Signs that a collapse is under way.

[igrowone]

collapse is a very imprecise term, at least in this thread context
collapse where people are machine gunning each other over a gallon of gasoline? that's one kind of collapse
another collapse is where the US government defaults on obligations, i.e. say paying 50 cents on the dollar for its social security obligations
it's the kind of word where you can make it mean whatever you want, it just may not mean the same thing to different people

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Even a lib like me can see the potential of Keynesian pitfalls. But any self respecting conservative should see that Keynes isn't applied every time one side of the aisle turns surpluses into deficits.

Conservative economics pointing the finger at Keynes is not unlike fixing the bilge pump on your fishin' boat while your arch rival is filling your hull full of water with a fire hose.

"See, look at all that water... fuck that bilge pump and let that boat sink."

These aren't competing strategies working toward a compromised goal - economic viability.

One side accepts the fact that there are two ways to skin cat and takes their lumps when statistics prove repeatedly the other formula doesn't work. The other side shoves a cherry bomb in the cat's ass and says look at Keynesian economics... it blows itself up.

One side attempts compromise, unfortunately against our economic best interests. The leaders of the other side say, "Fuck compromise... give back the store and don't forget to duck (blame it on Keynes) when the shit hits the fan."

 

[Hydrosun]

Disco I am a libertarian and not a fan of either stripe you mention. Also NO administration in the last 80 years has returned a surplus. There may be one or two years of surplus however ALL administrations during that time had a net deficit (i.e. the national debt INCREASED).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

We could argue about which stripe was better at increasing the public debt, but the fact that all of them DID increase the debt is disgusting to me and a sign that this country is weak and immoral Those who borrow NEVER to repay have always been viewed as parasites by honest economic actors.

 

[SpasticGramps]

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?

This is where we disagree. I don't believe we've had a "conservative" administration since pre-WWI. Not in the true academic sense of the word. When we engaged in WWI true conservatism died. We have been nothing, but different shades of progressiveness since then.

Even Hoover who the "left" likes to bash as the most evil conservative was too progressive for me. He enacted the Hawley-Smoot tariff which is a form of government intervention which is a progressive trait. While he was Commerce Secertary he promoted something called the "associative state." A form of central planning. I could go on and on.

Trying to blame the failure of Keyensian economics on Neo-Conservative Progressives doesn't work me. I don't differentiate between Neo-Cons or Neo-Liberals. They are two sides of the same progressive coin IMO. Keynesian economics fails because it assumes that a small group of elite people can control the economy. It may and does work for a while, but human nature is such that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The end result will always be a corrupt group of individuals ruling over an underclass. Keynesian economics is neo-feudalism IMO. This isn't Keynesian economics anyway. Keynes would be disgusted by how his ideas have been perverted by the central bank for decades now.

As for the surplus debate. I could return a surplus too if I was cooking the books.

 

[bentom187]

obama and geitner are the only ones left and he stopped taking his economic/intelligence breifings.
i doubt he gives a crap anymore.

 

[Hydrosun]

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.

I look at the TSA clowns every time I go through an airport and they seem to be multiplying not contracting. Also the 1-5 post of Disco above makes it appear that Obama has increased federal public employees by more than 600K. I am also aware that Obama greatly increased the rate of pay to the federal workers at a time when Americans are struggling to keep their families a float.

The collapse is coming.

 

[SpasticGramps]

If you watch the monthly job reports from the BLS there has been a net minus government jobs every month since '08. I believe this is mainly local and regional though. They have to maintain a budget though. I may have misspoke about the federal number who are getting paid more and more.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

This is where we disagree. I don't believe we've had a "conservative" administration since pre-WWI. Not in the true academic sense of the word. When we engaged in WWI true conservatism died. We have been nothing, but different shades of progressiveness since then.

I'm a liberal gramps. Academia isn't a werdy derd to me. But practical application says we have two economic philosophies. One emphasizes the collective and the other emphasizes the individual.

Even Hoover who the "left" likes to bash as the most evil conservative was too progressive for me. He enacted the Hawley-Smoot tariff which is a form of government intervention which is a progressive trait. While he was Commerce Secertary he promoted something called the "associative state." A form of central planning. I could go on and on.

I'll speak as a liberal, rather than of them. Hoover wasn't evil. His economic policies didn't work. Hoover is referenced for where he fell into the time line and what happened as a result of his policies.

Trying to blame the failure of Keyensian economics on Neo-Conservative Progressives doesn't work me.

Hope you mind the pleasant suggestion you take a moment to put philosophical differences of the past and the present aside and take a look at the practical reality that says contemporary conservative leaders never return a surplus.

I don't differentiate between Neo-Cons or Neo-Liberals. They are two sides of the same progressive coin IMO. Keynesian economics fails because it assumes that a small group of elite people can control the economy.

Can we dodge philosophy for only a moment to recognize we have basically two choices to run our economy. Both follow the same central control you speak of so I don't address that aspect.

What I do address is that one side favors the economic collective and one side favors the individual, economically. One side manages revenues to operate (reference historic, consistent surpluses.) The other side returned revenues to the top and runs deficits consistently.

It may and does work for a while, but human nature is such that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The end result will always be a corrupt group of individuals ruling over an underclass.

I know what you mean. We corrupted a $236 billion surpluss at the end of the Clinton administration. Projected surplus of $5.7 trillion by the end of the subsequent two-terms, (assuming we didn't flip the revenues coin.)

Keynesian economics is neo-feudalism IMO. This isn't Keynesian economics anyway. Keynes would be disgusted by how his ideas have been perverted by the central bank for decades now.

IMO, we spin wheels when we examine the hair of philosophy w/o addressing the scalp of practical reality.

As for the surplus debate. I could return a surplus too if I was cooking the books.

We all know that statistics can and will be played. That's why we have polls that suggest whatever Zogby and others happen to think, given the circumstances.

That's why we have non-partisan entities like CBO. Are they fallible? Certainly. In the absence of non-partisan bean counters, how do you statistically justify "cooking"? The fact that truly politicized stats have been cooked?

 

[Hydrosun]

I'm with the individual and NOT the collective, unless I get to make the rules of course Then I am way more liberal than you

And Hoover IS evil, even if stupidly well intentioned the ass clown was evil and put the federal reserve of 1913 in existence.

Also NO we can not "recognize we have basically two choices to run our economy. Both follow the same central control you speak of" that would be admitting defeat without even entering the fight. The collectivists pigs would like you and I to think that the only possible future includes their ass clown control of the economy, but if you look behind the curten you will see that they are all pathetically weak, pasty, self-serving douches, who only suck from the collective and produce nothing.

There has to be a better, freer way!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Disco I am a libertarian and not a fan of either stripe you mention. Also NO administration in the last 80 years has returned a surplus. There may be one or two years of surplus however ALL administrations during that time had a net deficit (i.e. the national debt INCREASED).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

We could argue about which stripe was better at increasing the public debt, but the fact that all of them DID increase the debt is disgusting to me and a sign that this country is weak and immoral Those who borrow NEVER to repay have always been viewed as parasites by honest economic actors.

Hydro, you're bending context again.

As an improper noun, deficit is indeed debt.

AS proper nouns, Deficit reflects fiscal and Debt reflects totality.

I never spoke of national debt sir and you can't infer synonymy w/o obfuscation of the proper context. You made the same oversimplification with regulation/deregulation. The two are related yet the two are specific, respectively.

How about we address specifically (what I did) and cumulatively (what you did)?

That little quip at the bottom is silly. It ignores the fact that what's represented by the red bars never intended the federal government to run in a solvent manner. They want to drown the baby and claim the baby downed on it's own because it couldn't swim (while their collective hand is forcing it to inhale water.)

One may debate libertarianism (or apparently long-gone conservatism.)

IMO, that debate takes the form of liberals = bad w/o addressing the hard fact the only other alternative is economically worse both statistically and real.

I vote my ideals, recognizing that some of my ideals aren't addressed or the old days are gone. But I also vote based on my wallet and there is concrete reason to consider the economically viable option.

I notice the more I suggest that the red bars represent the economically nonviable, the more the conversations permeate philosophical differences of what could be, rather than addressing the practical reality of deficits and surpluses.

Hydro, I offer you sir the proof of what I initially inferred - deficits vs surpluses.

I also offer the proof that the red stripe expands national debt while the (historic) blue stripe contracts national debt.

I offer the concept that deficits and debt wouldn't be the issue it is today w/o a working side of the equation attempting to obfuscate intent. That's what known as pandering but they won't tell you what they're doing (edging you ever so closer to the profit sector for services better financed by non-profit entities with the added value of the collective, being served less expensively than any other (proven) method.

I respect each and every person's philosophy, including libertarians. But what initially starts as defense of the red strip ends up convoluting the debate over [what constitutes the red stripe?] and the supposition that it's more valuable to reference a less than 1% opinion of the electorate.

Back to reality. I never said one shouldn't embrace their respective philosophical differences. But given the practical applications we have, one is an economic plus and the other is a minus.

 

[Hydrosun]

Dude that is a nice chart and all but you stated that some administrations ran a surpluss.

That is not correct. I checked and provided the link which shows that ALL administrations (in the last 80 years) have left the country with a higher national debt than existed when they took office. Therefore NONE of the administrations ran a surplus ALL administrations ran a deficit.

But as you see the nice chart you posted shows DEBT INCREASES and NEVER DEBT DECREASES.

I have never defended either version of fascist D or R. I meerly try to reconcile my memory of economic history with recorded facts and then use correct terminology to explain my thoughts.

Please re-read your own chart because as I said ALL presidents increased the debt. To me it appears that 7 of Clinton's 8 years saw GREATER INCREASES in national debt than the two years of Ford, all 4 of Carter, and 3 of Regan's years.

So "I also offer the proof that the red stripe expands national debt while the (historic) blue stripe contracts national debt." is not an accurate statement BECAUSE all of the blue bars are INCREASES in the debt, not contractions.

I also vote my convictions and have voted in all but one presidential election since I turned 18. Fortunately or not the guy I've voted for has NEVER been elected to the office.

Now if you want to say Bush Jr. was a bigger douche than almost any other president, you won't get an argument from me.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm with the individual and NOT the collective, unless I get to make the rules of course Then I am way more liberal than you

And Hoover IS evil, even if stupidly well intentioned the ass clown was evil and put the federal reserve of 1913 in existence.

Also NO we can not "recognize we have basically two choices to run our economy. Both follow the same central control you speak of" that would be admitting defeat without even entering the fight. The collectivists pigs would like you and I to think that the only possible future includes their ass clown control of the economy, but if you look behind the curten you will see that they are all pathetically weak, pasty, self-serving douches, who only suck from the collective and produce nothing.

There has to be a better, freer way!

I respect your views, sir.

Sir, Woodrow Wilson is responsible for the Fed, not Herbert Hoover.

You're getting into the pandering that a head and a tail constitutes the same thing. I'll offer this...

When your fundamental philosophy is shared by what constitutes a working majority of voters, you sir may have that chance to prove you're economic philosophy indeed has historic, practical application and we'll all be able to see whether it's economically sound.

Until then, practical application doesn't exist. I'm not suggesting that you personally acquiesce to red or blue. Whether you recognize those options as the only thing we have at the moment to me isn't important. What's important is suggesting we're moving backward when 80% of big I and little i independents moves the chains back-and-forth.

I get the impression that if you were front and center at the Super Bowl, you wouldn't be interested in the winner/loser aspect, despite the numeric score. IMO, you might prefer to surmise what would happen if officials just gave you the ball and allowed you to make the calls (where "you" constitutes a personally attractive yet unproven playbook.)

To suggest that you'd play by different rules might be the precise reason you're in the stands and not on the field. (Where you represents a party that constitutes micronomy.)

 

[Hydrosun]

I respect your views, sir.

Sir, Woodrow Wilson is responsible for the Fed, not Herbert Hoover.

You're getting into the pandering that a head and a tail constitutes the same thing. I'll offer this...

When your fundamental philosophy is shared by what constitutes a working majority of voters, you sir may have that chance to prove you're economic philosophy indeed has historic, practical application and we'll all be able to see whether it's economically sound.

Until then, practical application doesn't exist. I'm not suggesting that you personally acquiesce to red or blue. Whether you recognize those options as the only thing we have at the moment to me isn't important. What's important is suggesting we're moving backward when 80% of big I and little i independents moves the chains back-and-forth.

I get the impression that if you were front and center at the Super Bowl, you wouldn't be interested in the winner/loser aspect, despite the numeric score. IMO, you might prefer to surmise what would happen if officials just gave you the ball and allowed you to make the calls (where "you" constitutes a personally attractive yet unproven playbook.)

To suggest that you'd play by different rules might be the precise reason you're in the stands and not on the field. (Where you represents a party that constitutes micronomy.)

The majority of voters matter not a single wit. As I've already posted in other threads the USA practiced my economic philosophy during the Lochner Era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era

The change to collectivism was not prompted by voters but rather the US Supreme Court (remember that institution that FDR wanted to stack, and then eventually got to create in his four terms?) The practical application does exist and I personally can't pick red or blue because I see them as 49.9 v 50.1 so similar to equate to NO REAL CHOICE at all. If the only way to get on the field is to pick D or R, I'll remain in the stands. And who really cares who wins between 49.9 or 50.1 the shit is going to taste the same.

What I want is a return to the economic freedoms that were protected by the court during the Lochner Era. It worked then and it can work again.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Dude that is a nice chart and all but you stated that some administrations ran a surpluss.

Aah, but I stated much more than that. I pointed to respective, historic consistency between waht basically amounts to two governing philosophies - tax and spend vs spending with no tangent toward revenues.

That is not correct. I checked and provided the link which shows that ALL administrations (in the last 80 years) have left the country with a higher national debt than existed when they took office.

You reference a public repository that's replete with examples of editing wars between statistics and philosophy. I find perplexing your synopsis of substantial complexity comes in the form of a very brief statement.

Therefore NONE of the administrations ran a surplus ALL administrations ran a deficit.

But as you see the nice chart you posted shows DEBT INCREASES and NEVER DEBT DECREASES.

Make the caps #7 font... doesn't change the outcome.

I have never defended either version of fascist D or R. I meerly try to reconcile my memory of economic history with recorded facts and then use correct terminology to explain my thoughts.

The omnipresent "fascist" to reference correct terminology. Now you know the difference between the varying aspects you combine into confusion for what reasons I'd never be able to fathom.

Please re-read your own chart because as I said ALL presidents increased the debt. To me it appears that 7 of Clinton's 8 years saw GREATER INCREASES in national debt than the two years of Ford, all 4 of Carter, and 3 of Regan's years.

Now I get it. Paul Revere is historically revered for warning the British they couldn't take our guns away rather than warning Cornwallis and Adams of and how the British would cometh.

So "I also offer the proof that the red stripe expands national debt while the (historic) blue stripe contracts national debt." is not an accurate statement BECAUSE all of the blue bars are INCREASES in the debt, not contractions.

Yes. If you turn consecutive order on it's ear, comparing apples to oranges and re contextualizing terms.

I also vote my convictions and have voted in all but one presidential election since I turned 18. Fortunately or not the guy I've voted for has NEVER been elected to the office.

My point, sir is that I won't twist perception, let alone fact to back my basis. We may never know if your vote constitutes the result you wish.

Now if you want to say Bush Jr. was a bigger douche than almost any other president, you won't get an argument from me.

Thank you for showing that one needn't attempt leading you to water. You'd merely invert the trough and suggest it's dry.

 

[Madrus Rose]

a little OT : More mass graves in Texas, at least 20 bodies including children

Drug War related ?...what in heavens is going on ?

Grusesome Discovery: “Dozens” of Children’s Bodies Found in Mass Grave in East Texas
http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/gru...ens-bodies-found-in-mass-grave-in-east-texas/


In what can only be described as the most gruesome discovery imaginable, “dozens of bodies” have been found in a mass gave in Liberty County, Texas, according to KPRC2 in Houston.

The story broke shortly before 5 pm local time so details are scant, but initial reports say dismembered children’s bodies have been uncovered on the scene, according to KHOU.

More from KHOU:

Sheriff’s deputies said they found blood on the scene and are now trying to get a warrant to search further, according to the Cleveland Advocate.

About 15 sheriff’s department vehicles and at least one cadaver dog are on the scene.

The Beaumont FBI has also been asked to assist in the investigation.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The majority of voters matter not a single wit.

I understand that principal quite well, sir. If history shows that basic philosophy doesn't work, one revises history.

When one flouts the basis of a democratic society, one ignores history.

As I've already posted in other threads the USA practiced my economic philosophy during the Lochner Era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era

The change to collectivism was not prompted by voters but rather the US Supreme Court (remember that institution that FDR wanted to stack, and then eventually got to create in his four terms?) The practical application does exist and I personally can't pick red or blue because I see them as 49.9 v 50.1 so similar to equate to NO REAL CHOICE at all. If the only way to get on the field is to pick D or R, I'll remain in the stands. And who really cares who wins between 49.9 or 50.1 the shit is going to taste the same.

What I want is a return to the economic freedoms that were protected by the court during the Lochner Era. It worked then and it can work again.

Thanks for the link and the philosophy. Doesn't change anything I said.

 

[Madrus Rose]

some text from Fed Chair Ben's talk this afternoon

Stimulus Needed for ‘Uneven’ Recovery: Bernanke
By Caroline Salas Gage and Steve Matthews - Jun 7, 2011 12:45 PM

The pickup in inflation has yet to concern some Federal Reserve policy makers, including Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who predict the acceleration will be temporary. Photographer: Brendan Smialowski/Bloomberg
.Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the central bank should maintain record monetary stimulus to boost an “uneven” and “frustratingly slow” economic recovery.

“The economy is still producing at levels well below its potential; consequently, accommodative monetary policies are still needed,” Bernanke, 57, said today in the text of a speech to a conference in Atlanta. “Until we see a sustained period of stronger job creation, we cannot consider the recovery to be truly established.”

Recent data showing weakness in the economy, including a rise in the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent in May, has increased the odds the Fed will hold the benchmark interest rate near zero into next year. At the same time, Bernanke and his fellow policy makers plan this month to complete a $600 billion bond purchase program, and they’re discussing the tools they’d use to withdraw stimulus, according to minutes of their meeting in April.

Bernanke said that while the recent increase in inflation is a “concern,” he doesn’t see “much evidence that inflation is becoming broad-based or ingrained in our economy.” Still, “the longer-run health of the economy requires that the Federal Reserve be vigilant in preserving its hard-won credibility for maintaining price stability.”

If commodity prices stabilize, “the upward impetus to overall price inflation will wane and the recent increase in inflation will prove transitory,” Bernanke said. Inflation is being restrained by “the stability of longer-term inflation expectations” and “weak demand for labor,” he said.

Job Openings
Job openings in the U.S. declined in April for the first time in three months and payrolls grew in May at the slowest pace in eight months, according to Labor Department figures released since June 3. The 54,000 rise in jobs followed a 232,000 gain in April and was below the 165,000 median increase forecast by economists in a Bloomberg News survey.

“Recent indicators suggest some loss of momentum,” Bernanke said. “I expect hiring to pick up from last month’s pace as growth strengthens in the second half of the year, but, again, the recent data highlight the need to continue monitoring the jobs situation carefully.”

Manufacturing grew at its slowest pace in more than a year in May, according to Institute for Supply Management data released last week. Consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the economy, rose less than forecast in April as households felt the pinch of grocery and energy costs, a Commerce Department report showed.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has declined 5.1 percent since hitting a high for the year on April 29.

Oil Prices
Oil prices have climbed 160 percent since February 2009, while non-fuel commodity prices gained about 80 percent, Bernanke said in his remarks. The increase in commodity prices reflects “strong gains in global demand that have not been met with commensurate increases in supply,” he said.

The chairman rejected criticism that the Fed’s actions have pushed down the foreign exchange value of the dollar, and thereby boosted the price of commodities, saying “many factors other than monetary policy affect the value of the dollar.”

Commodities as tracked by the 24-member Standard & Poor’s GSCI Spot Index have rallied about 9 percent this year, led by gasoil and Brent crude.

Bernanke said that waning fiscal stimulus will also exert drag on growth. He warned against sharp cutbacks at a time when the recovery is still fragile, while urging lawmakers to develop a long-term plan for deficit reduction.

Long-Term Plan
“A sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still-fragile recovery,” Bernanke said. “Consequently, the appropriate response is to move quickly to enact a credible, long-term plan for fiscal consolidation.”

Policy makers have few options left to respond to accumulating signs of a slowdown after their second round of asset purchases sparked the harshest backlash against the central bank in three decades.

“We’ve gotten inconsistency, hesitancy and unevenness” in U.S. economic growth, Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart said today in a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina. “I’m troubled by what you might describe as a lack of conviction in this economy.”

Two regional Fed bank presidents critical of the so-called quantitative easing program -- Richard Fisher of Dallas and Charles Plosser of Philadelphia -- reiterated their opposition to additional stimulus in comments yesterday.

The central bank has “done enough if not too much” to spur growth, Fisher said in New York, while Plosser said in Helsinki that an exit from stimulus should start “long before” a recovery in the U.S. job market is assured.

“Somewhat tighter monetary policy is possible by the end of the year,” Plosser said. Fisher and Plosser are both voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee.

To contact the reporters on this story: Caroline Salas Gage in New York at csalas1@bloomberg.net; Steve Matthews in Atlanta at smatthews@bloomberg.net.

 

[Hydrosun]

The trough will always be dry to me if you insist that D v R is two different governing or economic philosophies. I see them as 49.9 and 50.1, so similar as to be identical. I do in fact know that .2 apart is different, but the I see no practical difference in the distinction between D and R.

And as you state the purported differences of the D's and R's don't exist. They both spend well more than they take in and will sacrifice any principle to expediency. The American governments that have existed in my lifetime have all been fascists (nominal ownership by corporations and chosen individuals with government control [regulation] to serve political ends).

I'll continue to point to the Lochner era which is an actual fact of history and kept the fascists at bay for a few generations. When the USA practiced economic freedom as exemplified by the Lochner era it was the most prosperous nation on the globe and self reliance was the name of the game.

I want nothing from government except a return to the rights promised me under the constitution. Those services you say that I use, I don't and wish they didn't exist.

Gramps says the "services" are going away, so I guess there is some silver lining to the cloud of collapse

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The trough will always be dry to me if you insist that D v R is two different governing or economic philosophies. I see them as 49.9 and 50.1, so similar as to be identical. I do in fact know that .2 apart is different, but the I see no practical difference in the distinction between D and R.

And as you state the purported differences of the D's and R's don't exist. They both spend well more than they take in and will sacrifice any principle to expediency. The American governments that have existed in my lifetime have all been fascists (nominal ownership by corporations and chosen individuals with government control [regulation] to serve political ends).

I'll continue to point to the Lochner era which is an actual fact of history and kept the fascists at bay for a few generations. When the USA practiced economic freedom as exemplified by the Lochner era it was the most prosperous nation on the globe and self reliance was the name of the game.

I want nothing from government except a return to the rights promised me under the constitution.

And I'll promise nothing here because I won't keep suggesting the square peg goes in the square hole while you're busy forcing it in the round one.

Those services you say that I use, I don't and wish they didn't exist.

It's not my wish to make you unhappy. But what I don't like and [still] have to deal with doesn't persuade me to keep forcing that peg of interesting perception.

Gramps says the "services" are going away, so I guess there is some silver lining to the cloud of collapse

In that case, maybe you'll see things closer to your liking. But somehow I get the feeling you'll be enlightened like never before.

 

[Hydrosun]

In that case, maybe you'll see things closer to your liking. But somehow I get the feeling you'll be enlightened like never before.

I hope you are correct and enlightenment is achieved by all of us. I think austerity will bring some much needed reflection to the sheeple, myself included. At least I'll have some cannabis to trade for those services which still exist and add to my happiness.