Signs that a collapse is under way.

[DiscoBiscuit]

Here's another example. A file cabinet represents this example's version of regulation. The cabinet doesn't create files, it does not trash files. It merely maintains them until people affect change to the files. The cabinet may become old and broken down... too small and ineffective, or too big and over bulging. But the cabinet made no decisions to either maintain the status quot files nor change them.

The Glass Stegall files (among tens of thousands of others) were eliminated... burned... shredded... They're not unlike confetti in ticker-tape parades.

Now look in any folder hanger where respective regulation files once resided. The folder hangers are empty (de-regulation... no regulation.)

Now, the cabinet is even less an entity than it once was. It's a shell of it's former self. But it didn't have a say in it's weight going from a ton to 500 pounds.

 

[Hovz]

The population is rising exponentially and is not sustainable. My guess will be people won't be able to afford food. Oh and also peak oil and gas prices. I'll be switching to a horse soon.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

What was once regarded as off-limits in the interests of sustainability is now gambled by the rich. They've run out of schemes to rip each other off and understand our pennies comprise $74 trillion dollars. They're coming after us, folks in the form of commodities gambling. I don't say trading because these players don't take deliveries. They stick their monumental foot in the door before we can effectively close it. What do they get? Middle man status that looks like Frankenstein.

Signs that collapse is underway? The top is taking is away. Our collapse is their rocket to sickening excess.

 

[SpasticGramps]

John Taylor is making his rounds on the business networks today again. He's basically saying if you are in equities or commodities you are about to get your face ripped off as everything goes bidless.

John Taylor Says He Is Now Long The USD As Of A Week Ago Full Bloomberg interview in link

John Taylor is again making the media rounds, following last week's CNBC appearance in which his punchline is that next year was going to be "truly miserable", today he was on Bloomberg continuing his thesis of how doom and gloom will be with the US for a long, long time, and that courtesy of no QE3, risk is about to go bidless (he differs with the Zero Hedge outlook only on whether there will be QE 3 or not). His response to what an environment of no fiscal or monetary stimulus (in case it was not clear): it is bullish for the JPY, bullish for the USD, bearish for commodities and bearish for stocks. More importantly, in terms of timing, Taylor says that after being short the dollar, he went long a "week and a half ago" and expects a big upside USD catalyst in the next "3 or 4 days." which he follows up with the cryptic: "Our analysis of the markets has shown that they are very, very dangerous." Another trade that JT has on is a long JPY, short EUR - the reason for the EUR bearishness is that Taylor is very "confused" by the second European bailout. As for his long USd conviction, it is based on his belief that the market appears to believe that QE 3 is coming, and that once it is made clear that there will be no further monetary easing (good luck with that), the dollar will surge, following a slowdown in the economy, and a shortage of dollars.

About a month ago in the Short Term Stock Trades thread I stated that I thought when QEII ended the DXY (Dollar Index) would surge and equities and commodities get destroyed. It seems Taylor agrees. I disagree with his assessment that there will be no QEIII. When everything starts to collapse because the buyer of last resort (the FED) has stopped buying they will come back into the market.

At a very minimum they will not unwind the balance sheet at all, which in effect serves as monetary stimulus. I think they will have actively pursue QEIII though. The economy cannot stand on it's own anymore because it is dead. The ponzi scheme is nothing more than a rotting corpse at this point. The powers that be are going to pretend everything is fine until the markets fall completely apart and they loose control. Just like an addict in denial overdosing in the bathroom.

 

[Hydrosun]

One has to comprehend that de-regulation isn't more regulation. It's the absence of, after the fact.

Being on the same page is not an indication you have to agree with my opinion. But knowing the difference in what amounts to black and white opposites (regulation vs de-regulation) helps to keep the conversation from veering into two different paths. The same path affords both ideas and more, so long as we know that de-regulation is the arch opposite of regulation.

Remember when Reagan de-regulated air-traffic controllers? Doesn't mean they face different regulations. It means the regulations that governed air-traffic controllers dissolved. That's why we have them falling asleep on the job.

Ok I hear you and understand that you feel that the financial industry was DE-REGULATED, however that is simply not true. The NASD, SEC, SIPC, FINRA, NYSE, FDIC, etc. have been regulating the financial industry for decades. The repeal of Glass Stegiel was not de-regulation it was a change in regulation.

The air traffic controllers you mentioned were FIRED by Regan, and Regan DE-REGULATED the airlines allowing greater freedom of companies to price their own routes that however did NOT change the FAA regulation of airline safety. The rules concerning pilot training, maximum age, and certification remain. The rules governing maintenance and safety also remain.

All the scams, frauds, and thefts that have harmed consumers over the last several decades have been committed by REGULATED market participants.

My opinion is that REGULATION does not prevent bad actors from acting badly, but regulation does force good actors to act stupidly if that is what is required to conform with moronic governmentally imposed regulations.

Because I believe that government is NOT competent to run a business and because I believe that government regulation does not make the market a safer or a better place, I personally don't support additional regulation. The UCC and existing rules regarding negligence and warranty of fitness are sufficient. If these laws were followed / enforced the scammers would be out of business.

I don't think you can tax your way to prosperity or regulate your way to productivity or legislate your way to morality. Government should only work in a negative fashion, punishing scammers and mitigating damage; government should NOT work in a positive fashion protecting me from harm that has yet to occur.

Again these are my opinions on government and the comming collapse. Does anyone know the percentage of government employees to total employees in this country? I would be very surprised if this ratio ISN'T at the highest level in the history of the USA.

I'd postulate that when everyone and their brother works for the government the collapse is just around the corner.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Government should only work in a negative fashion, punishing scammers and mitigating damage; government should NOT work in a positive fashion protecting me from harm that has yet to occur.

This is more of what I meant when I said "fraud needs to be regulated."

It's the government's job to enforce laws against theft. Therefore scammers and fraudsters should be serving long jail sentences.

As it stands now the well has become so poisoned that the fraudsters are the government and the government is the corporation. We have tons of regulations that are either not enforced or worthless to begin with. When the government is doing the stealing then the people have no more recourse except revolution. Unfortunately revolution won't come until the American proles are left with nothing. As a country we won't react until we are faced with crisis of epic proportions. Until then we are a dear in headlights. We will revolt, but it will be out of necessity as the bourgeois and ruling class will have destroyed everything decent here.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ok I hear you and understand that you feel that the financial industry was DE-REGULATED, however that is simply not true. The NASD, SEC, SIPC, FINRA, NYSE, FDIC, etc. have been regulating the financial industry for decades. The repeal of Glass Stegiel was not de-regulation it was a change in regulation.

The air traffic controllers you mentioned were FIRED by Regan, and Regan DE-REGULATED the airlines allowing greater freedom of companies to price their own routes that however did NOT change the FAA regulation of airline safety. The rules concerning pilot training, maximum age, and certification remain. The rules governing maintenance and safety also remain.

All the scams, frauds, and thefts that have harmed consumers over the last several decades have been committed by REGULATED market participants.

My opinion is that REGULATION does not prevent bad actors from acting badly, but regulation does force good actors to act stupidly if that is what is required to conform with moronic governmentally imposed regulations.

Because I believe that government is NOT competent to run a business and because I believe that government regulation does not make the market a safer or a better place, I personally don't support additional regulation. The UCC and existing rules regarding negligence and warranty of fitness are sufficient. If these laws were followed / enforced the scammers would be out of business.

I don't think you can tax your way to prosperity or regulate your way to productivity or legislate your way to morality. Government should only work in a negative fashion, punishing scammers and mitigating damage; government should NOT work in a positive fashion protecting me from harm that has yet to occur.

Again these are my opinions on government and the comming collapse. Does anyone know the percentage of government employees to total employees in this country? I would be very surprised if this ratio ISN'T at the highest level in the history of the USA.

I'd postulate that when everyone and their brother works for the government the collapse is just around the corner.

Honey, you know not what you speak

With all due respect, it would take a fundamental lapse of understanding to suggest I ever said the financial industry is regulation-free. You absoluted me on taxing growers as well. Uh... (please) don't revise my context. It makes your argument one-sided.

I can't qualify example if you wont consider context. If the idea that all regulation has to disappear to consider that deregulation is fact, there's no amount of examples, logic or capital letters that would persuade you to reconsider. The fundamental idea that deregulation isn't real because we still have other regulations (that apply to other people, places and things) ignores what happened and what's happening. Systemic risk wouldn't be the reality today w/o deregulation. The idea that regulation/deregulation is cumulatively absolute or evaporated entirely is ideology, not the application we live with.

Debating a way of thinking w/o applying it to the principal is circular and ineffective.

I appreciate your examples but feel your fundamental aspect is challenged. Sorry, bro. I still think yer a kool dude.

Do you feel that the repeal of a given law is moot when other laws exist? Regulation has a collective sense but that's not how I'm using the word.

The air traffic controllers you mentioned were FIRED by Regan, and Regan DE-REGULATED the airlines allowing greater freedom of companies to price their own routes that however did NOT change the FAA regulation of airline safety. The rules concerning pilot training, maximum age, and certification remain. The rules governing maintenance and safety also remain.

You're borrowing both sides of the argument and substituting the word "rules" for convenience. Rules are regulation are law are here are real and now. You said it yourself, we still have deregulation. Whether it's how you see fit is your argument alone.

Reagan didn't affect marketability for the airlines. He made private sector union workers federal employees which made it illegal to strike. He didn't fire controllers to allow private business to do what private business has always done... set their own fare rates.

 

[Hydrosun]

Reagan didn't affect marketability for the airlines. He made private sector union workers federal employees which made it illegal to strike. He didn't fire controllers to allow private business to do what private business has always done... set their own fare rates.

We have a fundamental disagreement here. SouthWest Airlines was an INTRASTATE Texas only airline, because the Federal government regulated INTERSTATE air-travel via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

President Regan FIRED the air traffic controllers because they chose to strike against their employer. President Regan as the head of the executive branch was the defacto head of their employer. President Regan fired the controllers because it was within his rights and he felt it the best thing to do. I am not sure if those same controllers were private employees conscripted into government service, if so that would be another example of government repressively regulating private business; same as they did for the TSA.

The de-regulation of the airlines is REALLY different regulation and under the new regulatory scheme they were allowed to price their own routes, prior to the change the federal government set prices for routes.

We are on different sides of the philosophical fence, but I believe that I have the correct account of history. Your statement that "private business has always done... set their own fare rates." is not accurate. The government set fares and availability of routes prior to airline RE-REGULATION.

On a side note I do NOT agree with making air traffic controllers federal employees any more than I agree with turning TSA into the retarded yard duties of airports, and also government employees.

Still interested in your thoughts about total employment in the USA and the percentage held by government employees. I haven't researched it but have a gut feel that government employment has NEVER been as high as it is now.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Regan lowering the boom on PATCO strike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF5tEaqcVQ

The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization or PATCO was a United States trade union which operated from 1968 until its decertification in 1981 following a strike which was broken by the Reagan Administration. The 1981 strike and defeat of PATCO has been called "one of the most important events in late twentieth century U.S. labor history."[1]

None of this has anything to do with your idea that deregulation doesn't happen when other regulations are left in place or new regulation takes the place of.

I never used "deregulation" to suggest there is none left.

I said that regulation in place, prior to Graham Leach Bliley (the repeal of Glass Stegall) separated commercial and investment banking by law. I also said that this is deregulation of that lawful separation. These entities weren't allowed to do business with each other until Clinton signed the bill into law that deregulated the division. Now they're no longer lawfully separated entities.

 

[Hydrosun]

Thank you for that link. That guy sounds like Casey Kasem, great and easy to listen to.

I got no hint at ALL that air traffic controllers were anything OTHER than public sector employees who signed an oath NOT to strike.

If he did nationalize their union and then fuck them, I would lose a lot of respect for him.

 

[HempKat]

We have a fundamental disagreement here. SouthWest Airlines was an INTRASTATE Texas only airline, because the Federal government regulated INTERSTATE air-travel via the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

President Regan FIRED the air traffic controllers because they chose to strike against their employer. President Regan as the head of the executive branch was the defacto head of their employer. President Regan fired the controllers because it was within his rights and he felt it the best thing to do. I am not sure if those same controllers were private employees conscripted into government service, if so that would be another example of government repressively regulating private business; same as they did for the TSA.

The de-regulation of the airlines is REALLY different regulation and under the new regulatory scheme they were allowed to price their own routes, prior to the change the federal government set prices for routes.

We are on different sides of the philosophical fence, but I believe that I have the correct account of history. Your statement that "private business has always done... set their own fare rates." is not accurate. The government set fares and availability of routes prior to airline RE-REGULATION.

On a side note I do NOT agree with making air traffic controllers federal employees any more than I agree with turning TSA into the retarded yard duties of airports, and also government employees.

Still interested in your thoughts about total employment in the USA and the percentage held by government employees. I haven't researched it but have a gut feel that government employment has NEVER been as high as it is now.

Well according to the Bureau Of Labor and Statistics it's not as dramatic a percentage as you might think and has actually been in decline the past year (likely due to budget cuts).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm not trying to sway your opinion of Reagan. I may have misspoke when I said Reagan made controllers federal employees. They already were federal employees as part of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Apparently, at least some unionized federal workers declare an oath not to strike. It's a commerce thing, we don't want the economy to tank as a result of key federal organizations labor disputes. Especially those that might affect the economy.

Several other federal organizations like postal workers took similar oaths yet still picketed. There were no subsequent ramifications similar to the controllers strike.

To be as fair as my little brain knows how, Reagan warned the controllers union not to strike or he'd sack their ass.

 

[Hydrosun]

Well according to the Bureau Of Labor and Statistics it's not as dramatic a percentage as you might think and has actually been in decline the past year (likely due to budget cuts).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

All I could really gather was that there were 140mm employed Americans with 83mm or so "not in the work force."

What I'd really like to know is how many of the 140mm employees are government (federal, state, local, city, county, etc.)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well according to the Bureau Of Labor and Statistics it's not as dramatic a percentage as you might think and has actually been in decline the past year (likely due to budget cuts).

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

This isn't as good a link as Hemp's from-the-source. But I haven't found anything that appears blatantly false. Even though I've made a few mis-characterizations with the airline subject. Sorry 'bout that.

1. Of the five presidents before Obama, who reduced the size of the federal government the most?
The correct answer is e. By far, Bill Clinton made the greatest reductions in the federal work force, reducing the number of federal non-military employees by 380,000, and the overall totals including military by 802,000. There were 3.083 million non-military federal employees when he took office, and 2.703 million when he left office. Overall totals including military personnel are 4.931 million employees when he took office, and 4.129 employees when he left office.

2. Which president came in second in reducing the size of the federal government?

The correct answer is c. George H.W. Bush came in second. In his one term he reduced the size of the non-military bureaucracy by 30,000, and the total including military by 358,000.

3. Which of the above presidents increased the size of the federal bureaucracy during their terms?

The correct answer is e. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the size of the bureaucracy, whether or not you count military personnel. Reagan increased the non-military workforce by 238,000 employees, and the federal workforce including military personnel by 324,000. George W. Bush increased the non-military workforce by 53,000 employees, and the federal workforce overall by 77,000. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, reduced non-military employees by 8,000 and the federal workforce overall by6 37,000. Carter came in third behind George H.W. Bush as a small-government practitioner.

4. Which of the above presidents increased the size of the federal bureaucracy the most?

The correct answer is a. The president who campaigned the loudest on a "reduce government" platform was a big hypocrite. Reagan increased federal non-military personnel by 238,000 workers, and increased the federal workforce including the military by 324,000 workers. The federal workforce almost reached its peak at the end of Reagan's presidency (1988) with 5.289 million workers (including military), then peaked during the first year of George H.W. Bush's presidency at 5.292 million. It has come down significantly since then to the current total of 4.430 million.

5. When you count military personnel ONLY, which of these presidents had the greatest increase?

The correct answer is a. Of the five presidents surveyed, Reagan increased the military the most -- up by 86,000 troops, followed by George W. Bush, who increased the military by 24,000 troops. The military decreased in size under Clinton (who reduced the military by 422,000), George H.W. Bush (a reduction of 328,000) and Carter (a reduction of 29,000). But, to prove that I'm not being partisan -- look at this: at the end of Obama's first year in office, the size of the military had increased by 141,000 troops! Granted, these figures rise and fall during every president's term, and they may go down again before the end of Obama's term -- but still the military buildup is alarming for a candidate who promised to end the wars. Also, to be fair to Obama, the total number of troops at the end of 2009 (1,591,000) is smaller than when Clinton took office (1,848,000) or when Carter took office (2,119,000) and it is no where near the peak set in 1987, under Reagan, when there were 2,213,000 military employees.

So, do Republican presidents really believe in small government? Not lately it seems. Even George H.W. Bush, who decreased the federal workforce by 358,000, was mostly offsetting the 324,000 federal employees added by Ronald Reagan. Thus after 12 years of Republican presidencies (1981 - 1993), the federal workforce when George H.W. Bush left office was only 34,000 less than the workforce when Reagan took office. Carter did better than that, reducing the workforce by 37,000. Compare that to Clinton's record - decreasing federal employees by 802,000.
http://www.brendagrantland.com /Blog/BlogRepublican.html

I'm a liberal. I make no effort to suggest that enlarging government is bad. IMO, it's how well the budget goes and I don't necessarily think bigger government is better government. IMO, it has to be targeted and as comprehensive as respective policy demands.

For example, I'd like to see enough JD staff to go after white collar crime. That's just my thing.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

All I could really gather was that there were 140mm employed Americans with 83mm or so "not in the work force."

What I'd really like to know is how many of the 140mm employees are government (federal, state, local, city, county, etc.)

Apparently it's pretty damn big. All I've seen is reductions and expansions but no real comparisons to the bottom line figure. I;m sure we can find it though.

 

[Hydrosun]

4.129 (1) when Clinton leaves
Bush Jr. reduces by .358 (2) = 3.771 (math)

"It has come down significantly since then to the current total of 4.430 million." (4)

So Obama has increased the federal workforce by 659,000 employees in a time of great economic distress? Sounds like a sign of a collapse.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

How many of those are Military?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

4.129 (1) when Clinton leaves
Bush Jr. reduces by .358 (2) = 3.771 (math)

"It has come down significantly since then to the current total of 4.430 million." (4)

So Obama has increased the federal workforce by 659,000 employees in a time of great economic distress? Sounds like a sign of a collapse.

Yep, that's the liberal idea. In 1932, FDR increased spending when the private sector contracted. By 1937, we had sustained growth but deficit conscious conservatives were able to decrease spending in 1937. The economy contracted. That contraction was short lived but so was deficit spending reductions. However, the brief pause in government spending had the effect of prolonging the recovery through the end of WWII.

That's a rehash of left leaning economists. They point to the Hoover years (no government spending in place of an anemic private sector) and 1937 as evidence that no increased government spending in the time of private contraction makes things worse.

That's not the only evidence. Clinton raised revenues when the top rate went to 39%. Then spending reductions helped but the bulk of reductions came post-government-spending to get us out of the jam of the early 90s recession.

The liberal ideology of increased government spending in times of private contraction is demonstrated in other ways:

Including and since the Eisenhower administration, one side has returned consistent surpluses (excepting Obama of course) and the other has returned consistent deficits.

I won't suggest that one stripe is fiscally irresponsible. However I do feel that the idea of smaller government is being pandered to the electorate as a conservative baby alone. There's no statistics that bear out that ideal.

One stripe may indeed want as little federal government as possible. But their actions appear to indicate otherwise. Might be a reason they're more demonstrable when the other stripe is taking us in a different direction. While the forecast appears terrible, the current stripe never had to climb from such steep deficits as the end of 2008. Coupled with financial reforms that exacerbated bubbles and global trade, we're fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Actually the government is laying off people now. That's how you know the system is collapsing. This is the first time the federal employ dole has continuously contracted. It will continue to contract as we slip into insolvency.

Pretty soon the government will only be able to afford a couple entitlement programs and the interest on the debt. That's it. That is the Keynesian endpoint. As the economy falters and starts to contract this will all be expedited.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Dear Gramps, with all due respect...

Keynesian economics has an element working against it. An element trying to prove it doesn't work. An element trying to drive it off the cliff.

We've had more conservative presidents since 1950 than subscribers to Keynes. Conservative economics never returned a single surplus since Ike. Has conservative economics ever returned anything but deficits?

With the exception of the current administration, Keynesian economics has returned surpluses with every administration since Eisenhower.

Now, multiply this arch element times the practical reality of 80% of the independent voter class who rebound between one economic theory and the other.

When conservatives get the reigns of power, they thwart principles that allow Keynes to work.

IMO, folks might read your posts and come away with the assumption that all legislators govern under Keynesian economics. We know this isn't the case, we know we have polar economic application ever time the fickle voter wants to drink beer with the other guy.

It's not unlike saying the blue balloon always pops. However, it's the red balloon that holds the pin.