More Political Parties in the USA?

[acidhead]

The "Ron Paul" cult and the libertarian movement are two interconnected but different things. Whenever I see a movement is identified with a person rather than a set of principles, I tend to think of it as a personality cult, and the followers tend to be more "devoted" than normal political operatives.

Ron Paul has in my opinion been dead wrong in his criticism of Fed policy and his attacks on Bernanke. I think the man has done wonders rescuing the world economy in the face of American political logjam and European incompetence and doctrinaire German austerity. The libertarian movement has always been suspicious of Fed power, but only in theoretical terms. Ron Paul's attacks have been harmful, although, because his voice is generally disregarded, not terribly so.

The only reason inflation has been reaching the so-called target of 2-3% each year is because food and fuel is no longer calculated into the equation. The way the old CPI was calculated would bring inflation to around 9% or more today. What's the price of gasoline today as opposed to 5 years ago? Yes, that's inflation.

Ben hasn't rescued anything. He's kicked the can down the road.

[regeneratia]

our political system just doesn't work that way. PoliSci101

https://en.wikipedia.../Duverger's_law

I took polysci 101. I don't remember there a mandate that we could only have two political parties.

[acidhead]

http://youtu.be/nxa_U9Yiz9w

[Frank Merton]

There are a few devoted ideologues who still believe the old fears about budget deficits and just don't understand the difference between when a nation like the States has huge deficits and when a small country without its own currency or an individual has such debts. That three or four of such ideologues are now engaged in bandwagon propaganda tactics concerning what I post only confirms the ideological, cultist, rather than real nature of the beliefs. It is rather upsetting and of course frustrating that those who fail to pay attention to anything I've said accuse me of the same.

If the situation arose where the States did not have the revenues to pay its debts, there are a variety of things it could do short of defaulting -- all of which would be de facto defaults but not called that. Probably a special tax could be enacted on the bondholders, wiping out the debt. Or other taxes. Or print more money in some sort of special currency and pay the debt with that. Or engineer a spate of inflation. The lesson here is simple -- if you believe this scenario, then don't buy US government debt. That the Chinese and other smart groups continue to buy it speaks volumes.

Even a default is really a fairly small matter. The nation remains. The educated population remains. The highways and railroads and cities and farms and factories remain. The military remains.

The reality however is that it will never be allowed to get that bad. Economic growth is being stimulated that will bury the deficit in new revenues. They don't really need all that much growth to achieve this, accompanied with a touch of inflation. Also, of course, Obama is sharply reducing military spending (maybe dangerously -- we will see), which is helping with the deficit although weakening the growth that would otherwise occur.

Think, people, about reality, and not in such slogans as I've seen so far ("you cannot continue to live beyond your means" and other such silliness). Nations do live beyond their means and this is not only what they have always done, but what they should do. Government surpluses generate deflation and economic austerity and are always in the end disasters.

[Kowalski]

The decline in the value of the U.S. dollar corresponds to price inflation, which is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.^[56] A consumer price index (CPI) is a measure estimating the average price of consumer goods and services purchased by households. The United States Consumer Price Index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is a measure estimating the average price of consumer goods and services in the United States.^[57] It reflects inflation as experienced by consumers in their day-to-day living expenses.^[58] A graph showing the U.S. CPI relative to 1982–1984 and the annual year-over-year change in CPI is shown at right.

The value of the U.S. dollar declined significantly during wartime, especially during the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II.^[59] The Federal Reserve, which was established in 1913, was designed to furnish an "elastic" currency subject to "substantial changes of quantity over short periods," which differed significantly from previous forms of high-powered money such as gold, national bank notes, and silver coins.^[60] Over the very long run, the prior gold standard kept prices stable—for instance, the price level and the value of the U.S. dollar in 1914 was not very different from the price level in the 1880s. The Federal Reserve initially succeeded in maintaining the value of the U.S. dollar and price stability, reversing the inflation caused by the First World War and stabilizing the value of the dollar during the 1920s, before presiding over a 30% deflation in U.S. prices in the 1930s.^[61]

Under the Bretton Woods system established after World War II, the value of gold was fixed to $35 per ounce, and the value of the U.S. dollar was thus anchored to the value of gold. Rising government spending in the 1960s, however, led to doubts about the ability of the United States to maintain this convertibility, gold stocks dwindled as banks and international investors began to convert dollars to gold, and as a result the value of the dollar began to decline. Facing an emerging currency crisis and the imminent danger that the United States would no longer be able to redeem dollars for gold, gold convertibility was finally terminated in 1971 by President Nixon, resulting in the "Nixon shock."^[62]

The value of the U.S. dollar was therefore no longer anchored to gold, and it fell upon the Federal Reserve to maintain the value of the U.S. currency. The Federal Reserve, however, continued to increase the money supply, resulting in stagflation and a rapidly declining value of the U.S. dollar in the 1970s. This was largely due to the prevailing economic view at the time that inflation and real economic growth were linked (the Phillips curve), and so inflation was regarded as relatively benign.^[62] Between 1965 and 1981, the U.S. dollar lost two thirds of its value.^[55]

In 1979, President Carter appointed Paul Volcker Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve tightened the money supply and inflation was substantially lower in the 1980s, and hence the value of the U.S. dollar stabilized.^[62]

Over the thirty-year period from 1981 to 2009, the U.S. dollar lost over half its value.^[55] This is because the Federal Reserve has targeted not zero inflation, but a low, stable rate of inflation—between 1987 and 1997, the rate of inflation was approximately 3.5%, and between 1997 and 2007 it was approximately 2%. The so-called "Great Moderation" of economic conditions since the 1970s is credited to monetary policy targeting price stability.^[62]

There is ongoing debate about whether central banks should target zero inflation (which would mean a constant value for the U.S. dollar over time) or low, stable inflation (which would mean a continuously but slowly declining value of the dollar over time, as is the case now). Although some economists are in favor of a zero inflation policy and therefore a constant value for the U.S. dollar,^[61] others contend that such a policy limits the ability of the central bank to control interest rates and stimulate the economy when needed.

Buying power of one U.S. dollar compared to 1774 USD Year Equivalent buying power 1774 $1.00 1780 $0.59 1790 $0.89 1800 $0.64 1810 $0.66 1820 $0.69 1830 $0.88 1840 $0.94 1850 $1.03 1860 $0.97 Year Equivalent buying power 1870 $0.62 1880 $0.79 1890 $0.89 1900 $0.96 1910 $0.85 1920 $0.39 1930 $0.47 1940 $0.56 1950 $0.33 1960 $0.26 Year Equivalent buying power 1970 $0.20 1980 $0.10 1990 $0.06 2000 $0.05 2007 $0.04 2008 $0.04 2009 $0.04 2010 $0.035 2011 $0.034 2012 $0.03

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_currency

[Kowalski]

Question: What Is the Value of a Dollar Today?

Answer: The value of the dollar today is less than it was in the past. When the dollar loses value, that's called inflation. That's because prices seem inflated as each dollar is able to buy less and less.

How much lower is today's dollar value? Well, in 1913 you could buy as much with a dollar as you can with $23.19 in 2012, nearly 100 years later. By 1920, the dollar was worth only half, or $11.48 in today's value. Deflation (the opposite of inflation) during the Great Depression of 1929 increased the value of the dollar to $13.43. By 1940, the dollar was worth even more -- it could buy as much as $16.40 could today.

By 1950, the dollar's value had dropped even lower than before the Depression. It was worth only $9.53. It has fallen ever since:

• 1960 = $7.76
  
• 1970 = $5.92
  
• 1980 = $2.79
  
• 1990 = $1.76
  
• 2000 = $1.33
  
• 2010 - $1.05.
  

Why Is the Value of the Dollar Lower Today?

To some extent, inflation is the necessary cost of an expanding economy. The Fed keeps interest rates low to stimulate spending, which drives demand and ultimately economic growth. In fact, the Fed targets a 2% core inflation rate. In other words, as long as prices (excluding volatile food and energy) only goes up 2% a year, the economy will grow at a healthy rate.

Of course, this is just fine as long as your income also increases more than 2% a year. If not, then inflation will eat away at your standard of living. For many Americans, that is exactly what has happened. That's because income inequality has increased. Between 2000-2006, average wages remained flat despite an increase of worker productivity of 15%. In those six years, corporate profits increased 13% per year. And that was before the recession!

Taken from http://useconomy.abo...ollar_today.htm

Dollar Is Losing Value Over the Long-term:

The dollar's value can be measured by three methods: exchange rates, Treasury notes and foreign exchange reserves (the amount of dollars held by foreign countries). These three measurements usually are in sync with each other. No matter how you measure it, the dollar is losing value over the long-term. Here's why:

1. The U.S. debt is more than $16 trillion. Foreign holders of this debt are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar value decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
   
2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
   
3. As more countries join or trade with the European Union, demand for the euro increases.
   
4. Foreign investors are diversifying their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
   
5. As the dollar loses value, investors are less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.
   

Taken from http://useconomy.abo...ollar_Value.htm

Taken from http://www.freegrab.net/Decline%20in%20USA%20Dollar%20vs%20Gold.htm

Edited May 31, 2013 by Kowalski

[Jeremiah65]

Here is the best thing I have found to show the collapse of the dollar value. It doesn't take 100 years to see it, just 41 or so...back to about the time we came off the Gold standard...

In 1972, the price of an ounce of gold was $38.00 per ounce

(source = http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gold/300798.pdf )

In 1972, the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour.

A person in 1972 had to work approx 23.75 hours to earn the equivalent of an ounce of gold value.

In 2013, the price of gold is roughly $1400.00 an ounce (give or take) (roughly today's market value... $1,396.00 when I checked a few mins ago)

In 2013 the minimum wage is currently $7.25 and hour.

A person today must work approximately 193 hours to earn the equivalent to an ounce of gold.

Does that now show you the collapse of dollar value? Does it now show the collapse of the value of labor?

I am still reading my way through Adam Smith's "The wealth of Nations" written in 1776. It's a tough read, but it is a very informative and brilliantly written explanation of economy and commerce.

Though many say we will never have a new dominant party...I disagree...I am sure the Whigs and the Federalists thought they would be around forever as well. The Libertarians and possibly the Green party are going to replace the Republicans and Democrats eventually...it's inevitable in my opinion...

[Yamato]

There are a few devoted ideologues who still believe the old fears about budget deficits and just don't understand the difference between when a nation like the States has huge deficits and when a small country without its own currency or an individual has such debts. That three or four of such ideologues are now engaged in bandwagon propaganda tactics concerning what I post only confirms the ideological, cultist, rather than real nature of the beliefs. It is rather upsetting and of course frustrating that those who fail to pay attention to anything I've said accuse me of the same.

If the situation arose where the States did not have the revenues to pay its debts, there are a variety of things it could do short of defaulting -- all of which would be de facto defaults but not called that. Probably a special tax could be enacted on the bondholders, wiping out the debt. Or other taxes. Or print more money in some sort of special currency and pay the debt with that. Or engineer a spate of inflation. The lesson here is simple -- if you believe this scenario, then don't buy US government debt. That the Chinese and other smart groups continue to buy it speaks volumes.

Even a default is really a fairly small matter. The nation remains. The educated population remains. The highways and railroads and cities and farms and factories remain. The military remains.

The reality however is that it will never be allowed to get that bad. Economic growth is being stimulated that will bury the deficit in new revenues. They don't really need all that much growth to achieve this, accompanied with a touch of inflation. Also, of course, Obama is sharply reducing military spending (maybe dangerously -- we will see), which is helping with the deficit although weakening the growth that would otherwise occur.

Think, people, about reality, and not in such slogans as I've seen so far ("you cannot continue to live beyond your means" and other such silliness). Nations do live beyond their means and this is not only what they have always done, but what they should do. Government surpluses generate deflation and economic austerity and are always in the end disasters.

How can the US default on its debt when it has a magic printing press? Owe $950 trillion? Just log into the printing program on the computer, type in a lot of zeroes and print $950 trillion in one day if the presses can slap the ink on those paper rectangles fast enough. If the US did default I think it would be a disaster of unprecedented epic proportions, but there is no chance of that happening with the printer still slapping ink on cotton. Everything okay with that? Well, no. If economic growth is just money printing, why go to work? Who cares about unemployment, everyone can sit around all day and spend legal ponzi money with no end in sight. The problem is that there is no value created by printing money. Economic growth doesn't come from giant reams of paper, it comes from work.

Austerity always leads to disaster? US bonds are smart investments? Are you sure you're not questionmark? Post WWII was the greatest period of austerity in US history and economic growth exploded through the roof. Margaret Thatcher imposed austerity and the British economy recovered. "Always a disaster"? It's a disaster to the earliest recipients of government money (debt as money) and it's getting old catering to those people year after year, decade after decade. For an elderly bondholder wishing upon a star to keep the insolvent mess glued together so they can die and leave it to someone else, I would expect this kind of nonchalance.

You can't live beyond your means when your credit dries up and you can't borrow anymore, individual or country. Who is saying you can't live beyond your means when money is this easy, this greasy and this cheap? If we weren't living beyond our means the economy would reveal itself for what it really is and the party would be over. Not only would the middle class be dead so would the stock market and then because the rich people were complaining, the little people would come out of their holes and complain too.

We've already engineered a spate of inflation. Again, you seem impervious to the facts being presented before you right here on this thread to get caught saying such a thing. It's powerball liberal to complain about the money Obama isn't spending. Sounds like Mitt Romney at the 2012 RNC. The Marxist Liberal Communist and secret-Muslim wanted to cut spending? That is unacceptable in the desperate 11th hour of republican partisan politics. Especially the military. Government contracts == free enterprise. Spend a load of borrowed money you didn't have to raise taxes (yet) to pay for and tell everyone it's going to be okay. The shell game of the century.

[ninjadude]

I took polysci 101. I don't remember there a mandate that we could only have two political parties.

I didn't say that did I? If you would read, it says that out system tends to form two strong political parties.

[Jeremiah65]

I didn't say that did I? If you would read, it says that out system tends to form two strong political parties.

I don't normally agree with Ninjadude, but this time he is correct...not by the fault of the system, but by failure of the people to understand it is perfectly ok to vote for that which mostly adheres to your personal values. Most people have been hoodwinked into thinking they "MUST" vote for the dominant parties and that is just not the case.

I can agree with the Republicans and the Tea Party on fiscal responsibility...living within ones means. I can actually (though I am somewhat loathe to say so) agree with the democrats on social issues. I disagree with both of them on far more issues than I actually agree with them.

Now due to the extremism and political polarization...I don't think either of these dinosaurs actually represent the majority of the USA citizens. Most people I know are somewhat centrists...they lean a little left or a little right. The two "main" parties do not represent that...they are all in for one extreme or the other...and that is just silly to me.

For instance...

I understand we need some taxation to get things done we collectively agree on and need done.

I understand that we cannot allow our fellow citizens to just die because they have fallen on hard times...most likely, by no fault of their own.

What chaps my @ss is the overboard mentality we are seeing. It's not good enough to have a stron national defense...we have to dabble and manipulate all over the globe. It's not good enough that we can set up "temporary" programs to help someone down on their luck...we have created a system of dependence cradle to grave...and that is...well...counter-productive in my opinion. Some folks can be completely content with less if they have to put no effort forward...and I personally find that a failure to the advancement of our species. Everyone should be hoping to help make a better tomorrow...again...my opinion.

I have said many-many times that I see the problem with our system is the overpowering hand of gov that deters from entrepreneurship and ingenuity. If I have to march a gauntlet just to start a business...whatever type...I am more inclined to say "screw it"...and not jump through those hoops. Sure, I would love to create things...and jobs along with it...not because I am personally greedy and want to have "more" than the guy next door...but because I like to create things...it's a weird thing inside me personally...has nothing to do with the financial rewards. I want to make the world a better place...just because...no logical or rational explanation can be found to describe that desire. It is just there.

Anyway...we have some issues heading down the pike at us and we are NOT socially prepared for it. I am going to make a lame prediction....I would say by the mid to late summer, the "food belt" is going to be in drought again. Sure, they are flooding right now...just like before...and the rains will stop...just like before...(If I am wrong I will own up to it...but I doubt I am.)

If I am right....we need to take a seriously hard look at infrastructure and what we can do to alleviate these problems in the long term. If this climate pattern turns out to be long term...which something tells me it will...then we need to look at water management during "the rainy season" so that water is available to farmers during the "drought" season. If am completely off mark and the rains continue all summer long...I will admit I was wrong. I just don't think I am going to be proven wrong. These are the issues I want my tax dollars going to...I want political leadership that is clever and foresighted enough to say "we need to address this"...the worst thing that could happen is we build water retention facilities for the spring rains and find we do not need them....resort lakes anyone?

Edited May 31, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[regeneratia]

[media=]http://youtu.be/nxa_U9Yiz9w[/media]

FYI, there were voices in the dark, so to speak, if you don't count McClatchy as a mainstream media source. Dean Baker was reporting on the housing bubble three years before it popped. If you (hypothetically-speaking) heeded his warnings, you would have avoided the housing bubble. He sees things as they are, and challenges the mind-set presented by mainstream media if he disagrees with it. The same goes for the Social Security issue that Bush was seriously pushing. There was no problem with social security at the time, as again he was a voice in the dark.

I highly advise reading this fella routinely. Explore his site and read the historical reports at important times. Dean Baker.

http://www.cepr.net/

Moral of this post: if things appear to be too good to be true, they probably ARE too good to be true.

Edited June 2, 2013 by regeneratia

[Frank Merton]

What happens if the present Fed policy fails? As I see it they are walking along a ledge, a slip from which sends the US and then the world into major, catastrophic depression, with ensuing political effects we cannot but begin to imagine (the 1930s depression and the wars that followed give us suggestions).

One of the main mistakes of the 1930s Fed was keeping money too tight. This Fed is not making that mistake, and so we have seen a US economy slowly improving, in spite of unbelievably unfortunate administration acts (in regulation, labor policy, health care initiatives, tax attitudes, and so on, scaring business from investing) and political logjam rendering the political system in the States virtually inoperative except for the Fed

[acidhead]

What happens if the present Fed policy fails? As I see it they are walking along a ledge, a slip from which sends the US and then the world into major, catastrophic depression, with ensuing political effects we cannot but begin to imagine (the 1930s depression and the wars that followed give us suggestions).

One of the main mistakes of the 1930s Fed was keeping money too tight. This Fed is not making that mistake, and so we have seen a US economy slowly improving, in spite of unbelievably unfortunate administration acts (in regulation, labor policy, health care initiatives, tax attitudes, and so on, scaring business from investing) and political logjam rendering the political system in the States virtually inoperative except for the Fed

Yes... the Fed's refusal to loan out new money at a lower interest rate was the main cause of the Great Depression. The Fed was responsible for the failure in the market. So what was their solution? Close the banks, make a law banning possession of gold and devalue everybodys money by repegging gold from around $22 to $35 per oz. Back then society was a lot more egalitarian minded than today. Communities banded together, the majority of families grew their own food and house hold debt was not an issue.

Fast forward to today and the Fed is an out of control printing press creating new money like there is no tomorrow by using historic low interest rates to keep the entire system afloat. A system manipulated by investment banks who are using the cheap money to continue the scam of over leveraging the market. This scam of leverage privatizes the profits and socializes the losses onto the public.

The Fed has proven it's a failure at being responsible for balancing the money supply in relation to the market. In the 30's it didn't do anything. Today the Fed is doing TOO much. It will fail again. It's only a matter of time.

[Frank Merton]

You may be correct, but I hope not and, in fact, expect that they will pull the States through it.

Yes they are no just throwing money out of helicopters, they have the full US air fleet bombing the country with money. Traditionally that should destroy the bond market and generate wild inflation. That it hasn't merely shows how close the US was to serious deflation, with its excessive personal debt and excess capacity.

Now that some of the excess capacity is being absorbed (although plainly not much of the excess available labor as yet), it needs to keep up what its doing and stimulate a little more inflation and a good deal more growth. With a nominally larger economy, the deficits will disappear and the debt will become more manageable.

The politicians have been no help, and some (the Libertarians in particular) have been a hindrance by continuing to spread an inapplicable ideology. The States needs to liberalize immigration, go on a capital spending spree, and reduce corporate taxes to stimulate growth. Instead, all the right seems to know is austerity and all the left seems to know is their silly ideas of tax fairness and economic equality.

[acidhead]

You may be correct, but I hope not and, in fact, expect that they will pull the States through it.

Yes they are no just throwing money out of helicopters, they have the full US air fleet bombing the country with money. Traditionally that should destroy the bond market and generate wild inflation. That it hasn't merely shows how close the US was to serious deflation, with its excessive personal debt and excess capacity.

Now that some of the excess capacity is being absorbed (although plainly not much of the excess available labor as yet), it needs to keep up what its doing and stimulate a little more inflation and a good deal more growth. With a nominally larger economy, the deficits will disappear and the debt will become more manageable.

The politicians have been no help, and some (the Libertarians in particular) have been a hindrance by continuing to spread an inapplicable ideology. The States needs to liberalize immigration, go on a capital spending spree, and reduce corporate taxes to stimulate growth. Instead, all the right seems to know is austerity and all the left seems to know is their silly ideas of tax fairness and economic equality.

What goes up will eventually come down.... never forget this.

'the bigger they are the harder they fall'

GOV is supposed to respect this law. Protect liberty.

[-M7]

First person(and anyone else) who says that the more political parties the merrier is a COMPLETE MORON(*echo effect*).

The current 2 "recognized" parties are "too much" as is.

There should only one "recognized" political party and thats the independents; this in turn means there are no political parties.

But you just add more political parties and your left with total chaos.

[acidhead]

First person(and anyone else) who says that the more political parties the merrier is a COMPLETE MORON(*echo effect*).

The current 2 "recognized" parties are "too much" as is.

There should only one "recognized" political party and thats the independents; this in turn means there are no political parties.

But you just add more political parties and your left with total chaos.

psychos... all of them... anybody who runs for office in an attempt to force everybody to live their lives according to how they lead theirs is a psycho by my book.

Edited July 9, 2013 by acidhead

[The Silver Thong]

Ron Paul was the United States last hope and would have been killed in his first term imo. There is nothing more scary then a the worlds most powerful nation going broke and going military covert on the planet. It`s true the 4 th world war will be fought with sticks and stones. The US is the tumar but the banks are the cancer.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

First person(and anyone else) who says that the more political parties the merrier is a COMPLETE MORON(*echo effect*).

the I sir am a maroon.

There are two ways of getting your voice heard in a representative democracy. One is to run yourself. One is to vote for someone whose voice echoes yours.

You can't get that with John Jackson and Jack Johnson.

[Yamato]

there are like 30 political parties. What are you whining about?

How about the Republocrat rules that unfairly discriminate against them, keeping them off ballots and keeping them out of debates? Aren't you the one always whining about monopolies? Why do bureaucrat wannabes get a pass? Now that Obama has been President for five years, do you realize how addled you look for supporting George W. Bush?

The better of two bads isn't good enough for America. And if that isn't bad enough, now the bankers are trying to cut our choice down to the two pageant winners in the same party. Only 200 views in three months on Youtube?

Even the posters here that are complaining about this and dozens of other problems in our country are strangely silent when I offer up criticism of the Federal Reserve. We are not connecting the dots here folks.

[Frank Merton]

You haven't connected the dots for quite some time, so don't accuse others

[Frank Merton]

the I sir am a maroon.

There are two ways of getting your voice heard in a representative democracy. One is to run yourself. One is to vote for someone whose voice echoes yours.

You can't get that with John Jackson and Jack Johnson.

I disagree that the more political parties the better, but your point is well taken. Running yourself is only possible if you are wealthy or a celebrity, since name recognition counts for more than ideas. Voting for someone whose voice echoes yours is impossible since there are so many different issue you are bound to disagree on many, and even if you found such a candidate could you give them your trust?

The problem with more political parties is that each party becomes the party of a single position on a single issue and voices of moderation and compromise have no vehicle.

The other alternatives are a single-party state and a no-party state. In the latter each candidate runs as themselves and a series of primaries are held, each removing those getting a continually increasing portion of the vote, until someone emerges with a majority. This differs from where parties nominate their candidates and then stand against each other. The problem with this arrangement is that too often the winner is the "man on the white horse" who wins on personality and charisma or on some heroic deed rather than on a collection of principles.

The single-party state selects its candidate by having caucuses that select delegates that select delegates and so on. Faceless types tend to emerge that are known to the party members personally, and celebrity and money is in fact a disadvantage.

[Frank Merton]

Ron Paul was the United States last hope and would have been killed in his first term imo. There is nothing more scary then a the worlds most powerful nation going broke and going military covert on the planet. It`s true the 4 th world war will be fought with sticks and stones. The US is the tumar but the banks are the cancer.

The United States is not going broke. The Federal Government may or may not (time will tell) have made more promises than its future economy will be able to pay, but this is just the Federal Government, not the nation.

Sovereign states do not go broke. They continue to collect taxes. What happens is they default in some way (usually carefully hidden) on their existing debt. The usual way this is done is with a slow but steady increase in prices -- two or so percent a year -- not so much as to be much noticed and with indexing to help certain special groups. Two percent a year over a couple of decades is a lot.

The second way is they grow their economy, through population increase and higher living standards. Technology does a lot here. This allows them to have even more inflation than they seem to have as much of it is absorbed by prices of technological stuff dropping. The growth is usually brought about by spending more than is taken in -- running a deficit.

Of course there is always available as a stop-gap a weakening of the currency or, if you are a stupid country like Argentina, a mass devaluation that sets your nation back a couple decades but rescues the politicians.

One thing a nation never, never wants to do is what Clinton stupidly allowed to happen -- run a surplus. This takes money away from people and engenders a recession or worse, hence the troubles we have had since.