What changed in 1980

Quote from piezoe:

Just wanted to comment on this one remark above, and perhaps provide some reason for hope. As noted in some other forums, in 2011 dollars U.S. healthcare expenditures are $8,680 per year per capita. This is all the more startling when you consider that some sizable fraction of the population has very little actual consumption of healthcare services in a given year. Our U.S. expenditure amounts in total to about 2.7 Trillion per year. If the U.S. was to merely bring its healthcare costs down to that of the next most expensive care (Switzerland) we would cut our cost by some 1.35 Trillion per year. Compare that number to the national debt, and it quite easy to see that it is not at all impossible to right our financial ship. There are many inefficiencies in government and in the private sector where substantial savings can be achieved, and the money saved put into investment elsewhere that would, in the long run, provide meaningful jobs and also pay big dividends.

The two most significant, and obvious, areas of expenditure where the U.S. is out of step with all other nations are medical and military spending. If we were to bring spending in those areas into line with the per capita expenditure of other industrialized nations, our debt problems would vanish. There is more than enough money in the American Economy, but much of it it is in the wrong places.
More...

And most all of that money has so little effectiveness. "Sick Care" is the proper term for American health care. No nutrients in the diet, no sunlight, wireless devices, no minerals so we have arthritis, heart disease and cancer. There are still regiions of the world were these diseases effectively do not exist. Blame big pharma, all the way back to IG Farben ( you tube that if you want an excellent insight into WHY the concentration camps (to build IG FARBEN) and WHY everyone is disinformed on natural methods of health.)

Now you have more jobs in the sick care sector than anywhere. It's truly dysfunctional. Nobody has gotten better percentage wise (in cancer or heart disease) in 40 years. Death rates, survival rates (by orignal definitions) are the same as back then.

All of your more concerned about money and paying little attention to your health do it for yourself projects will be rendered pretty ineffective in your later decades, and the pharma sick care industry will be just more than happy to charge your for your medically assisted gradual lack of funcitioning from 40 to 70 or death.

Healthcare is the next bubble....no substance and lots of wasted money, time, and life force. Don't forget it's function to slowly incapacitate the elders, because they have seen all this shit before and could warn people of the bullshit cyccles..but luped up on warfarin, oxygen, stints, viagra, thyroxine, and others, they are too busy just trying not to die. All the while the industrial complex responsible for this siphons the profits off of your tax backs for huge gains.

Most new physician's knowledge of true health is laughable. Everyone is iodine and ascorbate deficient, but they will tell you you are deficient in thyroxine and warfarin. No such thing.

Anyway...modern medicine....taking profits by killing you slowly.
 
You guys are well ahead of me in these issues. My thoughts are that that tight money and high rates of the 80's were not a good environment for internal participants to make a lot of money. It has been said that financial institutions used to contribute approx 15% of SP 500
earnings and today it s 40%.
It is said that business is the best allocator of capital. Goverments, huddled masses ..well
Not so good.
Seems to me like the 80's was ideal for those external to our system as the US was the recipient of that days carry trade. If i were a US "business" i would want rates and the currency smashed so that my borrowing would lead to carry trade investment in emergings and Cap-Ex entirely in emergings . My gains would come from many sources: corporate taxes, labor, operating costs, fx gains, interest rate gains, ongoing lobying for futher trade and tax advantages and on and on.
I dont think a single dollar in tax savings today to a US public company would go to cap-ex in the US as that is dumb use of capiatal. There simply is little demand for expansion and value is beter returned to the shareholder in other ways with further leveraging and buybacks.
The cycle of enlarging money supply to borrow low/lever high and risk elsewhere seems super charged as we speak.
On the other side,i dont think US government is capable of correctly allocating a single USD and would not want them to raise my taxes a penny.
I beleive a tax cut to average Joe would at least put another person to work at Best Buy
or the local car dealership.
Small business, of which i know nothing of, must be the most productive allocators of capital as their investments are likely to be expansive and of benefit locally.
Small business must be fully compliant and burdened in the taxation and regulatory environment as is so often stated.

Bottom line: a lot of capital to leverage at low rates with relatively low historical tax rates is good for those that can capitalize on it. However, I am prety sure that Joe sixpack is fcked.
Merry Christmas. Excuse the font "old guy on an ipad"
 
Little known fact: In 1980 Reagan introduced banking regulation (DIDMCA I believe its called) that deregulated ceilings for banks. It basically turned banks who used to match savings and investments, into pure money creators.

It is no coincidence every debt/gdp graph going decades back has a huge acceleration in 1980. Reagan legalized credit creation. I don't understand how people believe the myth Reagan was fiscal conservative. He was more leftist than Obama, if you look at debt creation.

Starting 1980, thus a massive wealth transfer going from the poor to the rich, who can easily protect themselves from unbridled credit creation. It is no coincidence buying power of the poorest is lowest in decades. it is a direct result of Reagans policies.

If theres one person to blame for the dollars loss of purchasing power, it's reagan. Hes number one guilty.
 
The central bank is a "currency provider". They provided currency to themselves while emasculating everyone else. The few took the money and ran. They left a mess of lies.
 
Quote from failed_trad3r:

Little known fact: In 1980 Reagan introduced banking regulation (DIDMCA I believe its called) that deregulated ceilings for banks. It basically turned banks who used to match savings and investments, into pure money creators.

It is no coincidence every debt/gdp graph going decades back has a huge acceleration in 1980. Reagan legalized credit creation. I don't understand how people believe the myth Reagan was fiscal conservative. He was more leftist than Obama, if you look at debt creation.

Starting 1980, thus a massive wealth transfer going from the poor to the rich, who can easily protect themselves from unbridled credit creation. It is no coincidence buying power of the poorest is lowest in decades. it is a direct result of Reagans policies.

If theres one person to blame for the dollars loss of purchasing power, it's reagan. Hes number one guilty.
More...

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (H.R. 4986 , Pub.L. 96–221) (often abbreviated DIDMCA or MCA) is a United States federal financial statute passed in 1980 and signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31st.[1] It gave the Federal Reserve greater control over non-member banks.

It forced all banks to abide by the Fed's rules.
It allowed banks to merge.[citation needed]
It removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass–Steagall Act to use Regulation Q to set maximum interest rates for any deposit accounts other than demand deposit accounts (with a six-year phase-out).[2]
It allowed Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts to be offered nationwide.[2]
It raised the deposit insurance of US banks and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000.
It allowed credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits.
It allowed institutions to charge any loan interest rates they choose.[3][4]
It required that banks be charged Fed Float for use of funds received before clearing between depository institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_Control_Act

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/8000-2200.html

Reagan's presidency started on January 20, 1981.
 
Quote from failed_trad3r:

Little known fact: In 1980 Reagan introduced banking regulation (DIDMCA I believe its called) that deregulated ceilings for banks. It basically turned banks who used to match savings and investments, into pure money creators.

It is no coincidence every debt/gdp graph going decades back has a huge acceleration in 1980. Reagan legalized credit creation. I don't understand how people believe the myth Reagan was fiscal conservative. He was more leftist than Obama, if you look at debt creation.

Starting 1980, thus a massive wealth transfer going from the poor to the rich, who can easily protect themselves from unbridled credit creation. It is no coincidence buying power of the poorest is lowest in decades. it is a direct result of Reagans policies.

If theres one person to blame for the dollars loss of purchasing power, it's reagan. Hes number one guilty.
More...

Well! if Reagan started it then Bush I, Clinton 8 years, Bush II 8 years and Obama 8 years totals to 28 years.

These presidents chose not to undo the 'easy credit' policies and some even worsened it. Probably because it helped their causes to keep in power and get re-elected.

:D :D :D :D :D :D
 
Quote from Tom B:

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (H.R. 4986 , Pub.L. 96–221) (often abbreviated DIDMCA or MCA) is a United States federal financial statute passed in 1980 and signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 31st.[1] It gave the Federal Reserve greater control over non-member banks.

It forced all banks to abide by the Fed's rules.
It allowed banks to merge.[citation needed]
It removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass–Steagall Act to use Regulation Q to set maximum interest rates for any deposit accounts other than demand deposit accounts (with a six-year phase-out).[2]
It allowed Negotiable Order of Withdrawal accounts to be offered nationwide.[2]
It raised the deposit insurance of US banks and credit unions from $40,000 to $100,000.
It allowed credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits.
It allowed institutions to charge any loan interest rates they choose.[3][4]
It required that banks be charged Fed Float for use of funds received before clearing between depository institutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutions_Deregulation_and_Monetary_Control_Act

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/8000-2200.html

Reagan's presidency started on January 20, 1981.
More...

damnit I was wrong. Reagan is only number 2 guilty.:mad:

anyway theres only one way this can end: a massive drop in living standards for the average american, when the debt gets redone (full default/greek style partial default/new currency peg where you lose 50% of savings in one day)
 
Quote from failed_trad3r:

damnit I was wrong. Reagan is only number 2 guilty.:mad:

anyway theres only one way this can end: a massive drop in living standards for the average american, when the debt gets redone (full default/greek style partial default/new currency peg where you lose 50% of savings in one day)
More...

Nearly half of the $17T debt is owed to the US entities itself.

$8.5T left to external debtors.

Size of US economy $16T

Here is one basic solution...................................................

increase VAT on goods and services by 5%.......will that increase tax revenues by $800B a year? real economists might want to correct me if wrong.

decrease defense budget by $200B a year.

This sets aside $1T in revenues to feed the debt monster.

This translates to 8 years after which US has no debt to external parties.

Will increase in taxes result in economic slowdown which will result in reduced tax collections........all the questions will be answered by the real economists here.

without any austure measures, major economic problems cannot be solved.

:D :cool: :)

ps: correction wikipedia says gross external debt is $14.7T so it is 88% not 50% as quoted above. still 8 years to remove 50% of debt is very much doable.
 
there is no need for more taxes...
the FED has sent what hundreds of trillions of dollars around the world over time. Whats a few more?

I believe a far wiser would be to tell the federal reserve to pay off all debt over 8 years (without issuing new debt) and cap govt spending where it is without issuing new debt..

if the govt stops borrowing more... the inflation caused by one big print or 8 smaller prints could easily be off set by fiscal discipline and the lack of new debt.


Quote from toc:

Nearly half of the $17T debt is owed to the US entities itself.

$8.5T left to external debtors.

Size of US economy $16T

Here is one basic solution...................................................

increase VAT on goods and services by 5%.......will that increase tax revenues by $800B a year? real economists might want to correct me if wrong.

decrease defense budget by $200B a year.

This sets aside $1T in revenues to feed the debt monster.

This translates to 8 years after which US has no debt to external parties.

Will increase in taxes result in economic slowdown which will result in reduced tax collections........all the questions will be answered by the real economists here.

without any austure measures, major economic problems cannot be solved.

:D :cool: :)

ps: correction wikipedia says gross external debt is $14.7T so it is 88% not 50% as quoted above. still 8 years to remove 50% of debt is very much doable.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top