BACK TO HOME PAGE SITE NAVIGATION CONTACT STORY FORUM GENERAL FORUM   Horoscope  Radio  Gallery  FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   PM's   
Log in 

Poetry Forum Index -> General board

The Wrong Time (An Ugly Storm is Brewing)

LifeVita6
  Author    Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
wanderinglost



Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 268
The Wrong Time (An Ugly Storm is Brewing)

The Wrong Time (An Ugly Storm is Brewing)

Ugh, propel me by a time machine to another generation and a more peaceful time.
An ugly storm is brewing (believe me if you think it’s bad now wait for this one to arrive).
Reading news and financial reports, I shake my head.
Trust-fund babies who’ve ruined companies with impunity, now old men in charge of the country, are bankrupting us with abandon.
God knows if their solution to this slippery slope of the diminishing/vanishing dollar will be another war. [Despite their denials, they carried it to the top of the slide, set it down and gave it that propelling shove--see the video on any of the 24/7 news broadcasts or the Internet.)]
However, the paper-now-not-tied-to-gold is already too far down the slippery slide to stop it’s head-banging fall.
Soon no tie to petro then no longer a reserve currency.
We’re doomed to repeat the miseries of the past.

Will we see bread costing more than $1000 a loaf?
Silly and impossible you say, just remember post-WWI prices in Germany (a million marks for a loaf of bread then, you see).
I’m glad I have brought no human children in to this world.
Although the initial storm path may be limited to my country, I’m afraid the aftershocks of it’s wake will be felt everywhere.
Let’s just hope that calmer heads prevail and that those old men who grew-up as trust-fund babies aren’t allow to continue to rattle sabers, or worse, draw them as a way to divert attention from their malfeasance.

I hope that I’m wrong about this brewing storm.
For I’m afraid if it arrives onshore it will bring those destructive winds that could whip up yet another war.
Anyway, I’d advise all of you to take those precautions that one must take in the face of an oncoming storm.
I’m afraid we’re all in for a very rough time.

Post Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:46 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cavewoman



Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby


IF it arrives onshore?
honey, its here... i'm related to it by blood and i tell you with ALL sincerity and utter truth... THEY DO NOT CARE!
the best we can hope for is that they die quick and soon....
_________________
" The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:25 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
wanderinglost



Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 268


Cave,

I agree that things are bad, but I'm afraid that they're going to get much, much worse. I've kept up my old habit of reading 12 major daily papers, including the Financial Times, which began when I was in D.C. I've been worried about the dollar's slide for quite some time, but the OPEC coverage yesterday and today really brought the issue to the forefront. (And the Fed Chairman insisted in his latest testimony before Congress that the dollar would remain a reserve currency. Yes, maybe for 6-12 months, but who knows how long after that, especially if OPEC decides to price oil in Euros at their meeting next month.)

Will hyper-inflation, the likes that hasn't been seen in almost 100 years, set in? Will that lead this Administration, which squandered a budget surplus and has us tettering on the verge of national bankruptcy due to the war in Iraq, to start yet another war? I hope not, but mini-me has 14 more months in office.

How will the average American, who has little or no savings, handle tripple-digit inflation, or worse? Remember that term "core inflation" is simply a convenient term of art developed by the Nixon administration-- also the administration that took us off the gold standard --to take the most volatile inflationary factors--food and energy--out of the Bureau of Labor Statistic's calculation of the Consumer Price Index, which is used to determine annual increases to entitlement programs such as military pensions, federal/military salaries, etc. Actual inflation is always much higher than the government's calculation of "core inflation" since we all have to buy food and energy.

As the dollar continues to slide, what will the Fed do if foreign governments don't keep buying Treasury notes? Americans certainly don't save and buy them in any numbers. It's been foreign governments that have been the big buyers for sometime now. Worse yet, what if those foreign governments begin dumping their dollars?

So, look around and decide what you can live without as everything begins to increase in price dramatically. I'm thinking in six months everything that you buy now (food, energy, etc.) could cost at least twice as much as now--in a year, who knows, maybe six times as much as now. (Could we see a crisis similar to what Argentina has experienced?)

Yes, the immediate impact will be in the US, but ultimately there'll be some world-wide ripple effects since the middle class emerging in India and China is nascent and, therefore, not robust enough to step in and pick up the consumer spending the world has come to depend on as it's economic juggernaut. Especially as layoffs in those countries begin (and yes there'll be layoffs in China and India--they're already happening in the clothing sectors there). Ultimately, we're all be much more vulerable if political leaders make even worse choices to try to divert public anger away from the growing economic crisis. Boy do I hope I'm wrong about everything.

wandering

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:21 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Cavewoman



Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 2056
Location: nearby


m'am... Wandering... this crap has been slowly developing over the last 100 years, in the last 10... well maybe 15 its getting to a critical point... i hear you... i understand you... i am one of?.........
yep, its scarey... but so far, the world calls you and me "chicken little"... we'll see
they're already stock piling simple water in Atlanta.... and before you jump to a conclusion that its not related... stop again, and think.... who benefits? not you, not me.... that alone should tell you something..
i don't know how to intervene, make it stop or even, a great deal of the time, how to protect myself.... used to be that if you had a shotgun on my hill back in WVa. you had pretty much covered the threat.... these days, a gun won't do you one bit of good..... that's not the threat...
advice? breathe..... and keep breathing.....
addendum (can't wait til Phoenix or Eire find this).... smile, hun, you are NOT alone.... and for that, we need to be thankful

what really boggles me is... okay (not really), this peverted plan of worldwide bankruptcy happens.... then what? who can benefit from that? and how? if we all have nothing to eat, nothing to drink and no medicine, who in God's name benefits? and how?......................... i don't understand how these creeps could profit from moral bankruptcy when preceding it will be financial devestation.... do you get it?

and yeah, i pretty much accept that total economic disaster is going to happen... why? hon, i'm 53 years old and i've been watching this garbage come for a long long long long time... not to mention the folks helping to propel it with their utter ignorance... i'm not talking about lack of concern, i'm talking about total stupidity ... in regions of the planet where education is TOTALLY available... you hear any parents lately ticked off about their kids' grades? i haven't... haven't for a long time........ its scarey... not only is the youth dumber than rocks, their parents are too.... and before anybody reads this and gets ticked... its a general statement, not a singular statement... but i do believe it... folks are getting more and more stuipd..... as long as they can get free meds and free food and virtually free rent, they don't care... and they figure those of who work are the stupid ones, stupid enough to work just to have the tax dumped in their mailbox...
war? honey, i've been fighting war since VietNam.....
you tell me..... tell me... what can I do...?
i have no children (by choice)
i try like hell to educate the children to whom i am related, i try to educate my patients and their families (i'm a nurse), i try to help my neighbors and friends... but really, let's be honest, beyond our elbows is a world of stupid, people that really don't give one rat's ass .... and who created this ? we did with our steel and medicine... we did... now... we pay
i don't know how else to think about it without going crazy
_________________
" The sorcerers in life are created within each of us" --- Lynn V. Andrews

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:40 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


Wandering...

I would call the first write a...

Sorry had to ask Deb the term

I would call the first write a slam dunk and the second one a...

Sorry had to ask her again

and the second one a three pointer

(mumbles to self about getting a refresher on sports terminology)

anyway...both posts are very good and they covered a lot of ground.

Cave...I think your post was a...hole in one (see I know some sports terms Smile ) and you asked a very good question...who would benefit? Will get to that later (perhaps in another reply to this thread)

Things are bad and getting worse.

For the moment I am going to focus on one aspect of the economy but I will be back with other aspects later.

The military and war

All anyone has to do is a little research and know a little history and it is easy to see what is coming…a worldwide depression. Can it be avoided? If people would use some common sense it could be but apparently the leaders of the world do not have any. The economy has been riding a knifes edge for at least the last thirty to forty years. If there had been no World War II the great depression would have lasted years longer than it did. With the Korean War following on the coat tails of World War II the United States was able to continue riding a wartime economy which kept the economy strong and once the Korean War was at a standstill (it is still not over) along comes Vietnam and what does this do? It helps keep the economy propped up to some degree…what happened when the United States finally pulled completely out of Vietnam…it took a few years but the economy went to hell.

I am not saying that the American economy is entirely structured around the military and war but from the late 1930’s to the mid to late 1970’s the military and war was one of the major driving factors behind the economy of the United States. If you factor in the “cold war” with the USSR (now a bunch of smaller countries) then there is no denying the military was a major force behind the economy that kept the nation going. Some people will say, “but there is a war going on now…America has troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan” and that is true but there is a difference between this war and the wars fought in the past and there is even a difference between the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (but that is another post {the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq}). In WWII the entire country or at least 99% of the country was behind it and in some way contributed to the effort to win but when Korea came around that started to fade but it was in many ways still there but by the time Vietnam rolled around that effort was just not there anymore but the “cold war” was still there helping to keep the economy propped up and since the late 1970’s we have been that knife edge and it has been razor sharp…just ask Jimmy Carter his blunder in Iran and his inability to keep a grip on the economy cost him the Presidency while Ronald Reagan was able to juggle things enough to keep the dominoes from falling. Bush senior and Clinton were able to keep that juggling act going to some degree but now there is no cold war and there is no war that the country can or will completely unite behind. What does all of this mean? There is no military or wartime economy to keep the economy of this country pumping. Franklin Roosevelt did not pull the United States out of a depression…war did.

That is just a quickie on the economics of war.

Wonderful wonderful write wandering

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:04 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
wanderinglost



Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 268


Thanks eire. As a history major in undergraduate school, I think modern pundits have too easily latched on to the theory that wars revive the economy. In truth, there are generally a multitude of factors for each war, and they are alll different with each conflict. And contrary to the general theory, wars don't often revive economies, they simply enrich a very few who were already wealthy. (I for one would argue that Europe would still be in recovery mode from WWII if it had not been for the Marshall Plan. It's hard for this generation to envision, but the devestation of that war, following on the coat tails of WWI, decimated Europe. Had US leaders at the time not had the back bone, that altruistic vision that was the Marshall Plan and that flooded Europe with the resouces to rebuild would have floundered in conference rooms and Europe would still be struggling economically.)


In general, it's a need for things that motivates most people, period. This goes for governments, since all they are is a loose alliance of people. Europen's need for natural resources (for let's face it, Europe had or was on the road to consuming most of it's own natural resources when Columbus' trips were financed by the Spanish crown) drove much of western history for the last 600 years. It would be interesting to see what Europe would look like if the resources of the Americas hadn't been discovered. I suspect it wouldn't be too pretty. (Even more bloodshed and mayhem on European soil, I believe, and much, much less wealth.)


I could go down a laundry list of factors that contributed to the two world wars and recent US conflicts. WWI, European leaders didn't strongly insist on the use of diplomacy after that minor Austro-Hungarian noble, Archduke Ferdinand, and his wife were assassinated, but rather blindly took bellicose stands based on alliances that had been forged in previous years. None believed that a military conflict would last long. (Funny, Americans north and south thought the same thing of the Civil War here.)

WWII, well didn't the Treaty of Versailles with its devistating impact on the German economy almost guarantee that a radical would arise within Germany to address the inequities of the treaty? (I think to some extent the myth of war building economies was derived from the increased factory output for military supplies in pre-war, Nazi Germany. However, the buying power of the average German hadn't increased significantly. It was government spending, based on debt, that fueled the factories and ultimately, the condition of the mark would have worsened as that debt climbed.) Had FDR not been an Anglophile, I wonder if Britain would have had to have reached an accord with Germany (no not a surrender). The US help, although our country was still a neutral party, bolstered Britain. It is known that the Brits had intel about the Japanese plans to bomb Pearl Harbor but withheld it at Churchill's insistence so that the US would be drawn in to the war. American's resourse were desperatly needed and Chruchill was willing to see the Pacific fleet destroyed so FDR could declare war on Germany and provide Britain openly with gasoline--we were still a major producer/exporter then , weapons, food and manpower. However, a decade after the stock market crash and resulting depression, the US economy was finally on the rebound before Peral Harbor drew us in to the war. The resources and manpower diverted to the European and Pacific war theaters were actually a drain on our economic recovery and American consumer power dipped during the war.

Paranoia about communism, especially after spies provided Soviets with plans and information about nuclear weapons, drove American policy through the Reagan administration. Each conflict, from Korea to Vietnam echoed the concern of American politicians that communism would proliferate (the domino theory). To some extent, America lost an opportunity to encourage the development of capitalism in Asia by not standing up to Eurpean countries re-entering the area as colonial powers following the end of WWII. (Ho-Chi Minh had been an Americaan ally during WWII. He natually joined the fight against French cololialism in the 50s. The French pulled out of the war once they had to deal with the conflict in Algiers--they didn't have the resources to fight two conflicts simultanoeously and Algiers was closer to home. Unfortunately, since the Chinese were aiding the North Vietnamese, our political fears of communism drew us in to the regiion, first as military advisers and then in an expanded role, started under Kennedy, not Johnshon by the way.)

Anyway, this is going on way too long so I'll stop my ramblings. I hope the public here can actually bring pressure to bear to stop the sabre rattling in Washington so things don't escalate. Heaven help us all if they do.

wandering



.

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:51 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
lori



Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 1454


power and money. yip. Wink like i said a few weeks ago.... bring on the better world without either. Wink
_________________
WHEN I FALL, I LOSE MY HEART AND FILL THE SPACE WITH HER..

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:54 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
wanderinglost



Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 268


Ah lori,

A utopia that will never exist because human nature won't change.

wandering

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:28 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
lori



Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 1454


erm.... thats in this life. Wink
_________________
WHEN I FALL, I LOSE MY HEART AND FILL THE SPACE WITH HER..

Post Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:16 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


Wandering,

Thanks eire. As a history major in undergraduate school, I think modern pundits have too easily latched on to the theory that wars revive the economy. In truth, there are generally a multitude of factors for each war, and they are alll different with each conflict. And contrary to the general theory, wars don't often revive economies, they simply enrich a very few who were already wealthy. (I for one would argue that Europe would still be in recovery mode from WWII if it had not been for the Marshall Plan. It's hard for this generation to envision, but the devestation of that war, following on the coat tails of WWI, decimated Europe. Had US leaders at the time not had the back bone, that altruistic vision that was the Marshall Plan and that flooded Europe with the resouces to rebuild would have floundered in conference rooms and Europe would still be struggling economically.)

No wars don’t normally revive economies of most countries involved. WWII I would say is the exception where the at least where United States is concerned and post-war Europe. Granted at the start of the war it did hurt the American economy for a short time. Yes there were shortages and rationing of many goods but the vast majority of Americans were willing to make those sacrifices for the war effort but when you look at the twenty to thirty years past WWII you will see a thriving economy in the United States and many other countries of the world and a lot of that is due to the fact that the war ended and the rebuilding process began. I am not saying that every war in history saves the economy of the world because they do not and in fact most have destroyed or bankrupted most countries involved up to WWI and WWII. WWII however was different than any war in history and the effects it had on the economies of every nation involved. The United States benefited from that economically to some extent during the war and most certainty after the war.
Where did most of the goods come from during the war?
Where did most of the goods come from after the war until Europe could get back on its feet?
Did the American economy benefit from it? Your damn right it did and this is one war that played a big roll in reviving the economy of the United States especially after the war ended. Not only did the economy of the United States benefit after the end of the war but post 1945 Europe benefited as well. Unions, employers and governments worked together in Europe to build and stabilize the economy and they did a damn good job of it in most areas of Europe. I agree that Europe would have taken much longer to recover without the help of the United States but I have no doubt they would have recovered by now.

Did a few get rich because of the war? Of course they did and those “few” gave “many” a job. There will always be people at the top that get rich or richer. I cannot understand why so many people have a problem with that especially when it is done honestly. I have a problem when they get rich or build their bank accounts even bigger than they already are by being dishonest or underhanded about it but this is a capitalistic society and not the “former” USSR and even if it was the USSR the people at the top would still be rich and getting richer.

War…no matter the conspiracy of Churchill, Roosevelt or whoever and no matter the reasons for it…war has an effect on the economy. For some it can be beneficial (economically speaking) and for others it can be devastating especially when their country is laid to waste. Take a look at the economy of Germany and Japan after WWII and tell me that post war economics did not benefit them.

I would much rather have a good strong peacetime economy than a wartime or post-war economy any day.

More later.

If you are interested here are a couple of good books on the history of Europe’s economy.
A History of the European Economy, 1000-2000 by Francois Crouzet
I checked and it is still available from the University of Virginia press for around $28
What I really liked about this book is how it looks at Europe as a whole and does not focus entirely on a single country. What I did not like about it is how most of the focus fell on the twentieth century.

Another good book is…
The European Economy since 1945: Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond by Barry Eichengreen
This book will give you a nice view of what was done right and what was done wrong as far as the European economy after WWII


Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:05 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
wanderinglost



Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 268


eire,

I'm familiar with both Eichengreen and Crouzet and have problems with both authors. I'm not impressed with Eichengreen's theory on the abandonment of the gold standard. And Crouzet in his book downplayed the importance of colonialism for Europe's economic well-being (not wanting to admit exploitation of other countries after misuse of it's own natural resources?).

I really do think that without the Marshall Plan much of Europe would still not have fully recovered from WWII. The level of physical destruction in many countries was significant enough, that their crippled economies would just not have been able to rebound completely, even by now. The best example that I can point to is the former East Germany. One of the reasons that the renunification of Germany was so costly and that there's still tension between ciitizens of the former East and West Germany is that terrible economic condition of the East, even in the late 1980's. After the war, East Germany's economy never rebounded to any great extent but remained crippled, light years behind West Germany. I can attest to that personally, too. I was able to study in West Germany while in undergraduate school and my studies included a stint in what was then West Berlin. Obviously, we traveled through East Germany to get to West Berlin and I also was able to make a number of trips to East Berlin. The differences between the two economies was enormous. The East was extremely poor compared to western european economies. To a great extent, the presence of the war could be felt although I was there more than 35 years after the war's end.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about whehter WWII bolstered America's economy.

wandering

Post Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:53 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


I'm familiar with both Eichengreen and Crouzet and have problems with both authors. I'm not impressed with Eichengreen's theory on the abandonment of the gold standard. And Crouzet in his book downplayed the importance of colonialism for Europe's economic well-being (not wanting to admit exploitation of other countries after misuse of it's own natural resources?).

Nobody ever agrees with everything anyone says so I am not surprised. I do not agree with everything in those books either but they are still very good books about the economics of Europe hell they do not even agree with each other on everything and they live there.

As far as Europe’s recovery...
Your best example is East Germany? Oh Wandering...you could not have picked a worse example for your argument or a better one for mine. Who controlled East Germany and East Berlin after the war?
If the Soviet Union had not been in control they would have recovered and rebuilt. The Russians hated the Germans with a passion and do you think for one minute that Stalin did not want to keep them down as long as possible. You basically talk about Crouzet not admitting that one country will exploit another for it’s own gain…what did the Soviet Union do to country after country that was under its control? East Germany, Poland, Romania and all the other countries Russia had some control over after WWII would have been ten times better off if everyone had left them alone rather than being controlled from Moscow. I rest my case on that one.

As I said before. Without the help of the United States it would have taken Europe longer to recover but they still would have recovered. Would their economy be as strong as it is today? Maybe and maybe not but I have no doubt that many of the countries would have unified and some of the western block countries would have probably (stupidly) joined with Russia and in doing so would have ended up like East Germany.

I too have been to Europe…I grew up there and have traveled all over it and the difference between east and west even today is very stark but to basically claim that countries like France or West Germany (before unification) would have the economies of countries like East Germany or Romania in my opinion is wrong.

These are the facts…to me anyway…
Any country that fell under the thumb of Stalin their economies crumbled and any country that was aided by America or left to stand on its own is much better off today for it.

French and English colonialism after WWI and WWII is one of the reasons the Middle East is the way it is today…the world would be a much better place today if they would have stayed out of the Middle East.

You think we have to agree to disagree on whether or not WWII benefited the U.S. economically during and after the war. You should not give up so easy.

Here is one indicator in favor of the war helping the economy (one of my minor points).

While I do not like the way the stock market plays on emotions it can be a decent indicator of how the economy is doing. In may 1940 the monthly high for the dow was 148.17 and over the next two years it would bounce around and dip to a low of 92.92 in 1942 and from this point it would rise and by wars end it was about 44 points higher (192.91) than it was when the war started and just 0.01 points away from being 100 points higher than its lowest point in the war. Today 44 points does not seem like much and 100 points is a drop in the bucket but in 1945 that is over a 100% gain from the low in 1942. I seriously doubt in today’s market you will ever see a 100% gain in the dow over a 3 year period.

I never said the economy did not take a hit at the start of the war but I do believe and many economists at that time and even today say that the war pulled the United States out of the depression and I think it did. If it did not then it sure as hell helped and it cannot be denied that the economy after the war benefited because of the war.

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:39 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
smart_cookie



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 2310
Location: USA


In my opinion, this isn't a poem.

--Cookie

Post Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:13 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
cjerbear



Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 309
Cookie

LOL....no it sure isn't a poem...but it's a history lesson and the outcome of the economy and I must say........ as you were saying the rich get richer....... this site pertains to the wise get wiser..... Thanks ladies, keep posting..... I'm enjoying the debate. CJ :}}
_________________
The thing that is really hard, and really amazing, is giving up on being perfect and beginning the work of becoming yourself. (Anna Quindlen)
chris J (CJ)

Post Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:14 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
LifeVita3

 

 



Search For Posters!


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

In Association with Amazon.com
     
Terms & Conditions Privacy Statement Acknowledgements