Pro-Hillary Media Bias

[EyeBRollin]

So the only sovereign insolvency in recent history is Greece you say. Ignore the British Pound that I explained to you as carefully as you ignored it.

Okay Pee Wee.

Nope, Greece is not monetarily sovereign. They use the Euro.

Ooof!

How is the Government more efficient at providing services??? They do not ever need to show a profit or viability, hence they have no manner for really controlling costs.

The point of providing services isn't to make a profit; it is to provide services.

Look at Obamacare, the involvement of Government has caused costs to skyrocket.

Obamacare mandates purchasing private insurance.

Oooof!

For your other points.....

1. This is a good thing.
2. Again, a great case for limiting the power of Governments so that lobbyists can purchase "favors" like this.
3. I would use the USPS too for money-losing routes, it makes perfect economic sense. But don't assume that those routes are profitable for the USPS. Or if you are, then prove it.

1. No, privatizing services is not a good thing.
2. Why does the government need to be limited instead of limiting the lobbying?
3. Of course, because you want to privatize gains and socialize the losses. You don't want capitalism; you want corporate socialism.

The government also has the luxury of operating at a loss. It can simply go back to the well without producing. That is, until its tax base is so burdened it can no longer supply adequate revenue. I'm sure you remember a few years back when Cyprus' government confiscated funds from private bank accounts.
.

Contradictory post. How does the government operate at a loss if it can't supply adequate revenue?

(Hint: the government doesn't need taxes to operate. It never did and never will).

 

[EyeBRollin]

If you think what we have now is anything like capitalism you are wrong. Since about Woodrow Wilson's time, government and big business, slightly later big labor, fused together into crony capitalism and has been getting worse ever since. No one in DC in government or those who cater to them give a rat's ass about citizens, voters or taxpayers.

It's not capitalism; it's corporate socialism.

 

[Tictac]

Nope, Greece is not monetarily sovereign. They use the Euro.

Ooof!

You are thick. Greece is a sovereign nation, not monetarily sovereign. And it defaults on its debt.

Great Brtain received a £4,000,000,000 bailout from the IMF in 1976 to avert defaulting on its debt when those it owed told them that they would not accept British Pounds Sterling as payment for debts owed. The Pound was separated from sterling and it became a floating, fiat currency just as the US Dollar did when it ended the gold exchange standard in 1971. There was no war. There were no war reparations owed. Great Britain was both illiquid and insolvent. The crisis began the Labor government's end, paving the way for Margaret Thatcher to become Prime Minister

Until 1976 the British Pound Sterling was, like the US Dollar, a global reserve curency. This ceased after the IMF bailout leaving only the US Dollar as a global reserve currency.

It's HISTORY Pee Wee. Look it up.

You refuse to respond to the facts offered and then say I do not offer evidence.

So I will spoon feed facts and evidence to you as I have while you waltzed from one topic to another several pages here including (but not limited to):
Terrorists
Corporations
Corporate media
Capitalism
Politicians
9/11 Trutherism
WMDs
The rich taking from the poor
Free-floating graphs
The post office
Monetary sovereignty

All in a thread initiated to discuss "Pro Hillary Media Bias".

ADD/HD much?

Ooof indeed!

 

[thatfeel]

5. I never said anything about socializing losses. Again those are because we have empowered the Government to save industry (Buying of favors)..

I would use the USPS too for money-losing routes, it makes perfect economic sense. But don't assume that those routes are profitable for the USPS. Or if you are, then prove it.

Dumping packages on a social sector service(USPS) is the "socialization" of a loss because you didn't deem it worthwhile to just pay the extra costs, wages, whatever to just have the same package sorted and delivered via your own company. You privatized the gains by not having to had spent whatever resource it would've costed, consequently the consumer (and most likely the employees) saw absolutely no benefit from it. You don't have to say anything about directly socializing losses but what you did say literally describes it.

 

[Tictac]

Post Office 'last mile' deliveries are hardly the problem.

 

[Bible_Belt]

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/06/hil...i_probe_poised_to_derail_her_white_house_bid/

Hillary’s world collapsing around her

 

[Tictac]

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/06/hil...i_probe_poised_to_derail_her_white_house_bid/

Hillary’s world collapsing around her

It was really odd to read this in "Salon". Couldn't happen to a better person though.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I thought the same thing. I've seen right-wing conspiracy site articles for months about Hill's FBI problem. That's the first mainstream site I've seen talking about it.

 

[thatfeel]

UPS did not socialize the loss, the post office did!!!

That loss existed long before UPS decided to use the route.

-___________________________-

 

[EyeBRollin]

You are thick. Greece is a sovereign nation, not monetarily sovereign. And it defaults on its debt.

That was my whole argument. Proceed with your strawman:

Great Brtain received a £4,000,000,000 bailout from the IMF in 1976 to avert defaulting on its debt when those it owed told them that they would not accept British Pounds Sterling as payment for debts owed. The Pound was separated from sterling and it became a floating, fiat currency just as the US Dollar did when it ended the gold exchange standard in 1971. There was no war. There were no war reparations owed. Great Britain was both illiquid and insolvent. The crisis began the Labor government's end, paving the way for Margaret Thatcher to become Prime Minister

Strawman on display. Are you attacking my statement or purposely validating it:

Then I assume you're aware of the Federal government being monetary sovereign?

(Hint: The Post Office, and any Federal Government agency cannot ever be insolvent).

You don't know anything, pal.

The Private Sector has no wealth without the Government. Since your the numbers expert, you should know that the total Private Sector wealth is equal to the Federal debt liability. This whole exercise is double-entry accounting, kids.

Until 1976 the British Pound Sterling was, like the US Dollar, a global reserve curency. This ceased after the IMF bailout leaving only the US Dollar as a global reserve currency.

The global reserve currency, as I already refuted has nothing to do with monetary sovereignty.

You refuse to respond to the facts offered and then say I do not offer evidence.

You respond with strawman arguments. You take what I say, twist it, and disprove your distorted version. That's a logical fallacy.

So I will spoon feed facts and evidence to you as I have while you waltzed from one topic to another several pages here including (but not limited to):
Terrorists
Corporations
Corporate media
Capitalism
Politicians
9/11 Trutherism
WMDs
The rich taking from the poor
Free-floating graphs
The post office
Monetary sovereignty

Summary:
Terrorism - US invading other countries to expand the interests of US corporations
Corporations - not people, yet you make excuses for them
Corporate Media - you incorrectly refer to as "liberal media"
Capitalism - No better than socialism, which is why we use a mixture of both
Politicians - don't give a **** about you, me, and everyone else who isn't funding their campaign
9/11 Trutherism - see Law of Conservation of Energy. I'd be happy to tutor you.
WMDs - Bush lie to invade Iraq for oil
The rich taking from the poor - corporate socialism of the last 40 years
Free floating graphs - rich taking from the poor, visual representation
The post office - better than UPS and FedEx, so they bribe politicians to cripple it.
Monetary sovereignty - the most important distinction in economics

All in a thread initiated to discuss "Pro Hillary Media Bias".

ADD/HD much?

Ooof indeed!

Get a clue.

 

[EyeBRollin]

If governments don't need taxes, then 1) why not abolish all taxes and 2) from where does it draw its money?

Do I have to spoonfeed everything to you?
1) Taxes don't fund the government. Taxes deflate the currency. Taxes are an alternative at doing so than interest rates, because they allow the government to influence the behavior of businesses and consumers.
2) Money comes from the government wiring it to the accounts of the associated party through one swift, easy keystroke. Poof! The banking system is the accounting entity in this process.

Call your Congressmen and ask them how much money the government owns. They will probably lie to you, but the answer is zilch. Nada. The government doesn't own any money and never will. It creates money, by paying bills.

1. If you provide a service which generates a net loss of $$, then you MUST steal that money from other profitable sources, which destroys value.

2. Obamacare mandates the purchase of private insurance BUT REQUIRES EXTRA OVERHEAD TO MANAGE AND REMAIN COMPLIANT! This is why the costs went up.

3. Yes privatizing services is a good thing, for my point number 1 above. It forces the entity to create value instead of destroying it.

4. Because you can try to control the buyers, but it doesn't change that the favors are STILL FOR SALE! Remove the power altogether from the Government and the power to sell favors goes away.

5. I never said anything about socializing losses. Again those are because we have empowered the Government to save industry (Buying of favors)..

The Government DOES need taxes to operate, otherwise how would it pay it's employees?

1. What is with this obsession with stealing? The Federal government doesn't "steal" something it produces infinitely at the stroke of a keyboard.

2. That's irrelevant. Obamacare was a private sector insurance bailout. All the Fox News minions are calling it socialism... when it is really another example of corporate socialism.

3. lol

4. Why is your focus on the government and not the people executing the bribes?

5. The government doesn't need to be "enabled" to do anything. The government sets the rules. The government regulates the economy. This is a fact you must accept.

6. The government pays its employees the same way it doles out welfare, social security, or any other Federal program;

It issues an order to the bank of the parties in question to increase the value in their account. In simpleton terms, it wires them the damn money by pressing a button.

NO FEDERAL CHECK WILL EVER BOUNCE

 

[Tictac]

(Hint: The Post Office, and any Federal Government agency cannot ever be insolvent)

You typed that a monetary sovereign could not be insolvent ever. I used Britain as an unequivocal example of one that was both illiquid and insolvent Pee Wee. It's illiquidity and insolvency caused a restructuring it England's entire economy.

So now, to the school of red herrings you have tried to launch we lapse into your pure ignorance. There have been any number of sovereign insolvencies

Let's review Pee Wee:
Let's look at the list, starting in the summer of 1998:

Venezuela, July 1998 - defaulted on $270 million worth of domestic currency bonds

Russia, August 1998 - a massive $72,709,000,000 default that rattled the entire global economy. The trouble started in August of '98 when the country missed payments on local Treasury obligations, and later extended to include foreign currency obligations and MINFIN III foreign currency bonds. Russia's debts were eventually restructured in later years.

Ukraine, September 1998 - $1.27 billion dollar default

Pakistan, July 1999 - defaulted in July of 1999 but quickly resolved the situation

Ecuador, August 1999 - missed a payment, leading an an eventual restructuring of over 90% of their bonds. Default amount was around $6.6 billion

Ukraine, January 2000 - defaulted again (1.06 billion) in January of 2000. Defaulted on both DM-denominated Eurobonds and USD-denominated bonds. Ended up rectifying the situation by exchanging their current obligations for bonds with a longer term and lower coupon.

Peru, September 2000 - defaulted on $4.87 billion of debt but rectified the situation within 30 days

Argentina, November 2001 - a massive $82.26 billion dollar default that once again rattled the global economy and worldwide markets. Missed a payment in early 2002 - debt obligations were restructured and the country continued to receive funds from the IMF to aid in their recovery

Moldova, June 2002 - defaulted on $145 million worth of debt, only to rectify the situation a short while later, once to default once again

Uruguay, May 2003 - Argentina's troubles spread to Uruguay, and the government of Uruguay defaulted on $5.7 billion dollars worth of debt in May of 2003. The country eventually completed a restructuring of their debt obligations with their bondholders

Dominican Republic, April 2005 - Defaulted on $1.62 billion dollars worth of debt in April of 2005. Eventually completed a debt restructuring that ended up extending the maturity of their debt obligations by five years

Belize, December 2006 - Defaulted on $242 million dollars worth of debt in December of 2006

Ecuador, December 2008 - Defaulted on $3.2 billion dollars worth of debt obligations after calling several of their previous debt offerings "illegal and illegitimate". An unusual situation in that Ecuador is thought to have the resources NOT to default, but chose instead to default for "moral" reasons.

*note* there were other sovereign debt defaults that occurred during this period, including Ivory Coast, Grenada and Seychelles, but these countries did not have Moody's ratings on their sovereign bond obligations at the time

Source: Moody's - Sovereign Default and Recovery Rates, 1983-2008

Filed under: The Economic MeltdownWhich Countries Have Most Recently Defaulted on Their Sovereign Debt Obligations?


If you have been watching the news at all over the past few weeks, then you have likely heard about the situation in Greece.

Greece has become the center of a new chapter in the global financial crisis over the past few weeks, as a deeper-than-expected recession, "severe irregularities" in the nation's economic figures and a stifling national debt load have conspired to throw the future financial well-being of the Euro-member nation into doubt.

This story really started to kick into high gear shortly after the election victory of George Papandreou in October. Almost immediately after he declared victory, Prime Minister George Papandreou more than tripled the nation's deficit forecast for 2009 to 12.7% of GDP. This led many to question the ability of Greece to repay their sovereign debt obligations, which has raised the possibility that they would default on their obligations, barring some sort of a bailout from other European Union member nations, such as Germany and France.

Other member nations have declared "moral support" to Greece, but have not opened their checkbooks as of yet.

The worry isn't Greece itself really - the worry is that Greece would simply be the first domino to fall if they were to collapse. Other nations, such as Spain, Portugal and Ireland, are in similar situations.

This raises the question - which countries have most recently defaulted on their debt obligations?

There were some close calls during the economic meltdown of the past few years (countries such as Hungary, Latvia and Iceland needed to be saved by rescue packages, while Russia was perilously close to defaulting for the second time in less than 20 years), but as far as I am aware, the most recent Moody's rated sovereign bond default occurred in December of 2008.

Let's look at the list, starting in the summer of 1998:

Venezuela, July 1998 - defaulted on $270 million worth of domestic currency bonds

Russia, August 1998 - a massive $72,709,000,000 default that rattled the entire global economy. The trouble started in August of '98 when the country missed payments on local Treasury obligations, and later extended to include foreign currency obligations and MINFIN III foreign currency bonds. Russia's debts were eventually restructured in later years.

Ukraine, September 1998 - $1.27 billion dollar default

Pakistan, July 1999 - defaulted in July of 1999 but quickly resolved the situation

Ecuador, August 1999 - missed a payment, leading an an eventual restructuring of over 90% of their bonds. Default amount was around $6.6 billion

Ukraine, January 2000 - defaulted again (1.06 billion) in January of 2000. Defaulted on both DM-denominated Eurobonds and USD-denominated bonds. Ended up rectifying the situation by exchanging their current obligations for bonds with a longer term and lower coupon.

Peru, September 2000 - defaulted on $4.87 billion of debt but rectified the situation within 30 days

Argentina, November 2001 - a massive $82.26 billion dollar default that once again rattled the global economy and worldwide markets. Missed a payment in early 2002 - debt obligations were restructured and the country continued to receive funds from the IMF to aid in their recovery

Moldova, June 2002 - defaulted on $145 million worth of debt, only to rectify the situation a short while later, once to default once again

Uruguay, May 2003 - Argentina's troubles spread to Uruguay, and the government of Uruguay defaulted on $5.7 billion dollars worth of debt in May of 2003. The country eventually completed a restructuring of their debt obligations with their bondholders

Dominican Republic, April 2005 - Defaulted on $1.62 billion dollars worth of debt in April of 2005. Eventually completed a debt restructuring that ended up extending the maturity of their debt obligations by five years

Belize, December 2006 - Defaulted on $242 million dollars worth of debt in December of 2006

Ecuador, December 2008 - Defaulted on $3.2 billion dollars worth of debt obligations after calling several of their previous debt offerings "illegal and illegitimate". An unusual situation in that Ecuador is thought to have the resources NOT to default, but chose instead to default for "moral" reasons.

*note* there were other sovereign debt defaults that occurred during this period, including Ivory Coast, Grenada and Seychelles, but these countries did not have Moody's ratings on their sovereign bond obligations at the time

Source: Moody's - Sovereign Default and Recovery Rates, 1983-2008

THOSE CHECKS BOUNCED

I'd tell you to get a clue. But you couldn't find one with both hands.

 

[EyeBRollin]

So now, to the school of red herrings you have tried to launch we lapse into your pure ignorance. There have been any number of sovereign insolvencies

Read.

I already explained this. A sovereign nation becomes insolvent only through foreign debt or political instability (i.e. losing war). War reparations are foreign debt.

“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.” Alan Greenspan

"It's not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing." Ben Bernanke

“Well, I wouldn’t say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody." Alan Greenspan

Nothing more needs to be said on this topic.

 

[Tictac]

Read.



“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.” Alan Greenspan

"It's not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It's much more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing." Ben Bernanke

“Well, I wouldn’t say that the pay-as-you-go benefits are insecure, in the sense that there’s nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody." Alan Greenspan

Nothing more needs to be said on this topic.

Nothing more needs be said because you haven't a clue what you are talking about. What domyounthink will happen when foreign creditors (our trade deficit is as large as our public debt) refuse to accept dollars as payment. What value will dollars have for internal transactions then Pee Wee?

Answer - the same thing that happened to Great Britain 1976

 

[yuppee]

Zimbabwe TRIED just printing money. it doesn't work.

 

[thatfeel]

1. Producing paper currency steals from those who have cash. It shifts the supply curve to the right, devaluing the currency already in circulation. That is not "production", that is stealing.

2. Socialism is socialism, regardless of whether the benefits go directly to corporations or to individuals. More importantly it is NOT irrelevant, because clearly the Government forced costs to go up, per my original point.

3. Shocking that you "LOL" the most important point of all. That when ANYTHING gets produced at a NET LOSS, it is a destruction of value. It makes us all poorer. It is like turning a $100 bill into $90. Nobody wins. For more education, look up "Comparative advantage" to understand why the trade of goods and services between a buyer and a seller (of labor or product and services) makes us all richer, despite what your socialist idiot masters would tell you.

4. Because you can go after the buyers all you want, but the favors are still for sale. When you remove the ability to grant the favors, you eliminate ALL buyers at once, and reduce government corruption and wasteful overhead.

5. You are changing the subject. You stated that UPS using the Post Office for money losing routes was because I wanted to socialize the losses. And I stated no, that the Post office was ALREADY SOCIALIZING THE LOSSES since it had the money losing route before UPS got involved. UPS was smart enough to lower it's costs and it did!!! You can't blame UPS for the Post Office running routes that lose money!!

6. You are talking about printing money. Devaluing currency is a form of taxation, it is just invisible. So YES the Government has to tax for everything it pays for. Sometimes through a direct tax, sometimes through currency devaluation. Either way, it creates nothing of value and only steals it.

Basically, if you receive something in return for the taxes you pay, directly or indirectly, it's not theft. End of story. There's further points to make about how taxation is not theft if needed...

Secondly, printing more money does not equal theft in any reality. If you have 100 dollars today and I print some dosh, you still have 100 dollars, it just has less purchasing power. That's how things work when talking about the theory of money or general supply and demand economics.

If there's 500 LG G3 phones in circulation, and I own one, and LG decides to manufacture 10 more, did LG just steal my phone back from me? Fvck no. I still have as much of a phone as I did before. But it's value decreased.

Taxation is theft and other fvck-tarded statements about how the government is stealing cash through taxes and printing currency to stabilize the economy is nothing more than libertarian rhetoric.

All you are saying is all saying is inflation devalues cash, which is fvcking obvious. But it's not theft. What you don't realize is slow, predictable inflation is baked into the cake of basic economics, and it is desired. The reason for it is that inflation encourages investment. Whereas, the second it becomes more profitable to just sit on your cash because the value keeps going up then we are in deflation and a deflationary spiral becomes almost unavoidable. So if nobody is spending means we are in a recession, or depression if it becomes severe.

Libertarians would have us all believe that there's a big scary hyperinflation bubble around the corner. They've been spewing it since like 2010. The truth is that inflation is most devastating to owners of large financial assets (not just cash reserves, but a wide array of other financial instruments) while it is actually helpful to people with obligations like fixed-rate mortgages, fixed-rate business loans, student loans, etc. So that kind of ideology has trickled down and hijacked the mentalities of some people resulting in people who fervently believe in lower inflation to keep the rich, well, rich, under the false pretense that inflation = theft. It's all just a big scheme that you good goys are carrying out in the name of the wealthy.

Anyway, you aren't even talking about economics, you're just spouting ass backwards ideologies. That you somehow derive "devaluation of the dollar" as theft is really, just, wow. I don't know what to say to that.

 

[yuppee]

if I can buy less with my money, then a theft HAS occured, any who claim differently are liars who are up to no good

 

[Tictac]

Don't go away all butt hurt Pee Wee. Sorry about your ass whupping.

But do go away.

 

[Bible_Belt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anton...it-wrong-on-mass-incarceration_b_9638934.html
President Bill Clinton Gets It Wrong On Mass Incarceration

 

[thatfeel]

1. The purpose of a phone is NOT as a store of value. If you bought a phone and then the phone was destroyed intentionally by the phone company, then yes they would have stolen from you.
2. The purpose of money is a store of value. When that value is purposefully reduced then yes it is a form of taxation and YES IT IS STEALING.

What do you consider the purposeful increase of value? Charity? But aren't you against government charity? Your thought process is basically zero sum. Taxation is theft if somehow the value of the dollar decreases. The only alternative is if the value increases it's charity(but you might be thinking it's only a charity if a government purposefully increases it). So what if the government doesn't increase it purposefully, what if the value increases because there's less in circulation? Is that just luck?

Like, I get this feeling you know full well that the value of any particular currency will never just always be consistently static through the ages. That a US dollar or any other bill will have the same purchasing power it did years ago 200 years into the future. So is there any constructive outcome to value or wealth for you? Or do you only have the negative capacity to short sightedly see that 'taxation = theft'? Just really perplexed here by your thought process. Do you not drive on public roads or utilize public services or any other form of societal infrastructure?

http://i.imgur.com/FVEax.jpg

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/04/taxation-is-not-theft/

http://whistlinginthewind.org/2014/03/22/why-taxation-is-not-theft/

http://www.taxjustice.net/2014/10/08/money-taxation-isnt-theft/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/tax-cuts-are-theft_b_675731.html