That's exactly what I believe is the fed's plan... to inflate our way out of debt. A good theory, but it's never been accomplished before, although the article seems to imply that's what happened during/after the depression.
Inflation is heating up. The news last week was that the official rate, which had been rising all year, surged to 3.6% in May. That's three times the level it was just last summer and the highest rate in nearly three years.
I believe those figures count housing as large component of the CPI calculation. Calculated the way they used to calculate and inflation is at 10.7%. It will be real interesting when the fed has been buying 82% of treasuries and then they stop cold turkey in the next couple of week. Who will step in? Will the fed risk a failed treasury auction or will it raise rates? Wall St. is going to HATE higher interest rates.
BTW, I have read that it takes about 8 months for stimulus to actually be felt in the economy. If that is the case, we are only now going to being to feel the inflationary effects of all of the QE2 measures.
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner >>
As I mentioned in another thread, this country NEEDS 5% inflation. I am convinced of that. However, try as we might, we havnt been able to acheive it and thats what concerns me. Inflation has kept this 80 yr economic bubble intact.
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner >>
As I mentioned in another thread, this country NEEDS 5% inflation. I am convinced of that. However, try as we might, we havnt been able to acheive it and thats what concerns me. Inflation has kept this 80 yr economic bubble intact. >>
That's almost laughable...try computing the CPI with the 1980 method. All that's been done is a scam to keep the CPI and inflation low. A 5% figure with the current CPI is what over 18%. And we wonder why purchasing power of the dollar is now 3 cents compare to the purchasing power in 1913.
That's almost laughable...try computing the CPI with the 1980 method. All that's been done is a scam to keep the CPI and inflation low. A 5% figure with the current CPI is what over 18%. And we wonder why purchasing power of the dollar is now 3 cents compare to the purchasing power in 1913.
Using 1980 CPI methodology, we are already at 7% CPI. The only problem is Joe Six Pack and investors in general believe in the current number (ie approx 3.5%). A Catch 22 if you will. In this case the published CPI number is helping to keep J6P from spending....or investing, an unfortunate side effect from trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner >>
As I mentioned in another thread, this country NEEDS 5% inflation. I am convinced of that. However, try as we might, we havnt been able to acheive it and thats what concerns me. Inflation has kept this 80 yr economic bubble intact. >>
That's almost laughable...try computing the CPI with the 1980 method. All that's been done is a scam to keep the CPI and inflation low. A 5% figure with the current CPI is what over 18%. And we wonder why purchasing power of the dollar is now 3 cents compare to the purchasing power in 1913. >>
Can you provide a link to the 1980 computation? And explain why it should be computed exactly the same even as our econony has changed.
Purchasing power may indeed be 3c, but what does that mean if earnings are 33x higher? For example, it is easy to compare the price of a house vs wages from 30, 40, 50 years ago.
Or to compare with another "currency", what would be the value of an ounce of gold today if gold production had been halted 100yr ago? Has not gold production (currency printing) devalued gold?
EXACTLY! Production of everything continues according to supply and demand (and sometimes other "incentives" such as taxes, regulation, and "feel like it" decisions.
why should the money supply not also increase as the value of the Earth and all it's contents increases?
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Russia Joins China In Rejecting U.S. Debt, Buys Gold Instead China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, has been concerned about the safety of its U.S. treasury debt holdings for years.
In March 2009, Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao warned Washington that "We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried."
Premier Jinbao's was right to worry about the safety of China's U.S. debt holdings. Since March 2009, the U.S. debt has increased by more than $3 trillion and Congress is now being pressured by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to increase the national debt limit by another $2 trillion. The parabolic increase in U.S. debt, along with recent downgrade warnings on U.S. debt from the credit rating agencies, must be keeping the Chinese up at night.
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia also decided that holding U.S. debt has become too risky. In comments to Dow Jones, Arkady Dvorkovich, chief economic adviser to Russian President Medvedev, said "The share of our portfolio in U.S. instruments has gone down and probably will go down further." According to the Wall Street Journal, Russia has already reduced its holdings of U.S. debt from $176 billion last fall to $125 billion in April of this year.
Besides diversifying into other currencies such as the Canadian and Australian dollar, Russia has also been substantially increasing its purchases of gold. Recent reports from the World Gold Council and IMF show that Russia recently bought 50 tons of gold bringing its total gold holdings to almost 670 tons Russia Buys Gold
Can you provide a link to the 1980 computation? And explain why it should be computed exactly the same even as our econony has changed
I don't have any link to the 1980 formulae readily available. The link below to shadowstats gives the value of the different CPI methods used over the years (ie all updated). And I have no reason to believe the author is rigging the numbers to prove his theories. If you email John Williams he may be able to provide a link....or a small chance it may be buried on the BLS website somewhere. In any event there was no "economic change" that I see from 1980 to 1983 that required the need to shift the CPI to an imputed rent model....other than to ensure lower SS and pension payments as well as keeping the CPI subdued. It's also unlikely any economic changes seen during the Clinton or GW Bush years required the BLS to shift to geometric weighting, substitutional effects, hedonics, and quality factors in the CPI computations. What's interesting is that the CPI is routinely backdated all the way to 1913 (ie see the BLS's own inflation calculator). That would suggest the BLS itself doesn't think there were any real changes to our economy from 1913-1980 or 1913-2011 that would not allow use of the same forumula. Which era saw greater economic changes, 1913-1980 or 1983-2003?
If the other leading CB's lent out 40% of their gold like Belgium, that would mean about 12,000 tons worth over the past 15 years. That 12,000 ton number would be more in line with the 15,000 tons (50% of stated inventories) that some think the CB's leased/sold over the past 2 decades. However they still "claim" all 31,000 tons on the books. If it was sold into the markets it's gone for good and will only be settled up with fiat. CB's only having 15-19K tons of gold left vs. 31K tons is a big deal.
I don't have the info about the 1980 calculation, but I do know that housing has a 42% weighting in the current CPI index. No surprise the government numbers are artificially low given the hit RE has taken while everything else is up.
Here is a chart that shows CPI compared to CPI w/o housing. This shows the 12 month rate of change.
I also agree with RR that there is no significant reason for the CPI calculation to have changed dramatically. Common theory is that the government changed CPI calculations over the years to arrive at a lower number in order to keep COLAs low for government entitlement programs. Makes sense to me. Also, lower CPI looks better...
If the home price weighting had been left alone in the CPI since 1983, then the price inflation numbers from 1982-1989 and then 1996-2006 would have heated up a lot faster and appropriate actions could have been taken. But since the system has used the "effective rent" value of residential real estate, that 42% of the CPI was relatively fixed. It would have sent warning signals a lot sooner to whomever was monitoring the index. The irony right now is that home prices (0% of the CPI) are generally stable or falling but rents (25-35% of the CPI) are starting to creep up. Home prices were the #1 commodity play out there for 25 years....and they didn't show up anywhere in the CPI. Go figure.
Yeah, that doesnt make sense. Are equity and bond prices also not counted? So the inflation bubble of the last 80 years is actually much larger?
The economists will argue that the imputed rent model will mimic what most homeowners pay in mortgage. Of course it won't factor in massive home price increases over 25 yr spans and allow for massive speculation in home flipping while the CPI stays relatively low. Things like taxes and fees are not generally represented. To get the full size of the price inflation bubble all of the major components have to be factored in (commodities, stocks, bonds, taxes, fees, plus the CPI items).
Basic CPI breakdown:
Housing/shelter 41.5% (60% of this is owner's equivalent rent on residences owned) Transportation 17.3% Food/beverages 14.8% (food plus energy makes up 23% of the CPI.....approx the same as owner's equivalent rent). Medical care 6.6% Education/Comms 6.4% Recreation 6.3% Apparel 3.6% Personal care & smoking 3.5%
<< <i>Yeah, that doesnt make sense. Are equity and bond prices also not counted? So the inflation bubble of the last 80 years is actually much larger?
The economists will argue that the imputed rent model will mimic what most homeowners pay in mortgage. Of course it won't factor in massive home price increases over 25 yr spans and allow for massive speculation in home flipping while the CPI stays relatively low. Things like taxes and fees are not generally represented. To get the full size of the price inflation bubble all of the major components have to be factored in (commodities, stocks, bonds, taxes, fees, plus the CPI items).
Basic CPI breakdown:
Housing/shelter 41.5% (60% of this is owner's equivalent rent on residences owned) Transportation 17.3% Food/beverages 14.8% (food plus energy makes up 23% of the CPI.....approx the same as owner's equivalent rent). Medical care 6.6% Education/Comms 6.4% Recreation 6.3% Apparel 3.6% Personal care & smoking 3.5%
roadrunner >>
Thanks Roadrunner. Seems to be quite a big bubble.
Common theory is that the government changed CPI calculations over the years to arrive at a lower number in order to keep COLAs low for government entitlement programs. Makes sense to me
PC, I agree with you. But I would take it one step further. The G should pop this inflation bubble and really decrease the future costs of entitlement programs. Instead of reducing spending, how about reducing the cost of the expenses?
Those look like appropiate average percentages of income spent on the various costs of American life.
Of course, being averages, some folks on the tails of certain bell curves may spend 0% on housing "my house is paid for. In fact, I receive rental income" and others may spend over 100% on housing "my rent is more than I currently make"
I'd guess the average reader of this forum spends close to these percentages, perhaps a bit higher on fancy food and beverages, higher on "recreation", puts more away in savings of the metal kind or other investment, and proportionally less on housing, but maybe not.
Interestingly, I don't see a category for "interest on loans", perhaps it is factored into the appropriate categories, housing, transportation, perhaps cc interest for that vacation?
Baley, I think the purpose of the CPI is (or at least should be) is to gauge the price of typical expenses for the average person and how that changes over time, and as such should reflect a typical person's expenditures for necessities. A typical person pays rent or makes a mortgage payment, and on weekly basis buys milk, eggs, meat, bread, gas, car payment (or taxi/bus/subway equivalent), phone/internet, medical, and basic entertainment. But once this is established it really shouldn't need to change, although I know they've made it complicated by allowing for technology improvements... i.e., a base model car today has power windows compared to 20 years ago, so I think they might adjust the price of cars in an effort to keep comparisons the same even though I don't think it makes sense to do so.
I think you can throw out things like financing interest. While most Americans do carry debt, I'm not sure that it's an inflation indicator since the rates are set by the fed (or based on those rates), whereas the price of most other items are not. Additionally, interest is generally optional, whereas the other things I mentioned are not.
<< <i>The G should pop this inflation bubble and really decrease the future costs of entitlement programs. Instead of reducing spending, how about reducing the cost of the expenses? >>
And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
There is no reason why healtcare can't or shouldn't be profitable. I guarantee we will find cures and treatments for diseases and other problems A LOT faster if someone is motivated by profit. The problem is that healthcare is NOT a freemarket system. If you have insurance, do you ever ask what something (medical) costs? No, we just get the service wherever knowing that insurance is paying it, all we care about is the deductible which is pretty much the same no matter where we go. If consumers actually shopped price & quality/service, the industry would be far more competitive - and if it wasn't so difficult for a doctor to get paid through insurance. Look at Lasik... most insurance does NOT cover this procedure. And what has happened to prices over the past 15 years? Not only has the technology continued to improve but the cost continues to drop.
The other problem is that we spend hundreds of thousands PER MONTH to extend someone's life from 82 years to 84 years and they'll still be chair or bed-bound. Is that really a bill we should all pay or subsidize? My opinion would be the same whether it was me or my parents... we have to realize that there's a point where it's just not practical.
There is no reason why healtcare can't or shouldn't be profitable. I guarantee we will find cures and treatments for diseases and other problems A LOT faster if someone is motivated by profit.
I agree and would have completely private health care. However, even private insurance results in reduced innovation in healthcare. Primarily because there is little incentive to lower the cost of expensive procedures. Why would a pharm company seek to lower the cost of a surgery from $500,00 to $100,000? Either way people with insurance will pay their standard deductible and people without insurance will seek an alternative option. All the time and money spent lowering the cost of the product would not result in more people electing to use the product. It essentially boils down to procedures that cost more than a typical deductible will not become cheaper, as it would in other markets.
<< <i>And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
Take the profit out of healthcare for a start. >>
Im not talking about reducing entitlements. But, entitlements could be reduced through deflation, or at the very least, disinflation. The entitlement programs get into trouble when they forcast costs out into the future, But how about if we can manage to keep costs stable? If there are no increases, the future tab becomes very manageable.
<< <i>And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
Take the profit out of healthcare for a start. >>
Why not? Let's convert private sector healthcare into a Soviet style ministry of health. The public sector, union mindset best typified by your local Dept of Motor Vehicles will work wonders in healthcare. Anyone who complains can go to the end of the line.
By treating "symptoms" as our health care industry does with more drugs and medicines, we have been losing ground for decades. And the reason for that is that our western diet is the primary factor in the proliferation of the big 4: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers. Until we concentrate on educating people on what they eat, and how to optimize health via nutrition, we're fighting a losing cause. The push on health care should be about preventing disease, not treating it. It would also be far cheaper and put many doctors, health care giants, and pharmaceuticals out of business. That's why it will never happen. As long as the FDA and AMA are entrenched in the concept that food cannot cure disease, no headway will be made.
This link suggests lawmakers are thinking of adjusting the already rigged CPI even lower. At least that's the inference. One would think you'd want the CPI to be a warning siren rather than a means to be able to reduce ss, cola, and pension payouts.
Take the profit out of it? Why how novel of an idea. Just like in communist Vietnam. What a smart idea. And moral too
Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction.
<< <i>Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction. >>
I'm not aware of any hospitals that are making obscene profits (but there may be some). It's the only industry I can think of where they are forced to give away a considerable amount of services for free to anyone who shows up. If a hospital is netting a reasonable 5-20% profit margin, I'm not convinced that is the reason why healthcare costs are so high.
<< <i>Take the profit out of it? Why how novel of an idea. Just like in communist Vietnam. What a smart idea. And moral too
Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction. >>
47 million uninsured? That bogus number has long been discredited. That figure was cobbled together by including illegal aliens, those who choose not to purchase insurance (typically those in the 20's) and the self insured (the evil rich). The real number is closer to 13 million. Rather that destroy (socialize and ration) the entire healthcare system it would far simpler to simply subsidize the insurance costs of the truly needy who want health insurance. It would just be another welfare program.
<< <i>Take the profit out of it? Why how novel of an idea. Just like in communist Vietnam. What a smart idea. And moral too
Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction. >>
You're right. It's evil. Doctors who want to be paid are evil. Evil evil evil. After all healthcare is a right. Therefore what would be fair is for my Wife and I to be forced to pay for yours and other peoples healthcare. Now that would be moral. Or force those evil doctors to lower there expectations of income! After all it's for the common man in which you fight !
<< However, even private insurance results in reduced innovation in healthcare. Primarily because there is little incentive to lower the cost of expensive procedures. >>
If the private insurance is paid for by the end user, there are two incentives to lower the cost of expensive procedures. The incentive for the insurance company is to lower its costs. The incentive for the consumer is to lower his/her insurance premiums. Competition would promote both these goals. Overregulation and government-induced shortages are what's driving up medical costs today.
Overregulation and government-induced shortages are what's driving up medical costs today
Along with that is much more disease throughout the population. The pre-packaged and fast food industry is working hand in hand with the medical community to ensure we get sick, and stay sick. What percent of the population over say age 50 is not on some sort of medication(s) to combat a symptom of disease?
The pre-packaged and fast food industry is working hand in hand with the medical community to ensure we get sick, and stay sick
so the dietary decisions of individuals have nothing to do with it? and you believe those folks working to develop medicine are in conspiracy to increase disease?
It's difficult to know where to begin this discussion, and probably won't bother, as it seems your mind is made up.
Suffice it to say that someone who has spent decades developing cancer medicines disagrees with you.
Or, perhaps, a third variable, being overweight and/or eating an unhealthy diet, may correlate with both being on statins and developing diabetes.
be careful about deducing causative relationships simply because two things correlate. It would be a mistake to simply conclude that statins cause diabetes
Therefore what would be fair is for my Wife and I to be forced to pay for yours and other peoples healthcare
Actually I pay for my own healthcare. And you are already paying for others medical care already through you medicare taxes and probably social security taxes since Congress allocates this money anywhere they please. Its the system that is immoral, not the doctors or the common man.
It's difficult to know where to begin this discussion, and probably won't bother, as it seems your mind is made up. Suffice it to say that someone who has spent decades developing cancer medicines disagrees with you.
The dietary decisions of individuals have EVERYTHING to do with it....as does the fact that it's far harder today to get the same nutrition out of the exact same appearing foods that our ancestors ate decades ago. I'm sure that the majority of researchers looking for a cancer cure have the best of intentions. And no doubt, new advances will slow the advance of some cancers, maybe even reverse them in some cases. My point is that if we spent even 10% of the money that goes into finding cures and developing medicines to cure symptoms towards making our food stream healthier, we'd be far better off...and paying lower health insurance premiums. We already know what the cure for most cancers and heart disease is. Unfortunately, that cure doesn't make any money for big corporations, especially the health care industry. The first step would be to allow consumers to make their dietary decisions armed with the best information known today, not just what the AMA and FDA sanction. Another productive change would be for them to finally admit that the right foods can be cancer cures....not just drugs. One can find the information if you go digging deep enough. The FDA's min dietary values for vitamins and minerals tend to be based on preventing a known disease (such as a min. amount of Vit D to prevent rickets). It would make more sense if their numbers targeted optimizing life-long health. There are numerous studies showing that inputting large amounts of certain vitamins, minerals, and spices into cancer cells can stop the growth or reverse it. Yet these cannot be called cures for cancer because they aren't licensed drugs. And no one is going to do a double-blind study that satisfies the FDA/AMA because there will be no pay-off in a profitable and proprietary drug. Nor will most doctors prescribe them as a cure thinking that they would be call quacks if they did so. Besides that they would probably get sued or lose their licenses if they didn't follow the current cancer treatment path approved by the AMA. The health care system doesn't make money on prescribing vitamins, minerals, foods, and food supplements.
Most consumers assume the FDA and AMA are looking out for them rather than big Pharma and big HC. One cannot optimize cancer prevention with what is available at the local supermarket. Nor is the fight made any easier when our children are bombarded with advertisements for McMeals, Skittles, Fruity Pebbles, and Sodas starting around ages 1-2. It would be nice if 99% of our efforts and dollars in the food industry weren't going to promote and produce the wrong stuff. Even for a highly educated and informed consumer, it's a very difficult struggle. An issue with a cancer cure not found naturally in nature is the unintended side effects. Nature has all the cancer cures one could ever want. And there are some civilized parts of the world where western diseases are essentially unknown. It's just a matter of bringing these methods to the consumer or bringing the consumer to them. It's not a big conspiracy by any means, just the way the system has evolved via corporatocracy over the past 60 yrs. If profits always come first, then of course health will always be last. Guess I'm saying that the current food & health care industry/system is effectively broken, not unlike other parts of our economic and financial system.
Yepper, RR, good post. All the more reason to eat healthy foods. It's really not that difficult. Fresh vegetables and fruits that have been picked as they approach being ripe have the full compliment of nutrition as opposed to those that are picked and shipped well before ripening and chemically treated to not rot or discolor and then sold to the consumer as "fresh" produce. That's one simple thing that people can do. Sans a little home garden, there are plenty of farm to market enterprises, organic food outlets, grain fed beef offerings, there's plenty of very good healthy food out there. Folks say it's more expensive...hey have you priced pharmaecuticals lately...what's more expensive? People that will spend just a little time gathering healthy foods and spending a little time exercising will have fewer "symptoms" that need to be diagnosed, drugged and treated. The best way to avoid the high cost of medical care and treatment is to not need it.
Thanks RR, good post, we do have some common ground of thought. As far as actions, like mhammer says, my family gets a big bin of locally grown organic produce every week, and yes, it's delicious compared to anything at the store, particularly things like strawberries and other berries, stonefruits, tomatoes, all the leafy varieties that are picked that day instead of week(s) early and shipped.
As far as patentable drugs versus natural stuff, you MUST have read The Emperor's New Clothes about exactly why hemp was made illegal... the cotton, synthetic fabric, food, beverage, and drug industries didn't want the competition so they got together with the abolitionists, racists, lobbyists, and funded a hysteria campaign to outlaw the plant.
Baley, no, haven't read Emperor's New Clothes but will check it out. Just finished reading Death By Diet and Prime Time Health, both for the 2nd time.
I have no problem with parts of a caveman diet. Probably a good idea. There are parts of various diets that make sense, but not usually all of them. The DASH diet is probably closest to what I follow but I would like to get more grass fed, no hormone or chemical meats into my diet. Problem is that even the range fed animals grazing today might be doing that on depleted and acid rained on soils. Eating for origin/blood type is another thought that suggests we all won't thrive on exactly the same diet. My blood type suggests more meats and minimal modern grains. Don't really know if it has merit or not, even after reading a book on it last summer. But the basics seem to stay the same with the key ingredients being large enough quantities of vitamins & minerals to be able to fight cancer cells when they do arise. And you can't get those in decent quantity if you're eating junk. And to keep this post on topic I've read in a number of places that good old gold probably plays key roles in our bodies, even though not yet fully understood.
Imo calcium, potassium, and magnesium play large roles in optimum health along with vitamins A, C, D, E. The calcium and Vit D link seems to be particularly important considering that most people are probably deficient in both as our culture has made us shun the sun for the past few decades. The Caveman had all these ingrdients available in quantity in the foods he ate every day. Our modern methods have stripped away a lot of the nutrients. Right now I could go for a good, tundra-fed, Wooly Burger!
I'm travelling on business quite a bit these days to central Indiana, and whenever possible, we're eating elkburgers, bisonburgers, and steaks and burgers from grass-fed, hormone-free beef. A little pricey (but expensed, so that's ok , and very delicious
Should we or our children and grandchildren be forced to pay for some slob in greece to retire young? Perhaps when this one world for peace crowd is done we'll all be doing this.
an article (cover story, too) in the current Economist offers a few quick possible solutions. none are easy. a couple if not all might not work.
what do you do with a country's finances who cannot even pay interest on their debt? does one forgive a portion so that the rest can be manageable with austerity measure sin place? the sane would think so but try and take an entitlement away.
i think we are ALL screwed regardless, this drama over there is closer to our own pocketbooks than most of us think.
<< <i>I'm travelling on business quite a bit these days to central Indiana, and whenever possible, we're eating elkburgers, bisonburgers, and steaks and burgers from grass-fed, hormone-free beef. A little pricey (but expensed, so that's ok , and very delicious >>
BALEY, up north in Indiana is a little town named SWAYZE. Some maps might not even have it listed. In this town is a meat market ...small...just like you'd remember from a 50's movie......
Literally the best meat I have ever purchased at a grocery store. Better than anything Gelsons has.
Comments
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
link
What this country needs is a good 5% CPI
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner
Inflation is heating up. The news last week was that the official rate, which had been rising all year, surged to 3.6% in May. That's three times the level it was just last summer and the highest rate in nearly three years.
I believe those figures count housing as large component of the CPI calculation. Calculated the way they used to calculate and inflation is at 10.7%. It will be real interesting when the fed has been buying 82% of treasuries and then they stop cold turkey in the next couple of week. Who will step in? Will the fed risk a failed treasury auction or will it raise rates? Wall St. is going to HATE higher interest rates.
BTW, I have read that it takes about 8 months for stimulus to actually be felt in the economy. If that is the case, we are only now going to being to feel the inflationary effects of all of the QE2 measures.
<< <i>Today's article from the WSJ. One that would probably make Cohodk's head spin.
What this country needs is a good 5% CPI
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner >>
As I mentioned in another thread, this country NEEDS 5% inflation. I am convinced of that. However, try as we might, we havnt been able to acheive it and thats what concerns me. Inflation has kept this 80 yr economic bubble intact.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Today's article from the WSJ. One that would probably make Cohodk's head spin.
What this country needs is a good 5% CPI
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner >>
As I mentioned in another thread, this country NEEDS 5% inflation. I am convinced of that. However, try as we might, we havnt been able to acheive it and thats what concerns me. Inflation has kept this 80 yr economic bubble intact. >>
That's almost laughable...try computing the CPI with the 1980 method. All that's been done is a scam to keep the CPI and inflation low. A 5% figure with the current CPI is what over 18%. And we wonder why purchasing power of the dollar is now 3 cents compare to the purchasing power in 1913.
Using 1980 CPI methodology, we are already at 7% CPI. The only problem is Joe Six Pack and investors in general believe in the current number (ie approx 3.5%). A Catch 22 if you will. In this case the published CPI number is helping to keep J6P from spending....or investing, an unfortunate side effect from trying to have your cake and eat it too.
roadrunner
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Today's article from the WSJ. One that would probably make Cohodk's head spin.
What this country needs is a good 5% CPI
Inflation is the cure for what ails you. China is on the right path according to the author.
roadrunner >>
As I mentioned in another thread, this country NEEDS 5% inflation. I am convinced of that. However, try as we might, we havnt been able to acheive it and thats what concerns me. Inflation has kept this 80 yr economic bubble intact. >>
That's almost laughable...try computing the CPI with the 1980 method. All that's been done is a scam to keep the CPI and inflation low. A 5% figure with the current CPI is what over 18%. And we wonder why purchasing power of the dollar is now 3 cents compare to the purchasing power in 1913. >>
Can you provide a link to the 1980 computation? And explain why it should be computed exactly the same even as our econony has changed.
Purchasing power may indeed be 3c, but what does that mean if earnings are 33x higher? For example, it is easy to compare the price of a house vs wages from 30, 40, 50 years ago.
Or to compare with another "currency", what would be the value of an ounce of gold today if gold production had been halted 100yr ago? Has not gold production (currency printing) devalued gold?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
why should the money supply not also increase as the value of the Earth and all it's contents increases?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, has been concerned about the safety of its U.S. treasury debt holdings for years.
In March 2009, Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao warned Washington that "We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried."
Premier Jinbao's was right to worry about the safety of China's U.S. debt holdings. Since March 2009, the U.S. debt has increased by more than $3 trillion and Congress is now being pressured by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to increase the national debt limit by another $2 trillion. The parabolic increase in U.S. debt, along with recent downgrade warnings on U.S. debt from the credit rating agencies, must be keeping the Chinese up at night.
On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Russia also decided that holding U.S. debt has become too risky. In comments to Dow Jones, Arkady Dvorkovich, chief economic adviser to Russian President Medvedev, said "The share of our portfolio in U.S. instruments has gone down and probably will go down further." According to the Wall Street Journal, Russia has already reduced its holdings of U.S. debt from $176 billion last fall to $125 billion in April of this year.
Besides diversifying into other currencies such as the Canadian and Australian dollar, Russia has also been substantially increasing its purchases of gold. Recent reports from the World Gold Council and IMF show that Russia recently bought 50 tons of gold bringing its total gold holdings to almost 670 tons
Russia Buys Gold
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
I don't have any link to the 1980 formulae readily available. The link below to shadowstats gives the value of the different CPI methods used over the years (ie all updated). And I have no reason to believe the author is rigging the numbers to prove his theories. If you email John Williams he may be able to provide a link....or a small chance it may be buried on the BLS website somewhere. In any event there was no "economic change" that I see from 1980 to 1983 that required the need to shift the CPI to an imputed rent model....other than to ensure lower SS and pension payments as well as keeping the CPI subdued. It's also unlikely any economic changes seen during the Clinton or GW Bush years required the BLS to shift to geometric weighting, substitutional effects, hedonics, and quality factors in the CPI computations. What's interesting is that the CPI is routinely backdated all the way to 1913 (ie see the BLS's own inflation calculator). That would suggest the BLS itself doesn't think there were any real changes to our economy from 1913-1980 or 1913-2011 that would not allow use of the same forumula. Which era saw greater economic changes, 1913-1980 or 1983-2003?
Dizzying new heights of global criminal enterprise (ie banksters)
If the other leading CB's lent out 40% of their gold like Belgium, that would mean about 12,000 tons worth over the past 15 years. That 12,000 ton number would be more in line
with the 15,000 tons (50% of stated inventories) that some think the CB's leased/sold over the past 2 decades. However they still "claim" all 31,000 tons on the books. If it was sold
into the markets it's gone for good and will only be settled up with fiat. CB's only having 15-19K tons of gold left vs. 31K tons is a big deal.
Belgium loaned out 41% of its gold
roadrunner
Here is a chart that shows CPI compared to CPI w/o housing. This shows the 12 month rate of change.
I also agree with RR that there is no significant reason for the CPI calculation to have changed dramatically. Common theory is that the government changed CPI calculations over the years to arrive at a lower number in order to keep COLAs low for government entitlement programs. Makes sense to me. Also, lower CPI looks better...
roadrunner
Yeah, that doesnt make sense. Are equity and bond prices also not counted? So the inflation bubble of the last 80 years is actually much larger?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The economists will argue that the imputed rent model will mimic what most homeowners pay in mortgage. Of course it won't factor in massive home price increases over 25 yr
spans and allow for massive speculation in home flipping while the CPI stays relatively low. Things like taxes and fees are not generally represented. To get the full size of the
price inflation bubble all of the major components have to be factored in (commodities, stocks, bonds, taxes, fees, plus the CPI items).
Basic CPI breakdown:
Housing/shelter 41.5% (60% of this is owner's equivalent rent on residences owned)
Transportation 17.3%
Food/beverages 14.8% (food plus energy makes up 23% of the CPI.....approx the same as owner's equivalent rent).
Medical care 6.6%
Education/Comms 6.4%
Recreation 6.3%
Apparel 3.6%
Personal care & smoking 3.5%
roadrunner
<< <i>Yeah, that doesnt make sense. Are equity and bond prices also not counted? So the inflation bubble of the last 80 years is actually much larger?
The economists will argue that the imputed rent model will mimic what most homeowners pay in mortgage. Of course it won't factor in massive home price increases over 25 yr
spans and allow for massive speculation in home flipping while the CPI stays relatively low. Things like taxes and fees are not generally represented. To get the full size of the
price inflation bubble all of the major components have to be factored in (commodities, stocks, bonds, taxes, fees, plus the CPI items).
Basic CPI breakdown:
Housing/shelter 41.5% (60% of this is owner's equivalent rent on residences owned)
Transportation 17.3%
Food/beverages 14.8% (food plus energy makes up 23% of the CPI.....approx the same as owner's equivalent rent).
Medical care 6.6%
Education/Comms 6.4%
Recreation 6.3%
Apparel 3.6%
Personal care & smoking 3.5%
roadrunner >>
Thanks Roadrunner. Seems to be quite a big bubble.
Common theory is that the government changed CPI calculations over the years to arrive at a lower number in order to keep COLAs low for government entitlement programs. Makes sense to me
PC, I agree with you. But I would take it one step further. The G should pop this inflation bubble and really decrease the future costs of entitlement programs. Instead of reducing spending, how about reducing the cost of the expenses?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Of course, being averages, some folks on the tails of certain bell curves may spend 0% on housing "my house is paid for. In fact, I receive rental income" and others may spend over 100% on housing "my rent is more than I currently make"
I'd guess the average reader of this forum spends close to these percentages, perhaps a bit higher on fancy food and beverages, higher on "recreation", puts more away in savings of the metal kind or other investment, and proportionally less on housing, but maybe not.
Interestingly, I don't see a category for "interest on loans", perhaps it is factored into the appropriate categories, housing, transportation, perhaps cc interest for that vacation?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I think you can throw out things like financing interest. While most Americans do carry debt, I'm not sure that it's an inflation indicator since the rates are set by the fed (or based on those rates), whereas the price of most other items are not. Additionally, interest is generally optional, whereas the other things I mentioned are not.
<< <i>The G should pop this inflation bubble and really decrease the future costs of entitlement programs. Instead of reducing spending, how about reducing the cost of the expenses? >>
And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
Take the profit out of healthcare for a start.
Box of 20
There is no reason why healtcare can't or shouldn't be profitable. I guarantee we will find cures and treatments for diseases and other problems A LOT faster if someone is motivated by profit. The problem is that healthcare is NOT a freemarket system. If you have insurance, do you ever ask what something (medical) costs? No, we just get the service wherever knowing that insurance is paying it, all we care about is the deductible which is pretty much the same no matter where we go. If consumers actually shopped price & quality/service, the industry would be far more competitive - and if it wasn't so difficult for a doctor to get paid through insurance. Look at Lasik... most insurance does NOT cover this procedure. And what has happened to prices over the past 15 years? Not only has the technology continued to improve but the cost continues to drop.
The other problem is that we spend hundreds of thousands PER MONTH to extend someone's life from 82 years to 84 years and they'll still be chair or bed-bound. Is that really a bill we should all pay or subsidize? My opinion would be the same whether it was me or my parents... we have to realize that there's a point where it's just not practical.
There is no reason why healtcare can't or shouldn't be profitable. I guarantee we will find cures and treatments for diseases and other problems A LOT faster if someone is motivated by profit.
I agree and would have completely private health care. However, even private insurance results
in reduced innovation in healthcare. Primarily because there is little incentive to lower the cost of
expensive procedures. Why would a pharm company seek to lower the cost of a surgery from
$500,00 to $100,000? Either way people with insurance will pay their standard deductible and
people without insurance will seek an alternative option. All the time and money spent lowering
the cost of the product would not result in more people electing to use the product. It essentially
boils down to procedures that cost more than a typical deductible will not become cheaper, as it
would in other markets.
<< <i>
Take the profit out of healthcare for a start. >>
Take the profit out of it? Why how novel of an idea. Just like in communist Vietnam. What a smart idea. And moral too
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
Take the profit out of healthcare for a start. >>
Im not talking about reducing entitlements. But, entitlements could be reduced through deflation, or at the very least, disinflation. The entitlement programs get into trouble when they forcast costs out into the future, But how about if we can manage to keep costs stable? If there are no increases, the future tab becomes very manageable.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>And herein lies the crux of the problem. The politicians are scared to death of voting for a measure that would reduce entitlements, no matter how necessary it may be. They just won't do it, until it is too late.
Take the profit out of healthcare for a start. >>
Why not? Let's convert private sector healthcare into a Soviet style ministry of health. The public sector, union mindset best typified by your local Dept of Motor Vehicles will work wonders in healthcare. Anyone who complains can go to the end of the line.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Adjust the CPI again??
This link suggests lawmakers are thinking of adjusting the already rigged CPI even lower. At least that's the inference. One would think you'd want the CPI to be a warning siren
rather than a means to be able to reduce ss, cola, and pension payouts.
roadrunner
Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction.
Box of 20
<< <i>Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction. >>
I'm not aware of any hospitals that are making obscene profits (but there may be some). It's the only industry I can think of where they are forced to give away a considerable amount of services for free to anyone who shows up. If a hospital is netting a reasonable 5-20% profit margin, I'm not convinced that is the reason why healthcare costs are so high.
<< <i>Take the profit out of it? Why how novel of an idea. Just like in communist Vietnam. What a smart idea. And moral too
Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction. >>
47 million uninsured? That bogus number has long been discredited. That figure was cobbled together by including illegal aliens, those who choose not to purchase insurance (typically those in the 20's) and the self insured (the evil rich). The real number is closer to 13 million. Rather that destroy (socialize and ration) the entire healthcare system it would far simpler to simply subsidize the insurance costs of the truly needy who want health insurance. It would just be another welfare program.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
<< <i>Take the profit out of it? Why how novel of an idea. Just like in communist Vietnam. What a smart idea. And moral too
Morality? We are the only industralized nation that allows its citizens to go bankrupt because they cannot afford healthcare. 45 years ago Hospitals were non profit and charitable organizations. Now they have become businesses that answer to shareholders, not to its patients. As good as our Healthcare system is, it is unsustainable for its middle class ciitizens. Our middle class is eroding and soon it will become unaffordable for them also. That 47 million uninsured will be increasing every year. Our citizens become so desperate for healthcare they resort to theft to get arrested.Man politely robs bank for $1 Our healthcare system will only be for the rich, damn the rest of us. Its headed in that direction. >>
You're right. It's evil. Doctors who want to be paid are evil. Evil evil evil. After all healthcare is a right. Therefore what would be fair is for my Wife and I to be forced to pay for yours and other peoples healthcare. Now that would be moral. Or force those evil doctors to lower there expectations of income! After all it's for the common man in which you fight !
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
If the private insurance is paid for by the end user, there are two incentives to lower the cost of expensive procedures. The incentive for the insurance company is to lower its costs. The incentive for the consumer is to lower his/her insurance premiums. Competition would promote both these goals. Overregulation and government-induced shortages are what's driving up medical costs today.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Along with that is much more disease throughout the population. The pre-packaged and fast food industry is working hand in hand with the medical community to ensure we get
sick, and stay sick. What percent of the population over say age 50 is not on some sort of medication(s) to combat a symptom of disease?
roadrunner
so the dietary decisions of individuals have nothing to do with it? and you believe those folks working to develop medicine are in conspiracy to increase disease?
It's difficult to know where to begin this discussion, and probably won't bother, as it seems your mind is made up.
Suffice it to say that someone who has spent decades developing cancer medicines disagrees with you.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
an increased tendency towards the development of type 2 diabetes.
Camelot
be careful about deducing causative relationships simply because two things correlate.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Actually I pay for my own healthcare. And you are already paying for others medical care already through you medicare taxes and probably social security taxes since Congress allocates this money anywhere they please. Its the system that is immoral, not the doctors or the common man.
Box of 20
China declares victory over inflation
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Suffice it to say that someone who has spent decades developing cancer medicines disagrees with you.
The dietary decisions of individuals have EVERYTHING to do with it....as does the fact that it's far harder today to get the same nutrition out of the exact same appearing foods
that our ancestors ate decades ago. I'm sure that the majority of researchers looking for a cancer cure have the best of intentions. And no doubt, new advances will slow the
advance of some cancers, maybe even reverse them in some cases. My point is that if we spent even 10% of the money that goes into finding cures and developing medicines
to cure symptoms towards making our food stream healthier, we'd be far better off...and paying lower health insurance premiums. We already know what the cure for most
cancers and heart disease is. Unfortunately, that cure doesn't make any money for big corporations, especially the health care industry. The first step would be to allow
consumers to make their dietary decisions armed with the best information known today, not just what the AMA and FDA sanction. Another productive change would be for them
to finally admit that the right foods can be cancer cures....not just drugs. One can find the information if you go digging deep enough. The FDA's min dietary values for vitamins and
minerals tend to be based on preventing a known disease (such as a min. amount of Vit D to prevent rickets). It would make more sense if their numbers targeted optimizing
life-long health. There are numerous studies showing that inputting large amounts of certain vitamins, minerals, and spices into cancer cells can stop the growth or reverse it. Yet
these cannot be called cures for cancer because they aren't licensed drugs. And no one is going to do a double-blind study that satisfies the FDA/AMA because there will be no pay-off
in a profitable and proprietary drug. Nor will most doctors prescribe them as a cure thinking that they would be call quacks if they did so. Besides that they would probably get sued
or lose their licenses if they didn't follow the current cancer treatment path approved by the AMA. The health care system doesn't make money on prescribing vitamins, minerals,
foods, and food supplements.
Most consumers assume the FDA and AMA are looking out for them rather than big Pharma and big HC. One cannot optimize cancer prevention with what is available at the local
supermarket. Nor is the fight made any easier when our children are bombarded with advertisements for McMeals, Skittles, Fruity Pebbles, and Sodas starting around ages 1-2.
It would be nice if 99% of our efforts and dollars in the food industry weren't going to promote and produce the wrong stuff. Even for a highly educated and informed consumer,
it's a very difficult struggle. An issue with a cancer cure not found naturally in nature is the unintended side effects. Nature has all the cancer cures one could ever want. And there
are some civilized parts of the world where western diseases are essentially unknown. It's just a matter of bringing these methods to the consumer or bringing the consumer to them.
It's not a big conspiracy by any means, just the way the system has evolved via corporatocracy over the past 60 yrs. If profits always come first, then of course health will always
be last. Guess I'm saying that the current food & health care industry/system is effectively broken, not unlike other parts of our economic and financial system.
roadrunner
caveman food
In God We Trust.... all others pay in Gold and Silver!
As far as patentable drugs versus natural stuff, you MUST have read The Emperor's New Clothes about exactly why hemp was made illegal... the cotton, synthetic fabric, food, beverage, and drug industries didn't want the competition
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I have no problem with parts of a caveman diet. Probably a good idea. There are parts of various diets that make sense, but not usually all of them. The DASH diet is probably closest to what I follow but I would like to get more grass fed, no hormone or chemical meats into my diet. Problem is that even the range fed animals grazing today might be doing that on depleted and acid rained on soils. Eating for origin/blood type is another thought that suggests we all won't thrive on exactly the same diet. My blood type suggests more meats and minimal modern grains. Don't really know if it has merit or not, even after reading a book on it last summer. But the basics seem to stay the same with the key ingredients being large enough quantities of vitamins & minerals to be able to fight cancer cells when they do arise. And you can't get those in decent quantity if you're eating junk. And to keep this post on topic I've read in a number of places that good old gold probably plays key roles in our bodies, even though not yet fully understood.
Imo calcium, potassium, and magnesium play large roles in optimum health along with vitamins A, C, D, E. The calcium and Vit D link seems to be particularly important considering that most people are probably deficient in both as our culture has made us shun the sun for the past few decades. The Caveman had all these ingrdients available in quantity in the foods he ate every day. Our modern methods have stripped away a lot of the nutrients. Right now I could go for a good, tundra-fed, Wooly Burger!
roadrunner
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
roadrunner
<< <i>Is Greece worth bailing out?
roadrunner >>
Should we or our children and grandchildren be forced to pay for some slob in greece to retire young? Perhaps when this one world for peace crowd is done we'll all be doing this.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
what do you do with a country's finances who cannot even pay interest on their debt? does one forgive a portion so that the rest can be manageable with austerity measure sin place? the sane would think so but try and take an entitlement away.
i think we are ALL screwed regardless, this drama over there is closer to our own pocketbooks than most of us think.
<< <i>I'm travelling on business quite a bit these days to central Indiana, and whenever possible, we're eating elkburgers, bisonburgers, and steaks and burgers from grass-fed, hormone-free beef. A little pricey (but expensed, so that's ok
BALEY, up north in Indiana is a little town named SWAYZE. Some maps might not even have it listed. In this town is a meat market ...small...just like you'd remember from a 50's movie......
Literally the best meat I have ever purchased at a grocery store. Better than anything Gelsons has.