The problem of the US debt ceiling

Loughton_Monkey

Radiantsoul wrote: »

Democracy in action I suppose.
It just seems like an unnecessary check and balance that is likely to weaken the USA. As an aside I find it interesting that the USA is seemingly unable to win wars against even the weakest of enemies despite a vastly superior arsenal.

Surely not a million miles away from why UK Army, Police, and Intelligence forces never really 'won' against NI terrorism did it? Instead, we had to 'bribe' Jerry with a job for life.

This is where USA went wrong in shooting Osama the bin. Instead, they should have installed him as head of CIA or something, and 'negotiated' the Al Quaida threat away....

mj12_2

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This is where USA went wrong in shooting Osama the bin. Instead, they should have installed him as head of CIA or something, and 'negotiated' the Al Quaida threat away....

Or put him in a zoo; i would have happily paid an entrance fee to see that the exhibit could have been called "Worst Terrorist Ever" or "Stone Age Man - The Rebirth" - the guy is a disaster he's an object of derision not fear for most of the people I know.

In fact i cant think of a time ive heard someone not on the tele saying they are scared they might be caught in an attack somewhere - that has to be the most ultimate of failures of any terrorist... not causing terror. I was more wary about goign to London when the IRA were blowing stuff up than I ever have been because of bin liner.

ChiefGrasscutter

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Surely not a million miles away from why UK Army, Police, and Intelligence forces never really 'won' against NI terrorism did it? Instead, we had to 'bribe' Jerry with a job for life.

It was once the Provos changed their tactics towards those massive bombs on the mainland aimed at City infrastructure targets that the Gov was forced to act and in effect sue for peace - each bomb was costing too much is lost business/revenue - like £1bn cost of the bomb in Bishopgate area and the paralysing of Heathrow in the mortar bomb incidents.
On the latter I can remember HMG putting out the usual we will not allow "these threats to disrupt our airports" statement - whereupon the IRA simply fired some more mortars the next day/week and indeed did disrupt quite a bit.

mj12_2

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

It was once the Provos changed their tactics towards those massive bombs on the mainland aimed at City infrastructure targets that the Gov was forced to act and in effect sue for peace - each bomb was costing too much is lost business/revenue - like £1bn cost of the bomb in Bishopgate area and the paralysing of Heathrow in the mortar bomb incidents.
On the latter I can remember HMG putting out the usual we will not allow "these threats to disrupt our airports" statement - whereupon the IRA simply fired some more mortars the next day/week and indeed did disrupt quite a bit.

Terrorists are like mosquitos, no matter how much spray you use, one or two will always bite ya in the end.

shortchanged_2

I have to ask, where does all this end. Are all the countries of the world saddled with massive debt?

Is there ever any chance of that debt going? If not what happens. Will they eventually say one day 'OK enough is enough, let's start from zero again. No one is winning this game.'

nearlynew

shortchanged wrote: »

I have to ask, where does all this end. Are all the countries of the world saddled with massive debt?

Is there ever any chance of that debt going? If not what happens. Will they eventually say one day 'OK enough is enough, let's start from zero again. No one is winning this game.'

That will only happen when people realise that we do not need to live under the stranglehold of a debt-based money system and allow it to collapse.

If the banks and debt-junkies are allowed to take the hit, life would still go on and we would collectively be better off as a result.

mj12_2

nearlynew wrote: »

That will only happen when people realise that we do not need to live under the stranglehold of a debt-based money system and allow it to collapse.

If the banks and debt-junkies are allowed to take the hit, life would still go on and we would collectively be better off as a result.

Very well said.

Ark_Welder

nearlynew wrote: »

If the banks and debt-junkies are allowed to take the hit,

If the debt-junkies are to take a hit then they need to pay back their existing debts and be denied new loans. Otherwise, it is the taxpayers and lenders, i.e. savers, that are taking the hit.

+++

Today's auction of 2-year Treasuries was 3-times oversubscribed. So there is still a certain degree of confidence in the bond markets about debt ceilings, AAA ratings etc. The results of tomorrow's 5-year issue and Thursday's 7-year issues should be interesting too.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2011/R_20110726_3.pdf

Generali

shortchanged wrote: »

I have to ask, where does all this end. Are all the countries of the world saddled with massive debt?

Is there ever any chance of that debt going? If not what happens. Will they eventually say one day 'OK enough is enough, let's start from zero again. No one is winning this game.'

It is possible that will happen. However you savings are a bank's debts so wiping out the debt means wiping out your life savings and canceling Granny's annuity. That may not be very popular as a policy.

peakoil_2

all these armchair economists prove is that they need to go back to school and learn elementary mathematics. :rotfl: