What is confidence worth?

[madfranks]

I was at a social gathering last week and without fail every time any conversation turned anywhere near economics, everyone was totally clueless. Not only that, but most were very optimistic that the recession is over and good times are coming again. I played ignorant and mimicked them, but it made me think of something. Since this is just a giant confidence game, how far will the masses take us, convinced that this is but a minor hiccup and the boom is right around the corner? I guess what I'm asking is, if 99% of the people think things are fine, will that keep things from falling apart? Or at least slow it down?

[Gaillo]

Nice 666th post, Madfranks! ;D

[chad]

I was at a social gathering last week and without fail every time any conversation turned anywhere near economics, everyone was totally clueless. Not only that, but most were very optimistic that the recession is over and good times are coming again. I played ignorant and mimicked them, but it made me think of something. Since this is just a giant confidence game, how far will the masses take us, convinced that this is but a minor hiccup and the boom is right around the corner? I guess what I'm asking is, if 99% of the people think things are fine, will that keep things from falling apart? Or at least slow it down?


i was at that same party. i went home and bought gold.

[madfranks]

Nice 666th post, Madfranks! ;D


Ha ha, didn't notice that. :D

[1970 silver art]

In the economic reality, confidence is not worth anything as far as I am concerned. Confidence cannot help the unemployed pay the bills. Confidence cannot restore UE benefits when they are finally exhausted after that 99th week. Confidence cannot get a house out of foreclosure.

[Shorty Harris]

Confidence can and will only go so far before reality slaps em upside the head.

Reality -
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

[ximmy]

Remember the story of the confident guy who slipped and fell off a high rise building... at each window level he past witnesses heard him say, "So far so good"

[Still Barbaro]

I was at a social gathering last week and without fail every time any conversation turned anywhere near economics, everyone was totally clueless. Not only that, but most were very optimistic that the recession is over and good times are coming again. I played ignorant and mimicked them, but it made me think of something. Since this is just a giant confidence game, how far will the masses take us, convinced that this is but a minor hiccup and the boom is right around the corner? I guess what I'm asking is, if 99% of the people think things are fine, will that keep things from falling apart? Or at least slow it down?


Most people I know (not all) are:

Overly optimistic

+

Ignorant about economics


When people are "optimistic" I'd like to see what stats and number they can point me to, and provide the source (I'll check in anyway).

[k-os]

Look how far it's taken us already. A sucker is born every minute, and when that sucker is born and we can convince them to buy our treasures, we're good for another day.

Think about this: Everyone my age was told that they would never see the Social Security dollars that they put into the system. I've been told this since before my first day of work. It was even written on my SS statement that I received this year that I should only expect a percentage. Knowing this, we all just go along.

Apparently we're so completely and totally apathetic as a whole, that even when the con is revealed to us in writing, we just continue feeding into it.

So it seems to me that this could go on well past my life span.

[chad]

Look how far it's taken us already. A sucker is born every minute, and when that sucker is born and we can convince them to buy our treasures, we're good for another day.

Think about this: Everyone my age was told that they would never see the Social Security dollars that they put into the system. I've been told this since before my first day of work. It was even written on my SS statement that I received this year that I should only expect a percentage. Knowing this, we all just go along.

Apparently we're so completely and totally apathetic as a whole, that even when the con is revealed to us in writing, we just continue feeding into it.

So it seems to me that this could go on well past my life span.


they write it on there now? what does it say exactly?

[undgrd]

Confidence will continue until TPTB are satisfied their coffers are filled. Once that happens, pull the rug and watch chicken run around headless. Lather, Rinse, Repeat until everyone is broke.

[k-os]

they write it on there now? what does it say exactly?


I dug it up, just for you. ;)

Right on the first page in paragraph form . . .


In 2016, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.

* These estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions from the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to the Congress.

And again on the second page, just below the first section "Your Estimated Benefits" there is an asterisk next to everything except for Medicare:


* Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.

Also, just to make sure that I understand that I am being hosed . . . on the bottom of the second page, in the section "How Your Benefits Are Estimated" (emphasis is theirs):


(3) Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change.


All three of the statements essentially tell me to bend over.

[1970 silver art]

they write it on there now? what does it say exactly?


I dug it up, just for you. ;)

Right on the first page in paragraph form . . .


In 2016, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.

* These estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions from the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to the Congress.

And again on the second page, just below the first section "Your Estimated Benefits" there is an asterisk next to everything except for Medicare:


* Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.

Also, just to make sure that I understand that I am being hosed . . . on the bottom of the second page, in the section "How Your Benefits Are Estimated" (emphasis is theirs):


(3) Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change.


All three of the statements essentially tell me to bend over.


Yeah my statement also told me to bend over. I do not even care anymore. I already know that I am not going to get Social Security if/when I make it to 67 and yet I am forced, as an employee of a corporation, to pay into the SS system. It sucks but there is nothing that I can do about it. :'(

My confidence in the Social Security system = 0

[chad]

they write it on there now? what does it say exactly?


I dug it up, just for you. ;)

Right on the first page in paragraph form . . .


In 2016, we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2037 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted* and there will be enough money to pay only about 76 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.

* These estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions from the Social Security Trustees' Annual Report to the Congress.

And again on the second page, just below the first section "Your Estimated Benefits" there is an asterisk next to everything except for Medicare:


* Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 76 percent of scheduled benefits.

Also, just to make sure that I understand that I am being hosed . . . on the bottom of the second page, in the section "How Your Benefits Are Estimated" (emphasis is theirs):


(3) Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change.


All three of the statements essentially tell me to bend over.


WOW! that's pretty in your face language. congress should be strung up for allowing this to continue.

[k-os]

WOW! that's pretty in your face language. congress should be strung up for allowing this to continue.


That's the thing. They've been telling me (my generation), all of my life that it won't be there for me. For decades, they've written about it in the newspaper, spoke about it on television, it's written in economic magazines, and even Time, Newsweek, we heard it in high school, and then college. I've discussed it with friends. It's all out there in plain, clear language.

We should be strung up for allowing this to continue.

[k-os]

I just dug deeper and found two more statements, one from 2004 and one from 2007. I have no idea why I kept these, but now I am glad that I did . . . Here's your word problem of the day.

If the following pattern continues, at what year will SS really be exhausted:

In 2004, it said SS will be exhausted in 2042. In 2007, it said SS will be exhausted in 2040, and in 2010 it said it will be exhausted in 2037.

You believe this? Clear, plain language. They can't say that they didn't warn us.

[General of Darkness]

People need to understand that this is the KWA, give them sports and reality TV and all is well. NOW, shut down their Satellite and Cable TV, they'll burn the country to the ground. >:(

[madfranks]

Most people I know (not all) are:

Overly optimistic

+

Ignorant about economics


When people are "optimistic" I'd like to see what stats and number they can point me to, and provide the source (I'll check in anyway).


Absolutely correct. One guy I met was talking about how now is the time to jump into real estate, because it's going to take off again, recovering all the recent losses and then some. He had no facts (I didn't ask), no arguments, he just knew this was the case. I actually had fun playing along that night, I told this guy he was absolutely right, and that property values can only go up from here.

[AndreaGail]

Most people I know (not all) are:

Overly optimistic

+

Ignorant about economics


When people are "optimistic" I'd like to see what stats and number they can point me to, and provide the source (I'll check in anyway).


Absolutely correct. One guy I met was talking about how now is the time to jump into real estate, because it's going to take off again, recovering all the recent losses and then some. He had no facts (I didn't ask), no arguments, he just knew this was the case. I actually had fun playing along that night, I told this guy he was absolutely right, and that property values can only go up from here.


I've heard this sort of thing numerous times too especially in stocks


These people with just that "gut" feeling just sound like gamblers to me

kind of like that guy at the poker table thatis going to recover his loses by hitting a full house or royal flush

[Joe King]

Most people I know (not all) are:

Overly optimistic

+

Ignorant about economics


When people are "optimistic" I'd like to see what stats and number they can point me to, and provide the source (I'll check in anyway).


Absolutely correct. One guy I met was talking about how now is the time to jump into real estate, because it's going to take off again, recovering all the recent losses and then some. He had no facts (I didn't ask), no arguments, he just knew this was the case. I actually had fun playing along that night, I told this guy he was absolutely right, and that property values can only go up from here.

Hi.
Did you ask him how many properties he is planning to invest in?

As far as all the other people you talked with? Did they sound as though they were planning to purchase new homes or cars, or apply for business loans, or other big-ticket items on credit?

Because in our bcaka$$wrad, debt=wealth bizarro world economy we've got going, the only thing that will keep it going enough people having enough confidence to want to invest in it.
i.e. that's where the rubber hits the road, confidence-wise. Without action, confidence is nothing but a hope and a prayer that someone else will act and that you, as a result, will benefit from it.


When in a situation such as you've described, everyone of us should be asking all of them how much new debt they'll be assuming in the near term.
Because that's the only thing that's kept it going this long.

Most of the people I know do not seem to be wanting to increase their debt load and are actively trying to minimize it. Which is a recipe for eventual disaster if adopted on a large enough scale in an economy that depends upon private bank credit as its life blood.
Which is why the gov is going into such debt in your name, and will continue to do so until they blow it up for good. Because for them, the results of not doing it is unthinkable.

[AndreaGail]

this book does a good job talking about confidence in reference to fiat all throughout the centuries

http://home.pacbell.net/tfdf/fff3.jpg

its usually on ebay

[vacuum]

To answer the OP:
Confidence will determine who comes out on top, not the timeline of when the economy implodes. That is determined by math. The best(worst?) case scenario would be one group gets 100% of the wealth and the other gets 0% before implosion. If, however, confidence is low then implosion might occur when one group has only 97% of the wealth and the timeline will be pulled in.

[Sparky]

Yeah my statement also told me to bend over. I do not even care anymore. I already know that I am not going to get Social Security if/when I make it to 67 and yet I am forced, as an employee of a corporation, to pay into the SS system. It sucks but there is nothing that I can do about it. :'(

My confidence in the Social Security system = 0



Most every person I know younger than 40 feels this way. It's actually brilliant on the government's part. By the time you get to age 67, you will be thrilled to get 50 cents on the dollar, paid in currency that's lost 80 percent of its value. This is why they have been so up front about it. Expectations have become so low about future payoffs that it will not be a political nightmare when it comes to fruition.

[Sparky]

Confidence in the system definitely prolongs the end game. Fiat is a confidence-based system.

The gig is up when there is not enough bread and circus to go around. We don't seem that close. With the economy in the shitter, pro football games and Miley Cyrus concerts are still selling out at $100/ticket. How bad can it be?

This will go on as long as people without jobs continue to have a better TV than mine.

[Saul Mine]

The key is it was a social gathering. Not church, not a financial seminar. The rule at a social event is "False cheer is better than honest despondency." It's ok to talk about gold, but better to talk about sports or flowers.

[Joe King]

The key is it was a social gathering. Not church, not a financial seminar. The rule at a social event is "False cheer is better than honest despondency." It's ok to talk about gold, but better to talk about sports or flowers.
The only reason for that "rule" is because people can't intelligently discus that which they have no understanding of. Which, relative to the issues brought up in this thread, includes the majority of people.
If knowledge of how the economy works was as wide spread as knowledge about some guy named LeBron, they'd talk about it too.

Unless they're simply repeating rhetoric they've heard in a TV sound-bite. Which still leaves out the "intelligent" part.
....and no one wants to be made to look stupid at a party.

[EE_]

Your social gathering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVzMckfgM20

[Gaillo]

this book does a good job talking about confidence in reference to fiat all throughout the centuries

http://home.pacbell.net/tfdf/fff3.jpg

its usually on ebay


Thank you!
I'm buying that tomorrow- I was not aware of that one.

[Joe King]

I just dug deeper and found two more statements, one from 2004 and one from 2007. I have no idea why I kept these, but now I am glad that I did . . . Here's your word problem of the day.

If the following pattern continues, at what year will SS really be exhausted:

In 2004, it said SS will be exhausted in 2042. In 2007, it said SS will be exhausted in 2040, and in 2010 it said it will be exhausted in 2037.

You believe this? Clear, plain language. They can't say that they didn't warn us.


Those dates are of when the IOU's are all paid. You know, after the double taxation is over.
You're taxed once {FICA deduction} in order to buy Treasuries with, and then taxed again to make those same Treasuries good.

Problem is that this time around, it'll happen to the same generation who've paid the first time as opposed to putting it off for the next generation, per the original plan.

The whole thing is based upon shifting the burden forward so the debts can be paid with inflated future dollars.

[Joe King]

I was at a social gathering last week and without fail every time any conversation turned anywhere near economics, everyone was totally clueless. Not only that, but most were very optimistic that the recession is over and good times are coming again. I played ignorant and mimicked them, but it made me think of something. Since this is just a giant confidence game, how far will the masses take us, convinced that this is but a minor hiccup and the boom is right around the corner? I guess what I'm asking is, if 99% of the people think things are fine, will that keep things from falling apart? Or at least slow it down?

Here's a thought. Albeit a longshot.

What if there were other people there who looked at you and everyone else, and thought the same thing you did?

[Phoenix]

Confidence in the impossible results when people cannot handle the Truth.

[mightymanx]

I am almost 100% positive that this is exactly how the great depression started.


And people have asked for decades "How did my grandparents not know they were heading off a economic cliff?"


Well we now have first hand knowledge.

[Joe King]

I am almost 100% positive that this is exactly how the great depression started.


And people have asked for decades "How did my grandparents not know they were heading off a economic cliff?"


Well we now have first hand knowledge.


Of course it is. It took 4 years to reach the depths of the depression, with upticks in the market and "green shoots" along the way.
i.e. that's how long it took for the "pool of money" we all use to get depleted to the point that there wasn't enough money to adequately run the economy.

As hypertiger pointed out in his post earlier today, by the way the gov is doing things they're simply trying to make it into a longer, slower decent than last time.
i.e. the so-called gentle landing they've spoke of previously.

Also, remember that if their plan really is for World Government, we have to be brought down more than a few notches in order to become a political subdivision of that World gov.

[1970 silver art]

I just dug deeper and found two more statements, one from 2004 and one from 2007. I have no idea why I kept these, but now I am glad that I did . . . Here's your word problem of the day.

If the following pattern continues, at what year will SS really be exhausted:

In 2004, it said SS will be exhausted in 2042. In 2007, it said SS will be exhausted in 2040, and in 2010 it said it will be exhausted in 2037.

You believe this? Clear, plain language. They can't say that they didn't warn us.


Even though most employees (W-2 wage employees) are paying SS taxes, not many people will fully understand this until they reach "retirement age" and realize at that point that they are not getting a check. The people who get this will realize that there is nothing they can do about SS and will have to be more responsible and look out for themselves and take care of themselves. The people who think that SS can be "saved" will more than likely be in for a very rude awakening when they do not get their SS check when they reach "retirement age".

[Spectrism]

The buffalo would be stampeded over cliffs in the same manner the people are being pushed now.

As the people run headlong among their friends, family, co-workers, and MSM, they run off the cliff Wiley Coyote- style and have all their peers right next to them. They keep running as they think "we are all together so nothing bad could happen." Anyone who tells them that they are dancing over thin air is ridiculed into silence. Soon, they will see that gravity happens.

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/Visual_Materials/gallery/animation/jpeg/animation3.jpeg

[hoarder]

Whatever the value of confidence, mass media holds that value. Foreknowledge is everything.

The day confidence ends will be the day mass media triggers it.

[chad]

i've always wondered how horrendous things in life could happen. instances where populaces turn on each other and man's real ugliness comes out. i'm seeing it now start on message boards.

i actively read huffingtonpost and some other left leaning sites because i find it interesting to examine how others think.

what i have seen in the past few months scares me. it used to be disagreeable discourse when people presented opposing views. now it borders on violence. i posted a simple statement the other day about creating money that was met with harsh rebuttal. no less than 20 or so unleashing vile attacks. it was creepy.

i fully expect at some point for this to turn violent in real life. i expect riots, murders, cities being burned down etc.

take care out there.

[horseshoe3]

If the following pattern continues, at what year will SS really be exhausted:

In 2004, it said SS will be exhausted in 2042. In 2007, it said SS will be exhausted in 2040, and in 2010 it said it will be exhausted in 2037.



2025

[sunshine05]

I could be wrong, but I'm beginning to think this is going to be a *very* long but slow decline rather than an abrupt event like a currency crash. So we could go on like this for a long time. I don't see any possibility of the economy improving....ever. But I think what is happening is lots of nation building under the guise of terrorism wars. I think Reinhardt could be right.....that we pay for the wars and China benefits. If you google, you will find that it is China investing in Iraq and investing in a rail system in Afghanistan, not the US. If China benefits they will keep lending us money and this could go on until there is cheap labor all over the world. I think that is what's going on and explains how we are still going on the way we are in huge debt. As the cheap labor continues to "benefit" the rest of the world, we will lose.

[k-os]

If the following pattern continues, at what year will SS really be exhausted:

In 2004, it said SS will be exhausted in 2042. In 2007, it said SS will be exhausted in 2040, and in 2010 it said it will be exhausted in 2037.



2025


Thanks for answering. That's about right. I was thinking 2024, but . . . 2025 is close enough for government work. :)

[madfranks]

Hi.
Did you ask him how many properties he is planning to invest in?

As far as all the other people you talked with? Did they sound as though they were planning to purchase new homes or cars, or apply for business loans, or other big-ticket items on credit?

Because in our bcaka$$wrad, debt=wealth bizarro world economy we've got going, the only thing that will keep it going enough people having enough confidence to want to invest in it.
i.e. that's where the rubber hits the road, confidence-wise. Without action, confidence is nothing but a hope and a prayer that someone else will act and that you, as a result, will benefit from it.


When in a situation such as you've described, everyone of us should be asking all of them how much new debt they'll be assuming in the near term.
Because that's the only thing that's kept it going this long.

Most of the people I know do not seem to be wanting to increase their debt load and are actively trying to minimize it. Which is a recipe for eventual disaster if adopted on a large enough scale in an economy that depends upon private bank credit as its life blood.
Which is why the gov is going into such debt in your name, and will continue to do so until they blow it up for good. Because for them, the results of not doing it is unthinkable.


No, I didn't ask anything like that. This particular guy was a real estate investor who lost it all when the market crashed, and he now was the time to get back in. I think your logic is right on though, it will take a lot of people taking out new credit for this to continue, and if not the gov't will do it for us.

And Andrea Gail, I can't recommend that book on fiat money enough, it's almost as good as the Creature from Jekyll Island for waking people up. When people see how many times fiat money has failed in the past, it really makes them think.

[madfranks]

Your social gathering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVzMckfgM20


Ha ha, no it was a high school reuinion. Honestly one of the most mind numbing gatherings I've ever been to. Single women husband hunting, others lining up to take shots and out drink each other, people talking celeberties and sports, it was a showcase of the results of our socialized and failed educational system. The one good note of the night was when I met my old calculus teacher, we had a good conversation but the rest of it was bolshevism.

[cedarchopper]

Confidence and trust go hand in hand. Without confidence (or trust), nobody buys what you are selling.

[StackerKen]

I think SS will run out in 2026 because that is a year before I turn 67 :(

I don't plan on collecting any...but it would be nice to get some back.

[Joe King]

i've always wondered how horrendous things in life could happen. instances where populaces turn on each other and man's real ugliness comes out. i'm seeing it now start on message boards.

i actively read huffingtonpost and some other left leaning sites because i find it interesting to examine how others think.

what i have seen in the past few months scares me. it used to be disagreeable discourse when people presented opposing views. now it borders on violence. i posted a simple statement the other day about creating money that was met with harsh rebuttal. no less than 20 or so unleashing vile attacks. it was creepy.

i fully expect at some point for this to turn violent in real life. i expect riots, murders, cities being burned down etc.

take care out there.

Did you back-up your "simple statement" post with documentation?
They probably looked at you as having made anti-American statements and went on the attack.

In those situations it's best to document your simple statement with easily verifiable proof of your contention, using the governments own words if possible, as it solidifies your point.
Because I'll guarantee you that at least some of the people reading it might get a seed planted.
Although probably not the ones who were attacking you, but those aren't the primary ones you're after anyways.

Johnny Appleseed didn't just throw seeds on the ground and walk away.
To sprout, they have to be planted and thengiven a little water.

[ximmy]

i've always wondered how horrendous things in life could happen. instances where populaces turn on each other and man's real ugliness comes out. i'm seeing it now start on message boards.

i actively read huffingtonpost and some other left leaning sites because i find it interesting to examine how others think.

what i have seen in the past few months scares me. it used to be disagreeable discourse when people presented opposing views. now it borders on violence. i posted a simple statement the other day about creating money that was met with harsh rebuttal. no less than 20 or so unleashing vile attacks. it was creepy.

i fully expect at some point for this to turn violent in real life. i expect riots, murders, cities being burned down etc.

take care out there.

Did you back-up your "simple statement" post with documentation?
They probably looked at you as having made anti-American statements and went on the attack.

In those situations it's best to document your simple statement with easily verifiable proof of your contention, using the governments own words if possible, as it solidifies your point.
Because I'll guarantee you that at least some of the people reading it might get a seed planted.
Although probably not the ones who were attacking you, but those aren't the primary ones you're after anyways.

Johnny Appleseed didn't just throw seeds on the ground and walk away.
To sprout, they have to be planted and thengiven a little water.




This weeks outstanding genius post response winner...
Congrats Joe King!!! :D
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s222/chrisneros/geniusaward.gif
ximy

[chad]

i've always wondered how horrendous things in life could happen. instances where populaces turn on each other and man's real ugliness comes out. i'm seeing it now start on message boards.

i actively read huffingtonpost and some other left leaning sites because i find it interesting to examine how others think.

what i have seen in the past few months scares me. it used to be disagreeable discourse when people presented opposing views. now it borders on violence. i posted a simple statement the other day about creating money that was met with harsh rebuttal. no less than 20 or so unleashing vile attacks. it was creepy.

i fully expect at some point for this to turn violent in real life. i expect riots, murders, cities being burned down etc.

take care out there.

Did you back-up your "simple statement" post with documentation?
They probably looked at you as having made anti-American statements and went on the attack.

In those situations it's best to document your simple statement with easily verifiable proof of your contention, using the governments own words if possible, as it solidifies your point.
Because I'll guarantee you that at least some of the people reading it might get a seed planted.
Although probably not the ones who were attacking you, but those aren't the primary ones you're after anyways.

Johnny Appleseed didn't just throw seeds on the ground and walk away.
To sprout, they have to be planted and thengiven a little water.






i did what i could, but there's a 121 character limit.

i encourage you guys to try this exercise. go on some left leaning site and talk about sound money, etc. don't mention politics, just basic austrian economics. i think you'll be amazed at what ensues.

[Joe King]

i did what i could, but there's a 121 character limit.

i encourage you guys to try this exercise. go on some left leaning site and talk about sound money, etc. don't mention politics, just basic austrian economics. i think you'll be amazed at what ensues.


Ah, ok.

121 characters keeps everything to "sound bite" length for easy consumption by the zombies.

[Ponce]

I only read the original posting.......in my opinion what is going to happen will be worse than worse because the psychological impact of what is to happen will hit them all like a ton of bricks and many will become catatonic.

[Sparky]

Let's understand the Social Security trust fund.

Let's say you have 10 kids, and you tell each of them that if they pay you $100/month every month from age 21-50, you will pay them $300/month for the rest of their remaining lives.

The kids are now all in their 40s. From them you are collecting $1000/month total. Your expenses are $3000 a month, but your income is $2000/month. So every month, you have bee writing an IOU on a piece of paper that says "I owe my kids $1000", and you spend the $1000 to cover the balance of your expenses.

When your firstborn reaches age 50, you have a pile of IOUs summing to $100,000. Your monthly income is still $2000, and your monthly expenses are $3000. You have to start paying him $100 next month.

Question: At what point do you have a financial problem? Is it when your $100,000 "trust fund" is depleted?

No! You have a problem next month when you have to pay out $300, while you are only taking in $2000 plus the $900 from the other nine kids! You have to reduce your monthly budget NEXT MONTH to from $3000 to $2600, to cover both the loss of $100 income, plus the additional $300 outlay. Not in 2037 or 2025!! And the following year when you have to pay two kids, you'll be taking in $2800 and paying out $600, so you'll have to live on $2200/month!

You won't have paid out your $100,000 trust fund until your 7th kid is collecting. Yet by that point, you'll be paying out $2100/month in payments, while your income is only $2000 plus the $300 from the other three kids. You'll be living on $200/month by the time your "trust fund is depleted."!!

And that's how the Social Security Trust Fund works, Charlie Brown.

[Joe King]

Sparky, I'm assuming that the Dad in your analogy is our fed gov.


So what if you get your "pay" by working for your kids? {like we "pay" for gov now}

What you do is to demand a raise so that your "system" still works.

Or in our case, they come up with a good enough reason to raise more revenue that the majority of zombies blindly accept.

Which, among other things, is why obamacare was so important to get enacted into law.
Same with the $600 1099 deal.

They're setting up now, ways to increase revenue in the near future so the gov might be able to make good on their obligations.
i.e. gotta at least try to make good on all those Treasuries Social Security holds. {the IOUs you referred to}

[dysgenic]

The social engineers push the product of feel good delusion and the product is flying off the shelves.
'You can be anything you want when you grow up.'
'Everything always works out in the end.'
'You are what you think about'.

Coming in a a slightly more advanced flavor of propoganda-
The law of attraction.
The law of belief.
Godseeds grow into God.
Higher self.
You and the universe are one.

But don't go making the mistake of pondering the 'negative' eventualies, because what you fear you tend to attract. Ergo, you are responsible (for avoiding the mere thought of anything negative).

Brilliant, really...get people to consider only the realities they wish for, and if and when cognitive dissonance sets in/reality doesn't match their wishful thinking, get them to believe that if they can win the neverending story style showdown with life (watch the movie, you'll catch the analogy), their reality is right around the corner from matching their wishes.

dys

[Sparky]

Sparky, I'm assuming that the Dad in your analogy is our fed gov.


So what if you get your "pay" by working for your kids? {like we "pay" for gov now}

What you do is to demand a raise so that your "system" still works.

Or in our case, they come up with a good enough reason to raise more revenue that the majority of zombies blindly accept.

Which, among other things, is why obamacare was so important to get enacted into law.
Same with the $600 1099 deal.

They're setting up now, ways to increase revenue in the near future so the gov might be able to make good on their obligations.
i.e. gotta at least try to make good on all those Treasuries Social Security holds. {the IOUs you referred to}

Yeah, Joe, that's what's going on, sorry to say.

[Joe King]

Sparky, I'm assuming that the Dad in your analogy is our fed gov.


So what if you get your "pay" by working for your kids? {like we "pay" for gov now}

What you do is to demand a raise so that your "system" still works.

Or in our case, they come up with a good enough reason to raise more revenue that the majority of zombies blindly accept.

Which, among other things, is why obamacare was so important to get enacted into law.
Same with the $600 1099 deal.

They're setting up now, ways to increase revenue in the near future so the gov might be able to make good on their obligations.
i.e. gotta at least try to make good on all those Treasuries Social Security holds. {the IOUs you referred to}

Yeah, Joe, that's what's going on, sorry to say.

So as long as they can keep bumping it up, so to speak, the plan will continue to work.
The problem I see with their plan is that they have their eye on increasing overall taxation in order to support it, but if our future economy isn't as credit worthy as in the past, the "money" base just won't be there to support it.

I previously posted my hypothesis-in-a-nut-shell on how I see SS and health care and taxes relative to gov finances, but no one commented. (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/obamacare-in-chart-form/msg93920/#msg93920)
Not saying it's perfect, but I was really hoping to hear others thoughts on it. :(
Anyone?

[Sparky]

Joe, the health care push is all about bailing out a bankrupt medicare system, by adding the entire workforce as payers. I think this is essentially what you are saying. Immigration is the same issue. Add millions of new payers into the system who average 40 years in age, who don't become recipients for another 20 years. They are trying to push the disaster off for another generation. I think they will meet more resistance than they can handle, and are only buying another 3-5 years.

Here's the results of a survey question sent out by a Massachusetts legislator who is running for higher office.

Q: Do you favor or oppose requiring proof of legal residency in order to receive public benefits?

Keep in mind, this is liberal Massachusetts:

A: Favor 93%, Oppose: 4%, Undecided: 3%

This was actually a bill that got proposed in our state, but got shot down by the politicians. Happy to see the locals don't like it one bit. The times, they are a-changin'.

[Joe King]

Joe, the health care push is all about bailing out a bankrupt medicare system, by adding the entire workforce as payers. I think this is essentially what you are saying. Immigration is the same issue. Add millions of new payers into the system who average 40 years in age, who don't become recipients for another 20 years. They are trying to push the disaster off for another generation. I think they will meet more resistance than they can handle, and are only buying another 3-5 years.
Obamacare will add a lot of money to tax receipts in the future. $875 billion per "The Tax Girl". (http://www.taxgirl.com/money-changes-everything-health-care-in-america/)
...and you can forget about "projected offsets" as projections like that rarely pan out.
2018 is when "rich" people will start paying taxes on health benefits. Do you really think they won't eventually lower the threshold for what is considered "rich"? {think "foot in the door" on that one}

Why do you think it's tied to the IRS? All tax receipts go to the FED as interest payments.
i.e. to substantially increase borrowing as they say they are going to do, the payments also have to increase.

The immigration increases are part of it too. {more new ponzi-scheme players} <---what Bernie needed
In fact, if you'll notice, almost everything they are doing lately is laying the groundwork for the anticipated inflation that is planned for our future.
They want to inflate the old debts away just like they've been doing for decades. Only difference now is that they can't do it just a little bit.
If they have their way, we'll look back on the time from say '90 to '10 the same way people in the late '70s early '80s looked back on the '50s and '60s as a time of cheap prices. {the good ol' days}
i.e. there was a big bump-up in inflation through the mid to late '70s. That's what we are going to experience again if the gov gets their way. {with the threat of hyperinflation thrown in just for fun}

What will thwart those plans is if the public simply refuses to continue increasing their debt load.
i.e. the gov pushing inflation, against the People pushing deflation.





Here's the results of a survey question sent out by a Massachusetts legislator who is running for higher office.

Q: Do you favor or oppose requiring roof of legal residency in order to receive public benefits?

Keep in mind, this is liberal Massachusetts:

A: Favor 93%, Oppose: 4%, Undecided: 3%

This was actually a bill that got proposed in our state, but got shot down by the politicians. Happy to see the locals don't like it one bit. The times, they are a-changin'.
My answer to that would be to get rid of the public benefits. That way it's not an issue.

[mightymanx]

Here's the results of a survey question sent out by a Massachusetts legislator who is running for higher office.

Q: Do you favor or oppose requiring roof of legal residency in order to receive public benefits?

Keep in mind, this is liberal Massachusetts:

A: Favor 93%, Oppose: 4%, Undecided: 3%

This was actually a bill that got proposed in our state, but got shot down by the politicians. Happy to see the locals don't like it one bit. The times, they are a-changin'.
My answer to that would be to get rid of the public benefits. That way it's not an issue.



The problem is Government handouts are like matter , once created they can not be destroyed merely displaced.

[Book]

What will thwart those plans is if the public simply refuses to continue increasing their debt load.
i.e. the gov pushing inflation, against the People pushing deflation.



Let's look outside the box:

1) This so-called National Debt is "owed" by our grandchildren to unknown unidentified individuals and no actual specific amounts of it is ever audited by anybody...including Congress via their CBO. For all we know, every man, woman, and child in America each "owes" $125,000 to some guy in Tel Aviv named Timmy Rothschild. Even the Bank Of International Settlements goes unaudited and does not publicly identify who is "owed" all this so-called debt.

2) These unknown unidentified individuals trade gold by the TON and us goyim just accept their set "price" posted at Kitco.

3) Commerce is literally IMPOSSIBLE without a commonly-accepted medium of exchange called fiat money and these unknown unidentified individuals print it out of thin air.

The quaint notion that the public will "refuse" anything in 2010 is laughable. We meekly witness our own grandmothers getting frisked and groped at the airport on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The public is now totally controlled:

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/airtalkblog/2008/08/28/Denver%20Riot%20Police-thumb-480x360.jpg

:oo-->

[Joe King]

Here's the results of a survey question sent out by a Massachusetts legislator who is running for higher office.

Q: Do you favor or oppose requiring roof of legal residency in order to receive public benefits?

Keep in mind, this is liberal Massachusetts:

A: Favor 93%, Oppose: 4%, Undecided: 3%

This was actually a bill that got proposed in our state, but got shot down by the politicians. Happy to see the locals don't like it one bit. The times, they are a-changin'.
My answer to that would be to get rid of the public benefits. That way it's not an issue.



The problem is Government handouts are like matter , once created they can not be destroyed merely displaced.
Sounds like we need some anti-matter. :D

[Joe King]

What will thwart those plans is if the public simply refuses to continue increasing their debt load.
i.e. the gov pushing inflation, against the People pushing deflation.



Let's look outside the box:

1) This so-called National Debt is "owed" by our grandchildren to unknown unidentified individuals and no actual specific amounts of it is ever audited by anybody...including Congress via their CBO. For all we know, every man, woman, and child in America each "owes" $125,000 to some guy in Tel Aviv named Timmy Rothschild. Even the Bank Of International Settlements goes unaudited and does not publicly identify who is "owed" all this so-called debt.

2) These unknown unidentified individuals trade gold by the TON and us goyim just accept their set "price" posted at Kitco.

3) Commerce is literally IMPOSSIBLE without a commonly-accepted medium of exchange called fiat money and these unknown unidentified individuals print it out of thin air.

The quaint notion that the public will "refuse" anything in 2010 is laughable. We meekly witness our own grandmothers getting frisked and groped at the airport on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The public is now totally controlled:

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/airtalkblog/2008/08/28/Denver%20Riot%20Police-thumb-480x360.jpg

:oo-->




So you're saying they'll send jack booted thugs to force us to take out loans from banks?

All I'm saying is that if enough people simply quit doing so, the ponzi-scheme would crumble.
It would force a crash.
The people would also have to start living below their means as the available "money" dwindled away.

Now, that said, do I think it'll happen? No.
I'm merely pointing out what needs to happen to avoid the long slow decline they'd prefer.

But you know what? It's gonna be painful either way we go, so it might as well be a pain of our own choosing as opposed to having it forced on us when it's best for tptb.


As far as who's "owed"? I don't really care. They get nothing. Serves 'em right for being so dumb as to invest in what anyone with a brain can tell at first glance is a ponzi-scheme.

[Hatha Sunahara]

If 99% of the people think things are fine, will that keep things from falling apart? Or slow it down?

What comes to mind with this question is something that made a big impression on me from a document called Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars:



Mr. Rothchild's Energy Discovery

What Mr. Rothschild had discovered was the basic principle of power, influence, and control over people as applied to economics. That principle is "when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you."

Mr. Rothschild had discovered that currency or deposit loan accounts had the required appearance of power that could be used to induce people (inductance, with people corresponding to a magnetic field) into surrendering their real wealth in exchange for a promise of greater wealth (instead of real compensation). They would put up real collateral in exchange for a loan of promissory notes. Mr. Rothschild found that he could issue more notes than he had backing for, so long as he had someone's stock of gold as a persuader to show his customers.

Mr. Rothschild loaned his promissory notes to individual and to governments. These would create overconfidence. Then he would make money scarce, tighten control of the system, and collect the collateral through the obligation of contracts. The cycle was then repeated. These pressures could be used to ignite a war. Then he would control the availability of currency to determine who would win the war. That government which agreed to give him control of its economic system got his support.

Collection of debts was guaranteed by economic aid to the enemy of the debtor. The profit derived from this economic methodology mad Mr. Rothschild all the more able to expand his wealth. He found that the public greed would allow currency to be printed by government order beyond the limits (inflation) of backing in precious metal or the production of goods and services.

Everything will be just fine as long as people believe they will be. As long as TPTB control the money and the media, people will be made to believe through propaganda that everything is just fine. So, the answer to your original question Madfranks is yes. You could even start a war, and people will think things are just fine.

You can read the whole Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars here:

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml

Hatha

[Book]

...Now, that said, do I think it'll happen? No.



We agree on the facts...lol.

:D

[Joe King]

...Now, that said, do I think it'll happen? No.



We agree on the facts...lol.

:D
The slide will def continue. lol

It's just that I'd prefer a precipitous fall. But only for the good of the Nation, of course.

[Phoenix]

So you're saying they'll send jack booted thugs to force us to take out loans from banks?


Indirectly, yes.

Paper "money" will be phased out, and digital "currency" will be made mandatory, in the fulfillment of the Bible's warning of the Mark of the Beast.

Non-compliance will result in "jack booted thugs" visiting you.




All I'm saying is that if enough people simply quit doing so, the ponzi-scheme would crumble.
It would force a crash.


People are not willing to resist with violence. Hence, they will, however reluctantly, comply with means to compel them to cooperate.

[Phoenix]

It's just that I'd prefer a precipitous fall.


You shall get your wish. And when the Anti-Christ offers the "solutions" to raise people materially from that un-natural debtsaster, they will fall down and worship him, as St. John said they would.