A real picture of the economy

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: WCmutant

Don't forget the what 200 trillion in unfunded liabilities that will be coming due. Gives me warm and fuzzies.

I don't think there's ever been that much money on the planet in all of human history.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

When most of the working population makes less than 30k a year they can't buy anything.

hey, hey, hey.....just play along that the entire problem is lazy poor people...(sarcasm intended)

But don't worry. I'm sure your fix is to give the same government that is killing the economy the power to just deliver the final coup de grace.

ok, so what's your big fix?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

When most of the working population makes less than 30k a year they can't buy anything.

hey, hey, hey.....just play along that the entire problem is lazy poor people...(sarcasm intended)

But don't worry. I'm sure your fix is to give the same government that is killing the economy the power to just deliver the final coup de grace.

My fix is that WE need to start working on a solution that does not involve the government. When the fiat currency becomes worthless and crashes they (TPTB) are going to expect us to yield to one of their hair-brained solutions that keep them in power and the 1% sucking up the majority of the resources and wealth.

The problem is a large number of people can't have a reasonable discussion about how to fix this without political agendas being brought up.

Want to solve the problem? Put your agendas down and start talking about the issues. The fact of the matter is consumer debt isn't the major problem with our economic situation. Is it a problem? Yes, but it's a case by case basis.

By 2016 the richest 1% will own more than 50% of the world's wealth. However, the problem isn't corporate/CEO greed. You don't reach that startlingly bleak distribution of wealth by paying your employees decently.

CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less...from June 2014

From May of this year (2015) Why Corporate CEO pay is so high, and going higher, it is from CNBC so feel free to pick apart the data if your agenda feels you must.

Again, average wages have dropped over the last 7 years by 6.5% and CEO pay is still rising. I'd say that's a good indication of greed.

a reply to: WCmutant

excellent post good member !!

I've personally am experiencing this first hand, as not being able to find 'suitable' work to provide for myself at the moment...

solution...it's up to the common people to start to lead for themselves and find new technologies AND implement them ....since all the manufacturing jobs are now overseas .. or Mexico (since that's where they were SUPPOSE to go to)...so corps can make billions of dollars to line their pockets with $$$$$$ and pay CEO's millions of dollars and provide golden parachutes for their lifestyles....I'm sure there are CEO's here that are angered at that statement but it's the truth, when is enough ever enough? but, it's not about this ...it's just a symptom of a bigger root issue.

With that being said.. the #1 thing that we as a society need to do is be transparent, meaning, post the state budgets on-line and root out the corruption at the state level...don't think so...might want to do a little balance sheet and find out where all of the taxes we're paying are really going to, not including the Lottery money.....

have to go for now.. to much to discuss and not enough time.

a reply to: WCmutant

You tell me to put my agenda and continue with yours ...

Until we do as you started to suggest, nothing happens.

Maybe when it crashes, people will realize that worrying about what other people do and have isn't nearly as important to fixing problems as they think. Worrying about how to tear down others only results in ultimately tearing down yourself. We've been sticking it to The Man for about seven years now ... how is that working out?

You didn't account for how many of the people not working are taking in social security and essentially retired. There's at least 10 million baby boomers who have started retiring in the last 15 years.

Yet here in America homes without people outnumber the homeless. Food waste exceeds the needs of the starving. Our economy is stagnant because dollars are leaving circulation en masse for savings accounts offshore. It's all a sick and twisted game for a relatively small group in the world.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WCmutant

You tell me to put my agenda and continue with yours ...

Until we do as you started to suggest, nothing happens.

Maybe when it crashes, people will realize that worrying about what other people do and have isn't nearly as important to fixing problems as they think. Worrying about how to tear down others only results in ultimately tearing down yourself. We've been sticking it to The Man for about seven years now ... how is that working out?

Actually, I wasn't referencing your agenda. I was spring boarding off your notion of a "fix." It's just that in my follow up I mentioned an agenda. In fact, my initial idea parallels what you said previously regarding the parasitic government.

So, I'm not sure what agenda you feel I have - other than fixing the problem. I will tell you honestly, that family and friends are confused by me as some of you seem to be. Democrats call me a conservative teabagger and Republicans call me a liberal socialist. Problem is I use data and the radical idea of freedom to make decisions. Strange thing regarding my posts thus far, I haven't suggested giving anyone free anything.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
You didn't account for how many of the people not working are taking in social security and essentially retired. There's at least 10 million baby boomers who have started retiring in the last 15 years.

I didn't account for them because they should already be included if they are actively seeking a job (last 4 weeks) or were previously seeking work and gave up. If they are retired they aren't included in the labor force calculations.

originally posted by: WCmutant
My fix is that WE need to start working on a solution that does not involve the government. When the fiat currency becomes worthless and crashes they (TPTB) are going to expect us to yield to one of their hair-brained solutions that keep them in power and the 1% sucking up the majority of the resources and wealth.

How does debt based currency crash?

For that to happen, everyone's debt will have to be cleared, or 0.

a reply to: WCmutant

What do we do?
It's time to begin imagining and possibly implementing a better system. Complaining and pointing out the faults of the broken system that we have only goes so far, we must begin.

Production has to happen before any other economic thing.

Nothing can be distributed until it is first brought into existence.

When people become sated in one thing they will begin to want something else. Then produce that. Repeat.

originally posted by: WCmutant
If they are retired they aren't included in the labor force calculations.

Are you certain?

I see, "Not in Labor Force" age 16 and older. So when I say "you didn't account" I'm referring to at least mentioning that at least half of the increase in the "Not in Labor Force" is due to aging out of employment.

Make sense?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

originally posted by: WCmutant
My fix is that WE need to start working on a solution that does not involve the government. When the fiat currency becomes worthless and crashes they (TPTB) are going to expect us to yield to one of their hair-brained solutions that keep them in power and the 1% sucking up the majority of the resources and wealth.

How does debt based currency crash?

For that to happen, everyone's debt will have to be cleared, or 0.

It becomes worthless. Think the Weimar Republic of Germany after WWI, just before the Nazis gained power.

a reply to: WCmutant

Great post, S&F!!

You have singled out a few of my favorite economic indicators... none of which looks too healthy at present.

I try to keep an eye on the trend in the measurement called 'velocity of money' too... in my experience that number correlates very well with purchasing patterns of us 99%'ers.

When the 99% have expanding purchasing power (wages are growing faster than fixed expenses; prospects for advancement are good; value of assets rising; debt to assets ratio falling, etc), they have more money to turn loose into the economy, and they hand it over to providers of goods and services, who also spend, etc.

When the 99% have shrinking purchasing power (unemployed; flat wages vs. rising fixed costs; value of assets falling, etc) money doesn't cycle as quickly through the system, and the measure falls.

Velocity of Money graph

Despite massive easing on part of the fed, the velocity of money is quite a bit lower than during the Great Depression, with no signs of turning the corner any time soon.

This is why the pay gap matters. Its not jealousy on the part of the 99%, it's basic math... when more people have more money to spend, the economic engine revs up, creating broader demand for goods and services. It is better for the overall economy if 99 people can afford a $100 haircut than if 1 person can afford a $9900 haircut. That applies at the local level and at the global level.


Should be an interesting election cycle here in the states.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

originally posted by: WCmutant
If they are retired they aren't included in the labor force calculations.

Are you certain?

I see, "Not in Labor Force" age 16 and older. So when I say "you didn't account" I'm referring to at least mentioning that at least half of the increase in the "Not in Labor Force" is due to aging out of employment.

Make sense?

Let me try be more succinct. As I stated, they should be included in the numbers. When I said "labor force" calculation I mean the derivation arriving at the "unemployment rate." And me saying "I didn't account for them" means I didn't reference them as a subset but as I said they should be included.

They, as I previously stated, if they "gave up" (aka, retired) should be included in the Not in Labor Force (NILF) numbers. So yes, of the 94 million NILF if they have retired they are included in those numbers.

But you also can't assume that of that 94 million that a large chunk of them are retirees. I've been trying to dig into the retiree data and it's hard to find. I was hoping that the Social Security Administration (SSA) would have decent info. They have total numbers but not exact "new recipient" statistics.

The latest statistics of the SSA show:
August 2015 / Age 65+ / SS benefits (not including SSI): 41,578,000
July 2015 / Age 65+ / SS benefits (not including SSI): 41,458,000

The difference being about 120,000 new people receiving benefits. Of course, this is an assumption that all of those 120,000 are new SS benefit recipients. Looking at the 2nd Quarter differences in 2015 April began (meaning using March 2015 ending data) with 41.116 million and June ending with 41.362 million, an increase of 246,000 for the quarter.

For reference: SSA retiree data

Does that account for everyone? Nope. Some people retire early and live off their retirement before turning 65 and receiving the SS benefits.

But even a generous 350,000 retirees per quarter doesn't get close to making a dent in the 94 million "not in labor force" statistic.

Here are a couple good articles that at least tackle the retiree notion and the unemployment rate scam.

Baby Boomers slowly growing more comfortable with retirement - keep in mind that Baby Boomers slowed their retirement after the 2008 crash/recession.

US News - Where are all the workers?

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

When most of the working population makes less than 30k a year they can't buy anything.

hey, hey, hey.....just play along that the entire problem is lazy poor people...(sarcasm intended)

Yes 75 million dumb lazy people.

a reply to: WCmutant

Did the Weimar Republic supply, as a third party, the currency's reserves?

The whole idea of using the fed was to keep a crash of currency from occurring. Basically, the economy can collapse but the currency would still be worth something, as it comes from a third party who holds assets in reserve (hints fed reserve) - at least that is how it started out.

Today, the reserve has shifted to the debt of the people (income taxes yada yada yada).

Which brings me back to my original post: so long as we have debt, we have currency. The only way to lose, or crash, the currency would be to clear the debt, and I do not think that is even allowed without forfeitures of assets, typically through liquidation; which would just give back real assets to the fed, thus adding to the continuation of their currency's value.

Essentially, we're stuck with them. To even clear the debt we have to borrow from them, liquidate assets, or pass the debt to someone else (future generations or other nations).

a reply to: WCmutant

Actually I'm fairly well certain more than 350k are retiring per quarter for the last year or two, let me get back to you with some figures in a minute, but I agree and have been trying to find exact figures with some difficulty. You can find stats to show people over a certain age, and recipiants of SS, but this doesn't guarantee they are truly "retired".



This shows the rate of increase in retirees since the baby boomers started hitting 65 in 2008.

Please note there is no need to make a dent in the 94 million. What needs to be shown is perspective. Take the amount of increase within a given period of time, and explain it properly. So if we take the amount of increase from 2008 to now, and compare this millions to new retirees, what are we left with? Note I said more than half, not the whole shebang.

Here is usdebtclock on this day 2008:

i.imgur.com...

and today:

i.imgur.com...

Change in NILF in the last 7 years is:

94,697,329 - 80,317,120 = 14,380,209

Change in retirees in the last 7 years is:

48,967,349 - 41,482,622 = 7,484,727

doubled is more than change in NILF,

hence we can say that in the last 7 years, more than half the increase in NILF has been due to retirees.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You are delving into a completely different topic --> is money real? It's not. It's a perceived value based on an agreed upon system.

Regardless, you are right that the currency will still be worth something... more or less. In the Weimar Republic situation their currency had value, it was an absolutely horrible value - think 4 trillion German marks for 1 US dollar.

So yes, it had value... if you want to call it that. To amend this they rigged their currency (something African republics have done in recent decades). They printed new currency and revalued it, chopping off a bunch of the zeros.

We aren't essentially stuck with them. The government could drop them and begin printing money from the US Treasury again. However, the bigger question is how do you establish a new value? This delves into the "where is the gold" conspiracy.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: WCmutant

Here is usdebtclock on this day 2008:

i.imgur.com...

and today:

i.imgur.com...

Change in NILF in the last 7 years is:

94,697,329 - 80,317,120 = 14,380,209

Change in retirees in the last 7 years is:

48,967,349 - 41,482,622 = 7,484,727

doubled is more than change in NILF,

hence we can say that in the last 7 years, more than half the increase in NILF has been due to retirees.

Be careful with using US Debt Clock and pay attention to where they get their data. It's important to know what they are reporting.

Their "retirees" number is from the US Census Bureau and is the number of people 65+ that are eligible for SS and Medicaid. That doesn't mean all 48.967 million have "retired." There are many 65 year olds that are working and haven't retired. Sort of why I linked the Baby Boomer article about Baby Boomers being slow to retire due to the recession.

So, the truth is US Debt Clock is incorrectly reporting "retirees." Sure, they are of retirement age but it doesn't mean they are retired - need to verify this data.

a reply to: WCmutant

No, I'm on topic - I am just addressing the fact that you are ever so causally getting ahead of yourself: wanting to start thinking about a new economic model before an end to the current one is even in sight.

Inflation, hyperinflation, and the numbers on the paper do not matter - what matters is the promises made. That is, if the economy does collapse, the promises will still be up held: we will all have to sell our stuff, and that, in turn, would make their currency stronger, as they will then have real assets (it is a fail safe for them that has always been there but you are not accounting for it). And if that did happen, we would be left having to live with less or borrow again, just like in 1929.

Your idea, that the gov would ever tell them to go fed themselves, is ludicrous.

Anyways, I'm out. Good luck thinking up a new model.