That is also why some of us buy Coke products by the caseload from Mexico.
Hint: Mexican Coca-Cola uses real sugar too, not High Fructose Corn Syrup.
You can probably find a little store near you that will sell you the same, if you live in a moderate to large sized city.
And if you want another comparison, see Coca-Cola Light vs Diet Coke. CCL is MUCH better, in my opinion. By a lot. To date, I have no idea why CCL isn't sold in the USA and I have even written Coke to find out which ingredient(s) is the problem. No answer.
We have those contracts and licenses because different parts of the world want things on different terms than we want to sell them. Can't you just hear France or the EU complaining about iPhone not being sold by competitors?....wait....they already are! That's just one example of 1000's that have existed since global trade began.
The point here is that there is always some group of people (usually backed by a military force) who want things done on their terms. So we create contracts and define the terms to both our liking. It's just as much your contract (or your country's) as it is theirs. You fix it!
What you say may be true but your qualification using the word "server" concerns me.
What if it's all clients?
You see, there is no black and white line between a "server" and a "client" on the internet. At the packet level, perhaps there is but at the IP level, all nodes are equal. That isn't by accident. That is by design. The ISPs/telco's - years ago - made the crappy decision to provide asynchronous service. Now, the chickens come home to roost when customers want better upstream performance. No duh. I could have saved them the hassle and told them that 15 years ago when aDSL and the other half-baked technologies were being rolld out. In fact, many of us here at/. did just that.
Your example is exactly what this is all about. You make his point for him - in the US, a synchronous 1.544 Mbps link costs ~$350/month. IOW, too f'ing expensive! Meanwhile, the Koreans have 1 Gbps links...
Where we struggle, as human beings, is getting it to the people who need it. Politics, not capability, determine who gets fed and who doesn't.
We have PLENTY of resources to feed 7bil, 8bil, or even 10bil people. That has never been the problem. It's our own selves that is the problem.
Please explain to me how Microsoft bungles such a simple thing. Do they really not test this crap or what?
I mean, it would be one thing if it was some unknown, unforseeable bug -- but this is a fucking leap year problem. Hell, we studied that problem back when I learned Cobol. In 1991.
So again, how does this happen this day and age? Even for Microsoft, this is so far below "acceptable" that I can't believe it happened.
To take it a step further....you know how to drive. ie: you already know the "superficial" knowledge I mentioned previously. You have a basic understanding of how to operate your car. You have a basic understanding of routine maintenance (or at least you know when to seek help and when it's "normally" operating). In fact, not only that, but you most likely have a drivers license - for which, you had to pass a (very) basic functional knowledge and operation test.
How would your mechanic feel if you had no idea how to drive but your car kept breaking down and no matter where you were in the world, he was responsible for making it run again? Sometimes there is actually something wrong with it and sometimes, there is nothing wrong with the car (user error).
- You forgot to put the key in and the car won't start -- call him!
- The steering wheel is too high -- call him!
- The car does not go because you are pushing the break instead of the gas -- call him!
- It's dark out and you want to get in your car at night -- call him!
- etc, etc, etc
Don't you think that is ridiculous at some point? I mean, don't you as the car user have a responsibility to 1/2 know what you are doing with the thing? And futhermore, wouldn't you -as a human being- want to know a little about it since you have to use it? Otherwise, why do you have it?
You see, I am of the position that users haven't taken the equivalent step of "learning to drive" with respect to computers. That is frustrating to watch because it doesn't take much common sense to see how important computers are in the world. For lots of different reasons. This is why IT has become increasingly grumpier over the years.....they have to deal with people who won't take a vested interest in helping themselves - on any level.
Thank god computers can't kill anyone when they BSOD or kernel panic, otherwise, this situation would have changed long long ago. As it stands tho, we just get to bitch about it on/. -haha
Please explain why it is our job to teach users? Does the user not share responsibility here? It would be one thing if it was in the job description but it's usually not. Your assertion that this is part of the job reminds me that we have a misunderstanding about what IT admins do and don't do. Hint: teaching isn't usually covered.
I ask because my biggest pet peeve is the helplessness users display with respect to computers. Not only is it dishonest in many cases, but it is lazy. Everyone just throws up their hands and waits for IT. Then what? IT is supposed to hold their hand through the solution and explain, step by step, what went wrong? Nonsense. We IT admins have been trying that for 10 years now. It doesn't work. Hell, we can't even get users to use Google and it's friggin' 2008.
God forbid, sometime over the last 20+ years, users take an hour -maybe even 10hrs- to learn something about the subject. Take a course. Buy a book. Hire someone to teach you. Adult outreach. Libraries! I mean, it's only been 20 years for Windows.....surely anyone could find a moment in their somewhere to "better themselves".
If users spent as much time learning on their own as they do bitching about IT, this problem would have long been solved and over.
You know, I get the "grumpiness". I try to manage it the best way I can.
However, it constantly amazes me how LITTLE interest people take in computers, which are all around them. We hear the same tired WinXP questions that have been solved umpteen years ago. But do the users try to help themselves in anyway? Hardly ever, in my experience. How many people do we all know that STILL can't google problems?
And that's what really fries my ass -- the idea that there are computers all around people everyday and -still- they do not take any time to better educate themselves about them. I am not suggesting programming courses, rather, I am suggesting basic, simple, computer training/understanding (ie: user level).
If there is something out there, which you have no knowledge about, and it is glaringly obvious that this "thing" is going to be MORE present going forward, wouldn't you want to learn a little about it? I mean, computers aren't going away or anything. Yet, smart people I know, have almost no understanding of how they work. And no, a car/mechanic analogy doesn't work here. I am talking much more superficially than that....there will always be programmers. I am talking about a user looking at something foreign to him/her and saying "gee, maybe I should learn a little about that thing. I bet it could help me if I knew how to use it"
While I am frustrated, I pose these as very serious questions: why don't more users take an interest in educating themselves about something that is going to be more plentiful vs less plentiful in the future? It'd be like being around in 1910 and writing off electricity as "too hard" and thus ignoring the next 20 years of electricity development. I don't get it -- but it is definitely the norm from what I observe.
Of course, we here at/. are the types who always wonder "how does it work"....so I am sure this behavior perplexes others as it does me because it is the exact opposite of my daily SOP and "life philosophy", so to speak. But it's there in huge numbers.
I've been telling my wife about it for a few years now and I'd really like to show her. If someone has a screenshot or mirror, please post it.
I fondly remember when my favorite tech discussion site went pink....with ponies. And I've never laughed harder in my life. I think I'll remember that April fools for a very very long time.
The first computer I ever saw was an Apple II+ in my elementary school.
We had a computer lab and our teacher taught us some basic stuff. Logo. How to open file on the disk....things like that. Again, very basic stuff. I think towards the end we even did a simple graphic of somekind. I don't recall any games.
That was the time that I started loving computers and it was the very beginning of everything I know on the subject. Nowadays, that beginning has evolved into a pretty darn deep skill set. So deep, I can make a living at it. All from a 3rd grade Apple II+ with 48k and 170K floppy disc....
Worthless? Are you mad? Have you see the US Tbill prices lately? hint: they are sky high, which makes the yield ridiculously low. If they were "worthless", as you state, they would have a LOW price and a high yield. Your claim doesn't even pass the smell test.
(ps: Here's a whole thread about it.)
The fact is, they "own" nothing but US Govt paper and currency. The Fed no more answers to them as it does to me. The Fed's job, as you have stated, is to manage Monetary policy. And that's exactly what they do - they manage the money supply with coordination from the US Treasury and Commercial Banks.
They "own" the US like Iceland "owns" the UK. IOW, it doesn't. Any claim to the contrary is disingenuous at best. You are confused in your understanding of how the system works and who the players are.
...a bad X-mas season does not add up to the fall of Western Finance and the capitalistic model (which is what you were originally suggesting).
One difference between you and I is that I read a book like The Black Swan and I have the advantage of having studied past history and putting the book into context. Like other fields, there are a million books on "what might happen if...". Taleb's book is interesting but like peak oil theories, it is impossible to say if he is right/wrong. But I do know this: everyone just like him who have predicted "the fall" have been wrong. All of them.
If you want to go against that backdrop, please, be my guest. But remember, pioneers almost always get shot in the back by the settlers.
I get the impression that you are having a hard time figuring out what is a "blip" and what is a "disaster". Everything you are seeing are blips. Go study 1890 or 1929-1933. Those were disasters. And evenso, we have recovered just fine from ALL of the effects of those periods. This is a matter of magnitude. We'll always have blips because capitalism is imperfect. The size of our economy and the management of our economy make it MUCH more difficult to have a disaster than it used to be.
No, no, no. Today is totally different than what we did back in 1929-1933. I mean, this isn't even arguable. Back then, they decreased the money supply and had MUCH more of a laissez-faire approach. Back then, there was no Federal Reserve and no FDIC.
None of those things are true today.
Back then, we lost about 50% of the banks in the country. We've lost a few recently, but nowhere NEAR anything "significant" (yet). Imagine what it was like to not know if the money you had in the bank was safe. Now magnify that across the whole country and you can easily see why bank runs happened back then. Combine that with a "tight monetary policy", and it's easy to see WHY there were such major convulsions back then. Nowadays, the first thing the govt did in this mess was to increase the insurance limit on bank accounts from 100K to 250K. Why? Because they KNOW they have to prevent those banks runs.
Again, your comparison is apples to oranges.
(BTW: I commend you for actually putting your money where your mouth is)
well, it's nothing personal to him. I have talked out of my ass (ie: misunderstood things) plenty of times in my life and rightfully been called on the carpet for it. It's kinda the/. way
As far as I can tell the yields for US bonds are sharply dropping at the moment
Methinks you need to quit while you are still whole. You have a serious misunderstanding here. It' so far offbase it's like you are sitting there telling me the sky is red. This is finance 101 stuff.
Here's why: Yields fall because the price paid for the bonds goes up (which drives down the yield because the coupon amount is fixed). Which is actually what *I* saying and the opposite of what you were saying. I have been sitting here telling you that US bonds are being bought for safety (thus the price goes up) and you reply to tell me yields have gone down. Yep, you're exactly right. If the US was going to junk, or even AA, you would see the yield go up and the price being paid for the bonds going down. Unfortunately for you, the charts are evidence for my position, not yours.
I won't reply to the rest as I've read Taleb's "The Black Swan" too. Like peak oil, it's interesting to think about.
BTW, are you really suggesting the bond markets and GDP are meaningless? If you think that, there is nothing more to talk about here. It's like a Java programmer telling me he doesn't know what an operating system is. No, thanks. I'll pass. Ask someone else because I can't help...
...and back in reality world, we know they played very loud music and had spotlights. In short, they were attempting to sleep deprive those people. Taken in that context, the FBI comment doesn't quite mean what you imply.
1. It doesn't matter. It's past history.
2. Wealth is already defined, in the academic sense. As I said, go read up.
3. Yes, we've all heard the comparisons to the Roman Empire. It says nothing about modern times.
4. Wrong. Just plain wrong. I don't know where to start....
5. LOL, good one
Again, put your money where your mouth is. You can bet against us all you want. It's certainly within your right to do so. Just know that every single one of your predecessors who tried are no longer around...
Let's see that trading slip showing you have shorted US treasuries. Don't have it? Then this is all just a bunch of hot air.
I didn't respond to your questions because your questions are naive and show a poor understanding of the basics.
But, since you asked for it, here ya go - put your flamesuit suit on and send the kids to bed:)......
1) Why, why, why you asked: because capitalism has imperfections. So does the US. Mistakes happen but they are far from fatal (which is what you implied earlier). If you haven't noticed, the US govt is working pretty hard to address the problems we have right now. But lets be clear, they are minor problems compared to the last 100 years of global finance. This isn't Argentina. This isn't Russia. This isn't 1890. This isn't 1929. The US is nowhere - and I mean nowhere - near defaulting. Hell, they didn't even default during the Great Depression and we a nowhere near those levels right now. Again, there is evidence for this because ppl are still buying US bonds. It's that simple. If the US was at risk, you'd see an entirely different price for those bonds -- much much lower.
2) The truth is you don't have any wealth.: Are you kidding? Is this really a serious question? Re-read that WSJ link I gave you. Then go over to the WorldBank and read up on the stats and numbers. You are, simply wrong.
3) Only debt. Tens of trillions of dollars of debt. And no way of paying it back.: Preposterous. Again, the US has never defaulted on it's debt. Never. I have no idea how you can claim they have no way of paying it back. Again, this statement shows a lack of understanding of the basics. Go read up on some productivity numbers. Go read up on US GDP and it's components. Compare to your own GDP. Compare to Iceland and while you're there, take a real good look at what happened to Iceland's bonds. Go find a historical trend for those bonds and look at the difference. They are orders of magnitude different than the US. Why? Because the US financial size is orders of magnitude larger. We have lots of debt, yes. But we have MORE than enough ability to pay that debt back. We just have to shift a few resources, which is what you see playing out on the front pages and within the halls of our govt....
4) Some nations have already said they consider US Treasuries to be junk: You are wrong. Here's a chart. If they were junk, you would see yield rates > 10%. You do realize there is a market where they sort out who is junk and junk is not, don't you? I mean, it's right there in black and white for the entire world to see.
5) Like 1929 - when for every sell there was a buy. Keep dreaming. Your economy is headed for a swift and horrible collapse. And what will you do then?: I will be just fine because I have a higher than 2nd grade understanding of what is happening. A graduate finance degree will do that.
Look, I am not saying everything is rosy. I am simply saying your predictions of the collapse of Western Finance have been heard before. Lots of times throughout history, in fact. And every single time - they have been 100% wrong. Not a little wrong....a whole lot of wrong.
I can't believe you got modded up so high./. really lacks an understanding of global finance. In fairness, it is a tech site, so....
All I am saying is that people have been "predicting" the demise of the US capitalistic system for 100 years. Yet, here we are. We made it through the depression. We made it through the 70's and we made it through every single hiccup in global finance since it began. Over that time, we have amassed more wealth than any other country in the history of the world. I am correct that the US has more wealth than other nations - that is indisputable. The reason this matters is because we have a lot of "slack" to make mistakes (like you are seeing on the front pages right now)
Bury your head in the sand but here ya go. Here's a list of per capita GNI. The US is #7. Here's another list, based on GDP. Please notice the US is compared to the ENTIRE EU -- not just individual countries.
Seriously, if the US wants to "work itself" out of this, we just reduce the Social Security commitments we've made. People don't seem to grasp that the government can pay any debt it needs to. Whether there is the political will to do it is another story. This isn't a story of the US not being able to pay its debts....that is nowhere near the case right now.
I mean, this isn't even close. Why do you think Treasury prices have been pushed up so far over the last 3 months? People around the world have been FLOCKING to the safety of US treasuries. People around the world still view the US as the safest place to invest your money. If they were junk, as you indicate, they would trade as junk and nobody would want them. Your claim is testable and easy to verify - just go look at the US Treas charts. After looking for about 2 seconds, it is easy to see that you are just plain wrong. IOW, you have no idea what you are talking about here....
Call me when the US defaults on it's bonds. That is news. Until it happens (and it won't), what you posted is just idle wanting. I understand where it comes from, I do. But it is not based in any rational evidence. It's simply emotion based on what you want to happen.
By the way, I don't know what country you are in but take a look at what has happened to your own country's bonds. Do you think they are a safer or riskier investment than US bonds right now? The world market for bonds says, not only is the US safer, but they are THE safest of all countries.
This is nowhere near 1929. Totally apples and oranges comparison. Things worked WAY differently back then than they do now. Additionally, your insinuation that US Tbills are backed by "toxic debt" is woefully simplistic. US Tbills are backed by 200+ years of the US paying it's bills.
Lastly, I really wasn't kidding about betting against us. If you are soooo sure of your position, then you can put your money where your mouth is and if you are right -- you will be set for the rest of your life. Please watch out for the bodies of your predecessors, however.
America will be fine. No doubt, things do not look good but we will work our way out of this just as we always have for the last 250+ years.
Some perspective is needed regarding the financial pecking order of the world.
America is wayyyyyyy ahead, in terms of wealth. Yes, we have debts. But we also have - by far - the largest percentage of wealth in the world. By a whole lot.
A hell of a lot has to go wrong before America loses AAA.
The best part is: if you don't agree, you can do a trade and retire for life if you are right.
Just go short some US Treasuries.
I'll be on the other side of the trade.
I'm sending it back although I'm not sure what the consequences of that are.
I can't speak for Euro/UK law but in the US, nobody is required to take a check. There simply are no legal consequences for not accepting a check for payment.
Cash, on the other hand, specifically says, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private", so it has to be taken if the service or product has already been provided.
In the US, companies are not required to take coins but they are required to take cash for "services rendered". ie: you've already received the benefit. If the service is not yet rendered, then they/you can negotiate the required terms of payment. But now you're getting into contract law...
You are correct that an exchange rate, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything. It's the trend that matters.
The GP I originally responded to was, incorrectly, concluding that exchange rates "show" who has the better system. He went on to infer that socialism works better and used the US Dollar as evidence to back up that claim.
My only point in this thread is to correct that oversight. Exchange rates do not prove anything other than the fact that currency value is relative to a whole set of criteria.
Slashdot Mirror
That is also why some of us buy Coke products by the caseload from Mexico.
Hint: Mexican Coca-Cola uses real sugar too, not High Fructose Corn Syrup.
You can probably find a little store near you that will sell you the same, if you live in a moderate to large sized city.
And if you want another comparison, see Coca-Cola Light vs Diet Coke. CCL is MUCH better, in my opinion. By a lot. To date, I have no idea why CCL isn't sold in the USA and I have even written Coke to find out which ingredient(s) is the problem. No answer.
you missed the forest among the trees, my friend...
You want an honest answer?
We have those contracts and licenses because different parts of the world want things on different terms than we want to sell them. Can't you just hear France or the EU complaining about iPhone not being sold by competitors?....wait....they already are! That's just one example of 1000's that have existed since global trade began.
The point here is that there is always some group of people (usually backed by a military force) who want things done on their terms. So we create contracts and define the terms to both our liking. It's just as much your contract (or your country's) as it is theirs. You fix it!
What you say may be true but your qualification using the word "server" concerns me.
/. did just that.
What if it's all clients?
You see, there is no black and white line between a "server" and a "client" on the internet. At the packet level, perhaps there is but at the IP level, all nodes are equal. That isn't by accident. That is by design. The ISPs/telco's - years ago - made the crappy decision to provide asynchronous service. Now, the chickens come home to roost when customers want better upstream performance. No duh. I could have saved them the hassle and told them that 15 years ago when aDSL and the other half-baked technologies were being rolld out. In fact, many of us here at
Your example is exactly what this is all about. You make his point for him - in the US, a synchronous 1.544 Mbps link costs ~$350/month. IOW, too f'ing expensive! Meanwhile, the Koreans have 1 Gbps links...
There is plenty of food.
Where we struggle, as human beings, is getting it to the people who need it. Politics, not capability, determine who gets fed and who doesn't.
We have PLENTY of resources to feed 7bil, 8bil, or even 10bil people. That has never been the problem. It's our own selves that is the problem.
It's 2008/2009, right?
Please explain to me how Microsoft bungles such a simple thing. Do they really not test this crap or what?
I mean, it would be one thing if it was some unknown, unforseeable bug -- but this is a fucking leap year problem. Hell, we studied that problem back when I learned Cobol. In 1991.
So again, how does this happen this day and age? Even for Microsoft, this is so far below "acceptable" that I can't believe it happened.
To take it a step further....you know how to drive. ie: you already know the "superficial" knowledge I mentioned previously. You have a basic understanding of how to operate your car. You have a basic understanding of routine maintenance (or at least you know when to seek help and when it's "normally" operating). In fact, not only that, but you most likely have a drivers license - for which, you had to pass a (very) basic functional knowledge and operation test.
/. -haha
How would your mechanic feel if you had no idea how to drive but your car kept breaking down and no matter where you were in the world, he was responsible for making it run again? Sometimes there is actually something wrong with it and sometimes, there is nothing wrong with the car (user error).
- You forgot to put the key in and the car won't start -- call him!
- The steering wheel is too high -- call him!
- The car does not go because you are pushing the break instead of the gas -- call him!
- It's dark out and you want to get in your car at night -- call him!
- etc, etc, etc
Don't you think that is ridiculous at some point? I mean, don't you as the car user have a responsibility to 1/2 know what you are doing with the thing? And futhermore, wouldn't you -as a human being- want to know a little about it since you have to use it? Otherwise, why do you have it?
You see, I am of the position that users haven't taken the equivalent step of "learning to drive" with respect to computers. That is frustrating to watch because it doesn't take much common sense to see how important computers are in the world. For lots of different reasons. This is why IT has become increasingly grumpier over the years.....they have to deal with people who won't take a vested interest in helping themselves - on any level.
Thank god computers can't kill anyone when they BSOD or kernel panic, otherwise, this situation would have changed long long ago. As it stands tho, we just get to bitch about it on
which never involves teaching us enough...
Please explain why it is our job to teach users? Does the user not share responsibility here? It would be one thing if it was in the job description but it's usually not. Your assertion that this is part of the job reminds me that we have a misunderstanding about what IT admins do and don't do. Hint: teaching isn't usually covered.
I ask because my biggest pet peeve is the helplessness users display with respect to computers. Not only is it dishonest in many cases, but it is lazy. Everyone just throws up their hands and waits for IT. Then what? IT is supposed to hold their hand through the solution and explain, step by step, what went wrong? Nonsense. We IT admins have been trying that for 10 years now. It doesn't work. Hell, we can't even get users to use Google and it's friggin' 2008.
God forbid, sometime over the last 20+ years, users take an hour -maybe even 10hrs- to learn something about the subject. Take a course. Buy a book. Hire someone to teach you. Adult outreach. Libraries! I mean, it's only been 20 years for Windows.....surely anyone could find a moment in their somewhere to "better themselves".
If users spent as much time learning on their own as they do bitching about IT, this problem would have long been solved and over.
You know, I get the "grumpiness". I try to manage it the best way I can.
/. are the types who always wonder "how does it work"....so I am sure this behavior perplexes others as it does me because it is the exact opposite of my daily SOP and "life philosophy", so to speak. But it's there in huge numbers.
However, it constantly amazes me how LITTLE interest people take in computers, which are all around them. We hear the same tired WinXP questions that have been solved umpteen years ago. But do the users try to help themselves in anyway? Hardly ever, in my experience. How many people do we all know that STILL can't google problems?
And that's what really fries my ass -- the idea that there are computers all around people everyday and -still- they do not take any time to better educate themselves about them. I am not suggesting programming courses, rather, I am suggesting basic, simple, computer training/understanding (ie: user level).
If there is something out there, which you have no knowledge about, and it is glaringly obvious that this "thing" is going to be MORE present going forward, wouldn't you want to learn a little about it? I mean, computers aren't going away or anything. Yet, smart people I know, have almost no understanding of how they work. And no, a car/mechanic analogy doesn't work here. I am talking much more superficially than that....there will always be programmers. I am talking about a user looking at something foreign to him/her and saying "gee, maybe I should learn a little about that thing. I bet it could help me if I knew how to use it"
While I am frustrated, I pose these as very serious questions: why don't more users take an interest in educating themselves about something that is going to be more plentiful vs less plentiful in the future? It'd be like being around in 1910 and writing off electricity as "too hard" and thus ignoring the next 20 years of electricity development. I don't get it -- but it is definitely the norm from what I observe.
Of course, we here at
Did you ever consider that was the design from the beginning?
Now they have both.
Is there a mirror of OMG Ponies!!!1!11?
I've been telling my wife about it for a few years now and I'd really like to show her. If someone has a screenshot or mirror, please post it.
I fondly remember when my favorite tech discussion site went pink....with ponies. And I've never laughed harder in my life. I think I'll remember that April fools for a very very long time.
Dammit, I hate replying to my own post but....it's an emergency.
I forgot this.
The first computer I ever saw was an Apple II+ in my elementary school.
We had a computer lab and our teacher taught us some basic stuff. Logo. How to open file on the disk....things like that. Again, very basic stuff. I think towards the end we even did a simple graphic of somekind. I don't recall any games.
That was the time that I started loving computers and it was the very beginning of everything I know on the subject. Nowadays, that beginning has evolved into a pretty darn deep skill set. So deep, I can make a living at it. All from a 3rd grade Apple II+ with 48k and 170K floppy disc....
Worthless? Are you mad? Have you see the US Tbill prices lately? hint: they are sky high, which makes the yield ridiculously low. If they were "worthless", as you state, they would have a LOW price and a high yield. Your claim doesn't even pass the smell test. (ps: Here's a whole thread about it.)
The fact is, they "own" nothing but US Govt paper and currency. The Fed no more answers to them as it does to me. The Fed's job, as you have stated, is to manage Monetary policy. And that's exactly what they do - they manage the money supply with coordination from the US Treasury and Commercial Banks.
They "own" the US like Iceland "owns" the UK. IOW, it doesn't. Any claim to the contrary is disingenuous at best. You are confused in your understanding of how the system works and who the players are.
...a bad X-mas season does not add up to the fall of Western Finance and the capitalistic model (which is what you were originally suggesting).
One difference between you and I is that I read a book like The Black Swan and I have the advantage of having studied past history and putting the book into context. Like other fields, there are a million books on "what might happen if...". Taleb's book is interesting but like peak oil theories, it is impossible to say if he is right/wrong. But I do know this: everyone just like him who have predicted "the fall" have been wrong. All of them.
If you want to go against that backdrop, please, be my guest. But remember, pioneers almost always get shot in the back by the settlers.
I get the impression that you are having a hard time figuring out what is a "blip" and what is a "disaster". Everything you are seeing are blips. Go study 1890 or 1929-1933. Those were disasters. And evenso, we have recovered just fine from ALL of the effects of those periods. This is a matter of magnitude. We'll always have blips because capitalism is imperfect. The size of our economy and the management of our economy make it MUCH more difficult to have a disaster than it used to be.
They did the exact same things we are doing today
No, no, no. Today is totally different than what we did back in 1929-1933. I mean, this isn't even arguable. Back then, they decreased the money supply and had MUCH more of a laissez-faire approach. Back then, there was no Federal Reserve and no FDIC.
None of those things are true today.
Back then, we lost about 50% of the banks in the country. We've lost a few recently, but nowhere NEAR anything "significant" (yet). Imagine what it was like to not know if the money you had in the bank was safe. Now magnify that across the whole country and you can easily see why bank runs happened back then. Combine that with a "tight monetary policy", and it's easy to see WHY there were such major convulsions back then. Nowadays, the first thing the govt did in this mess was to increase the insurance limit on bank accounts from 100K to 250K. Why? Because they KNOW they have to prevent those banks runs.
Again, your comparison is apples to oranges.
(BTW: I commend you for actually putting your money where your mouth is)
well, it's nothing personal to him. I have talked out of my ass (ie: misunderstood things) plenty of times in my life and rightfully been called on the carpet for it. It's kinda the /. way
As far as I can tell the yields for US bonds are sharply dropping at the moment
Methinks you need to quit while you are still whole. You have a serious misunderstanding here. It' so far offbase it's like you are sitting there telling me the sky is red. This is finance 101 stuff.
Here's why: Yields fall because the price paid for the bonds goes up (which drives down the yield because the coupon amount is fixed). Which is actually what *I* saying and the opposite of what you were saying. I have been sitting here telling you that US bonds are being bought for safety (thus the price goes up) and you reply to tell me yields have gone down. Yep, you're exactly right. If the US was going to junk, or even AA, you would see the yield go up and the price being paid for the bonds going down. Unfortunately for you, the charts are evidence for my position, not yours.
I won't reply to the rest as I've read Taleb's "The Black Swan" too. Like peak oil, it's interesting to think about.
BTW, are you really suggesting the bond markets and GDP are meaningless? If you think that, there is nothing more to talk about here. It's like a Java programmer telling me he doesn't know what an operating system is. No, thanks. I'll pass. Ask someone else because I can't help...
...and back in reality world, we know they played very loud music and had spotlights. In short, they were attempting to sleep deprive those people. Taken in that context, the FBI comment doesn't quite mean what you imply.
Haven't you seen the documentatry Rules of Engagement?
You haven't heard further about "mind control devices" because they probably don't exist. I think you misunderstood.
1. It doesn't matter. It's past history.
2. Wealth is already defined, in the academic sense. As I said, go read up.
3. Yes, we've all heard the comparisons to the Roman Empire. It says nothing about modern times.
4. Wrong. Just plain wrong. I don't know where to start....
5. LOL, good one
Again, put your money where your mouth is. You can bet against us all you want. It's certainly within your right to do so. Just know that every single one of your predecessors who tried are no longer around...
Let's see that trading slip showing you have shorted US treasuries. Don't have it? Then this is all just a bunch of hot air.
I didn't respond to your questions because your questions are naive and show a poor understanding of the basics.
:) ......
But, since you asked for it, here ya go - put your flamesuit suit on and send the kids to bed
1) Why, why, why you asked: because capitalism has imperfections. So does the US. Mistakes happen but they are far from fatal (which is what you implied earlier). If you haven't noticed, the US govt is working pretty hard to address the problems we have right now. But lets be clear, they are minor problems compared to the last 100 years of global finance. This isn't Argentina. This isn't Russia. This isn't 1890. This isn't 1929. The US is nowhere - and I mean nowhere - near defaulting. Hell, they didn't even default during the Great Depression and we a nowhere near those levels right now. Again, there is evidence for this because ppl are still buying US bonds. It's that simple. If the US was at risk, you'd see an entirely different price for those bonds -- much much lower.
2) The truth is you don't have any wealth.: Are you kidding? Is this really a serious question? Re-read that WSJ link I gave you. Then go over to the WorldBank and read up on the stats and numbers. You are, simply wrong.
3) Only debt. Tens of trillions of dollars of debt. And no way of paying it back.: Preposterous. Again, the US has never defaulted on it's debt. Never. I have no idea how you can claim they have no way of paying it back. Again, this statement shows a lack of understanding of the basics. Go read up on some productivity numbers. Go read up on US GDP and it's components. Compare to your own GDP. Compare to Iceland and while you're there, take a real good look at what happened to Iceland's bonds. Go find a historical trend for those bonds and look at the difference. They are orders of magnitude different than the US. Why? Because the US financial size is orders of magnitude larger. We have lots of debt, yes. But we have MORE than enough ability to pay that debt back. We just have to shift a few resources, which is what you see playing out on the front pages and within the halls of our govt....
4) Some nations have already said they consider US Treasuries to be junk: You are wrong. Here's a chart. If they were junk, you would see yield rates > 10%. You do realize there is a market where they sort out who is junk and junk is not, don't you? I mean, it's right there in black and white for the entire world to see.
5) Like 1929 - when for every sell there was a buy. Keep dreaming. Your economy is headed for a swift and horrible collapse. And what will you do then?: I will be just fine because I have a higher than 2nd grade understanding of what is happening. A graduate finance degree will do that.
Look, I am not saying everything is rosy. I am simply saying your predictions of the collapse of Western Finance have been heard before. Lots of times throughout history, in fact. And every single time - they have been 100% wrong. Not a little wrong....a whole lot of wrong.
I can't believe you got modded up so high. /. really lacks an understanding of global finance. In fairness, it is a tech site, so....
All I am saying is that people have been "predicting" the demise of the US capitalistic system for 100 years. Yet, here we are. We made it through the depression. We made it through the 70's and we made it through every single hiccup in global finance since it began. Over that time, we have amassed more wealth than any other country in the history of the world. I am correct that the US has more wealth than other nations - that is indisputable. The reason this matters is because we have a lot of "slack" to make mistakes (like you are seeing on the front pages right now)
Bury your head in the sand but here ya go. Here's a list of per capita GNI. The US is #7.
Here's another list, based on GDP. Please notice the US is compared to the ENTIRE EU -- not just individual countries.
Seriously, if the US wants to "work itself" out of this, we just reduce the Social Security commitments we've made. People don't seem to grasp that the government can pay any debt it needs to. Whether there is the political will to do it is another story. This isn't a story of the US not being able to pay its debts....that is nowhere near the case right now.
I mean, this isn't even close. Why do you think Treasury prices have been pushed up so far over the last 3 months? People around the world have been FLOCKING to the safety of US treasuries. People around the world still view the US as the safest place to invest your money. If they were junk, as you indicate, they would trade as junk and nobody would want them. Your claim is testable and easy to verify - just go look at the US Treas charts. After looking for about 2 seconds, it is easy to see that you are just plain wrong. IOW, you have no idea what you are talking about here....
Call me when the US defaults on it's bonds. That is news. Until it happens (and it won't), what you posted is just idle wanting. I understand where it comes from, I do. But it is not based in any rational evidence. It's simply emotion based on what you want to happen.
By the way, I don't know what country you are in but take a look at what has happened to your own country's bonds. Do you think they are a safer or riskier investment than US bonds right now? The world market for bonds says, not only is the US safer, but they are THE safest of all countries.
This is nowhere near 1929. Totally apples and oranges comparison. Things worked WAY differently back then than they do now. Additionally, your insinuation that US Tbills are backed by "toxic debt" is woefully simplistic. US Tbills are backed by 200+ years of the US paying it's bills.
Lastly, I really wasn't kidding about betting against us. If you are soooo sure of your position, then you can put your money where your mouth is and if you are right -- you will be set for the rest of your life. Please watch out for the bodies of your predecessors, however.
America will be fine. No doubt, things do not look good but we will work our way out of this just as we always have for the last 250+ years.
Some perspective is needed regarding the financial pecking order of the world.
America is wayyyyyyy ahead, in terms of wealth. Yes, we have debts. But we also have - by far - the largest percentage of wealth in the world. By a whole lot.
A hell of a lot has to go wrong before America loses AAA.
The best part is: if you don't agree, you can do a trade and retire for life if you are right.
Just go short some US Treasuries.
I'll be on the other side of the trade.
I'm sending it back although I'm not sure what the consequences of that are.
I can't speak for Euro/UK law but in the US, nobody is required to take a check. There simply are no legal consequences for not accepting a check for payment.
Cash, on the other hand, specifically says, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private", so it has to be taken if the service or product has already been provided.
In the US, companies are not required to take coins but they are required to take cash for "services rendered". ie: you've already received the benefit. If the service is not yet rendered, then they/you can negotiate the required terms of payment. But now you're getting into contract law...
You are correct that an exchange rate, in and of itself, doesn't mean anything. It's the trend that matters.
The GP I originally responded to was, incorrectly, concluding that exchange rates "show" who has the better system. He went on to infer that socialism works better and used the US Dollar as evidence to back up that claim.
My only point in this thread is to correct that oversight. Exchange rates do not prove anything other than the fact that currency value is relative to a whole set of criteria.