I posted this originally on the Rice Quad board. Am interested in what kinds of responses it gets here. You can go there if you'd like to see the responses it got there.

I originally thought the markets would crest around 12 before the end of the summer, then fall back to 6 by year-end, hang around 6 for most of 2010, and then crater in 2011. By mid-2011, if we continue with these plans, I expect to see the rest of the world start to come back. We will lag behind, as once Obamanomics are fully in place, I can't imagine any reason why anyone would choose to manufacture anything here, except for itms to be sold in the domestic market. We will be out of the export sales business entirely, as the extra tax and overhead load being placed on our businesses and entrepreneurs will simply make us uncompetitive with other countries for export sales. The impact of losing the export business should push unemployment somewhere in the 20 to 50 million range by mid 2011. The impact of the dollar drain to pay for imports (which we will still need), plus the dollar outflow to service the debt we incurred to finance the "stimulus," will start to tank the dollar, and I expect to see inflation in the 20% to 50% range by late 2011 to 2012. The falling dollar won't help export sales, because nobody will be making anything here to export, and that will enable high rates of unemployment and high rates of inflation to coexist.

What happens next? I really don't know. These seem to be the options that I can see. You may be able to foresee others.
1. Anarchy, as roving bands of unemployed marauders terrorize the streets in search of food. This does not strike me as desirable, but other options might be worse.
2. A breakup of the US as various regions blame each other for the problem and feel that they could do better going alone. This is probably the best of the avaialable outcomes, IMO. Not a good outcome, but better than the rest. At least parts of the country could support some semblance of an economy and a life.
3. Some kind of totalitarian government takeover. I think this one would be hard to push onto the American people, but not impossible.
4. A military coup. Impossible, we'd like to think. But if dissatisfaction runs as high as I anticipate, it might slip into the realm of possibility. Would it lead to 3? I hope not.
5. Stay the course, and watch the American lifestyle decline until we are Nicaragua. I actually think this is the most likely case. "Not with a bang, but a whimper."

The whole approach is prefaced on Keynesian economics. There are a few problems with that approach:
1. Despite what proponents say, there is no clear-cut case that Keynesian economics has ever worked. FDR's ending the Great Depression with the New Deal is claimed as a triumph by Keynsians, but modern research suggests it's a mixed bag at best.
2. Keynesian economics assume something of a closed system. Their big talking point is the mulitiplier effect. Government gives me money, I spend it. The guy I spend it with buys something else. The guy he spends it with buys something else. That dollar turns into multiple dollars of economic activity. When I took Eco 200, the literature of the day suggested that the multiplier could be as high as 7 times the original expenditure. In today's global economy, there is no closed system. This model doesn't work as well to help the US economy if, by the third iteration, the money is in China. There was a lot of economic debate about multipliers and spending while the "stimulus" was under consideration. Proponents of the "stimulus" took great pride in pointing out that various studies suggest that the greatest multiplier effect comes from direct government spending, as opposed to tax cuts and other measures. To me, the most telling part of that analysis was that most of the multipliers hovered around 1, and none of them were higher than 2.
3. Keynesian economics assumes that supply and demand are in some reasonable balance. Since at least the 1960s we have been overstimulating demand and understimulating supply to the extent that supply and demand are now so far out of balance that we have to be the largest net importer in the world (with greater net imports than the other 100 importing countries combined) in order to meet demand. It's supply that needs stimulating, not demand. Shrub didn't help with tax cuts that didn't do much to stimulate supply. So long as other governments adopt tax and regulatory approaches designed unabashedly to stimulate domestic industry, and we view the main function of domestic industry as providing tax revenues to run our government, we'll remain in a supply deficiency. That means fewer jobs, which means higher unemployment, in case you have trouble connecting the dots.
4. Americans save less, and consume more, of their incomes than any other people in the world. Our government sucks up a disproportionate share of what we do save to finance its budget deficits. We ship dollars overseas at a rate that challenges the size of the federal budget deficit. This means there is no money going into the market. That's why stocks are tanking. Without investment capital, domestic industry cannot grow. It's a shortage of investment capital that sank the banks, and it will sink one industry at a time over the next few years until we fix this (auto industry next? airlines after that? who's after that?). Stimulating demand without stimulating supply just means that we will import more.
5. The increased debt to finance the federal budget deficit, plus the increased debt to finance our imports, will eventually put a huge strain on the dollar. Worse, the creditors are all overseas, which puts some incredible strains on our foreign policy. When the dam breaks, the dollar may well start to free-fall. We could easily become Argentina, very easily.

That's my take. It's long enough as is, but in an attempt not to write War and Peace, I may have skipped over some things that need further explanation--or discussion. I would like to hear what others think.

I'd really like for someone to give me a compelling analysis indicating that this thing will work. Because otherwise I really don't see any alternative for me personally but to leave the country, and that's something I'd rather not do if I don't have to.

I think the factor you leave out is foreign purchase of domestic assets: real estate, profitable companies, etc.

We saw this in the '70s, w/ Sony purchasing Columbia Pix, and some other noteworthy examples. We're seeing it today w/ Budweiser being purchased, etc. Of course other examples occurred in the interim, but US growth was so big, that they weren't problematic, not to mention US companies made far-reaching foreign acquisitions.
I think the acquisitions of US companies will now be greatly stepped up.

There is value in some US companies: GE, ebay, Google, Ford, Caterpillar, Intel, Microsoft and certainly the assets of other companies GM, AMD, Disney, Motorola, Nextel/Sprint, hold great value as well.
I think foreign purchase of those assets, and even running some of them in the US will forestall any of the dystopic views you present and lead us more closely to Option 5.

I don't think Nicaragua is the most apt comparison for the US' fate (although I don't know much about Nicaragua except in today's MSN exotic vacations recommendations) as this is an entropic effect...reaching an equillibrium. I think Spain or Italy are better comparisons.

been watching alot of Glen Beck? If I was in the business of selling Nuke proof bunkers, I'd advertise on his show.

I doubt seriously Doomsday will actually materialize, our economy is far too complex and dynamic. We do need some new inventions to come along. However, I do think these Martial Law/Riots in the streets fears are what motivated much of the TARP crap(possibly justified, don't know)

Here is a non-ideological(okay probably not possible but not a Keynes or Hayak absolutist) Economist take on some of this stuff, and this guy ran a Fortune 50 company for awhile. He points out, among other things important factors such as the United States "Credit Worthiness" rating has increased significantly in the last decade(a good thing per him).

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/

scroll down to his "Defeciets don't matter, Entreprenuers do" post for more on some of that. Interesting take, probably right. Problem here is the politics in these things, plus the fact Obama seems to think Defeceits are good and he can punish the Entrepreneuers at the same time which is idiotic.

that said, if we survived Carter, we can survive this fool

I’ll use strong words in response, but please don’t take them as an attack. I’m also not being contrary just because you made a point. I’ll keep to a minimum any words like “I agree, but….” My thoughts are just that – thoughts.

Quote:I originally thought the markets would crest around 12 before the end of the summer, then fall back to 6 by year-end, hang around 6 for most of 2010, and then crater in 2011. By mid-2011, if we continue with these plans, I expect to see the rest of the world start to come back.

American financial markets can’t recover until foreclosures are eliminated. That will happen either because A) the Government buys the difference between what you owe and what your home is worth, or B) when foreclosures are no longer a market force dragging down home prices.

The final 7Yrs ARMS will expire in 2013. Thus, the markets will not recover until 2013 – they may start to recover earlier, but they will not recover and grow until after 2013.

Quote:We will lag behind, as once Obamanomics are fully in place, I can't imagine any reason why anyone would choose to manufacture anything here, except for items to be sold in the domestic market. We will be out of the export sales business entirely, as the extra tax and overhead load being placed on our businesses and entrepreneurs will simply make us uncompetitive with other countries for export sales.

When gas prices go up, it makes sense to manufacture items close to market. While I don’t support higher gas taxes, a decade of European tax prices will see a huge resurgence in American manufacturing ability of things we used to import.

Quote:The impact of losing the export business should push unemployment somewhere in the 20 to 50 million range by mid 2011. The impact of the dollar drain to pay for imports (which we will still need), plus the dollar outflow to service the debt we incurred to finance the "stimulus," will start to tank the dollar, and I expect to see inflation in the 20% to 50% range by late 2011 to 2012. The falling dollar won't help export sales, because nobody will be making anything here to export, and that will enable high rates of unemployment and high rates of inflation to coexist.

Inflation is that outlier, isn’t it? Certainly to me the scariest outcome is out of control inflation – because the Average Joe simply can’t fight it. If you need bread, you have to pay for it – though I’ve always wondered if inflation doesn’t mark the end of the corporate office , and all White Collar work is done from home, with company meetings every other Wednesday at the local Holiday Inn.

Quote:1. Anarchy, as roving bands of unemployed marauders terrorize the streets in search of food. This does not strike me as desirable, but other options might be worse.

Complete, utter nonsense. Nothing but disaster porn. Won’t happen. You will see an increase in crime, but roving bands?

Quote:2. A breakup of the US as various regions blame each other for the problem and feel that they could do better going alone. This is probably the best of the available outcomes, IMO. Not a good outcome, but better than the rest. At least parts of the country could support some semblance of an economy and a life.

Sorry, nonsense again. No short term recession / depression would break this country apart.

Quote:3. Some kind of totalitarian government takeover. I think this one would be hard to push onto the American people, but not impossible.

This is more likely than a US break-up. Still highly unlikely.

Quote:4. A military coup. Impossible, we'd like to think. But if dissatisfaction runs as high as I anticipate, it might slip into the realm of possibility. Would it lead to 3? I hope not.

I imagine based on your posting that you are quite familiar with the military, and my goodness the military is the one bastion of authority that we can probably trust right now.

Quote:5. Stay the course, and watch the American lifestyle decline until we are Nicaragua. I actually think this is the most likely case. "Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Sure, if we only had limited resources. I believe that well before any decline of this magnitude the Government will implement a combination of CCC / Highways / Man on the Moon projects that will train and employ mass swathes of the down on their luck.

Quote:2. Keynesian economics assume something of a closed system. Their big talking point is the mulitiplier effect. Government gives me money, I spend it. The guy I spend it with buys something else. The guy he spends it with buys something else. That dollar turns into multiple dollars of economic activity. When I took Eco 200, the literature of the day suggested that the multiplier could be as high as 7 times the original expenditure. In today's global economy, there is no closed system. This model doesn't work as well to help the US economy if, by the third iteration, the money is in China.

But maybe on the fifth iteration, that Chinese money is back in the US building shopping mall. If the money can leave the country, it can return to the country.

Quote:4. Americans save less, (edit), of their incomes than any other people in the world.

This is false. While we may save less hard cash, many times this quote doesn’t take into effect American citizen investments in the stock market, 401k, pensions etc. I still think a missing link of a financial recovery plan is a guaranteed high yield 5 to 10 yr CD at 7% or so......

Quote:5. The increased debt to finance the federal budget deficit, plus the increased debt to finance our imports, will eventually put a huge strain on the dollar. Worse, the creditors are all overseas, which puts some incredible strains on our foreign policy. When the dam breaks, the dollar may well start to free-fall. We could easily become Argentina, very easily.

Frankly, the world could allow an Argentine failure, but the world can’t allow an American failure, because it will draw them all in – precisely the reason the Chinese aren’t more up in arms about American debt. What in sam hell are they supposed to do? Call the debt in?

I think the biggest loser in the future is the lower blue class (but not poverty stricken) foreigner. Those Nike plants will shut in China long before Nike shuts down…. America has the resources to help it's own, but I wouldn't want to be reliant of the governments of a Cambodia or a Nigeria if the world goes to pot.

I remember Donald Trump talking how he held the leverage when negotiating with banks on his renogiation of terms on large debt. They had too much skin in the game.

"It's odd, but we kind of have China here. We have pocket rockets and the board shows two Aces."


eckkkkkkkkkk. How in the world can we be talking about global econmics using a Texas Hold'Em metaphor? Problem is, it just might be true.

(03-17-2009 11:45 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  "It's odd, but we kind of have China here. We have pocket rockets and the board shows two Aces."


eckkkkkkkkkk. How in the world can we be talking about global econmics using a Texas Hold'Em metaphor? Problem is, it just might be true.

"We" aren't.

(03-17-2009 11:00 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I’ll use strong words in response, but please don’t take them as an attack. I’m also not being contrary just because you made a point. I’ll keep to a minimum any words like “I agree, but….” My thoughts are just that – thoughts.

Quote:We will lag behind, as once Obamanomics are fully in place, I can't imagine any reason why anyone would choose to manufacture anything here, except for items to be sold in the domestic market. We will be out of the export sales business entirely, as the extra tax and overhead load being placed on our businesses and entrepreneurs will simply make us uncompetitive with other countries for export sales.

When gas prices go up, it makes sense to manufacture items close to market. While I don’t support higher gas taxes, a decade of European tax prices will see a huge resurgence in American manufacturing ability of things we used to import.

See, now I have been thinking this is a possibility for a while too. The steel industry's "mini mill" concept on a broader scale, perhaps using MIT Fab Lab techhnology. It's an exciting possibility. However, one of the real essentials for this to work is low taxes. If you have a lot of money leaving a regional closed system, then it can't maintain internal manufacturing. That is one of the real reasons manufacturing has left the country.

Quote:

Quote:2. Keynesian economics assume something of a closed system. Their big talking point is the mulitiplier effect. Government gives me money, I spend it. The guy I spend it with buys something else. The guy he spends it with buys something else. That dollar turns into multiple dollars of economic activity. When I took Eco 200, the literature of the day suggested that the multiplier could be as high as 7 times the original expenditure. In today's global economy, there is no closed system. This model doesn't work as well to help the US economy if, by the third iteration, the money is in China.

But maybe on the fifth iteration, that Chinese money is back in the US building shopping mall. If the money can leave the country, it can return to the country.

Yes, as I said, foreign procurement of US assets will forestall any disaster for several years. This includes real estate holdings, both commercial, and of those really nice homes that were built during the real estate boom. While over-assessed, there is the small comfort that those McMansions do have some net worth.

Quote:

Quote:4. Americans save less, (edit), of their incomes than any other people in the world.

This is false. While we may save less hard cash, many times this quote doesn’t take into effect American citizen investments in the stock market, 401k, pensions etc. I still think a missing link of a financial recovery plan is a guaranteed high yield 5 to 10 yr CD at 7% or so......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bank rates never hold up against inflation. If you're getting 7%, it's likely that inflation is running at >9%.

Quote:

Quote:5. The increased debt to finance the federal budget deficit, plus the increased debt to finance our imports, will eventually put a huge strain on the dollar. Worse, the creditors are all overseas, which puts some incredible strains on our foreign policy. When the dam breaks, the dollar may well start to free-fall. We could easily become Argentina, very easily.

Frankly, the world could allow an Argentine failure, but the world can’t allow an American failure, because it will draw them all in – precisely the reason the Chinese aren’t more up in arms about American debt. What in sam hell are they supposed to do? Call the debt in?

I think the biggest loser in the future is the lower blue class (but not poverty stricken) foreigner. Those Nike plants will shut in China long before Nike shuts down…. America has the resources to help it's own, but I wouldn't want to be reliant of the governments of a Cambodia or a Nigeria if the world goes to pot.

Agree, the world doesn't want to see the US fail...not really. For all their talk, the US' success is a driver for much of the world, whether it's Nokia, Ikea, or Kia.

Quote:"We" aren't.

Silly Silly Simple man.........

From GG's post right above mine. Click on that thing he has underlined. It's called a link..... You'll find this post.

Playing Poker with China
Our politicians are puzzling me again. This time it's their fear and trembling about whether China will want to keep "helping" us finance our deficits by continuing to buy US Treasury securities.

When our politicians are visibly shaking in their boots about what China might do to us if we make them mad, it catches on with the general public. In turn, that prompts the administration to send Hillary across the Pacific to beg China to be nice to us. That in turn prompts China to play it for everything its worth.

Why are we acting like such wimps?

Uncle Sam is playing poker, Texas Hold'em. China is sitting directly across the table, hugging a big stack of dollar-denominated poker chips, and shooting a stern look across the table. The flop is showing a pair of aces. Oh, and one other minor detail: Uncle Sam's hole cards are pocket rockets.

Think about it: In that situation, should Uncle Sam tremble, then dispatch a contrite envoy to deliver the message:

"Please be nice to us, China. Please, please don't hurt us!"


How China got their dollars
First, how did China get all those dollars? Well, they decided years ago to build an economy based on manufacturing exports. That's how they've been keeping millions of their workers employed. Presumably, keeping those workers employed is important to them.

China's biggest customers are Uncle Sam's consumers — you and I. Both sides benefit from that relationship. China's workers make and sell much of the stuff we want, for bargain prices; they get our dollars in return for the stuff they make — and we consumers end up with extra dollars in our pockets because of the low prices they charge. In short, China's work force stays employed by giving American consumers the equivalent of a pay raise.

We can safely assume that keeping their unemployment rate low is important to the Chinese; that means they'll still be happy to sell things to us if we'll buy them, and that means they'll still be happy to accept US dollars from us in payment.

What China can do with their dollars
Next question is, what can China do with all those US dollars they'll keep piling up? They have four choices:

1. Sit on them, even though dollars earn no interest.
2. Buy dollar-denominated, interest-earning financial assets from us — such as US Treasury securities.
3. Buy dollar-denominated real assets from us (...some houses, maybe?).
4. Buy dollar-denominated goods and services from us.


How does any one of those four hurt us? I've thought and thought about it, and can only come up with one far-fetched possibility: If our economy were humming along at full capacity (...don't we wish), and they tried to buy more stuff from us, and we couldn't increase our capacity fast enough, THEN their dollars would create inflationary pressure. As I said, far-fetched.

In short, Uncle Sam is looking at pocket rockets. The dollar is king; the dollar is the world's reserve currency. China's export-driven economy is, in effect, part of the world's "dollar economy" — which extends far, far beyond the US borders. According to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the worldwide bond market is a hundred trillion dollars in size; it has been paying high prices (i.e., low interest rates) for safe and secure US T-securities. All we need to sell is twenty billion dollars worth of new ones a week, until our economy gets back on track. Pocket rockets.

What China decides to do with all those US dollars is their decision, but refusing to use them to buy our bonds would hurt them more than us.

So, again: Why are we acting like such wimps? This continues to puzzle me.




You continue to show your ignorance......................... Try to keep up simpleton.

(03-17-2009 12:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but bank rates never hold up against inflation. If you're getting 7%, it's likely that inflation is running at >9%.

Well, of course you are correct. I should of qualified my thoughts on a high yield CD with "the government is paying for everything else, why isn't this a government guaranteed option, regardless of inflation and bank rates?"

(03-17-2009 12:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:"We" aren't.

Silly Silly Simple man.........

"Simple" as in I can think through the situation on my own?

Next time I'll try to come up w/ an 'Uno!' analogy if it will help you.


Until then, you really ought to consider Dean Wormer's advice, Mach.

I'm not the one who messed up Simple Simon. No help needed here................ You on the other case................. I'm sorry you didn't look at GG's link and I'm not the one who called someone out because they didn't. That's you needle dick. This is why I had you on ignore because you make zero sense. I've pointed that out countless times. Keep my name off your keyboard. When you feel the need to comment on my post..... DON'T. I have now PROVEN YOU wrong on the last two occasions. You will never find a link where I said "Let terrorists go free". Plus I pointed out on GG's link where "We" used texas Hold Em in a metaphor. Just TWO shining examples where you are wrong. I would rather not argue with a fool. Yet you keep drawing me in with your belicose statements. Stop. I don't want to put you back on ignore because I enjoy it when others hand your ass back to you like Wildebeest did. He slapped you around like a red headed step child. Probably felt a lot like your Sr. High experience. Did you get cold sweats???

(03-17-2009 01:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm not the one who messed up Simple Simon. No help needed here................ You on the other case................. I'm sorry you didn't look at GG's link and I'm not the one who called someone out because they didn't. That's you needle dick. This is why I had you on ignore because you make zero sense. I've pointed that out countless times. Keep my name off your keyboard. When you feel the need to comment on my post..... DON'T. I have now PROVEN YOU wrong on the last two occasions. You will never find a link where I said "Let terrorists go free". Plus I pointed out on GG's link where "We" used texas Hold Em in a metaphor. Just TWO shining examples where you are wrong. I would rather not argue with a fool. Yet you keep drawing me in with your belicose statements. Stop. I don't want to put you back on ignore because I enjoy it when others hand your ass back to you like Wildebeest did. He slapped you around like a red headed step child. Probably felt a lot like your Sr. High experience. Did you get cold sweats???

You do seem to get some sort of voyerusitic delight in reading my posts. I suspect it's a Walter Mitty fascination at observing an alpha male.

I'm not sure what you read from Wildebeast, but he did certainly disappeared quick when it got to the tough questions. I guess that somehow makes me look dumn. Nevertheless, at least he understands the questions, and doesn't quote from jr. high texts.

But really, your comments cross the line, maybe I should contact a moderator. Always the sign of a weak person when they can't contain their rage and frustration.

But please put me back on ignore Mach, I'd rather not toss pearls before you.

And really Kent Dorfman wasn't meant to be a role model.

You were just proven wrong............ Time and Time again. Will you ever find a post where I say "Let Terrorists go Free"? You said I did. Do you "get" where you were wrong on the "We" thing above. It's not voyerusitic. Just enjoyable. He pointed out many things that I have pointed out to you time and time again. He even used pseudo. I used to call you Dr. Pseudo....... Those types of things I find amusing. Some people tire of banging their heads up against a brick wall. Wildebeest probably grew tired of you. I have shared this feeling. You attack me. I respond.

and it's Wildebeest......... not beast

(03-17-2009 01:29 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You were just proven wrong............ Time and Time again. Will you ever find a post where I say "Let Terrorists go Free"? You said I did.

You said close down Guantanamo Bay and try them in civilian courts, where most of the evidence would be impermissible.

IMO, it's the same thing.

You said close down Guantanamo Bay and try them in civilian courts, where most of the evidence would be impermissible.


You won't find that. I said try them. Never specifically in civilian courts. TRY them and put them to death. Locking people away without bringing charges was chicken ****.

Ohh Torchy.... Do you remember when he slapped you around on the difference between theory and law. Do you remember when I proved you completely wrong on theories. You were using 'Theory" as an educated guess. That's called a hypothesis. I tried to educate you on this 6 months earlier. So either your as thick as a brick or your a deceitful liar. I don't think your a liar. You fail to comprehend basic scientific principles. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is literally 6th grade learning material and you continually mess it up. I also proved that to you. If you want me to find the link I will. It's enjoyment actually. YOU however will never find "terrorist go free". Reb will never find close down Guantanomo and try terrorist ion civilian courts. You won't find it. I say try them.

(03-17-2009 01:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohh Torchy.... Do you remember when he slapped you around on the difference between theory and law.

Mach, why are you still responding to me?

Anyway, WB's comments on that matter were not directed toward me on the thread you cite.

Quote: Do you remember when I proved you completely wrong on theories. You were using 'Theory" as an educated guess.

No I don't remember that. It is possible that I got tired of your pedantic posts and stopped reading them. That happens a lot.

Quote:That's called a hypothesis. I tried to educate you on this 6 months earlier.

I remember you laughing at a university level textbook definition written by a PhD. You seemed to prefer Mr. Wizard level definitions, but even then you don't understand their manifestations.

I also remember you citing that in the 1960's the US had satellites that could image to 2 inch resolution. That was funny on many levels.

Quote: You fail to comprehend basic scientific principles.

I get paid a lot of money to do science. Don't blow my cover now!

Quote: The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is literally 6th grade learning material and you continually mess it up.

Obviously I am too dumn for you. Thank you for all you do to provide guidance to me. I'm sure my life will bloom and my career flourish because of your sacrificial investment in my life. Someday I too may enjoy knowing the peace and prosperity that comes from accepting as true everything that is labeled "science," having teenagers think I'm PHAT, and devoting my free time to on-line poker.

(03-17-2009 01:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You said close down Guantanamo Bay and try them in civilian courts, where most of the evidence would be impermissible.


You won't find that. I said try them. Never specifically in civilian courts. TRY them and put them to death. Locking people away without bringing charges was chicken ****.

We should have killed them in the desert instead of taking them to Gitmo. Try them if you like first, but we are under no obligation under the Geneva Conventions or any other principle of international law to do so.

And, for the record, holding them without charges is the standard international law treatment for captured enemy combatants.

(03-17-2009 04:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-17-2009 01:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You said close down Guantanamo Bay and try them in civilian courts, where most of the evidence would be impermissible.


You won't find that. I said try them. Never specifically in civilian courts. TRY them and put them to death. Locking people away without bringing charges was chicken ****.

We should have killed them in the desert instead of taking them to Gitmo. Try them if you like first, but we are under no obligation under the Geneva Conventions or any other principle of international law to do so.

But that's the controversy, isn't it?

I'm not for shooting innocent people, but we certainly managed to make a mess of this situation, and haven't made progress at all.

I liked the idea of trying them as spies...should have been done early on.

OTOH, anybody ever read a book entitled "The Charm School"? Maybe we had a bigger plan all along.

http://www.amazon.com/Charm-School-Nelso...0446353205

BTW, sorry your thread was hijacked. I thought we had some interesting commentary on economic future.