Fed Chairman Says We're Headed for Economic Collapse

It will be a global crisis, and will involve more than just the U.S. Consider up to a quadrillion dollars (notional value) in unregulated derivatives in a world market, with much of that global economy controlled by a financial elite that will take risks, and if they lose, demand that governments bail them out.

 

wait until carbon credits get dragged into this mess...............

 

No one said you did, you clearly have a hard time keeping your thoughts sorted from one post to the next.

No one has said this either, pretending as if people say things and then responding to those voices in your head is a strange way to have dialog.

So I guess I'll take that as "I have absolutely no idea how a zero balance would affect the economy but the guy on the radio/TV keeps yelling about it so I trust him more than people who've done actual research" Got it.

Of course you'd still need banks. Where are you getting this random nonsense from?

 

now the personal assaults start. You have been single-minded in your approach to keeping us in debt. You have been taught that debt is the only way.....That is the very essence of Liberal economics. If a man can be controlled through debt, so can a country.
wonder why they call economic sanctions.....

 

Nope, just stated that it would have consequences, even posted direct question that you ignored. Instead of responding to any of that, I get random babble, and here we are again, with more content-less babble.

And more baseless babbling...

You can't even use the word correctly, that's awfully typical around here. Apparently any meaningful conversation isn't being had here.

For anyone else interested in actually discussing something I thought this was interesting, Romania's President Nicolae Ceausescu did pay off their nations debt, but as result the citizens went without basic services, end result? He was executed by his own people.

 

trolling, eh?

 

Doubt it considering prior remarks regarding bonds.

Not in the slightest.

If you'd like to participate you could try any of the following:

1) The impact on the bond market if we did completely eliminate the debt
2) What happened to the Romanian president who used austerity to reduce their debt
3) Whether or not our debt is something to be concerned about at all currently
4) Basically anything that contributes to the conversation

Or maybe come up with something all by yourself, that'd be spectacular.

 

stjames, which sector in the United States has more debt? A) Private B) Public

 

That's irrelevant for a lot of reasons, part of what I was trying to say earlier. Personal finances and government finances cannot be compared apples to apples.

 

But there is quite the misunderstanding of what the national debt is comprised of by many people when it is thrown into discussions. Such as my father bemoaning a 17T national debt without the realization that the debt is not all govt. spending. People ought to learn what the national debt actually is.

 

I'm sorry, but you're on a snipe hunt I'm afraid. =\ Some might even cast that accusation in my direction.

 

How is it a snipe hunt? If someone bemoans debt, and does not see that part of the debt is corporations or other entities issuing bonds for various reasons, which can and does lead to economic growth, isn't it fair to steer them in the right direction?

I do not expect every person online to have taken Financial Market courses in college, but they should learn the fundamentals when discussing such issues.

 

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
here's your break down by the second
now let's talk about interest, eh

 

Minds aren't easily changed, influence from talk radio, television and personal bias erode any chance you have of getting through to most folks.

It's spiffy when I say something and then someone underscores what I just wrote.

 

so, what about the interest?
you do realize that this cannot ever be paid because or the interest. You keep up with the insults and slurs just shows how weak you stance is , you do know that

Why do you keep on insisting this debt is good?

 

Do you think if private firms all ran a budget with zero liabilities (read debt in the form of bonds, etc) they would be able to expand (ie create jobs)?

 

It's currently at sustainable levels if GDP growth continues on it's current trajectory but I'm concerned if we don't find another way to generate revenue given we have an aging population.

And I'm not sure that's a big deal, government can sustain long term debt so long as their able to generate revenues that keep pace with that spending. Whether that's healthy or ideal, I'm not really sure, but it seems to have a pretty solid track record.

[quote[Why do you keep on insisting this debt is good?[/QUOTE]
Why can't you have a topical conversation and instead make random unrelated comments? If you'd like to lend yourself any credibility perhaps you can post my comment saying that debt is good.

 

Why can't you have a topical conversation and instead make random unrelated comments? If you'd like to lend yourself any credibility perhaps you can post my comment saying that debt is good.[/QUOTE]

hey, it's ok, you and your children will pay for it....and their children , and their children, all because YOU think debt and interest are the perfect thing

 

so you mean, we're paying for it right now?

 

Can't find my post that matches your accusation? Color me surprised!

This is just so sad to watch. I've offered topics, challenged you to show where I've said the things you've accused me of saying and still, all there is are inane, unrelated ramblings. I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time hoping you reply with something worth talking about.

 

the bottom lie is that if you were smarter than Yellen, you'd be the Chair and not her. If she says it isn't sustainable, who are you to say contrary? Do you have her degrees in economics? Do you have her years of practical experience? Are you in the hot seat?
All of our bickering isn't going to change those facts.
No country or nation that has operated with fiat currency and a debt, has never "endured"

 

She was talking about long term debt. Most economists across the political spectrum agree that debt should be reduced in the long term. Your blurbs just don't cut muster.

 

Never said it was, this is just you attacking a strawman, yet again...

Unless we make significant changes to our entitlement programs, foreign wars and find some way to increase revenues I completely agree with the notion that current spending levels are unsustainable, part of that though has to do with the window through which we're looking which includes dollars spent on stimulus.

That's just completely inaccurate, virtually every single OECD nation has a negative balance many of them have carried a negative balance for well over half a century, the US included.

 

Rome ruled a mighty empire for over 200 years....guess what? Debt resulted in economic collapse....50 years ain't squat in the history of man..
So, again, why aren't you the Chair of the Fed Res since you're smarter than Yellen?

 

Don't you mean lead poisoning?

It's a pretty good track record for economies, not to mention there's nations that have carried debt far longer than 50 years, lots of them.

Why do you keep writing dumb stuff like this?