Global Economy Bursting?

[Couch Potato]

This Is The Part Where The Ratings Agencies Start Destroying The Economy

http://www.businessinsider.com/this...ings You Need To Know Before The Opening Bell

Last night, S&P came out with the most severe warning yet regarding US sovereign debt. It said the US has a 50/50 chance of losing its AAA rating in the next 90 days, and that a debt deal that removed less than $4 trillion in spending may not be enough to preserve that rating.

Much like an appraised value below contract price merely pronounce the deal dead, the rating agencies are not "destroying the economy" but merely confirming its state.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The rating agencies should have so little credibility that no one would pay attention to them

 

[prasercat]

The rating agencies should have so little credibility that no one would pay attention to them

The, so called, "Rating Agencies" appear inclined, as of late, to rate according to what will hurt the US economy and destroy our credibility. They pursue this course, even after it was determined they rated trillions of dollars of real estate instruments as investment grade that were really junk. Seems, we are still paying for that little oversight.

Do they care, surely!.

But it's just not good to grieve too long. After all, all that money the Street is making in Asia will be cause to move on with one's blessed life and perservere this difficult time. Yes, yes, all black clouds have a silver lining; however, if one is lucky, maybe, even the chinese yen!

But surely, as a business concern, they are acting out of self interest. But what is their interest? Rating responsibly and accurately? Really? Would it not be in their interest is to unseat Obama?

.....or could it be?.... they actually want to do their job for once, even if it takes part in the destruction of the US economy?!. Now, would that NOT be noble!, conciencious! and doing their job!? But is it not true, that, if they wanted to REALLY rate investments.... sheesh! ...they could have done that long ago!.....why start now?!

The big rating agencies, in my mind, have for a long time been the greatest cheerleaders for Wall Street and their crafty investments; but without the short-short pants, which is disappointing because it would be hilarious depending upon whom was wearing them! ....But, I do give them credit for excelling in choreography, with the Street, that is.

Yes, yes!, they surely do rate things, but in a perfunctory or strategic way that is self serving (don't you think?) lest they be in a "regulatory role" - Yikes, the "r" word!!); naturally, they must keep up appearances. Remember, if you look good, you feel good and if you feel good, you probably have a few dollars in your wallet too.

So, did anyone notice lately, they are on a run rating countries. I wonder what it must be like to be in their head? "Hmmmm....If we downgrade Greece, or Spain, or the US, will it increase their borrowing costs? Kill their weak economy? Can we use that to our advantage? How do we profit?"

 

[Couch Potato]

Why now?

The, so called, "Rating Agencies" appear inclined, as of late, to rate according to what will hurt the US economy and destroy our credibility. They pursue this course, even after it was determined they rated trillions of dollars of real estate instruments as investment grade that were really junk. Seems, we are still paying for that little oversight.

Do they care, surely!.

But it's just not good to grieve too long. After all, all that money the Street is making in Asia will be cause to move on with one's blessed life and perservere this difficult time. Yes, yes, all black clouds have a silver lining; however, if one is lucky, maybe, even the chinese yen!

But surely, as a business concern, they are acting out of self interest. But what is their interest? Rating responsibly and accurately? Really? Would it not be in their interest is to unseat Obama?

.....or could it be?.... they actually want to do their job for once, even if it takes part in the destruction of the US economy?!. Now, would that NOT be noble!, conciencious! and doing their job!? But is it not true, that, if they wanted to REALLY rate investments.... sheesh! ...they could have done that long ago!.....why start now?!

The big rating agencies, in my mind, have for a long time been the greatest cheerleaders for Wall Street and their crafty investments; but without the short-short pants, which is disappointing because it would be hilarious depending upon whom was wearing them! ....But, I do give them credit for excelling in choreography, with the Street, that is.

Yes, yes!, they surely do rate things, but in a perfunctory or strategic way that is self serving (don't you think?) lest they be in a "regulatory role" - Yikes, the "r" word!!); naturally, they must keep up appearances. Remember, if you look good, you feel good and if you feel good, you probably have a few dollars in your wallet too.

So, did anyone notice lately, they are on a run rating countries. I wonder what it must be like to be in their head? "Hmmmm....If we downgrade Greece, or Spain, or the US, will it increase their borrowing costs? Kill their weak economy? Can we use that to our advantage? How do we profit?"

That is the big question. Why start doing their job now? The United States debt should have been downgraded years ago. Th US is long past the point where the debt could ever realistically be paid back. Interest costs are way too high already even with the depressed rates we have now. Imagine what they will do to the federal budget when they go to normal levels. Nothing in Washington demonstrates any propensity to do what is needed so why would anyone expect fiscally responsible government in the United States?

 

[Austin]

I think you guys are arguing over the arrangement of the furniture on the Titanic. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is going belly up and is financially insolvent with nothing that can turn the things around. The argument is: Do we take the medicine now or kick the can down the road and take the medicine later. It is just a matter of time. Do we lose some of it now or all of it later? All the rating agencies can do is shift the date of demise around a little.
The way I look at it is that this country survived until the 1930’s with none of those entitlements and the fittest can survive without them again. It was fun while it lasted but the jig is up or will be within two years. Then the indoctrinated can set around and play the blame game til the cows come home.

 

[Couch Potato]

I think you guys are arguing over the arrangement of the furniture on the Titanic. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is going belly up and is financially insolvent with nothing that can turn the things around. The argument is: Do we take the medicine now or kick the can down the road and take the medicine later. It is just a matter of time. Do we lose some of it now or all of it later? All the rating agencies can do is shift the date of demise around a little.
The way I look at it is that this country survived until the 1930’s with none of those entitlements and the fittest can survive without them again. It was fun while it lasted but the jig is up or will be within two years. Then the indoctrinated can set around and play the blame game til the cows come home.

Without a doubt. I much prefer the chairs face the iceberg. How about you? :new_all_coholic:

 

[Randolph Kinney]

No Matter How Debt Debate Ends, Governors See More Cuts for States

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/us/politics/16governors.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

The pressure will be to raise taxes at the state level to make up any money loss from the federal government cuts. The "'or else" will be rising unemployment and layoffs of state government employees. That should scare the *ell out of Obama - that's his core base.

The leaders of the governors association — its chairwoman, Governor Gregoire of Washington, and its vice chairman, Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican — wrote to Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders in both parties last week urging them to reconsider, warning that such a cut would “result in reduced Medicaid expenditures, in increased state taxes or reductions in K-12 education, transportation and public safety funding.”

“We want this deficit solved, and we want it solved in a bipartisan way, but we don’t want it solved on the backs of states,” said Gov. Beverly Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat. “Because at the end, it’s just another pass down to us, which results in state unemployment, state layoffs.”

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Decision soon for California's 'Amazon tax' measure

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/15/economy-california-amazontax-idUSN1E76E1J220110715

 

[Couch Potato]

No Matter How Debt Debate Ends, Governors See More Cuts for States

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/us/politics/16governors.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

The pressure will be to raise taxes at the state level to make up any money loss from the federal government cuts. The "'or else" will be rising unemployment and layoffs of state government employees. That should scare the *ell out of Obama - that's his core base.

The leaders of the governors association — its chairwoman, Governor Gregoire of Washington, and its vice chairman, Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican — wrote to Mr. Obama and Congressional leaders in both parties last week urging them to reconsider, warning that such a cut would “result in reduced Medicaid expenditures, in increased state taxes or reductions in K-12 education, transportation and public safety funding.”

“We want this deficit solved, and we want it solved in a bipartisan way, but we don’t want it solved on the backs of states,” said Gov. Beverly Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat. “Because at the end, it’s just another pass down to us, which results in state unemployment, state layoffs.”

A pass which our Republican led legislature in NC will let drop to the ground. The democrats outnumber republicans in NC by 2-1 but Perdue has little chance to be re-elected for a second term the way things are going.

 

[Meandering]

I think you guys are arguing over the arrangement of the furniture on the Titanic. The bottom line is that the Federal Government is going belly up and is financially insolvent with nothing that can turn the things around. The argument is: Do we take the medicine now or kick the can down the road and take the medicine later. It is just a matter of time. Do we lose some of it now or all of it later? All the rating agencies can do is shift the date of demise around a little.
The way I look at it is that this country survived until the 1930’s with none of those entitlements and the fittest can survive without them again. It was fun while it lasted but the jig is up or will be within two years. Then the indoctrinated can set around and play the blame game til the cows come home.

This totally ignors the fact that we were a protectionist economy with high import tarrifs, we were not the world's policemen and we were not shipping our jobs overseas. These along with the high percentage of agriculture which was performed by many "family" farms for their own survival, without risk of lawsuits from mega corporations that claim "ownership" of the genetics of the food plants have all changed, what we "were" and where we "were" to where we are now.

Taking perscription drugs from the elderly will not reduce the interest on the national debt.

Rising inflation will reduce the interest on the national debt, but will substantially raise prices for every thing here, because we import most everything. That, with reduced "entitlements" and more and more job cuts will make for a very scary place to live.

Hope you all stocked up on your beans and ammo.

.