Why Are We Attacking Stimulus In America, While Austerity Is Failing In Europe?

Why Are We Attacking Stimulus In America, While Austerity Is Failing In Europe?

It's pretty ironic right now how, as Europe's gamble with austerity appears to be failing, the U.S. government is facing political outrage for not choosing austerity, ie. for its large economic stimulus programs.

Austerity's performance has been terrible so far according to the bond market, whereby bond spreads for Europe's troubled economies now indicate less confidence in government debt burdens than pre-austerity measures. Spending cuts were supposed to reduce government default concerns, but they failed:

This week Europe's crisis is back in focus, and while the U.S. remains a mess, its economy is performing better than Europe's. Bond and currency markets aren't spooked by the prospect of a near-term debt crisis from the U.S. either.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz even thinks its fair to say by now that Europe simply chose the wrong path when it chose to push spending cuts during a period of economic hardship.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/stiglitz-its-obvious-europe-made-the-wrong-bet-with-austerity-2010-9#ixzz0ywWlAEA9


Someone should let Obama know that now is the time to grow the deficit, not shrink it.

Conservative Belt-Tightening---Got to get rid of this deficit.
Got to get rid of this deficit.

" Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat
them."

I hope those in power in this country keep this in mind.

We have some deficit hawks who have power. Will they listen
to frenzied partisans(long past the clear thinking stage)
or will they take some deep breaths and think---maybe it
is a bit early to take stark measures. The rule of thumb
should be absolute certainty we are in real recovery.

Learn from our own past and the Europeans in the present.

It's never that simple

Should we learn the " deficit spending invigorates the economy " lesson from the great depression?

Should we learn the "deficit spending that drove the debt to GDP ratio to 200% of GDP failed to invigorate the economy " lesson from Japan's lost decade?

And remember as well that ...

"Those who DO learn the lessons of history will find NEW ways to fuck-up."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Two decades of high deficits, with no subsequent pressure on interest rates and no inflation. When the Japanese government tried to cut the deficit in 1997, the Japanese economy tanked. When they returned to deficit spending in the early 2000's, their economy again grew.

It seems we could learn several good lessons from the Japanse experience. Quantitative easing has been, predictably, a failure. Bridges to nowhere didn't create sustained growth. Yet Japan has been successful in keeping unemployment high, despite an uncooperative exchange rate.

I don't know.

But as far as successfully managing to keep the unemployment rate relatively low, I think it was managed for them. The number of employed persons in Japan has been shrinking throughout the "lost decade", but so has the labor force. Both the numerator and the denominator in the unemployment rate calculation have been getting smaller. Here is what the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs has to say:

"Japan's labor force was on a continuous decline after recording a historical high of 67.93 million people in 1998. It showed growth from 2005 due to the increased labor force participation rate of, mainly, the elderly, but fell again in 2008. The labor force is expected to shrink in the long run as the falling birthrate and the aging population change the population composition.
The labor force, defined as the sum of the employed and unemployed, numbered 66.17 million people in Japan in 2009, down 330,000 (0.5 percent) from the previous year and was the second consecutive year of decrease."

and Japan"s deficits are largely internally financed. But what occurs in the future when the aging Japanese cash in their bonds to fund their consumptionin retirement? We'll see.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hoover was wrong in preaching austerity. But today we simply are
way over extended in debt and to take on more debt is road to bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy and collapse of US dollar will be far bigger catastrophe than
a recession, even a long lasting recession.

then interest rates on government debt would be sky high because it would be such a risk to loan to the US.

And yet the interest rate people are accepting on government debt is very, very low.

So, how exactly is the US on the verge of bankruptcy because of our debt??????

Hoover was wrong in preaching austerity. But today we simply are
way over extended in debt and to take on more debt is road to bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy and collapse of US dollar will be far bigger catastrophe than
a recession, even a long lasting recession.

in an attempt to avoid those consequences.

What's down the road? We have 30 million unemployed or underemployed people today, perhaps 40 million or more by next year, plus those who are too discouraged to look. That could mean millions have worked the last job they will ever have, 'cause there is no engine for growth in the future. Real estate is still at least 30% overvalued, perhaps more. We have given away most of our manufacturing, and the factories left behind would take trillions to open and re-build to be competitive.

There will be, slowly but surely, a decrease in taxable income, (hard to pay a deficit down with no income, eh?), and more cities will go bankrupt. Public employees such as at colleges and hospitals, fire, police, teachers - all of them will begin to go, because the taxable base will slowly but surely crater, which will cause further deterioration and loss.

China is already working with Brazil, India, Russia - we wcould very easily find oursleves a second class nation. China's manufacturing put out as much as we did this year, a trend we will likely see increase. Mexico just instituted a 5% tariff on our pork and cheese products, which will hurt producers in this country a lot, adn there appears nothing we can do about it.

It could even be worse. Oil is going to run out one of these days, and if we haven't invested (like China is investing billions today) to work on alternatives, we may wish we were at least a second class nation. They are building polysilicone factories and will own the world of computers and solar power within just a few years. That is going to give them tremendous power in the world. , We may find people voting in candidates who are fascist true-believers, make our right-wingers of today seem mild by comparison. That seems to be a trend with desperate nations.

This is preferable to investing in our own country and people? We can never become insolvent (bankrupt) because we create the money. And while it is true that our money might become worth less over time based on what people believe about it, that is something we can manage if we restructure the country, reinvigorate manufacturing, adjust our education to teach people how to compete in a globalized world.

If we don't invest in our future, how much is the dollar going to be worth when we can't feed everyone, can't provide medical care, can't keep our schools open, can't afford to field a military, throw away tens of millions of people?

Just curious...

Long time ago when I was young and foolish I invested in a company
stock with which I was familiar. Unfortunately the stock declined and
I was forced to sell. You know why? Because I had borrowed on margin
to buy double the shares than what I could with my own cash.

My hunch about the company proved correct and the stock came roaring
back. However since I had borrowed money, the broker sold me out
and I lost lot of money. SO I learned a valuable lesson, never to "invest"
with borrowed money.

The US Treasury is $13,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. It is costing the
Treasury huge amount just to pay interest on that debt. I would be all
for additional stimulus spending if Treasury had a surplus. But to borrow
more money with interest obligations, is not prudent, because there is
no guarantee the money spent will make money for the Treasury.

The economy is bad precisely because of excessive borrowing...by the
governments, by home buyers, by retail consumers. To cure the malady
by borrowing more is akin to giving an alcoholic with cirrhosis of the
liver more alcohol which will make him feel better temporarily. It will
only result in his death.

Countries like China can invest in various ventures precisely because
they own Trillions of surplus foreign currency, including UST bonds.

Besides, if $50 Billion in stimulus spending was absolutely necessary,
who can spend it most profitably? The government or private businesses?
Remember the Soviet 5 year plans? They had bureaucrats making decisions
where & how the money would be spent. Result? No good return on investment.

As for oil running out, did you notice how much oil was spewing out of that
gulf of Mexico well without even pumping? There is probably enough oil
left in the ground and under the sea to last over 100 years. If oil was in
serious danger of running out soon, don't you think the giant oil companies
would be investing large chunks of money in alternate energy? DO you believe
they are stupid and short sighted? I don't. If some individuals or corporation
was to invest heavily in alternate energy, the oil producers can bankrupt them
in a jiffy by dropping prices temporarily.

that what is right or true for the individual is applicable to everyone at the same time. If one person stands at a football game, they see better. If everyone stands, many, including that person, may or may not be able to see at all. If one person forgoes buying a car, they save some money. If everyone avoids buying cars, the industry falls on its face, massive unemployment results across many companies. As individuals and businesseses we are limited by our bank accounts, and ability to leverage. The government does not have that constraint.

Our government doesn't need to borrow to spend. The first bonds they ever sold, the first taxes ever paid, required the payment be made in our own currency. Unless it had been distributed beforehand, no one could have paid the bill. The government is not constrained by needing to borrow.

It IS constrained, however, by what people think of the "dollar". You think it is bad? I don't see anyone throwing away their worthless dollars. I don't see countries rushing to rid themselves of it. I see transactions worldwide being settled in the dollar, and countries holding trillions of it in reserve. (I do see China trying really hard to supplant it, but for at least another 17 years or so they are probably not a serious threat). It is bad for 30 million individuals, (actually a few more, and a lot of cities and states), but there are lots of companies making record profits, many from foreign investments, and a lot of governments still settling transactions in the dollar.

The pain being felt by some is bad because the government and private business conspired over the past several decades to work for short-term profit while screwing everyone else. We put laws on the books because of the Great Depression that would have kept some of these excesses from occurring, and the socialists tried to teach us that we are dependant on each other's success but, alas, things have changed. For example, the ex-chair of Goldman Sachs, Rubin, went to work in the government and in 1999 repealed the last piece of the Glass-Steagall Act. This (among several other actions over the years, along with a lot of non-feasance by officials in the SEC, Federal Reserve (Alan Greenspan), the ratings agencies, a ton of mortgage underwriting companies and others) allowed the investment banks to get into a game formerly run by somewhat conservative banks who made loans based on ability to pay. This changed the game, and the focus became how much money (now including FDIC insured deposits), they could sell as debt wrapped up in mortgages to turn into collateralized debt obligations and other derivatives where investors leveraged trillions of dollars to purchase, well, crap. Ability to pay was became secondary to the pursuit of selling more debt.

The second thing that the private market did was, over decades, use the excuse of globalization to move lots of technology out of this country to places where labor was cheap and laws that kept people from mistreating others did not exist, (laws that we, as Americans, had decided were important, and perhaps will again, I suspect - but I digress). They then brought those products back in at cheap prices, while people ignored how they were spending against their own best interests.

Private industry, in concert with their lobbyists, has pursued a policy of using the government to suck up wealth for decades, while most people really did not realize what was happening to the economy around them. These evil, greedy , selfish bastards have done everything they could to take money out of the pockets of those who labor for it, and, frankly, I have trouble imagining the lack of understanding it would take to believe that they would suddenly be the salvation for us. That said, of course business is the one that creates jobs. But they have relied on government to create the conditions where they could, and to fund the startups (and more), to use the military (state or federal) to force, or even kill those who would stand in their way, from very nearly the inception of this country. (note - ARPANET, now the Internet, that we are on was a government-funded project that business now claims as its own).

On the other hand, the people have allowed the government to play right into their hands. Which is too bad, because that was the only protection the common person had against the selfish, avaricious, arrogant cowards that run these companies. Our current president told bankers at a meeting in 2009 that he was the only thing standing between the "pitchforks and them". I think he made a mistake in not using that moment to turn his back on them and protect the people he said he would serve. We will see where that leads us.

That said, the only hope that people have is government, but $50 billion is chump change. We need over $600 billion just to fix the highway bridges that are structurally unsound in this country. It would take, quite literally, mulitple trillions of dollars to begin to reverse the damage done to our economy over the past few decades, and that's just hardware. They would have to fund the revival of scores of factories that are only so much rubble today (even if their walls are standing the machinery is decades behind the newer and more efficient factories). There would have to be something of a guaranteed income program, we would have to absorb the debt from mortgages that is hidden on the banker's books, we would have to figure out the goals for the technological changes needed in the future and develop a new and sizable educational program to accommodate that (which avoided graduating a bunch of people with student loan debt and no possibility of jobs).

But the most important thing would be a change of heart by the people in the government. They would have to begin to raise public awareness as to who benefits, who is winding up with the money, and what needs to change. They would need to quit throwing scraps of little programs to people to get their little group happy for a while, suck it up, and lead us into a century where China is not going to equal our economy in 2027, as the chief economist at Government Goldman Sachs suggests, here....

I would have to short the prospect of the government (the people) suddenly coming to Jesus on that one, at least not until the next real Depression-like disaster (or worse) that affects most of the people. Not that we couldn't, but more likely we will fight our stupid little battles over Mosques\Community Centers and Palin and Teabaggers and Healthcare and (throw your favorite in here) while the rest of the world runs over us. That's how little power centers within civilizations seem to deal with change. If our enemy is in a uniform, we are really good at creating a program to drop a missile on his left foot, third toe in. But when the enemy is us, well...

Btw, you pointed to a well in the Gulf as evidence that there is oil? You do realize it is capped (or will be shortly), right? Can't get much use out of that. Sure there is some oil out there, but getting it out of deep water in the Gulf, or from shale deposits in the frozen North is much more expensive, dangerous, and complex than getting it from the wells in Oklahoma. Much of the easily gotten to oil is gone, along with our high carbon steel which we exhausted years ago. Sure, we can put those wells I grew up with in Oklahoma back into production, but your gas will be $6 gallon or more - I double dog dare you to dig your way out of the depression that is going to bring. (Ever see a chart of the recessions that have followed every oil spike for the past decades?). Not to mention the starvation and war that is going to come along with it. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that we are in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, as a smokescreen to get us embedded so other nations can't take the oil. (Whether that plan works out in the future is anyone's guess).

But that is 1940's thinking - people watch too many movies in which the brave Americans beat back the Germans and Japanese. In our brave new world, while we are running around thinking that we are going to send more soldiers to solve our problems, China is going to grow, and grow, while we wither. Do you think they have sent their teachers here, paying their salaries, room, and board, because they want to learn from us? Or is it more likely they are studying us from the inside? They are thinking of their own best interests, as they should be. And when they own our financial institutions, and they will, it is over.

And no, I don't think the oil companies are short-sighted. I think they have recongized that the future is global and quite likely outside of the United States. And that is why they have opened offices around the world, are making deals with foreign governments, and some of the largest solar production facilities now sport a new logo. You may have seen it - looks like a sunflower - has the letters BP in the center.

('Course, I could be all hot air. I do wonder, however, if there was a conversation along about 1750 in Britain, along the lines of "you know, all those lazy adventure-seeking hippies who ran off to that place called North America - you know, where we make them pay those high taxes and send us tobacco - we are ALWAYS going to be bigger and more important than they are, 'cause we are GREAT Britain...")

IMO, unless we grow up and realize that we have to change our way of thinking, invest in our people and our country, come to a realization that it is unlikely that we are going to survive on customer service and nursing jobs, we might, sooner than we think, be following Great Britain into history, while listening to our foreign language tapes to figure out the differences between those 12 Chinese languages...

thanks for the reply

using the methods you proscribe?

I am intimately familiar with what happened in India since I grew up there.
After independence in 1947, Indian gov't owned and ran most major industries,
including electricity production, railroads (main mode of transport at the time),
Aircraft manufacture (HAL), machine tools manufacture (HMT), Airlines (Air India),
Cement manufacture, Telephone manufacture, Banking, Insurance companies, and more.
So all this was owned by the "people". Bureaucrats made all the decisions.
Government orchestrated 5 year plans were the norm. Rich people were not allowed
to exploit ordinary people. Everything worthwhile was owned & operated by "people".

The result?

Every industry ran inefficiently with massive corruption, nepotism, favoritism,
shoddy goods, non-existent innovation, and massive tax payer subsidies everywhere.
I recall visiting India in and to buy a simple airline ticket needed 2 trips
to the airline office and 3 days wait.

Then Nehru's Congress party lost national elections to Janata party. The Janata
party began privatization of government owned and run ventures. They allowed
foreign investors to come in and start businesses. The result speaks for itself.
Today India is much different than Nehru's benevolent India. Prosperity is all
around and growing. Last decade India has experienced double digit growth rates.

Best of all, the Indian government has SURPLUS FOREIGN CURRENCIES in its treasury.
Taxes are lower, new business starts are exploding, people eat better and live
better.The world's richest 5 now includes 2 Indians. Millionaires are being
created by the dozens every year.

I put a lot more faith in actual results than theoretical prognostications. I
learned that well, practicing real world engineering in the USA, for 40 years.

When we believed in ourselves, we invested in our country and our people. Whether it was the WPA or war, money put in to create railroads, or big manufacturing outfits, or roads, or in building armies, roads and bridges, or even giving everyone a safety net to prevent starvation and poverty, money invested in GROWING the U.S. gave us the strongest, most secure country; the one everyone looked to when they had a problem. Our current problems stem directly from letting the selfish, unremarkable, lying, manipulative, "free market" snakes have their way.

Dishonest people who hawk a "free market" (which is anything but free) have reversed that in the past several decades, taking money from the people for war, for the pockets of a few, for creating opportunities in other countries where only a few could profit, ridding us of the very regulations which would have prevented the stinking, dirty, and putrid activities of the 6 largest banks that led us directly into the financial crisis we are in now. All these people want is to be free from the responsiblity of caring for their neighbors who were fundamental in their success. They are just cheap bastards who will screw anyone for an advantage, taking from the labor of others, without paying the price.

India is what we should stive for? According to at least one source, Poverty in India is widespread with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. According to a 2005 World Bank estimate, 42% of India falls below the international poverty line of $1.25 a day. People kill to get a job to be a porter on a train, cause it's one of the "good" jobs. The rag-pickers and trash-pickers are so well known that NPR does whole specials about them. Yup, prosperity is all around. Like flies.

http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2005/10/historical-shares-of-world-gdp.html

India became poor because of the British rulers and their exploitation.
The growth of industrial age in Europe was largely missed in India & China.
But today there is almost nothing those two countries can not manufacture.
That includes Nuclear technology, space satellites and such.
After independence in 1947 it took a socialist path. That did not help.

You can't eradicate poverty of a Billion people in 10 or 20 years. But with their
present anti-socialist posture, progress is clearly visible.
If the present trends continue, India will boast the world's 2nd highest GDP
in this century.

But one can't discount their government's borrowing and investment in the growth of their economy. It was vital, and perhaps the most important reason for their success.

You seem to be arguing against socialism, so I am not sure who you are speaking to, since I am not arguing for socialism. I am saying that government investment here can create the conditions for companies who have the best interests of the country at heart to thrive, and that will increase our safety and security, both economic and physical. We pay farmers to grow and not grow, use our military to create opportunities for trade, we pay frikkin McDonalds to train people in their "no training required" kitchens. As taxpayers we are going to be out approximately $3.3 trillion in the bank bailout, which doesn't count the $15 trillion set aside to provide loans to them, nor the tens of millions they are making in buying treasuries with money borrowed and taken from the taxpayers - every day. I am told that's not socialism, because we don't wind up owning the business, just paying for it while greedy people at the top skim the profits. That's just business.

Business is not good or bad. It is just a structure. It is what people do with it, like guns or knives, that matters. It is a great tool, but can be used to build and sustain, or to destroy.

Ignoring the most selfish tendencies of business, it's worst aspects, has led us to the brink of disaster. Government, the people, needs to educate themselves as to how they are being defrauded, figure out where and what business structures can augment and improve our way of life, (because it has, for years, before the quiet pogrom that has been instituted against this country and it's people by business for the past 30-40 years) and invest in ourselves and our country. We need to put the 6 largest banks under the auspices of the FDIC, split their parts out to smaller segments, put the criminals that are running them in prison, reinstate the regulations, both at a federal and state level that protect people, and, frankly, if some business owners don't want to work inside those restrictions, they are free to get the hell out and people that are here will run them in ways that benefit our country.

you think "government" is the best power to "invest" money for
the benefit of people.

Actual experience does not bear that out. China was mired in
government control over everything, until they let loose the
individual businesses to fail or prosper. Soviet Union failed
miserably with their 5 year plans.

India, Brazil, China & Russia are now experiencing
the largest growth rates in economy precisely because "private"
businesses have been unleashed in each.

The banking bailout was the worst thing our government did.
This too big to fail mentality must come to an end. These banks
were failing because of their risky trading in derivatives. There
are 100 times more other banks which never came close to failing.
We could have let the soundly managed banks to buy out the failing
banks. Instead of saving the share holders and CEO's of the failing
banks, the government should have used the money to lend it the
soundly managed banks to keep credit flowing. Most employees of
failed banks would have found employment with the take over banks.
I am not at all convinced we were as a nation on the brink of a
depression if the bad banks failed. Banks fail all the time. What
happens is the share owners lose, the CEO's lose, a new bank takes
over the existing loans and customers.

Capitalism can only work if stupid outfits are allowed to fail, no
matter how large. You are correct in that business is both good or
bad. Let the bad businesses fail and go away.

Government bureaucrats can never make correct decisions on how
to "invest" money. Experience shows they spend money in projects
which have little demand in the market place and therefore can
not survive for long.

"Experience shows they spend money in projects
which have little demand in the market place and therefore can
not survive for long."

Like the Internet, missions to the moon, Interstate highways, saving the world in WWII, a huge industrial complex that worked well for decades IN THE SUPPORT of business and the country, National Parks. None of those are around anymore...

Like I said, the writing above seems stuck in the mire of seeing everything as capitalism or socialism, neither of which really exist in a pure form. I think I have been pretty clear indicating that business is what would create jobs but it can't - IT NEVER HAS - without government intervention, at almost any level. At this point, however, the government is the only entity that has the capacity to make it possible for people to pull this out. Unfortunately it isn't staffed, at the moment, with people that could accomplish this. Conversely, it is true that government can also keep business from doing what it is best at.

Using the big banks is a bad example, though ironic. They have salted our government in a 30 year campaign to re-construct things in their favor. After the Depression, they learned the lesson that they needed people in the government to affect policies that would assist them in their robbery and rape of the taxpayer activities. I agree, as I wrote before, that the big ones should have been broken up under the FDIC and put with new mgmt. It is going to cost us more than anyone knows to not have done that.

But what we have now is not government, at least not in the ideal of people who are committed to the service of the country. We have a bunch who have been bought off by self-interested people from the outside. Agents, not government.

What remains to be seen is whether the people will step in and change it. This may only be a momentary blip. Or it might be the end. Or the beginning. I am going to bookmark this and check back in a couple hundred years.

Oh yes and the Billions spent on moon exploration did yield some very
valuable moon rocks!

And of course the Interstate highways...the most energy inefficient mode
of travel. A train with steel wheels rolling on steel rails is like 50
times more efficient, friction wise. How on earth did railroads manage to
evolve and develop and prosper as privately owned without government
subsidies! Guess what, the only railroad which requires tax payer subsidy is...
you got it AMTRAK. Run by government bureaucrats of course.

The Internet came from ARPANET, which was invented essentially by computer science grad students and their professors at publicly funded universities.

**

The highways were and are a miracle, opening up trade and travel to millions of people, without which millions of businesses would have lost the flexibility to operate in their best locations. The reason for AMTRAK is that the private companies operating the trains had finally screwed their stockholders and riders so much that people were nearly through with them, and several were going bankrupt. The government took it over because they saw a strategic need for trains, the very trains that the above post says are much more efficient than cars. Perhaps the "business sector" is incompetent...all they have to do is keep them running back and forth on the tracks, and they couldn't even do that right...

**

And I am sure many women prefer the digital biopsies vs having their breast sliced open with a scalpel or having a needle plunged deep into the tissue, just to see what is there.

Where did this come from? Wait for it...NASA, another government program, along with

Environmentally Friendly Technologies - NASA Spin-offs

Solar Energy – NASA has pioneered photovoltaic power systems for spacecraft applications. Solar energy technology has been developed for space programs to expand terrestrial applications where no other long term energy sources exist.

Forest Management - A satellite scanning system has been developed that monitors and maps forestation. It detects radiation reflected and emitted from trees.

Oil Spill Control – The concept was invented by Petrol Rem, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Penn. Also, Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory helped to design the tiny beeswax balls (microcapsules).

These microcapsules made of beeswax are designed so that water can’t get in, but oil can. , The microorganisms inside release enzymes that digest the oil when the oil seeps through the shell. Once the balls are full of digested oil, they explode. The microcapsules release enzymes, carbon dioxide and water, all environmentally safe. The residue is even eatable fish food!

Fishing from Orbit – A series of satellites were launched in 1972 by NASA to observe the changing conditions of the earth’s surface. The ability to monitor changes to the earth for a long period of time provides invaluable information such as: preserving wildlife, monitoring air and water pollution, mapping the growth of cities, flood control and more.

Feeding Our World-And Prepping to Feed Other Worlds - Disney and NASA are working together in a unique partnership. They are striving to find ways to use human and industrial waste to provide the ingredients needed for growing edible plants. This technology will be needed for establishing human colonies on other worlds.

Other spin-offs include:Environmental Control Sensors, energy saving air conditioning, air purification, sewage treatment, pollution control and measuring devices, a whale identification method, and a earthquake prediction system.




Here are more benefits of the US Space Program


Consumer Benefits NASA Spinoffs

Cordless Power Tools and Appliances - A key technological advance made the battery-powered drill possible -- a computer program was used to design the drill's motor to use as little power as possible.
At Home Smoke Detector - NASA needed a smoke and fire detector for Skylab, which was America's first space station. Honeywell, Inc. developed the unit for NASA.

Home Insulation – Space technology and other high tech ideas have been used to provide significant savings in home heating and cooling costs. A NASA-derived Barrier to Radiation is designed to reflect away 95 percent of the sun's radiant energy.

Clean Water for the Home - During the Apollo program, NASA developed a system to sterilize the astronauts' drinking water. This method included the use of ions (an atom or group of atoms carrying a positive or negative electrical charge) as part of the water filtering system. This and other technologies are used for the in home systems.

Other Consumer Spin-offs include: Scratch resistant lenses, water purification system, high-density batteries, trash compactors, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, composite golf clubs, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, freeze-dried technology, sports bras, hang gliders, quartz crystal timing equipment, and more.




Even more benefits of the US Space Program


Medicine Benefits NASA Spin-offs

Digital Imaging Breast Biopsy System - One of many technology spin-offs from the Hubble telescope is the use of its Charge Coupled Device (CCD) chips for digital imaging breast biopsies. This device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently than other existing technologies.
More than 500,000 women need biopsies a year. The economic and emotional benefits are huge. This technology greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

Laser Angioplasty - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, doesn’t damage blood vessel walls. It ensures non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than with balloon angioplasty.

Camera on a Chip - Physicians soon may end up tracking the onset of osteoporosis using "camera-on-a-chip" technology developed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. It was originally developed for recording images in space.


Other spin-offs include: Eye Screening, Ultrasound scanners, MRI, cataract surgery tools, arteriosclerosis detection, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device and clean room apparel.

Computer Technology - NASA Spin-Offs - Virtual Reality, Microcomputers, Advanced keyboards, Laser Surveying, Compact Disc, Database Management System, Aircraft controls, and Design Graphics, Ground Processing Scheduling System., *1,2


The list goes on and on with Technology Spin-offs in manufacturing technology, public safety, transportation and much more.

that's enough...

Not exactly.

The reality of what happens is:

A bank that is poorly run and under capitalized is supposed to be taken over at first signs of trouble.
Instead, a lot of the banks have gotten stuck with many bad loans and are deeply in debt.
When FDIC takes over these banks, FDIC actually "buys" the underwater mortgages for full value!
And the "new" bank that takes over gets the non-debt value of the bank.

If you need to see proof, read the fine print under bank closure notices:
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/lossshare/index.html


Which is one reason why FDIC is complaining about going broke.
And one reason so many insolvent banks are not being closed.

Meanwhile, all the derivatives and CDS that were sold off from the now underwater mortgages are making money
for the hedge funds and big banks ( in fees), until THAT Ponzi scheme collapses.

You are so correct, not to mention eloquent.
That was a pleasure to read.


:applause: :applause:

"Conservative Belt-Tightening---Got to get rid of this deficit.
Got to get rid of this deficit."

Federal spending grew every year under Hoover, even as the economy to support it shrank in output.
Hoover went from the surpluses he inherited from Coolidge to deficits (over 4% of GDP by 1932). These deficits were unprecedented in peacetime.
Hoover increased spending by 42% from 1930 to 1932. These actions resulted in increasing unemployment (sound familiar?).
FDR ran for president against these deficits. Unfortnately he proceeded to outspend all his presidential predecessors combined in barely two years, and the Depression drug on for over a decade.

Why don't people crack a history book, or just check the numbers themselves?

People need to look at 1920-21 recession, and how the Fed raised interest rates and Harding resisted Hoover's demands for 'stimulus'. Unemployment that averaged 11.7 percent in 1921 fell fairly quickly, down to 6.7 percent in 1922.

Harding also brought down the top marginal tax rates from war time rates. Top rate 73% on income over $1,000,000, 60% on income over $100,000 with brackets in between, to 58% on incomes over $100,000. The federal government balanced the budget and reduced the debt during Coolidge's presidency subsequent to these tax changes.

... By the right wing propoganda machine.

are indicative of investors expectations that the governments will pay their bills.
There is a lack of faith in Greece and others being able to pay the bills they're generating.
That shouldn't be confused with economic growth.

Just look at Germany. They cut their budget to bring their deficit in line with the EU's rules (something Greece was breaking, they lied about their deficits to get in the Euro).

"German gross domestic product grew 2.2 percent in the second quarter, the biggest gain since reunification, driven by investment and exports, the Federal Statistics Office said on Friday.
The preliminary quarter-on-quarter reading was well above the Reuters consensus forecast for a 1.3-percent expansion.
First-quarter growth was revised up to show growth of 0.5 percent, after being previously reported at 0.2 percent.
Year-on-year, the economy grew by 4.1 percent in the second quarter, the data showed."

Remember folks, the problem was too much debt. We don't solve that problem by shoveling the debt from the private sector to the public. We risk the bond market treating us like Greece if we don't correct. Yes, the Federal Reserve can buy all the bonds that Treasury sells, but if we do that we risk inflation, which will hurt the poor and fixed income (elderly on pensions, and other receivers of entitlement dollars).