Financial topics

[aeden]

When he has to sell His plasma as we seen before H they will be convinced.

search.php?keywords=placenta&t=2&sf=msgonly

Gain of function cults already know what was coming.

[John]

** 29-Dec-2020 World View: Exponential decay function

> I can't help but notice that as the debt crisis gets worse and
> worse, we talk about it less. I still remember all the alarmist
> articles under Bush screaming the national debt has reached seven
> trillion dollars. Now we're at 27 trillion and we've become almost
> completely silent on it. Neither the Republicans or Democrats
> speak of it, except to say we need to spent more. Covid
> accelerated this trend, but it was visible long before.

> You're probably too young to remember, but when Reagan ran the
> debt up to $1 trillion, the Hero generation was very concerned
> about this and it was discussed a lot. I think there was even
> more concern at that time than under Bush.

> I remember when Bush fired Paul O'Neill because he was talking
> about the unfunded liabilities. At that time, Cheney said the debt
> doesn't matter. But there was still plenty of pushback against
> that.

The number of people concerned about debt is highest right after a
generational financial crisis (1637, 1720, 1789, 1857, 1929).

After that, the number of people concerned about debt continues to
decrease. Perhaps there's a way of defining an exponential decay
function that expresses this:

T = time since last generational financial crisis
C(T) = number of people concerned about debt at time T
C0 = number of people concerned about debt at time T=0
K = positive number indicating rate of decay

So the exponential decay function is:

C(T) = C0 * T**-K

A similar function could be used to describe the number of people
worried about a new generational crisis war. It seems that everyone
believes it can't happen, until it does.

[Higgenbotham]

APRIL 18, 2020

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Iraq war critic Paul O’Neill dies at 84: WSJ

By Will Dunham


(Reuters) - Paul O’Neill, the blunt-spoken former head of Alcoa Corp who was fired after two rocky years as U.S. President George W. Bush’s Treasury secretary, died on Saturday at the age of 84 at his home in Pittsburgh, the Wall Street Journal reported.

His family said he had been treated for lung cancer and his death was unrelated to the novel coronavirus, the WSJ reported.

O’Neill served as the Republican Bush’s first Treasury secretary, from January 2001 to December 2002, during a period of in-fighting within the administration and tough economic times worsened by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The multimillionaire former corporate chieftain - he led aluminum company Alcoa from 1987 to 2000 - was not a big fan of Bush’s first round of tax cuts. He then argued in vain with others in the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, against more cuts that he felt could fuel budget deficits and hurt the economy.

He also earned a reputation as a loose cannon as Treasury secretary with comments that at various times infuriated members of Bush’s inner circle, fellow Republicans in Congress, Wall Street, Latin American governments and others.

It was Cheney, his friend dating to the 1970s in President Gerald Ford’s administration and had recruited O’Neill into the Treasury job, who told him that he was fired. O’Neill said Cheney had asked him to say his departure was his own decision, but O’Neill refused.

“I’m too old to begin telling lies now,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-peop ... SKBN2200MW

[Higgenbotham]

Interview with Paul O'Neill:

[I spoke with Rep.] Barney Frank [D-Mass.], and I said, "Barney, there are a lot of people who are very worried about entitlements; they're worried about Social Security; they're worried about Medicare." And he said: "Listen, where were those people ... when this economy was collapsing and deregulation was going strong? ... Where were they when the military budget went crazy? They seem to be focused on entitlements. But these other things, which are as big a problem, they're not paying any attention to at all."

You know, I'd love to talk to Barney. I've been saying the same thing since, I think, 1967, at what was then the Bureau of the Budget. And then I became the deputy director under President Ford. ...

I was at the Treasury as the secretary from Jan. 20, 2001 until I got fired at the end of November 2002. I got fired for several reasons, including [that] I kept saying, "I'm looking at all these intelligence reports, and I don't find anything in here that rises to the level of evidence of weapons of mass destruction." ...

In addition to that, as President Bush was getting ready to recommend another tax cut beginning in early 2002, I said we shouldn't have another tax cut. ... I said we could have another 9/11, and if [we] did, it could cost us $100 billion easily.

The 10,000-page tax code, [is] proof we're not an intelligent people, and it desperately needs to be reformed. And it will take some money to smooth the transition from 10,000 pages to 10 pages that [the American people] can understand and believe in.

We need to fix Social Security and Medicare, and that's going to take a fair amount of money to do those things, ... so we shouldn't have a tax cut. And I kept saying it to the point that finally ... I got fired. So it's not really true that Barney Frank can say nobody raised it. I raised it at the highest levels of government. When I went to Congress to testify, I raised these issues with them. There were no takers.

I am interested in what that must have been like for you personally. Is it the kind of thing where Paul O'Neill walks into a room and everybody stops talking? How did that go?

... At the beginning when I started saying these things, there were other people sitting around the circle who nodded their heads and said: "I agree with Paul. I think he's really right. I know something about the economy, and it sounds right to me." But it was noticeable, the more we moved into the summer, the early fall, nobody else was nodding their head anymore.

The president really didn't want to hear what I thought, which was his right. I was happy to be fired at the end of November 2002. I didn't want to be part of something I thought was fundamentally wrong. I would not have wanted to go and testify to the Congress that this was all a wonderful idea when I thought it was a terrible idea. And unfortunately I turned out to be right ....

Did you walk into the Oval Office at any point, you and the president, and say, "Mr. President, I've got to put it on the line: For the country and for the administration, this is a terrible idea"?

I just kept talking about the facts, you know. I didn't ever go in and say, "Hey, this is awful; I'm not going to be part of this." But I said over and over again what I just said to you about the reasons why we shouldn't do this.

To him?

Absolutely to him, multiple times.

What was the president's response?

You know, he didn't really respond.

Nothing?

No.

He had to say a word or two.

No, absolutely not. That was my experience the whole time I was there. I said lots of provocative things to him, and I never really got a response. ..

How about the vice president? Did you talk to the vice president about this?

I did. Well, he told me, as [Ron] Suskind famously reported in the book he did about me, [The Price of Loyalty], the vice president said to me, maybe in November 2002, "Ronald Reagan proved budget deficits don't matter."

He said that to you?

Absolutely. Sat right next to me in the Roosevelt Room. I'll never forget because I was so stunned that anybody could believe that Ronald Reagan proved that budget deficits don't matter.

What did you say in reply?

I was stunned. I didn't say anything. I just sat there in disbelief that a person I thought I really knew well, having worked with him since 1969, believed this idea strong enough to say it in a room full of people. ...

Did anybody else say anything?

No.

So the vice president says budget deficits don't matter, and everybody just sits there quietly?

Right.

This doesn't sound like a discussion.

Right.

Is that how it worked?

Yes.

Mandate goes out, right or wrong, everybody shuts up and does it?

Right.

Is that any way to run a government?

I don't think so.

You've been around the block; you've worked in government --

Fifteen years.

-- at major companies in the world. Have you ever seen anything like this?

No. ...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... neill.html

[Higgenbotham]

I think the above is an example of how control has been turned over to The 97th Percentile and they have forced the people who are smarter than them off to the sidelines. That being, Bush and Cheney are no more than The 97th Percentile in terms of ability. As I like to say, The 97th Percentile is just smart enough to be dangerous to themselves and other people. They truly are like monkeys flying a 747.

Regarding O'Neill's statement that he hasn't seen anything like this at major corporations, he has, but he just can't recognize it. I've interfaced directly with major corporations and have posted about such things many times.

[Cool Breeze]

It's just a manifestation of boomers and slightly older having been conditioned to being the strongest kid on the block for a long time with the world reserve currency. Throw some arrogance and lack of belief in anything, a dash of government bureaucracy, power going to your head, and no incentive to do the right thing ... and you get those kind of comments.

Corporations have the exact same mentality in different ways, yes, absolutely Higgy

[aeden]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... ption.html

[aeden]

https://cms.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inli ... k=mxzODliA

America has entered a post-legal era is the battleground states of the 2020 federal elections.
Lis cheat steal is all the demsheviks have has they pander to propaganda about labels they actually earned.
It was trended in 2014 to the effects that had been utilized and ignored.

[aeden]

EIA now forecasts OPEC crude oil production will average 25.7 million b/d in the first quarter of 2021, which is 1.7 million b/d lower than forecast in the November STEO and reflects the announced changes to OPEC+ targets and more effective assumed compliance with targets.

Total U.S. liquid fuels consumption fell from 20.8 million bbl/d in 2005 to 18.6 million bbl/d in 2012. EIA expects total consumption to rise slowly over the next two years to an average of 18.7 million bbl/d in 2014, driven by increases in distillate fuel and liquefied petroleum gas consumption, with mostly flat gasoline and jet fuel consumption.

[aeden]

Law, order, legal status, funding is so passe Republic. T
Trust them they will save you from yourself.
Oh great news, the Biden drones are pushing him for President. Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:43 am