by NoOneImportant » Tue Aug 26, 2014 1:49 am
Gerald wrote:
"At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and by 1929 Argentina had the 4th highest per capita GDP. There was a catch phrase back in those days “As rich as an Argentine” to describe wealth and prosperity."
http://donttweetblog.wordpress.com/2010 ... argentine/
Great observations - sorry for the length.
No one has a lock on perpetual prosperity, especially America. And the truth be told, America ate itself. You don't have what you have because of what you have. You have what you have because of what you believe, and how you think. When you no longer believe in, and practice what made you prosperous your prosperity is fleeting - apparently an observation lost on those in America who believe that they can steal their way to affluence. The blog referenced above is particularly telling. It starts with the observation regarding Argentina's great past prosperity. It notes the demise of that Argentine prosperity because of an erroneous belief that they - Argentina - could legislate, and borrow their way to affluence and prosperity. The Argentine focus, as is always the case, was on the acquired borrowed cash, and never upon the debt incurred, and the cost of the debt service necessary to obtain the cash.
The blog further notes the method used by Argentina to "repay" their incurred debt. Once forced to face the prospect of repaying the enormous amount of money they had borrowed, they - the Argentine government - quickly came to the conclusion that the squandered borrowed cash had not generated the hoped for return (growth, and return); thus the recurring tax revenues were not sufficient to meet the debt repayment schedule. What to do? Default on the debt?; but that would ruin the country's credit rating? Nope, couldn't do that, so the answer was clear, as it is always clear to politicians - simply print more pesos; inflate the debt away, and in fact the inflation would permit the borrowing of even more money. And after all, Who will be able to tell; who would be the wiser?
Unfortunately, those who are elected often times fail to realize, or don't care that all economies (both controlled, and free) are one enormous continuous ongoing 24/7 auction. It is an auction where everything is on display and for sale in a bid/asked manner. The bid/asked prices are dependent upon a stable supply and quality of the supplied products, and the corresponding price based upon the cash available to purchase those available products (essentially an equilibrium of quantity of products, and amount of cash resulting in an orderly market of supply and demand based upon a stable price). The runaway printing of money grossly distorts the operation of this invisible continuous auction. It creates an excess of money for purchase; money that quickly distorts demand, and thus absorbs the the available product at the current price - a price that was, but is no longer, a stable price.
The result of this "excess" cash distortion is that products become scare, as there has been a step increase in the amount of cash in circulation for product purchase; to moderate this "artificial" increase in demand, product prices are increased in an effort to reduce product demand - inflation. The resultant run-away inflation of the Argentine currency is clearly described in the blog. There are those who would contend that "managed" economies are not subject to these distortions, but those who hold those Nixonion points of view simply deny the rise, and the existence of the black markets that develop and flourish in those "managed" economies.
As always - interesting, Gerald.
Regarding ISIS: the boobs in Washington didn't even recognize the jeopardy until far too late, ref. Obama's clueless JV comment. It is what I mean when I say: "that no one controls any of the antagonists in a conflict once the shooting starts." With US troops remaining in Iraq, however, perhaps those US troops may have impeded the ISIS entry into Iraq. Obama aside, a case might be made for Bush being responsible for ISIS by not removing Assad immediately after having removed Saddam - it would have been very unpopular, as those I suggested it to at the time looked at me like I had two heads; but had it been attempted things would certainly have ended up differently. Short of that, I second Anon, who wrote:
ISIS is to blame for the rise of ISIS. Saudi money, flowing through Kuwait funded the rise of ISIS, under the guise of "arming the rebels in Syria".
And there never were any "moderate" rebels in Syria, and no chance of better outcomes. Had the USA bombed out Assad in the first days of the rebellion, we'd have simply transferred the rebels to power directly and had ISIS in control of a country as a "legitimate" government. Had we armed the rebels instead of Saudi, we'd have had the same outcome but faster.
Sometimes, there just isn't going to be a good choice leading to a good outcome. Moderates in Syria is a fantasy. If there are so many moderates in Syria why aren't they fighting ISIS?
You get to pick a side, and when both sides suck, there's no good choice.
Anon
Gerald wrote:
[quote]"At the beginning of the 20th century Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and by 1929 Argentina had the 4th highest per capita GDP. There was a catch phrase back in those days “As rich as an Argentine” to describe wealth and prosperity." http://donttweetblog.wordpress.com/2010 ... argentine/[/quote]
Great observations - sorry for the length.
No one has a lock on perpetual prosperity, especially America. And the truth be told, America ate itself. You don't have what you have because of what you have. You have what you have because of what you believe, and how you think. When you no longer believe in, and practice what made you prosperous your prosperity is fleeting - apparently an observation lost on those in America who believe that they can steal their way to affluence. The blog referenced above is particularly telling. It starts with the observation regarding Argentina's great past prosperity. It notes the demise of that Argentine prosperity because of an erroneous belief that they - Argentina - could legislate, and borrow their way to affluence and prosperity. The Argentine focus, as is always the case, was on the acquired borrowed cash, and never upon the debt incurred, and the cost of the debt service necessary to obtain the cash.
The blog further notes the method used by Argentina to "repay" their incurred debt. Once forced to face the prospect of repaying the enormous amount of money they had borrowed, they - the Argentine government - quickly came to the conclusion that the squandered borrowed cash had not generated the hoped for return (growth, and return); thus the recurring tax revenues were not sufficient to meet the debt repayment schedule. What to do? Default on the debt?; but that would ruin the country's credit rating? Nope, couldn't do that, so the answer was clear, as it is always clear to politicians - simply print more pesos; inflate the debt away, and in fact the inflation would permit the borrowing of even more money. And after all, Who will be able to tell; who would be the wiser?
Unfortunately, those who are elected often times fail to realize, or don't care that all economies (both controlled, and free) are one enormous continuous ongoing 24/7 auction. It is an auction where everything is on display and for sale in a bid/asked manner. The bid/asked prices are dependent upon a stable supply and quality of the supplied products, and the corresponding price based upon the cash available to purchase those available products (essentially an equilibrium of quantity of products, and amount of cash resulting in an orderly market of supply and demand based upon a stable price). The runaway printing of money grossly distorts the operation of this invisible continuous auction. It creates an excess of money for purchase; money that quickly distorts demand, and thus absorbs the the available product at the current price - a price that was, but is no longer, a stable price.
The result of this "excess" cash distortion is that products become scare, as there has been a step increase in the amount of cash in circulation for product purchase; to moderate this "artificial" increase in demand, product prices are increased in an effort to reduce product demand - inflation. The resultant run-away inflation of the Argentine currency is clearly described in the blog. There are those who would contend that "managed" economies are not subject to these distortions, but those who hold those Nixonion points of view simply deny the rise, and the existence of the black markets that develop and flourish in those "managed" economies.
As always - interesting, Gerald.
Regarding ISIS: the boobs in Washington didn't even recognize the jeopardy until far too late, ref. Obama's clueless JV comment. It is what I mean when I say: "that no one controls any of the antagonists in a conflict once the shooting starts." With US troops remaining in Iraq, however, perhaps those US troops may have impeded the ISIS entry into Iraq. Obama aside, a case might be made for Bush being responsible for ISIS by not removing Assad immediately after having removed Saddam - it would have been very unpopular, as those I suggested it to at the time looked at me like I had two heads; but had it been attempted things would certainly have ended up differently. Short of that, I second Anon, who wrote:
[quote]
ISIS is to blame for the rise of ISIS. Saudi money, flowing through Kuwait funded the rise of ISIS, under the guise of "arming the rebels in Syria".
And there never were any "moderate" rebels in Syria, and no chance of better outcomes. Had the USA bombed out Assad in the first days of the rebellion, we'd have simply transferred the rebels to power directly and had ISIS in control of a country as a "legitimate" government. Had we armed the rebels instead of Saudi, we'd have had the same outcome but faster.
Sometimes, there just isn't going to be a good choice leading to a good outcome. Moderates in Syria is a fantasy. If there are so many moderates in Syria why aren't they fighting ISIS?
You get to pick a side, and when both sides suck, there's no good choice.
[/quote]
Anon