West in a ‘Colossal Mess’ in Five to 10 Years: Marc Faber [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : West in a ‘Colossal Mess’ in Five to 10 Years: Marc Faber


DonGlock26
10-23-2012, 06:15
West in a ‘Colossal Mess’ in Five to 10 Years: Marc Faber


“My medicine for the U.S. is: Reduce government by minimum 50 percent,”


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49500213





The cost of gov't is going to crush the West alright. One just has to look at Greece, Spain, and Italy to see where our current road leads. The gov't was not formed in 1789 to pay for kids' lunches in school (even in summer time) or pay for personal items like cell phones. This type of nonsense will eventually cause the nation to decline and collapse.

JBnTX
10-23-2012, 08:00
“My medicine for the U.S. is: Reduce government by minimum 50 percent,” he said. “The impact would be immediately an improvement in the economy.”


Most people equate "cut government" with cutting government spending only, but we also need to look at cutting the size of the federal government.

Many federal agencies could be eliminated or combined with other agencies. Some can even be turned over to the states.

pugman
10-23-2012, 12:50
"One day the system would break"

He probably should have said will break; but I doubt his assessment of a colossal mess since once the U.S Government fails you can't measure the impact in a defunked currency.

He is right though. O's debt ceiling deals mean cuts in spending pushed out to the end of this decade...win or lose O won't be in office.

Some people believe the advertised debt could hit $30 trillion at the end of a second Obama term..

And a reduction in government by 50% is simply a drop in the bucket - I wonder if his assessment includes military spending?

Regardless, you don't need to massage the numbers Uncle Sam's days are numbered. IMO, he is being generous with ten years...whether the failure takes place as the revolution he claims or not is another story.

Best case scenario I can see is the Fed attempting to file a bankruptcy and keeping the masses timid with another series of reorgs and promises.

Worst case the White house is in fire.

Chronos
10-23-2012, 12:59
This one discusses the precedents -- we (and most of western civilization) are already beyond the historical point of no return: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-15/guest-post-lets-talk-about-facts-not-fear

"In principle," things might be salvaged if Faber's advice was taken literally starting right now, but I think we all know how likely that is to take place.

series1811
10-23-2012, 13:01
“My medicine for the U.S. is: Reduce government by minimum 50 percent,” he said. “The impact would be immediately an improvement in the economy.”


Most people equate "cut government" with cutting government spending only, but we also need to look at cutting the size of the federal government.

Many federal agencies could be eliminated or combined with other agencies. Some can even be turned over to the states.

What agencies are you going to cut out?

List them and their budgets in billions (and remember that you have to cut 1.6 trillion (1600 billion) to just get back to zero.

Here is a link to an article about the amount federal agencies got in 2010 to give you some ball park figures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/budget2010/agency_by_agency_050709.html

pugman
10-23-2012, 13:24
What agencies are you going to cut out?

List them and their budgets in billions (and remember that you have to cut 1.6 trillion (1600 billion) to just get back to zero.

Here is a link to an article about the amount federal agencies got in 2010 to give you some ball park figures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/budget2010/agency_by_agency_050709.html

The federal government's problem isn't entirely its agency structure. Yes, there is a lot of waste and we all hear the stories of multimillion rentals sitting empty for 9 years, or the $700+ million we gave Middle East Countries to build/maintain Mosques, the $100 billion loan to GM, etc.

In the end, nearly 90% of federal expenditures in 2010 fell into these catagories

Social Security 19.63%
Dept of Defense 18.74%
Welfare/Unemployment 16.13%
Medicare 12.79%
Medicaid 8.19%
interest 4.63%
Health and Human Services 2.22%
Transportation 2.05%
Dept of VA 1.48%
Dept of State 1.46%

You could easily argue (and I agree for the most part) social security, medicare, welfare and unemployment aren't the realm of the fed. I don't want people starving in the streets but you shouldn't live better on welfare than you do working a full time job.

The big picture: the fed's problem is simply its 1) ability to deficit spend 2) poor planning 3) seemingly the inability to cut a program once it starts

If the U.S population was expected to balance the books every fiscal year things would be much different than they are today.

series1811
10-23-2012, 13:34
The federal government's problem isn't entirely its agency structure. Yes, there is a lot of waste and we all hear the stories of multimillion rentals sitting empty for 9 years, or the $700+ million we gave Middle East Countries to build/maintain Mosques, the $100 billion loan to GM, etc.

In the end, nearly 90% of federal expenditures in 2010 fell into these catagories

Social Security 19.63%
Dept of Defense 18.74%
Welfare/Unemployment 16.13%
Medicare 12.79%
Medicaid 8.19%
interest 4.63%
Health and Human Services 2.22%
Transportation 2.05%
Dept of VA 1.48%
Dept of State 1.46%

You could easily argue (and I agree for the most part) social security, medicare, welfare and unemployment aren't the realm of the fed. I don't want people starving in the streets but you should live better on welfare than you do working a full time job.

The big picture: the fed's problem is simply its 1) ability to deficit spend 2) poor planning 3) seemingly the inability to cut a program once it starts

If the U.S population was expected to balance the books every fiscal year things would be much different than they are today.

It's hard for people to finally get that. I remember the day it finally sunk in to me what our budget problems really were, during a lecture by an government budget analysis. When he finally got us all to understand the magnitude of the problem, the room was literally left speechless.

Because, no matter how badly it needs to be fixed, until people start to understand it, you can't even begin to start gathering the collective will to take some action.

Chronos
10-23-2012, 17:44
Because, no matter how badly it needs to be fixed, until people start to understand it, you can't even begin to start gathering the collective will to take some action.

Well, this is the problem of democracy (one of them). The vast majority will know only when it's far, far too late, and any politician who does know and intends to do something about it is hated and "unelectable" for being such a downer.