market gambling.

              • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 29 2014, @08:25PM

                by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:25PM (#130024) Journal

                However consider this:

                 

                The BANK - which created the loan for your debt - had NO LOAF OF BREAD. It had no PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY to make a loaf.
                It invented a fictional "Loaf Purchasing Value" on paper, and extended it to you, counting this as a BLACK INK balance on their side of the account book. No Loaf. No raw material OR productive capacity, with the SAME MARKET WEIGHT of 100K loaves of ACTUAL VALUE.

                 

                If you actually understood how this worked, along with most of the people subject to this circumstance, these folks would BE BURNT on a pyre.

                 

                --
                You're betting on the pantomime horse...
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Monday December 29 2014, @08:09PM

              by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:09PM (#130019)

              You are committing the fallacy the correlation of symptom with cause but I will agree with your basic sentiment by the end of this post. :) Other responses to your post have described other scenarios in which may have positive effects - although they too think they have discovered the single truth.
              The reality is FAAAR more complicated and MUCH less well understood than most realise.

              An economy that "spontaneously" goes into significant deflation has typically done so for dire reasons - this is very true. But one that "spontaneously" goes into significant inflation is likewise dire. The truth is that most modern economies (i.e. brittle ones) cannot handle quick changes - they suffer terribly in proportion to how financially irresponsible the country has been. This does not and should not be the case but the modern government is a VERY short sighted and greedy beast....as are most of their voters.

              There ARE situations where a controlled shift can be beneficial in both cases but others have pointed this out already.

              But they are DEAD WRONG in this case:

              In the USA the inflation is a means of paying back debt and creating even more fake (world reserve) currency. And the fact that the USD is the primary reserve currency is the ONLY reason they are getting away with it. If that ever changes, they are dead.
              Its embarrassing govt debt position, greedy personal debt position and its insistence of moving away from production-based wealth (let's call it the productive economy) to consumption and speculation based "wealth" (the DESTRUCTIVE economy - where real wealth goes to die).

              It is not alone - many other countries are in various degrees of this including my own. In my own (NZ) our economy has been called a "housing market with a tiny economy attached". Most of our wealth and debt is tied up in an almost completely unproductive (very few new houses relatively) and based entirely on a capital gains bubble. And realise that the vast majority of our debt comes from overseas banks where the repayments and interest also go.

              In this scenario you are perfectly correct - to deflate is to die. In fact to STAND STILL is to die. This is a country-level example of negative gearing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing [wikipedia.org]

              But you are wrong to correlate the two in the way you have.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 29 2014, @12:58AM

    by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday December 29 2014, @12:58AM (#129821) Journal

    Because magic systems of intelligence and data modelling have accurately predicted or averted so many catastrophes with extraordinary precision, and are so thoroughly examined as to methodology and controls.

     

    Especially when managed under the black budgets of Three Letter Agencies - most of whom are in competition and rivalry, not coordinated "forensic projection".

     

    However, this collapse of US political and economic hegemony is inevitable. It is the result of maintaining a triumphalist and extractive speculation economy with little or no regard for value cultivation or systemic health versus individual zero-sum returns. It may be 20 months or 20 years... Sooner than later, I think.

     

    Rickards, in The Death of Money, is less interested in the death of Federal Reserve Notes than in the resurrection of the dollar as Gold Certificates.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Rickards [wikipedia.org]

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/04/28/is-james-rickards-right-about-a-coming-monetary-apocalypse/ [forbes.com]

    But the reviewers’ skepticism as to imminence of death may be beside the point. Rickards states as reported by this blog [blogspot.com]:

    a lot of people are running around talking doom and gloom, the end of the dollar and all that. I might even agree with that, but I don’t think it has a lot of content.

     

    What I try to do is provide a more in-depth analysis describing what will come next, what the future international monetary system will look like.

     

    I point out that the international monetary system has already collapsed three times within the last 100 years—1914, 1939, and 1971—and that another collapse would not be at all unusual. But it’s not the end of the world. It’s just that the major powers sit down and reform the system. I talk about what that reformation will look like.

    And “what that reformation will look like” really does constitute the most interesting part of The Death of Money.

    Sen. Nelson Aldrich [thegoldstandardnow.org] (chairman of the National Monetary Commission, and called in his day America’s “general manager”) stated, before the New York Economics Club in 1909, that “[T]he study of monetary questions is one of the great causes of insanity.”  Rickards provides a wonderful antidote to some of the insanity too often evident around the study of monetary questions.

    Rickards critiques hysterics, apparently Nouriel Roubini [project-syndicate.org] (who he does not name and shame but with whom he engaged [forbes.com] in a spirited 16 hour Twitter war some time ago) for an indictment of gold investors as “paranoid, fear-based, far-right fringe and fanatics.”  Then Rickards berates reactionary hysterics for claims such as that Fort Knox surreptitiously has been emptied of gold.

    Rickards observes that

    Understanding gold’s real role in the monetary system requires reliance on history, not histrionics; analysis should be based on demonstrable data and reasonable inference rather than accusation and speculation.  When a refined view is taken on the subject of gold, the truth turns out to be more interesting than either the gold haters or the gold bugs might lead one to believe.

    He goes on to strip the bark off of some of the criticisms of, and polemics surrounding, the gold standard.  First he disposes of the myth that “there’s not enough gold.” (This myth is even more persuasively demolished by George Mason Professor Lawrence White, elsewhere [thegoldstandardnow.org]. Further refutations are welcome until the culture fully assimilates just how asinine is the myth of “not enough gold.”)

    • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @02:33AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @02:33AM (#129836) Homepage Journal

      We studied this quite a bit in high school.

      The problem is that the US Constitution doesn't say anything in particular about whether there should be a central bank. It doesn't provide for one, nor does it forbid central banks.

      There are many advantages to central banks, so there have been at least two that I clearly recall - the current Federal Reserve, there was also (if I recall correctly) the bank of the united states.

      While the Fed governors are appointed by the senate, the Fed is otherwise not beholden to the government. This yields, in effect, a fourth branch of government, however were the Fed to be directly overseen by the executive branch, bad politicians would do really stupid things with our money.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @02:58AM

        by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:58AM (#129847)

        Maybe politicians would do stupid things, but let us note than the power to issue currency at will is an important and major power of government. To allow that power to be beholden to the richest elite also has a cost...monetary policy always conducted for the good of many but instead conducted for the good of the elite...while petitions may spend purposely to get votes there are times when monetary policy needs to reflect the will of the general public .... the needs of the general public...to give that power up is a loss in those times. We are in those times now.

        --
        subicular junctures
        • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @03:00AM

          by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @03:00AM (#129849)

          Politicians, not petitions...friviously not purposely. ... I used an audio transcriber.

          --
          subicular junctures
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @05:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @05:21AM (#129871)

        That is NOT a "central bank" as that term is generally used.
        ...nor is it a "national bank" or a "public bank".
        The only thing "federal" about it is the deceptive name.

        The "Federal" Reserve is a cartel of 12 PRIVATE for-profit banks.
        Every penny that the USA Gov't takes in, it just hands over to those banksters (again, PRIVATE businesses).
        There is **no charge** to the banksters; whatever profit they make, they get to keep.
        The only way those banksters are answerable to USA taxpayers is that the president appoints the Fed Chairman.
        Pretty sweet deal, huh?
        N.B. "The Wizard of Oz" is an allegory about the USA bankster system.
        (Guess who the scarecrow represents.)
        I heard a presentation that Ellen Brown did on that.

        .
        the bank of the united states

        Killed off by Andrew Jackson[1] in the 19th Century.
        Neoliberals at work over 100 years before that became a term.

        [1] That would be Andrew Jackson, the guy who presided over The Panic[2] of 1837.
        [2] What they called a depression before they changed the term.

        .
        The only **public** bank in the USA is The Bank of North Dakota.
        If you want an example of how to do things, look there.
        For starters, any profit the bank makes is plowed back into the public sector (infrastructure).

        Ellen Brown writes on this topic a lot. One smart chick.
        When she ran for State Treasurer of California on the Green Party ticket, she got my vote.

        There was also a time when the USA had public banks in post offices.
        Neoliberals killed those off many decades ago.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 29 2014, @04:40PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 29 2014, @04:40PM (#129978) Journal

          Neoliberals at work over 100 years before that became a term.
           
          Wouldn't those just be liberals, then?

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @07:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @07:41PM (#130014)

            Neoliberal: Gov't regulation is bad; unregulated ("free") trade is good; privatize everything; nothing happens without the rich (ownership class).

            Liberal: Gov't regulation is essential; Egalitarianism is good; treat the Working Class as if they are the backbone of your economy (which they are).

            Socialist: A separate ownership class is unnecessary; the gov't (the taxpayers) should own the means of production; the voters (through their elected representatives) make all the economic decisions.

            Marxist (Far Left): A separate ownership class is unnecessary; The workers own the means of production; if you don't produce, you don't get to eat.

            -- gewg_

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday December 29 2014, @08:20PM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @08:20PM (#130022) Journal

              Each of those defines a clear political position, but I don't believe those terms are usually used in that (or any other consistent) manner.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 29 2014, @08:30PM

              by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:30PM (#130026) Journal

              Conservative: The King and his aristocratic class - or their pseudo-modern proxy - are the rightful owners of capital, production and power for choices. This is the natural order of things because of God or Science or whatever it is that ordains static and rigid unchangableness as the only right and true principle.

              --
              You're betting on the pantomime horse...
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @09:59PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @09:59PM (#130052)

                Conservatism is actually a centrist position: conserve the status quo.
                What you described is a Reactionary.

                The guy they called Mr. Conservative did not treat his employees like chattel. [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [commondreams.org]

                [1] "good steward of resources"

                Ronald Reagan, OTOH, started out as a New Dealer.
                His father was a drunk.
                "Dutch" and his family would have starved if his dad hadn't gotten one of those New Deal jobs.
                Ronnie was president of the Screen Actors Guild (a labor union).
                It wasn't until he met Nancy Davis and George Murphy that he went over to the dark side and became a shill for the 1 Percenters and a union-buster.

                -- gewg_

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:16AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:16AM (#130119) Journal

              Marxist (Far Left): A separate ownership class is unnecessary; The workers own the means of production; if you don't produce, you don't get to eat.

              I don't think Marx every said that non-production entails non-consumption. Is this, perhaps, in the _Grundlage_? Especially since Marxism borrows the anarchist maxim (from Kropotkin, I believe, or was it Proudhon?) "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." See? No linkage between production and entitlement. Of course, "need" is a very fuzzy thing. Yes, I need food, clothing, and shelter (and education, socialization, and medical care), but if I am building railroads, because that is where my ability lies, then I need a lot of steel. Of course, my need then is not my need per se, it is the need of society to take advantage of what I have to offer, what we might call, "social capital".

              So let's keep our political position terminology straight here on SN, so we do not end up like other outposts on the internet: overrun by neo-liberal neo-conservatives both of which are neither and mostly just zombies of naked self-interests of the ruling classes, or the Koch Bros!

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by CirclesInSand on Monday December 29 2014, @06:02AM

        by CirclesInSand (2899) on Monday December 29 2014, @06:02AM (#129883)

        We studied this quite a bit in high school.

        The problem is that the US Constitution doesn't say anything in particular about whether there should be a central bank. It doesn't provide for one, nor does it forbid central banks.

        Then you didn't study the US Constitution well enough. Powers of congress are enumerated. If the constitution doesn't list the creation of a central bank as a power of congress, then it is forbidden. This is made explicit by the 9th amendment, but it should be obvious just from reading.

        The existence of a Bill of Rights leads many people to believe that if something isn't explicitly denied to the Feds, that it is allowed. This potential misunderstanding was the strongest argument against the creation of a Bill of Rights, but was resolved with the creation of the 9th and 10th amendments. Unfortunately, those 2 amendments weren't enough, and everyone still misunderstands the whitelisting nature of government powers.

      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 29 2014, @06:43AM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday December 29 2014, @06:43AM (#129887) Journal

        It does say that only Congress shall have the power to coin money. It does not give the power to delegate the coinage of money to private banking. It does not give Congress the ability to generate credit-based interest debt or speculative monetary instruments. It does not give Congress the power to privatize money - which is what a Federal Reserve bank does currently.

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Monday December 29 2014, @02:35AM

      by edIII (791) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:35AM (#129840)

      It's more than likely 20 months. I didn't need a CIA dude to tell me how fucked my country and economy really is.

      You say it's inevitable, but do not really expound as to why. In my belief, it's because we enjoy being screwed by the 1% as they made the standard of living just high enough to not complain. We are our own Great Depression, and the People always deserve what the People give themselves.

      A 25 year Great Depression to me is downright humorous. It's ALREADY been at minimum 5 years. In that time, into two different states and three cities I see nothing getting better on the ground. There's not just more homeless people now, I routinely see entire families begging in every shopping center I go to. Last family had it straight on the sign. "No bailout for me and my family. Bank just took everything". Every family member spread to all the exits of the shopping center, all with their signs. I couldn't go a single place today without seeing desperate people in the cold only wishing to eat and be warm.

      The baby got part of dinner tonight because of me, but I'm left with the hard truth that I don't know how much longer I can even feed myself, much less help this family feed their child. I'm not really any different than they are, my story is the same. Great Depression started, government said fuck you to the people and went to aid the sociopaths, multiple banks stole my properties. Not just mine, but from pretty much everyone I know across all demographics. That's not even true, since it seems like the people who are doing the best now, were the ones doing poorly to start with. Meaning, crap jobs, no home, and basically nothing but slaves themselves to the machine. Everybody else who was riding high on the passive income type systems saw their wealth for what it really was. Paper wealth just as easily handed over to bad men who gamed the system. From deeds of trust, to improperly handled notes and confused judges, the banks worked their system of malfeasance and nepotism to reward the few with fire sale properties.

      Where are the people? Not in those properties. Entire neighborhoods reduced to defacto Super Fund ghost towns. During this time in which many Americans were being evicted out of their homes, the government did *nothing*. It *said* many things, but it did *nothing*. Every program failed, because the people involved in the programs never had any intentions of letting them work. Hence, the fire sale of properties illicitly obtained. Obama never followed up on the banks and the programs designed to keep people in their homes. That's not a partisan attack either, he's a worthless piece of shit, and if he wasn't elected, it would be some other worthless piece of shit from some other party, that is itself, populated by worthless pieces of shit.

      20 months, perhaps less, as nothing ever started to get any better anywhere when this started. I know of no single person or family doing well. The only thing I hear is:"We're surviving","Plan B", "Maybe next year", "Moving in with relatives". The only families I know that have a plan to survive the coming collapse of America are ones with farms in the middle of nowhere with plans in motion to go even more rural with scouted out spots in the deep wilderness. That's not because they are crazy, it's because they *know*. When the collapse happens all the people who have no knowledge of how to take care of themselves will start evacuating the cities. The real chance at survival will be directly related to how well you can stay away from other humans. We tried the cooperation part and advanced societies, and that got us nowhere. The most dangerous and irrational animal on the planet wholly unsuited to long term survival, will soon be streaming out of the cities.

      This is one poster who believes in the coming collapse enough to move his fat ass up and down a mountain path everyday to tend to gardens and learn how to make good food directly from the source. Soon, I don't think I will be able to count on a general store or hospitals even being around, and I sure as hell don't want to take my chances next to populated areas.

      Of course, this is America. Nothing could ever possibly happen like that. It's not that bad, the people at the top are not that stupid or evil right? Yeah. That's why I'm growing peas more often than writing code. I know which one will feed me in 20 months.

      • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @03:04AM

        by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @03:04AM (#129850)

        To what purpose?
        Survival without hope of good times is poor gruel.
        Besides,

        --
        subicular junctures
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:48AM

          by edIII (791) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:48AM (#130113)

          I would choose the gruel, knowing that there will be more gruel later. That's the purpose. Also, it's a lot more easy for me to share gruel with other people then try to make hamburgers every night for dinner. We couldn't do that 50 years ago, and we sure as hell can't really afford to do it now.

          There are no more good times, and the good times that are being had are just the last few minutes of the party. The party will stop soon, and the check will come due. I'm just being smart and I'm 20 minutes already into the forest not waiting for the rest of your reactions to the check. So, yeah, kind of sad. All good things must come to an end, and America has been writing bad checks for years .

          As for the hope of good times, fun and happiness is where you find it. To that end, I train myself to find happiness in the forest. Soon, there will only be the forest again. Every so often, I can still head into town to enjoy some things (while it's still standing), so I'm not completely without the good times you are used to. I wish it didn't sound so insane either to be adapting your life towards a self sufficient one in rural areas as a direct result of a profound vote-of-no-confidence in the whole system.

          Realistically, this will play out in a deeper Great Depression that what we are in now. I'm already worth thousands of dollars of year in just clean organic food, and even more in terms of clean water. I'm saving whole paychecks compared to the costs of good produce now. My garden could literally be labeled an average of $3-4/lb for most of the bins and produce in it. So when the economy goes to hell, I will be perfectly positioned to ride it out till America starts to rebuild itself (the people that are left). I wouldn't recommend you choosing that hell in the city and urban areas unless your happiness is really tied to those people and that environment. It may be harder than you think, and a good salad might be worth more than you can pay soon.

          Some of the smartest people rode out the Great Depression by escaping to rural areas, and farms, to spend their time learning, studying, and writing. I'm only trying to emulate their successes as normal guy in the face of serious economic and social strains that greatly compromise my faith that America can continue with such false prosperity for much longer.

          Trust me. Put your foot in the door and have some bags packed. Also, Cardio. Cardio will keep you away from the zombies :)

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 1) by zugedneb on Monday December 29 2014, @05:27AM

        by zugedneb (4556) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:27AM (#129874)

        "This is one poster who believes in the coming collapse enough to move his fat ass up and down a mountain path everyday to tend to gardens and learn how to make good food directly from the source. Soon, I don't think I will be able to count on a general store or hospitals even being around, and I sure as hell don't want to take my chances next to populated areas."

        Ah... an intellect feeling abandoned by the mass of fallow humans...
        Welcome to the state of mind of say, 1/4 of east europeans... The rest, 3/4, includes the 1% and the people happy with surviving for the day...

        Now, as an existential comedian, u are absolutely positive that the zombies won't come to the mountains =)

        --
        old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
        • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:44AM

          by edIII (791) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:44AM (#130112)

          An intellect? No. I'm not all that smart. If I was, I would have the money and be abandoning you for the comforts of a place like Switzerland or Norway. Abandonment implies a lot more emotional undertones, than may exist. We were never really together in the first place, and that's a general observation of America. I simply recognize that our collective positions are wholly untenable in the long run and it makes no sense to participate anymore. We are the USS Titanic, and my intelligence is really just to keep near the life boats.

          In all honesty, the zombies will have a very hard time just escaping each other. If some "zombies" turn out to be smart enough to make it 100+ miles out of the city into my remote area I wouldn't begrudge them my peas. Worrying about them getting to me is quite secondary, to my primary fear of being in the middle of the populated areas when the party stops. We are not a smart and self sufficient people anymore, and that's a cold hard fact. I suspect enormous hardships to come, but that's what the National Guard is for right?

          You mention Eastern Europe, and that's such a perfect thing for Americans to keep in mind. I don't know why we really have such an arrogant level of superiority when it's really just circumstances separating us, and not so much cultures. It's not impossible for us to repeat those mistakes.

          I am that pessimistic only because I know how fragile and tenuous our foundations really are. Literally. Our infrastructure is dilapidated and we have no will power to either expand or repair it like we did before, not to mention our skilled workforce is now aged and infirm. Too bad we never cared about the American worker enough to invest in them. As a result, our infrastructure only becomes more costly to maintain, with less skills to maintain it.

          Everything America is, is only about a work week away or so from utter destruction in terms of supplies on hand. All of that transportation and work that goes on every day is required breathing of a nation, that is increasingly obese and labored in its efforts to do so. Our cigarettes are our addiction to artificial scarcity and designed inefficiency for the sake of money. It really doesn't take much to push most people under now, and we can soon reach a critical nature where it will just get out of hand, very fast. I would not be so morose, if I could but simply have faith in my government. They didn't help anybody since this started, I don't expect them to do anything but continue to help themselves and support Wall Street and the continued cooperative nature of their malfeasance. There was never any justice or remediation for the real victims in my country, and I'm frustrated that as one of the victims my arguments seem disingenuous. We deserve justice for what Wall Street and the banks have done to us and America, if not for what happened before, at least for what has happened during the "corrections" sponsored by the government. It's not unreasonable to say we are not being adequately helped or represented in light of the facts. My own story is just one example of the many ways (plural) America and it's corporate leaders have greatly abused us, and been caught doing it. It wasn't just housing and mortgage scandals in the last 7 years.

          You're right, I don't have a very safe place to go, since I'm not in the privileged class of America that will abandoning ship in luxury air craft destined for Europe, or Dubai. The best I can hope for is to be one of the ones that survives and can hope for a better future maybe the 3rd time America makes a go at it. I think what is coming is the Grapes of Wrath style hardships with our own Dust Bowl, or worse, some new type of civil war. Everyone talks the big talk about morality and ethics, but starvation has some pretty strong influence on what you are willing to do to survive. Yet, I'm somewhat crazy reactionary here, despite ample evidence of history showing what the relatively calm periods were like just before the storm. Afghanistan was once a burgeoning metropolis of moderate culture, but very quickly descended into their own versions of hell with crazy men executing people in old worn out soccer stadiums. Hitler and all of his damage happened to a weakened Germany in the space of about 12-15 years. How is the US different again? I mean really different?

          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:59AM

            by tathra (3367) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:59AM (#130115)

            We were never really together in the first place

            and there's the problem. society should not just be a bunch of selfish sociopaths who live in close proximity, it should be people who pool their talents and resources so that everyone can reap benefits far greater than anyone can on their own.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 29 2014, @06:40AM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday December 29 2014, @06:40AM (#129886) Journal

        One Word: "Detroit"

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:45AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:45AM (#130101) Journal

        I have been thinking for quite a while that the trigger will be the collapse of the student debt system. It's bigger in absolute terms than credit card debt or the sub-prime debt load, and the inflation in fees continues double-digit unabated. That can't continue forever, despite those who are milking the system thinking it can. Concurrently, trillions of dollars have been siphoned from productive purpose in the US economy by Wall Street (as a proxy term for non-productive bankers and financiers) and sequestered in off-shore bank accounts.

        The revelations about the NSA and CIA, and the growing crises with Ebola, Ferguson, and Russia quite strengthen my sense of imminent tumult.

        But we also have many transformative technological revolutions reaching fruition at the same time, so it's shaping up to be one of those once-in-a-millenia historical pivots. I'm trying to hedge my bets by teaching my kids how to code and hack, and to flint-knap. Can't quite tell which way it's going to break.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:16AM (#129824)

    China is buying up an unprecedented amount of gold (much of it on the low so as to keep the price down) so that eventually it will have the USA in a noose.

    At some point China will be free to sacrifice its US treasuries in a financial nuclear strike on the bond market (effectively wiping out their value) which will cause a rush on gold such that in the end China will easily gain in value its gold reserves what it lost in US treasuries (and then some).

    It may never actually dump its bonds, but may use the threat as a political weapon against the US. This may already be happening behind closed doors judging by a lack of US response to China's annexing of the South China Sea.

    Western media may be portraying financial troubles in China, but there is much more to China's relations with the west than what is shown in the news.

    Keep a close eye on the sleeping Sun Tzu tiger of the East.

    • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @02:16AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @02:16AM (#129832) Homepage Journal

      However the biggest is the United States Department of Defense.

      I'm not so sure the PLC employs so many troops because they expect them to actually fight with someone someday. Perhaps they're trying to find some way to spend all the money they make as a result of their exports.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @02:45PM

      by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:45PM (#129958)

      Gold has some useful properties but gold doesn't hold value unless people think gold has value....just like bitcoin. The dollar has inherent value as long as our government levies taxes payable only in dollars. Gold would have this inherent value if governments collected taxes in gold.

      You want value in the post ww3? Stockpile cigarettes and liquor

      --
      subicular junctures
      • (Score: 1) by Delwin on Monday December 29 2014, @04:03PM

        by Delwin (4554) on Monday December 29 2014, @04:03PM (#129974)

        Or bottle caps.

      • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:12AM

        by CirclesInSand (2899) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:12AM (#130081)

        You have a strange definition of inherent. The "inherent" value of the dollar would be wiping your ass, cleaning up liquid spills, burning them for heat, etc. The "inherent" value of gold is huge compared to dollars. As will be true of any other commodity. Perhaps a better word would be "contrived" (value of the dollar), or "assigned" value, or "agreed upon" value, but certainly not "inherent".

    • (Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Monday December 29 2014, @08:23PM

      by SecurityGuy (1453) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:23PM (#130023)

      At some point China will be free to sacrifice its US treasuries in a financial nuclear strike on the bond market (effectively wiping out their value) which will cause a rush on gold such that in the end China will easily gain in value its gold reserves what it lost in US treasuries (and then some).

      How is it going to do that, exactly? US treasuries have value because the US government is on the hook to give the owner money in the future. You can't wipe out their value by dumping them. All you'd be doing is giving someone else an awesome deal on US treasuries. Actually, if that ever happened, the US government should just buy them. If someone offers you the ability to buy your own debt for next to nothing, how much should you buy? All of it.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday December 29 2014, @08:31PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @08:31PM (#130028) Journal

        But what the US is on the hook to give in return for those securities is paper with printing on it. This has no inherent value.

        I don't think much of the gold standard, but gold does have some intrinsic value. I'd prefer the noncrystalline silicon standard, or the iron standard, or something else that isn't so limited, and which you can extract more of with a bit of work. The U235 standard would have its interesting points. For each of these you still need paper tokens that represent them, but the tokens should be tied to actual value. Wheat isn't a good standard, because you can't store it. But its good because it has actual value. Fresh water is too variable in value, but it does have actual value, and you can produce as much as you want with enough work (desalinization, if nothing else).

        Money should have value. It's nice if that value is constant. The value of US dollars is purely that they are what you need to pay taxes in, but taxes are corrupt. I almost said arbitrary, but corrupt is a bit closer to what I meant. They favor people who bribe legislators.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Monday December 29 2014, @10:07PM

          by SecurityGuy (1453) on Monday December 29 2014, @10:07PM (#130054)

          But what the US is on the hook to give in return for those securities is paper with printing on it. This has no inherent value.

          That's basically the gold bug argument, but yeah, money has value only because we all agree it has value. I'll accept $1 from you as payment because nearly everyone else in my corner of the world will accept it as payment from me, and I'm really, really sure that isn't going to change in the near term future.

          I never really got the gold standard. Sure, it's rare, but it's practically worthless to me, except for the fact that other people will pay a lot of money for it. It's just like paper money as far as I'm concerned. It's worth a lot because other people think it's worth a lot.

          I don't think things that are stores of actual value are ever going to work. Food and fresh water are undoubtedly truly valuable, but they're ridiculously bulky. Just think of money as a transferrable IOU. I go to work, and my company gives me things I can trade for other people's work. That's exactly the sort of system I want because the alternative is inefficient.

        • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:25AM

          by CirclesInSand (2899) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:25AM (#130086)

          The U235 standard would have its interesting points.

          ....

          I guess it would prevent hoarding.

    • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:22AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:22AM (#130132) Journal

      Not gonna happen because China's economy? Already being hit hard. Where do you think all that cheapo Chinese crap USED to get sold? The west. Well guess who hasn't been buying because our economies are in the shitter? China isn't gonna commit suicide and kill off what little export they have now simply because some of the old guard still act like its the 1950s, they are too busy trying to figure out what to do with all their unemployed and underemployed just as we are, they sure as fuck ain't gonna triple the unemployment figures just for the sake of a cold war nobody even cares about anymore.

      No most likely what we'll see is the early 1930s all over again where the entire planet just grinds to a halt as all the economies one by one fall off the edge. Look at your history folks, wasn't nobody doing well in the 30s, weren't no places safe from the depression then, won't be any place safe from the next one.

      Lets just hope that the nukes keep it from ending like the last one, 100 million plus dead wouldn't be shit compared to a few nukes getting tossed around.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:48PM (#130366)

        typical american elitist nonsense

        you guys aren't the only ones in the world that desire useless shit

        there's a billion+ chinese to buy chinese crap, not to mention similar no. of indians

        there's also a few other continents that are chock full of consumers

        americans only buy a lot of chinese crap because china lent you the money to do so

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:37PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:37PM (#130385)

          Exactly. Do people really think there are Chinese working in factories building washing machines saying to the person next to them, "Glad I don't have one of these. I like washing my clothes by hand in a washtub."

          100 years ago American factory workers were paid the highest wages in the world and yet produced the lowest cost, highest quality goods. Chinese consumers will finally begin to consume once their government stops devaluing their currency to keep pace with the US dollar.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday December 29 2014, @01:29AM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 29 2014, @01:29AM (#129826) Journal

    Its a "goldbug" site designed to steer people to buying metal at inflated prices. These goldbug sites have been saying the same shit since Ronnie Raygun was POTUS so they can cause panic and push gold, silver, copper, whatever metal of the week they got a deal on.

    So if you wann argue about whether the Federal Reserve is blowing bubbles? Fine and dandy, just don't base your data on a goldbug.

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Monday December 29 2014, @02:34AM

      by Non Sequor (1005) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:34AM (#129839) Journal

      Agreed the submitter didn't have a properly functioning bozo filter for this content. Still, there's some interesting discussion to be had by going off on tangents.

      First off, the Federal Reserve isn't the only entity affecting asset prices. Interest rates are at a long term low in Europe, Canada, and Japan as well. They were at a long term high in the 80s. Currently bonds are the most expensive they have been since World War II and the central banks are not the only ones buying bonds at the elevated price level.

      There is more at play than what the Federal Reserve is doing and to some extent they can be characterized as responding to pressures rather than steering a ship. With that said, I have the distinct and unsettling impression that the Federal Reserve may still be doing something wrong in a way that no one properly understands.

      Historically, every country ever has stumbled from one monetary policy to the next in response to a crisis. In ancient history this was done by manipulation of the gold supply or by debasing or reforming coinage. In the 20th century it was done by migrating to a new central adjustment mechanism with more baffles and valves. We have never operated with a single system for more than a few decades. Maybe that's the best you can hope for and periodically things have to fall apart.

      --
      Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 29 2014, @08:11AM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:11AM (#129896)

        The submitter is either an ultraconservative idiot, or in on the gold pump and dump scam.

        A LOT of people have been parroting the "economy is in imminent collapse" for pretty much ever, even when times were great. My money (haha) is that the submitter is just a moron.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 1) by My Silly Name on Monday December 29 2014, @12:59PM

          by My Silly Name (1528) on Monday December 29 2014, @12:59PM (#129941)
          The submitter is either an ultraconservative idiot, or in on the gold pump and dump scam.

          I know it's unfashionable to finish reading before starting to froth at the mouth, but the submitter makes it quite clear in his last paragraph that he has no information on the verifiability of that source of information, so there's no cause to be so harsh.

          Other, much more interesting grounds for suggesting our economy (or rather our society) might be on the verge of collapse (at least in the longer term) have been discussed much more plausibly by Dr. Jared Diamond in his 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed [wikipedia.org].
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday December 29 2014, @08:35PM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday December 29 2014, @08:35PM (#130030) Journal

          To be fair they said they were in the EU so maybe they just don't have much exp with goldbugs? One shouldn't jump to conclusions when dealing with other cultures, sometimes things just don't translate well from one culture to the other. Perhaps they simply don't have infomercials in the EU and therefor have no experience with them?

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Monday December 29 2014, @05:18PM

      by metamonkey (3174) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:18PM (#129987)

      Yeah I tried to play the video and it popped up some "project prophecy" thing about TLAs predicting 9/11. It's the same scam commercial that plays on Fox News at 3PM to scare retirees into buying gold.

      --
      Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @12:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @12:05AM (#130074)

      Yup. Every good investment or financial protection method has some people that tag along to exploit people instead of trying to operate an honest business.

      Golds run ended in 1980 when the Fed put short term rates above 10% for over half a decade and over 15% for almost half of that, sopping up the liquidity created in the 1960's that caused the 1970's as well making US bonds attractive again, after the US government defaulted in 1972, with an interest rate that was higher than the real inflation rate.

      Gold and silver could go up or down, but they won't crash for decades like they did in the 80s and 90s until you see double digit interest rates from the Fed. Stocks were the way to go from 1980 to 1999. MEtals and resources were the way to go from 2000 to present. The current bubble economy is limping along, but until there is a real recession to purge all the malinvestment from the economy there will be no recovery.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday December 29 2014, @01:31AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday December 29 2014, @01:31AM (#129827)

    To call some random videoblogger a 'TV Program' is perhaps a stretch. Nothing on the toplevel of that website inspires confidence that it any more informative than the next random doomblogger or goldbugger. Might not be quite as depressing a read as zerohedge, but I certainly wouldn't put any faith in them as a source.

    That said, I have been waiting for the second shoe to drop since 2008. We have done nothing but print money and paper over the problems, kicking the can down the road as they fester and grow worse out of public sight. Nobody in a position of authority seems concerned with anything other than making sure the Kaboom! happens after Nov 2016. Can they buy that much time? Considering the abuse the economy has taken already and survived (not thrived mind ya, but survived) I'd up the odds to at least even. Despite the best efforts, America just ain't ready to die yet.

    As for a 25 year Depression? Considering we elected Obama twice, I can see us being far enough gone as to elect another idiot or two to make this next Depression Great. In a sane world of course that sort of thing can't happen. But we already have the example of FDR making a Depression into a Great one and profiting greatly by it so yea, buckle up because it will be a rough ride.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @02:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @02:17AM (#129833)

      To call some random videoblogger a 'TV Program' is perhaps a stretch. Nothing on the toplevel of that website inspires confidence that it any more informative than the next random doomblogger or goldbugger. Might not be quite as depressing a read as zerohedge, but I certainly wouldn't put any faith in them as a source.

      Indeed. Another dead giveaway is this line from the summary:

      It is also worth noting that Jim Rickards is also using the interview to push his book on the same topic.

      To the soylent editors: in the future please try to exercise a bit more editorial oversight so this kind of garbage doesn't slip through.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:13AM (#129853)

        in the future please try to exercise a bit more editorial oversight so this kind of garbage doesn't slip through

        yeah cos articles about how awesome the next ipad will be are much better than something that stimulates discussion about the economy

        to the soylent editors: in the future please try to ignore trolls with their heads buried up their own asses

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:33PM (#129976)

          yeah cos articles about how awesome the next ipad will be are much better than something that stimulates discussion about the economy

          Sure, stimulating conversation about the economy is just fine. Trouble is, this particular submission is no more than chicken-littleism masquerading as economic analysis. This looks to me to be nothing more than a transparent attempt by some guy trying to generate buzz for his new book. Not every article about economic catastrophe is (or should be) worthy of submission to SN. Where would that lead us? What next, do we then allow various "thoughtful analyses" claiming that the Apollo program was a fraud and men never walked on the Moon? Is there no threshold of credibility that needs to be met?

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:40PM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:40PM (#130276) Journal

            I hear you.

            It would be a lot easier with a queue full of submissions but, since the holiday period started almost a week ago, the queue has run dry on several occasions. Please post high quality stories that will provoke a discussion, and I will gladly put them on the front page.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday December 29 2014, @05:36AM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:36AM (#129877) Journal

      No, the message isn't plausible. You've been drinking too much with the Tea Party. You sound like you're worried about deficits, and believe those could lead to a collapse. The facts show the opposite. If anything, we haven't been borrowing enough. Interest rates are so low right now that borrowing has never been cheaper. Why then aren't we doing more borrowing? With that money, we could employ a bunch of people to fix our crumbling infrastructure. With such high unemployment, people can be hired for cheaper than ever. It's like a person who needs a new refrigerator refusing to buy one even at fire sale prices, and even though their credit card just rolled out a very low interest rate.

      Republicans only care about the deficit when discussing spending on social programs. Their fierce devotion to balanced budgets is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the military. They already knocked a big hole in the national treasury with the War of Choice, and in return got worse than nothing. In exchange for all that money, estimated to be about $3 trillion, they made a whole bunch more enemies for the US, alienated allies, murdered a bunch of Iraqis, and made us all look stupid and treacherous. They misread the problem, and they pushed a fantasy solution that, even if they got the diagnosis right, was the wrong solution to the problem they thought they had. They turned to propaganda to push their lies, doing much to confuse the public about science by suggesting it was propaganda no different than theirs. The social conservatives are all too eager to seize on these propaganda methods to push their own agendas of teaching Creationism and other anti-science moves. Both are in entirely too much agreement about possibly the most serious matter our civilization currently faces: Global Warming. They can't seem to understand how foolish propaganda is, how impossible it is to govern when you can't believe anything because everyone is lying. In short, they were idiots. Currently the Republicans are relying on cheating to maintain their grip on power, another damn fool thing to do. Their useful idiots are busy making noise while they corrupt the government as just collateral damage on the route of enriching themselves even more. They even justify this with a sort of "might is right" argument, acting like it's cheating only if you get caught, otherwise it's a brilliant play. Republicans are the party of stupid, and desperately trying to avoid that becoming the defining image of their party, using their same, tired old propaganda tools.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday December 29 2014, @11:38AM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Monday December 29 2014, @11:38AM (#129928) Homepage Journal

        You ask, with interest rates so low, why not borrow even more? There is just one little problem: even with low (or no) interest, you still owe the money. Eventually, you have to pay it back. Interest rates will, at some point, rise again - putting you in an uncomfortable position.

        As the USSR, Greece, and too many other countries have amply demonstrated: The government is not good at making investments, not even investments in infrastructures. The incentives are all wrong, encouraging bloated empire building rather than efficiency and productivity.

        Free enterprise, for all of its flaws, is the most effective known method for raising everyone's standard of living. The problem in the US is that free enterprise has been hobbled by regulatory capture: corporations using government regulation to squash their competition, instead of actually competing in a free marketplace.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by buswolley on Monday December 29 2014, @02:51PM

          by buswolley (848) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:51PM (#129960)

          All debts are payable, no matter how large, when they are held in the debtors own fiat currency.Just coin a couple trillion dollar coins and pay it off....so why not do this?

          Because inflation.

          Inflation is the only real check on spending of a fiat currency, never debt.

          --
          subicular junctures
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:33AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:33AM (#130149) Journal

            All debts are payable, no matter how large, when they are held in the debtors own fiat currency.Just coin a couple trillion dollar coins and pay it off....so why not do this?

            Because inflation.

            Inflation is the only real check on spending of a fiat currency, never debt.

            You already contradict yourself. As you imply, excessive debt results in inflation because that becomes the only way to pay off the debt. Hence, high levels of debt by the currency provider is just as much a check on the fiat currency as inflation itself.

            • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:54PM

              by buswolley (848) on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:54PM (#130228)

              No it is you who misunderstand. I'm never said debts don't matter. I said debts in your own currency can always be paid off. This doesn't mean there isn't consequence to paying that debt off. See the difference?

                There is no default risk, just inflation risk to this debt. Period.

              If inflation is the real and only risk then the level of debt which becomes dangerous is different than it would for default.

              Since default is not possible, and is constifutionally forbidden, for Federal debts in its own currency we only have one risk:

              Is the interest paid on the debt large enough to drive hyper-inflation?

              Not yet. How much?that is the real question.

              --
              subicular junctures
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 31 2014, @12:08AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 31 2014, @12:08AM (#130391) Journal

                No it is you who misunderstand. I'm never said debts don't matter. I said debts in your own currency can always be paid off. This doesn't mean there isn't consequence to paying that debt off. See the difference?

                Look at what I quoted of your words, you said more than that.

                Since default is not possible, and is constifutionally forbidden, for Federal debts in its own currency we only have one risk:

                Inflation is a form of default. Also, who will lend to you when you've defaulted in the past?

                • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Wednesday December 31 2014, @01:23AM

                  by buswolley (848) on Wednesday December 31 2014, @01:23AM (#130410)

                  inflation is not a form of default. If I owe 1000 dollars to you and I have 1000 dollars, I can pay back that debt. It does not matter whether that $1000 can buy 1000 candy bars or just one candy bar, 1000 pesos or one peso: that debt is fully payable by that $1000 dollars.

                  No, default is not a risk under inflation IF that debt is held in the fiat currency a government controls...

                  Sure under high inflation people might not want to lend, but congress can always circumvent the Fed reserve mechanism and use their constitutional authority to coin money to pay its debts.

                  --
                  subicular junctures
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 31 2014, @04:01PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 31 2014, @04:01PM (#130546) Journal

                    It does not matter whether that $1000 can buy 1000 candy bars or just one candy bar

                    It does matter and this should be obvious. I didn't lend you the equivalent of 1000 candy bars so that you could pay me the equivalent of one candy bar. Functionally, it's no different in the lending relationship here that just paying one thousandth of the debt and defaulting. The only difference is that by inflating the currency by a factor of a thousand, you've also harmed everyone else that holds dollars or loaned dollars. That makes hyperinflation much worse than outright default.

                    Sure under high inflation people might not want to lend, but congress can always circumvent the Fed reserve mechanism and use their constitutional authority to coin money to pay its debts.

                    Then they have to force companies and people to provide those services below cost. It's just not going to work. The solution is to not get into a situation where you owe too much.

                    • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday January 02 2015, @01:07AM

                      by buswolley (848) on Friday January 02 2015, @01:07AM (#130874)

                      I cant help it if you refuse to understand the point. I never ever argue that high debt isn't a problem. I argue that U.S. debt cannot lead to default, it can only lead to inflation. Therefore the level of debt which is desirable is not defined by ability to pay off the debt but by whether it will lead to an undesirable level of inflation.

                      --
                      subicular junctures
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 02 2015, @02:52PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 02 2015, @02:52PM (#131010) Journal
                        There is no point to get. High debt leads to inflation which you already have acknowledged is a constraint. And as I've noted, inflation in this scenario is a form of default on debt owed.

                        Therefore the level of debt which is desirable is not defined by ability to pay off the debt but by whether it will lead to an undesirable level of inflation.

                        And there we go. Point negated by your own words. The original poster argued that "eventually, you have to pay it back" meaning that there are substantial negative consequences to either traditional default or default via printing money. He was right.

                        • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday January 02 2015, @08:01PM

                          by buswolley (848) on Friday January 02 2015, @08:01PM (#131069)

                          Well, then we are talking through each other but largely agree. However, while I can understand your conceptual conflation of hyperinflation and default, default has a particular legal definition which I do not think is aligned with your concept.

                          --
                          subicular junctures
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:09AM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:09AM (#131230) Journal

                            default has a particular legal definition which I do not think is aligned with your concept.

                            Default also has a economic definition which doesn't align with the legal definition.

                            My beef with this whole approach is that it's frequently used to present a really bad argument for not controlling spending or debt. I've run into a number of people who use this argument to claim that the US will just print money and magically solve whatever debt problem it currently has no matter how much money is borrowed. They never think of the consequences. Inflation and loss of faith in the currency are alien concepts. But these consequences deeply corrode a nation's ability to pay for the things it needs and the respect of the citizens for the law. Why will workers in vital services like national defense, emergency response, or law enforcement accept payment in a currency that they know will rapidly become valueless? Who's going to respect laws, when such things result in substantial loss of wealth (eg, mandates to trade or pay taxes in the inflating currency at a substantial loss)? Who's going to build the infrastructure that the country needs when they get paid in worthless paper?

                            Sure, some nuance is lost when treating government budgets like any other budgets. But such discipline also eliminates a lot of failure modes from economically incompetent activity.

                            I think of it a bit like engineering. Most devices are designed with a factor of safety. They can operate to some level outside of their designed range of parameters. And for the adventurous or skilled, there might be something to gain from doing so. But for most parties, it just doesn't work to operate equipment outside that margin of safety, even in cases where there are considerable margins to play with.

                            A particularly egregious example of how this margin of safety is ignored is the remarkable difference in professionalism and accuracy between private and public accounting systems. It is frequently observed that a private accountant would go to jail for trying a lot of the shit that modern governments routinely get away with. While a modern government might not need the accounting rigor of a private accounting system (like GAAP), such a thing would provide a margin of safety to keep that government away from some of the crazier failure modes out there.

                            • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:19PM

                              by buswolley (848) on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:19PM (#131401)

                              Well some people might say that printing solves everything, although more often I see that charge unfairly levied against deficit owls (i.e. against Modern Monetary Theorists), whom take hyper-inflation as fundamental limits to spending.

                              Likewise, there are many who fear debts to an extreme yet do not understand what is really going on. Many would consider a surplus federal budget as good, but it is actually a net loss to the economy (money is being removed from circulation), and unless there is high inflation, removing money will not help the economy. Right now we have really low inflation, and could use more money in the system to encourage consumerism which leads to economic growth under the current economic system.

                              --
                              subicular junctures
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 04 2015, @03:36PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 04 2015, @03:36PM (#131583) Journal

                                Many would consider a surplus federal budget as good, but it is actually a net loss to the economy (money is being removed from circulation)

                                That is a peculiar outlook since money doesn't have inherent value. It's value is only in what gets traded for it. The process you describe does not add or remove things that can be traded for money. So it doesn't add or remove things of value and hence would have little effect on the economy aside from the occasional retooling of the physical currency. Further, IMHO in a country that has a sensible level of government spending, the amount of money creation or destruction by the government should actually be considerably smaller than money creation or destruction as a whole.

                                IMHO there are two more dominant factors present when a government is consistently running a budget surplus. First, it is a constrained and disciplined government. There is a significant curb in place to prevent government overreach. And when there's a consideration in place to restrain spending, the government tends to make economic decisions that generate more economic value for the country. Second, such a government lacks a key incentive for making terrible economic decisions. High deficits, especially when coupled with lack of accountability, result in a lot of conflicts of interest where various parties can gain (or just not lose as much) by making decisions that harm the rest of the country. Countries which consistently run budget surpluses don't hyperinflate their currencies or play the silly games that you see in high deficit countries.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday December 29 2014, @02:53PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:53PM (#129962) Journal

          The government can lock in the current interest rate on whatever they borrow now, so rising interest rates are not a problem. And in fact, that plus some inflation, perhaps about 3%, is a good thing. I'm not talking about borrow and waste the money, though there's always problems with corruption diverting money to people who won't use it well and don't deserve it. There's also the problem of our leaders spending that money on non-existent problems. I'm talking about borrow and invest the money. Invest in infrastructure and science, And not just basic science either, but science that will help us deal with Global Warming. We will be able to pay back the loans from rising tax revenues, and inflation will shrink those loans in the meantime.

          The value of solving Global Warming is priceless. Yet private enterprise can't do it. Not without lots and lots of government help. It's too big a project, and the payback is too abstracted for the market to get a good grip. Therefore the proposals to create markets for carbon emissions. Businesses won't do what they can't value. This problem of Global Warming is putting our entire capitalist system on trial. Are we too short-sighted to deal with it? Are we really going to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the problem? If we do that, then our civilization may fall. Doubly tragic if that happens while keeping so many hands idle with foolish and mean spirited economic policy. Climate change has destabilized and destroyed many ancient civilizations. When crops fail, people starve, and leaders have no good answer, society can collapse. At the very least, the current leadership is swept away. That's what the Arab Spring of 2011 was all about. We are by no means immune to that, despite our advances in science and technology.

          Instead, too many of our leaders worry about the wrong things, seeing problems where there aren't any. Why all this spending on the military? Seems like the only problems they can see are other peoples. The only credible military threat we face is from nuclear weapons. Yet these guys argue that we need even more security. The Department of Homeland Security continues to be largely a solution looking for a problem. Despite our vast investment in military might, we cannot handle a nuclear war. Any nuclear power could kill everyone simply by bringing on nuclear winter. The missiles don't have to hit anywhere nearby to cause nuclear winter.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:57PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:57PM (#129940)

        Zimbabwe tried that

        guess what... it doesn't work

        your so-called 'facts' aren't facts at all

        if it were that easy every country would just borrow limitless amounts of money and everyone would be rich

        you are just a brainwashed sheep

        baaaaaa!

      • (Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Monday December 29 2014, @02:21PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:21PM (#129953)

        What's funny is your conviction that the right's "terrorism" boogeyman propaganda is totally bogus yes the left's "climate change" boogeyman propaganda is completely legit and comes from caring for the safety of the common people.

        Let's not kid ourselves that the drive for going to war in the middle east was anything but bipartisan [wikipedia.org]. Where, oh, where have all the war protestors gone, now that the "commander-in-chief" is a Democrat?

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday December 29 2014, @07:32PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday December 29 2014, @07:32PM (#130013) Journal

          Not at all. Once again, look at the facts. How else can we tell what is a boogeyman and what is a real danger? Look at the facts. When you say, well, they're both boogeymen, you do the same thing the Republicans do, and the "fair and balanced" media does. Climate change is real. 9/11 was significant, but that pales in comparison to most of New York City and most other coastal cities having to be protected by giant sea walls or just plain abandoned thanks to rising sea levels.

          If this stupidity keeps on, we may yet see funding to protect us from monsters under the bed, all while denying that termites exist even as the house is being slowly devoured by them.

          • (Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Monday December 29 2014, @09:10PM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Monday December 29 2014, @09:10PM (#130042)

            It's the same thing, except the "climate change" propaganda is far worse, far more pervasive, and far more devastating.

            Climate change is real.

            As is "Terrorism", pretty much any way you want to define it. Doesn't justify all the wars and horrible laws like the PATRIOT act, but denying that either one "exists" is just myopic.

            that pales in comparison to most of New York City and most other coastal cities having to be protected by giant sea walls or just plain abandoned thanks to rising sea levels.

            Which is an assertion to some future possibility, likely very far off and likely unavoidable in any case. "Maybe", "could be", and, in fact, as likely to happen in the next 50 years as an Islamic terrorist leveling the entire city with a nuclear bomb. But, you know, "BE AFRAID".

            --
            I am a crackpot
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:54AM (#129829)

    Well, whatever happens I'm sure it will be blamed on the black guy in the Whitehouse and we need to eliminate taxes to fix it.

  • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @01:57AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @01:57AM (#129830) Homepage Journal

    That was what my friend's grandfather used to say about his fellow stock market investors.

    That's because grandpa made scads of money through stock trading, not so much because he was so good, because so many others were so bad.

    Consider that subprime loans have become popular again, this time 'round for auto loans. I'm told that "there is demand for them". Perhaps there is a demand because someone thinks they can profit from notes that are backed by subprime loans, however even those who do profit that way aren't considering the likelihood that large amounts of subprime credit will likely lead to another meltdown.

    I myself have some insight into the market as a result of having once written C++ code for a quantitative investment firm. That's why I don't invest in the market.

    I am particularly concerned about Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Putin seems to be quite concerned about his "legacy". So was Napoleon, but Napolean didn't have nuclear weapons nor intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    I have a close friend who served as an enlisted man in the US Army towards the end of the Cold War. To this day he is traumatized by the fact that his job was to tote around a backpack nuke in his jeep. If the Soviets ever invaded, he was to place the bomb on a bridge over a big river, back off then detonate it.

    Yes: a nuclear weapon, just to drop a bridge.

    The very smallest nuclear weapons weighed a little over eighty pounds, and were placed about every three miles along the western side of the border between west and east germany.

    My father was an antiaircraft missile fire control officer in the US Navy during Vietnam. He never told me - I expect because it was, at the time, classified - that the Talos missile could be armed with a nuclear warhead.

    During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States Air Force scrambled fighter jet that were armed with nuclear air-to-air missiles. The pilot of one such plane characterized it as "the stupidest weapon ever invented".

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @05:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @05:54AM (#129881)

      About nukes, what did you expect? Unlike Russia or USA, China has a purely defensive nuclear weapon arsenal, at least so far. They about about 300 nukes. With 300 nukes they can take out every major populated area in any other nation on Earth. USA and Russia have primarily an offensive, first-strike nuclear weapon arsenal. That's why "nuclear tipped cruise missiles", "nuclear tipped air-to-air missiles", "nuclear bunker busters", "nuclear torpedoes", "nuclear anti-ship rockets", etc. etc. Remember when G.W.Bush was saying that US needs small nuclear bunker busters to be able to destroy those Iraqi bunkers?

      Anyway, nuclear arsenals are now "dial-a-yield" variety, and they are not set to blow up a city, like Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Those things were tiny small potatoes. Amateurs nukes. Today, it's MIRVs to literally carpet bomb a city using encirclement simultaneous detonations. So if you live 1km or 10km or 20km from the center of the city, you are just as dead.

      http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html [nukefix.org]

      On this basis, we are able to know that, at the absolute minimum, eight individual low-tech 20 Kt nuclear weapons are capable of producing a level a level of destruction equal to a large thermonuclear weapon (475 Kt). Parenthetically, it is well to note that 58% of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons are of about this size (500-550 Kt), and 87% of the thermonuclear weapons in the U.S. strategic arsenal are smaller than 475 Kt.
      ...
      When eight low-tech 20 Kt nuclear weapons are detonated simultaneously in an encirclement pattern (5 mile radius, 4.3 miles between zero points in a circle) in a high population density urban area, at least as much destruction would tend to be produced as with a single one megaton thermonuclear weapon. The reason for this is firestorms and the interaction of blast forces.

      So, worry about "terrists"? No, worry about US or Russia and their insane offensive, strike-first nuke arsenals. When missile staff rewires missiles to launch from car battery, you should worry. Because one of these things gets launched by mistake or otherwise, and it's literally the end of the world. And this "accident" tends to almost happen every decade or so.

    • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 29 2014, @08:18AM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:18AM (#129897)

      Nuclear Surface-to-Air missile? Ok, that is as nutty as the nuclear mortar. [wikipedia.org]

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Monday December 29 2014, @11:30AM

        by Geezer (511) on Monday December 29 2014, @11:30AM (#129923)

        It's quite true. I served on both the Long Beach (CGN-9) and Chicago (CG-11), and our RIM-8E Talos systems were nuclear-capable. We always deployed with a cache of W-30 warheads for same.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @02:12AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @02:12AM (#129831) Homepage Journal

    but not for the same reasons as this CIA fellow.

    In the United States, particularly, it is quite common for minimum wage workers to qualify for food stamps as well as other forms of public assistance such as section eight housing. Despite that, even many minimum wage workers oppose raising it. "If they want to earn more money, then they can get a different jobs," says one fellow who is actually quite a close friend of mine.

    If they could earn more money, they would.

    Another problem is that it is quite common to employ hourly workers part-time, so that their employers may avoid giving them such benefits as health insurance and paid vacation. (A bookkeeper once told me that it is unlawful to play favorites with benefits, or rather, if one does, then the benefits would be taxed as salary.)

    Those who would otherwise get benefits and a good salary are often hired on a "Temp-to-Perm" basis. I don't think I have ever in my entire life accepted a Temp-to-Perm position. I'm OK with a temp job if it pays well, but I won't accept a Temp-to-Perm job. What's to prevent an employer from telling the temp that things didn't work out, then hiring yet another Temp-to-Perm worker?

    We also have the rise of very small-scale piecework jobs such as Amazon's Mechanical Turk. I myself a a Codementor Mentor. While I enjoy most of the work, it's not worth my while to hang out on the site 24/7 waiting for "Mentees". Most of them select only Mentors who are currently logged-in. It doesn't work to say "I can solve your problem", in hopes that I'll be selected at a later time.

    That people aren't earning much money isn't so bad in itself. What makes it a problem is that some people are fantastically wealthy, and they are flaunting it. Consider the Koch Brothers, worth forty billion dollars apiece, who poured vast sums of money into political campaign contributions during the US' recent midterm congressional election.

    It's not the Koch Brother's political position I object to; I would object to that kind of money going to candidates I myself support.

    Between this and all the outcry about killings by the police, I really do fear that we'll have an armed insurrection in the US. I don't want to happen. Despite that I myself was once beaten up by the police, I go way out of my way to make friends with the cops. I regard the two cops who assaulted me as criminals. I don't see all cops that way - but many others do.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 29 2014, @02:33AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday December 29 2014, @02:33AM (#129837) Homepage

      Many people have been on disability not necessarily because they're disabled, but because they saw the writing on the wall with the job situation becoming so shitty that they went on disability as an only form of stable income. And who can blame them? Why put up with the abuse and minimum wage of a shit-job when you can get paid roughly the same (or even more) from the approx. 940-ish dollars a month of free money from SSI supplemented with other free benefits? Honestly, if I was an unskilled worker or somebody with no employment prospects, I'd do the same goddamn thing.

      Here in California they started cracking down on it, I know because one of my friends is trying to get the crazy-pension. He explained that now everybody's rejecting each person's first three claims, and that a person has to go to a judge for the 4th claim -- usually approving it -- so they're basically making it more of a pain in the ass and buying more time. However, the people who were approved previously still get their crazy-pensions provided they submit to the state-administered butt-shots and other pharmaceutical garbage prescribed by a rubber-stamping shrink.

      Of course, they could actually make an honest effort to improve working conditions and wages, or other sane methods to fix the system, but that cuts into corporate profits and our corporate-puppet congressmen aren't having anything but the status quo.

      • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @02:38AM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @02:38AM (#129842) Homepage Journal

        ... than I would on minimum wage.

        Actually I've had social workers after me for several years to accept disability pay as well as subsidized housing.

        The reason I don't is in part because I want that money to go to those who really need it, and in part because working as a coder is a good way to keep a lid on my mental illness, which would otherwise be quite severe.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Monday December 29 2014, @01:16PM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Monday December 29 2014, @01:16PM (#129945) Journal

        I can say firsthand from 20 years of experience that living on SSI sucks massive ass. Here's the real situation:

        1) The max varies by region, but the highest (AFAIK) for SSI itself is only around $650. States then either give the person a SNAP benefits card of $100-200 to buy qualifying groceries, or (like our state) adds the money to SSI since many disabled/elderly people have to rely on prescription nutritional liquids & such. So the highest in the USA is around $850.

        1a) The only other benefits we can get are Section 8 housing (after waiting several years on a waitlist, and then it's the "affordable housing" for poverty-stricken families; if you can get a voucher that's better, but still only worth around $350-400 and few landlords will accept it) and Medicaid (free/sliding-scale city clinic care; we can't get Obamacare). That's it in terms of "free" anything...which makes any expenses that aren't required for survival a rare treat, including going out socially unless your friends are equally broke.

        1b) We can have up to $2k (though on SSI it's pretty rare), one home, one vehicle, $1.5k in life insurance, and personal items; on the other hand, we can't accept gifts, personal loans, or financial assistance, and if we live with anyone else, we must contribute a certain percentage of our income toward the household expenses. We can earn up to a certain (low) amount each month before they dock our SSI, but if it's done in any way they can track, they start wondering whether we might be able to support ourselves after all... :-p

        2) When a person applies for SSI, they have to submit copies of all medical records they can get their hands on as proof of their disability, be examined by SSA's doctors & psychiatrist. The traditional three rejections have been around for over 20 years, and are counter-claims you must disprove with documentation, including proving that your condition does not respond to any of the medications available for it. In the end, even after the 3 rejection/appeal cycles (which can take several years) they still only approve people that meet the criteria thoroughly.

        3) The "crackdown" in our state began 15-20 years ago (though it has intensified a *lot*), and affects all SSI recipients regardless of when we first got benefits. Every 1-5 years, SSA thus audits bank accounts, sends 10+-page forms asking about every tiny detail of daily life, and conducts interrogative 'interviews' in-person or via telephone — they're looking for any excuse they can find to halt or reduce benefits, even temporarily.

        3a) That said, the SSA has no connection to the medical professionals we see, so how compliant we are is the one thing that *doesn't* affect whether we get benefits; that applies regardless of whether we're on SSI for physical disabilities or mental illnesses. (BTW, while I'm normally among the last to protest use of normal words like "crazy," but the way you used it was pretty damn unpleasant, even kind of alienating/hurtful.)

        The SSA seems to have shoved their site through a magic dumbing-down machine (and the Internet Archive isn't being very helpful), so it's not as informative as it used to be, but if you're actually curious or know someone that might use the info, there is an official SSI info page/area [ssa.gov].

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday December 29 2014, @05:36AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:36AM (#129876)

      In the United States, particularly, it is quite common for minimum wage workers to qualify for food stamps...

      So? Better to have people working with a hope they will improve and rise, even if some government subsidy is being given vs stuffing somebody in Section 8 housing with a full ride for life on condition they never try to escape the loving embrace of the welfare state. Right?

      Riddle me this: On what stone tablets is it Written that no man may work if he is not paid a 'living wage' (usually defined as enough to raise a family of four above the poverty line)? A person should be free to accept any wage offered if they value the money more than the time and labor expended. A high school student only need earn pocket change and LEARN HOW TO WORK. Other young people with low skills or victims of inner city hellhole schools should have the opportunity to take work, even if it means they have to live like illegal immigrants and live four to an apartment sharing the rent to get by while they get to better jobs. And our welfare state should be forced to adopt an 'if you won't work you won't eat' mentality.

      Bottom line, travel and shipping costs are low and the Internet is making the shipping of bits essentially zero. A First World citizen can't expect to contribute the same unskilled labor as a uneducated third worlder and continue a 1st world lifestyle as a birthright. It IS going to end. The third world is clawing their way up and dragging our lower classes down. Sucks. Of course I'm not the one advocating the few low wage jobs that can't be exported be given over to freshly imported third worlders and passing minimum wage laws to forbid Americans from even trying to compete with them. If you really care about the poor, sawing off the bottom of the ladder and importing millions of desperate competitors might not be the winning move. But what do I know, I'm an evil neoreactionary.

      It's not the Koch Brother's political position I object to;

      Right. Which is why you parrot the standard Kostard daily hate about the evil Koch brothers while neglecting to mention the far more vast sacks of cash from George Soros, Tom Steyer, Bloomberg and pretty much every Hollywierd defective pouring Sagans into the bank accounts of the left. Not to mention what should be counted as direct contributions... pretty much every newscast and newspaper published in America is little more than the talking points of the progressives.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @05:46AM

        by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @05:46AM (#129879) Homepage Journal

        What leads you to believe that?

        I know lots of minimum wage workers who are older than I, and I am fifty years old. Many of them have children.

        While I agree with you that it is better to work for low wages than not to work at all, even better would be to earn enough money that one does not need food stamps or subsidized housing. Consider that food stamps and section 8 are paid for out of our taxes. It cannot possibly benefit the economy more to provide food stamps, than it would benefit the economy for people to be paid well enough that they don't need food stamps.

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @12:53PM (#129938)

          minimum wage hurts the poor because it makes it illegal to hire them unless they first develop their skills till they can justify the minimum wage

          labor markets are most efficient at determining what skills and experience are worth, not governments. government-imposed costs are always put onto the consumer, which then hurts the economy in other ways.

          there is nothing morally wrong with kids working, even at below living wages. this is because they are more often than not living at home and after some pocket money and work experience. things like delivering newspapers, stacking supermarket shelves etc are all great jobs for kids that make them more employable than someone who has no work experience.

          unskilled adults who expect their employer to pay them a living wage "just cos" are idiots. if they want to increase their value, it is up to them to do some extra training or night school or something like that. lots of people do and they become more successful. this stuff isn't rocket science. unskilled adults who remain in minimum wage positions are actually making it harder for younger generations to find work, because they are occupying the type of positions that younger unskilled people could be doing to work their way up the ladder of success.

          if food stamps and the minimum wage were abolished, more people would be forced to look for work suited to their skill level (which may be fuck all). illegal immigrants often start out in menial laboring jobs like picking fruit. the longer someone stays unemployed on food stamps, the less employable they become. it is better to be working as a volunteer than to not work at all. money is important but to increase your employment value is a long and arduous journey, and unfortunately there are usually no shortcuts (and getting rich != increasing value).

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday December 29 2014, @08:46PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @08:46PM (#130033) Journal

            This is an assertion that is frequently made, but which seems disproven by recent examples of cities adopting an increased minimum wage. Do you have any actual evidence, or are you making this assertion because it "makes sense"?
            N.B.: I accept is obvious that there are individual cases where minimum wage keeps some people from hiring. But this doesn't say what the large-scale effect will be.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 29 2014, @12:57PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @12:57PM (#129939)

        Better to have people working with a hope they will improve and rise, even if some government subsidy is being given

        From the point of view of a parasitical welfare queen, that being Walmart, rising pay does not equal improvement. From the welfare queen's perspective, they can pay their employees less, and the government can collect taxes to make up the difference. There is no downside for the welfare queen corporation.

        vs stuffing somebody in Section 8 housing with a full ride for life

        Honestly, given the choice of making Walmart rich or your alternative, I'd prefer yours. Less corruption in the political process.

        ... on condition they never try to escape the loving embrace of the welfare state

        Doesn't even make sense.

  • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @02:41AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @02:41AM (#129843) Homepage Journal

    If he were, I'd think his job title would be classified.

    Is he wasn't, I don't think the CIA would tell anyone that he wasn't.

    This suggests a market opportunity. :-D

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday December 29 2014, @08:22AM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday December 29 2014, @08:22AM (#129898)

      The asymmetric part is just that his left foot is bigger than his right foot.

      Also, was your title typo on purpose? Assymetric.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:11AM (#129852)

    Wall Street and academic bears with impressive credentials have predicted the last 1000 depressions and financial collapses. It should be taken as an indicator that the market will head up.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:36AM (#129856)

      austrian economists keep getting it right. keynesians keep getting it wrong

      most people are apathetic though. they feel that whatever happens will hit them regardless of what they do, and they're possibly right because anyone who protects themselves from the coming disaster may well be targeted and pillaged by the desperate hoards that ignored the signs

      the best advice i've heard is when it happens to stay away from large high-density population centers, though if you wait too long you might get caught in the throngs of people trying to do the same at the last minute

      its hard to know how bad things will get, but its not unthinkable that new york city could in the near future resemble present day detroit

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:27AM (#129864)

        Austrian economic theorists are almost always wrong...what world are you living in?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:51AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:51AM (#129868)

          the real world, which is apparently different from the fairytale you come from

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @05:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @05:24AM (#129872)
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @08:25AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @08:25AM (#129899)

              founded by a guy in 2008... every economic moron suddenly became an expert in 2008
              meanwhile the austrians were warning about the crisis between 2005-2007 and getting laughed at on national tv (referring to peter schiff and ron paul in particular)
              and the idiot in the linked website assumes like the keynesians that there is some kind of recovery and that means the austrians are wrong... he (and you) have no fucking idea

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday December 29 2014, @08:58PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @08:58PM (#130038) Journal

      Did you mean 1000 out of the last 10 economic collapses? That would be about right.

      FWIW, I don't believe that there is ANY well known school of economics that has a theory that can produce a computer model that fits the past known history without n gosh-factors. And given n gosh-factors you can fit an polynomial with n known pieces of data to any curve.

      Popular economic theories are driven by political theories, not by the data. Fitting the data to the theories can always be done if you have enough ways of tweaking it. This is one of the problems with String Theory...but String Theory is on a much sounder basis than *any* economic theory I've ever encountered.

      When you specify a school of economics theory you are getting a collection of different claims about as different as those of SoylentNews posters. You can always find someone who has predicted anything after it happens. You can't get a unified prediction before it happens. (I'm not asking for a correct prediction, but if the theory is sound then different competent people using it should get the same results.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:10PM (#130376)

        the austrians have come up with some pretty simple rules of thumb to predict the onset of a bursting bubble at least... they occur after the federal reserve inflates them with debt-printing and low interest rates

        used to be in the form of government debt for 'new deal' type programs. now it just inflates directly, lending to all its wall street and foreign central bank buddies at zero interest (of course the government is bigger than ever and demands a lot still)

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:42AM (#129858)

    > which could 'possibly begin within 6 months'.

    If you check the last-modified date on the image for the embedded video [moneymorning.com] it says August 28th, 2014. So that guy did that interview at least 4 months ago. Doomsday is imminent!

    Also, if you google the guy's name you'll find his connection to the CIA is pretty tenuous. He's a lawyer and a wall street dweeb and it sounds like maybe they asked him for his opinions on some stuff after 9/11. Chances are he was just one of thousands who got a meeting with the CIA because after 9/11 they were acting like a chicken with its head cut off, running around with no direction at all.

    The weekend between Xmas and New Years means the submission queue is really scraping the bottom of the barrel...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:20AM (#129863)

      I wouldn't worry about New York. They're diversified:

      international finance
      television, media content
      advertising
      technology
      tourism
      fashion
      trade
      etc.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:29AM (#129866)

        Oops, I meant this as a reply one post up.

        -AC

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 29 2014, @11:28AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @11:28AM (#129921) Journal
        May I get two kilos of the etc. stuff, please?
        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @04:29AM (#129865)

      Anonymous.value=true

    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday December 29 2014, @09:22AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Monday December 29 2014, @09:22AM (#129907) Journal
      Not sure that reduces his credibility. Remember that the CIA is the organisation for whom the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War came as a complete surprise. They couldn't even predict it a month or a week ahead. Their ability to predict WWIII six months out is a joke.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 29 2014, @11:34AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 29 2014, @11:34AM (#129925) Journal

        Not sure that reduces his credibility. Remember that the CIA is the organisation for whom the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War came as a complete surprise. They couldn't even predict it a month or a week ahead. Their ability to predict WWIII six months out is a joke.

        Of course they couldn’t predict the end of a war, be it the Cold one (the end of it left them somehow purposeless).
        But... are you equally sure they can't predict the start of one? (after all, they seem to be in the business to start wars)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Monday December 29 2014, @05:19AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:19AM (#129869) Journal

    The next wars are going to be on the streets of Western countries as the native poor look with resentment on any type of immigrants. The first stage is already happening now in Europe, where organized political gangs are marching through majority-immigrant areas. It will take some further economic downturn to spark the wider fuse, such as a spread of the mass unemployment from Spain and Greece. Parallel support structures will grow to take the place of the faltering national systems, which will only increase the division and unrest.

    Just take a look back at the post-WW1 falls of the conglomerate empires of Europe. The feeling of disconnect between the peoples within those states generated much turmoil and eventually bloodshed.

    • (Score: 1) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday December 29 2014, @05:50AM

      by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Monday December 29 2014, @05:50AM (#129880) Homepage Journal

      During the treaty conference in the Hall of Mirrors, Ho Chi Minh requested Vietnam's independence from France.

      Despite that the treaty was advertised as being predicated upon the principle of national self-determination, Ho Chi Minh was ridiculed.

      I don't really know but would be completely unsurprised were I to learn that he was not at first a Communist. The war was fought for Vietnam's independence, not to establish a Communist society. Now that they have their independence, they trade openly and abundantly with the US.

      --
      Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @09:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @09:03AM (#129903)

    Tfa is pure clickbait and it should be obvious.

      Post this crap and you'll lose all the original members who we're looking for something than sd.

    -sad

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @11:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @11:48AM (#129929)

      Describe to us what exactly "pure clickbait" means.
      Go to pastebin and paste a list of acceptable sites you find acceptable.
      Show us the list of stories you submitted recently!

      I'm NEVER going back to Slashdot no matter what; this is my home now, and I fully expect some of the submissions to be "pure clickbait"...BIG FUCKING DEAL! Nobody is perfect! Close the page and do something else you internet-addicted wanker!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @03:10PM (#129967)

        Describe to us what exactly "pure clickbait" means.
        Go to pastebin and paste a list of acceptable sites you find acceptable.
        Show us the list of stories you submitted recently!
        I'm NEVER going back to Slashdot no matter what; this is my home now, and I fully expect some of the submissions to be "pure clickbait"...BIG FUCKING DEAL! Nobody is perfect! Close the page and do something else you internet-addicted wanker!

        There is difference between submissions in queue and stories, otherwise this would be full of nigerian prince stories.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:08PM (#129943)

      who even clicks those links?
      who even reads TFA or TFS?

      most come for the comments and the discussion

      you are the sort of troll that adversely affects such discussion, with your off-topic whining

      get a clue or gtfo

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:20PM (#129946)

    plant more trees ... money is made from trees, right?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 29 2014, @01:29PM (#129948)

      Cotton, our money is made from cotton.

  • (Score: 1) by Aurean on Monday December 29 2014, @05:07PM

    by Aurean (4924) on Monday December 29 2014, @05:07PM (#129982)
    The source is utterly untrustworthy.....but the information seems to (largely) check out. What concerns me specifically is student loans - which the talking heads didn't mention specifically. It's the next subprime mortgage crisis, just waiting to happen - people taking loans of equivalent sizes to housing loans, without the means and/or opportunity to repay. Add to this that the debt is not erased by bankruptcy. Combine it with unemployment, low wages, under employment and the beginnings of civil unrest, and we have ourselves a shitstorm waiting to happen. The I'll-loan-you-money-then-I-own-you folks have overreached, and I believe they have pushed it further than the social contract will bear. Now it's just a matter of time till either they have to write it off (crashing the economy again) or they stick to their guns, and watch social niceties (law and order) evaporate. People will put up with certain amounts of shit in order to maintain order in their lives. When the amount of shit outweighs the value of order, shit will -and is starting to- get real. The first in line will be law enforcement (for no real fault of theirs, I might add). They are the enforcers of social order, and will be seen as protecting the lenders. Law enforcement, while strong when using blitzkrieg tactics, stand no chance when facing real riots (See LA riots for reference). Once law enforcement crumbles or withdraws, all hell will break loose, with looting being the order of the day. Once stuff has been looted, then the shit really hits the fan. Without law and order, businesses cease to operate. When that happens, goods are no longer produced, taking the economy back several decades, at least. And then we will see a depression to end all depressions. Or I could be wrong, and none of this actually happens, and we carry on with our lives.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:05AM (#130105)

      I have cut myself off from all news sources.

      It has given me a interesting view on this. This particular article has the 'I am selling myself' vibe. These sorts of scams have existed for a long time. The internet has just tuned the volume up to 11. You usually see this technique used in diet ads and infomercials.

      This last week I was visiting family. I sat and was subjected their news sources. It is grocery store isle 'news'. Of the kind 'your shampoo is killing you'. That was both the 'democrat side' and 'republican side' of the family. This stuff is trash. Look to the edges of the screens you will see what they are doing. You are being advertised to. The 'news' is little more than thinly veiled sugar to help you eat the 20 mins of advertisements per hour. They even use simple time management/psychological techniques to make you like them even more and crave them.

      Basically I see a lot of hype. The internet has turned what was something that may be local into world news. We as a society have not adjusted to it very well yet. Take for example the thing in Ferguson. Sure it is a bit tragic but in the life of the world it is a *very* minor event. Yet it has 24/7 news cycle enthralled with hundreds of opinion pieces making up hours on end of 'news'. It really is nothing more than a bunch of jerks acting badly to another set of jerks and a bunch of blowhards getting everyone worked up over it. My parents had to drive thru that area to visit some aunts and uncles. There were spectators. People are swinging by to check it out. Because they saw it on the news. They said it took the 2 hours to get thru the area. It usually takes 20 mins. Because of the gawkers.

      My comment to my family was
      'you watch this?'
      'but you have to be informed!'
      'I have yet to be informed, but I have had lots of opinions lobbed at me'

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:50PM (#130389)

      quite a few warning about the student debt crisis.... search for peter schiff on youtube

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hc6LoAlu0 [youtube.com]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg [youtube.com]
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUN5Rwyl_mM [youtube.com]

      congress is one of the most corrupt institutions in the world, let alone the united states