5 Ways To Go Broke
#1
5 Ways To Go Broke
Only 5?
5 ways to go broke - CBS News
Actually, my deputy director won the lottery. That's why I don't pay him the prevailing wage for working.
5 ways to go broke - CBS News
Actually, my deputy director won the lottery. That's why I don't pay him the prevailing wage for working.
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
I'll tell you what, one way to not go bankrupt is to be invested in the OBAMA 10,000. March 2009: DOW 6549....today: DOW 17,000. WHEW HOO! I've been all in Mr. Jungle. Ain't it GREAT? I do so miss our little chats from back in the day. Good times.
#6
Interesting that you still don't understand who is pulling the strings here.
Just make sure you have your stop loss orders in, because 80 billion a month worth of juice isn't going to go on forever.
What has it bought us? Read it and weep.
Why The Status-Quo Is Unsustainable: Interest and Debt (What Yellen Won't Tell You) | Zero Hedge
#7
^^^^^^ This. Jungle doesn't live in the traditional jungle. He knows the world of finance and government IS the jungle.
The only ways for a nation to build wealth are:
1. Own more stuff (resources and materials, especially rare or scarce items that others are willing to pay for).
2. Have a workforce that can do specialized work that no one else can, or do more work for less money.
3. Have an industrial capacity that is critical, and others can not do
4. Control the exchange of money, and take a percentage of every transaction.
5. Get others to do the work for you, generally in third-world countries.
Now versus then:
1. We started running out of big resources in the late 60s/early 70s. Oil, timber, metal: the easy stuff was gone, and exports became imports. The stuff we kept got more expensive. (Who remembers furniture made of solid wood, instead of veneers over particle-board?)
2. Aircraft manufacturing, computers, space vehicles, heavy machinery and perhaps surprisingly, entertainment, were things we had a near-monopoly on. Not any more.
At one time, aircraft and entertainment (music and movies) were the two biggest export items of the US; can't remember the year).
3. Due to an abundance of agriculturally-useful land, water, and the lower cost of growing crops, the US still holds a slight edge in an "industrial capacity" that most other nations can not match.
But it is fading. Large-scale irrigation in the high plains states (CO, KS, NE, etc) uses an aquifer that is being rapidly depleted. Much of the grain belt (our last big near-monopoly in agriculture) will become unusable in the next 20-50 years.
4. We do this a lot, but I don't think it is our number-one money maker. On the other hand, there are countries (Switzerland and Luxembourg) that I believe make the bulk of their GDP through banking.
5. The entirety of the Western world does this with China, and when they got too expensive, any other third-world place they could maximize corporate profits.
Did it benefit the home-country as a whole?
You could argue that the profits made, as flowed-back in to the home country ("Trickle-down theory," anyone?) would benefit the home country.
But it doesn't seem to work that way. The major shareholders keep the bulk of the profits, are largely shielded from taxes, and it serves mostly to make the rich very rich, and the middle class in the "content enough to not have a revolution."
The only new source of major income I've been watching in the last 5 years is fracking. Articles I have read indicate that the US believes it will be energy independent---no imports--in about 15-20 years (I forget the exact number).
This is pretty shocking when we have lots of government programs urging us to conserve; that biofuels and electric cars are good; to use special light bulbs at 10 times the price, and carbon is evil.
Yet the same politicos who decry fossil fuels and declare themselves the only true friends of the environment turn a blind eye to fracking, and the occasional (and serious) problems associated with it, namely contaminated groundwater, or sinkholes.
Now, why would they do that?
I think the answer is what Jungle implies. We are a house of cards. We're that guy who buys a lot of stuff on his credit card and thinks "I can't be broke...look at all the stuff I have!!"
Or the guy that says "Hey, the stock market has exploded!! I have lots of money now!!"
All of the stuff that used to keep us afloat and a viable economic force to be reckoned with have expired. Which means eventually, the debt is going to have to meet-up with the income. And it ain't gonna be pretty.
But what if fracking could bring in a new stream of money, say, (Dr. Evil): "One TRILLION dollars a year!"
Then, as a politician, you would probably look the other way, and kiss a baby, make a congratulatory call to some celebrity, or otherwise distract the serfs from their ignorance and impending doom.
Fracking might save us. But mostly, I see a country with waning resources, a workforce that largely has no special skills, yet comes with a high price and income expectation, a neglected infrastructure, a decreasing emphasis on education or trade/skill, and a usurped manufacturing capacity.
And I think, too, the market is eventually going to "adjust."
The only ways for a nation to build wealth are:
1. Own more stuff (resources and materials, especially rare or scarce items that others are willing to pay for).
2. Have a workforce that can do specialized work that no one else can, or do more work for less money.
3. Have an industrial capacity that is critical, and others can not do
4. Control the exchange of money, and take a percentage of every transaction.
5. Get others to do the work for you, generally in third-world countries.
Now versus then:
1. We started running out of big resources in the late 60s/early 70s. Oil, timber, metal: the easy stuff was gone, and exports became imports. The stuff we kept got more expensive. (Who remembers furniture made of solid wood, instead of veneers over particle-board?)
2. Aircraft manufacturing, computers, space vehicles, heavy machinery and perhaps surprisingly, entertainment, were things we had a near-monopoly on. Not any more.
At one time, aircraft and entertainment (music and movies) were the two biggest export items of the US; can't remember the year).
3. Due to an abundance of agriculturally-useful land, water, and the lower cost of growing crops, the US still holds a slight edge in an "industrial capacity" that most other nations can not match.
But it is fading. Large-scale irrigation in the high plains states (CO, KS, NE, etc) uses an aquifer that is being rapidly depleted. Much of the grain belt (our last big near-monopoly in agriculture) will become unusable in the next 20-50 years.
4. We do this a lot, but I don't think it is our number-one money maker. On the other hand, there are countries (Switzerland and Luxembourg) that I believe make the bulk of their GDP through banking.
5. The entirety of the Western world does this with China, and when they got too expensive, any other third-world place they could maximize corporate profits.
Did it benefit the home-country as a whole?
You could argue that the profits made, as flowed-back in to the home country ("Trickle-down theory," anyone?) would benefit the home country.
But it doesn't seem to work that way. The major shareholders keep the bulk of the profits, are largely shielded from taxes, and it serves mostly to make the rich very rich, and the middle class in the "content enough to not have a revolution."
The only new source of major income I've been watching in the last 5 years is fracking. Articles I have read indicate that the US believes it will be energy independent---no imports--in about 15-20 years (I forget the exact number).
This is pretty shocking when we have lots of government programs urging us to conserve; that biofuels and electric cars are good; to use special light bulbs at 10 times the price, and carbon is evil.
Yet the same politicos who decry fossil fuels and declare themselves the only true friends of the environment turn a blind eye to fracking, and the occasional (and serious) problems associated with it, namely contaminated groundwater, or sinkholes.
Now, why would they do that?
I think the answer is what Jungle implies. We are a house of cards. We're that guy who buys a lot of stuff on his credit card and thinks "I can't be broke...look at all the stuff I have!!"
Or the guy that says "Hey, the stock market has exploded!! I have lots of money now!!"
All of the stuff that used to keep us afloat and a viable economic force to be reckoned with have expired. Which means eventually, the debt is going to have to meet-up with the income. And it ain't gonna be pretty.
But what if fracking could bring in a new stream of money, say, (Dr. Evil): "One TRILLION dollars a year!"
Then, as a politician, you would probably look the other way, and kiss a baby, make a congratulatory call to some celebrity, or otherwise distract the serfs from their ignorance and impending doom.
Fracking might save us. But mostly, I see a country with waning resources, a workforce that largely has no special skills, yet comes with a high price and income expectation, a neglected infrastructure, a decreasing emphasis on education or trade/skill, and a usurped manufacturing capacity.
And I think, too, the market is eventually going to "adjust."
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Jungle...that $80B in juice of which you speak has been tapered to $65B over the course of this year. I don't see people running for the exits just yet. Meanwhile, these last few years have been stellar. While many have stood on the sidelines warning of our impending doom, some of us have doubled or tripled our B-funds and kid's college funds. Oh, I'm sure you gloom and doomers will be proven right one of these days. Rallies don't last forever. Especially when they're THIS GOOD! DAMN. I'll be sure to look you up on these boards during the next correction. I bet you'll be a happy camper.
Sled
Sled
#9
Jungle...that $80B in juice of which you speak has been tapered to $65B over the course of this year. I don't see people running for the exits just yet. Meanwhile, these last few years have been stellar. While many have stood on the sidelines warning of our impending doom, some of us have doubled or tripled our B-funds and kid's college funds. Oh, I'm sure you gloom and doomers will be proven right one of these days. Rallies don't last forever. Especially when they're THIS GOOD! DAMN. I'll be sure to look you up on these boards during the next correction. I bet you'll be a happy camper.
Sled
Sled
Trust me, 1987, 2000, and 2008 did not make anyone happy. Sometimes you can make more avoiding the game than by playing, ever wonder where the money comes from to build those really big Casinos?
A maket juiced purely by debt generation is going to have adverse effects on players and non-players over the long run.
Best of luck!
#10
Jungle...that $80B in juice of which you speak has been tapered to $65B over the course of this year. I don't see people running for the exits just yet. Meanwhile, these last few years have been stellar. While many have stood on the sidelines warning of our impending doom, some of us have doubled or tripled our B-funds and kid's college funds. Oh, I'm sure you gloom and doomers will be proven right one of these days. Rallies don't last forever. Especially when they're THIS GOOD! DAMN. I'll be sure to look you up on these boards during the next correction. I bet you'll be a happy camper.
Sled
Sled
Your comments about returns are spot on--I have enjoyed the benefits of the stock market as well. I doubt, however, that those who had and have no capital to invest are as enthusiastic about the stock market as are we.
WW
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post