Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 6:48 pm, BobR <re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 15, 3:26 pm, Stray Dog <straydog2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 12:34 pm, maxwel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 12:29 pm, maxwel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> > > > test
> > > > Good question. Besides all the "kitchen table debating" that we're
all
> > > > doing here--and entertaining all of our personal favorite
ideas--my
> > > > basic recommendation is that you need to follow the CYA strategy.
>
> > > I am a faithful follower of the CYA strategy. It is the only one you
> > > can
> > > truely depend on.
>
> > Agreed, but with one big caveat: you can _control_ this strategy more
> > than others (eg. depend on the govt, depend on cor****ations) but if
> > you are applying for a job, you CANNOT control the applicant to job
> > ratio, you can't control how the interviewer decides whether he likes
> > you enough to offer you the job, and you can't control how much they
> > offer to pay you (they will just tell you to take it or leave it), and
> > you can't control when/if they decide to lay you off and hire cheaper
> > help, or even call you into the office and ask you to take a pay cut
> > (I've actually known people this has happened to), and then what do
> > you do?
>
> > Or, in other words, in the end, the Robber-barons win. tsk, tsk.
>
> So now lets change the view for a moment and YOU have a business and
> you are the employer.  Should YOU be forced to hire without the
> ability to determine who and without having a choice of how much to
> pay?  Is every employer a Robber-Baron

Examples include: all the companies that did mass layoffs to offshore
their jobs, all the companies that did employee "replacement" projects
(local guy trains cheap immigrants), all of the companies that did
arbitrary wage reductions (this happened in the 1870s in the USA and
caused mass strikes...its in the history books). And, all the
companies that do bad things to employees not because they are having
difficulties but to increase an already adequate net profit bottom
line (one WSJ article listed many companies that had good profit
re****ts but the executives were only interested in more and so
initiated draconian further pressures on employees).

No, not every cor****ation is a robber-baron, but a lot of them are,
and a lot of them do as much bad as they do good and it would have to
be a separate discussion to go into this tangent in detail.

and if so what would you do if
> there were no employers?

We'd be in the hunter-gatherer days.

>
>

deleted some

> > > What you describe is text book theory, that is the way it should
> > > work, but that is if everyone competes on a level playing field.
> > > I am concerned that the many will want to deregulate to the
> > > point that the US regulations are like Mexico's. in order to help
> > > the economy. People will justify children working because 3
> > > incomes is better than 2. The downside is an eroded standard
> > > of living.
>
> The standard of living that you desire is your choice but that choice
> brings requirements.  If your standard requires a 3500sf house instead
> of a 1800sf house it might also require two incomes.  Could you live
> and be comfortable in the smaller house?  Probably but the reality is
> that you don't want to and thus a requirement for two incomes.  Your
> choice.
>

Too much of that choice is controlled NOT by you but by the income
associated with your resources and not that many people can control
that. The ones that can are the ones in the Forbes "400 richest
Americans" lists.

>
> > Yeah, I think I follow you. Right now, the cor****ations are _free_ to
> > do anything they like and you and I are _free_ to starve if the Big
> > Boys decide that the bottom line and THEIR wallets are most im****tant
> > and the rest of society can go to hell.
>
> You want to blame it all on the cor****ations which are nothing more
> than people just like you who are trying to do the best they can for
> themselves.  Don't get me wrong, I can't defend the stupid decisions
> made by the CEO's and directors of many of our cor****ations but in my
> 60 years I have also seen the demise of many of those same
> cor****ations.  They exist in a very competitive world where one
> mistake can end their existance.

Yeah, but here is my gripe: the executives get a better "safety net"
and have a better deal in general than the underlings and the
underlings have zero control over anything. Cor****ations are,
basically, dictator****ps with a guy basically no different than
_kings_ or emperors in earlier history except that the wars are
economic rather than military.

> > > Europe seems to be doing quite well with a more valuble
> > > currency and higher living standards.
>
> > Well, there are two sides to that story, too. I've been reading where
> > they are also ex****ting jobs to East Europe, and hiring more and more
> > temps, too. So, if you have one of the secure, union jobs, you're in
> > "fat city." If not, then you are groveling.
>
> You are right, Europe seems to be doing well but they have some very
> significant problems of their own and in the long run they will be up
> and down just like us.  The whole world is trying to adjust to a
> population of over 6 billion with billions of people moving into the
> consumption circle of an ever smaller world.

Right.

> >  I am sure the euro will
>
> > > fall because as you say they are being hit by the trade and
> > > oil as well.
>
> > Oh, I would make the bet that the exchange rate traders will buy
> > futures, etc., in whatever manner exploits the herd instinct. At some
> > point in the future, all that money will come back out of the Euro and
> > dump into USD. I'll bet some money that, even though I'd love to see
> > the USD go farther down (so jobs come back and ex****ts go up more), it
> > won't last long. The Europeans will get pissed by the end of this
> > year. Their trade deficit with China is going up faster than ours now.
> > That ain't gonna last long.
>
> You are right, like a pendulm it will swing back and forth.  In the
> long run, that really is a good thing but there will be short term
> pain associated with it.

OK

>
>
> >  But when their economy goes down I doubt it
>
> > > will bottom as low as the US has gone.
>

deleted some b/c no new material

>
> > So, how are the people that are laid off going to buy that cheap junk
> > if they are broke and unemployed?
>
> Got laid off 5 years ago as a result of the huge movement of IT jobs
> offshore and the cutbacks following Y2K.  Whined about it for a while
> but realized that is was a total waste of time and found a new field.
> Took an initial cut in income but it has been short term and I have
> recovered.

Good for you, congratulations. But, you might consider telling the
rest of the guys here more about what you're doing and give some
tips.

 Oh yes, I am not some twenty-something grad from Harvard
> but a non-degreed 61 year old fart.

I would say you were lucky. Out of dozens of stories like yours, most
of the guys are doing worse than before. Me, I'm 64 and retired and my
resources cover my expenses.

And, some of those 20-somethings from Harvard are having a hard time,
too.

> > And, I'm sorry, but re-training is not the answer because we're back
> > to the applicant-to-job ratio. It does no good to have ten guys
> > fighting for one job; nine guys are going to go hungry.
>
> That is a totally pathetic view.  I almost fell into the same mindset
> but that is the view of a loser who wants to blame everyone else for
> their own failures.

You really have no answer, do you, for the fact that when the number
of applicants exceed the number of jobs that there will be real losers
and not because they want to be losers. And, this is why we are seeing
a lot of programmer/IT guys in the USA ending up bagging groceries at
Walmart for $8/hour.

And, that is also an elitist view. You look at the vast majority of
people anywhere in the world who are born in poverty and ignorance and
all of the demographic studies will show that your _chances_ of
getting out of that are near zero, or very low. Most of the kids that
really do have a _chance_ are the ones coming out of typically middle
class backgrounds or above.

 Most of us would still be crawling on our hands
> and knees if we had taken the same attitude when learning to walk.

The fact of the matter is that out of a clutch of young birds just out
of the egg, a few will fall out of the nest before they learn to fly,
and a few of those will fall into the mouths of predators waiting on
the ground for them with their mouths open.

> Why is it that as adults we suddenly believe that we can no longer
> learn something new?

It takes more than ability to learn something new to actually learn
something new.