|
Warpe
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Canuckistan
Posts: 3,905
|
|
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
so a trillion is like a thousand billions! If only math could have prepared me for this!
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cr4zybe4utifu1
Has anyone here actually studied economics?
|
Yes and no. If you mean have I studied in the same way I would if it were to make a profession out of it, then no; but if you mean have I studied it like I would any hobby I enjoy and want to understand, then yes.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lucothefish
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
i hate it! its making fun of my choice! swap in bush plz for a good hearty laugh.
|
I almost went with Bush saying "I accidentally the economy, is that bad?" Maybe someone else can do one (there's a few snaps of him in the FTR gallery).
FWIW I Like Obama, but well the opportunity arose here so \m/
And futurama avatars are sexy. |
If you were serious about making it accurate the best faces you could use would be Alan Greenspan, Phil Gramm, or Jim Leach
And be super glad that McCain didn't win because Gramm was his favorite for Treasury Secretary, yet if it wasn't for him then the deregulation that overturned FDR era legislation and thus allowed the financial system to create this mess would have never happened.
Or you could use faces of bank lobbyists or the legislators who allow lobbyists to be so powerful or most of the voters in the country who have no business voting because they don't investigate the issues and thus are easily misled into voting for policies that hurt them.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
I would also like to mention that all the talk about the debt is not what it seems. US debt/GDP ratio is a bit less than that of some other major nations, our creditor nations still consider US Treasuries as the most secure investment on the planet, it is well understood that US economy is so fucking strong that paying down just about any debt is easy. The major nations of today were not born yesterday, they known all about what happened during the post WWII decades until the wealthy got tired of the middle class sharing their wealth and decided to hijack the Republican Party around approximately the late sixties/early seventies.
Our debt could be double or triple what it is now and it still wouldn't be a problem. Our potential to pay it down in short order is amazing, and our creditors know that Obama's policies are similar to the policies of Presidents like FDR and Eisenhower and that those policies generate tons of revenue and prosperity instead of just transferring 90% of the wealth to the top 1% and the other 10% of wealth to the top 10%.
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf |
how is this a problem? Since our money is backed by nothing, lets just print the requisite trillions and call it a day on this silly debt hodge-podge.
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
flomo
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mashing potatoes
Posts: 878
|
|
can't we just transfer the balance to a low intrest card?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Protect dog
|
|
|
BennyLaRue
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 646
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flomo
can't we just transfer the balance to a low intrest card?
|
Credit cards are evil. Consider a Home Equity Line of Credit, United States.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf |
This is a concern if the deficit is high enough. I really, really doubt it is. US is by far the most economically powerful nation on the planet, this makes demand for US prosperity paramount, and the nature of investment is that it enhances surplus capacity.
Also, one interesting thing to note is that we ran up a huge deficit with Bush, and his policies were horrible investments, yet we were still able to run up a huge deficit. Now we have a policy maker in office who actually is trying to invest. I would not in the slightest be surprised if US creditors are more thrilled with crediting the US now than they were when Bush was in charge
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Being the most powerful economy in the world is the only thing that has made the current $3 trillion foreign debt possible, if that increases to 15 trillion in the next 10 years, how long do you think China is gonna count on getting it's money back at some point? What happens if China, Japan and/or the Saudis decide ok that's it, no more bonds for us? I don't think it's pessimistic to say the situation is slightly risky.
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
|
|
|
|
Monty3038
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 788
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The problem isn't really where it's at now, but how fast it's increasing. The projected budget deficit for 2009 alone is $1.752 trillion, with another $9 trillion deficit in the next 10 years. These numbers are the optimistic ones, assuming that all of the stimulus plans work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets...ry_Tables2.pdf |
This is a concern if the deficit is high enough. I really, really doubt it is. US is by far the most economically powerful nation on the planet, this makes demand for US prosperity paramount, and the nature of investment is that it enhances surplus capacity.
Also, one interesting thing to note is that we ran up a huge deficit with Bush, and his policies were horrible investments, yet we were still able to run up a huge deficit. Now we have a policy maker in office who actually is trying to invest. I would not in the slightest be surprised if US creditors are more thrilled with crediting the US now than they were when Bush was in charge |
Regardless of the Bush situation, taxing the crap out of business and the consumer to make work programs and taking over businesses is not the way to reduce the deficit... trying to reduce something by making it larger is a bad plan.
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monty3038
Regardless of the Bush situation, taxing the crap out of business and the consumer to make work programs and taking over businesses is not the way to reduce the deficit... trying to reduce something by making it larger is a bad plan.
|
I don't get it, how does increasing taxes increase the deficit? What is the way to reduce the deficit then?
|
|
|
|
Monty3038
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 788
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monty3038
Regardless of the Bush situation, taxing the crap out of business and the consumer to make work programs and taking over businesses is not the way to reduce the deficit... trying to reduce something by making it larger is a bad plan.
|
I don't get it, how does increasing taxes increase the deficit? What is the way to reduce the deficit then? |
Good question.
Increasing taxes reduces incentive to keep your business here or to make money here. That in turn reduces the income here, which reduces tax revenue.
Reducing taxes encourages spending and investment in the country, thus increasing overall revenue by increasing the tax base.
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monty3038
Good question.
Increasing taxes reduces incentive to keep your business here or to make money here. That in turn reduces the income here, which reduces tax revenue.
Reducing taxes encourages spending and investment in the country, thus increasing overall revenue by increasing the tax base.
|
I've heard about that. I'd be interested to see some math or statistics to see whether that's true.
|
|
|
|
Monty3038
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 788
|
|
Here's one I found quickly...
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reagtxct.htm
Let me see what I can find with some graphs... and easy to understand details...
|
|
|
|
a500lbgorilla
|
|
JESUS TAKE THE KEYBOARD
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: This room is a good place to be
Posts: 8,379
|
|
all of the sudden this convo has taken the form of one I want to pay attention to. My ears are perked.
|
Smithers, use the amnesia ray.
You mean the revolver, sir?
Precisely.
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Being the most powerful economy in the world is the only thing that has made the current $3 trillion foreign debt possible, if that increases to 15 trillion in the next 10 years, how long do you think China is gonna count on getting it's money back at some point? What happens if China, Japan and/or the Saudis decide ok that's it, no more bonds for us? I don't think it's pessimistic to say the situation is slightly risky.
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt |
15 trillion foreign debt would actually be a problem, as to how much and how it would be combated is debatable. We're not gonna get even close to that though, since most accrued debt is like 3/4 domestic, we'd hafta be rolling like 40 trillion debt plus tons of extra inflation from fiat currency creation in order to be around 15 trillion foreign. And yes, that would be a problem
However, not only would that be a problem for US, but for our creditors as well, and it's debatable as to who gets the worst of it. Both US and our biggest creditor, China, know that the solution is and would be a moderate, gradual process of reducing US and Chinese dependency on each other. That's what it is, a mutual dependency, not the deluded idea that many uninformed have that it's all US dependence upon China. Creditor nations having to stop crediting would largely destroy the investments they already made, and we just simply wont see that.
We would not see a drastic shift in policy unless it was virtually the end of the world. Doing so would just be too terrible of policy for both US and China when compared to a gradual process. We are working on this gradual process right now, and I'm betting that both our governments confidence is high given that those in power actually know what they're doing.
Also, it seems the debate is not about whether or not Obama's budget will get the deficit lower, but that some think that the process of doing so will be too high a cost due to inflation or foreign creditors backing out. Well, the facts just do not support that the percentage of increase over the first couple years of the budget is large enough to cause the kind of catastrophic reactions of major countries. It's an ideological debate among arm-chairs, not a numbers debate among professionals. Besides, if Obama's budget were the big problem that some speculate it is, we would be seeing pressure from US creditors, even if behind the scenes, and this pressure would be very powerful and it would in effect play a role in modifying the budget.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monty3038
Good question.
Increasing taxes reduces incentive to keep your business here or to make money here. That in turn reduces the income here, which reduces tax revenue.
Reducing taxes encourages spending and investment in the country, thus increasing overall revenue by increasing the tax base.
|
Except that historical facts disagree. The biggest booming economy with the highest purchasing power from the middle class in history was during a time when taxes on the wealthy were much, much higher than now, and were possibly too high.
Even if you were right, you're neglecting all the huge negative impacts of reducing taxes too low. More importantly, too low on the rich. Correct tax policy has nothing to do with how it affects investment, but how it affects middle-class purchasing power. After all, investments are worthless without a middle class, and the stronger the middle class the better the investments.
The reign of Reaganomics in US has been what you say the solution is, yet it is doing absolutely nothing to benefit us now (as it never did). We're not lacking supply, but demand. This is the same as not lacking investment, but purchasing ability, and the same as not lacking wealthy people, but lacking middle class. We're not lacking in a small percentage of people with gigantic wealth, but in high enough wealth of the median income bracket to drive the economy.
Also, you don't seem to be cognizant of the actual situation here because taxes are not going up for anybody but the wealthy, and they're only going up 3% while that's still drastically low, and this isn't happening till like 2011.
You know, we got out of the Depression largely due to huge increases in taxes on the rich, and that's still not the best way to do it. All the tax revenue was necessary to create a strong middle class, but if FDR could have borrowed or printed enough then it was possibly the suboptimal approach, yet it still worked.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monty3038
|
I'm in no way an expert, and only a wee bit learned on what it takes to understand this, but it looks very ugly. The author is neglecting many factors and leaping to conclusions, and much of this flies in the face of economic consensus
I really don't wanna get into it because, well, I simply am not knowledgeable enough, but one example is that he's not accounting at all for real median income changes and wealth distribution alterations.
I could be wrong about this specifically, which is why I would defer to others I know who are qualified to give an analysis if I cared enough.
Besides, the conclusion of the article doesn't support your sentiments anyways.
|
|
|
|
CoccoBill
|
|
Flush
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Finding my game
Posts: 423
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
15 trillion foreign debt would actually be a problem, as to how much and how it would be combated is debatable. We're not gonna get even close to that though, since most accrued debt is like 3/4 domestic, we'd hafta be rolling like 40 trillion debt plus tons of extra inflation from fiat currency creation in order to be around 15 trillion foreign. And yes, that would be a problem
|
Those numbers are from the Obama administration, the 2010 budget. They are the projected deficits, not the foreign debt. The health reform, tax cuts and other changes aim to bring the total deficit of 2010-2019 down from 9 trillion to 7 trillion.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
