Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Jim Rogers Sees Perilous Times Ahead. Why Government Debt Could Crush the U.S.

See Kalm, I'm not the only one that thinks printing money is a bad idea.

Something else is ahead. A year ago at this time, America was the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. That debt is now up by trillions of dollars—that’s trillions with a T. Someday, we are all going to look back—three years from now, eight years from now—and say, “Wait a minute, what about all this debt? What are we going to do now?” That’s what happened to the U.K. The U.K. was the richest, most powerful nation in the world in the 1920s, and then took the path of “it doesn’t matter, we’ll spend all we want.” Fifty years later, the IMF had to fly into Heathrow and bail them out. They were bankrupt. So, I am afraid of what I see.

I thought about putting this in the Coronavirus thread but thought it deserved it's own.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:40 am Jim Rogers Sees Perilous Times Ahead. Why Government Debt Could Crush the U.S.

See Kalm, I'm not the only one that thinks printing money is a bad idea.

Something else is ahead. A year ago at this time, America was the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. That debt is now up by trillions of dollars—that’s trillions with a T. Someday, we are all going to look back—three years from now, eight years from now—and say, “Wait a minute, what about all this debt? What are we going to do now?” That’s what happened to the U.K. The U.K. was the richest, most powerful nation in the world in the 1920s, and then took the path of “it doesn’t matter, we’ll spend all we want.” Fifty years later, the IMF had to fly into Heathrow and bail them out. They were bankrupt. So, I am afraid of what I see.

I thought about putting this in the Coronavirus thread but thought it deserved it's own.

The article is behind a paywall so while I’d really like to subscribe and read it, I’m afraid 40 years of trickle down economics finds me saving every last penny for the next big crash.

kalm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:50 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:40 am Jim Rogers Sees Perilous Times Ahead. Why Government Debt Could Crush the U.S.

See Kalm, I'm not the only one that thinks printing money is a bad idea.

I thought about putting this in the Coronavirus thread but thought it deserved it's own.

The article is behind a paywall so while I’d really like to subscribe and read it, I’m afraid 40 years of trickle down economics finds me saving every last penny for the next big crash.

Edit, it hit me up on the 3rd access. Try this ...

https://www.newszada.com/jim-rogers-see ... h-the-u-s/

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:01 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:50 pm

The article is behind a paywall so while I’d really like to subscribe and read it, I’m afraid 40 years of trickle down economics finds me saving every last penny for the next big crash.

Edit, it hit me up on the 3rd access. Try this ...

https://www.newszada.com/jim-rogers-see ... h-the-u-s/

Tried again. No dice.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:01 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:50 pm

The article is behind a paywall so while I’d really like to subscribe and read it, I’m afraid 40 years of trickle down economics finds me saving every last penny for the next big crash.

Edit, it hit me up on the 3rd access. Try this ...

https://www.newszada.com/jim-rogers-see ... h-the-u-s/

That one has the header but a big white space where tgexarticle body should be plus a shit load of linked ads.

It appears the debt crisis is hitting the financial publications already.

I have a healthy investment in gold miners - print baby print!

Ooooo. A debt thread. It's been a while. 4 years or so?

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:40 am Jim Rogers Sees Perilous Times Ahead. Why Government Debt Could Crush the U.S.

See Kalm, I'm not the only one that thinks printing money is a bad idea.

Something else is ahead. A year ago at this time, America was the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. That debt is now up by trillions of dollars—that’s trillions with a T. Someday, we are all going to look back—three years from now, eight years from now—and say, “Wait a minute, what about all this debt? What are we going to do now?” That’s what happened to the U.K. The U.K. was the richest, most powerful nation in the world in the 1920s, and then took the path of “it doesn’t matter, we’ll spend all we want.” Fifty years later, the IMF had to fly into Heathrow and bail them out. They were bankrupt. So, I am afraid of what I see.

I thought about putting this in the Coronavirus thread but thought it deserved it's own.

But in answer to your question. More debt is bad and stimulus is good.

I doubt many questioned all the spending and debt during WWII and that was on the heals of a Depression.

Not to mention, stimulus sometimes pays for itself.

kalm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:48 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:40 am Jim Rogers Sees Perilous Times Ahead. Why Government Debt Could Crush the U.S.

See Kalm, I'm not the only one that thinks printing money is a bad idea.

I thought about putting this in the Coronavirus thread but thought it deserved it's own.

But in answer to your question. More debt is bad and stimulus is good.

I doubt many questioned all the spending and debt during WWII and that was on the heals of a Depression.

Not to mention, stimulus sometimes pays for itself.

Smart stimulus sometimes pays for itself. Not trying to throw money around like a drunken sailor in Manilla. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle are more interested in padding the wallets of their special interests than they are in focusing any stimulus on those that really need it.

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:09 pm Ooooo. A debt thread. It's been a while. 4 years or so?

Go find a post where I said debt didn't matter.

FYI the article worked for me. Kalm - you probably need to clear out the cookies on whatever device you are using to access.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:36 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:48 pm

But in answer to your question. More debt is bad and stimulus is good.

I doubt many questioned all the spending and debt during WWII and that was on the heals of a Depression.

Not to mention, stimulus sometimes pays for itself.

Smart stimulus sometimes pays for itself. Not trying to throw money around like a drunken sailor in Manilla. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle are more interested in padding the wallets of their special interests than they are in focusing any stimulus on those that really need it.

Agreed. Normally I'm a hard "no" on any stimulus plans but the gubmint forcing people not to work makes the justification of this one a little different. Ideally any stimulus would focus on people who have lost their jobs as a direct result of shutdowns and focus on businesses that can show they were impacted because of the shutdowns. Unfortunately this will be another money grab for big banks/corps/etc with very little getting to those that need it most.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:55 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:36 pm
Smart stimulus sometimes pays for itself. Not trying to throw money around like a drunken sailor in Manilla. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle are more interested in padding the wallets of their special interests than they are in focusing any stimulus on those that really need it.

Agreed. Normally I'm a hard "no" on any stimulus plans but the gubmint forcing people not to work makes the justification of this one a little different. Ideally any stimulus would focus on people who have lost their jobs as a direct result of shutdowns and focus on businesses that can show they were impacted because of the shutdowns. Unfortunately this will be another money grab for big banks/corps/etc with very little getting to those that need it most.

It' also a money grab for states like Illinois that were fiscally melting down long before the coronavirus. Republicans are completely justified in arguing against stimulus money being used to bail out states' unfunded pension liabilities.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:11 am

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:55 am

Agreed. Normally I'm a hard "no" on any stimulus plans but the gubmint forcing people not to work makes the justification of this one a little different. Ideally any stimulus would focus on people who have lost their jobs as a direct result of shutdowns and focus on businesses that can show they were impacted because of the shutdowns. Unfortunately this will be another money grab for big banks/corps/etc with very little getting to those that need it most.

It' also a money grab for states like Illinois that were fiscally melting down long before the coronavirus. Republicans are completely justified in arguing against stimulus money being used to bail out states' unfunded pension liabilities.

Agreed.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:55 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:36 pm

Smart stimulus sometimes pays for itself. Not trying to throw money around like a drunken sailor in Manilla. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle are more interested in padding the wallets of their special interests than they are in focusing any stimulus on those that really need it.

Agreed. Normally I'm a hard "no" on any stimulus plans but the gubmint forcing people not to work makes the justification of this one a little different. Ideally any stimulus would focus on people who have lost their jobs as a direct result of shutdowns and focus on businesses that can show they were impacted because of the shutdowns. Unfortunately this will be another money grab for big banks/corps/etc with very little getting to those that need it most.

FWIW, PPP and EIDL money saved our bacon the first go around. You had to jump through some hoops and meet the the guidelines but it wasn’t that hard.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:22 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:11 am

It' also a money grab for states like Illinois that were fiscally melting down long before the coronavirus. Republicans are completely justified in arguing against stimulus money being used to bail out states' unfunded pension liabilities.

Agreed.

Also agree. If debt is a concern, the 88% of businesses that are considered small, get it first.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:55 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:36 pm

Smart stimulus sometimes pays for itself. Not trying to throw money around like a drunken sailor in Manilla. Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle are more interested in padding the wallets of their special interests than they are in focusing any stimulus on those that really need it.

Agreed. Normally I'm a hard "no" on any stimulus plans but the gubmint forcing people not to work makes the justification of this one a little different. Ideally any stimulus would focus on people who have lost their jobs as a direct result of shutdowns and focus on businesses that can show they were impacted because of the shutdowns. Unfortunately this will be another money grab for big banks/corps/etc with very little getting to those that need it most.

What he said. Give it to those that are truly hardest hit.

On a different note -
The Gov't doesn't have the resources to enforce a lot of regulation or accuracy where PPP funds are disbursed. The banks are better suited for that and are doing it ( I know Wells Fargo has done an incredible job of preventing/punishing fraud).

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:23 am

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:55 am

Agreed. Normally I'm a hard "no" on any stimulus plans but the gubmint forcing people not to work makes the justification of this one a little different. Ideally any stimulus would focus on people who have lost their jobs as a direct result of shutdowns and focus on businesses that can show they were impacted because of the shutdowns. Unfortunately this will be another money grab for big banks/corps/etc with very little getting to those that need it most.

FWIW, PPP and EIDL money saved our bacon the first go around. You had to jump through some hoops and meet the the guidelines but it wasn’t that hard.

Yea, PPP wasn’t very hard to get...for the right people...



Saved Tom’s bacon just in time to make a critical purchase...

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:35 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:23 am

FWIW, PPP and EIDL money saved our bacon the first go around. You had to jump through some hoops and meet the the guidelines but it wasn’t that hard.

Yea, PPP wasn’t very hard to get...for the right people...



Saved Tom’s bacon just in time to make a critical purchase...

But it's a small business...

Like others have said, the government mandating businesses to close, or creating the environment where they have to close, means that government really should be supplying stimulus to them in order to carry people through this. It's not ideal, but nothing in this is. We do need to make sure this just isn't a grab-bag to get hands on free money and that it should be tied to hardships created by all things COVID, but there clearly needs to be stimulus in this case.

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:35 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:23 am

FWIW, PPP and EIDL money saved our bacon the first go around. You had to jump through some hoops and meet the the guidelines but it wasn’t that hard.

Yea, PPP wasn’t very hard to get...for the right people...



Saved Tom’s bacon just in time to make a critical purchase...

Yep! So did the Trump and Kushner families. My point was in response to SD’s statement that smaller companies would get very little.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:53 am Like others have said, the government mandating businesses to close, or creating the environment where they have to close, means that government really should be supplying stimulus to them in order to carry people through this. It's not ideal, but nothing in this is. We do need to make sure this just isn't a grab-bag to get hands on free money and that it should be tied to hardships created by all things COVID, but there clearly needs to be stimulus in this case.

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:59 am

Col Hogan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:35 am

Yea, PPP wasn’t very hard to get...for the right people...



Saved Tom’s bacon just in time to make a critical purchase...

Yep! So did the Trump and Kushner families. My point was in response to SD’s statement that smaller companies would get very little.

They did get very little, or none at all. My guess is it came down to those who had the know-how to get their applications in order to get the money.

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:23 am FWIW, PPP and EIDL money saved our bacon the first go around. You had to jump through some hoops and meet the the guidelines but it wasn’t that hard.

Yes, PPP and EIDL were good programs but they also gave money to organizations that didn't need it. My organization didn't qualify (501c6's didn't qualify but 501c3's did ) but if we had we could have submitted an application and received funding that we didn't need because we weren't likely to lay people off.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:28 am What he said. Give it to those that are truly hardest hit.

On a different note -
The Gov't doesn't have the resources to enforce a lot of regulation or accuracy where PPP funds are disbursed. The banks are better suited for that and are doing it ( I know Wells Fargo has done an incredible job of preventing/punishing fraud).

Put the onus on the lenders to make sure they are making good loans. They have the resources and experience in evaluating qualifications and risk.

The same could be said about student loans. Make it easier for borrowers to discharge the debt via bankruptcy and lenders will be a lot more careful about giving a Fine Arts major a 6 figure loan.