[crapattack]

I wonder where he gets his sources, but this is a nicely written piece Eric_b. It reinforces for me how woefully silent the intellectual classes are in America when such staggeringly bad numbers can go unremarked upon in the major press. America, and Canada too, are wonderful places if you happen to be of the lucky employed classes earning decent money. If you are not, then you not part of the market and therefore don't exist. Your non-existance will not be counted or remarked upon.

Where I live is a fairly affluent neighbourhood and there are these "binners", people who push carts up the alley's and collect bottles and cans. Some can make a subsistance living at it this scavenging, and it's essentially recycling. On a micro scale they remind me of what we are all doing now with our "paper pushing" jobs - mostly service oriented and living off the few industries that actually make physical product anymore. For instance, what I create and sell in my business is completely electronic, it doesn't really "exist" in the physical world, but my clients are usually companies that create physical things and need my services.

I wonder what the numbers are for Canada, but if what this guy says is true then this is another indication that our society has tanked and 'Rome is falling'.

[abelardlindsay]

Ok Great... So what's the alternative? There are other kinds of non-socialist economics than neo-classical, which is what the author is referring to when he talks about "Economists" who have failed. These other non-socialist economics have some pretty good explanations for the current problems in the U.S economy but they are ignored because they aren't the standard curriculum when you go to an Ivy League school to become an economist.

[jaws]

Paul Craig Roberts has his facts right but not his causation. Globalization and outsourcing isn't the cause of the implosion of the US economy. The massive expansion of government under George W. Bush is. PCR is not going to account for that because, as is obviously pointed out, he was part of Reagan administration that also massively expanded government.

There's no reason to believe that outsourcing is causing the loss of manufacturing because automation is taking away as many jobs. Industrial output has kept increasing.

[MacG]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'P')aul Craig Roberts has his facts right but not his causation. Globalization and outsourcing isn't the cause of the implosion of the US economy. The massive expansion of government under George W. Bush is. PCR is not going to account for that because, as is obviously pointed out, he was part of Reagan administration that also massively expanded government.
There's no reason to believe that outsourcing is causing the loss of manufacturing because automation is taking away as many jobs. Industrial output has kept increasing.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', 'A')s it stands right now, you have not shown any substance, just hot air.

[Eddie_lomax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eric_b', 'N')ormally I always try to link to the original piece, but I wasn't able to
find it. So I'll quote it in its entirety. snip

[gigacannon]

Automation and energy efficient technologies are the future. Natch.

[parsifal]

All jobs are ephemeral. There is only the overclass and the underclass. American Idol is opium for a population in deep shock.
The Survivalists are prophets. Do you have land with fruit trees, solar and wind power, a huge acquifer, and plenty of guns and ammo? I tell you that even the Russian Revolution will not compare to what is coming.

[jdumars]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('parsifal', 'D')o you have land with fruit trees, solar and wind power, a huge acquifer, and plenty of guns and ammo?

[parsifal]

How imminent is the next Great Depression? Anybody know the story of Watership Down? There's the rabbit nambed Fiver who flips out when doom is coming. I'm not flipping out yet, but my senses tell me something is deep..deep. There is no refuge.

[LadyRuby]

MarketWatch: The budget deficit - Hopeless but not serious.... yet
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s diplomats used to crack about the rickety old Austro-Hungarian empire, "The situation is hopeless, but not serious."
... In a proverbial nutshell, here's the problem:
The Baby Boomers, 75 million Americans who are now 42 to 60 years old, are aging and heading toward a fiscal one-two punch.
By 2008, the first of this fabled generation will turn 62 and will be applying for Social Security pension payments.

By 2011, the first of them will become eligible for Medicare health care payments. With each passing year, those Social Security and Medicare payouts will multiply greatly so that by about 2030, they will be gobbling some 18% of the country's gross domestic product. That would amount to just about all -- that's right, all -- the tax revenues collected by the government, according to economist Rudy Penner, a deficits expert at the Urban Institute in Washington D.C.
That would leave absolutely zero for all other spending, including defense and education.
Since this would be a political impossibility, the government would have to begin rather soon to increase some of the taxes it collects, or reduce some of the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other payments it makes for social purposes.
... Right now, nobody in Washington appears to be willing to start to roll back these tides. ...

Over the course of U.S. history, deficits have averaged 1.2 % of GDP, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think-tank. In the Clinton years, deficits averaged only 0.1%.
During the Bush presidency the deficit has soared to 2.7% of GDP, more than double the historical average, largely because of tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. is increasing spending so fast that in the 5 1/2 years since George W. Bush has become President, Congress has had to increase the national debt ceiling by half to a total $9 trillion. That means $156,000 in federal debt for each American household.

And the numbers will be higher still if the government elects to extend the supposedly temporary tax cuts of 2001 instead of ending or at least reducing them as originally planned.
... "I've often wondered why the guys on Wall Street aren't more worried about the deficit problem," says economist Penner.
It may well be because they see the problem as hopeless but not serious.
If so, they might do a quick study of the old Austro-Hungarian empire. Once a cultural and economic powerhouse, it began a lengthy slide that left it a wimp among nations.

[vision-master]

And sucking from those 401’ks and other investments.

All those millions of "guest workers" will pick up the slack for what are due us “over the hill” workers. Then, of course the big-wigs of Wally World and alike will gladly take our pension checks.

[XOVERX]

We're gonna "starve the beast" until the "beast" becomes a third world country, all right. Or unless revolution comes earlier.

[dhfenton]

Short answer to why Washington is doing nothing about the deficits:
Some of them:
A) The rapture is coming so its no big deal what happens 20+ years from now.
The rest of them:
B) If I want to get relected I must say happy things.

[Kingcoal]

We have a world full of fiat currencies and these play by different rules than precious metals. The only thing that backs a fiat currency is the markets it's used in. In order to support such crazy debt levels, the US must constantly produce economic expansion, not just in its own boarders, but even more importantly, in other emerging countries. This expansion of the economy is so important because it allows for expansion of the money supply. The US is and has been engaged in a "modernization program" in Asia and other areas. The goal of the program is to create economic growth and above all, to make sure that those markets are denominated in dollars. The easiest way to do that was to build factories in third world countries and allow those countries to copy the example. China has been a very good apprentice in this regard.

The article is correct in pointing out an impending train wreck, but it misses the root cause; decreasing birthrates. Most people think in old money (gold money), mercantilist terms. They think "less people, more money for me!" That kind of thinking definitely pervades continental Europe, but it is wrong. Since fiat currencies count on economic expansion and economic expansion counts on more people producing and consuming, then less people equals a declining currency value. But wait, the Euro is worth more than the dollar, right? Wrong. The Euro derives it's worth by being the currency used in the EU, but the EU economic growth rates are dismal, so a careful check on the quantity of euros must be kept in order to make it "more valuable" than the dollar.

The problem with the Euro stealing the crown from the dollar is that the Euro cash flow is still no where near large enough. The EU needs to quit manufacturing and turn into USA2, meaning, concentrate it's economy on nothing but the exportation of euros. If the EU did that, then we'd have a problem here in the USA.

The US has had the opposite philosophy, which is; print them and they will come. Print dollars, pump up the markets, produce babies, defend democracy (defined here as the right to produce and consume) and let everything fall into place. This philosophy has been the hands down winner since 1971 when the dollar went completely fiat. However, there is now a scary amount of dollars in the world and there are stalking horses in the darkness.

Post Industrialized World: more babies please. Hopefully there will be enough hydrocarbons to support everyone.

[Ranglepung]

It isn't about energy, but it is news, so I'm posting it here.

Where are news discussion that's not directly about energy supposed to go?

USA Today

[rwwff]

This one I've known about for a long time; and so have all the politicians of both parties. Unfortunately because of the politics involved, it can't be touched by either, and if Peak Oil doesn't get us first, this one WILL get us by mid century.

There is absolutely no way the federal government can pay my generation, and those younger than me, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. It just can not happen.

The question then becomes, do they eventually say, "sorry guys, we're not going to pay for your doctor visits anymore" or will the turn on the printing presses in a vain attempt to make it happen anyway.

A rational system would select the first. A democratic system will select the latter.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ranglepung', 'I')t isn't about energy, but it is news, so I'm posting it here.

Where are news discussion that's not directly about energy supposed to go?

USA Today

[vision-master]

USA Today - BS!

[Kingcoal]

Actually, there is a very important clue to pick up from this article. The Federal government doesn't include Medicare/Medicaid/SS into the liability column because THEY CAN BE CUT OFF AT ANY TIME! How very true.

These government programs are often called "insurance" which is NOT what they are. Anyone who labels these programs as such is misrepresenting what they really are. These programs are, from legal standpoint simply free money from the Treasury. That is how they are defined, there is no "lock box" or any such silliness, it's just a government give away. As the government gives, it can also take away. Anyone who applies for and receives money directly from the government is legally classified as a government employee. We have seen the future in this article and that future is: plan to be "fired" from the government payroll!

I hope everyone understands this. The money taken out of your paycheck for these programs is simply all part of the other income taxes taken out, there is no legal requirement for the government to "set aside" that money that you are "paying in to the system," it is all the same; taxes. In other words, medicare/medicaid/SS taxes do not go into some special fund or trust; they go the same place the rest of the income taxes go. All money paid out by the Federal government for "entitlements" is discretionary and can be cut back or eliminated at any time with no legal recourse on the part of the payee. The only thing you can do is vote against those congressmen in the next election.

In my opinion, the government is very healthy. They have no legal liability to pay for any government program. When it becomes necessary, these programs will be cut or scaled back. Don't worry about your government running out of money, worry about your retirement! I recommend real insurance, they kind from the private sector where there is a real contract and a legal requirement to pay on the part of the insurance company.