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: mishedlo who wrote (107816)	2/3/2010 1:06:55 PM
From: mishedlo	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Big Government Returns With Vengeance globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com The say one thing, do another approach of the Obama administration requires ever increasing use of sleight of hand magic. However it is very difficult to hide the fact that Largest-ever federal payroll will hit 2.15 million. ... Mish

To: mishedlo who wrote (107816)	2/3/2010 1:20:35 PM
From: Jim McMannis	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

RE:"I propose we get rid of 85% of our military budget. Since that would never fly,I will settle out of court for a 65% reduction. We can bring troops home from all 150 countries they are in, and concentrate on actual defense. Since we are more than adequately defended we can get by on 15% of what we spend." If you did that you'd have to throw the illegals out (plus some legals) because we'd need the jobs. Actually that already happened once in USA history. csmonitor.com en.wikipedia.org

To: mishedlo who wrote (107816)	2/3/2010 1:55:49 PM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

If we have fewer troops we are 100% guaranteed to fight fewer wars. The all volunteer army is quite sufficient. That worked quite well in the '30's didn't it. Reducing military expenditures ensured that WWI was the "war to end all wars", right? You haven't been in many fights in your life have you Mish? Weakness breeds contempt. Why else do you think Saddam risked invading Kuwait? He didn't think the US or UN would react the way it did. And you don't think that resource scarcity isn't going to create military aggression? Get a bunch of governments all attempting to secure access to resources their economies require? And lastly, the only way we subdue and neutralize these militant religious groups is by either assisting, or "motivating", other governments to control them. That requires bases and logistical and training support. These people don't think like you and I Mish. They care nothing about dying for Allah and taking all of us with them. They're all looking to "move on" to Paradise. I don't know where you learned your history, but if you think that unilateral disarmament on the part of the US will promise "peace in our time", you need some re-education. Whenever we've shown weakness and permitted totalitarianism to fester and become malignant, we've only found ourselves forced to wage MAJOR WARS, with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEAD. And if we don't maintain our efforts to promote regional and collective security, we're GUARANTEEING another major conflict, especially in the Middle East, as well as Taiwan and S. Korea. An ounce of prevention prevents a pound of cure. You've apparently forgotten that adage. And that pound of cure is going to be FAR MORE EXPENSIVE than the ounces of prevention. Maybe you should read a little Che Guevara, like the soldier who's rantings you presented. Guevara traveled throughout Latin America and was transformed by the endemic poverty he witnessed.[5] His experiences and observations during these trips led him to conclude that the region's ingrained economic inequalities were an intrinsic result of monopoly capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, with the only remedy being world revolution.[6] en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org Hawk