theeohiostate Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 This series of videos has been going around on YouTube for some time, some may have already seen them. If not, take the time to watch. Much of the information I found substantiated, other seems like a Michael Moore conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, it was eye opening for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGJW0OefBhQ...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvwwM-Y0yaM...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCkxMQH3W0...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAp7v_iRQg8...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce16MnxUgrM...feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoQE9mDkrVg...feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 An interesting hour. Always worthwhile hearing other opinions, even if they are from a very long way out in left field. Interesting and basic error when the narrator said the sinking of the Lusitania precipitated US entry into WW1 shortly afterward. It was two years before the US entered the war post-Lusitania. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Unplug, people. I do not have a TV (for anything other than the occasional movie). We homeschool our kids. I do not read the newspapers. I do not subscribe to magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Never knew the Govt paid interest on cash "loaned" tp it by the Fed.. Anyone have any raw data on how much the Fed earns in a given year? I liked the final message. Many people are way too disconnected from the things that really count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted December 31, 2008 Author Share Posted December 31, 2008 I guess I was enlightened that the Fed isn't a part of our government. It's a 3rd party investment bank with international ties. Is this true? If so, boy our we mislead. It's easy to see where this narrator is going with his theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 While the conspiracy theory as outlined in this program is outlandish, the general principle of government of the people by the people for the people has been dead for a century and a half at least. Anyone who thinks all power resides in the three governmental branches is naive. In general, the country is run for the benefit of the already very rich, ensuring that the rest have enough bread and circuses to be docile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Unplug, people. I do not have a TV (for anything other than the occasional movie). We homeschool our kids. I do not read the newspapers. I do not subscribe to magazines. +1 (and I do watch football, lost, 24 and BSG on my tube as well) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Cool stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Unplug, people. I do not have a TV (for anything other than the occasional movie). We homeschool our kids. I do not read the newspapers. I do not subscribe to magazines. Unplugging sounds a lot easier than it may be for most people. My family has significant debt. We have an ethical obligation to pay it off and it may take our entire lifetime to do so. For me, even if I sincerely wanted to, unplugging would be criminal. We've purchased our own slavery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Unplug, people. I do not have a TV (for anything other than the occasional movie). We homeschool our kids. I do not read the newspapers. I do not subscribe to magazines. Yet, you post this via the biggest agglomeration of mass/multi media ever conceived. How revolutionary of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Unplugging sounds a lot easier than it may be for most people. My family has significant debt. We have an ethical obligation to pay it off and it may take our entire lifetime to do so. For me, even if I sincerely wanted to, unplugging would be criminal. We've purchased our own slavery. Interesting philosophical point. This economic disaster has really opened my eyes to the massive role played by debt in our prosperity. Of course, we all knew it was there but all it took was a 2% reduction in consumer spending and the whole house of cards completely collapsed. In the sense that consumers finally seem to be resolving to pay down debt, this economic downturn might be a kind of market correction in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Interesting philosophical point. This economic disaster has really opened my eyes to the massive role played by debt in our prosperity. Of course, we all knew it was there but all it took was a 2% reduction in consumer spending and the whole house of cards completely collapsed. In the sense that consumers finally seem to be resolving to pay down debt, this economic downturn might be a kind of market correction in itself. That's kinda what I've been getting at the whole time. ALL downturns are market corrections, IMO. Bailing out banks, automakers, whomever is just prolonging the pain. Sure, things will limp along for a while, but Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) I think the videos are nonsense (although I didn't watch all of them--it didn't take long to realize that to watch them would be a waste of time). Concerning consumer debt in the economy, my dissertation advisor wrote this prescient paper about two years ago (although it didn't get published until about six months ago)--it is a good read: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1153180 a few excerpts: If marketing is biased toward higher income consumers with discretionary spending power, rising economic inequality also contributes to an increase in desired spending that outpaces income growth. To illustrate this point, suppose that the median advertising message targets households with income at the 80th percentile. The message influences all income groups, however. As the income gap between the marketing target group and the median-income household rises, the pressure to spend "beyond one's means" rises across much of the income distribution. Median households will not be able to afford the standard of living of the 80th percentile, but they will do what they can, pushing the propensity to consume out of disposable income higher, and, as discussed in the next section, increasing household indebtedness.... Thus, financial behavior and habits are subject to social influences and evolve through time. Changing institutional structures interact with social norms to define what practices are responsible, tasteful, etc. For example, borrowing for a home with 20 percent down and a fixed-rate mortgage was consistent with the financial norms of the 1960s and the 1970s. But few people in that era would re-finance their mortgages to get cash for a new car or a vacation. When home equity loans with tax advantages became available in the late 1980s, borrowing against one's home for non-housing consumption became more common. In the 1990s, innovations in the mortgage markets reduced transaction costs and cash-out refinancing became more common. Initially, these actions were responses to changes in available financial products. We argue, however, that what households consider "responsible" behavior also evolved along with these changing practices. .... We argue instead that, in the context of uncertainty, households base their decisions on a wide variety of evolving social cues about consumption and financial behavior. With financial innovation and greater access to debt, the year-by-year budget constraint has become soft. Families likely do not have a detailed plan for how they will service their debts in all states of the world that could arise from well understood probability distributions. Rather, households mimic the behaviors they observe around them, from both real people and media models, assuaging their uncertainty in the perceived comfort of acting like others in their social reference groups. In the specific circumstances of the past two decades, increasingly indebted families stayed afloat financially not so much as the result of a careful intertemporal financial plan, but simply by finding a way to service or refinance current debt, perhaps on fortuitous terms in a particularly favorable historical environment. Such "good luck" keeps the spending and debt boom going. It may be unrealistic for households to believe that the favorable macroeconomic trends will continue indefinitely that are necessary for them to "validate" their financial positions, which could include falling interest rates, easier lending terms, and rapidly appreciating home prices. But such a systemic perspective lies outside of the bounded information set of the typical household. Families can observe their neighbors, but they cannot be expected to appreciate the complex macroeconomics of emergent financial instability. A similar point likely applies to lenders. Their relaxed credit standards may have created excessive systemic risk, but the short-term environment made risky loans very profitable for a while. Managers and investors see the money that can be made in the short run, but they do not adequately perceive macroeconomic risks that emerge in new ways compared with earlier financial disturbances. Until recently, the specific historical conditions of the past two decades in the U.S. have created a remarkably good environment for high consumption and rising household debt. These conditions included low energy costs, large tax cuts, a stock market boom, a historic decline in interest rates, a home price boom, and financial innovation that opened new doors for consumer lending. In classic Minsky fashion, however, these favorable conditions encourage more aggressive financial practices until they have reached a breaking point. With falling home prices and retrenchment in mortgage lending, conditions have reversed. The U.S. economy may have reached what the financial press has called a "Minsky moment," that threatens U.S. and global demand growth in ways not anticipated by mainstream theory or the conventional forecasts based on that theory. Although I haven't said it before, I sometimes have had similar thoughts when I read threads on stuff like high-definition TVs in this forum. Edited January 2, 2009 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I think the videos are nonsense (although I didn't watch all of them--it didn't take long to realize that to watch them would be a waste of time). Concerning consumer debt in the economy, my dissertation advisor wrote this prescient paper about two years ago (although it didn't get published until about six months ago)--it is a good read: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1153180 a few excerpts: Although I haven't said it before, I sometimes have had similar thoughts when I read threads on stuff like high-definition TVs in this forum. Good read wiegie. I haven't bought an HD set yet because I refuse to spend $800+ (probably get a 37") on technology that will be obsolete in six months time. Of course, the paper also seems to support my premise of letting the financial institutions/automakers/whatever die. Remove easy access to debt. Get rid of the mindset that "Well, I can afford the payments, so I can afford the bling". That drives me up a f'n wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Good read wiegie. I haven't bought an HD set yet because I refuse to spend $800+ (probably get a 37") on technology that will be obsolete in six months time. Of course, the paper also seems to support my premise of letting the financial institutions/automakers/whatever die. Remove easy access to debt. Get rid of the mindset that "Well, I can afford the payments, so I can afford the bling". That drives me up a f'n wall. Most unlikely. While it is true that an HDTV may be superseded by a slightly higher definition one e.g. 1080p supplanting 1080i, the set you buy now will last 10 years, given decent manufacturing. My 1080i is just fine and will be until it becomes uneconomic to keep it going. I can't watch Bluray on it (or at least, can't get the benefits of Bluray) but whoopdee-doo, I don't care. The circumstance you refer to is the obsessional need to always have the latest set when the set you have works perfectly well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Most unlikely. While it is true that an HDTV may be superseded by a slightly higher definition one e.g. 1080p supplanting 1080i, the set you buy now will last 10 years, given decent manufacturing. My 1080i is just fine and will be until it becomes uneconomic to keep it going. I can't watch Bluray on it (or at least, can't get the benefits of Bluray) but whoopdee-doo, I don't care. The circumstance you refer to is the obsessional need to always have the latest set when the set you have works perfectly well. Point taken, but I'm still betting I'll see decent 37" sets under $500 (decent equals Samsung/Sony/Panny plasma - not the wal-mart specials) in the next 6 months or so and I'm not dropping the dime till I do. I bought a 50" non-HD projection toshiba 6 or 7 years ago for <$700 and the guy told me I was wasting my money by not buying HD at the time ($2K plus). I'm a cheap bastage and will not go into debt for "consumables", which is what I view a TV as. If I'd spent that money at that time, the TV would have been a 720i with a 60hz refresh rate and probably no better than the Emerson 32" lcd Wal-mart was selling for $400 on black Friday (if as good). So why spend that money on something I watch for about 6 hours/week outside of football season, and then probably only 10-12 hours/week? Much rather have the motorcycle, which I've ridden for more time this week than I watched football (it's raining today though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) Point taken, but I'm still betting I'll see decent 37" sets under $500 (decent equals Samsung/Sony/Panny plasma - not the wal-mart specials) in the next 6 months or so and I'm not dropping the dime till I do. I bought a 50" non-HD projection toshiba 6 or 7 years ago for <$700 and the guy told me I was wasting my money by not buying HD at the time ($2K plus). I'm a cheap bastage and will not go into debt for "consumables", which is what I view a TV as. If I'd spent that money at that time, the TV would have been a 720i with a 60hz refresh rate and probably no better than the Emerson 32" lcd Wal-mart was selling for $400 on black Friday (if as good). So why spend that money on something I watch for about 6 hours/week outside of football season, and then probably only 10-12 hours/week? Much rather have the motorcycle, which I've ridden for more time this week than I watched football (it's raining today though) I think you'll find that 37" set you're waiting for is around $500 or so within the next quarter, if not there already. Edit: And you're not cheap for not taking on debt for consumables - there's lots of us like that out here and more joining every minute. Edited January 3, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 My 37" TV is awesome. It's a TV, a computer monitor, and an AV switcher. Plus, technically it's owned by my video production business... so that's nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Unplugging sounds a lot easier than it may be for most people. My family has significant debt. We have an ethical obligation to pay it off and it may take our entire lifetime to do so. For me, even if I sincerely wanted to, unplugging would be criminal. We've purchased our own slavery. Not sure how watching TV and subscribing to People Magazine help you pay your debts or make better financial decisions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.