Republicans Vote Reagan and Trump as Best Recent Presidents (msn.com)
So here’s what the Socialists are planning for 2024…
They will Plant Joey in again and will make Newsom the VP… When Joey kicks the bucket Newsom is Prez Without a Single Vote… This is why Newsom went to CHINA to Kiss Xi’s ASS ~ Much like Joey does All the Time for Obama = Biden = Newsom…. Overproduction
of the fiat currency = No Domestic Drilling= Carbon Tax= Illegal Immigration= Anti Bill
of Rights = Anti Law Enforcement/Small Business = Anti-Semitic/Christian = Child Sex Trafficking = CRT= LGBTQ= Tyranny = Communist/Islamic Aggression = Global Nuclear War = Pre-Tribulation Rapture= Tribulation. These are not in a consequential causal link, but part and parcel to effort by globalist tyrants.
Speaker Johnson just announced no impeachment (which tells me he was threatened by the Elites). My faith in the federal government is gone. Trump winning is our Hail Mary 4th down TD pass hope. Trump always encourages everyone to seek repentance/faith in Jesus Christ, Hashem/Almighty God’s Son. He is our Last Hope in this Hopeless World.
‘We’re looking at a downsized America’: Kevin O’Leary warns any new house,
car and lifestyle you enjoy will be significantly ‘smaller’ — here’s what he means
and how you can adjust (yahoo.com)
“We’re looking at a downsized America,” warns Kevin O’Leary
The impact of high rates extends beyond the housing market. “You want
to borrow money for a car? Sorry, that’s 8-to-9%. Used to be 5%,” O’Leary continued.
“So, a smaller, less expensive car. That’s happening at the same time.” Edmunds reports that borrowing rates for new vehicles in the third quarter of 2023 hit an average of 7.4%,
a figure not seen since 2007. O’Leary summed it up by saying that if you are in your early 20s, your lifestyle will be “about 20% less.”
Let’s see: Lying liberal ult-left anarchist country destroying DEMON-RAT
democrats raised US deficit spending by over $3 TRILLION DOLLARS. Then, blatantly bribed brain-dead Biden attacked the US energy industry, banned drilling on federal lands (where it had previously been authorized by DJT) & told financial institutions to stop loaning working capital funds to US oil drilling companies!!
Result: Just the News reports,
“California living costs typical middle-class family an extra $26,479 per year”
Gee thanks to Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi & the rest of US Dems!!
—-DEMS IN A BLANKET–FRY ‘EM LIKE BACON!!!
Life is too short to be anything but happy
I’d leave but spent my whole life here.
My work connections are here. Family and friends are here. Plus stand a good chance
my neighbors would hate on me because of where I came from. They’ll say stupid shit like. Don’t bring your blue wave with you. Many of us don’t vote blue here. If they cannot afford to live in California and they move from the state, leave their liberal voting behind!
Don’t screw up the rest of the country because you are a Democrat!
Ken Paxton | Here’s the Truth about Election Fraud – CITIZEN FREE PRESS
The government bailed the banks out, but even with their help, they continued to work under debt. Many companies were in trouble as well but could no longer obtain credit.
People were losing their jobs and could not afford to spend money or pay their debts.
Japan was struggling. The property values were spiraling, interest rates going down, and unemployment was rising. A lot of people who were employed worked part-time because companies were cutting costs wherever they could. GDP was declining or stagnating.
Can The Effects Still Be Felt Today?
A prolonged stagnation that followed has left lasting effects that the country still endures today. As the term Lost Decade was becoming more popular, the consequences of the economic crisis were still widely felt well past the ten years.
A new decade came, but the trial was not over yet.
Today, Japan is still fighting deflation, low-interest rates, and weak banks. Even though the effect of the lost decade has lessened, there are new challenges ahead as there are still many people working part-time jobs that lack stability. This, combined with a rise in the older population that is common in many developed countries, makes tackling modern negative economic trends shortly after a problematic period such a difficult task.
To have a one world government all countries have to have the same economy. 3rd world countries cannot come into ours so we have to go down to theirs!! Once that happens it’s over. So connect the dots people!!! We are on our way. On purpose and all by design!! OBVIOUSLY!!
VOTE TRUMP AND IT WON’T HAPPEN!
THAT’S EXACTLY WHY THEY WANT HIM FINANCIALLY DESTROYED AND PERSONALLY DESTROYED AND HIS FAMILY!!
HE ALREADY SET THEIR AGENDA BACK 4 YEARS SO THEY HAVE BEEN TRAVELING DOWN AND FREAKING OUT!!
THEY EVEN RELEASED A VIRUS TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY AND TO STOP TRUMP!!
For The Defense With Brad Koffel:
THE INDICTMENT OF DONALD TRUMP IS A THREAT TO ALL OF US on Apple Podcasts
US National Debt by Year (thebalancemoney.com)
Inflation is the result of bad fiscal policies,
in short, overspending and it seems the deeper they take us into debt, the deeper they want us to go. Buden never had a real job in his entire life, he doesn’t know jack about working Americans trying to pay their bills and make ends meet! As it will turn out he’s stolen from us for 5 decades! Only a moron would vote for this imbecile. No way we have 81 million morons, that’s why these tyrannical Marxists are so deranged about Trump.
The Lost Decade of Japan – Bing video Financial crisis in Japan.You have probably heard of the Great Depression in the 1930s,
but have you heard of a similar period in Japan’s history?
If the answer is no, here is everything you need to know
about the ‘lost decade’ in Japan.
What Caused the Lost Decade in Japan?
Similarly, to the USA in the second half of the 20th century, Japan’s economy was experiencing growth that culminated in the 1980s. The decade in question is sometimes called the ”Decade of Greed” as earnings and spendings were very high. Until the mid-2000s, everything seemed to go well, but as nothing lasts forever, a crisis began in 2008. A significant decline happened in Japan a bit earlier, in the 1990s. This recession period lasted from 1991 to 2002, and the period is now commonly known as the Lost Decade.
Why Did The Lost Decade Happen?
The main reason can be found in a significant fall in the financial markets. This was then followed by the fall of the real economy which caused a severe economic crisis. In the economic bubble of the 80s, banks were loaning more and more money and did not pay close attention to the client’s capability to pay them back. Ultimately, this state of affairs could not keep up, and the economic system collapsed.
How Did It Happen?
When the Bank of Japan raised the inter-banking lending rate to stabilize the market filled with bad loans, the unrealistic economic situation began bursting. As property and stock prices both fell, assets of companies and banks were now worth less than their liabilities.
Low to no equity and decreasing value of assets meant that financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies were in debt, including major national banks.
The economy crashed, and financial institutions were facing serious losses. Because real estate prices plummeted, stock prices were falling rapidly, and bad loans became a burden on the whole system.
The term “Lost Decade for Stocks”
Refers to the 10-year period from 12/31/1999 through 12/31/2009, when the S&P 500® generated an annualized total return of -0.9% over the period. This was only the second time that the market actually had a negative total return over a decade period. The other period was the Great Depression decade of the 1930s.
After four decades of incredible performance, the stock market could be at the beginning of a lost decade. Yes, the S&P 500 has dropped 2.5% on Friday, and is down 23% in 2022.
But it’s impossible to overstate just how good stock market returns have been for investors over the last 40 years—and for even longer. From the S&P 500’s low of 102.20 in 1982 through its peak of 4818.62 in January 2022, the index returned 12.9% annually including reinvested dividends. That’s slightly above the average of 11.8% going back to 1928.
But the stock market goes through “lost decades,” periods where returns are hard to come by. The most recent occurred from the dot-com peak in 2000 through 2013, when the stock market finally broke out in a meaningful way. Before that, the stock market remained mired in a decade-plus trading range from 1968 through 1982, when the S&P 500 returned just 4% annualized including reinvested dividends.
There’s reason to think a similar period of sideways trading could emerge out of today’s market chaos. Société Générale’s Albert Edwards has been singing the same tune for a long time about the end of what he calls the “Ice Age,” a period of “secular stagnation” that left yields low and boosted asset prices. But now, he looks like he may be right. Instead of printing money and cutting rates to boost the economy, central banks will now have to deal with governments that seem more willing to spend than ever, bringing “higher growth, higher inflation, and higher interest rates across the curve,” he writes.
“The party for investors is over. The Great Melt won’t only melt the ‘Ice’ in
‘Ice Age’, but investor returns are set to melt away too.”
If Edwards is correct, it will come as a shock to investors who are used to stocks going up most of the time, and a Fed that always had the market’s back. It will also require more than a simple buy-the-S&P-500-and-hold strategy. Stiefel strategist Barry Bannister has argued that investors will need to be more tactical, buying when the market is weak and selling when it is strong. Dividends, too, will be far more important. It’s one reason the S&P 500 could lose 5.7% from its 1968 high through its 1982 low and investors could still emerge with a positive return, at least before adjusting for inflation. Investors have been spoiled for a while. Now we’ll have to work for our money.
Everything old is new again
There are indeed similarities between today and what occurred 50 years ago, conditions that led to the Great Inflation of the 1970s, such as: Massive government deficit spending to finance the Great Society and the Vietnam War.
President Nixon taking the U.S. dollar off the gold standard.
Shocks to the economy from the OPEC oil embargo.
Federal Reserve easy money policies.
Compare that with today.
The Federal Reserve has been at the center of a near-zero-percent interest rate environment since the Great Recession. The government’s budget deficit of $2.8 trillion
in 2021 was the second largest on record.
The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in early 2021 is often cited as particularly responsible for the inflation we’re experiencing today, and the war in Ukraine is exacerbating the rise in oil prices that were already going up long
before Russian troops entered the country.
We’re also suffering from holdovers from the pandemic, such as supply chain disruptions that are still causing havoc even as much of the world increasingly views COVID-19 as being in the rearview mirror.
The same, but different IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.
Despite the similarities, there are some differences. For example, supply chain shortages are starting to ease, though the effects will continue to linger.
Moreover, the oil situation is actually much different than what it was back then.
The International Money Fund says the 1970s’ “global oil intensity,” or the number of barrels needed to produce $1 million in gross domestic product, was well over 800 barrels, around 3.5 times greater than today.
And where oil prices that recently topped $120 per barrel helped produce gasoline prices north of $5 per gallon at the pump, the increase doesn’t have the same economic impact as it did when oil went from $3 a barrel in 1970 to over $10 four years later, before quadrupling in price again by the end of the decade.
We’re just not as dependent on oil today as we were, and while oil is still a key economic sector, it’s not enough to wreak havoc on the economy in the same way.
It’s also worth noting that the stock market, though down year to date, is still up 18% since the beginning of the 2020s. That includes the dramatic 34% decline witnessed at the onset of the pandemic.
Demonstrators in Mexico City march in protest of the International Monetary Fund and the Mexican government, 1986 (Photo: Sergio Dorantes/Sygma/Getty Images)
by Jocelyn Sims, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and Jesse Romero, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
Sections Working Toward a Resolution: IMF and Central Bank Involvement
The Origins of the Debt Crisis
Lessons Learned
Latin American Debt Crisis of the 1980s. 1982–1989
During the 1980s—a period often referred to as the “lost decade”—many Latin American countries were unable to service their foreign debt.
During the Latin American debt crisis of the 1980s—a period often referred to as the “lost decade”—many Latin American countries became unable to service their foreign debt. The Federal Reserve and other international institutions responded to the crisis with a number of actions that ultimately helped alleviate the situation, albeit with some unintended consequences.
The Origins of the Debt Crisis
During the 1970s, two large oil price shocks created current account deficits in many Latin American countries. At the same time, these shocks created current account surpluses among oil-exporting countries. With the encouragement of the US government, large US money-center banks were willing intermediaries between the two groups, providing the exporting countries with a safe, liquid place for their funds and then lending those funds to Latin America (FDIC 1997).1
Latin American borrowing from US commercial banks and other creditors increased dramatically during the 1970s. At the end of 1970, total outstanding debt from all sources totaled only $29 billion, but by the end of 1978, that number had skyrocketed to $159 billion. By 1982, the debt level reached $327 billion (FDIC 1997).
The potential risk of the growing involvement of US banks in Latin American and other less-developed country (LDC) debt didn’t go unnoticed. In 1977, during a speech at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, then-Fed Chairman Arthur Burns criticized commercial banks for assuming excessive risk in their Third World lending (FDIC 1997). Still, by 1982, the nine largest US money-center banks held Latin American debt amounting to 176 percent of their capital; their total LDC debt was nearly 290 percent of capital (Sachs 1988).
The near-zero real rates of interest on short-term loans along with world economic expansion made this situation tenable in the early part of the 1970s. By late in the decade, however, the priority of the industrialized world was lowering inflation, which led to a tightening of monetary policy in the United States and Europe. Nominal interest rates rose globally, and in 1981 the world economy entered a recession. At the same time, commercial banks began to shorten re-payment periods and charge higher interest rates for loans. The Latin American countries soon found their debt burdens unsustainable (Devlin and Ffrench-Davis 1995).
The spark for the crisis occurred in August 1982, when Mexican Finance Minister Jesús Silva Herzog informed the Federal Reserve chairman, the US Treasury secretary, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) managing director that Mexico would no longer be able to service its debt, which at that point totaled $80 billion. Other countries quickly followed suit. Ultimately, sixteen Latin American countries rescheduled their debts, as well as eleven LDCs in other parts of the world (FDIC 1997).
In response, many banks stopped new overseas lending and tried to collect on and restructure existing loan portfolios. The abrupt cut-off in bank financing plunged many Latin American countries into deep recession and laid bare the shortcomings of previous economic policies, described by former Federal Reserve Governor Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. as based on “high domestic consumption, heavy borrowing from abroad, unsustainable currency levels, and excessive intervention by government into the economy” (Ferguson 1999).
Working Toward a Resolution: IMF and Central Bank Involvement.
As transcripts from the July 1982 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting illustrate, committee members felt it was necessary to take action (FOMC 1982). In August, the Fed convened an emergency meeting of central bankers from around the world to provide a bridge loan to Mexico. Fed officials also encouraged US banks to participate in a program to reschedule Mexico’s loans (Aggarwal 2000).
As the crisis spread beyond Mexico,
the United States took the lead in organizing an “international lender of last resort,”
a cooperative rescue effort among commercial banks, central banks, and the IMF.
Under the program, commercial banks agreed to restructure the countries’ debt, and the IMF and other official agencies lent the LDCs sufficient funds to pay the interest, but not principal, on their loans. In return, the LDCs agreed to undertake structural reforms of their economies and to eliminate budget deficits. The hope was that these reforms would enable the LDCs to increase exports and generate the trade surpluses and dollars necessary to pay down their external debt (Devlin and Ffrench-Davis 1995).
Although this program averted an immediate crisis, it allowed the problem to fester. Instead of eliminating subsidies to state-owned enterprises, many LDC countries instead cut spending on infrastructure, health, and education, and froze wages or laid off state employees. The result was high unemployment, steep declines in per capita income, and stagnant or negative growth—hence the term the “lost decade” (Carrasco 1999).
US banking regulators allowed lenders to delay recognizing the full extent of the losses on LDC lending in their loan loss provisions. This forbearance reflected a belief that had the losses been fully recognized, the banks would have been deemed insolvent and faced increased funding costs. After several years of negotiations with the debtor countries, however, it became clear that most of the loans would not be repaid, and banks began to establish loan loss provisions for their LDC debt. The first was Citibank, which in 1987 established a $3.3 billion loss provision, more than 30 percent of its total LDC exposure. Other banks quickly followed Citibank’s example (FDIC 1997).
By 1989, it was also clear to the US government that the debtor nations could not repay their loans, at least not while also rekindling economic growth. Secretary of the Treasury Nicholas Brady thus proposed a plan that established permanent reductions in loan principal and existing debt-servicing obligations.
Between 1989 and 1994, private lenders forgave $61 billion in loans, about one third of the total outstanding debt. In exchange, the eighteen countries that signed on to the Brady plan agreed to domestic economic reforms that would enable them to service their remaining debt (FDIC 1997). Still, it would be years before the scars of the 1980s began to fade.
Lessons Learned
Despite the many warning signs that the LDCs’ debt level was unsustainable and that
US banks were overexposed to that debt, market participants did not seem to recognize the problem until it had already erupted. The result was a crisis that required a decade of negotiations and multiple attempts at debt rescheduling to resolve, at considerable cost
to the citizens of Latin America and other LDC countries.
In the United States, the chief concern was the soundness and solvency of the financial system. To that end, regulators weakened regulatory standards for large banks exposed
to LDC debt to prevent them from becoming insolvent.
On one hand, this regulatory forbearance was effective at forestalling a panic.
On the other hand, forbearance allowed large banks to avoid the consequences of their prior lending decisions (albeit decisions that were to some extent officially encouraged
in the mid-1970s). But allowing those institutions to delay the recognition of losses set a precedent that may have weakened market discipline and encouraged excess risk-taking
in subsequent decades.
Ken Paxton | Here’s the Truth about Election Fraud – CITIZEN FREE PRESS
Write to Ben Levisohn at ben.levisohn@barrons.com
Jobs anger: GOP Tries To Blame Obama for $15 Trillion National Debt
What caused the Roman Empire to Collapse – Search (bing.com)
What caused Black Tuesday 1929 – Search (bing.com)
What caused Black Monday 1987 – Search (bing.com)
What caused Japan’s lost decade – Search (bing.com)
The lost decade stock market – Search (bing.com)
The lost decade Fitzgerald PDF – Search (bing.com)
The lost decade Latin America – Search (bing.com)
The lost decade S&P 500 – Search (bing.com)
the lost decade Mexico