| YourValentine 30.07.2011 02:54 |
Does anybody understand how the US congress can let the country slip into the possibly most dangerous crisis since the Great Depression? We watch in disbelief. I do not pretend to understand all the details but reports are mostly pointing the finger to the Tea Party. How can it be that so-called "patriots" risk the country's reputation, wealth and future for a short time political gain? Compared to these people Gaddhafi looks sane... |
| inu-liger 30.07.2011 04:05 |
What's even more sad is that the Apple company has more cash on hand than the US government does, at this time. |
| The Fairy King 30.07.2011 04:52 |
They've been bankrupt since the great depression lawls. |
| queenUSA 30.07.2011 10:04 |
Deep Cuts isn't just for Queen!! We'll be living that here soon. Earlier this month, we watched Atlantis (the final space shuttle mission) climb away to the stars and with it our entire space program for a long, long time to come. With so many serious obligations to be met - tough challenges/times are ahead for many years, no doubt. I'm hoping enough money can be raised to send our Olympic team to London next year. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 30.07.2011 13:28 |
YourValentine wrote: Does anybody understand how the US congress can let the country slip into the possibly most dangerous crisis since the Great Depression? We watch in disbelief. I do not pretend to understand all the details but reports are mostly pointing the finger to the Tea Party. How can it be that so-called "patriots" risk the country's reputation, wealth and future for a short time political gain? Compared to these people Gaddhafi looks sane... =================== Tea Party freshmen are doing exactly what they said they'd do - changing the way Washington thinks. If that means shutting down the country while they hold their collective breath and turn blue, then that's what they'll do. They're extremists who want "small" government - as in a government that doesn't spend money on things like welfare, medicare, medicaid or unemployment insurance, which are all programs to help those most in need. They don't want tax rates to return to pre-Bush amounts despite the fact that since he lowered them, the country's revenue has diminished considerably - of course two wars had nothing to do with that. They don't want any type of government intervention in their lives... yet they believe in constitutional amendments such as defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, such as defining an embryo as a human being whose rights are valued as much as any other so if they are harmed in any way someone will be tried for neglect or murder, such as tying a raise of the debt ceiling to a budget "agreement" that they can’t even reach because they refuse to compromise with anyone including those within their own party. Bottom line, they campaigned on a promise to "take our country back" by making Barack Obama a one-term president. They will meet that goal even if it means sabotaging democracy itself, and then in the end, they'll do what they did before and place the blame squarely on the Democrats and President Obama. The Tea Party wants what they want with no regard for the good of the country or the world. Or worse, they truly believe their actions ARE for the good of the country and the world. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 31.07.2011 04:19 |
how anyone living on mainland Europe can laugh at America's debt whilst their economy is in even more of a mess is in fact quite beyond me... still bailing out Greece,Ireland and Portugal are you? and that is why the UK will NEVER be a part of the Eurozone and with its toilet paper currency |
| YourValentine 31.07.2011 05:15 |
I do not think anybody is laughing here, Jon. When the US economy crashes it won't take long for the European economies to crash. Somehow I do not believe that the pound will save the British economy. England is much more a money market than many other industry-oriented Eurpean countries. As a member of the eurozone I can tell you that not many people here understand why we do not have the money for good streets and good schools anymore but are able to pay billions to bail out banks and whole countries who did not play by the rules - but that is another story. I heard that Bill Clinton advised Obama to lift that debt ceiling with an executive order and leave it to the American people to vote about that in 2012. Apparently, there are people you just cannot compromise with. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 31.07.2011 06:31 |
YourValentine wrote: I heard that Bill Clinton advised Obama to lift that debt ceiling with an executive order and leave it to the American people to vote about that in 2012. Apparently, there are people you just cannot compromise with. . ================ The Obama Administration is concerned about the constitutionality of this. Though there was partisan hatred with Clinton in the Whitehouse, there's hatred like we've never seen before with Obama there. (And Clinton had a thicker skin and more productive ego than Obama) The concern of the Administration's legal team is that Obama will use powers from the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling Executively, and then the Republicans will sue - which will cost the country more money and might end with a strike against the Administration. That would be awful for Obama's reelection campaign, but also awful for the country because the entire process of lifting the debt ceiling, and the congressional sideshow included with that, would start again - with tempers higher and egos more bruised than they are now. The Republicans have already gotten what they wanted in this debate - no "new" taxes, extremely low revenue and cuts to programs Democrats consider the blood of the country. It's still not enough for them. Americans have their fellow citizens to thank for this predicament since a small group of ultra-right wingers voted these naysayers in. Worse? They're not seeing the error of their ways but rather cheering these representatives on with slogans like "shut it down!" since they'd rather see a government shutdown than a compromise. Having said all that, I should add Democrats are not free from blame here. They had the Presidency, the House and the Senate for two years before the Tea Party was voted in. They could have easily balanced the budget their way - which would have included what most Americans want and that's a return to pre-Bush tax rates. If they had done that, this 'crisis' never would have occurred. |
| Holly2003 31.07.2011 07:05 |
It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for the super rich to convince the poor that both their interests are the same. I would giess most of the tea party people are normal hard working people who've been convinced by the media and certain politicians that "big govt" and taxes are "evil" whereas being obscenely rich and avoiding taxes is somehow democratic and the American way. The same thing has happened in the UK: working class and middle class people voted Conservative because the media and the Conservatives convinced everyone that paying for things like hospitals, roads and education was out of control whereas paying huge bonuses to bankers out of taxpayer money is necessary and desirable. Madness. |
| catqueen 31.07.2011 09:24 |
hope some way out is found... half the world will go down if the US does. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 31.07.2011 10:03 |
catqueen wrote: hope some way out is found... half the world will go down if the US does. . ============= . The US won't go down, IMO. I may not have faith in the US government, but I have faith in the US government's desire to exist. They will not sacrifice themselves. One way or another, they'll find a way out. |
| catqueen 31.07.2011 16:52 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: catqueen wrote: hope some way out is found... half the world will go down if the US does. . ============= . The US won't go down, IMO. I may not have faith in the US government, but I have faith in the US government's desire to exist. They will not sacrifice themselves. One way or another, they'll find a way out. Thats kinda what i figured by today... they are saying that there are several ways out, blaa blaa, which i don't really believe, BUT i think too, surely they won't go down. having said that, the Roman empire crashed spectacularly, as did most big empires... At least thats what the conspiracy theorist people say! |
| thomasquinn 32989 01.08.2011 07:13 |
The Democrats have, as usual, given the completely insane Republicans what they wanted - no one is going to touch the absurd and perverse tax-cuts for the filthy rich, no matter if the rest of the country starves. Everyone who votes Republican is a traitor of him/herself and the American people. The Onion never came closer to being a serious news agency: link The far-right neo-con wave that is still strangling both the Americas and Europe is going to kill both continents if it isn't stopped soon. These Reaganomics-morons are the only party responsible for the economic crisis, and if they are allowed to keep going, along with their racist-populist allies the Tea Party (U.S.) and the Islamophobe far-right (Europe), they will destroy the economy and society. It is greed and a total lack of morality that is destroying countries. It is neo-conservatism that keeps telling people that their greed, hate and envy are virtues rather than vices. |
| The Real Wizard 01.08.2011 15:05 |
Obama is a good man who wants one simple thing - to have the average American live in comfort. But the system is far bigger than him, and he has surely learned many hard lessons over the past couple years. The simple solution to this problem would be to cut defense spending in half, but that will never, ever happen. America is a war country. The bankers and warlords run the entire system, and they always get what they want. They print and control the money, and they will make sure the richest 1% keep the majority of it, and at any expense. The US will NOT default. There will be a miraculous last minute deal, and the middle class will shrink a little more. And the politicians decide NONE of it. It is a giant charade. The republicans set this one up. Their interests are far more in line with the elite than the democrats ever will be. They put the unelectable Palin and McCain in there in '08 so that a democrat could get blamed for a mess that dates back to the Reagan administration, at least. With FOX news at their beck (pun not intended) and call, the majority of the public will be convinced just in time for the next election. Obama will be a one term president... even though he tried to bring in universal health care, wall street reform, killed bin Laden and wanted to bring Israel back to its '67 borders. A century from now he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest presidents.. certainly the best since Kennedy. And Obama certainly learned a thing or two from him because, well .. he's still alive. 2013 to 2020 will be a republican. You heard it here first. |
| catqueen 01.08.2011 17:11 |
Sir GH wrote: Obama is a good man who wants one simple thing - to have the average American live in comfort. But the system is far bigger than him, and he has surely learned many hard lessons over the past couple years. The simple solution to this problem would be to cut defense spending in half, but that will never, ever happen. America is a war country. The bankers and warlords run the entire system, and they always get what they want. They print and control the money, and they will make sure the richest 1% keep the majority of it, and at any expense. The US will NOT default. There will be a miraculous last minute deal, and the middle class will shrink a little more. And the politicians decide NONE of it. It is a giant charade. The republicans set this one up. Their interests are far more in line with the elite than the democrats ever will be. They put the unelectable Palin and McCain in there in '08 so that a democrat could get blamed for a mess that dates back to the Reagan administration, at least. With FOX news at their beck (pun not intended) and call, the majority of the public will be convinced just in time for the next election. Obama will be a one term president... even though he tried to bring in universal health care, wall street reform, killed bin Laden and wanted to bring Israel back to its '67 borders. A century from now he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest presidents.. certainly the best since Kennedy. And Obama certainly learned a thing or two from him because, well .. he's still alive. 2013 to 2020 will be a republican. You heard it here first. yeah... i don't understand why Obama isn't that well liked in the usa. And i dont understand how the republicans are so popular. I mean, how can u convince SO many people that this is in their interests?! And republican president again is a scary thought. :/ |
| The Real Wizard 01.08.2011 17:20 |
catqueen wrote: yeah... i don't understand why Obama isn't that well liked in the usa. And i dont understand how the republicans are so popular. I mean, how can u convince SO many people that this is in their interests?! =============== Most Americans qualify under at least one of these categories: - barely capable or incapable of independent thought - easily swayed by manipulation - racist That should just about cover it. I mean, really ... how dumb do you have to be to actually believe that not paying to see the doctor is somehow not a good idea? And to believe that bombing other countries is somehow more important than lowering the unemployment rate from ~10%? It really does boggle the mind. That said, Obama has pissed off a lot of his voter base because he has been trying to find middle ground with the republicans. One of his biggest campaigning points was trying to bridge the gap between the left and right, but in the end this has hurt him more than it has helped him. |
| queenUSA 01.08.2011 21:54 |
Sir GH wrote: Most Americans qualify under at least one of these categories: - barely capable or incapable of independent thought - easily swayed by manipulation - racist That should just about cover it. =================== ^ Disappointed that someone who seemed to be above writing something like this would actually write this. Please tell me that someone hacked your account. |
| GratefulFan 01.08.2011 23:27 |
Sir GH wrote: Most Americans qualify under at least one of these categories: - barely capable or incapable of independent thought - easily swayed by manipulation - racist That should just about cover it. I mean, really ... how dumb do you have to be to actually believe that not paying to see the doctor is somehow not a good idea? And to believe that bombing other countries is somehow more important than lowering the unemployment rate from ~10%? It really does boggle the mind. That said, Obama has pissed off a lot of his voter base because he has been trying to find middle ground with the republicans. One of his biggest campaigning points was trying to bridge the gap between the left and right, but in the end this has hurt him more than it has helped him. ===================================== I think some of this is a little facile. First, citizens of universal healthcare countries certainly do pay to see the doctor. It's not free, and it's not without sacrifice. In Canada we pay in high taxes, and we often sacrifice choice, timeliness of care and the benefits and efficencies of private sector competition and dollars. Do you really think the only arguments against government managed healthcare come from stupid people? My salary is decent enough that I could probably purchase insurance in a private system that would provide more benefits and services than I currently get, but I strongly believe that healthcare is a human right that should be equally available to all so I'm untroubled by any (mostly minor) personal sacrifices for the principle. However, I certainly understand the intellectual arguments against it and the arguments that urge caution, and they are not without some merit. Just because the public discourse tends to absurd oversimplifications like 'death panels' and other nonsense doesn't mean there isn't a discussion to be had. Sometimes middle ground and compromise are great things. Sometimes they're just weak, shit solutions that make nobody very happy. I'm not sure I'd particularly want a political leader to be focused on 'bridging the gap'. The whole idea of democracy is the robust competition between often radically different ideas. It's their job to be partisan, and it's our job as voters to shape our respective nations by voting the best and worst ideas from both sides in and out over time. Obama's hopey-changey-bridgey schtick was never going to be a reality (I spent most of 2008 silently (usually) yelling at my TV screen in disbelief) and I certainly wish he would have waited four or eight years to run and gathered some political experience. Now there is a distinct possibility that all that intelligence and poetry and high minded affability will be wasted on a single term in tough times. Unfortunate if it turns out that way. |
| The Real Wizard 02.08.2011 00:05 |
queenUSA wrote: ^ Disappointed that someone who seemed to be above writing something like this would actually write this. ================= I'm flattered by your back-handed compliment :-) Point 1) "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Senator Barry Goldwater "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford Point 2) Fox News is still the most watched news program in the US. If these people could think independently, they would know the difference between reputable news and a right-wing think tank propaganda system. Point 3) Go south of Tennessee and you won't have much trouble finding entire counties where there isn't a single black person to be found. The average white person carries a gun and will shoot if they see a black person. One of these people is a second-cousin of mine, so I know. But with respect to Obama, you can bet your life that millions of republican voters didn't want Obama in office simply because he's black. My wording above was slightly ambiguous - obviously I didn't mean to imply most Americans were racist. I said at least one of the three categories. That said, categories 2 and 3 really aren't even necessary to make my point. 99% of the country doesn't have a clue of who controls their money, and that's all that really needs to be stated. |
| The Real Wizard 02.08.2011 00:07 |
GratefulFan wrote: "I certainly understand the intellectual arguments against it and the arguments that urge caution, and they are not without some merit. Just because the public discourse tends to absurd oversimplifications like 'death panels' and other nonsense doesn't mean there isn't a discussion to be had." Very fair point. But there is one simple solution - if the public health care system was all it could be, there would be no need to seek alternatives in the private sector. But as long as there are right-wing politicians, they will always have friends in private enterprise who need money before poor people need health care. "It's their job to be partisan, and it's our job as voters to shape our respective nations by voting the best and worst ideas from both sides in and out over time." True. But the best ideas are hard to find, as they are usually nowhere near mainstream media outlets. |
| spandan 02.08.2011 04:53 |
Sir GH wrote: 99% of the country doesn't have a clue of who controls their money, and that's all that really needs to be stated. Thankfully there's things like The Venus Project and such, which I think everyone should at least dig into. Whether they agree with it or not is of course their choice but I think that these at least deserve a watch. There's an excellent documentary called ZEITGEIST: THE MOVIE which talks about the monetary system among other things. link There's also a ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM which adds things the original missed out and this might be the greatest documentary I have ever watched. I think at least this needs to be watched by everyone. link Both should be available as free downloads on the respective websites. Then there's ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD which I haven't watched but if you want you can get the links from link 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' in particular is not to be missed, by anyone who gives even just the slightest damn about the world. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.08.2011 06:14 |
queenUSA wrote: Sir GH wrote: Most Americans qualify under at least one of these categories: - barely capable or incapable of independent thought - easily swayed by manipulation - racist That should just about cover it. =================== ^ Disappointed that someone who seemed to be above writing something like this would actually write this. Please tell me that someone hacked your account. ================== ================== queenUSA, When I first read Sir GH's post, I shrugged it off because, well, he's not the most "pro-American" person here at Queenzone. :-) Then, I thought more about what he said, and when you consider the state of the US, with Bush having been in office for not ONE term but TWO, and now with this "Tea Party" further dividing the country, it's hard to argue with him. In fact, I would add a third category to his "Most Americans are" list: Lazy or Indifferent. There is a silent majority who wants personal choice, responsible spending, fair taxes, defense without preening, and equality in the true sense of the word. But they only pop out of the dark once every few election cycles. It's as if they feel they've done their job by voting four years ago. Or that their one vote won't make a difference. Or that... "election day was when? Yesterday?!" We do have a lot to be proud of as Americans despite what some might say. However, considering the state of our country over the past decade and how it's only gotten worse despite the efforts of this history-making president, we have a lot to be ashamed of as well. The sooner we admit that, the sooner we can go about fixing it. |
| queenUSA 02.08.2011 07:42 |
^ Lazy and indifferent can be found easily across anyone's border - it's rather common - and by the way so were all the other traits listed by GH. For who among us on this planet does not have these things in their own back yard - no matter what flag is flown above their head? For the last decade or so (post Sept 11th) we have been sorting ourselves out. First task - stop Bin Laden. Obviously, it was not laziness or indifference that achieved this - it's been a long haul. The next piece is to sort out financials and as messy as it is to witness it and live it ... it's being faced. As history has shown, from our darkest hours (civil war, great depression, etc) we eventually emerge - until of course, the next problem - and there will always be a next one. |
| Voice of Reason 2018 02.08.2011 07:50 |
The United States has a national debt of $14.3 trillion. The current debt is only getting publicity because of the legal debt limit in place, otherwise it would have continued to grow unnoticed. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.08.2011 07:50 |
Sir GH wrote: Obama will be a one term president... even though he tried to bring in universal health care, wall street reform, killed bin Laden and wanted to bring Israel back to its '67 borders. A century from now he'll be looked upon as one of the greatest presidents.. certainly the best since Kennedy. And Obama certainly learned a thing or two from him because, well .. he's still alive. 2013 to 2020 will be a republican. You heard it here first. ==== "one term president" - there is no way you can possibly say that now. It is going to depend entirely on what happens to the economy in 2012, and what candidate the Republicans field. If they send in a moderate, most Tea Party-fanatics will vote third-party, if they field a fanatic, they lose the moderate Republicans. The debt ceiling-treaty is quite liable to backfire on the Republicans as much as the democrats. "one of the greatest presidents, certainly the best since Kennedy" - in spite of all the P.R., Kennedy really wasn't a very good president. If you want to go into this in more detail, send me an e-mail or something, because it is a very long story, but the essence is that Kennedy was incapable of making decisions one way or another, and that his fame rests, apart from his assassination, mostly on the way LBJ handled the 1964-65 period. Kennedy is mostly known as a good president because LBJ was so impopular. Truman was a far better president. In fact, LBJ was a better president than Kennedy. "2013 to 2020 will be a Republican" - you are assuming Obama will be a one-term president a year and a half before the elections, and you are already sure the Republican candidate will get two terms, despite the fact that you don't even know who it will be? You're getting a bit ahead of yourself here. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.08.2011 08:04 |
queenUSA wrote: ^ Lazy and indifferent can be found easily across anyone's border - it's rather common - and by the way so were all the other traits listed by GH. For who among us on this planet does not have these things in their own back yard - no matter what flag is flown above their head? For the last decade or so (post Sept 11th) we have been sorting ourselves out. First task - stop Bin Laden. Obviously, it was not laziness or indifference that achieved this - it's been a long haul. The next piece is to sort out financials and as messy as it is to witness it and live it ... it is being faced. As history has shown, from our darkest hours (civil war, great depression, etc) we eventually emerge - until of course, the next problem - and there will always be a next one. ========== I agree with your first paragraph. Absolutely. But... aren't you the least bit disappointed in the way our fellow citizens have either turned against each other without intent to compromise or have stood on the sidelines rather than get involved? And, I'm sorry to say, but I disagree with much of your second paragraph. Maybe laziness or indifference are not the right words to describe what prevented us from getting bin Laden sooner. Distracted, perhaps, or mislead might be better. But keep in mind, he has not been stopped. His message still rings loud and clear to his followers. As for our financial situation, I think laziness on the part of Congress when it was in the hands of Democrats is an accurate way to describe it. Laziness and even arrogance. The Democrats may have believed they'd hold both houses throughout Obama's term and that they had plenty of time to make the financial changes they wanted - like eliminating the Bush tax cuts. But they didn't act. They didn't increase revenues and they didn't decrease spending. It's their inaction that created the 'shellacking' Obama mentioned after the last mid-term elections and what set the stage for the debt crisis. I love my country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But part of loving it, I think, is recognizing its weaknesses so we can help build it up and make it better. |
| catqueen 02.08.2011 11:00 |
queenUSA wrote: ^ Lazy and indifferent can be found easily across anyone's border - it's rather common - and by the way so were all the other traits listed by GH. For who among us on this planet does not have these things in their own back yard - no matter what flag is flown above their head? For the last decade or so (post Sept 11th) we have been sorting ourselves out. First task - stop Bin Laden. Obviously, it was not laziness or indifference that achieved this - it's been a long haul. The next piece is to sort out financials and as messy as it is to witness it and live it ... it's being faced. As history has shown, from our darkest hours (civil war, great depression, etc) we eventually emerge - until of course, the next problem - and there will always be a next one. I think you forgot to mention the numerous other countries that the US govt decided to put an army presence in in the past few years? Like the oil related ones? Oh oops, i mean the 'anti-terrorist' bits. 'Stopping bin Laden' as you said... hmm... he was one person. Who was killed without a trial. And i'm pretty sure the Taliban have more to replace him, particularly the more their countries get attacked and have a military presence. Its like giving them grounds for it. I mean, if i lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, i'd be pretty pissed off at america. Not that that justifies in any way or sense any kind of attack, but i do see how young guys could get pulled into it. |
| Donna13 02.08.2011 11:22 |
Well, it was a true happy ending when Gabrielle Giffords was able to vote yesterday. I think when she got shot, for a brief period, "politics as usual" was put aside and the leaders were together emotionally as friends. This happened again yesterday. |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.08.2011 13:05 |
i would like to know how the US can reduce its debt by $100bn a year over the next 10 years? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.08.2011 13:17 |
JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: i would like to know how the US can reduce its debt by $100bn a year over the next 10 years? =========== I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there. |
| lifetimefanofqueen 02.08.2011 14:08 |
welcome to the skint house |
| Holly2003 02.08.2011 14:20 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: i would like to know how the US can reduce its debt by $100bn a year over the next 10 years? =========== I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would guess they'll spend most of it on weapons bought from US businesses. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.08.2011 14:32 |
Holly2003 wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: i would like to know how the US can reduce its debt by $100bn a year over the next 10 years? =========== I would like to know how other countries intend to spend the billions of dollars in aid the US gives them annually. I've a feeling billions in waste won't be hard to find there. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would guess they'll spend most of it on weapons bought from US businesses. =========== =========== Perhaps, but I'd bet those weapons from US businesses will have labels that read, "Made in China". |
| Holly2003 02.08.2011 15:08 |
Ha! |
| queenUSA 02.08.2011 22:33 |
catqueen wrote: I think you forgot to mention the numerous other countries that the US govt decided to put an army presence in in the past few years? Like the oil related ones? Oh oops, i mean the 'anti-terrorist' bits. 'Stopping bin Laden' as you said... hmm... he was one person. Who was killed without a trial. And i'm pretty sure the Taliban have more to replace him, particularly the more their countries get attacked and have a military presence. Its like giving them grounds for it. I mean, if i lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, i'd be pretty pissed off at america. Not that that justifies in any way or sense any kind of attack, but i do see how young guys could get pulled into it. ================ Thank you Ambassador catqueen, but I have no use for this type of foreign policy lecture from you. Throughout this very long conflict approximately 55 countries have contributed troops, resources, logistics and other support to the forces in Afghanistan, including Ireland. If you have a problem with the ways things are going, then go through proper channels at home to report your complaints. |
| GratefulFan 03.08.2011 00:03 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: As for our financial situation, I think laziness on the part of Congress when it was in the hands of Democrats is an accurate way to describe it. Laziness and even arrogance. The Democrats may have believed they'd hold both houses throughout Obama's term and that they had plenty of time to make the financial changes they wanted - like eliminating the Bush tax cuts. But they didn't act. They didn't increase revenues and they didn't decrease spending. It's their inaction that created the 'shellacking' Obama mentioned after the last mid-term elections and what set the stage for the debt crisis. ========================= I recall the tax cuts decisions differently. That ended up as the vaunted 'compromise' late last year in the lame duck session and Obama very much sought to spin it as a balanced response in the face of opponents who would rather fight. His brand, as it were. Very much wanted to be seen as the adult in the room. In reality, It was pretty weak legislation in terms of Democratic priorities at a time when they still technically controlled both houses. So I see it as a choice as much as something that just snuck up on them because of Republican pressure and time escaping them. Part of the problem was that there is no consensus on what impact they're having or not having on the economy, thus the temptation perhaps to not do anything too drastic. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.08.2011 06:36 |
GratefulFan wrote: I recall the tax cuts decisions differently. That ended up as the vaunted 'compromise' late last year in the lame duck session and Obama very much sought to spin it as a balanced response in the face of opponents who would rather fight. ======== That's exactly how it happened but my point was that it SHOULD have happened sooner. The Democrats held all three branches of government and could have worked on a balanced budge proposal at any time prior to the Republican sweep of the house. Democrats might not have been able to pass the legislation even then because they never had a "super majority", but the effort would have shown the country and the world they were serious about getting the economy in shape, both for now and for the future. If they had put forth that effort, they may not have taken such losses in the mid-term election. By the time the tax vote actually came to the table, it was, once again, running up against a hard deadline and the Republicans did the same thing then as they did now. And so the conversation and the outcome shifted in a huge way. So Obama was correct - it WAS a compromise and balanced response. However it would have been a better response had a lazy, distracted, arrogant - whatever - Democrat-held Congress acted sooner. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2011 11:31 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The Democrats held all three branches of government and could have worked on a balanced budge proposal at any time prior to the Republican sweep of the house. Democrats might not have been able to pass the legislation even then because they never had a "super majority", but the effort would have shown the country and the world they were serious about getting the economy in shape, both for now and for the future. If they had put forth that effort, they may not have taken such losses in the mid-term election. =========== Very good observation. But you say that almost as if the politicians are actually allowed to choose when this legislation was to be passed.. The wall street criminals would never have let that happen, because it wouldn't have been in their best interests. Don't ever forget who is running the show in America. It ain't the politicians. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.08.2011 12:27 |
Sir GH wrote: Very good observation. But you say that almost as if the politicians are actually allowed to choose when this legislation was to be passed.. The wall street criminals would never have let that happen, because it wouldn't have been in their best interests. Don't ever forget who is running the show in America. It ain't the politicians. ========= You know, I really hate it when you try to clean my rose-colored glasses. |
| The Real Wizard 03.08.2011 13:01 |
Haha, sorry about that ! Ok, post something here and think happy thoughts .. :-) link |
| MadTheSwine73 03.08.2011 14:49 |
This is why Canada is awesome. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.08.2011 15:04 |
Sir GH wrote: Ok, post something here and think happy thoughts .. :-) link =========== Guess what? It worked. lol. Thanks. |
| GratefulFan 04.08.2011 00:25 |
MadTheSwine73 wrote: This is why Canada is awesome. =============== Listen to me my young Canuck grasshopper. :) While the US has never lost it's AAA credit rating, even through this latest trial, Canada lost it three times in the early 90's because of atrocious deficits. It was the work of the Chretien government and Finance Minister Paul Martin in the years that followed that eliminated the deficit and restored the AAA rating and set the stage for Canada to effectively sail through the global recession we're experiencing now better than just about everybody. So were only awesome because at one time we were really not awesome and we got scared straight. |
| The Real Wizard 04.08.2011 00:56 |
Who determines said ratings? It all sounds rather dubious to me, as the US national debt is far greater than any country has ever been. How in the world can they maintain a AAA rating while borrowing 40 cents on every dollar spent since the Reagan administration? It sounds like political posing rather than reality. Canada's spending under Mulroney does not remotely compare. But you're damn right about Chretien and Martin. Harper tries to take all the credit, but anyone with any sense of historical reference knows it was Chretien and Martin's economic policies that have our country in a relatively good position at the moment. |
| YourValentine 04.08.2011 03:49 |
Watching all this you can really give up on mankind. We have a world where the overwhelming majority is so poor they have no clean water to drink and not enough to eat. Famine is "defined" by the United Nations - as long as not a defined number of children starve to death in an area within a certain period of time there is no famine, just imagine that. On the other hand we have the rich industrial countries but while billions of $$ are accumulated in big international banks the people in these countries get poorer by the decade, lose jobs, social security, pensions and healthcare - all for the benefit of these banks who just have no real use for the money except for making it more - how crazy is that? At the same time the rich countries carry wars into the poor countries in order to gather the "patriots" under some weird "flags" - because the proverbial Joe Plummer might start to think about fairness in a democracy if he were not kept in fear of the black evil enemy. Of course all this is "God's will" because if it were not God's will we would have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we could not blame it on God - how could we live with the cruelty and unfairness. If we could not shift the responsibility to God we would have to start thinking about the "patriotism" of our banks and corporate industry who manage to make profits private and losses public, we would have to start thinking about the "values" we carry into this world and it might not be so pretty. We might even have to go out and campaign for a better world and become so-called "good-doers" who are so frowned upon these days because they are stupid enough to try and make a difference instead of blogging about their sorry "emo-kid" existence. If only one out of 10 people would bother to email their MPs "I want rich people to be taxed" and if only one out of 100 people would go to Washington (or Berlin, Paris, London) and rally for fairness and equal sharing - politicians might start to listen to the people and not the lobbyists. Unfortunately, people are so disillusioned about their role that less and less people even bother to vote. Off to the "things you like most" thread ... |
| catqueen 04.08.2011 05:36 |
YourValentine wrote: Watching all this you can really give up on mankind. We have a world where the overwhelming majority is so poor they have no clean water to drink and not enough to eat. Famine is "defined" by the United Nations - as long as not a defined number of children starve to death in an area within a certain period of time there is no famine, just imagine that. On the other hand we have the rich industrial countries but while billions of $$ are accumulated in big international banks the people in these countries get poorer by the decade, lose jobs, social security, pensions and healthcare - all for the benefit of these banks who just have no real use for the money except for making it more - how crazy is that? At the same time the rich countries carry wars into the poor countries in order to gather the "patriots" under some weird "flags" - because the proverbial Joe Plummer might start to think about fairness in a democracy if he were not kept in fear of the black evil enemy. Of course all this is "God's will" because if it were not God's will we would have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we could not blame it on God - how could we live with the cruelty and unfairness. If we could not shift the responsibility to God we would have to start thinking about the "patriotism" of our banks and corporate industry who manage to make profits private and losses public, we would have to start thinking about the "values" we carry into this world and it might not be so pretty. We might even have to go out and campaign for a better world and become so-called "good-doers" who are so frowned upon these days because they are stupid enough to try and make a difference instead of blogging about their sorry "emo-kid" existence. If only one out of 10 people would bother to email their MPs "I want rich people to be taxed" and if only one out of 100 people would go to Washington (or Berlin, Paris, London) and rally for fairness and equal sharing - politicians might start to listen to the people and not the lobbyists. Unfortunately, people are so disillusioned about their role that less and less people even bother to vote. Off to the "things you like most" thread ... so true :( |
| GratefulFan 04.08.2011 14:07 |
Sir GH wrote: Who determines said ratings? ===================== Standard & Poor's and Moody's in North America, and somebody else who I forget in Europe. The US is still AAA because of the size of it's economy and because of it's massive GDP. Debt is still less, though only marginally so, than it's GDP. Compare that to some of the European countries in trouble where the debt is up to 140+ % of GDP. What I don't understand is just where are they going to borrow this newly authorized 2.8 trillion dollars? Nobody has that. It's about a third of China's GDP and more than Canada's and many other economies' entire GDP. I don't see how they avoid just printing it out of thin air. Really, they're already defaulting through policy that has allowed massive devaluation of the currency. In 2004 or so, the Canadian dollar was 65 cents against the greenback. Last week it was something like 1.10? Strange times. |
| The Real Wizard 05.08.2011 01:05 |
YourValentine wrote: Watching all this you can really give up on mankind. We have a world where the overwhelming majority is so poor they have no clean water to drink and not enough to eat. Famine is "defined" by the United Nations - as long as not a defined number of children starve to death in an area within a certain period of time there is no famine, just imagine that. On the other hand we have the rich industrial countries but while billions of $$ are accumulated in big international banks the people in these countries get poorer by the decade, lose jobs, social security, pensions and healthcare - all for the benefit of these banks who just have no real use for the money except for making it more - how crazy is that? At the same time the rich countries carry wars into the poor countries in order to gather the "patriots" under some weird "flags" - because the proverbial Joe Plummer might start to think about fairness in a democracy if he were not kept in fear of the black evil enemy. Of course all this is "God's will" because if it were not God's will we would have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we could not blame it on God - how could we live with the cruelty and unfairness. If we could not shift the responsibility to God we would have to start thinking about the "patriotism" of our banks and corporate industry who manage to make profits private and losses public, we would have to start thinking about the "values" we carry into this world and it might not be so pretty. We might even have to go out and campaign for a better world and become so-called "good-doers" who are so frowned upon these days because they are stupid enough to try and make a difference instead of blogging about their sorry "emo-kid" existence. If only one out of 10 people would bother to email their MPs "I want rich people to be taxed" and if only one out of 100 people would go to Washington (or Berlin, Paris, London) and rally for fairness and equal sharing - politicians might start to listen to the people and not the lobbyists. Unfortunately, people are so disillusioned about their role that less and less people even bother to vote. Off to the "things you like most" thread ... ========================= Haha, indeed. While you're there, be sure to include "my ability to explain how the world works in 90 seconds" ... it's a good skill you have :-) |
| The Real Wizard 05.08.2011 01:06 |
GratefulFan wrote: What I don't understand is just where are they going to borrow this newly authorized 2.8 trillion dollars? Nobody has that. ==================== The top 1% controls over 90% of the wealth. Google "US GDP" and do the math. The money these people have made at the expense of the average citizen has already been far greater than what will be dished out to pay off the debt. 2.8 trillion is a drop in the bucket. And most of the remaining 99% will still vote, as if it matters. The political process was a charade to appease the public just to keep the system going. If this fiasco doesn't get the people thinking, nothing will. American politics makes my head hurt. Time to listen to classical music on the CBC. |
| *goodco* 05.08.2011 01:22 |
It takes him a minute or two, but, as always, Jon Stewart states it best link |
| tero! 48531 05.08.2011 02:45 |
GratefulFan wrote: Standard & Poor's and Moody's in North America, and somebody else who I forget in Europe. The US is still AAA because of the size of it's economy and because of it's massive GDP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking at Wikipedia (sad I know...), S&P and Moody's each have about a 40% market share, which means in reality these two companies set the ratings, and have been speculating with the European credit market lately. Only one independent credit agency (the Chinese Dagong with a few % market share) is doing the same with American loans, and their "A" rating for USA should be considered more realistic. |
| GratefulFan 05.08.2011 12:56 |
Sir GH wrote: The top 1% controls over 90% of the wealth. Google "US GDP" and do the math. The money these people have made at the expense of the average citizen has already been far greater than what will be dished out to pay off the debt. 2.8 trillion is a drop in the bucket. =================== I'm not sure what your point is here. America's wealthy aren't going to be loaning 2.8 trillion dollars to the US treasury, so it doesn't really matter what they have. And 2.8 trillion dollars is an enormous amount of money by any standard. |
| GratefulFan 05.08.2011 21:05 |
S & P just downgraded US long term debt to AA for the first time in history. They noted the recent near stalemate as the reason as it indicated new doubt not about Ameica's ability to pay, but their willingness. It was the same focus on dysfunctional political gridlock that the Chinese agency Tero mentioned used in it's decisions. Pretty stunning. |
| inu-liger 06.08.2011 05:07 |
That should serve as a wake up call not only to the highly inefficient people portraying themselves as "politicians", but to the American people as well. Heads are going to fly for this. |
| tero! 48531 06.08.2011 05:49 |
inu-liger wrote: That should serve as a wake up call not only to the highly inefficient people portraying themselves as "politicians", but to the American people as well. Heads are going to fly for this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, it seems like that's out of the question. The Treasury officials are already claiming that S&P are off by a few thousand billion with their figures, and it's been suggested (by some conspiracy nuts, no doubt) that this is nothing more than a Republican ploy to undermine Obama for next year's election. Our government as well is relying on economic growth to balance the budget, and there's no serious discussion of tax raises or budget cuts. Individual people are expected to reduce their debts with their current income, but governments solve everything by borrowing more and more each year... That just isn't right. |
| Sergei. 06.08.2011 12:56 |
I don't know exactly what this adds to the discussion, but it made me think a bit. The other day I was watching RT (Russia Today) and they were doing a report about how countries like India are managing to avoid getting hit hard by the recession because the Indians have a "good work ethic," work longer hours for more days than Westerners, and all this other bullshit. Yeah, maybe they're hard-working, but in America we don't let an enormous portion of the population rot and die in shit-smelling despair-ridden slums while the government just says "lol good riddance." (I'm sure someone would try to claim that this does happen in the U.S., in ghettoes or in places like rural Appalachia - but really, that doesn't even come close). In Iceland and Ireland they try to make health-care and aid accessible to everyone instead of letting people die of starvation and ridiculous diseases like leprosy and the black plague. In Western countries, we try to take care of everyone, which obviously is a huge economic burden, especially for a country as huge as the U.S. So I just think it's funny when people try to say "The economy of the West is in the pits, but look at China and India! They know how it's done!" Sure, but look at how they treat the majority of their population. I dunno, I just found that comparison irritating. |
| Donna13 06.08.2011 14:51 |
Well, I have noticed that RT ("news from a Russian perspective") is very critical of the United States ... all the time. And they like to have radicals on to give their anti-United States opinions. And that makes it interesting to me. I knew they would be having a great time this morning with the credit rating downgrade announcement, so I turned on that channel to see how they were covering the story. RT was having a segment about the worsening US job situation and bad economy while showing video of various bag ladies and homeless people on the streets of some city - probably New York. And anyone who knows about these types of homeless people (the kind that drink and sleep on sidewalks of cities or push shopping carts around), knows that they are mentally ill, and regardless of the economic situation, they are not part of the segment of the population that is out looking for work. You have to wonder why such silly propaganda would ever benefit Russia. Still, it is fun to watch that channel ... especially if you like to hear the worst take on any story, which I do enjoy. For example, RT predicted the worst outcome situation of the meltdown in Japan before I heard such bad predictions anywhere else. |
| Saint Jiub 06.08.2011 16:25 |
Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: What I don't understand is just where are they going to borrow this newly authorized 2.8 trillion dollars? Nobody has that. ==================== The top 1% controls over 90% of the wealth. Google "US GDP" and do the math. The money these people have made at the expense of the average citizen has already been far greater than what will be dished out to pay off the debt. 2.8 trillion is a drop in the bucket. And most of the remaining 99% will still vote, as if it matters. The political process was a charade to appease the public just to keep the system going. If this fiasco doesn't get the people thinking, nothing will. American politics makes my head hurt. Time to listen to classical music on the CBC. ------------------------------------------------ The numbers are bad enough, but there is no need to exaggerate by saying 90%. Several sources indicate that 1% owns 40% of the wealth. link link link |
| GratefulFan 06.08.2011 16:33 |
Donna13 wrote: You have to wonder why such silly propaganda would ever benefit Russia. Still, it is fun to watch that channel ... especially if you like to hear the worst take on any story, which I do enjoy. ========================== As a bonus, it's also a mouthpiece for a wide variety of conspiracy theory crackpots. |
| Hangman_96 07.08.2011 08:23 |
Donna13 wrote: Well, I have noticed that RT ("news from a Russian perspective") is very critical of the United States ... all the time. And they like to have radicals on to give their anti-United States opinions. And that makes it interesting to me. I knew they would be having a great time this morning with the credit rating downgrade announcement, so I turned on that channel to see how they were covering the story. RT was having a segment about the worsening US job situation and bad economy while showing video of various bag ladies and homeless people on the streets of some city - probably New York. And anyone who knows about these types of homeless people (the kind that drink and sleep on sidewalks of cities or push shopping carts around), knows that they are mentally ill, and regardless of the economic situation, they are not part of the segment of the population that is out looking for work. You have to wonder why such silly propaganda would ever benefit Russia. Still, it is fun to watch that channel ... especially if you like to hear the worst take on any story, which I do enjoy. For example, RT predicted the worst outcome situation of the meltdown in Japan before I heard such bad predictions anywhere else. ================================================== Well, that's the beauty of Russia ... They always turn everything into a shit. |
| The Real Wizard 07.08.2011 13:35 |
GratefulFan wrote: America's wealthy aren't going to be loaning 2.8 trillion dollars to the US treasury, so it doesn't really matter what they have. And 2.8 trillion dollars is an enormous amount of money by any standard. =================== They are not just the "wealthy." They are far, far more than that. A few dozen people run the show, and not one of them is a politician. If the politicians were in charge, this would have been done a couple years ago when the democrats controlled the house and the senate. |
| GratefulFan 08.08.2011 00:45 |
Sir GH wrote: They are not just the "wealthy." They are far, far more than that. A few dozen people run the show, and not one of them is a politician. If the politicians were in charge, this would have been done a couple years ago when the democrats controlled the house and the senate. ========================== Okay then, the shadowy puppeteers in the dark underbelly of American power aren't going to be lending the US Treasury 2.8 trillion dollars. My point about made up money and the threat of inflationary pressures remains the same. And there are infinitely more pedestrian reasons that things didn't get done through the end of 2010, not least the consuming focus on health care. |
| The Real Wizard 08.08.2011 12:01 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Okay then, the shadowy puppeteers in the dark underbelly of American power aren't going to be lending the US Treasury 2.8 trillion dollars." ============= These people *are* the treasury. They generate most of the wealth, so they call the shots on where the money is spent. For thousands of years, money has been power. In this case, the US government is in trillions of dollars of debt, and the wall street criminals and big businessmen are all multi-billionaires. Who really has the power here? |
| thomasquinn 32989 08.08.2011 12:57 |
More accurately, property is power. The financial top brass know, as well as most intelligent people, that most money is entirely fictional and irrelevant - money only matters when used in certain ways, as far as power is concerned. Property in the right places is much more important than the amount of property. |
| catqueen 08.08.2011 18:09 |
Sir GH wrote: These people *are* the treasury. They generate most of the wealth, so they call the shots on where the money is spent. For thousands of years, money has been power. In this case, the US government is in trillions of dollars of debt, and the wall street criminals and big businessmen are all multi-billionaires. Who really has the power here? Isn't this the case in most of the world though? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 09.08.2011 10:20 |
Wouldn't it be nice if we could balance all this talk about the billions or trillions countries owe with ideas on how to provide FOOD to people who are, at this moment, starving to death? It just strikes me as surreal that everyone (I don't mean here in this thread) is weeping over stock market numbers while babies, swollen with malnutrition, have become little more than topics for 'in other news' spots on cable and standard TV. |
| GratefulFan 10.08.2011 00:39 |
Because the land in the affected areas of Africa simply cannot support the people on it in it's current state, outside help is needed. That help does largely mean money in practical terms, and when countries and people are thrown into fear and situations where resources are disappearing in front of their eyes the purse strings are certainly at risk of being drawn tighter out of necessity, not just indifference or greed. As such, I don't know that you can separate the two issues completely really. The stock market is not just the temperature of the excess holdings of the rich, it is a major indicator of the fundamental health of the perceived future which directly or indirectly affects almost everybody. Poor performance affects the confidence of large and small business, which impacts hiring, which impacts everything. Regular working people looking towards retirement who have holdings in mututal funds either personally or through group pensions are thrown into uncertainty. Even people who are inspired to step off the Western treadmill and simplify their lives by situations like the heartbreaking one in Africa are cogs in the wheel that deepen recessions because they reduce consumption and focus on shedding debt. Nations in so much financial trouble themselves do have to be pragmatic with scarce money and watchful that poverty doesn't deepen dramatically in their own back yard. Economic downturns are a vicious cycle with implications that ripple far and wide, even as far as Africa. The political situation and the obstruction of foreign aid there is another hurdle. At the bottom of it all is the fatefulness of the fundamental inequity between those of us that have enough and those that don't that is so difficult to process when there is so much suffering that surely must be unnecessary. |
| GratefulFan 10.08.2011 00:41 |
Sir GH wrote: These people *are* the treasury. They generate most of the wealth, so they call the shots on where the money is spent. For thousands of years, money has been power. In this case, the US government is in trillions of dollars of debt, and the wall street criminals and big businessmen are all multi-billionaires. Who really has the power here? ========================= Last week, there was no money to be spent, so no shots to call. Did you miss that part? Are we even still talking about the same thing? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 10.08.2011 06:10 |
GratefulFan wrote: Because the land in the affected areas of Africa simply cannot support the people on it in it's current state, outside help is needed. That help does largely mean money in practical terms, and when countries and people are thrown into fear and situations where resources are disappearing in front of their eyes the purse strings are certainly at risk of being drawn tighter out of necessity, not just indifference or greed. As such, I don't know that you can separate the two issues completely really. The stock market is not just the temperature of the excess holdings of the rich, it is a major indicator of the fundamental health of the perceived future which directly or indirectly affects almost everybody. Poor performance affects the confidence of large and small business, which impacts hiring, which impacts everything. Regular working people looking towards retirement who have holdings in mututal funds either personally or through group pensions are thrown into uncertainty. Even people who are inspired to step off the Western treadmill and simplify their lives by situations like the heartbreaking one in Africa are cogs in the wheel that deepen recessions because they reduce consumption and focus on shedding debt. Nations in so much financial trouble themselves do have to be pragmatic with scarce money and watchful that poverty doesn't deepen dramatically in their own back yard. Economic downturns are a vicious cycle with implications that ripple far and wide, even as far as Africa. The political situation and the obstruction of foreign aid there is another hurdle. At the bottom of it all is the fatefulness of the fundamental inequity between those of us that have enough and those that don't that is so difficult to process when there is so much suffering that surely must be unnecessary. ======================== You just gave me a beautiful lesson in common sense. :-) That was brilliantly written. I do wonder, however, if the news concentrated as much on the famine as it did on the markets, whether the markets would have continued to tumble. Much of what happened the other day - with the 600+ point loss - I think was panic selling. If people had been preoccupied with other issues, they might not have had that knee-jerk 'sell' reaction and the market could have held steady. No? Maybe I'm just oversimplifying it because I'm still thinking with emotion rather than logic. I just feel the media helps control the path our minds take and they could be doing much more to raise awareness of what's happening to others rather than concentrate on what's happening to "me". |
| YourValentine 10.08.2011 09:18 |
The losses at the stock markets had no basis in reality. In Frankfurt, for example, very healthy stocks with huge profits lost 5% for no other reason than paranoia: now that America is AA, they must pay higher interest rates for their debts, they will buy less imports, German companies will sell less, profits will go down - let us sell our shares in panic - just ridiculous. It is true that many pensions worldwide depend on the stock markets which is a bad thing imo. Pensions should be paid by social insurance: those who work pay their share and those who are too old to work get their pension from the social insurance they paid their share into during their work life. This model has always worked and private profit hunters have no say in the system. Of course we need enough jobs to sustain the system. People in Africa do not need to starve to death because of the recession in the Western world. Actually, it does not need that much money to feed the starving people in Africa: certainly less than the war in Afghanistan and probably even less than the bombing in Libya. It is all a matter of priorities. As to the donation by private citizens: in my experience it is always the poorer part of the private citizens who keep donating although they do not have that much themselves while the richer people often do not want to donate the equal of their kid's phone bill. |
| GratefulFan 15.08.2011 12:02 |
A story posted a few minutes ago about the scope of theft of food aid in Somalia. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/thousands-of-sacks-of-food-aid-for-famine-victims-stolen-sold-in-somali-markets/article2129789/ |