Bella

That's the problem with student loans. They are the only type of loan that is not dischargeable. A gift of sorts to the banks from a famous president who now has a spouse running for his old job.

Perhaps. But if I recall he claimed he didn't even know the loan was still outstanding. Arrest him first and sort out the facts later I suppose. If you fail to pay a debt to a creditor they can sue you and win a judgment, but only after trial. If you fail to pay a debt to the government it appears they can imprison you before trial. While I would advise avoiding any debt as much as possible. I would warn against any debt to your 'representative' government.

I saw this article yesterday. Debtors prisons are making a comeback.

^This attitude scares me. I remember when the Patriot Act was passed. Supporters proclaimed that it could not or would not be used nefariously. I don't think they can claim that position any longer.

Mr. Summers is looking out for the best interests of the banking cartels. He doesn't care about you.

The thing is, going NIRP will not accomplish the goals they are looking for. It'll be even more deflationary. And in a system designed to ever expand it's completely the wrong approach.

Here is a cut/paste of an article out today about the move towards NIRP by eliminating physical money. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. Yesterday we reported that the ECB has begun contemplating the death of the €500 EURO note, a fate which is now virtually assured for the one banknote which not only makes up 30% of the total European paper currency in circulation by value, but provides the best, most cost-efficient alternative (in terms of sheer bulk and storage costs) to Europe's tax on money known as NIRP. That also explains why Mario Draghi is so intent on eradicating it first, then the €200 bill, then the €100 bill, and so on. We also noted that according to a Bank of America analysis, the scrapping of the largest denominated European note "would be negative for the currency", to which we said that BofA is right, unless of course, in this global race to the bottom, first the SNB "scraps" the CHF1000 bill, and then the Federal Reserve follows suit and listens to Harvard "scholar" and former Standard Chartered CEO Peter Sands who just last week said the US should ban the $100 note as it would "deter tax evasion, financial crime, terrorism and corruption." Well, not even 24 hours later, and another Harvard "scholar" and Fed chairman wannabe, Larry Summers, has just released an oped in the left-leaning Amazon Washington Post, titled "It’s time to kill the $100 bill" in which he makes it clear that the pursuit of paper money is only just starting. Not surprisingly, just like in Europe, the argument is that killing the Benjamins would somehow eradicate crime, saying that "a moratorium on printing new high denomination notes would make the world a better place." Yes, for central bankers, as all this modest proposal will do is make it that much easier to unleash NIRP, because recall that of the $1.4 trillion in total U.S. currency in circulation, $1.1 trillion is in the form of $100 bills. Eliminate those, and suddenly there is nowhere to hide from those trillions in negative interest rate "yielding" bank deposits. Chart of value of currency in circulation, excluding denominations larger than the $100 note. Details are in the Data table above. So with one regulation, the Fed - if it listens to this Harvard charlatan, and it surely will as more and more "academics" get on board with the idea to scrap paper money - could eliminate the value of 78% of all currency in circulation, which in effect would achieve practically the entire goal of destroying the one paper alternative to digital NIRP rates, in the form of paper currency. That said, it would still leave gold as an alternative to collapsing monetary system, but by then there will surely be a redux of Executive Order 6102 banning the possession of physical gold and demanding its return to the US government. Here is Summers' first shot across the bow in the upcoming war against U.S. paper currency, first posted in the WaPo: It’s time to kill the $100 bill Harvard's Mossavar Rahmani Center for Business and Government, which I am privileged to direct, has just issued an important paper by senior fellow Peter Sands and a group of student collaborators. The paper makes a compelling case for stopping the issuance of high denomination notes like the 500 euro note and $100 bill or even withdrawing them from circulation. I remember that when the euro was being designed in the late 1990s, I argued with my European G7 colleagues that skirmishing over seigniorage by issuing a 500 euro note was highly irresponsible and mostly would be a boon to corruption and crime. Since the crime and corruption in significant part would happen outside European borders, I suggested that, to paraphrase John Connally, it was their currency, but would be everyone’s problem. And I made clear that in the context of an international agreement, the U.S. would consider policy regarding the $100 bill. But because the Germans were committed to having a high denomination note, the issue was never seriously debated in international forums. The fact that — as Sands points out — in certain circles the 500 euro note is known as the “Bin Laden” confirms the arguments against it. Sands’ extensive analysis is totally convincing on the linkage between high denomination notes and crime. He is surely right that illicit activities are facilitated when a million dollars weighs 2.2 pounds as with the 500 euro note rather than more than 50 pounds as would be the case if the $20 bill was the high denomination note. And he is equally correct in arguing that technology is obviating whatever need there may ever have been for high denomination notes in legal commerce. What should happen next? I’d guess the idea of removing existing notes is a step too far. But a moratorium on printing new high denomination notes would make the world a better place. In terms of unilateral steps, the most important actor by far is the European Union. The €500 is almost six times as valuable as the $100. Some actors in Europe, notably the European Commission, have shown sympathy for the idea and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi has shown interest as well. If Europe moved, pressure could likely be brought on others, notably Switzerland. I confess to not being surprised that resistance within the ECB is coming out of Luxembourg, with its long and unsavory tradition of giving comfort to tax evaders, money launderers, and other proponents of bank secrecy and where 20 times as much cash is printed, relative to gross domestic, compared to other European countries. These are difficult times in Europe with the refugee crisis, economic weakness, security issues and the rise of populist movements. There are real limits on what it can do to address global problems. But here is a step that will represent a global contribution with only the tiniest impact on legitimate commerce or on government budgets. It may not be a free lunch, but it is a very cheap lunch. Even better than unilateral measures in Europe would be a global agreement to stop issuing notes worth more than say $50 or $100. Such an agreement would be as significant as anything else the G7 or G20 has done in years. China, which is hosting the next G-20 in September, has made attacking corruption a central part of its economic and political strategy. More generally, at a time when such a demonstration is very much needed, a global agreement to stop issuing high denomination notes would also show that the global financial groupings can stand up against “big money” and for the interests of ordinary citizens. Lawrence H. Summers, the Charles W. Eliot university professor at Harvard, is a former treasury secretary and director of the National Economic Council in the White House. He is writing occasional posts, to be featured on Wonkblog, about issues of national and international economics and policymaking. And here is the article source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-16/larry-summers-launches-war-us-paper-money-its-time-kill-100-bill

They'll grab as much as they have to. Right down to the last cent if it means avoiding a complete meltdown. And if they have to go below the insured levels and people turn to the FDIC how much is in that account? Do you suppose enough to cover a whole country going broke? The program was designed to insure a bank here or there. EDIT: Read this: https://www.fdic.gov/deposit/insurance/fund.html and let me know if you are sure they've got enough to handle wide-spread bank failures. Keep in mind, the government is hunting down money. They aren't going to be interested in paying out FDIC insurance when they don't have any money to borrow or steal. Sounds extreme I know. But we are in uncharted waters where anything is possible.

Another thing to worry about. During the 2008 crisis the response by government was largely to bailout the banks. That didn't sit well with the citizens. So they are not likely to do that again. Ropes and pitchforks are a politicians biggest fear. So in the next leg down it's likely they will try something else. If anyone can remember a few years back in Europe what they did to bail out a bank (in Cyprus I think but can't really remember)then was referred to as a 'bail-in.' Essentially using depositor monies to replenish the banks. It was a trial balloon. And it was successful. It's now their policy and it's no secret: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/27/eu-agrees-banks-bail-in-deal The point being, this is likely to also be used in the U.S. when it becomes necessary. So if you are thinking your money is safe in a bank, you are mistaken. Bail-ins is probably a tool they will use to save HSBC. Notice in the sub-headline of the linked article it uses the word 'shareholder.' innocuous enough as most people do not consider themselves a shareholder in a bank unless they own stock. Terms of Art is what they are called. Then in the first paragraph it references their 'biggest' customers. Again, a Term of Art, as it is subjective to the whims of a government politician what is defined as a big customer. Could it include someone with $500 in an account. You bet it could. Then in the third paragraph it states the program is intended to shield taxpayers from more bailouts. Well who is it then that deposits money into a bank if it isn't a taxpayer? I just cannot believe people can read this garbage and think their best interests are being tended to.

Humanity needs a reset. I'm just not looking forward to going through it.

No, you are thinking that I am thinking that. However one of the world's largest economies has cut back drastically on coal. I'm not posting for you to defend the obvious. I am merely bringing up points for thought, perhaps discussion. The ship building industry needed to catch up with the aging of the fleet, and over compensated. The same thing is often seen in the aircraft industry. Sometimes there is more than the obvious. 5674, I have for a long time pondered that housing should ideally not be such a major component of the economy. Germany has done quite well without much new housing. This is to be expected with a stable population. What do they do---well they actually make things and sell them to people who need or want them. "I'm not posting for you to defend the obvious." I removed that line from my post - it was not appropriate and I apologize. Look at the numbers, even if the shipbuilding industry was updating it's fleet and overcompensated for the numbers to fall like they have been the overcompensation would have to border on incompetence. It's more than that. To assume that just because America cut back on coal usage that explains the drop in worldwide shipping demand is incorrect. The BDI isn't simply a reflection of coal. Here is a simply explanation: The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) is an economic indicator issued daily by the London-based Baltic Exchange. Not restricted to Baltic Sea countries, the index provides "an assessment of the price of moving the major raw materials by sea. So you see it's not just coal. So don't focus on that. It's all major raw materials. Raw materials required for manufacturing and development on a global scale. If countries aren't growing, this indicator is the key to revealing it. No, in 2008 when the BDI collapsed we didn't fall into a dark age. But I'm sure I don't have to go into detail why (too big to fail bailouts, the fed balance sheet exploding to over $4 Trillion, ZIRP)? The system was saved by astronomical bailouts and 'heroic' feats of unprecedented proportion. I doubt most people even know how close we came to being thrown back to the stone age. And that's probably just as well.

"Word is it's low due to an oversupply of vessels..." An oversupply of vessels once needed and kept busy because of a bustling world economy now rusting in port. No demand = oversupply. "(everybody's favorite) coal" Again, you are thinking strictly from the view of an American. Do you think china or Russia or India or...almost anyplace else where the other 6.9 billion people of the world doesn't use coal? Look at the history of the BDI. What happened to it during the 2008 meltdown? BTW, because of its global nature the BDI is one of the few metrics the government cannot fudge like they do the unemployment rate. If you want to know the health of the world economy, it's a great indicator.

Our physical vessels are only a very temporary home in which our soul resides. The soul you and your wife will bring into being is all that truly matters. The world can be cruel, and likely your son will have to face it, especially in his younger years. Give him strength. Embrace his earthly manifestation; ignore the expectations of others and recognize the gift that he surely is. Love really is all we need. Congratulations on a very lovely little boy.

What exactly can the little guy do, whether he knows what's coming or not? Very good question. First, realize that practically nobody is going to remain unscathed. We are entering uncharted territory as far as anybody alive to draw from for advice. But we do have history to look back in the sense that governments have collapsed in the past. Just this time it's the whole world collapsing at the same time. But you can help yourself by getting out of debt as much as possible; freeing up as much capital as you can and have it handy. History teaches us that when faith in government collapses there are only a few places to put your assets to weather the storm until a new system is put in place. In Rome, people horded their coins and actually buried them to keep the government from getting it. I'm not saying go bury your gold and silver, I'm just pointing out what people have done in the past. Gold by the way, is something they can and have outlawed. Just be aware of that and if you do convert your assets to gold make sure you have enough other assets to see you through while you cannot access the gold. If you have a pension be aware that they are likely going to come after it. It'll be under the guise that they are trying to protect it. But really they are just robbing it from you because they need it. I've seen whispers of this already. Take a look at what happens in other countries that have collapsed: food shortages, riots, political changes (Trump is a manifestation of the unrest in America). War. War always is in play during times like this. Nations are literally positioning themselves to survive. Be Aware.

I like your comments. I think there is a reduction possible that is easy to follow forward: "The 400 year era of capitalism is played out." That system, a debt based constant growth model, can only continue while new horizons for growth in consumption exist. Growth around the world has slowed. The inverse of the growth curve is interest rates (abstractly). We are now seeing NIRP introduced in parts of the world. Negative interest is a tool to combat negative growth. In short, consumers will be paid to consume! (Again, as an abstract). I think it's hard to see how consumers can do enough. We are entering the final bubble stage, a grand bubble of leverage throughout all sectors of the economy. The global debt can not be rolled, and collapse is the only possible result. The transition will be a very wild ride for most. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk ^ This in a nutshell. Yes. . . . . . I get skepticism. It's healthy and I employ a great deal of it in my life. But you may want to consider that even though you do not know who I am, what I do for a living, or where I come from (I haven't divulge anything personal for very good reasons), that perhaps I've taken it upon myself to try and do the best I can to warn people. Perhaps I am 'in the know.' Perhaps I am inside the beltway or placed in such a position as to have inside information. Perhaps I'm a kook. I cannot convince anyone, nor will I even try, of what is coming. All I can do is put in out there and hopefully some people take notice and start digging into the issues themselves. If you choose to ignore the warning signs that's up to you. They are out there to see you just have to want to see them. But if you are reading this thread and laugh, that's wreckless.

- I didn't say the politicians were smart. But they are desperate and they are trying anything and everything to keep it going. - The U.S. consumer is but a fly on an elephant compared to world-wide trade and production. When I say people aren't buying I'm referring to the world-wide economy and not just people but corporations, banks, industries and yes, countries. It's waaay bigger than the American consumer. Take a look at shipping rates (BDI) and movement of goods on a global scale.

just a few links to help: Baltic dry index.... http://investmenttools.com/futures/bdi_baltic_dry_index.htm Russia pipelines.... http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=russian%ee%80%81+pipelines+in+%ee%80%80ukraine&view=detailv2&&id=BB10F3B2EC851AFBDB5DB589D71DDEA557E0D174&selectedIndex=0&ccid=mTQ%2fBPMa&simid=608046685706390578&thid=OIP.M99343f04f31a3e7bfa37aac5da617de3o0&ajaxhist=0 Janet Yellen on NIRP....http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/09/

^ This is the only post so far in this thread that remotely understands the issues as they pertain to the bigger picture. Everything else is a micro-opinion of the current situation. This is a macro issue - worldwide, and stems back to the original earthquake, which was the near-financial implosion beginning in 2007. Oil is the canary in the coal mine for the world economic system. Go back and look at what oil was trading at just prior to the events beginning in 2007/8 and you'll have an understanding of what we are facing. We are entering worldwide deflation and people aren't consuming. At the same time because of obligations and reckless management, countries are going broke; they are looking for capital. The Saudi's have bills to pay just like we do, and a populace to keep happy. While there were factors in their decision to maintain pumping (inflict pain on the shale industry in the U.S.), they also needed to maintain their high level of income during falling oil prices so they decided to make up the difference in quantity. Now Iran is coming online and they need money too. They don't care what the price of gas is in the U.S. and they will flood the market even more. Capacity is just about at the limit and they will soon be looking for bathtubs to store overproduction/underuse. The Baltic Dry Index is at an all-time low. Pay attention to what is going on at a global scale. It's much more important than the price of gas at your local grocery outlet. HSBC (Deutsch Bank) is in trouble. They manage about $72 Trillion in Derivatives and if they go down it'll make Lehman look like a walk in the park. Europe is implementing NIRP; Janet Yellen just hinted at doing the same - only to help prop up failing banks. This is further deflationary as who is going give the banks their money to keep them solvent - back to mattress stuffing? Pile into the U.S. Dollar? Probably, which will cause too much strength. Electronic money is on the horizon. Governments way to collecting 100% tax and good luck explaining those thousands you had lying around when you go to turn it in for your electronic wallet - they will assume you were avoiding taxes on it and take it. Good luck in the court system, where it's 'Justus" for them. They'll use the excuse that they are trying to make it hard for terrorists to fund their operations. All of this is because the current monetary system has reached its end point. Time for something new. But the powers that be enjoy the current system and are not going to go quietly into the night. They'll rape every dime from it that the people will allow them to take. NSA snooping isn't about looking for terrorists, nothing but a cover story. They're looking for money hidden away. Why else didn't they stop the Boston bombers? The terrorists in California? Yet government tax revenue is at an all-time high? Stop looking at the world through what you see locally because it isn't even a fraction of what is actually happening. The world is all connected and the bigger picture is not very rosy. Studying History, what usually accompanies these types of events is war. All you have to do is look at what is going on in the M.E. - Russia in Syria, the U.S. in Syria, now the Saudis and probably Turkey going into Syria. That's a recipe for disaster but makes perfect sense with all of the financial turmoil. All for ISIS? Bolony. This issue has it's roots in an agreement going back years between the U.S. and the M.E. to run a pipeline into Europe because of Russia's dominance of that regions energy supply. Syria needed to be overthrown and a puppet government installed to make it happen. Obama drew a line in the sand with Assad and the Russians diffused the whole situation...remember? So what was the alternative? Ukraine. Most of the pipelines from Russia to Europe run through the Ukraine (google it). So the U.S. attempted to destabilize the Ukraine. Russia's response? Send in ground troops. Again the west was thwarted (yes, Russia knows what the game is and isn't going to allow it to happen.) So now Ukraine is off the table, but wait, we're back in Syria trying to overthrow Assad again! And what does Russia do? Send in air support to bolster the ground forces. The proxy armies of the west are nearing collapse. One more city to take and it's over for the west. So the last ditch effort is to send in ground troops from Saudi Arabia... Don't flame me. I'm just the messenger. Most Americans can't comprehend the larger issues and cannot follow the dots over a period of years. And for those thinking I'm peddling some grand conspiracy, cool. Enjoy your life over the next decade or more while you try to figure out what really is going on. Debate is healthy and I'm all for exchanging ideas as long as you've got something other than 'but the government says.' Because all you need to know is it's their system and they want it to continue. They aren't interested in telling you this shyte is close to going under. TLDR; we are screwed and most people don't even know it or why. EDIT: I changed ZIRP to NIRP.

This is extremely troublesome to me. I'm already anguished that the fines imposed and levied by a judge directly contribute to his/her pension. Is Texas now going to send 'collection agents,' who carry guns and are authorized to use deadly force on the public, to suck up even more funds from people who have little to no understanding of their Constitutional Rights? Even worse, collect a fee for a private corporation in the process?

Anthem. I found the simplicity but dedication to the sound of the Anthem processor very much to my liking.

Put them in the same room, under the same circumstances, with the same sourceand A/B them with others present and try to make me believe they sound better than Klipschorns, been there, done that, with a room full of Forum members as witnesses and it isn't even close. Klipsch set them all up, so I would assume conditions are optimal for the comparison. You don't have to close your eyes, the listening is not critical, it was obvious to everyone in attendance that the PF-39s just aren't in the same ball park. Come to Hope, listen for yourself, then tell the engineers and the rest of us, how the listening setup is skewed in the Klipschorns favor? There, I extended the invitation, Happy?? Roger Without a doubt the Klipschorn is no slouch. That's why I own them. But I don't have the gift of determining which speaker is better after just a few hours of comparison. I've formed my opinion over the course of hundreds of hours of listening. To this day, I still gravitate to the Palladiums over the Klipschorns. YMMV. You'll note I did say that the Palladiums were in a calibrated environment, the Klipschorns are not. This might have an impact on my choosing the Palladiums as the better speaker. I would further stipulate that each speaker has its strengths v. the other. I do prefer the Klipschorns for their soundstage which, imo, the Palladium cannot match. But for details, nuances, and smoothness, I give the nod to the Palladiums. My schedule is far too demanding to allow for any time to come the Hope. Thanks for the invite, though. Very interesting. But you just got booted off Roger's Christmas card list No, not at all, he didn't get booted off of my Christmas card list He admitted that they are in separate rooms, which brings memory AND room acoustics into play on top of the fact that they have not been calibrated. It is not a fair A/B comparison at all, but his honest opinion, to which he is more than entitled too! Especially when forthcoming about it and others can view it as such. Plenty of space left in Hope to go to Klipsch and hear for yourselves, any takers? Roger I'm a she, just for the record. I should be very clear. I owned the Palladiums before I owned the Klipschorns. When I got them, and before I decided to keep them, I had the Palladiums brought down into the same room that I was purchasing the Khorns to fill, for comparison. I used the same amp. I would listen to one set of speakers for a few days, then switch and listen to the other set for a few days. As I said, each have their strengths. The room the Khorns were intended for is large, the room the Palladiums are meant for is small(er). I have the P37's. I would not swap the speakers out of the rooms that I bought them for, because I think I would be handicapping the speakers and their potential. When they were together, and over the course of days(weeks, really)of comparing, I would still have to say the Palladiums were better. Now that they have been in their respective places for some years now, and yes, the Palladiums are calibrated to their environment (I only said that really for full disclosure), I still consider them my 'go to' speakers for relaxing and mood setting. I find the Klispchorns are better for entertaining or cooking. That's not to say they cannot be used as I am using the Palladiums, they can be, I just find the Palladiums more suited to that role. Which, is what I AM LOOKING mostly for out of my music. You and others might be looking for something else.

Put them in the same room, under the same circumstances, with the same sourceand A/B them with others present and try to make me believe they sound better than Klipschorns, been there, done that, with a room full of Forum members as witnesses and it isn't even close. Klipsch set them all up, so I would assume conditions are optimal for the comparison. You don't have to close your eyes, the listening is not critical, it was obvious to everyone in attendance that the PF-39s just aren't in the same ball park. Come to Hope, listen for yourself, then tell the engineers and the rest of us, how the listening setup is skewed in the Klipschorns favor? There, I extended the invitation, Happy?? Roger Without a doubt the Klipschorn is no slouch. That's why I own them. But I don't have the gift of determining which speaker is better after just a few hours of comparison. I've formed my opinion over the course of hundreds of hours of listening. To this day, I still gravitate to the Palladiums over the Klipschorns. YMMV. You'll note I did say that the Palladiums were in a calibrated environment, the Klipschorns are not. This might have an impact on my choosing the Palladiums as the better speaker. I would further stipulate that each speaker has its strengths v. the other. I do prefer the Klipschorns for their soundstage which, imo, the Palladium cannot match. But for details, nuances, and smoothness, I give the nod to the Palladiums. My schedule is far too demanding to allow for any time to come the Hope. Thanks for the invite, though.

The Klipschorn is a high quality, technical design due to the horn woofer. The Heresy is simply a box. So is the Cornwall. The idea wasn't 'just to build a speaker,' but was to 'build a great sounding speaker.' And the required design was dependent largely on what type of speaker was being envisioned. So Paul would appreciate, I think, the engineering of the Palladium. They incorporate everything necessary to reproduce high quality sound while being aesthetically pleasing to satisfy HAF (HUSBAND acceptance factor). They also incorporate a horn mid-range and tweeter. This is the hallmark, if you will, of the Klipsch brand, so the company is staying true to Paul's ground-floor philosophy. Although these horns do not sound like horns. Which is an accomplishment Paul would admire (again, my opinion). So he wouldn't complain about the product straying far from his original vision. I do not think he would like the decision to manufacture in China. And I'm sure there would have been some heated discussions about it. Consequently I do not think he would have a problem with the price point. Remember how much the Khorn cost when first introduced? So... 1. the product is well-designed. 2. the product is steadfast within Paul's philosophy of Klipsch by being horn loaded. 3. the product produces high quality sound. 4. the product is well made to last a life-time. I don't think Paul would have hated the Palladium.

I own the Palladium 5.1 setup with p37s. Although I do use this setup for home theater I also use it for 2 channel listening probably 75% of the time. There is no doubt you are paying somewhat for the build quality and aesthetics the speakers provide. I think they are gorgeous and extremely well made/engineered. Except for the decals. The room they are in calibrated and the sound is as flat as it can be. They sound fantastic - better than my klispchorns (not calibrated, much larger room). Would I buy them again? Yes. YMMV but if money isn't the issue then get them, you will not be sorry. I would suggest the Palladium subwoofer to go with any of the 3 speaker options (37, 38, or 39). The sub is perfectly matched to the speakers and you will hear excellent bass, but bass that dovetails flawlessly with the speakers, if properly setup.

He gave you the benefit and told you up front prior to commitment, prior to travel, prior to ANY consideration on your part about the changes and you agreed to the terms. It's his subwoofer. In fact, he may have very well wanted to keep it for his system. Perhaps he changed his mind and re-posted it for sale? Are you jumping to a conclusion and assuming he's lying about the whole situation? Is there a reason why you can't take him at his word? Or did I miss something where he admitted he was doing something you consider under-handed? It's the sellers prerogative to change the terms of his offer prior to the deal being finalized. That is the bottom line. If you want the subwoofer, make an offer. If you don't, move on. Leave the man alone.