It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Worst President In The History Of America.

page: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

edit on 19-12-2017 by ScepticScot because: Quote being weird




posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

It passed the house 298 to 60. How is that mostly on holiday?



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
...which is why it was overwhelmingly opposed by both Democrats and Republicans.


Except it was passed by both Democrats and Republicans which is how it got to Wilson's desk for him to sign.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

worst president: ronald reagan
why: his passing into law the "no fault" divorce 1969-70. this act has negatively impacted more family and friends than any other that comes to mind.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: subfab

Regan was not pres in 69-70. That was Nixon.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

" The correct answer is Franklin Delano Roosevelt. At a minimum, 80% of the evils presently plaguing America's Rights, prosperity, and economy are woes FDR directly inflicted onto this nation."



Winner , Winner , Chicken Dinner !

He Personally Set Back Human Civilization 100 Years with his Socialists Hypocrisy .



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
for over 100 years the grant administration was considered the most corrupt but then people got really melo dramatic and stupid and decided that it must be one of the recent administrations that is the most corrupt so they disregarded the grant administration and the 100 year legacy of corruption and started labeling the most recent administration as the most corrupt. because they have no interest or ability to read about Americas history they just want to be victims and blame someone who is still alive for their paranoid delusions of victimization in the hopes of getting paid some money from the government.
edit on 19-12-2017 by bluechevytree because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2017 by bluechevytree because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
a reply to: subfab

Regan was not pres in 69-70. That was Nixon.




he did this before he was president. he got elected.... it still makes him the worst president.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
My issue with Wilson is that he was the first president to physically leave the borders of the USA while in office, breaking a long standing tradition that went all the way back to Washington.


Our country was much better when our presidents stayed home.




originally posted by: Grimpachi

Warren G Harding elected 1865 correction 1921
He was a completely ineffectual leader and let his friends plunder the US treasury.



An ineffective president is at least harmless. Id rather have a president accomplish nothing at all than have one wreck everything.



originally posted by: ScepticScot
.

It also allows the US to run a trade deficit while maintaining the value of the dollar.


You do realize that running a trade deficit without allowing your currency's value to diminish is a bad thing, right?

If the value of the dollar goes down, people in foreign countries will buy our products (because the price of our products therefore has also gone down.)

Having our currency value stay high is only good when we're importing oil (as opposed to shaling it in North Dakota)



They could stop issuing debt and pay higher interest on banks reserve accounts and the net effect would be the same but people might stop getting so hung up on the idea that the US is in debt.





The problem with the debt is that there is no guarantee the interest we pay on it will stay low.

Treasury bonds are issued at auction. They redeem for a set amount, but they price they are sold at (some amount lower than their redeeming value) is set at auction.

The interest rate only stays low if the bid gets very near the redemption value. If the bid doesn't go high enough, we effectively end up paying a lot of interest.

If the overall economy improves, the bid will drop.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

A trade deficit isn't by itself a bad thing.

Historically many countries have pursued policies of maintaining the value of their currency as there are perceived advantages of having a stronger currency.

A current account is exchanging real goods and services for financial assets, effectively a future claim on the economy. Depending on what happens to the relative economies determines who benefits most.

I do agree that a current account deficit can be to big and unsustainable. It's largely a matter of opinion if the US is in that position or not.

Regardless my point wasn't about the desirability or otherwise of a trade deficit. I was simply pointing out that with a floating exchange rate paying interest on soverign debt helps allow the deficit to continue.

edit on 21-12-2017 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

A trade deficit isn't by itself a bad thing.

Historically many countries have pursued policies of maintaining the value of their currency as there are perceived advantages of having a stronger currency.


There are advantages when you are able to use tarrifs to supplement that strategy.

The current world environment of free trade agreements is pretty much unprecedented. It changes the whole game.

An low currency is like having a tariff against all incoming foreign imported goods and a subsidy in favor of all outgoing exported goods.

A strong currency is like having a subsidy in favor of all incoming foreign imported goods and an excise tax on all outgoing exported goods.




A current account is exchanging real goods and services for financial assets, effectively a future claim on the economy. Depending on what happens to the relative economies determines who benefits most.

I do agree that a current account deficit can be to big and unsustainable. It's largely a matter of opinion if the US is in that position or not.


A free trade world, neither direction is truly sustainable. A high or low currency simply indicates the market is finding itself unable to correct.

For China to keep its currency low requires investors to hold onto large amounts of foreign currency and never exchange it (for example, by buying US treasury bonds and holding them for a long time.)

For the USA to keep its currency high, it just has to keep on going deeper and deeper into debt. Putting "stimulus packages" into its own economy to give American consumers more money to spend (on buying foreign goods), or getting foreign powers to keep reinvesting the dollars they get, rather than exchange them.






Regardless my point wasn't about the desirability or otherwise of a trade deficit. I was simply pointing out that with a floating exchange rate paying interest on soverign debt helps allow the deficit to continue.


... which means it is a bad thing, and will continue to contribute to unemployment here in the USA (while helping the job market in other countries.)



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
This is such a good documentary to watch...
& so very relevant to the topic.

Many will probably not bother to watch it, but I highly recommend it to everyone anyways.

It’s not based on any “illuminati” conspiracy or “satanic control” like many documentaries regarding the Rothschilds and other elites...

It’s a very descriptive and well sourced breakdown of Monetary control of privatised central banking systems across the West, from their inception up to current times.

It makes very compelling arguments on the topic of the scam it truly is for a sovereign government to hand over/lose control of the power to issue money for the betterment of the people’s of a nation as opposed to the money lenders trying to profit.

Give it a go if you have enough time. I guarantee you will come away with either a completely new outlook, or at the very least, a more informative position on the subject, especially on the history of it’s origins.


Here is an enticing element from the video;
Did you know, one of the people who first invested in the Bank Of England bought a massive amount of the shares, with nothing but a stick of wood (a currency called a Tally Stick)!!!
I thought that was crazy, it is probably the biggest bargain in recorded history. LOL.




Peace.




posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

A low value currency means imports are more expensive and therefore reduces standards of living. Likewise tariffs reduce standard of living.

In general the best thing is for the currency to float freely and let imports and exports find their own balance. However it's important to acknowledge there would be real costs to Americans standard of living if it didn't run a trade deficit.

Importing goods from overseas doesn't create unemployment, poor domestic economic policy does.



posted on Dec, 21 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

A low value currency means imports are more expensive and therefore reduces standards of living. Likewise tariffs reduce standard of living.


That is pure propaganda.

The idea that lowering the price of manufactured goods by using cheaper unskilled labor will improve our "standard of living" would only possibly work out to be true if wages were unaffected.

If imported goods are competing (via exchange subsidy) against domestic production, then you get a decent improvement in prices, balanced by a colossal drop in wages, as domestic workers have to take a pay cut large enough to make their product competitive with a product that is getting a free discount.

Once they've done that, things like healthcare or housing, which are NOT in competition with foreign imports, stay just as expensive as ever, but the workers who need that stuff are now making less money. (Leading to a healthcare crisis.)

I know Spanish and frequently talk with Mexican immigrants about their side of the economy. They've been telling me it is no longer profitable to come up to the USA. In the 90's, when this whole thing was just starting, they could live on about 1/4 of their income, and send the rest back. Now they're lucky if they can keep their expenses down to 3/4 of their income.

Demand drops because workers have a smaller percentage of their income available for optional purchases. That's both a smaller total income, and a smaller percent within that total. The drop in price of goods will never be as great as the drop in purchasing power. (Meaning that quality of life cannot possibly be improving.)




In general the best thing is for the currency to float freely and let imports and exports find their own balance. However it's important to acknowledge there would be real costs to Americans standard of living if it didn't run a trade deficit.

Importing goods from overseas doesn't create unemployment, poor domestic economic policy does.


Oh goodness.

Why don't you just keep repeating it until it's true? That's how it works, right? Just keep repeating something until 2+2=5, and you can just imagine your way to economic success?

The only way you can avoid unemployment when your currency is high is if your country exclusively produces ONLY products that nobody else produces.

Otherwise you are inevitably competing against somebody who has a subsidy, which is bad business. If your competitor is using all the same technology as you are (and they will be), then the only way you could out perform them, or even match them, is if you find a miraculous way to achieve greater than 100% efficiency.

edit on 21-12-2017 by bloodymarvelous because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

If goods are cheaper to buy from overseas than produced domestically then forcing domestic production via tarrifs will reduce standard of living.

Economics is not a zero sum game, there is no fixed amount of goods that will consumed that will either be produced domestically or overseas. Imported goods are a net gain to the US economy.

Many goods and services are inefficient to be bought from abroad or the the US will have a comparative advantage producing. Producing these goods and taking advantage of cheaper overseas production will increase standard of living.

Tarrifs just make goods more expensive. If a overseas government wants to subsidise production to import to the US then they are making goods cheaper for US consumers. The only areas to be concerned with are industry's that are of strategic importance and have high start up costs.

Policy should concentrate on maximising employment domestically. With a floating exchange rate this will help balance the current account, but in way that improves standards of living not diminishes it.

All of which again is irrelevant to the point I was making which is that interest on government debt allows a current account deficit.

edit on 22-12-2017 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I hope we're not derailing this thread, since it is supposed to be about central banking.

I just .... can't leave such rubbish uncontested.


originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

If goods are cheaper to buy from overseas than produced domestically then forcing domestic production via tarrifs will reduce standard of living.


On one end. Yes.

It will reduce it in one way, and improve it in another.

Business is not the art of never losing money. It is the art of making more than you lose.

Economics is not the art of never reducing any aspect of quality of life. It is the art of improving it by more than you reduce it.

You're failing to describe how it is that reducing wages will not lead to more diminishment of quality of life, than reducing prices (of manufactured goods, but not other things like healthcare) will improve it.






Economics is not a zero sum game, there is no fixed amount of goods that will consumed that will either be produced domestically or overseas. Imported goods are a net gain to the US economy.



It's not zero sum. But it's also not always greater than zero sum either.

There's no "something for nothing". You are always trading something away to get something else back. There are favorable trades (where you get more than you lose - ie. "greater than zero sum") and there are unfavorable trades (where you lose more than you get - ie "less than zero sum")

For production levels, the number of goods produced is determined by looking at the price of the goods, and the funds available to buy them. If the price drops, but the funds available to buy them drops by still more, then you end up with fewer total products produced. Not more.

And scarcity of demand has been the defining economic problem of this era. It wasn't a problem in the 90's, before the free trade agreements.




Many goods and services are inefficient to be bought from abroad or the the US will have a comparative advantage producing. Producing these goods and taking advantage of cheaper overseas production will increase standard of living.


With tariffs, you can tariff selectively. You don't have to tariff those things which you WANT to import.

You can't do that with currency adjustment. With currency adjusstment it's all or nothing. Either everything is getting the subsidy/tarrif, or nothing is.




Tarrifs just make goods more expensive.


No. They don't JUST make goods more expensive.

They simultaneously bolster wages.

There are two effects here.

1- A rise in the cost of goods.

2- A rise in the funds available to buy those goods.

However, because of the crowding effect I pointed out earlier (where certain costs, such as healthcare don't scale down to accommodate a lower wage) - The rise in funds available is greater than the rise in cost of goods.

This is an example of a "greater than zero sum" situation. While the situation you are describing is a "less than zero sum" situation.




Policy should concentrate on maximising employment domestically. With a floating exchange rate this will help balance the current account, but in way that improves standards of living not diminishes it.


You say that as though it is actually possible.

If Ford sets up a factory in Mexico, that factory will have EVERY technological advantage that Ford's USA factories have.

But the one in Mexico has cheaper workers.

Nothing can possibly be done to offset that. If the American factory managers invent a new way to improve their own efficiency, the factories in Mexico will get it implemented the next day.




All of which again is irrelevant to the point I was making which is that interest on government debt allows a current account deficit.


Which is true. But further points out why the deficit is a bad thing.



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I'm going to try and break this down a little more.

Suppose I'm a factory worker who makes 2,000 a month. And for simplicity, let us divide my fixed costs into 4 categories.

1 - Housing --- we'll say I pay 400 in rent per month
2- Electricity - We'll got with 100
3- Healthcare - 100
4- Food. 200

For a total of 800 in fixed costs, and 1,200 in disposable income.

Let's say I am an avid collector of "widgets", which cost 50 each. And that is what I like to buy with my disposable income. I can buy 24 widgets per month with my income.

Now, let's say someone gets the fancy idea of improving my "quality of life" by lowering tariffs so we can start importing cheaper widgets made by very cheap workers from Bangladesh which only cost 25.

Unfortunately, the product my factory sells also competes with factories from Bangladesh, and so sadly my own income has to be cut in half in order to remain competitive. Now I only make 1,000 per month.

Going through my fixed costs:

1- Housing. You can't really import houses. Maybe some building materials can be imported, but construction is done by domestic workers who don't have to compete with workers from Bangladesh.

My housing bill will probably stay pretty close to where it was: 400 per month.

2- Electricity. America gets most of its powergrid from domestic sources such as coal and natural gas. Whatever we do import we were never putting tariffs on that product in the first place.

My electricity bill will probably stay at 100

3- Healthcare. Healthcare is a locally provided service. American doctors will not need to compete with doctors in Bangladesh.

My healthcare bill will probably stay at about 100.

4 - Food. American is pretty much self sufficient here. With farm subsidies, American corn is actually cheaper than any other country on Earth already. Even Mexican corn can't compete with it.

My food bill will probably stay at about 200.

My fixed costs were for the most part unaffected by free trade. So they still come to about 800. We could say 700, ti be generous, because some building materials or raw production goods for corn might be cheaper, even though those things only make up a small fraction of the overall price.

So now I make 1,000, and my fixed costs are 700. That leaves 300 left in disposable income. Widgets now cost 25 each so I can buy a whopping 12 widgets!!!

Yay for quality of life improvements!!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Hazardous1408
George W Bush was the greatest president in American history. He got more of his administration's agenda completed than any other president in our history. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"


Bush was a tyrant. Need I remind anyone about the Patriot Act? You know, that one bill that essentially began the NWO.



posted on Dec, 23 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Tarrifs make goods more expensive. If you raised the price if something imported so that it is produced domestically then you have made the good more expensive. Even if wages increase in nominal terms they will not make up the real cost increase because the good was cheaper to make overseas in the first place.

This is one of the few areas you will find almost complete agreement amongst economists as has been understood since Ricardo.

Imports are a net gain for the economy. They are real goods that people want and can be produced cheaper overseas. The correct policy is to maximise domestic production and let the exchange rate take care of the rest.

If it's cheaper to make cars in Mexico then make them there and do something else instead. Let the exchange rate find its natural level based on demand for US dollars.

Paying interest on government debt maintains that demand for dollars as overseas agents are more willing to hold dollars as a future demand on the US economy.

The current account deficit becomes a problem only if it is out of scale with growth in the economy and those future demands will have a negative impact on future standards of living.

The only justification for tarrifs is to protect key industries that have high start up costs. (Ship building for example). Once these are gone it's very expensive to set up again if the economic situation changes.



posted on Dec, 23 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Fallacy of composition error.

Your example only works if you are the only purchaser of widgets. Everyone else who buys widgets is better off.

Individuals may benefit or lose out from free trade. On aggregate more people win. The key to good economic policy is making sure that those who lose out have other opportunities.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join