Lågkonukturen är här

Prova trisslotter annars......nån gång vinner du! 

#2 har inte du förmågan och tillräcklig med kunskap och  kritisera det som står i mitt inlägg  då kritiserar du förstås mig istället .

Det här fenomenet är inte alls konstig ,i själva verket jag har börjat vänja mig vid det eftersom allt jag läser som svar på mina inlägg är bara påhopp ,ingen av er är påläst nog och kunna diskutera med mig ekonomi och de som jag har bjudit in på diskussion har än  idag  inte kunnat genomföra den.

#2

Nu får du ge dig. Du har fått svar på tal mer än en gång.

"Lev för att lära så lär du dig att leva"

tvärtom, dontgiveup

men starta för 17 egen grupp och samla där dina alster 

det är marknaden som står för tolkandet av nyheterna och du tradar marknaden
TWA

Fed Governor Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed, presented a lot of the grim statistics in a speech he made back in late May

Länken

I might add that this speech was given before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ran into real trouble, an outcome that now threatens to place an additional 5 Trillion dollars of mortgages and mortgage guarantees onto the back of US tax payers. Here are a few of Fisher's highlights which are not for the faint of heart:

"The good news is this Social Security shortfall might be manageable. While the issues regarding Social Security reform are complex, it is at least possible to imagine how Congress might find, within a $14 trillion economy, ways to wrestle with a $13 trillion unfunded liability. The bad news is that Social Security is the lesser of our entitlement worries. It is but the tip of the unfunded liability iceberg. The much bigger concern is Medicare, a program established in 1965. Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy. Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percentwant to remind you that I am only talking about the unfunded portions of Social Security and Medicare. It is what the current payment scheme of Social Security payroll taxes, Medicare payroll taxes, membership fees for Medicare B, copays, deductibles and all other revenue currently channeled to our entitlement system will not cover under current rules. These existing revenue streams must remain in place in perpetuity to handle the "funded" entitlement liabilities. Reduce or eliminate this income and the unfunded liability grows. Increase benefits and the liability grows as well.

Let?s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four?over 25 times the average household?s income. Clearly, once-and-for-all contributions would be an unbearable burden. Alternatively, we could address the entitlement shortfall through policy changes that would affect ourselves and future generations. For example, a permanent 68 percent increase in federal income tax revenue?from individual and corporate taxpayers?would suffice to fully fund our entitlement programs. Or we could instead divert 68 percent of current income-tax revenues from their intended uses to the entitlement system, which would accomplish the same thing.

Suppose we decided to tackle the issue solely on the spending side. It turns out that total discretionary spending in the federal budget, if maintained at its current share of GDP in perpetuity, is 3 percent larger than the entitlement shortfall. So all we would have to do to fully fund our nation?s entitlement programs would be to cut discretionary spending by 97 percent. But hold on. That discretionary spending includes defense and national security, education, the environment and many other areas, not just those controversial earmarks that make the evening news. All of them would have to be cut?almost eliminated, really?to tackle this problem through discretionary spending. Discretionary spending would have to be reduced by 97 percent not only for our generation, but for our children and their children and every generation of children to come. And similarly on the taxation side, income tax revenue would have to rise 68 percent and remain that high forever. Remember, though, I said tax revenue, not tax rates. Who knows how much individual and corporate tax rates would have to change to increase revenue by 68 percent?

If these possible solutions to the unfunded-liability problems, throughout history, many nations, when confronted by sizable debts they were unable or unwilling to repay, have seized upon an apparently painless solution to this dilemma: monetization. Just have the monetary authority run cash off the printing presses until the debt is repaid, the story goes, then promise to be responsible from that point on and hope your sins will be forgiven by God and Milton Friedman and everyone else. We know from centuries of evidence in countless economies, from ancient Rome to today?s Zimbabwe, that running the printing press to pay off today?s bills leads to much worse problems later on. The inflation that results from the flood of money into the economy turns out to be far worse than the fiscal pain those countries hoped to avoid. If these measures seem draconian, it?s because they are draconian." 

Lite för metod att läsa och ignorera. 

Mvh Jamenvisst

Fiscal Gap 63 trillioner dollar.... sedelpressen kommer till slut ge hyperinflation. Så dollarförstärkning lär det ju inte bli alltför länge.