Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

World top bankers warn of dire consequences if U.S. defaults

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
With regard to the notion of saddling our progeny with a massive debt, that will definitely be the case whether this collapse happens now, or in the distant future. In addition to this massive sovereign debt, the US citizenry will also pass along climate change, pollution, an ailing infrastructure, high crime rates, a failing educational system, etc. And many of those inheritances are much more of immediate concern than some immense artificial number that supposedly represents how much the US government owes to its citizens and foreign entities.


Dex




posted on Oct, 13 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Since the bailout, while the US cointinues to sink into debt, both the government and the public, ICBs are getting richer and richer.

Default is exactly what should happen.

Then abandon the Fed Res currency, issue a new U.S. current, all savings under 250K, with a one to one trade off, and then devalue the fed res currency on a ten to one ratio, 10 fed res dollars for 1 US Treasury dollar.

And we pay back the banks and the world what we really owe them.

And re-redistribute back the wealth of the U.S. to the people.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Default and lets see what happens. It's probably about time the end result of all this madness is seen anyway. If you don't have good investments in cash and gold you'll be hurt but, well, if you live in America with the internet available to you and you didn't see it coming, it reveals another problem that exists in America.

edit on 14-10-2013 by MadMax9 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-10-2013 by MadMax9 because: the sky is blue



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by DexterRiley
 


Perhaps, given a closed financial system that functions in a steady-state, this may be true. However, the global economy is not a closed system.

Considering that we are yet to develop any inter-planetary trade, the global economy is very much a closed system. However, it is not operating in a steady-state and continues to grow. So a global economic collapse is not an inevitability now. It has sometime left.

However since all modern economic growth is dependent on availability on fossil fuels and that itself is reaching a peak, the global economy can no longer grow unless some, the currently high energy consuming parts, collapse first allowing the energy to be available for the others, currently low energy consuming parts. Since those controlling capital, wherever they live, are dependent on continuous growth in some part or the other for their investments to generate increasing returns, it is inevitable, for them, that the high energy consuming parts of the world collapse economically today, so that their interests are served.

There are any number of other events that could occur to cause the system to fail in a spectacular fashion long before the US ultimately defaults on its debts. For instance, global climate change (whether it's anthropogenic or not) could alter the environment in such a way that famine kills a significant portion of the world's population. Or a global pandemic could produce a similar change. In either case, a strong US could be the difference between maintaining our society and culture or devolving into tribal and regional chaos.

A strong US is needed for the US and perhaps Western Europe. The rest of the world is better off with a weak US or no US.

In addition to this massive sovereign debt, the US citizenry will also pass along climate change, pollution, an ailing infrastructure, high crime rates, a failing educational system, etc. And many of those inheritances are much more of immediate concern than some immense artificial number that supposedly represents how much the US government owes to its citizens and foreign entities.

That is an accurate statement of priorities for someone who cannot leave the US or whose safety and security are dependent on a general level of affluence around. But for those that are in control of the US, those are not immediate priorities. Those in control of Iraq today are safe and secure regardless of the general well being of people in Iraq. Not sure why it would be different for those in control of the US.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   

jrod
Maybe we need a default so We the people can take our country back from those who got us into this mess.

My understanding is a default is inevitable unless we can continually raise the ceiling.


It's going to happen sooner or later anyway.

Continually raising the debt ceiling is lunacy. Anyone who runs a home knows the one basic fact, you cannot borrow yourself out of debt, or borrow more and more so you can pay back more and more to sustain that borrowing...it's like trying to heal a gaping wound, not with a bandaid, but by cutting out the gaping wound with a knife...the original wound is indeed 'gone', but now you have an even larger and more damaging wound to take care of...so they reach for the knife yet again..and so on.

You're gonna be down to the bone pretty quickly this way, and that is the way it is going with continually raising the ceiling.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 

Government debt is public savings. Raising the debt ceiling is allowing the public to save and lend more to the government.

That in itself is not a problem as long as the government revenues are expected to grow in future to keep the promises made until today. However if future revenues cannot increase at current/optimal tax rates, future payments can be met only by inflating the currency.

Default or inflation? Now or later? Not a pleasant choice either way.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
 


Observor
reply to post by DexterRiley
 


Perhaps, given a closed financial system that functions in a steady-state, this may be true. However, the global economy is not a closed system.

Considering that we are yet to develop any inter-planetary trade,

I think there are probably quite a few visitors to this website that might disagree with you on that.



the global economy is very much a closed system. However, it is not operating in a steady-state and continues to grow. So a global economic collapse is not an inevitability now. It has sometime left.

I was referring to the global economic system in the context of its susceptibility to outside events that are not directly related to trade.


However since all modern economic growth is dependent on availability on fossil fuels and that itself is reaching a peak,
I won't argue with the peak oil theory in general. However, I think the peak oil theory needs to be re-evaluated in the face of supposed new fossil fuel discoveries in North America in the form of oil shale and as a result of fracking. I agree with your assertion that fossil fuels are critical to economic growth at all levels. However, if these reported oil and natural gas reserves prove out, there will be sufficient input to the global economic system to ensure growth for some time to come.


the global economy can no longer grow unless some, the currently high energy consuming parts, collapse first allowing the energy to be available for the others, currently low energy consuming parts.
Well that sounds good in theory. However, what happens in the interim between the time the high energy consumers' economies collapse and the low energy consuming economies ramp up their usage? That would likely take some time, not to mention the fact that those low energy consuming entities tend to be politically and economically unstable. (Even more unstable than the dysfunctional US government.
)


Since those controlling capital, wherever they live, are dependent on continuous growth in some part or the other for their investments to generate increasing returns, it is inevitable, for them, that the high energy consuming parts of the world collapse economically today, so that their interests are served.
"Increasing returns" is the operative phrase here. The greed of those in control of capital knows no bounds. I'm certainly not a member of that group, so it does not benefit me, or anyone else I know, for the existing system to collapse.



There are any number of other events that could occur to cause the system to fail in a spectacular fashion long before the US ultimately defaults on its debts. For instance, global climate change (whether it's anthropogenic or not) could alter the environment in such a way that famine kills a significant portion of the world's population. Or a global pandemic could produce a similar change. In either case, a strong US could be the difference between maintaining our society and culture or devolving into tribal and regional chaos.

A strong US is needed for the US and perhaps Western Europe. The rest of the world is better off with a weak US or no US.
With respect to the examples I provided, namely famine and pandemic, I think a fully functional CDC and a fully productive American farming sector would be crucial to successfully weathering those global disasters.



In addition to this massive sovereign debt, the US citizenry will also pass along climate change, pollution, an ailing infrastructure, high crime rates, a failing educational system, etc. And many of those inheritances are much more of immediate concern than some immense artificial number that supposedly represents how much the US government owes to its citizens and foreign entities.

That is an accurate statement of priorities for someone who cannot leave the US or whose safety and security are dependent on a general level of affluence around.
My statement was meant for exactly those people, of whom I am one. The American people have been mislead, lied to, and manipulated. This debt issue is a red herring. I believe that failures in the other areas I mentioned will have a much more immediate and profound impact on the citizens of the US than an exploding sovereign debt.


But for those that are in control of the US, those are not immediate priorities.
Everything that I have seen indicates that the TPTB would like for the current system to continue as it is. Massive borrowing supports massive spending. The military-industrial complex is enjoying record profits.


Those in control of Iraq today are safe and secure regardless of the general well being of people in Iraq. Not sure why it would be different for those in control of the US.
That's an interesting point. But, I believe things are different in the US. Americans are spoiled. I would wager good money that when the American public begins to feel hardship, those feelings of discontent will adversely affect the level of safety and security that the those in control can manage.

Thanks for the reply,


Dex



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Get your shít together, Amercan't, or move over and give the reigns to the Chinese.
edit on 14-10-2013 by MisterMahound because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Misterlondon
I don't think some people understand the implications if our current system were to collapse.. those of you that live in cities would be fighting for your survival., you will see the truly animalistic nature that we as humans have when we are hungry and cold.. millions of deaths and untold destruction.. your family and friends, missing.. no phones, no internet, no tv, no electricity...
This current cosy world you live in whilst you sit in your warm apartment eating whatever food you chose will be gone... most people can't survive a day without their iphone or internet connection, god help them if it really did collapse..
Yes there does need to be change, these greedy elites have constructed this system carefully and cleverly for centuries and it needs to dismantled just as carefully as it was built..
Is this going to happen.... no... so I just make the most of the system I currently live in, where there are oppertunities for anyone who is motivated enough to get of their ass and go out and get what they want, instead of bitching about what they don't have...
And I pray for the sake of the ones I love and millions of others around the world this system doesn't collapse like a house of cards...


This, many times this. There are too many people especially on ATS (really? I had higher expectations) that don't think too far ahead. Yeah, bankers screwed us, but it's the system that we use and rely on. There's a very high probability that the USD will no longer be the centralized dollar if the US defaults, and that is very problematic, not just internationally but nationally as well. There's a lot of negatives to defaulting but we can't raise the debt ceiling for obamacare.

The only real solution is to disband many government organizations, grants, and services including obamacare and to not involve ourselves in any wars as much as we can. Basically the US needs to reduce its spending considerably and not increase taxes, and focus on growth rather than stagnating it. The "teapublicans" as some may like to call them are right on this one.

There is no other way out of it, the US needs to reduce its budget considerably, and bite the bullet of not having so many "for the people" services as it does today. Basically what I'm saying is that there's no field that can remain untouched. We need a reset button but to press it would take many months and politicians that are worth a damn which we have very few of.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DexterRiley
 


I won't argue with the peak oil theory in general. However, I think the peak oil theory needs to be re-evaluated in the face of supposed new fossil fuel discoveries in North America in the form of oil shale and as a result of fracking. I agree with your assertion that fossil fuels are critical to economic growth at all levels. However, if these reported oil and natural gas reserves prove out, there will be sufficient input to the global economic system to ensure growth for some time to come.

Those "new" discoveries have been known for a long time. What is new is the fact that the oil and gas from those fields are being extracted. In way, that proves we hit peak oil (peak gas a while away). Extraction from those sources has very poor energy returns and they sources themselves don't last very long.

Well that sounds good in theory. However, what happens in the interim between the time the high energy consumers' economies collapse and the low energy consuming economies ramp up their usage? That would likely take some time, not to mention the fact that those low energy consuming entities tend to be politically and economically unstable. (Even more unstable than the dysfunctional US government.
)

Global Capital has exhausted all the low risk-high return options. It is either low risk-no returns or higher risk-high returns. A contraction in the global economy when the high energy consuming economies collapse is welcome to the global capital. It extends the available resources for a longer period and it gets to invest at very low capital valuations.

"Increasing returns" is the operative phrase here. The greed of those in control of capital knows no bounds. I'm certainly not a member of that group, so it does not benefit me, or anyone else I know, for the existing system to collapse.

"Greed" is not limited to those who control capital. The "greed" of consumers for ever cheaper products for the same quality, or ever increasing quality for the same price or of workers for ever increasing incomes for the same hours input is the same as the "greed" of the capitalist's look out for ever increasing returns on the capital.

With respect to the examples I provided, namely famine and pandemic, I think a fully functional CDC and a fully productive American farming sector would be crucial to successfully weathering those global disasters.

Unless the US is capable of and planning on engineering a global famine or global pandemic, not sure how the US is in a unique position to address them. Are you also going to invoke how a strong US is needed to repel an alien invasion?

The American people have been mislead, lied to, and manipulated.

Is it something new?

This debt issue is a red herring.

It definitely is.

I believe that failures in the other areas I mentioned will have a much more immediate and profound impact on the citizens of the US than an exploding sovereign debt.

Is there an impending global famine or pandemic?

Everything that I have seen indicates that the TPTB would like for the current system to continue as it is. Massive borrowing supports massive spending. The military-industrial complex is enjoying record profits.

Some parts of the current system will of course continue as they are. The military industrial complex is one of them. But a growing middle class that is getting ever richer is not one of them.

That's an interesting point. But, I believe things are different in the US. Americans are spoiled. I would wager good money that when the American public begins to feel hardship, those feelings of discontent will adversely affect the level of safety and security that the those in control can manage.

One thing that has an extremely low chance of happening in the US or anywhere else in the West is an armed insurrection overthrowing the system. Yes, there will be a general deterioration in the law and order, but if the state is not attempting to maintain law and order over the entire territory, but only in select regions of interest to the state, just like in Iraq, it is achievable.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I respectfully disagree... I think that if we were to default on those obligations then the Chinese would dump their notes and flood the US markets with the 3+ T in dollar denominated assets they have...

...inflation much?
D

Particularly if the Chinese can convince the world to abandon the dollar as the reserve currency there will be a multitude of dollars coming back into the US Market... this would be terrible because labor is already way to expensive, particularly in mfg... and at this point I'm not sure even gold would be a good buy..

I guess one would need to get into SWAGG
Silver Wine Art Gold & Guns ;b



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


The only real solution is to disband many government organizations, grants, and services including obamacare and to not involve ourselves in any wars as much as we can. Basically the US needs to reduce its spending considerably and not increase taxes, and focus on growth rather than stagnating it. The "teapublicans" as some may like to call them are right on this one.

The US needs to cut spending and raise taxes. There is going to be no growth in the US economy. In fact, it will continue to contract for the foreseeable future, should the US$ lose its reserve currency status.

Of course, no government will do both. So they will take the option of inflating the currency to get out of debt and finance the government.



posted on Oct, 14 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
"The entire money structured society is a false society."-Jacque Fresco



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
Observor reply to post by DexterRiley
 


Those "new" discoveries have been known for a long time. What is new is the fact that the oil and gas from those fields are being extracted. In way, that proves we hit peak oil (peak gas a while away). Extraction from those sources has very poor energy returns and they sources themselves don't last very long.


A couple of years ago, I read "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler. It was an interesting read, and it made the same point. I agree with many of the concepts presented in his book. And I find myself in the odd position of arguing in favor of Big Oil. However, I will play Devil's Advocate:

While the geological formations have been known about for many years, the estimated quantity of recoverable natural gas has been adjusted upward several times. New horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing technology make these deposits more economical to retrieve. The estimated vast quantity of these deposits, in fact, will increase supply in excess of demand, thus causing a decrease in price per cu.ft.

Currently the difference between the cost of production and proceeds from the sale of the product is obviously of sufficient magnitude to interest the petroleum industry.


Global Capital has exhausted all the low risk-high return options. It is either low risk-no returns or higher risk-high returns. A contraction in the global economy when the high energy consuming economies collapse is welcome to the global capital. It extends the available resources for a longer period and it gets to invest at very low capital valuations.


I think the Capitalists still have a few low risk-high return investments. For instance, given newly implemented technology like fracking, existing fossil fuel supplies can be extended for quite some time. Existing infrastructure can be utilized, thus extending the returns on already bought-and-paid-for equipment.

Many of these Capitalists are also risk-averse, especially when the risk is so high. A high financial loss, while unpleasant, can be weathered. A complete collapse of the well-understood status quo leads to a business environment that is impossible to predict. There is no going back.

It also seems to me that a contraction in the global economy would also lead to a reduction in the value of the existing resources. Slower sales to a contracted economy would extend the lifespan of the resource supply, but the massive profit growth desired by the Capitalists would also take longer to achieve.


"Greed" is not limited to those who control capital. The "greed" of consumers for ever cheaper products for the same quality, or ever increasing quality for the same price or of workers for ever increasing incomes for the same hours input is the same as the "greed" of the capitalist's look out for ever increasing returns on the capital.


Touche sir, touche.

After reading Kunstler's book, I became much more attune to how many ways that fossil fuels are utilized in our never-ending pursuit of "more for less." While I was aware that petroleum was used in the manufacture of plastic, it was only after I started working with a local electronics shop that I realized the sheer scope of the waste.

New flat screen televisions are manufactured with low-grade components that ensure a repair will be necessary within the first few years of use. Frequently the components in need of repair can't be fixed in the shop, and a whole new module is necessary. The cost to purchase the module and pay the repairman exceeds the cost of purchasing a newer unit with a greater feature set. The old unit would be cannibalized for working parts, but the plastic cabinet and other parts would be dumped in the landfill. Plastic recyclers are generally only interested in bottles and other plastic containers, so non-standard plastic waste goes to the dump.

On the other hand, this product sales churn forms the basis for a consumer based economy. Unfortunately, the utter squandering of Earth's natural resources is the consequence.


Unless the US is capable of and planning on engineering a global famine or global pandemic, not sure how the US is in a unique position to address them.

Well, with respect to global pandemic, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has established procedures, protocols, technology and experience that is more advanced than any other on the planet. A global economic collapse that degrades the ability of the CDC to perform its duty could have a significant negative impact on global population survivability in the event of an outbreak. Even if the CDC can't expediently find a cure, their experience with infection mitigation would likely increase the number of pandemic survivors.

In terms of famine, the agricultural output of the United States is crucial to feeding the world's population. If that agricultural output is degraded by a global economic collapse, there will be a lot of hungry people the world over. Some of the services and subsidies provided by the US government to US farmers are essential in maintaining that high agricultural output.


Are you also going to invoke how a strong US is needed to repel an alien invasion?

I don't have to. There are more than enough citizens of ATS that will make that claim for me.



Is there an impending global famine or pandemic?

As I wrote in a previous paragraph, significant reduction in US agricultural output could itself cause a famine in certain parts of the world.

A natural or genetically engineered plant blight or virulent pandemic virus is not out of the question. It doesn't take a nation-state or even a mega-corporation to create genetically modified organisms. Recently two separate teams of University scientists succeeded in creating an airborne transmittable version of the H5N1 Influenza virus. With the increasing availability of high technology apparatus to the retail market, it's only a matter of time before some wiz-kid decides to show off his ability to genetically modify e. coli to eat something other than sh*t.


Some parts of the current system will of course continue as they are. The military industrial complex is one of them. But a growing middle class that is getting ever richer is not one of them.

I'd suspect that there will be quite a few industries that will want to continue as they are. Big Oil, agro-chemical, and pornography to name a few more.

I completely agree that the middle class will not survive. The vast majority of the middle class will quickly become the newest members of the working poor. If they're still working at all. Unfortunately this decline is happening as we speak.


Dex



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Observor
Observor reply to post by DexterRiley
 

I ran out of space in the other post. And this particular topic is probably of greater interest to others on this forum.


One thing that has an extremely low chance of happening in the US or anywhere else in the West is an armed insurrection overthrowing the system. Yes, there will be a general deterioration in the law and order, but if the state is not attempting to maintain law and order over the entire territory, but only in select regions of interest to the state, just like in Iraq, it is achievable.


I seem to recall seeing this scenario in several dystopian movies that I've watched over the years: The badlands between islands of civilization. I actually hadn't considered this as a real possibility. But I see your point. If the government essentially surrenders large swaths of useless territory to revolutionaries, it can concentrate its superior firepower in the more lucrative areas. There would be little reason to control territory simply for the sake of controlling it. Valuable resources and supplies can be then be conserved.


Dex



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 



your right i think it is very apparent that world events are orchestrated by a select few.

This would mean they are looking for an escape hole,by trying to blame the innocent,by trying to depress the lie,and to transform it in a false truth.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Don't be fooled by the news outlets in the media who say the consequences, of default will hurt regular citizens,, the only people who will get hurt by the default will be the bankers and the federal reserve, only people with large significant amounts of money will get hurt, meaning the 1%, it's regular citizens who have literally have NOTHING to lose by a default , we are already broke .



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Don't be fooled by the news outlets in the media who say the consequences, of default will hurt regular citizens,, the only people who will get hurt by the default will be the bankers and the federal reserve, only people with large significant amounts of money will get hurt, meaning the 1%, it's regular citizens who have literally have NOTHING to lose by a default , we are already broke .



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Sorry for the double post, I don't know how to delete one of them



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DexterRiley
 


I think the Capitalists still have a few low risk-high return investments.

If they did we would already have seen the investments rushing there. The whole market is awash with cash and the only investments we see happening are blowing up the stock and bond market bubbles.

It also seems to me that a contraction in the global economy would also lead to a reduction in the value of the existing resources. Slower sales to a contracted economy would extend the lifespan of the resource supply, but the massive profit growth desired by the Capitalists would also take longer to achieve.

Profit growth has long stopped being the motivator for capital. The motive, unstated of course, seems to be control of ever increasing populations by the system.

Well, with respect to global pandemic, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has established procedures, protocols, technology and experience that is more advanced than any other on the planet. A global economic collapse that degrades the ability of the CDC to perform its duty could have a significant negative impact on global population survivability in the event of an outbreak. Even if the CDC can't expediently find a cure, their experience with infection mitigation would likely increase the number of pandemic survivors.

Not really sure how a global economic collapse should impede the ability of CDC to do its job. Care to connect the dots for me?

In terms of famine, the agricultural output of the United States is crucial to feeding the world's population. If that agricultural output is degraded by a global economic collapse, there will be a lot of hungry people the world over. Some of the services and subsidies provided by the US government to US farmers are essential in maintaining that high agricultural output.

Why would an economic collapse reduce the demand for food? In fact, it might help the US when food prices rise (as they always do in times of distress) and US farmers can produce for export without the government subsidy.

A natural or genetically engineered plant blight or virulent pandemic virus is not out of the question. It doesn't take a nation-state or even a mega-corporation to create genetically modified organisms. Recently two separate teams of University scientists succeeded in creating an airborne transmittable version of the H5N1 Influenza virus. With the increasing availability of high technology apparatus to the retail market, it's only a matter of time before some wiz-kid decides to show off his ability to genetically modify e. coli to eat something other than sh*t.

On the contrary, when the global economy collapses, few will have the money to research and produce such strains. A case for hoping for a collapse, not one for avoiding it





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join