Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Meta Discussion _ How The Irish Saved Civilization

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

    The figure seated on a large boulder at the foot of a round tower was that of a broadshouldered deepchested stronglimbed frankeyed redhaired freely freckled shaggybearded widemouthed largenosed longheaded deepvoiced barekneed brawnyhanded hairylegged ruddyfaced sinewyarmed hero.  From shoulder to shoulder he measured several ells and his rocklike mountainous knees were covered, as was likewise the rest of his body wherever visible, with a strong growth of tawny prickly hair in hue and toughness similar to the mountain gorse (Ulex Europeus).  The widewinged nostrils, from which bristles of the same tawny hue projected, were of such capaciousness that within their cavernous obscurity the fieldlark might easily have lodged her nest.  The eyes in which a tear and a smile strove ever for the mastery were of the dimensions of a goodsized cauliflower.  A powerful current of warm breath issued at regular intervals from the profound cavity of his mouth while in rhythmic resonance the loud strong hale reverberations of his formidable heart thundered rumblingly causing the ground, the summit of the lofty tower and the still loftier walls of the cave to vibrate and tremble.

—James Joyce, Ulysses


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 27th January 2010, 1:40pm) *

QUOTE

    The figure seated on a large boulder at the foot of a round tower was that of a broadshouldered deepchested stronglimbed frankeyed redhaired freely freckled shaggybearded widemouthed largenosed longheaded deepvoiced barekneed brawnyhanded hairylegged ruddyfaced sinewyarmed hero. From shoulder to shoulder he measured several ells and his rocklike mountainous knees were covered, as was likewise the rest of his body wherever visible, with a strong growth of tawny prickly hair in hue and toughness similar to the mountain gorse (Ulex Europeus). The widewinged nostrils, from which bristles of the same tawny hue projected, were of such capaciousness that within their cavernous obscurity the fieldlark might easily have lodged her nest. The eyes in which a tear and a smile strove ever for the mastery were of of the dimensions of a goodsized cauliflower. A powerful current of warm breath issued at regular intervals from the profound cavity of his mouth while in rhythmic resonance the loud strong hale reverberations of his formidable heart thundered rumblingly causing the ground, the summit of the lofty tower and the still loftier walls of the cave to vibrate and tremble.

—James Joyce, Ulysses



Shrek! wub.gif Okay, a red and redhaired Shrek. Trade Scots dialect for Irish.

Posted by: gomi


James Joyce Business School

Do you find it frustrating to write business letters and memos that say all that you want to say? Maybe it's time you considered a business writing course at the James Joyce Business School. James Joyce was one of the greatest writers of the Twentieth Century. Now you can use his principles to improve your own business writing. For example, the job application letter.

Dear Sir or Madam or Sodom or Whom It May Confirm:

I understand you are hiring programmers and hereby present my amplification for annoyment by your firm. As you see, I see, juicy lucy goosy poosy, I have long expedience in grammar and was medicated in the best schools and my dram is to ride underwear. On my clothes is my consomme. Please feel free.

I remain your humble serpent.


There's an application letter that's sure to be noticed! And then there's the staff memo. The James Joyce method gives you a memo that gets your employees' attention everytime.

TO: All Staff, Falstaff, Full Stuff, Fellow Stiff
FR: Vice-president Buttrick
RE: Office conditions

And so it was Wednesday I was in search of the report the report the short report on the client O'Brien and I am walking walking looking in the cubicles where ladies file their cuticles and the desks with potted plants and clippings and cartoons and by gosh yes hold on here is that report no it isn't it's an old smelly rotten cloth used to mop up spilled coke and and who is this romeo Molly has got his photo taped to her keyboard and what does she need eyeliner for it's an office it isn't a nightclub and if it is then I need a drink


The stream of consciousness style is so good for memos. And for letters to clients, too. Clients need something more than the formal letter; they need to feel that your company really cares about them.

Dear Sir:

You wrote and asked is the large size still in stock and yes I said yes it is yes and the moon set over the torrents of clouds and the sea and the sky were blue and you asked could you have it by tomorrow and yes I said yes you can yes and the sky and the sea and the sun rising in tumult and you said could I have forty-four of them and in black and yes I said yes and your eyes and my eyes and the birds flying round the end of the pier and you said could I have ten percent discount and yes I said yes take it take it yes ten percent yes I said yes yes.


The James Joyce Business School, here in Dublin, call for the brochure. Do they take credit cards? Yes they do yes they do yes yes yes.

Credit: Garrison Keillor, Prairie Home Companion

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

PHC is my guilty pleasure.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

    He wore a long unsleeved garment of recently flayed oxhide reaching to the knees in a loose kilt and this was bound about his middle by a girdle of plaited straw and rushes.  Beneath this he wore trews of deerskin, roughly stitched with gut.  His nether extremities were encased in high Balbriggan buskins dyed in lichen purple, the feet being shod with brogues of salted cowhide laced with the windpipe of the same beast.

—James Joyce, Ulysses



Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

From his girdle hung a row of seastones which dangled at every movement of his portentous frame and on these were graven with rude yet striking art the tribal images of many Irish heroes and heroines of antiquity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cuchulin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Conn_Of_Hundred_Battles, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niall_Of_Nine_Hostages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian_of_Kincora, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ardri_Malachi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Art_MacMurragh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shane_O'Neill, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Murphy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Owen_Roe, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patrick_Sarsfield, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Red_Hugh_O'Donnell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Red_Jim_MacDermott, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Soggarth_Eoghan_O'Growney, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_Dwyer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francy_Higgins, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Henry_Joy_M'Cracken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goliath, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Horace_Wheatley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_Conneff, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peg_Woffington, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Village_Blacksmith, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Captain_Moonlight, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Captain_Boycott, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dante_Alighieri, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Christopher_Columbus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:S._Fursa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:S._Brendan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marshal_MacMahon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlemagne, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theobald_Wolfe_Tone, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Mother_of_the_Maccabees, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Last_of_the_Mohicans, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Rose_of_Castille, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Man_for_Galway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Man_that_Broke_the_Bank_at_Monte_Carlo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Man_in_the_Gap, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Woman_Who_Didn't, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjamin_Franklin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Napoleon_Bonaparte, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_L._Sullivan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cleopatra, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Savourneen_Deelish, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Julius_Caesar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paracelsus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Thomas_Lipton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Tell, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michelangelo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hayes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muhammad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Bride_of_Lammermoor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_the_Hermit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_the_Packer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dark_Rosaleen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patrick_W._Shakespeare, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian_Confucius, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Murtagh_Gutenberg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patricio_Velasquez, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Captain_Nemo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tristan_and_Isolde, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_First_Prince_of_Wales, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_Cook_and_Son, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Bold_Soldier_Boy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arrah_na_Pogue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dick_Turpin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ludwig_Beethoven, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Colleen_Bawn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waddler_Healy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angus_the_Culdee, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dolly_Mount, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sidney_Parade, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ben_Howth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valentine_Greatrakes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adam_and_Eve, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Wellesley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Boss_Croker, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herodotus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_the_Giantkiller, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gautama_Buddha, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lady_Godiva, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Lily_of_Killarney, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Balor_of_the_Evil_Eye, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Queen_of_Sheba, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acky_Nagle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joe_Nagle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alessandro_Volta, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeremiah_O'Donovan_Rossa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Don_Philip_O'Sullivan_Beare.  A couched spear of acuminated granite rested by him while at his feet reposed a savage animal of the canine tribe whose stertorous gasps announced that he was sunk in uneasy slumber, a supposition confirmed by hoarse growls and spasmodic movements which his master repressed from time to time by tranquillising blows of a mighty cudgel rudely fashioned out of paleolithic stone.

—James Joyce, Ulysses


Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 28th January 2010, 12:14pm) *

QUOTE

From his girdle hung a row of seastones which dangled at every movement of his portentous frame and on these were graven with rude yet striking art the tribal images of many Irish heroes and heroines of antiquity, Cuchulin, Conn of hundred battles, Niall of nine hostages, Brian of Kincora, the Ardri Malachi, Art MacMurragh, Shane O'Neill, Father John Murphy, Owen Roe, Patrick Sarsfield, Red Hugh O'Donnell, Red Jim MacDermott, Soggarth Eoghan O'Growney, Michael Dwyer, Francy Higgins, Henry Joy M'Cracken, Goliath, Horace Wheatley, Thomas Conneff, Peg Woffington, the Village Blacksmith, Captain Moonlight, Captain Boycott, Dante Alighieri, Christopher Columbus, S. Fursa, S. Brendan, Marshal MacMahon, Charlemagne, Theobald Wolfe Tone, the Mother of the Maccabees, the Last of the Mohicans, the Rose of Castille, the Man for Galway, The Man that Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo, The Man in the Gap, The Woman Who Didn't, Benjamin Franklin, Napoleon Bonaparte, John L. Sullivan, Cleopatra, Savourneen Deelish, Julius Caesar, Paracelsus, sir Thomas Lipton, William Tell, Michelangelo, Hayes, Muhammad, the Bride of Lammermoor, Peter the Hermit, Peter the Packer, Dark Rosaleen, Patrick W. Shakespeare, Brian Confucius, Murtagh Gutenberg, Patricio Velasquez, Captain Nemo, Tristan and Isolde, the first Prince of Wales, Thomas Cook and Son, the Bold Soldier Boy, Arrah na Pogue, Dick Turpin, Ludwig Beethoven, the Colleen Bawn, Waddler Healy, Angus the Culdee, Dolly Mount, Sidney Parade, Ben Howth, Valentine Greatrakes, Adam and Eve, Arthur Wellesley, Boss Croker, Herodotus, Jack the Giantkiller, Gautama Buddha, Lady Godiva, The Lily of Killarney, Balor of the Evil Eye, the Queen of Sheba, Acky Nagle, Joe Nagle, Alessandro Volta, Jeremiah O'Donovan Rossa, Don Philip O'Sullivan Beare.  A couched spear of acuminated granite rested by him while at his feet reposed a savage animal of the canine tribe whose stertorous gasps announced that he was sunk in uneasy slumber, a supposition confirmed by hoarse growls and spasmodic movements which his master repressed from time to time by tranquillising blows of a mighty cudgel rudely fashioned out of paleolithic stone.

—James Joyce, Ulysses



And the point of this is??

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Should this thread not read " How The Irish Saved Civilization - until they got to the 21st century"?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 28th January 2010, 2:33pm) *

And the point of this is??


Search me …

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Viridae

They say the Irish discovered civilisation. Then they had another Guiness and forgot where they put it.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th February 2010, 11:41pm) *

They say the Irish discovered civilisation. Then they had another Guiness and forgot where they put it.

I found Jesus last week. He'd slipped down the back of the sofa, amongst the socks, coins and missing Bic lighters.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

And he came fifth and lost the job.

Posted by: dtobias

Here's another Joyce:

Image

de HalfWitt from Three's Company!

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣
♣ Happy Saint Patrick’s Day !!! ♣
♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣

                       
Jon Image

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 3:56am) *

♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣
♣ Happy Saint Patrick’s Day !!! ♣
♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣


That's the clubs suit. I did find a clover ☘ but it has only three leaves. ermm.gif

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:22pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 18th March 2010, 3:56am) *

♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣
♣ Happy Saint Patrick’s Day !!! ♣
♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣ ♣


That's the clubs suit. I did find a clover ☘ but it has only three leaves. ermm.gif

Not that it matters, but neither of them are the official symbol of Ireland anyways .... hmmm.gif

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:25am) *

Not that it matters, but neither of them are the official symbol of Ireland anyways .... hmmm.gif

Not to harp on you too much but I tried &potato; and it didn't do anything.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Wed 17th March 2010, 8:38pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 18th March 2010, 4:25am) *

Not that it matters, but neither of them are the official symbol of Ireland anyways .... hmmm.gif

Not to harp on you too much but I tried &potato; and it didn't do anything.

laugh.gif

Posted by: gomi

QUOTE
Pity the poor Irish, whom the Gods made mad,
For all their wars are happy, and all their loves are sad.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey


☕
Happiness Is A Warm Guinness



Okay, it says "hot beverage", but we can pretend, can't we?

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Okay, see y'all again next March 17. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Bumping Back Up for Ease of Reference …

evilgrin.gif Grin Grow The Rashes, O—

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 10:20pm) *


☕
Happiness Is A Warm Guinness



Okay, it says "hot beverage", but we can pretend, can't we?

Jon tongue.gif

Bleah. Since Guinness-on-tap is hands down my favorite beer, I feel obligated to point out that it tastes best when cool, which is how they serve it.

Not ice-cold, which is the only way one can gag down piss-yellow Bud or Miller Lite. yak.gif yecch.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 23rd June 2010, 8:27pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Wed 17th March 2010, 10:20pm) *


☕
Happiness Is A Warm Guinness



Okay, it says "hot beverage", but we can pretend, can't we?

Jon tongue.gif


Bleah. Since Guinness-on-tap is hands down my favorite beer, I feel obligated to point out that it tastes best when cool, which is how they serve it.


So that's why it keeps coming up on me!?

Jon jawdrop.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 27th January 2010, 4:43pm) *
Shrek! wub.gif Okay, a red and redhaired Shrek.

I'm partial to Killian Red, myself.

But I digress.

What is the significance of the heroic character being a http://knol.google.com/k/all-about-redheads#?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:55am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 27th January 2010, 4:43pm) *
Shrek! wub.gif Okay, a red and redhaired Shrek.

I'm partial to Killian Red, myself.

But I digress.

What is the significance of the heroic character being a http://knol.google.com/k/all-about-redheads#?

I don't know how you can presume to discuss that question without mentioning Still Life With Woodpecker. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Thu 1st July 2010, 10:18pm) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd July 2010, 1:55am) *
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 27th January 2010, 4:43pm) *
Shrek! wub.gif Okay, a red and redhaired Shrek.
I'm partial to Killian Red, myself. But I digress.What is the significance of the heroic character being a http://knol.google.com/k/all-about-redheads#?
I don't know how you can presume to discuss that question without mentioning Still Life With Woodpecker. hrmph.gif

What do you take me for? A Can of Beans?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_irish/

Jon Image

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky


QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 7th October 2010, 4:24am) *


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_irish/





Well, that was refreshing.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/16710

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 6th December 2010, 5:43am) *

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/16710


QUOTE(creepy LaRouche guy)
And with a resounding no, Ireland could yet again change history, and perhaps rechristianize the British.
No Thanks. You can keep your snake handlers and bible bashers, Lyndon. laugh.gif

By the way, what accent did that guy have? yecch.gif

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 7th December 2010, 7:35am) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 6th December 2010, 5:43am) *

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/16710


QUOTE(creepy LaRouche guy)

And with a resounding no, Ireland could yet again change history, and perhaps rechristianize the British.


No Thanks. You can keep your snake handlers and bible bashers, Lyndon. laugh.gif

By the way, what accent did that guy have? yecch.gif


Is bash.gif “Bible Basher” bash.gif the UK equivalent of “Bible Thumper ” in the US, or something different?

I guess a bit of “Who's On First” — or any old set piece turning on the overly literal pixilation of words — is fine for a spiel-spell of comic relief, in good Joysprickian fashion, but if it gets too far out of frame, I'll have to purge it to the Purgatorio of Politick and Religion.

“Considerate la vostra semenza …”

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 7th December 2010, 4:35am) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 6th December 2010, 5:43am) *

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/16710


QUOTE(creepy LaRouche guy)
And with a resounding no, Ireland could yet again change history, and perhaps rechristianize the British.
No Thanks. You can keep your snake handlers and bible bashers, Lyndon. laugh.gif

By the way, what accent did that guy have? yecch.gif
Kato, you might want to get yourself checked for a condition known as irony deficiency.

Posted by: Kato

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 7th December 2010, 3:51pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 7th December 2010, 4:35am) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 6th December 2010, 5:43am) *

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/16710


QUOTE(creepy LaRouche guy)
And with a resounding no, Ireland could yet again change history, and perhaps rechristianize the British.
No Thanks. You can keep your snake handlers and bible bashers, Lyndon. laugh.gif

By the way, what accent did that guy have? yecch.gif
Kato, you might want to get yourself checked for a condition known as irony deficiency.

Hersch, your piece began with a straight faced proclamation that during the recent Irish bail out talks, the Irish have dealt a blow to the British Empire!

If you could distinguish efforts at irony from the rest of that gibberish, please do! laugh.gif

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

The irony, dear friend, lies in the fact that the UK claims already to be Christian, and in fact possesses a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy#Religious_role where the monarch is also the head of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 8:44am) *

The irony, dear friend, lies in the fact that the UK claims already to be Christian, and in fact possesses a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy#Religious_role where the monarch is also the head of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England.


Clearly the Christian thing to do, is let the Irish go fish, as happened in the potato famine. rolleyes.gif It beats the Cromwell treatment, at least.

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe. And business is bad all over. Ouch, but that can be fixed. It's not like their kids are so short of vitamin C that they just sometimes fall over and die. Which used to happen happen to the Irish not that long ago.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Banks don't really have a nationality, they are global. They are the parasites feeding off the body politic. They need to be destroyed.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Banks don't really have a nationality, they are global. They are the parasites feeding off the body politic. They need to be destroyed.

Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant idea. And replaced by what?

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 12:49am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Banks don't really have a nationality, they are global. They are the parasites feeding off the body politic. They need to be destroyed.

Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant idea. And replaced by what?

Nothing! Yeah it's amazing aint it, a world without banks!! Oh the horror.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:12pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 12:49am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Banks don't really have a nationality, they are global. They are the parasites feeding off the body politic. They need to be destroyed.

Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant idea. And replaced by what?

Nothing! Yeah it's amazing aint it, a world without banks!! Oh the horror.

Yep. It's like the idea of a "world without governments." Except no such thing can exist. They guys with the most guns are always the functional goverment, whether or not you grant them the title. And it's the same with the guys who have all the money. They're "banks." It doesn't matter if you don't want to CALL them banks. If you want to borrow money, you still have to see them. There have always, in that sense, been banks in the modern world (at least since we've had writing and money). Do you know where the word "bank" comes from, even? It's the same root as the bank of a river. Or a board. It was some guy with a table, on which he put his money and you put a paper with your signature.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:20am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:12pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 12:49am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Banks don't really have a nationality, they are global. They are the parasites feeding off the body politic. They need to be destroyed.

Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant idea. And replaced by what?

Nothing! Yeah it's amazing aint it, a world without banks!! Oh the horror.

Yep. It's like the idea of a "world without governments." Except no such thing can exist. They guys with the most guns are always the functional goverment, whether or not you grant them the title. And it's the same with the guys who have all the money. They're "banks." It doesn't matter if you don't want to CALL them banks. If you want to borrow money, you still have to see them. There have always, in that sense, been banks in the modern world (at least since we've had writing and money). Do you know where the word "bank" come from, even? It's the same root as the bank of a river. Or a board. It was some guy with a table, on which he put his money and you put a paper with your signature.

Still stuck on the concept of money are we. Now try imagining a society without it.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:12pm) *

Yeah it's amazing aint it, a world without banks!! Oh the horror.
Banks are an absolutely essential feature of a modern economy. Without them, you can't have credit, and without credit, your economy cannot progress and must perish in short order.

That being said, governments must regulate banks up one side and down the other, lest they become the master instead of the servant. Unregulated banking does indeed become parasitic.
Image

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:24pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:20am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:12pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 12:49am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:38pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:44pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 9th December 2010, 10:42am) *

Though I think it's safe to say that while the Irish are in trouble, they're doing better, relative to the UK and Europe now, than they ever have in history. They just spent themselves broke with retirement and entitlement programs, like the rest of Europe.


Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.

Banks don't really have a nationality, they are global. They are the parasites feeding off the body politic. They need to be destroyed.

Oh, yeah, that's a brilliant idea. And replaced by what?

Nothing! Yeah it's amazing aint it, a world without banks!! Oh the horror.

Yep. It's like the idea of a "world without governments." Except no such thing can exist. They guys with the most guns are always the functional goverment, whether or not you grant them the title. And it's the same with the guys who have all the money. They're "banks." It doesn't matter if you don't want to CALL them banks. If you want to borrow money, you still have to see them. There have always, in that sense, been banks in the modern world (at least since we've had writing and money). Do you know where the word "bank" come from, even? It's the same root as the bank of a river. Or a board. It was some guy with a table, on which he put his money and you put a paper with your signature.

Still stuck on the concept of money are we. Now try imagining a society without it.

It's sort of neothithic. So you really are sitting there typing on a computer filled with integrated circuits made by multi-billion dollar technical companies, advocating that we return to a world without representative money. How many grains of barley do you suppose a chip fab plant is worth?

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 2:44pm) *

Bear in mind that Ireland doesn't want or need a bailout. It's the banks that are bankrupt, and most of them aren't even Irish banks. The Irish are being asked to take a truly staggering cut in their standard of living in order to co-sign a bailout of foreign financiers.


This guy knows the truth.

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:27am) *

QUOTE(RMHED @ Thu 9th December 2010, 5:12pm) *

Yeah it's amazing aint it, a world without banks!! Oh the horror.
Banks are an absolutely essential feature of a modern economy. Without them, you can't have credit, and without credit, your economy cannot progress and must perish in short order.

That being said, governments must regulate banks up one side and down the other, lest they become the master instead of the servant. Unregulated banking does indeed become parasitic.
Image

Who wants a modern economy? Not me.

Posted by: jayvdb

QUOTE(RMHED @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:45am) *

Who wants a modern economy? Not me.

There are plenty of places you can move ..

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:44am) *
This guy knows the truth.
grumpy old guy is right but missing part of the story. Much of economics is driven by psychology. After the great depression people thought credit was evil. You wanted a car ... save your money and pay cash. Nowadays most people choose to live their whole lives with large credit loads.

Easy credit is like a drug, some people can't get enough of it and end up bleeding themselves dry. Governments have been making credit easier and easier for decades.

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:44am) *
This guy knows the truth.
grumpy old guy is right but missing part of the story. Much of economics is driven by psychology. After the great depression people thought credit was evil. You wanted a car ... save your money and pay cash. Nowadays most people choose to live their whole lives with large credit loads.

Easy credit is like a drug, some people can't get enough of it and end up bleeding themselves dry. Governments have been making credit easier and easier for decades.

That's also true. Interesting article http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/p70581.asp which shows the situation in 2004. Back then, they were stating that nearly 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year. So yeah - not good, but where does the blame lie; government or wide-eyed, gullible people?

"Call 1-800-YOU-FAIL to get the credit you deserve!"

Deserve?? How many times have they played those adverts on TV? And they're always aimed at people with already bad credit ratings sad.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: RMHED

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Fri 10th December 2010, 2:10am) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:44am) *
This guy knows the truth.
grumpy old guy is right but missing part of the story. Much of economics is driven by psychology. After the great depression people thought credit was evil. You wanted a car ... save your money and pay cash. Nowadays most people choose to live their whole lives with large credit loads.

Easy credit is like a drug, some people can't get enough of it and end up bleeding themselves dry. Governments have been making credit easier and easier for decades.

All that nice easy credit puffs up the economy until eventually it goes POP!

This is the basis of the "modern economy", it is a fundamentally flawed system.

Everything is geared toward short term gain, and to hell with the future.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:17pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:10pm) *

Easy credit is like a drug, some people can't get enough of it and end up bleeding themselves dry. Governments have been making credit easier and easier for decades.

That's also true. Interesting article http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/p70581.asp which shows the situation in 2004. Back then, they were stating that nearly 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year. So yeah - not good, but where does the blame lie; government or wide-eyed, gullible people?
It is extremely misleading to suggest that this crisis was caused by John Q. Public (although JQP is certainly being asked to pay for it.) The vast majority of the the debt is the $1+ Quadrillion in derivatives transactions. JQP wouldn't know a derivative if if bit him on the ass. Governments should agree to euthanize http://www.inter-alpha.com/ and much of the problem would be solved.

Posted by: Avirosa

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 9th December 2010, 3:44pm) *

The irony, dear friend, lies in the fact that the UK claims already to be Christian, and in fact possesses a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy#Religious_role where the monarch is also the head of an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England.


Is this possibly a meta irony, where the purported ironic comparitor is itself a source of irony ?

The fundamental logistical failure of addressing famine in Ireland in the 1840s was lack of any inhibition on the export of ceral crops from Ireland. And the largest exporter of Irish produced grain ? The Catholic Church !

A.virosa

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 9th December 2010, 7:17pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:44am) *
This guy knows the truth.
grumpy old guy is right but missing part of the story. Much of economics is driven by psychology. After the great depression people thought credit was evil. You wanted a car ... save your money and pay cash. Nowadays most people choose to live their whole lives with large credit loads.

Easy credit is like a drug, some people can't get enough of it and end up bleeding themselves dry. Governments have been making credit easier and easier for decades.

That's also true. Interesting article http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/p70581.asp which shows the situation in 2004. Back then, they were stating that nearly 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year. So yeah - not good, but where does the blame lie; government or wide-eyed, gullible people?

"Call 1-800-YOU-FAIL to get the credit you deserve!"

Deserve?? How many times have they played those adverts on TV? And they're always aimed at people with already bad credit ratings sad.gif rolleyes.gif

Sigh. The Irish situation is a duplicate of the US one, already much-discussed here. During the 2000-2007 housing bubble, both the US and Ireland (I mean the good people of both countries) borrowed a lot of money against their inflating housing prices. The new financial instruments (which HK calls generic "derivatives") made it easier than ever to convert real estate "paper-equity" into cash. One of those derivatives was insurance on securitized mortgage backed loans. You could even buy stock in companies that sold insurance on securitized mortgage backed loans. wacko.gif Like AIG. Level piled upon level of speculation there, and it all collapsed in 2008 when the markets simply could not take any more, and all the loaned out money on housing that wasn't worth it, came due to be repaid. In both the US and Ireland, since the capital markets around the world are all connected too well now for any to be isolated.

2004 was right in the middle of this. How could 43% of American families (or Irish families if you like, because it was all the same there) spend more than they earned each year? No problem in 2004 at the height of this rising housing bubble. It wasn't going all on credit cards, but coming out of houses being used like ATM machines, as second and third mortgages became available. There even existed plastic cards that gave you money from a loan against your house (a home equity line of credit-- try to get one of THOSE now). Nobody cared about this, before the housing equity values (on paper) were going up faster than the home loan borrowers were spending the money; it was sort of like spending money you were making on your stock account in your portfolio. Except that everyody knows such rises in stock value are imaginary numbers until you lock in the earnings by actually selling the stock. In housing speculation people weren't actually selling their houses even though they were speculating with them in just the same way as with stock-- they were just watching their paper value rise, and borrowing against THAT, and spending it.

When it all came crashing down in 2008, people owed more on their houses than they were worth. In Ireland, too. HK thinks the banks got all that money, but he's wrong. The people who borrowed against the housing market, which means the home-owners, got most of that money. Letting banking systems collapse now that they own the titles to all the real estate left behind (the "ash" of this bubble), is not going to fix this problem. The blame for all this is everywhere. A lot of it is with homeowners who had a great time with the money they "made" speculating against their own home prices as they rocketted up.

If you can let your banking system collapse, which means that your industry is not far behind, then your economy goes down and everybody is out of work. Not just 10% but 25% or more. They tried that 1929-1932 in the U.S., and it didn't work so well. Tight-money made the depression worse. Bernanke, a student of the depression, is therefore now trying the opposite, which is to put all the housing credit default on the government credit card. So far it has kept the US economy from imploding.

Now it's Ireland's turn. They (like the U.S.) have a total government debt of about 100% of their yearly GDP. But this next year, if they bail out all the housing market lenders (and yes, most of them are banks, who will foreclose on the houses) that will go up to 133% of GDP. They will have spent 33% of a year's GDP in a SINGLE YEAR, bailing themselves out. The US did almost that last year, but it put them only up to 94% GDP. Ireland's debt position is worse.

But they don't really have any choice. If they allow the housing sector, mortgage lenders and banks to take the default on all that credit, there won't be any more banking in Ireland. Which means no more Irish economy, no more Irish industry, and no more Irish miracle. So they're going to have to do what the U.S. did, or else have a Great Depression of 1929. Were it not for the suffering that would cause, I'd wish that they actually would do that, just to teach HK and LaRouche a lession that they seem to have failed to learn from 1929-32.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

“Economic Downturn”

=

Engineered Theft of the Common Wealth



Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE

The Invisible Hand

Stole My Lucky Charms

! ! !


Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 6:30pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 9th December 2010, 7:17pm) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 9th December 2010, 6:10pm) *

QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 10th December 2010, 1:44am) *
This guy knows the truth.
grumpy old guy is right but missing part of the story. Much of economics is driven by psychology. After the great depression people thought credit was evil. You wanted a car ... save your money and pay cash. Nowadays most people choose to live their whole lives with large credit loads.

Easy credit is like a drug, some people can't get enough of it and end up bleeding themselves dry. Governments have been making credit easier and easier for decades.

That's also true. Interesting article http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/savinganddebt/p70581.asp which shows the situation in 2004. Back then, they were stating that nearly 43% of American families spend more than they earn each year. So yeah - not good, but where does the blame lie; government or wide-eyed, gullible people?

"Call 1-800-YOU-FAIL begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              1-800-YOU-FAIL      end_of_the_skype_highlighting to get the credit you deserve!"

Deserve?? How many times have they played those adverts on TV? And they're always aimed at people with already bad credit ratings sad.gif rolleyes.gif

Sigh. The Irish situation is a duplicate of the US one, already much-discussed here. During the 2000-2007 housing bubble, both the US and Ireland (I mean the good people of both countries) borrowed a lot of money against their inflating housing prices. The new financial instruments (which HK calls generic "derivatives") made it easier than ever to convert real estate "paper-equity" into cash. One of those derivatives was insurance on securitized mortgage backed loans. You could even buy stock in companies that sold insurance on securitized mortgage backed loans. wacko.gif Like AIG. Level piled upon level of speculation there, and it all collapsed in 2008 when the markets simply could not take any more, and all the loaned out money on housing that wasn't worth it, came due to be repaid. In both the US and Ireland, since the capital markets around the world are all connected too well now for any to be isolated.

2004 was right in the middle of this. How could 43% of American families (or Irish families if you like, because it was all the same there) spend more than they earned each year? No problem in 2004 at the height of this rising housing bubble. It wasn't going all on credit cards, but coming out of houses being used like ATM machines, as second and third mortgages became available. There even existed plastic cards that gave you money from a loan against your house (a home equity line of credit-- try to get one of THOSE now). Nobody cared about this, before the housing equity values (on paper) were going up faster than the home loan borrowers were spending the money; it was sort of like spending money you were making on your stock account in your portfolio. Except that everyody knows such rises in stock value are imaginary numbers until you lock in the earnings by actually selling the stock. In housing speculation people weren't actually selling their houses even though they were speculating with them in just the same way as with stock-- they were just watching their paper value rise, and borrowing against THAT, and spending it.

When it all came crashing down in 2008, people owed more on their houses than they were worth. In Ireland, too. HK thinks the banks got all that money, but he's wrong. The people who borrowed against the housing market, which means the home-owners, got most of that money. Letting banking systems collapse now that they own the titles to all the real estate left behind (the "ash" of this bubble), is not going to fix this problem. The blame for all this is everywhere. A lot of it is with homeowners who had a great time with the money they "made" speculating against their own home prices as they rocketted up.

If you can let your banking system collapse, which means that your industry is not far behind, then your economy goes down and everybody is out of work. Not just 10% but 25% or more. They tried that 1929-1932 in the U.S., and it didn't work so well. Tight-money made the depression worse. Bernanke, a student of the depression, is therefore now trying the opposite, which is to put all the housing credit default on the government credit card. So far it has kept the US economy from imploding.

Now it's Ireland's turn. They (like the U.S.) have a total government debt of about 100% of their yearly GDP. But this next year, if they bail out all the housing market lenders (and yes, most of them are banks, who will foreclose on the houses) that will go up to 133% of GDP. They will have spent 33% of a year's GDP in a SINGLE YEAR, bailing themselves out. The US did almost that last year, but it put them only up to 94% GDP. Ireland's debt position is worse.

But they don't really have any choice. If they allow the housing sector, mortgage lenders and banks to take the default on all that credit, there won't be any more banking in Ireland. Which means no more Irish economy, no more Irish industry, and no more Irish miracle. So they're going to have to do what the U.S. did, or else have a Great Depression of 1929. Were it not for the suffering that would cause, I'd wish that they actually would do that, just to teach HK and LaRouche a lession that they seem to have failed to learn from 1929-32.

I doubt that's the half of it.

Looking from a different angle, if you were a group of powerful bankers who had enormous political power at your fingertips, what kind of laws would you get your lackeys to pass to enrich yourself? Those laws would have to be based on human psychology.

You'd want to make it possible for people to load themselves up on credit, to the hilt. Then you'd want their home to hang in the balance - keeping one's home is a big motivator (these lines of credit weren't legal when I was a kid.) Then you'd want them to shoulder the maximum amount of credit for as long as possible to bleed them over a lifetime.

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Fri 10th December 2010, 7:28pm) *

Looking from a different angle, if you were a group of powerful bankers who had enormous political power at your fingertips, what kind of laws would you get your lackeys to pass to enrich yourself? Those laws would have to be based on human psychology.

You'd want to make it possible for people to load themselves up on credit, to the hilt. Then you'd want their home to hang in the balance - keeping one's home is a big motivator (these lines of credit weren't legal when I was a kid.) Then you'd want them to shoulder the maximum amount of credit for as long as possible to bleed them over a lifetime.


When this first kicked off it was obvious that shysters had been going into poor areas in the US and arranging dodgy loans to poor people that didn't have a hope in hell of ever repaying the loans, after the initial ultra low interest rates had finished. That what had happened was the biggest transfer of assets from African Americans to Corporate America since the end of slavery. The loan arrangers all got their fees and bonuses and the rest got shafted.

In the UK we had that daft bitch Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers' Association, arguing that they were clever people and would just get a round any regulations. One should send them all a photograph of Blackfriars Bridge as a Xmas card.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 10:30am) *

Level piled upon level of speculation there, and it all collapsed in 2008 when the markets simply could not take any more, and all the loaned out money on housing that wasn't worth it, came due to be repaid.
You still think this is about housing?

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 10:30am) *

If you can let your banking system collapse, which means that your industry is not far behind, then your economy goes down and everybody is out of work.
Why do that? The only course of action that will actually work is to put the system through the equivalent of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Then sovereign governments will need to create new credit which will be channeled very specifically into productive activity. The alternatives are the kind of collapse you describe, or a series of bailouts culminating in a collapse much bigger than what you describe.

See also: http://www.prisonplanet.com/iceland-better-off-than-ireland-because-they-let-big-private-banks-fail-says-president.html



Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th December 2010, 8:38am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 10:30am) *

Level piled upon level of speculation there, and it all collapsed in 2008 when the markets simply could not take any more, and all the loaned out money on housing that wasn't worth it, came due to be repaid.
You still think this is about housing?

Yes, I and most economists. Let your eyes wander over this chart of Dublin housing prices 1970 to 2005:

Image

Do you see anything that looks like a housing bubble? Hmmm?

Here's a pretty good http://carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40799 of what happened to Ireland. You'll like this quote:

QUOTE
An extraordinary housing bubble emerged [in Ireland]. From 1997 to 2006, housing completions grew by 9.6 percent a year, and by IMF calculations, Irish house prices grew by 90 percent more than fundamentals predicted, compared to 28 percent in Spain and 20 percent in the United States.

As in other GIIPS, the economy shifted away from manufacturing and toward services and housing. Financial intermediation, real estate, and business sectors sapped 10 percent of GDP away from the industrial sector from 1999 to 2006. Residential investment grew from 5 percent of GDP in the mid-1990s to over 12 percent by 2007.

Throughout the course of this boom, the Irish government appeared to behave responsibly, running an average budget surplus of 1.6 percent of GDP from 1997 to 2007, helped by surging tax revenues. Over that period, the aggregate Euro area never once recorded a surplus, and Greece averaged a deficit of 4.8 percent.


Doesn't that make it rather clear?

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th December 2010, 8:38am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 10th December 2010, 10:30am) *

If you can let your banking system collapse, which means that your industry is not far behind, then your economy goes down and everybody is out of work.

Why do that? The only course of action that will actually work is to put the system through the equivalent of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Then sovereign governments will need to create new credit which will be channeled very specifically into productive activity. The alternatives are the kind of collapse you describe, or a series of bailouts culminating in a collapse much bigger than what you describe.

Hershel, FDR already tried what you suggest, with the WPA and all the alphabet agencies created in 1933. Basically that didn't work. It was a bit better than Hoover's tight money policies (basically "let the private banks fail" which allowed the Great depression up till then, from late 1929- early 1933). But all that happened was that FDRs policies kept things from getting any worse. It is also not true that WW II ended the great depression-- during the war the standard of living stayed at great depression values, but nobody cared because they expected it (since it was a war). They put up with rationing and taxes they would not have in 1934. Finally, the US emerged from WW II as the only major western power with a working infrastructure, and that was not courtesy of FDR, but courtesy of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. THEN we emerged from the great depression, with personal income and joblessness reaching 1928 levels for the first time in 1947.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th December 2010, 8:38am) *

See also: http://www.prisonplanet.com/iceland-better-off-than-ireland-because-they-let-big-private-banks-fail-says-president.html

That's not what the story says. Ireland didn't let its banking system fail. It divided it into a foreign-investment sector and a domestic-investmnt sector, and it let the foreign-invested banks fail, basically selectively screwing foreign investors in Iceland. You recommend the US should do this? What do you think China will say about it? And how will LaRouche feel about the U.S. screwing China's investors? Come off it, HK-- Iceland's "solution" (if you can call it that) is not open to the U.S.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 11:38am) *

Do you see anything that looks like a housing bubble? Hmmm?
Absolutely. You have successfully demonstrated that the housing market was a bubble, but not that it was the bubble. In fact, there are bubbles everywhere:
Image
That one is not the bubble, either. The bubble, or what history will call the Greenspan bubble, is an order of magnitude larger. Housing, soybeans, and all the other stuff are just part of the froth.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th December 2010, 3:03pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 11:38am) *

Do you see anything that looks like a housing bubble? Hmmm?
Absolutely. You have successfully demonstrated that the housing market was a bubble, but not that it was the bubble. In fact, there are bubbles everywhere:
Image
That one is not the bubble, either. The bubble, or what history will call the Greenspan bubble, is an order of magnitude larger. Housing, soybeans, and all the other stuff are just part of the froth.

When residential investment goes from 5% of your GDP to 12% in just 8 years, as happened in Ireland, that's not "froth." You won't find anything else remotely like it.

Soybeans. yecch.gif How much of the US GDP went into soybeans? Did our investment increase that much in any other sector you can think of, from 1998 to 2006? I'll give you the answer: no. So single thing sapped as much investment money, by turning it into capital and then cash, as the housing market. Nothing else was that big.

You can try to deflect attention away from the housing bubble all you like, and it's not going to work. There was a housing bubble in the first 6 years of this century. It ate $7 trillion, which we spent. Now our houses are worth half as much as they were in 2006. That didn't happen with soybeans. It may be the soybeans are not worth nearly what they once were, but they're not $13 trillion worth of our economy.


Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 2:40pm) *

When residential investment goes from 5% of your GDP to 12% in just 8 years, as happened in Ireland, that's not "froth." You won't find anything else remotely like it.
Unless you count US derivatives holdings, which at http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq210.pdf are actually worth (on paper) about 1500% of our GDP. Now, there's a bubble.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th December 2010, 3:52pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 2:40pm) *

When residential investment goes from 5% of your GDP to 12% in just 8 years, as happened in Ireland, that's not "froth." You won't find anything else remotely like it.
Unless you count US derivatives holdings, which at http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq210.pdf are actually worth (on paper) about 1500% of our GDP. Now, there's a bubble.

But why would you want to "count" these? This monetary value is like counting the value of term life or (even better) accidental death insurance payout benefit, before the insured person dies. blink.gif wacko.gif You can't DO that, since most such policies will lapse without ever being paid, and that's the end of them. They aren't debts. The money value of them (if any) is only a tiny fraction of their "face-value."

Almost all the "derivatives" above are "swaps". They function like insurance policies on money deals, that will never be paid. In most cases, it's hard to say even which side will be paid in the future from them-- all we know is that both sides are at risk, and most of this money will never change hands. Just like the payout money for accidental death.

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 5:57pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 13th December 2010, 3:52pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 2:40pm) *

When residential investment goes from 5% of your GDP to 12% in just 8 years, as happened in Ireland, that's not "froth." You won't find anything else remotely like it.
Unless you count US derivatives holdings, which at http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq210.pdf are actually worth (on paper) about 1500% of our GDP. Now, there's a bubble.

But why would you want to "count" these? This monetary value is like counting the value of term life or (even better) accidental death insurance payout benefit, before the insured person dies. blink.gif wacko.gif You can't DO that, since most such policies will lapse without ever being paid, and that's the end of them. They aren't debts. The money value of them (if any) is only a tiny fraction of their "face-value."

Almost all the "derivatives" above are "swaps". They function like insurance policies on money deals, that will never be paid. In most cases, it's hard to say even which side will be paid in the future from them-- all we know is that both sides are at risk, and most of this money will never change hands. Just like the payout money for accidental death.


As an economist, I hereby give my endorsement to roughly Milton' description of what happened. This isn't to say that the financial sector, derivatives and all wasn't itself also screwed up and a cause much of the trouble. It's not a single-explanation answer.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 14th December 2010, 6:06am) *

As an economist …


You'd get slightly more credibility by calling yourself a pop-up toaster …

Jon tongue.gif


Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 3:57pm) *

But why would you want to "count" these? This monetary value is like counting the value of term life or (even better) accidental death insurance payout benefit, before the insured person dies. blink.gif wacko.gif You can't DO that, since most such policies will lapse without ever being paid, and that's the end of them. They aren't debts. The money value of them (if any) is only a tiny fraction of their "face-value."

Almost all the "derivatives" above are "swaps". They function like insurance policies on money deals, that will never be paid. In most cases, it's hard to say even which side will be paid in the future from them-- all we know is that both sides are at risk, and most of this money will never change hands. Just like the payout money for accidental death.


Gosh, that all sounds pretty sensible. But if that $223.4 Trillion in derivatives poses no problem, why is the bailout money going to derivatives traders instead of those bad homeowners that supposedly caused the problem? In fact, the recent disclosures by the fed (compelled by the congress) reveal that http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/07/federal-reserves-bailout-rich-connected/ The bailout figures disclosed by the fed run around $16 Trillion. I was unable to find statistics on the present dollar amount of delinquent mortgages, but I suspect one could buy all of them for much less than that.


Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 14th December 2010, 10:46am) *

Gosh, that all sounds pretty sensible. But if that $223.4 Trillion in derivatives poses no problem, why is the bailout money going to derivatives traders instead of those bad homeowners that supposedly caused the problem? In fact, the recent disclosures by the fed (compelled by the congress) reveal that http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/07/federal-reserves-bailout-rich-connected/. The bailout figures disclosed by the fed run around $16 Trillion. I was unable to find statistics on the present dollar amount of delinquent mortgages, but I suspect one could buy all of them for much less than that.


That's like asking why ya gotta pay yer gambling debts first.

Kneecaps, Crowbar.
Crowbar, Kneecaps.

Jon bash.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 14th December 2010, 8:46am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 13th December 2010, 3:57pm) *

But why would you want to "count" these? This monetary value is like counting the value of term life or (even better) accidental death insurance payout benefit, before the insured person dies. blink.gif wacko.gif You can't DO that, since most such policies will lapse without ever being paid, and that's the end of them. They aren't debts. The money value of them (if any) is only a tiny fraction of their "face-value."

Almost all the "derivatives" above are "swaps". They function like insurance policies on money deals, that will never be paid. In most cases, it's hard to say even which side will be paid in the future from them-- all we know is that both sides are at risk, and most of this money will never change hands. Just like the payout money for accidental death.

Gosh, that all sounds pretty sensible. But if that $223.4 Trillion in derivatives poses no problem, why is the bailout money going to derivatives traders instead of those bad homeowners that supposedly caused the problem? In fact, the recent disclosures by the fed (compelled by the congress) reveal that http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/12/07/federal-reserves-bailout-rich-connected/ The bailout figures disclosed by the fed run around $16 Trillion. I was unable to find statistics on the present dollar amount of delinquent mortgages, but I suspect one could buy all of them for much less than that.

You could, but the numbers are meaningless, because the $14 trillion is in LOANS, mostly short term (a few months). Most has been paid back already. Remember the initial $700 billion TARP treasury program will eventually cost $30 to $60 billion, depending on who you believe. The cost of the much larger Fed (Federal Reserve) loan bailout of everybody will be a tiny fraction of that $14 trillion. I don't know what it will be. I don't think you do, and I don't think even the Fed does. The Fed, remember, does not get your tax dollars, but supports itself with interest (anything it makes over a certain amount, it actually pays to the government to DECREASE your taxes). If the Fed really loses out on all the loans for the past two years, you'll know it when the currency starts inflating. According to the consumer price index, that hasn't happened, at least so far.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101202/business/12021072?p=1&tc=pg

Housing: note that $1.25 TRILLION of the Fed bailout went to buy home mortgage securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all of which kept homes from being foreclosed-upon (alas, none of that helped MY home loan). Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? It didn't pay off the mortgages, but it kept up their sagging repayment status. Perhaps all those people should go out on the street. I dunno.

The Fed lent money to everybody who looked like a good credit risk. $16 billion to GE and $2 billion to Harley-Davidson, both companies which were in danger of not making payroll and closing their doors. Yeah, I know LaRouche doesn't care about a motorcycle company. And he may or may not care about MacDonalds and Caterpillar. But the people who work there, do.

Yes, I see whining about 100 hedge funds. And the California Teacher's Retirement Fund (some California teachers remind me of infrastructure, and not in a good way). Your hedge fund for your filthy rich yachting pleasure is my retirement fund that needs to be there to keep me from having to live on cat food when I'm old. So which kind are we talking about? Is this just hedge funds owned by filthy rich bastards that I wish would die, or is any of it where my money is? And how much of the total ARE these 100 "hedge funds"?

You should understand that the $14 trillion in loans is not the issue when you see people complaining about the interest rates on the loans. They are jealous that they didn't get low interest money. Perhaps some banks even took zero-interest money and bought T-bills ohmy.gif . We don't know how much of that went on. We do know that Citigroup, Merrlll Lynch, and Morgan Stanley got $6 trillion in quicky-loans between just the three of them (what-- you think they KEPT it??), whereas your average mainstreet business got nothing, and (if you weren't a Fannie or Freddie mortgage), your mortgage didn't get affected either.

Look I'm not claiming the Fed is perfect. But even I know it's easier to loan large amounts of money to hundreds of large banks and large companies, and a lot harder to loan it to hundreds of thousands of smaller businesses, or directly to millions of mortgage payers. I suspect that the money that went to Fannie and Freddie is some of the worst loans the Fed made, and will never see again, and that DID go to housing. Do you want the Fed to make loans to companies and banks that will pay it back, or not?

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 14th December 2010, 12:38pm) *

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 14th December 2010, 8:46am) *

The bailout figures disclosed by the fed run around $16 Trillion. I was unable to find statistics on the present dollar amount of delinquent mortgages, but I suspect one could buy all of them for much less than that.

You could, but the numbers are meaningless, because the $14 trillion is in LOANS, mostly short term (a few months). Most has been paid back already. Remember the initial $700 billion TARP treasury program will eventually cost $30 to $60 billion, depending on who you believe.
The whole thing is another Ponzi scheme, because the TARP loans were repaid with zero-percent loans from the Fed. Which loans will also be rolled over ad infinitum.



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 14th December 2010, 12:38pm) *

If the Fed really loses out on all the loans for the past two years, you'll know it when the currency starts inflating.
No shit, Sherlock.
Image

Posted by: radek

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 14th December 2010, 8:06am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 14th December 2010, 6:06am) *

As an economist …


You'd get slightly more credibility by calling yourself a pop-up toaster …

Jon tongue.gif


Yeah I know, like the old joke about a kid telling everyone that his dad "plays piano in a whorehouse" because he could never tell'em his dad is an economist. For what it's worth, quite a number of economists (though generally not the kind you see on TV) were warning about the fact that shit was messed up before it happened. At a point or two, Bernanke was actually one of them.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 14th December 2010, 9:11pm) *

QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 14th December 2010, 8:06am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Tue 14th December 2010, 6:06am) *

As an economist …


You'd get slightly more credibility by calling yourself a pop-up toaster …

Jon tongue.gif


Yeah I know, like the old joke about a kid telling everyone that his dad “plays piano in a whorehouse” because he could never tell 'em his dad is an economist.


The cream of the jest being, of course, that they are the same thing.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky



And tonight there is a http://www.larouchepac.com/node/16904.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

❣❣❣ Happy Bloomsday ❣❣❣

Posted by: gomi

"Your battles inspired me - not the obvious material battles but those that were fought and won behind your forehead." - Joyce

Posted by: EricBarbour

I can't possibly outdo that, so.....
Image