Get out of Muni Bond Funds Now

[charleston]

We are born into a condition of moral corruption . . original sin and all that.

What a sick view! A loving G-d would never do that to his creations.

And if you read and believe the Bible..G-d created, and it was good.

[Marcus]

We are born into a condition of moral corruption . . original sin and all that.

What a sick view! A loving G-d would never do that to his creations.

And if you read and believe the Bible..G-d created, and it was good.

Indeed, Chiquita, but that was before they ate the apple . .

The LORD looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.

—Psalm 14:2,3

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

—Psalm 51:5

[rhapsody]

R. J. Rushdoony, Reconstructionist and Racist BigotThey do exist, Christian Taliban!

Try this site for an up-to-date, less biased perspective. Here's another in the same vein for those of you across the pond. Cruise the sites for us, rhap, and post any "taliban" material you run across . . okay? Don't take an Atheist's smear job at face value . . you know better than that. Go to the source, and report the truth.

Before you responded I looked at some youtube videos of the man and I agree, he is no Taliban. He is totally harmless (no pun) and just talks about his ideal Christian society.

The now atheist and sceptic guy who mentioned Rushdoony probably sees him as representative of a Christian culture that he learned to hate and reject. Usually people do not come to such a point for fun.

[Marcus]

Before you responded I looked at some youtube videos of the man and I agree, he is no Taliban. He is totally harmless (no pun) and just talks about his ideal Christian society.

The now atheist and sceptic guy who mentioned Rushdoony probably sees him as representative of a Christian culture that he learned to hate and reject. Usually people do not come to such a point for fun.

Nice of you to say so, rhap. Rush was a very gracious and gentle man.

As for the skeptic/s, there's some sort of radical, lunatic fringe out there that sees a Christian "taliban" behind every bush—wing-nuts just itching to stone people to death, burn them at the stake, and enforce pietistic morals on the pagans. Nutso.

[Ehud]

Ellens,

You are correct. The American people will not allow the welfare state to be dismantled. They will want to continue a high social spending, low tax regime. It will be a delusional continuation of the status quo until the whole thing comes apart.

Currently, as quoted by both Rob Arnott and Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff, the US personal, business, municipal, state and federal debt and unfunded liabilities adds up to 840% of GDP. Social Security and Medicare is half of that amount. The rest is direct debt to individuals or countries, namely, China, Japan, Russia and the OPEC nations among others. If this budget is not brought under control and vast resources aren't tranferred from the public sector into the private sector, then it will be the bond market that ends the US welfare state and any act of Congress will be an afterthought.

No we can't dismantle the welfare state, as much as the Republican Party would pretend to want to. It is supported, in its limited American version, by the vast majority of the population who nonetheless complain that they oppose excessive government spending. Try to reconcile that little bit of hypocrisy.

Margaret Thatcher once explained her opposition to socialism by saying that it corrupted human morals. She was right about that, but we certainly cannot have a civilized society without a welfare state and safety net of some sort.

Lee Quan Yew hit the nail on the head concerning this problem, many years ago, when he said the only way you can avoid the family breakdown and other social problems caused by the welfare state is by also inculcating moral and traditional values (by which he meant Asian family values). He viewed religion, mainly Christianity presumably, as the only way to do that successfully. No secular ideology of morals has ever been able to produce a stable and civilized society, as the horror of communism certainly showed. The modern welfare state can only serve the positive purposes it is meant to serve if the society at large also adheres to a moral framework that makes people want to live functional, nondecadent lives, ie, to use welfare only as a last resort and in a limited way, and to depend on individual initiative and striving mostly.

The problem is, as Spengler and all of us have been discussing for years, if people no longer believe in the old-time religion they won't be likely to follow its prescripts because sociologists tell them "it will be good for you and your children". Without belief, people will drift away to bread and circus.

Regarding DeToqueville, he was a perceptive genius. I read his "Democracy in America" years ago and was amazed how timely his analysis was (and depressing). He said that the great thing about Europe was its high culture. The bad thing was its hereditary aristocracy that unfortunately seemed to be needed to support that high culture. The great thing about America was its democracy and individual liberty, which unfortunately seemed to lead to a debasement of culture down to the lowest common denominator.

I don't see any solution to this problem. Is it possible to have high culture and democracy?

[Michael]

The delusion is that dismantling the welfare state can be combined with small government and low taxes.

If you dismantle the welfare state, you will need, not "small government," but a government that is prepared to declare a state of seige, suspend the Constitutional guarantees and use the army to impose order.

Given that America already has a wholly professional army, recruited, naturally from the Lumpen Proleteriat, this could probably be done. There would be no organized resistance; the underclass is too demoralised for united action, but there would be a general breakdown of public order - Think of the South Bronx writ large. It would, of course, require an independent executive, with the moral conviction and energy to see it through. It woud not be cheap.

[Simple Minded]

Ellens,

You are correct. The American people will not allow the welfare state to be dismantled. They will want to continue a high social spending, low tax regime. It will be a delusional continuation of the status quo until the whole thing comes apart.

Currently, as quoted by both Rob Arnott and Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff, the US personal, business, municipal, state and federal debt and unfunded liabilities adds up to 840% of GDP. Social Security and Medicare is half of that amount. The rest is direct debt to individuals or countries, namely, China, Japan, Russia and the OPEC nations among others. If this budget is not brought under control and vast resources aren't tranferred from the public sector into the private sector, then it will be the bond market that ends the US welfare state and any act of Congress will be an afterthought.

Ehud,

Your last sentence is exactly what the Elliott Wavers have been saying for more than a few years!

Most economists seem to think there is a mechanical cause and effect relationship between money supply and resulting behavior, few seem to consider the effect of mass psychology and the actions of the crowds.

From the January 11, 2011 Elliott Wave Theorist:

"The Fed's QE programs are failing to re-ignite inflation. By mid 2011, the Fed will have monetized just over $2 trillion worth of debt since 2008 to bring the total value of it's assets to about $3 trillion. This does represent a huge amount of fiat money. But the overall debt load is $65 trillion. Thus the Fed will have monetized only 5% of the total, meaning that 95% of the outstanding debt is still suffocating the economy.....

This debt figure, moreover, is way conservative. It does not count derivatives, which are IOU-ifs representing an estimated risk of indebtedness of $600 trillion, or the unfunded liabilities of the federal government, which by some estimates amount to $300 trillion, but which actually represents an infinite obligation until the programs are repealed....."

I think the real change will come from Generation We. I would not be surprised to see successive generations refuse to pay the obligations of their ancestors. Video here: http://www.gen-we.com/

Baby Boomers and Generation Xers are going to have their credit cards cancelled by the heirs to their debt burden.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

The delusion is that dismantling the welfare state can be combined with small government and low taxes.

If you dismantle the welfare state, you will need, not "small government," but a government that is prepared to declare a state of seige, suspend the Constitutional guarantees and use the army to impose order.

Given that America already has a wholly professional army, recruited, naturally from the Lumpen Proleteriat, this could probably be done. There would be no organized resistance; the underclass is too demoralised for united action, but there would be a general breakdown of public order - Think of the South Bronx writ large. It would, of course, require an independent executive, with the moral conviction and energy to see it through. It woud not be cheap.

In one shot, you are correct. You are talking about abruptly downshifting into first gear from a welfare state presently redlining in 5th gear.

The American frog has been boiled gradually. It will take time to gradually reduce the temperature. Though doubtless those addicted to the public trough will, on each step, scream as if they've been thrust directly into a freezer.

Further, I am content to see this happen via federalism. If CA, MA, NY, IL, NJ, et al, wish to continue as welfare states* within the whole, I'm fine with letting people vote with their feet.

* Oh wait. Those states are all about identical to Greece, aren't they?

Stinks to be them.

[Marcus]

SM,

You have a PM waiting.

Marcus

[Simple Minded]

Further, I am content to see this happen via federalism. If CA, MA, NY, IL, NJ, et al, wish to continue as welfare states* within the whole, I'm fine with letting people vote with their feet.

[list][size=85][i]* Oh wait. Those states are all about identical to Greece, aren't they?

It will be interesting to see how long before Americans start seeing the parallels to Greece.

The Federal solution, people voting with their feet may be the cleanest solution. Galt's Gulch could be almost anywhere a state decides to not implement unfunded federal mandates. 26 states suing the Federal Government over health care reform is a nice start.

If Big Brother tries to bail out the insolvent states, things may get ugly. How would the Federal government force a state to pay it's "fair share" of it's federal taxes?

The other potential solutions are a combination of Lend Lease or the Louisana Purchase. The US trades its blue water navy and/or military to China in exchange for debt reduction. The Chinese get stuck in the role as world policeman.

Once we owe $3 trillion to China, we give them California, the slate gets wiped clean. After we rack up another trillion in debt, we give them New York State.

Can you imagine? Two weeks after China takes California into receivership, there is no illegal alien problem. One month later, there is no unfunded public employee union pension problem. Two months later, the schools improve drastically. Six months later, all California farmland is put into production. One year later, coastal drilling for oil starts. Two years later, California moves from the seventh largest economy to the fifth largest economy.

Would the rest of the US observe and learn?

[Michael]

Further, I am content to see this happen via federalism. If CA, MA, NY, IL, NJ, et al, wish to continue as welfare states* within the whole, I'm fine with letting people vote with their feet.

[list][size=85][i]* Oh wait. Those states are all about identical to Greece, aren't they?

It will be interesting to see how long before Americans start seeing the parallels to Greece.

The Federal solution, people voting with their feet may be the cleanest solution. Galt's Gulch could be almost anywhere a state decides to not implement unfunded federal mandates. 26 states suing the Federal Government over health care reform is a nice start.

If Big Brother tries to bail out the insolvent states, things may get ugly. How would the Federal government force a state to pay it's "fair share" of it's federal taxes?

The other potential solutions are a combination of Lend Lease or the Louisana Purchase. The US trades its blue water navy and/or military to China in exchange for debt reduction. The Chinese get stuck in the role as world policeman.

Once we owe $3 trillion to China, we give them California, the slate gets wiped clean. After we rack up another trillion in debt, we give them New York State.

Can you imagine? Two weeks after China takes California into receivership, there is no illegal alien problem. One month later, there is no unfunded public employee union pension problem. Two months later, the schools improve drastically. Six months later, all California farmland is put into production. One year later, coastal drilling for oil starts. Two years later, California moves from the seventh largest economy to the fifth largest economy.

Would the rest of the US observe and learn?

There is actually a precedent for it in Raymond Poincaré's occupation of the Ruhr, on 11 January 1923, when Germany defaulted on its reparation payments, under the Treaty of Versailles. It lasted until August 1925 and very nearly led to the creation of a Rheinish Republic.

[Simple Minded]

There is actually a precedent for it in Raymond Poincaré's occupation of the Ruhr, on 11 January 1923, when Germany defaulted on its reparation payments, under the Treaty of Versailles. It lasted until August 1925 and very nearly led to the creation of a Rheinish Republic.

It always comes back to leadership, doesn't it?

The other upside of China taking California into receivership, is they wouldn't have to change business cards, stationary, etc.

The acronym PRC could have dual meanings........

[Ehud]

There is a far simpler answer. Revalue gold upwards and reduce the net debt by devaluing the currency and be ready to make a market at a higher price.

[Marcus]

There is a far simpler answer. Revalue gold upwards and reduce the net debt by devaluing the currency and be ready to make a market at a higher price.

It ain't happening as of this morning . . gold is still trickling downward.

How would devaluing the currency affect seniors and anyone on a fixed income? Seems to me that your idea would take the hot air out of the balloon all in one place by screwing the old folks? Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Ehud]

I'm not saying it would be a good outcome, its a terrible outcome, but the system is composed of entirely too much debt and the only thing that is being done the adding of more debt to the system. The more we walk on our current path the more we kick the can down the road the more likely is the outcome I suggested. The only way to circumvent that path is by digging deeply into old age pensions and medical care as well as military expenditures. The amount of debt racked up leaves us in a position where if we keep the pensions, we lose the currency--lose the pensions, keep the currency. We can either do this smart or we can do this ugly. Either way there will need to be a means of restoring confidence to the currency. Gold or some commodity basket will have to be the answer because it can't be printed at will.