By Nick, Chief John Bull Correspondent-
Yes, its that time again. I don't ever stop annoying all two of you who actually read this blog. Its time for another post, but this time, about the economy.
As a stock/forex/commodities trader, people look at me like I know exactly what's going on and why in our economy. But, to tell you the truth, I have absolutley no idea. No one, not even Mr. Bernankie (spelling?) the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, actually knows where we are in relation to going into a recession.
Some people are saying "Oh, our economy isn't doing that bad! People are just focusing on the bad sectors!" while yet others say "Oh, God! We're F#$%ed! We're all doomed! This is the start of a new era where we're not the King anymore! We're F@#$ed!"
As usual, and as I previously stated, I have no Idea, and no one truly does. I think that the economy can't possibly get any worse news than we already have. I think we've hit bottom, even though house pices haven't. But a few of the things causing this "era of economic uncertainty" are: The Mortgage Crisis (and all the stupid people who took the loans), rising costs of living, the China situation, the "War on Terrorism", and the (dun, dun, dun) $Dollar.
The Mortgage Crisis: This is simple. Retards took out loans that they couldn't pay, or that they could only pay for a short time before the interest rate sky-rocketed. This caused banks to forclose on millions of homes, and led to a decrease in home prices.
Rising Costs of Living: Most people know this. Its the fact that prices for the basic needs in life, like food and gasoline, are steadily rising, meaning that the middle-class American (the driving force behind the US, and the US Economy) has less money to spend on luxury goods, and even some nessesities. That, plus the fact that they don't have a home now, probably won't allow them to buy like crazy for a while. Pretty simple so far.
The China Situation: Most people have heard of outsourcing. Thats what this is. American blue-collar jobs moving overseas to China, mainly. Mostly because they can make it for really cheap there, in their free-market-zoned areas. Some politicians claim that this is part of America becoming a post-industrial nation. Meaning that most, or all of our jobs are in the service sector. But the true meaning of "post-industrial" is that the service sector's growth far out-paces that of the industrial sector, so that it seams that there are little to no jobs in the industrial environment.
War on Terrorism: Everyone's heard of this. Bush's trillion-dollar war. It is costing the country and our economy trillions in dollars, and resources, such as oil, and metal. It also ties into the next vice.
The (dun, dun, dun) $Dollar: This, of course, is the problem with the declining dollar. Besides being good for exports (the few we actually have), it is hell on the financial sector. But not only the declining dollar: the Chinese have trillions of $USD's that they've aquired over the years from our imports from them, that they connot use, because they bearly import anything from us. But the US Companies cannot use them either, because they're in the vaults of the Bank of China, and those of Chinese compainies. But the reason for the dollar's decline is because of a side-effect of the War on Terrorism and the American way of Life: Debt. America has a nine-trillion dollar national debt that's 15 zero's or $9,000,000,000,000,000. Caused primarily from the US borrowing from US companies and US allies for the costs War on Terrorism. These natoins will not, however, nearly ever call on us to "pay-up". Making us pay would force the US government and economy into Bankruptcy, of course causing the world as we know it to end. Basically, the dollar is backed, not by the value of gold, silver, or anything, andthing, that is, besides Debt. That's why the dollar is "in the crapper" so to speak.
I Know some of you are saying "well what about that stimulus package from the government? Won't that help?" The answer: absolutley not. About 3/4 of the US econonomy is in the craper right now. The total yearly output of the US economy is eleven-trillion dollars (that's $11,000,000,000,000,000) and the stimulus package gives only about onehundred-billion to lenders only. We cannot count on the government to get us out of this. You know that saying "Good enough for government work". We'll have to rely on good old-fashioned caputalism to come up with a solution to cover the losses, for a price of course.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Secret of Micronationalism
By Nick, Chief John Bull Correspondent-
I think this is a rather interresting story. You've heard of civil wars, and revolutions, and large groups forming their nations, but not so often. Well these "micronationalists" actually form their own countries. Most are in it just for fun, others for more seriuos matters, such as scams, and tax havens. These "nations" are almost all unrecognized. They also consist of normally no more than about 50 citizens.
Some of the more famous of these are nations such as: the Principality of Sealand, the United Socialist States of Baugnia, the Kingdom of Talossa, Lovley, the Socialist Federal Republic of Academe North, and thousands more. You can actually become citizens of these nations. These countries can give out certificates that allow Lawyers and Doctors to practice in their nations, they make currency, organizations, stamps, passports, universities, and much, much more. They also have citizens all around the world.
If you declare you home a sovereign nation, you can pretty much do whatever you want there, but be careful, because the "host nation" might not recognize you as independent.
I'm not going to write too much more about this, but here's a list of websites and activities to discover more about micronations:
Google these nations to find out the stories behind them:
-Sealand
-Talossa
-Lovley
-Baugnia
Visit these websites to discover more:
-www.ussbgov.org (the website of Baugnia)
-www.kingdomoftalossa.net
-www.talossa.com (Republic of Talossa)
-www.sealandgov.org
-www.wikipedia.com
You can contribute to this topic by attaching a comment to this story, or by sending your own micronation story to press42.thejohnbull@blogger.com.
I think this is a rather interresting story. You've heard of civil wars, and revolutions, and large groups forming their nations, but not so often. Well these "micronationalists" actually form their own countries. Most are in it just for fun, others for more seriuos matters, such as scams, and tax havens. These "nations" are almost all unrecognized. They also consist of normally no more than about 50 citizens.
Some of the more famous of these are nations such as: the Principality of Sealand, the United Socialist States of Baugnia, the Kingdom of Talossa, Lovley, the Socialist Federal Republic of Academe North, and thousands more. You can actually become citizens of these nations. These countries can give out certificates that allow Lawyers and Doctors to practice in their nations, they make currency, organizations, stamps, passports, universities, and much, much more. They also have citizens all around the world.
If you declare you home a sovereign nation, you can pretty much do whatever you want there, but be careful, because the "host nation" might not recognize you as independent.
I'm not going to write too much more about this, but here's a list of websites and activities to discover more about micronations:
Google these nations to find out the stories behind them:
-Sealand
-Talossa
-Lovley
-Baugnia
Visit these websites to discover more:
-www.ussbgov.org (the website of Baugnia)
-www.kingdomoftalossa.net
-www.talossa.com (Republic of Talossa)
-www.sealandgov.org
-www.wikipedia.com
You can contribute to this topic by attaching a comment to this story, or by sending your own micronation story to press42.thejohnbull@blogger.com.
Those darn conservatives
By Nick, Chief John Bull Correspondent-
I'm sure you've seen those republicans at the debates a little while ago arguing about who's more conservative than who, but isn't that, oh, I don't know...retarded? Who only wants a president to look at something one way?
I think most of us NORMAL people would like to not have either a neo-conservative or a neo-liberal in the white house. That's like a bad student or a bad teacher would think:
The bad teacher only thinks through their eyes, and not about the student's outside life, or other homework, or what they think of the teacher. The student only thinks about how much homework he/she has, and not the fact that the teacher has to grade it, plan it and do the same for his/her other classes. In both theses situations the result is someone doing their job perfectly wrong.
I am a under-dog person. I wanted the Giants to win from the behinning. I also wanted to see John Edwards in the white house. Unfortnetly, America is not normally for the underdogs, nomatter how expensive their haircuts. I hoped for a long time to see Edwards as the winner's vice president. Now think that Obama is the best choice, as long as he gets Universal Healthcare from Hillary, and gets a little integrity from Edwards.
I was kind-of rooting for Mitt Romney, but thats because I'm originally from Michigan. But I didn't want to see him get the nice chair in the oval office. But I don't think that Huckeby is going to win, plus I just don't like something about him, and I think that most Americans don't either. And John McCain, gulp. He looks kind-of evil doesnt he? I don't like his positions either. He's too conservative for me, but so is Huckeby.
Isn't this kind-of like the last presidential election? There aren't any really good candidates, atleast that we know of. The only difference is that there will now be am African American or a Woman in the white house, unless the Democrats screw it up...again...and then there'll be another white, evil, old fart in the oval office. Isn't that something to celebrate?
This is the off-topic part of the article. I try to bring you (that's right, all two of you who read The John Bull) atleast one story (or opinion thingy-ma-jig) every day, sometimes two. But I know that you're just thirsting restlessly for more. So ANY sane PERSON who wants to write for The John Bull, just email your stories to press42.thejohnbull@blogger.com and it might make it to this page. If you send us enough good stories, we'll give you what's called a "writership" here at The Bull that'll make you an official correspondent.
I'm sure you've seen those republicans at the debates a little while ago arguing about who's more conservative than who, but isn't that, oh, I don't know...retarded? Who only wants a president to look at something one way?
I think most of us NORMAL people would like to not have either a neo-conservative or a neo-liberal in the white house. That's like a bad student or a bad teacher would think:
The bad teacher only thinks through their eyes, and not about the student's outside life, or other homework, or what they think of the teacher. The student only thinks about how much homework he/she has, and not the fact that the teacher has to grade it, plan it and do the same for his/her other classes. In both theses situations the result is someone doing their job perfectly wrong.
I am a under-dog person. I wanted the Giants to win from the behinning. I also wanted to see John Edwards in the white house. Unfortnetly, America is not normally for the underdogs, nomatter how expensive their haircuts. I hoped for a long time to see Edwards as the winner's vice president. Now think that Obama is the best choice, as long as he gets Universal Healthcare from Hillary, and gets a little integrity from Edwards.
I was kind-of rooting for Mitt Romney, but thats because I'm originally from Michigan. But I didn't want to see him get the nice chair in the oval office. But I don't think that Huckeby is going to win, plus I just don't like something about him, and I think that most Americans don't either. And John McCain, gulp. He looks kind-of evil doesnt he? I don't like his positions either. He's too conservative for me, but so is Huckeby.
Isn't this kind-of like the last presidential election? There aren't any really good candidates, atleast that we know of. The only difference is that there will now be am African American or a Woman in the white house, unless the Democrats screw it up...again...and then there'll be another white, evil, old fart in the oval office. Isn't that something to celebrate?
This is the off-topic part of the article. I try to bring you (that's right, all two of you who read The John Bull) atleast one story (or opinion thingy-ma-jig) every day, sometimes two. But I know that you're just thirsting restlessly for more. So ANY sane PERSON who wants to write for The John Bull, just email your stories to press42.thejohnbull@blogger.com and it might make it to this page. If you send us enough good stories, we'll give you what's called a "writership" here at The Bull that'll make you an official correspondent.
Religion in politics?
By Nick, Chief John Bull Correspondent-
I think that religion in politics is a good thing. Of course not too much religion though. Afterall, Christianity did contribute to the fall of Rome. But I think that the press should lay-off these religious candidates. Yeah, some of them really freak me out, but give them a break.
When the press brings up questions about a candidates religion, it really pisses me off. Saying that some of these moderatly-religious individuals is like asking for someone to become leader of the free world that thinks they never will be held accountable for their actions. All people should have an authority hanging over their head, so to speak, that will '"get 'em for the bad d'ey done". When someone gets the idea that they can do whatever they want, especially in a position of power.
Don't get me wrong though, I am not calling for a person who is willing to light themselves up "for God" to be president, just not an evil person, like, Dick Cheny.
Theres a poll at the top right-hand side of this page, on the sidebar where you can vote on your view on this topic.
I think that religion in politics is a good thing. Of course not too much religion though. Afterall, Christianity did contribute to the fall of Rome. But I think that the press should lay-off these religious candidates. Yeah, some of them really freak me out, but give them a break.
When the press brings up questions about a candidates religion, it really pisses me off. Saying that some of these moderatly-religious individuals is like asking for someone to become leader of the free world that thinks they never will be held accountable for their actions. All people should have an authority hanging over their head, so to speak, that will '"get 'em for the bad d'ey done". When someone gets the idea that they can do whatever they want, especially in a position of power.
Don't get me wrong though, I am not calling for a person who is willing to light themselves up "for God" to be president, just not an evil person, like, Dick Cheny.
Theres a poll at the top right-hand side of this page, on the sidebar where you can vote on your view on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)