Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (106067)	1/4/2010 9:29:31 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Apart from the muslim world the US has troops in many countries, I think I read over 100 countries. Regardless of whether we should have troops in the mid east, it seems to me that is time to rethink whether we need all of these troops around the world. Ok.. The US doesn't have troops anywhere that the host country doesn't want them to be (minus Afghanistan). There is a SOFA that is negotiated between the host country and our government that details that status of US forces in a particular country. It's mutually agreed upon: en.wikipedia.org Now would we have a SOFA agreement if those countries where US troops are located didn't want us there? They are the sovereign government, representing either the elected will of their people, or the most powerful political entity which has achieved power. Furthermore, US troops overseas are often involved in humanitarian aid missions. We built a good number of roads and schools in Central America and I can tell you personally that our presence there was WELCOMED. It was seen as a sign that the US cares more than their own government. Look at what our US ships did when the Tsunami hit Acheh, Indonesia. defense.gov Type "Humanitarian" in here for a list of articles: search.dma.mil We have PRT teams throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the Civil Affairs specialists that assist the people in those countries with education, training, and logistical support to improve their own lives. The bottom line is that we have to base our troops somewhere. Most of these bases are Naval and Air logistics. So if we get rid of them, then we're either dependent upon obtaining visitation and refueling rights in a non-secure port. They assist in "showing the flag", and they provide the militaries of the respective nations to cooperate and build trust. That's what Allies do. Of course, Mish may not believe we need Allies in this world and that we can "go it alone". He'd likely tell other countries to "F" Off and that would certainly build trust and friendship. The reality is that we don't put some "skin in the game", we can't have any influence in creating positive changes. It seems to me that many muslims come to the west and instead of melting in, want western society to change for them. Why is this? Is it not possible that this kind of mentality plays a part in the whole picture. They are a distinct culture and it's hard for many of them to acclimate to American values and lifestyles. Their children adjust very well, but the adults feel they are losing control. And hell.. a lot of US-born parents feel the same way.. ;0) I just want Muslims to understand the essential nature of separation between Church and State. Just as MOST Americans would not tolerate some preacher clamoring for the violent imposition of a theocratic government in the US, we shouldn't tolerate Muslim clerics making such rantings in a Mosque. Hawk

To: Little Joe who wrote (106067)	1/5/2010 2:35:56 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 116555

LJ, they can't really end the wars. Not b/c we need to be out killing people, but they need ready made excuses to continue to escalate debt. Our money supply is debt. Our GDP growth is, in actuality, debt growth. 1. 95-99% of all money is debt. 2. Money is created by issuing debt (think mortgage, car loan, credit card expansion - the money comes from nowhere and is based upon debt). 3. Only the principle is created when the debt is issued - not the money required to pay the interest portions of the debt. 4. Either the banks have to make 100% of their interest earnings available for society to earn (they obviously don't!) or society has to continually take on more and more debt to make it even possible to pay of previous debts with interest. 5. It is impossible to pay back our debts - we will run out of money first. In short, our money supply is effectively a debt based Ponzi scheme that requires ever increasing debt until, one day, the debt blows up. "One day" appears to have commenced as of 2007/2008. market-ticker.denninger.net market-ticker.denninger.net If they end the wars and pull the troops back, the significant reduction in annual debt increases will significantly reduce the money supply and make previous debts mathematically impossible to pay back. This is also known as a deflationary spiral. Search youtube for "money as debt" and check out two videos, "Money as Debt" and "Money as Debt II - Promises Unleashed." They can increase the debt in other ways, but banksters and Congress own a lot of defense related stock. projectcensored.org For some other good reading material... projectcensored.org