[ETWolverine]

I care less about the corporations and more about people.

So do I. But those insurance companies employ people. They also insure people. Attacking them falsely for their profitability hurts the people they employ and the people they insure. It tends to create more unemployed people who become uninsured people. Attacking whole industries does the same thing on a much larger scale.

Attacks on corporations have consequences for PEOPLE, NK.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Attacks on corporations have consequences for PEOPLE, NK.

Like when you say to let big companies fail?

[excon]

So do I. But those insurance companies employ people. They also insure people. Attacking them falsely for their profitability hurts the people they employ

Hello El:

Like I said earlier, if health insurance is taken away from them, it's NOT like they don't have anything left to insure... There's your car, your house and your boat. There's your life and your income. Then there's your mortgage, and your business. Then there's your investments, and your bank accounts. Then there's those pesky derivatives.

Yeah, I think they'll be OK.

excon

[tomder55]

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick,

Tickle kind of confirmed it when mentioning that it takes fundraisers to get MRI equipment for the hospital .

[ETWolverine]

Hello El:

Like I said earlier, if health insurance is taken away from them, it's NOT like they don't have anything left to insure.... There's your car, your house and your boat. There's your life and your income. Then there's your mortgage, and your business. Then there's your investments, and your bank accounts. Then there's those pesky derivatives.

Yeah, I think they'll be ok.

excon

Kill the medical insurance industry and hundreds of thousands of people who work in the medical insurance divisions of companies lose their jobs. They become unemployed and uninsured as well.

It also kills the taxable income of the insurance companies, resulting in lower income to the government to cover Obama's spending spree. This results in higher taxes on EVERYONE to make up the difference.

Kill or take over an industry or an industry sector, and it has a massive effect on the whole economy. And we're already reeling from the government takeover of the auto industry, the banking industry and the largest insurance company in the world. We're not just talking about medical insurance, excon. We're talking about other sectors of the economy as well, and we're already getting screwed over by it, economically speaking.

Plus, the government already owns AIG. They are regulating the hell out of derivatives. So we're no longer talking about the elimination of JUST the medical insurance divisions of these companies. We're talking about a takeover of the entire insurance industry in all sectors, not just medical. Plus banks, car companies, the securities industry, and whatever else he can get his hands on. Medical just happens to be this week's big push for takeover by Obama. It is neither his first industry takeover, nor will it be his last.

Elliot

[amdeist]

Kill the medical insurance industry and hundreds of thousands of people who work in the medical insurance divisions of companies lose their jobs. They become unemployed and uninsured as well.

It also kills the taxable income of the insurance companies, resulting in lower income to the government to cover Obama's spending spree. This results in higher taxes on EVERYONE to make up the difference.

Kill or take over an industry or an industry sector, and it has a massive effect on the whole economy. And we're already reeling from the government takeover of the auto industry, the banking industry and the largest insurance company in the world. We're not just talking about medical insurance, excon. We're talking about other sectors of the economy as well, and we're already getting screwed over by it, economically speaking.

Plus, the government already owns AIG. They are regulating the hell out of derivatives. So we're no longer talking about the elimination of JUST the medical insurance divisions of these companies. We're talking about a takeover of the entire insurance industry in all sectors, not just medical. Plus banks, car companies, the securities industry, and whatever else he can get his hands on. Medical just happens to be this week's big push for takeover by Obama. It is neither his first industry takeover, nor will it be his last.

Elliot

Does lower taxes paid by insurance companies means higher taxes for everyone? I don't thinks so. President Bush not only lowered taxes on everyone, he went on the biggest spending spree in the countries history. Americans have learned that as long as you can find some fool to give you credit, you don't need to collect any money, or work for that matter, to go on a spending spree.

[ETWolverine]

Does lower taxes paid by insurance companies means higher taxes for everyone? I don't thinks so.

That's because you don't understand the Laffer curve. Lowering tax RATES actually increases income to the government because more people are employed, more money is spent and more income is generated.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about a decrease in income by individuals and businesses, which results in lower tax income to the government... the exact opposite effect of what happens when you lower taxes.

President Bush not only lowered taxes on everyone, he went on the biggest spending spree in the countries history.

Until now. In six months, Obama has spent more money than Bush did in his entire 8 years, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans have learned that as long as you can find some fool to give you credit, you don't need to collect any money, or work for that matter, to go on a spending spree.

Yep. And Obama has learned that lesson well... he has single-handedly, in only 6 months, increased the budget deficit by 400% (a larger deficit than all past presidents combined), and increased the national debt by 7% so far, with more coming in the next 3 years. And that's before spending anything on nationalized healthcare.

The Republican spending between 2001 and 2006 was wrong. But Democrats have had the power of the purse since January 2007 and never cut a single penny of government spending... in fact they increased it massively with TARP, which they voted for against the votes of a majority of Republicans in Congress. Obama increased it even further with his stimulus bill, his TARP II, and his Omnibus Spending Bill, all of which received NO republican support. Not to mention his loans to and takeover of auto companies, insurance companies and banks.

Don't try to point at Bush, Amdeist, This is Obama's stuff, his crazy spending, and its only Dems who are backing it.

Elliot

[tomder55]

AM what you describe and what ET was talking about are 2 different things . President Bush lowered tax rates which spured job growth and more taxable wages . ET is describing loss of jobs and thus taxable income.

( just a suggestion... you should put in a plug for your book in your signature .)

[tickle]

Hi, wolverine, yes our old hospital in Cobourg did have minimal facilities and small premises, to service the growing town and rural area, a state of the art hospital was necessarily to facilitate the new people arriving. The old hospital was built in the late l800s and added on to over the years. Was not suitable.

It did have catscan, but not dialysis, patients had to go to Kingston or Toronto for up dated services.

I don't understand why you say we are so far behind when people are sent from all over the world to access facilities in Toronto, especially Sick Kids hospital in Toronto, and Toronto General.

Tick

[amdeist]

That's because you don't understand the Laffer curve. Lowering tax RATES actually increases income to the government because more people are employed, more money is spent and more income is generated.

We're not talking about that. We're talking about a decrease in income by individuals and businesses, which results in lower tax income to the government... the exact opposite effect of what happens when you lower taxes.




Until now. In six months, Obama has spent more money than Bush did in his entire 8 years, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Yep. And Obama has learned that lesson well... he has single-handedly, in only 6 months, increased the budget deficit by 400% (a larger deficit than all past presidents combined), and increased the national debt by 7% so far, with more coming in the next 3 years. And that's before spending anything on nationalized healthcare.

The Republican spending between 2001 and 2006 was wrong. But Democrats have had the power of the purse since January 2007 and never cut a single penny of government spending... in fact they increased it massively with TARP, which they voted for against the votes of a majority of Republicans in Congress. Obama increased it even further with his stimulus bill, his TARP II, and his Omnibus Spending Bill, all of which received NO republican support. Not to mention his loans to and takeover of auto companies, insurance companies and banks.

Don't try to point at Bush, Amdeist, This is Obama's stuff, his crazy spending, and its only Dems who are backing it.

Elliot

I won't argue with you, since you are clearly a Bushy conservative that still doesn't get it. Lowering taxes doesn't always generate jobs, nor more revenue for the government. Do your research. The Bush tax cuts contributed, along with underlying economic conditions, to a historic decline in federal tax revenue. In 2000 total federal tax revenue was as high in proportion to the U.S. economy as it had ever been. By 2004 federal tax revenue in proportion to the economy had fallen to its lowest level in almost fifty years. In recent decades the federal tax take has generally fluctuated between 17 and 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). By 2000, however, total federal tax receipts had reached 20.9 percent of GDP, their highest level since 1970 and matched only in 1944, when the federal government collected 20.9 percent of GDP in taxes at the height of fighting World War II. By 2004, however, federal tax receipts had fallen to 16.3 percent of GDP, which is not only the lowest level since 1970, but the lowest since 1959.

[ETWolverine]

Like when you say to let big companies fail?

Yes. There are consequences to letting the company fail. But they are less than the consequences supporting it if it SHOULD fail, especially in the long run.

Giving GM billions of dollars and THEN letting it go to bankruptcy has much worse consequences than just letting them fail, because even MORE people are effected. (Especially when you screw around with who gets paid out first, the creditors or or the unions. But that's a discussion for another time.)

What should have happened is to allow GM and Chrysler to fail back in 2008, let them go through bankruptcy WITHOUT the government messing with them, and let them come out on the other side of bankruptcy with a better, stronger company, with no strings attached, and with the creditors made whole or almost whole in the end.

Now what's happening is that the companies took our money, are going through bankruptcy anyway (which all of us conservatives predicted would happen a year ago), the creditors are not being paid out and are going bankrupt themselves, the government has taken control of the companies, dealers are being put out of business, the unions have partial ownership of the companies, and the government is dictating what kinds of cars the companies can build.

The PEOPLE have been screwed worse by the government TRYING to "save" GM and Chrysler than if they had just let it happen a year ago. And it's because the government under Obama isn't concerned with what happens to the people. They're only concerned with taking control of the industry. Screw the people.

A risk/reward cost analysis is what should be driving these policies (bailouts and health care reform) in order to determine what's best for everyone. Instead we have political ideology driving the policies, with no regard for what is best for anyone.

That is why, when looked at from an analytical point of view, it just doesn't hold water.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

In essence it is the same calculation that has to go into whether to cut off the limb of a person. Yes, the person will be without a limb, and that is a BAD consequence. But if the alternative of keeping the limb is going to lead to massive sepsis and gross systemic failure, you choose the lesser of two evils and remove the limb.

Similarly, letting GM and Chrysler go bankrupt is a bad outcome. But if the alternative is massive debt for the entire nation, bankruptcies for investors, massive inflation, and an auto industry that isn't producing what the people want to buy, you let the companies go bankrupt.

When there is no good choice, choose the lesser of two evils.

Elliot

[amdeist]

Yes. There are consequences to letting the company fail. But they are less than the consequences supporting it if it SHOULD fail, especially in the long run.

Giving GM billions of dollars and THEN letting it go to bankruptcy has much worse consequences than just letting them fail, because even MORE people are effected. (Especially when you screw around with who gets paid out first, the creditors or or the unions. But that's a discussion for another time.)

What should have happened is to allow GM and Chrysler to fail back in 2008, let them go through bankruptcy WITHOUT the government messing with them, and let them come out on the other side of bankruptcy with a better, stronger company, with no strings attached, and with the creditors made whole or almost whole in the end.

Now what's happening is that the companies took our money, are going through bankruptcy anyway (which all of us conservatives predicted would happen a year ago), the creditors are not being paid out and are going bankrupt themselves, the government has taken control of the companies, dealers are being put out of business, the unions have partial ownership of the companies, and the government is dictating what kinds of cars the companies can build.

The PEOPLE have been screwed worse by the government TRYING to "save" GM and Chrysler than if they had just let it happen a year ago. And it's because the government under Obama isn't concerned with what happens to the people. They're only concerned with taking control of the industry. Screw the people.

A risk/reward cost analysis is what should be driving these policies (bailouts and health care reform) in order to determine what's best for everyone. Instead we have political ideology driving the policies, with no regard for what is best for anyone.

That is why, when looked at from an analytical point of view, it just doesn't hold water.

Elliot

I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore. As it is, I believe that not only are the economists totally wrong about a recovery this year, but it is still very possible that in the next two years, it will be much worse than the Depression of 1929. The media would have you believe that our children are going to have to pay for all these expenditures. The only way they will have to pay is with a return to a society where credit isn't available, and standard of living is based on family values and helping each other. If we return to that period, the country will be much better off. Life isn't about the American dollar, and enriching oneself at everyone else's expense.

[inthebox]

Hello tom:

I don't know what evidence you're looking at, other than the Wolverines schtick, but check this out:

Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private).

One commonly cited comparison, the World Health Organization's ratings of "overall health service performance", published in 2000, which used a "composite measure of achievement in the level of health, the distribution of health, the level of responsiveness and fairness of financial contribution", ranked Canada 30th and the U.S. 37th among 191 member nations. This study rated the US "responsiveness", or quality of service, as 1st, compared with 7th for Canada. The average life expectancy for Canada was 80.34 years compared with U.S. at 78.6 years.

To ME, spending LESS per capita, and living longer and having a lower level of infant mortality means THEIR health care system is BETTER than ours....

Course, when you say it's better here, you mean it's better here for the rich. I'll bet THEY live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate... But, when you measure EVERYBODY, Canada kicks our butt...

These are facts. The look pretty irrefutable to me.

Excon

The facts need a further looking into. Take infant mortality.


CNN.com - U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says - May 10, 2006

Causes of death in the developing world were dramatically different from those in the developed world, the report said. In industrialized nations deaths were most likely to result from babies being born too small or too early, while in the developing world about half of newborn deaths were from infection, tetanus and diarrhea.

BigGovHealth | Infant Mortality and Premature Birth

Note the references

The U.S.’ infant mortality rate is not higher; the rates of Canada and many European countries are artificially low, due to more restrictive definitions of live birth. There also are variations in the willingness of nations to save very low birth weight and gestation babies.

America's real infant-mortality problem. - By Darshak Sanghavi - Slate Magazine

. By contrast, the majority of deaths in developed countries result from extreme prematurity or birth defects that kill a newborn in the first few days or weeks of life. According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.. .


But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread. According to a 2006 Institute of Medicine report,.

Meanwhile, no amount of money or resources seems to reduce the rate of preterm births.. .


Throwing money at unproven programs for preventing prematurity, or at cash-cow NICUs, won't improve America's infant-morality rate. Instead, it's critical to follow the data—

That is a snap shot of why per capita costs are so high. Technology and critical care cost so much more than prevention. Advances in equipment, surgical techniques, pharmaceuticals,. basically keeping people alive; whereas 10 even 5 years ago these people would have died from their illness.


And most Americans expect the best, the most advanced, etc... right now. That is okay, but realize it costs money- that is to society as a whole.



Wondergirl mentioned her homeless person getting "free care" at the hospital because of medicaid, well IT IS NOT FREE TO SOCIETY. The hospital passes the costs of his care by getting government grants and or charging patients with insurance higher rates, the same rates that working people without insurance have to pay. The insurance companies pass the cost by raising premiums. The state and federal gov tax citizens for medicare and medicaid. So no money actually comes out of that homeless guys pockets, IT COMES FROM OUR POCKETS in the form of higher cost for service, higher taxes, higher premiums.


I think "universal healthcare" is a good ideal, but after you are done drinking the Koolaid be prepared for less advanced care, rationing, longer wait times, and less doctors. :o






G&P

[ETWolverine]

I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore.

As someone who works in finance, I can tell you that right now WITH the "help" of the government, this country isn't recognizable.

As it is, I believe that not only are the economists totally wrong about a recovery this year, but it is still very possible that in the next two years, it will be much worse than the Depression of 1929.

I agree. If the government doesn't stop trying to "help" us, it will be exactly as bad as the Great Depression, and for exactly the same reasons... government intervention.

Simply put, it was FDR's New Deal that drew out and deepened the Depression from what would have been a rather typical recession and bear market into a decade-long disaster. FDR raised taxes at the worst possible time, which is exactly what Obama is doing. FDR created massive welfare programs, Obama is creating a welfare state the likes of which even FDR would never have dreamed. FDR nationalized industries, Obama is nationalizing industries. FDR's Treasury Department printed money to pay for his welfare programs and drove up inflation, Obama is printing money and driving up inflation. FDR borrowed massive amounts driving up the national debt, Obama is borrowing massive amounts and driving up national debt. FDR created massive budget deficits to pay for his programs, Obama has quadrupled the budget deficit in under 6 months to pay for his programs. FDR created entitlements designed to help people but which killed the entire economy, Obama is creating massive new entitlement programs to "help" people that are bankrupting the country. Item by item, Obama is copying and surpassing FDR, with the same result as FDR had... the Great Depression.

The media would have you believe that our children are going to have to pay for all these expenditures. The only way they will have to pay is with a return to a society where credit isn't available, and standard of living is based on family values and helping each other. If we return to that period, the country will be much better off. Life isn't about the American dollar, and enriching oneself at everyone else's expense.

I agree with that philosophy in general. We would be better off without such easy credit.

But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don't pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.

It would be nice for some to believe that the USA just ain't all that... that we're not that important to the rest of the world. But that just isn't the reality. We are so much a central part of the WORLD economy that what effects us effects everyone else too. Trying to deny that fact is a recipe for disaster. And the rest of the world knows it too... that's why the comments of various world leaders (Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Putin, and others) have been warnings to Obama NOT to go the way of socialism and drag them down too.

If we don't pay our debts, the rest of the world suffers. We don't have the option of not paying our debts. We can't just brush off that responsibility without MASSIVE consequences... up to and including war (more wars have been fought over economics than any other reason EXCEPT religion.)

Ergo we or our children will HAVE to bear the burden of the debt that Obama is creating. We have no choice. And THAT will bankrupt us as individuals (or our children).

Elliot

[inthebox]

I don't totally disagree with your thinking, but am a firm believer that were the government not to help GM and Chrysler, Goldman Sacs, AIG, and others, this country wouldn't be recognizable anymore. .

JPMorgan and 9 Other Banks Repay TARP Money - DealBook Blog - NYTimes.com

The MSM has cosistently portrayed the banks as the villlians they did not need a bail out, well they probably did not if they are able to be paying tarp back.

GM and Chrysler, same outcome now as it would have been 6 months ago, only difference is GOVERNMENT WASTED BILLIONS IN TAXPAYOR MONEY. :(

This country never stays the same, should we have bailed out 8 track makers, VHS manufacturers, Woolworth's, horse and carriage makers just to keep the country recognizably the same?







G&P

[speechlesstx]

Here's who's going to benefit from Obamacare, Soros and co. Turns out he's behind the "grass-roots" march on Washington today.

Wasn't Obama supposed to do something about lobbyist influence?

[amdeist]

As someone who works in finance, I can tell you that right now WITH the "help" of the government, this country isn't recognizable.



I agree. If the government doesn't stop trying to "help" us, it will be exactly as bad as the Great Depression, and for exactly the same reasons... government intervention.

Simply put, it was FDR's New Deal that drew out and deepened the Depression from what would have been a rather typical recession and bear market into a decade-long disaster. FDR raised taxes at the worst possible time, which is exactly what Obama is doing. FDR created massive welfare programs, Obama is creating a welfare state the likes of which even FDR would never have dreamed. FDR nationalized industries, Obama is nationalizing industries. FDR's Treasury Department printed money to pay for his welfare programs and drove up inflation, Obama is printing money and driving up inflation. FDR borrowed massive amounts driving up the national debt, Obama is borrowing massive amounts and driving up national debt. FDR created massive budget deficits to pay for his programs, Obama has quadrupled the budget deficit in under 6 months to pay for his programs. FDR created entitlements designed to help people but which killed the entire economy, Obama is creating massive new entitlement programs to "help" people that are bankrupting the country. Item by item, Obama is copying and surpassing FDR, with the exact same result as FDR had... the Great Depression.



I agree with that philosophy in general. We would be better off without such easy credit.

But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don;t pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.

It would be nice for some to believe that the USA just ain't all that... that we're not that important to the rest of the world. But that just isn't the reality. We are so much a central part of the WORLD economy that what effects us effects everyone else too. Trying to deny that fact is a recipe for disaster. And the rest of the world knows it too... that's why the comments of various world leaders (Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel, Putin, and others) have been warnings to Obama NOT to go the way of socialism and drag them down too.

If we don't pay our debts, the rest of the world suffers. We don't have the option of not paying our debts. We can't just brush off that responsibility without MASSIVE consequences... up to and including war (more wars have been fought over economics than any other reason EXCEPT religion.)

Ergo we or our children will HAVE to bear the burden of the debt that Obama is creating. We have no choice. And THAT will bankrupt us as individuals (or our children).

Elliot

But the money is already out the door. The lenders want to be repaid and will call for repayment when it is due. What are we supposed to do when CHINA calls in its notes? We cannot just simply declare bankruptcy without destroying the WORLD ECONOMY. We are not just an individual where if we don't pay, the market just goes on as it has been. We are not that insignificant. THe USA is the largest BORROWER, the largest LENDER, the largest PRODUCER, largest CONSUMER in the entire world. If we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us.

Apparently, we have major agreements on philosophy, but where we disagree is what we will do if China or anyone else for that matter calls in its notes? Not only can we declare bankruptcy, we are bankrupt. I can't imagine China or any other country accepting our worthless printed dollars in payment. There is no alternative, short of inflating the value of precious metals, and giving them what our government has in storage of those resources in payment of our debt. Short of that, we go to war. By your saying if we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us assumes that everything revovles around the United States. I totally disagree with that comment. We could disappear tomorrow, and I assure you that life on earth would continue, and undoubtedly improve over the next five years. All our country has been is a leach on the rest of the world. If you had a stepchild that was taking all your resources to live, you would feel a sigh of relief if that stepchild disappeared. We are the world's stepchild!

[ETWolverine]

By your saying if we go under, the entire WORLD goes under with us assumes that everything revovles around the United States. I totally disagree with that comment. We could disappear tomorrow, and I assure you that life on earth would continue, and undoubtedly improve over the next five years. All our country has been is a leach on the rest of the world. If you had a stepchild that was taking all your resources to live, you would feel a sigh of relief if that stepchild disappeared. We are the world's stepchild!

We consume about 45% of the world's resources, but we PRODUCE about 70% of the world's products. If this "stepchild" leaves, the rest of the world starves to death, because this "stepchild" is the only one that has the means of production capable of handling the needs of the rest of the world.

Yeah, they may breath a sigh of relief for a few days... right until Africa runs out of American grown corn and wheat to feed it's people, and the rest of the world runs out of refined oil to heat their homes and run their industry.

Case in point: The USA is the world's largest consumer of raw oil using about 70% of what is drilled worldwide, but we produce about 68% of the world's REFINED FUEL. If we shut down, the rest of the world freezes to death and has no fuel to run their manufactories. Iran is swimming in oil, but they have no refinery capacity. They get their refined oil from us. Russia is the second largest producer of refined oil in the world with about 15% of what is produced. They don't produce enough to support their own industry. They get it from us. And even WITH our full capacity, we still don't produce enough for the full consuption of the entire world. If we fail to produce refined oil because we are bankrupt, the entire world economy grinds to a halt due to lack of fuel. Or do you believe that the world can run on only 32% of the oil it currently consumes?

So in fact, we ARE the center of the world's economy, just based on refined oil production alone. I won't get into technology, pharmaceutical production, electronics, agriculture, and military power as they apply to the world economy.

Face it, Amdeist, where the US economy fails, so fails the rest of the world's economies. Forget linking to the dollar. Forget debt structure. This is just simple supply and demand. We supply what the rest of the world demands, and if we fail to provide that supply, the rest of the world grinds to a halt.

We cannot afford to go bankrupt, and the rest of the world cannot afford it either. WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE ECONOMIC WORLD, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Elliot

[amdeist]

We consume about 45% of the world's resources, but we PRODUCE about 70% of the world's products. If this "stepchild" leaves, the rest of the world starves to death, because this "stepchild" is the only one that has the means of production capable of handling the needs of the rest of the world.

Yeah, they may breath a sigh of relief for a few days... right until Africa runs out of American grown corn and wheat to feed it's people, and the rest of the world runs out of refined oil to heat their homes and run their industry.

Case in point: The USA is the world's largest consumer of raw oil using about 70% of what is drilled worldwide, but we produce about 68% of the world's REFINED FUEL. If we shut down, the rest of the world freezes to death and has no fuel to run their manufactories. Iran is swimming in oil, but they have no refinery capacity. They get their refined oil from us. Russia is the second largest producer of refined oil in the world with about 15% of what is produced. They don't produce enough to support their own industry. They get it from us. And even WITH our full capacity, we still don't produce enough for the full consuption of the entire world. If we fail to produce refined oil because we are bankrupt, the entire world economy grinds to a halt due to lack of fuel. Or do you believe that the world can run on only 32% of the oil it currently consumes?

So in fact, we ARE the center of the world's economy, just based on refined oil production alone. I won't get into technology, pharmaceutical production, electronics, agriculture, and military power as they apply to the world economy.

Face it, Amdeist, where the US economy fails, so fails the rest of the world's economies. Forget linking to the dollar. Forget debt structure. This is just simple supply and demand. We supply what the rest of the world demands, and if we fail to provide that supply, the rest of the world grinds to a halt.

We cannot afford to go bankrupt, and the rest of the world cannot afford it either. WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE ECONOMIC WORLD, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Elliot

I don't agree, but the beauty is that we will see if we live long enough. Capitalism is going down, just as did the Roman Empire. J.B Haldane was correct when he wrote: Capitalism did not arise because capitalists stole the land or the workmen’s tools, but because it was more efficient than feudalism. It will perish because it is not merely less efficient than socialism, but actually self-destructive. (J.B.S. Haldane, I Believe)