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.

 

Russian analyst: U.S. will collapse next year

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


"Having guns is great but as always using them when someone is shooting back is very, very different. As for 'most armed' nation there are plenty of guns but per capita the Swiss are certainly have a far larger percentage of citizens which are actually trained in the use of weapons."

Are you suggesting if Americans are shot at, they will give up Gulf War I style? Of course your not. As for the well armed Swiss, who cares? The list of nations who don't consider the Swiss a military threat of any kind what so ever would go on and on and on.

If someone is shooting at you and you have a gun and you don't shoot back, your an idiot. And a dead one at that.

One thing is for sure, if I am ever shot at, I sure hope I have some Swiss in the fox hole with me so we can blast our way out.

This might come as a shock to you but there are afew, maybe 6 or 7, Americans that know how to take a gun apart and put it back together.

But the Swiss probably do it faster so point for you.

"Actually after the US and Yemen ( very small country, few people) , Iraq is the country with the highest ratio of weapons to citizens. This basically means that even a very well armed citizenry are not as much use against modern armed forces as is commonly suggested."

So we should fear armed Iraqis more then armed Americans? Or I can spin it the other way; if the private citizen is such a non-threat, how do you explain Afghanistan defending itself (out lasting) two super powers in a row? Maybe they were trained by the Swiss?? Maybe so. Point for you.

"Who cares when you just level the house with a tank shell or a few rpg's? Who enters a house to get shot with a 357?"

Who said anything about waiting to be blown to bits in their house? Where did you see that written on this thread? Weird.

"Nuclear war ( even a full scale one) wont destroy the planet and wont kill but a small percentage of it's people. The Russians , or other nuclear power, wont try to take Alaska BEFORE the nuclear exchange."

A full scale nuclear attack won't kill but a small percentage of people. And your really being serious about that, aren't you? Wow. Props to you for being an off the chart optimist. Waaaaay off the chart. But then you seem to suggest that after the teeny weeny nuclear war that only kills afew people or so, HERE COMES RUSSIA! Who does that make sense to?

"Silly article's makes for generally silly discussions."

And the pot calls the kettle black, lol!

"Maybe if the author included the fact that these things will happen after a nuclear exchange of sorts"

Now wait a minute. I thought nukes only killed afew people. You said it; I quoted it. Your all over the place. If a nuke blows up a city, it will impact the entire world. But your randomness makes it impossible to determine if you understand that. Are you interested in right or wrong or do you just want to type random responses?

"I suspect not but since Apache's don't spend much time in the air on any given day ( measured in tens of minutes) they are not the omnipotent threat you make them."

There you go again. Where on this thread did ANYONE suggest how long an Apache would be in the air? PS-We do have another weapons! lol They are not going to use Apaches just because I said so on ATS. And nobody said how long they would be in the air except you. But you seem to elude they are worthless after, what, 30 minutes? 40 minutes? Did you think I was suggesting only one or two Apaches and one or two Blackhawks on the entire Texas border? Has anyone on ATS ever seen a line by line punking more bizarre? And still, there's more....

"Radiation isn't anywhere near the threat it's commonly painted to be..."

Chernobyl, this is Houston. The twilight zone has landed. Can someone in Japan remind me what the death toll was after the two atomic attacks? Couldn't have been that many, right?

...and the US will not attack 'the world' with weapons it desperately needs against Russia and it's allies.

Let me get this straight, the US will not fire it's irrelevant nukes at Russia if Russia invades Alaska. Why wouldn't we. After all, the global impact is minimal, right?

Wait a minute, wait a minute; who said the US planned on attacking "the world"? You keep suggesting things that NOBODY ever said. What are you doing??? Just about every nation on this planet will at least attempt to defend itself if attacked. If a super power is invaded by a nation, you bet they would fire nukes! Why you think that nukes and the resulting radiation are a minuscule threat is beyond normal comprehension.

Are you an America hater? Are you annoyed that the US would even dare to defend itself? Who knows? You opinion about nukes and radiation are the most bizarre opinions I have ever, ever seen on ATS.

If I dare to read between the lines, it seems like you don't like the idea of America defending itself from Mexican crossovers or any threat from Russia.

When I mentioned 357s and AK47s, why did you assume I thought we would all be holed up in our houses waiting for the RPGs to blow us all up? I sure didn't say it but you sure eluded it in your line by line punking.

You made a number of assumptions in your continuous points and pretty much all of them are completely bizarre.

"Which were never based in reality. Mutual destruction were never assured or meant to do anything but pacify a very ignorant public."

Who wants to school him about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Then again, he marginalizes nukes so how do you rationalize with someone so wrong?

It just keeps going. I am about to hit my character cap.

"Careful about what you think you know. "

Unbelievable. He really believes himself. He really, truly does.

In his mind, his opinions really do make perfect sense.

Nukes and radiation.
No big deal.

Everything else is just the sprinkles on top.

Try not to line item punk people in the future.

It's not your thing.




posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The South shall rise once again!! While the continuity of the shadow underground government with its war machine will stay in tack, The people and I'm sure regions will revolt against the corrupt evil government that has already reared its ugly head. We know their are many places that have reported U.N. troops being based in the U.S. and they are not here for anything good. I know many have already prophesied the fall of our government because of economics this year and I'm one that can see the writing on the wall.

It is all part of the plan to make Americans beg for the new world order and world bank to come to the rescue. Obama is just another puppet to dig us deeper in the hole.

If you think for a second that our ridiculous government will save this economy then you had better go see a doctor. Warren Buffet has even said that the economy has fallen off the cliff and he should have held onto his cash.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genfinity
Are you suggesting if Americans are shot at, they will give up Gulf War I style? Of course your not.


I am not suggesting that people will always just 'give up' but that it takes military training ( good training at that ) to return fire when fired upon. You can go look up post second and first world war reports to discover just how large a percentage of men in uniform failed to return fire in combat.


As for the well armed Swiss, who cares? The list of nations who don't consider the Swiss a military threat of any kind what so ever would go on and on and on.


But then no one invades them either despite their supposed lack of anything. What i am trying to indicate is that the Swiss still use a conscription service which makes their entire male population reservist WITH guns. Few nations can both claim that and allow their soldiers to return home with their weapons.


If someone is shooting at you and you have a gun and you don't shoot back, your an idiot. And a dead one at that.


The type of comment one expects from someone who do not study combat history.


One thing is for sure, if I am ever shot at, I sure hope I have some Swiss in the fox hole with me so we can blast our way out.


I don't care about nationality but about the level of training a individual have received.


This might come as a shock to you but there are afew, maybe 6 or 7, Americans that know how to take a gun apart and put it back together.

But the Swiss probably do it faster so point for you.


Keeping weapons operable under extended combat conditions is certainly a worthwhile skill but not really required considering the life expectancy of militia members in combat...


So we should fear armed Iraqis more then armed Americans? Or I can spin it the other way; if the private citizen is such a non-threat, how do you explain Afghanistan defending itself (out lasting) two super powers in a row?


Afghanistan has survived more than two imperial powers but that is in my opinion somewhat beside the point. What i am trying to say here is that martial culture and the ability to endlessly accept casualties are as if not more important than simply having tons of guns that few have the ability or fortitude to use. As can be seen from the situation in Iraq a relatively heavily armed population did not result in running gun battles all over the country because they do not work ( far too high casualties; modern body armor , air support and IFV heavy weapons ) against forces armed and armored as modern invaders are likely to be.


Maybe they were trained by the Swiss?? Maybe so. Point for you.
Who said anything about waiting to be blown to bits in their house? Where did you see that written on this thread? Weird.


Home self defense weapons are short range weapons that will not do much but invite automatic, or heavy, weapons fire in street or other battles.


A full scale nuclear attack won't kill but a small percentage of people. And your really being serious about that, aren't you? Wow. Props to you for being an off the chart optimist. Waaaaay off the chart. But then you seem to suggest that after the teeny weeny nuclear war that only kills afew people or so, HERE COMES RUSSIA! Who does that make sense to?


It's not that i look forward to a world where North America and most of Europe is economically devastated but at least i understand that a nuclear war wont result in nuclear winter or the type of other nonsense that leads people to believe that i can't and won't happen. Worse case scenarios from the eighties has Russia and the US suffering perhaps 200 million casualties ( dead or incapacitated trough radiation/disease or starvation) between them which, would be about the same today, constitutes less than 3% of the worlds population. If one add's tactical and strategic weapons use in Europe and perhaps a escalation to China and Japan you would still likely end up with a world population that has not been reduced much below 6 billion people. If you do the math it's unlikely that the third world war will lead to the deaths of a larger percentage of the world population than world war two did.


According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE
AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed
to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase
both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . .
[FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement
fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of
which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in
World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets
recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent
could be devastating.

www.tfxib.com...



The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24

The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...



Some critics of Pentagon policies argue that the U.S. is no longer capable of fulfilling these three imposing tasks, especially that of deterring a Soviet nuclear attack. Major General George Keegan Jr., recently retired as the Air Force's chief of intelligence, has charged that "the Soviets are capable of initiating, waging, surviving and emerging with a unique advantage from a global [nuclear] war." As evidence, he points to the Russians' allegedly extensive civil defense program

www.time.com...


So perhaps you can see which side i think would have come off worse?

This is not what anyone WANTS and what i am trying to illustrate is that people who do maths ( the type that are in charge of the world ) can and have planned for it.


Now wait a minute. I thought nukes only killed afew people. You said it; I quoted it. Your all over the place.


A few people in the world yes; are you not familiar with the power of nuclear weapons?


If a nuke blows up a city, it will impact the entire world. But your randomness makes it impossible to determine if you understand that. Are you interested in right or wrong or do you just want to type random responses?


Nuking a city doesn't affect the world in the classical sense but it surely does in the modern globalized economic sense. As it does not have to i am not much concerned and that is why i am discussing a global nuclear exchange where hundreds of cities on three continents might be laid waste.


There you go again. Where on this thread did ANYONE suggest how long an Apache would be in the air? PS-We do have another weapons! lol They are not going to use Apaches just because I said so on ATS. And nobody said how long they would be in the air except you. But you seem to elude they are worthless after, what, 30 minutes? 40 minutes? Did you think I was suggesting only one or two Apaches and one or two Blackhawks on the entire Texas border? Has anyone on ATS ever seen a line by line punking more bizarre? And still, there's more....


You were the one that brought up the use of individual tactical weapons systems as if they are worthy of discussion. I apologise for trying to illustrate that not even 'vaunted' Apache's are without their problems.


Chernobyl, this is Houston. The twilight zone has landed. Can someone in Japan remind me what the death toll was after the two atomic attacks? Couldn't have been that many, right?


They death toll in Japan were high due to circumstances that are largely preventable by measures instituted by the few countries who have bothered to prepare themselves. As for my original ACTUAL claim about radiation ( not about ALL nuclear weapon effects) Chernobyl has so far killed:

Continued



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

4. What are the major health effects for exposed populations?

Thyroid scan on childrenThere have been at least 1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the accident occurred., which is far higher than normal. The thyroid gland of young children is particularly susceptible to the uptake of radioactive iodine, which can trigger cancers, treatable both by surgery and medication.Health studies of the registered cleanup workers called in (so-called “liquidators”) have failed to show any direct correlation between their radiation exposure and an increase in other forms of cancer or disease. The psychological affects of Chernobyl were and remain widespread and profound, and have resulted for instance in suicides, drinking problems and apathy.

www.iaea.org...



“Populations still living unofficially in the abandoned lands around Chernobyl may actually have a lower health risk from radiation than they would have if they were exposed to the air pollution health risk in a large city such as nearby Kiev,” Smith wrote in the journal BioMedCentral Public Health.

His study focused on long-term health risks to survivors who received high but non-lethal doses of radiation.

It excluded the cases of 134 firemen and helicopter pilots who suffered acute radiation sickness, leading to death in around 40 cases.

www.mosnews.com...


So so far Chernobyl has killed around forty people while being just about the worse type of nuclear accident one can expect. As for the general risks associated with far less dangerous nuclear fallout :


HOW HOT ARE DR. HAUGHTON'S RUNNING SHOES?

The running shoes of Dr. Dennis Haughton of Phoenix, pictured on page 1 of The Medical Tribune, July 23, 1986, were said to radiate at a rate "over 100 times background" afterbeing in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident.This report is typical of media accounts, which give the radiation rate in units of "times normal."How hot is that? It is impossible to say.The background in Colorado is "2.5 times normal" if Texas is defined as normal (250 vs 100 mrem/yr).An area near the Library of Congress receives"700 times normal" if normal is defined as what Congress allows at the boundary line of a nuclear power plant.A whole year's exposure of "50 times normal" is within NRC standards for occupational exposure.These figures refer to total body irradiation. The volume of tissue irradiated is crucially important.The safest available treatment for hyperthyroidism -- radioactive iodine -- delivers up to 10,000 rads (10 million millirads) to the thyroid, and about 14 rads to the body. Also, the duration of exposure is important. A dose of "100 times background" for a week might subject a person to the dose he would have received from living in Colorado for a year (where the cancer rate is lower than elsewhere.) A meaningful report of radiation exposure would give the dose (rems, rads, etc). But journalists seem to be more interested in alarming the public than in enlightening them.

www.physiciansforcivildefense.org...



Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated regions of the former Soviet Union.

At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the average natural global dose, or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people (20 mSv).

No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses. This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...



In his presentation at the DDP meeting in Las Vegas, Myron Pollycove, M.D., of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission highlighted the following:

* Aging and cancer result from DNA alterations caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Normal oxidative metabolism causes at least a million such changes per cell every day. Normal background radiation causes about two.
* Low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates the body's enzymatic repair mechanisms. DNA repair is tripled by exposure to 25 cGy (25 rads). A tenfold increases in background radiation from 1 mGy/yr to 10 mGy/yr stimulates overall DNA damage control by 20%.
* Total body irradiation or TBI (e.g. 150 r in fractionated doses in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) has improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone.
* TBI in mice, especially when combined with chronic caloric restriction, prevents or causes regression of spontaneous mammary tumors.
* Dr. Pollycove summarized a number of epidemiologic studies that support hormesis, involving populations in areas with high background radiation; survivors of the atomic bombs or radiation accidents; nuclear workers; and patients exposed to multiple fluoroscopies. He also presented experimental evidence of life extension effects, immune stimulation, suppression of malignant transformation of cells, slowing of tumor growth, and reduction in number of metastases.

``All statistically significant adequately controlled epidemiologic studies,'' he writes, ``confirm low doses of radiation are associated with reduced mortality from all causes, decreased cancer mortality, and may be protective against accidental high- dose radiation.'' In US nuclear shipyard workers, for example, those with a cumulative exposure between 0.5 and 40 cSV or rem had a standardized mortality ratio 16 standard deviations below that of matched nonexposed workers for all causes, and 4 SDs less than nonexposed workers for all malignancies.

www.ddponline.org...



Let me get this straight, the US will not fire it's irrelevant nukes at Russia if Russia invades Alaska. Why wouldn't we. After all, the global impact is minimal, right?


Russia would not invade US soil before a nuclear exchange. American nuclear weapons are not irrelevant but i can not see them used on nations other than Russia and it's immediate allies.


Wait a minute, wait a minute; who said the US planned on attacking "the world"? You keep suggesting things that NOBODY ever said. What are you doing???


You talked about world wide devastation trough a nuclear war which is only possible if the nuclear powers attacks random cities on random continents. Perhaps i should more directly respond to your statements by presuming that you do not in fact know much anything about these subject matters?


Just about every nation on this planet will at least attempt to defend itself if attacked. If a super power is invaded by a nation, you bet they would fire nukes!


Very few nations have the means to defend themselves from either conventional stand off nuclear weaponry or Ballistic missiles. Again i did not suggest that invasions of each other's soil would happen before nuclear arsenals where largely exhausted.


Why you think that nukes and the resulting radiation are a minuscule threat is beyond normal comprehension.


A miniscule threat to humanity in general; unless you think a few hundred million deaths in North America, Europe and European Russia means the destruction of mankind. As for the radiation threat it is MASSIVELY overstated but perhaps you will just keep defending conventional knowledge until i produce the well known information that proves how large a misrepresentation that is.


Are you an America hater?


Here we go. I am not surprised that you have managed to, somehow, illogically, reduce all my claims to something simplistic enough for you to grasp. Well done on proving that you can't be trusted with making the connection between information and conclusions.


Are you annoyed that the US would even dare to defend itself? Who knows?


I never said or suggested that the US national security state would not see America completely and utterly destroyed ( and largely depopulated) before considering surrender that is not on acceptable terms to them. These people have never cared about American security and have done little or nothing to ensure it.


You opinion about nukes and radiation are the most bizarre opinions I have ever, ever seen on ATS.


I am surprise by that as these are not in fact very controversial claims.
Sure if you still believe popular mythology and have never researched any of these issues independently you can believe that nuclear weapons = end of the world but equating that level of acceptable ignorance with what regularly goes on on ATS forums is funny indeed. Have you BEEN to the paranormal sections lately or at all?

Continued



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

If I dare to read between the lines, it seems like you don't like the idea of America defending itself from Mexican crossovers or any threat from Russia.


Please don't strain yourself by trying to read between lines when the lines itself are apparently beyond your means. I very much like the idea of countries defending themselves from foreign aggression which is why i am advocating a US that is far better armed and defended than the one you are in fact attempting a defense of. Funny how you have manged to come to exact opposite conclusion of what i have said here and elsewhere on Ats.


When I mentioned 357s and AK47s, why did you assume I thought we would all be holed up in our houses waiting for the RPGs to blow us all up? I sure didn't say it but you sure eluded it in your line by line punking.


Home self defense weaponry are absolutely useless in the hands of untrained citizens whether they are fighting build up areas or in their own homes. Sure they are great against similarly badly trained thieves but the idea that your pistol is useful at tactical ranges in the hands of those who mostly have them is as funny as it is distressing.


You made a number of assumptions in your continuous points and pretty much all of them are completely bizarre.


I can understand that they may seem seem that way from your uninformed perspective. If you have specific questions about any i would be willing to discuss them in as much details as you care to.


Who wants to school him about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Then again, he marginalizes nukes so how do you rationalize with someone so wrong?


What about the Cuban missile crisis? The Us had a overwhelming strategic superiority that the USSR saw a chance to undermine by one bold , perhaps more desperate, move into Cuba. There was never a chance for mutually assured destruction in the Cuban missile crisis; the destruction would have been very much limited to the USSR and western Europe.


It just keeps going. I am about to hit my character cap.


So you think this is a 'long' 'discussion'?


Unbelievable. He really believes himself. He really, truly does.

In his mind, his opinions really do make perfect sense.


Well it wouldn't really be possible to defend that which doesn't make sense hence my complete reliance on sources.
If you don't want to take my word for the fact that i can substantiated my claims as so far stated you will just have to try to defend the convention i used to believe in.


Nukes and radiation.
No big deal.Everything else is just the sprinkles on top.


Sadly in terms of a world population of well over 6 billion a few hundred million wont spell the end of humanity. It's a tragic thing but the world survived the devastation resulting from 75 million deaths out of a world population of 2.3 billion. In fact according to the 'save the environment' people the world is overpopulated any ways so perhaps the survivors will be better off now that the worse polluters have blown themselves to kingdom come?


Try not to line item punk people in the future.

It's not your thing.


Been doing it this way for three years and far better informed people than yourself have had like unsolicited advice.

In conclusion feel free to keep presuming that i'm 'punking'; perhaps the truth wont escape you for too long?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
This is really old news, and it's not going to happen. I don't know why people around here who have no economic background are claiming the downfall of America.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
This is really old news, and it's not going to happen. I don't know why people around here who have no economic background are claiming the downfall of America.


Why does one require a economy background to understand that the dollary hegemony of the last half century has come and gone? Do you not see what is happening to the dollar led world financial system? Do you not begin to grasp how sick the American economy, and dependent the rest of them, must be to create such turmoil in countries all around the world?

What will it take for 'defenders of the faith' such as yourself to understand the the decline of the American economy has been apparent for serious investigators since the mid 70's and that the last thirty years have been a elaborate charade based on economic intimidation/terrorism and military and political intervention?


In six years, the boomer vanguard
will start collecting Medicare. Our nation
has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of
obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on
a completely meaningless fiscal metric—“the”
federal deficit—censored and studiously ignored
long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically
coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit
levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to
the baby boomers.
Countries can and do go bankrupt. The United
States, with its $65.9 trillion fiscal gap, seems
clearly headed down that path. The country needs
to stop shooting itself in the foot. It needs to adopt
generational accounting as its standard method
of budgeting and fiscal analysis, and it needs to
adopt fundamental tax, Social Security, and
healthcare reforms that will redeem our children’s
future.

research.stlouisfed.org...



This recovery has been fueled to a very large extent by a housing bubble, just as the second half of
the nineties cycle was fueled by a stock bubble. Since 1997, average house prices have risen by more
than 50 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Historically, house prices have moved at approximately
the same pace as the overall rate of inflation.1 This unprecedented run-up has not been associated
with extraordinary population or income growth, both of which have been below their average pace
for the post-war years since 2000. It is also not associated with any new restrictions on supply, as
housing construction was at near record levels over the period 2003-2005. The run-up in house sale
prices was also not associated with any extraordinary increase in rents, which rose only slightly more
rapidly than the overall rate of inflation over this period. In short, the run-up in house prices cannot
be explained except as a speculative bubble.

This bubble fueled the economy directly through its impact on the housing sector and indirectly
through the impact that housing wealth had on consumption. Housing construction and sales
account for more than six percent of GDP. The run-up in prices has led to a near doubling of sales
of new and existing homes since the mid-nineties. It has also led to record nationwide vacancy rates
for both rental and owner occupied housing. In past downturns housing investment has fallen by
30-40 percent. The sector has never seen as much overbuilding as it has experienced in the current
cycle. Also, with the huge baby boom cohort now entering its retirement years, demand for housing
should be shrinking relative to the size of the population in the years ahead. Based on past patterns,
it is reasonable to expect a drop in output in the housing sector from its 2005 peaks of at least 40
percent. It should reach this bottom by the end of 2007 or early 2008 at the latest.
The wealth effect created by the housing bubble fueled an extraordinary surge in consumption over
the last five years, as savings actually turned negative. (The country’s demographics, with most of the
baby boom cohort still in its prime saving years, is heavily tilted toward saving.)

The run-up in prices created $5 trillion in excess housing wealth. Conventional estimates of the size of the housing wealth
effect imply that this wealth would have generated an additional $200-$300 billion of consumption
(1.6-2.3 percent of GDP).
It is plausible that the impact of this bubble wealth was actually considerably larger than the
conventional estimates imply. Historically, the saving rate in the United States had averaged close to
eight percent of disposable income. The savings rate began to decline sharply in the nineties, at least
partially in response to the stock bubble, although other factors likely played a role. However, even
assuming a baseline savings rate of just four percent, the current rate of -1 percent implies an
amount of excess consumption of almost $480 billion annually, given current income levels. This
higher figure is consistent with data showing that households were borrowing more than $600
billion annually against their home equity in 2005.


www.cepr.net...


And if you keep digging you will find that the bubble economy of the 90's directly created the conditions that are currently leading to the banking collapse. What is in fact the most suprising thing of all is how this reversed ponzi scheme have keep going for so long since the collapse of the Dollar gold standard when the French demanded gold, for their hoarded dollars, back in the 70's.

And no, i don't 'like this' situation ( being anti American national security state/imperialism is only seen as being anti-merican citizens by self serving fools) but it has been unavoidable for a very, very long time.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I think Igor is an idiot, but I do think it's very possible the US will break up in the early '10s.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join