The Manufactured Crisis

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Gasoline in October 1990 was an average of 1.33 per gallon and adjusted for inflation that would be $2.28 today. In 1981, the average price of gasoline hit $3.44, today the National average is $3.98 and it varies by state. For example today in Montana, you pay $3.75, but in New York $4.22, the difference is largely state taxes. Gasoline goes up and gasoline goes down (although at today’s world demand levels it isn't going down much).

Let’s say you drive the average of 12,000 a year and have a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon, for every twenty-five cents that a gallon of gas goes up in price it will cost you $120 a year more or $.32 cents a day, less than the price of three cups of coffee with a bagel. Of course, if you drive a gas-guzzler that gets say 16 miles to the gallon, it will cost you $187.50 a year. Yet the news has a front-page story when gasoline goes up $.05 a gallon. Why did you “need” that SUV or pick up in the first place (yes, I do know that there are some people who do need them for work, etc. but there are far more who do not…haulin bricks in that Escalade are you? How many soccer balls can you get in a Yukon anyway?) :rolleyes:

Let’s look at unemployment, in 1962 it was 5.5%, in 1982 it was 9.7%, in 1990 5.6% and in 1993 6.9%. In June 2008, it was 5.5%. A crisis you say, people can’t make it you say, living paycheck to paycheck. Perhaps those who are actually unemployed are having a tough time just like in years past, but what about the 94.5% who are employed. I know the wealthy make too much, right? Nonsense, what the wealthy make has nothing to do with what the middle class does not make, in fact if it were not for many of today’s new wealthy many of the middle class would not have jobs. :-5 The fundamental problem is adapting to the jobs of the 21st century and to world competition and the solution is not strengthening unions or stopping trade, as are the objectives of many politicians.

Now for the horrible housing market, I was in my local bank yesterday and there was a big sign, 30 year fixed mortgages 6.5%, horrible you say. I bought a house in 1987 and the rate was 9.75%.

In May 1992 a 30 year fixed rate mortgage would cost you 8.26%, in March 1991, 9.24% and in June 1982 a whopping 15.57%.

Yesterday July 26th Congress passed a relief bill for the housing market included a way for people to renegotiate loans on better terms and have it secured by the federal government (that is you by the way). In addition, for the next year first time homebuyers will get up to a $7,500 tax credit (not deduction, but credit) when the buy a new home. Let’s hope you receive a large number of thank you notes for your generosity. Who helped you pay for your first home?

It’s easy to be a smart ass with all of this and that is not the objective, what is the point is that the politicians and the media have manufactured a crisis that is no worse than many similar situations we have faced in years past. What is different today is that government seems to think it can fix anything, and that accumulating more and more national debt does not matter.

Well, we are seeing now that imprudent debt does create a crisis for some people, unfortunately today it also means that prudent people who did not abuse credit or use their house as an ATM are paying for those who did.

I guess change really is coming to America. Tell your grandchildren to lower their living standard expectations and get out the checkbook. -1

[Clint]

It is shocking that because of the higher fuel prices people are trading their 20mpg cars in for 30mpg cars and in many cases losing more that $10,000.00 in the process. They are doing it without considering the total cost of transportation.

The average cost per mile to operate a car is about $.58, of that about $.20 (20mpg @ $4.00 per gallon) goes to pay for fuel. If a 20mpg vehicle is driven 100,000 miles it will cost $20,000.00 for fuel. Increasing mileage to 30mpg will save $5,000.00 in fuel costs. They don't even ask themselves how long they will have to own the new, more fuel efficient vehicle before they regain the money they lost to the dealership in the trade.

[Galbally]

I think your general point, and its fairly well made, is that the notion of "easy money" has become so engrained, that the really deep problem is a large section of people's attitude to money and self-discipline, as well as a perhaps enflated sense of entitlement to have whatever lifestyle they want. We have the same problems here as well, though our governments are not quite as delusional about running such gigantic national deficits, though of course we do spend a lot on social welfare and healthcare, but anyway, basically no one would be crazy enough to lend us the money to run up the kind of debts that the US has now, thank god.

I would imagine that a couple of years of a fairly serious recession across the Western world (which is what we are going to have regardless of governments, whose only real goal should be to not make it any worse than it needs be) should sharply adjust the vogue for living beyond ones means, as essentially you won't be given the borrowed money to do it anymore, and houses won't be seen as financial instruments for the ill-educated masses, but simply relatively secure accomodation which has to be paid for like everything else, and out of current earnings.

We may even have to get back to the idea of countries actually earning more from their exports than they pay out in imports in attempting to achieve absolute prosperity, and not simply live off capital that has been ultimately sourced from foreign loans raised from massively inflated land values. So essentially if nations, organizations, and individuals want to have prosperity, they will have to work out a way that involves them earning more than they spend, as opposed to borrowing what they can't spend. This may involve having to come up with ways of making useful and productive things, and new novel processes and ideas while attempting to sell the resultant goods and services on the global market.

I would suggest advanced energy generation and tranmission systems, new transportation systems, better agricultural technology, healthcare and pharmaceutical products, industrial chemistry and material science products, and generally stuff like this would be a good start. We have a situation where there will be nine billion people on planet earth by 2050, we need to radically change energy technology quickly, improve agriculture, do a better job on the environment, and we have to deal with the impacts of climate change if these people of the future are to have any hope of decent lives. These are all massive tasks, but not incomparable to say, the moon shot.

We know what we need to do, now its just a question of whether we have the ability to become properly productive and forward looking once more. This will also unfortunately involve being industrious and making sure people know how to read and write and do some maths, and perhaps even having to relearn some science and engineering again, how tiresome.

Perhaps a little less hubris and usual bullsh*te from the financial masters of the universe in Wall Street and the City of London, (whose paper towers made out of money and notional financial instruments seem to have finally fallen around their smug ears) would also help, as well as some more relevant rules to ensure they are not able to be quite so cavalier with Western economic prosperity next time.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Galbally;932729 wrote: I think your general point, and its fairly well made, is that the notion of "easy money" has become so engrained, that the really deep problem is a large section of people's attitude to money and self-discipline, as well as a perhaps enflated sense of entitlement to have whatever lifestyle they want. We have the same problems here as well, though our governments are not quite as delusional about running such gigantic national deficits, though of course we do spend a lot on social welfare and healthcare, but anyway, basically no one would be crazy enough to lend us the money to run up the kind of debts that the US has now, thank god.

I would imagine that a couple of years of a fairly serious recession across the Western world (which is what we are going to have regardless of governments, whose only real goal should be to not make it any worse than it needs be) should sharply adjust the vogue for living beyond ones means, as essentially you won't be given the borrowed money to do it anymore, and houses won't be seen as financial instruments for the ill-educated masses, but simply relatively secure accomodation which has to be paid for like everything else, and out of current earnings.

We may even have to get back to the idea of countries actually earning more from their exports than they pay out in imports in attempting to achieve absolute prosperity, and not simply live off capital that has been ultimately sourced from foreign loans raised from massively inflated land values. So essentially if nations, organizations, and individuals want to have prosperity, they will have to work out a way that involves them earning more than they spend, as opposed to borrowing what they can't spend. This may involve having to come up with ways of making useful and productive things, and new novel processes and ideas while attempting to sell the resultant goods and services on the global market. I would suggest advanced energy generation and tranmission systems, new transportation systems, better agricultural technology, healthcare and pharmaceutical products, industrial chemistry and material science products, and generally stuff like this. We have a situation where there will be nine billion people on planet earth by 2050, we need to radically change energy technology quickly, and we have to deal with the impacts of climate change, these are all massive tasks, but not incomparable to say, the moon shot.

We know what we need to do, now its just a question of whether we have the ability to become properly productive and forward looking once more. This will also unfortunately involve being industrious and making sure people know how to read and write and do some maths, and perhaps even having to relearn some science and engineering again, how tiresome.

Perhaps a little less hubris and usual bullsh*te from the financial masters of the universe in Wall Street and the City of London, (whose paper towers made out of money and notional financial instruments seem to have finally fallen around their smug ears) would also help, as well as some more relevant rules to ensure they are not able to be quite so cavalier with Western economic prosperity next time.




Well said!

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;932308 wrote: I know the wealthy make too much, right? Nonsense, what the wealthy make has nothing to do with what the middle class does not make... The "wealthy" does make too much in relation to what the "non wealthy" makes...As if living paycheck to paycheck is of no concern...There are health issues related to this lifestyle...And the laws prevent equal share of money that circulates through every business...I personally would hold "equal share" as being around 60%-40% across the board...40% going to the laborers who tend to do more of the work anyway...Obviously there are exceptions from which those exceptions would be increased to the 60% as described appropriately...Unemployment rids the concern of laziness, as well as the prestige of the business associated with in which how much each worker can make...

You say QUINNSCOMMENTARY;932308 wrote: …haulin bricks in that Escalade are you? And I say 8 bedrooms, 5 full bathrooms, a din, and an Olympic sized swimming pool must be what you need to survive?...Meanwhile there are starving people in the world...The wealthy speak of "Equality" yet can't seem to lend a helping hand...As if the children should suffer the wrong doings of their fathers...I believe you're familiar with that but we'll keep this from turning religious...

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;932308 wrote: in fact if it were not for many of today’s new wealthy many of the middle class would not have jobs. You're right...Many wouldn't have jobs...But then it turns into a circle from which the wealthy keep the non wealthy from progressing because of laws...Although I can agree with you on alot of instances associated with "...what the wealthy make has nothing to do with what the middle class does not make..." and a significant proportion of America...I seriously doubt I would be holding the same view in this specific instance in 50 years...