rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 18, 2013 21:46:25 GMT -5
"what do you think WILL be the result of them, rockon?"
Come now Mr DJ, if you insist but I think you just want to make me type! Here's the short version.
Deficit spending increases the national debt, debt requires a large portion of our budget to be spent on interest, this interest cost leads to higher taxation or limits what can be spent for infastructure and essential services, higher taxation makes us less competitive globally, jobs move to more competitive countries, people loss jobs, less jobs mean less tax revenue and higher unemployment, higher unemployment means more home foreclosures, more foreclosures mean declining propety values, decling values lead to a national recession, a natioanl recession leads to a global recession, a global recession leads other countries to hate America for ruining their economy, alright I give up lets just spend the money till we go broke!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 22:04:12 GMT -5
"what do you think WILL be the result of them, rockon?" Come now Mr DJ, if you insist but I think you just want to make me type! Here's the short version. Deficit spending increases the national debt, debt requires a large portion of our budget to be spent on interest, this interest cost leads to higher taxation or limits what can be spent for infastructure and essential services, higher taxation makes us less competitive globally, jobs move to more competitive countries, people loss jobs, less jobs mean less tax revenue and higher unemployment, higher unemployment means more home foreclosures, more foreclosures mean declining propety values, decling values lead to a national recession, a natioanl recession leads to a global recession, a global recession leads other countries to hate America for ruining their economy, alright I give up lets just spend the money till we go broke! ok, you needn't have gone that far. yes, if this continues, you are likely right. i was just checking, rockon. i think that that more likely scenario is that we end up getting taxed like Europe for our extravagances without having any. that will really suck, but it beats the death spiral you are predicting. or, to put it more honestly, our grandkids will pay for our extravagances (like the Iraq War) long after we are dead and gone.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 22:13:05 GMT -5
I am happy the deficit is coming down. But it could have been much better.
Who cares who's budget year it was?? It was "his" spending. He helped jack up the 2009 spending that everyone now insanely uses as a benchmark for all future spending. Interest payments on the debt are about $200B lower than the would normally be due to artificially low interest rates. All $200B of that was replaced by new spending. That is a significant increase as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2013 22:20:49 GMT -5
So reading what you said further, you agree spending was jacked up u dee Obama, but you give him credit for keeping it flat? He kept it flat as interest payments declined by billions. And all the increase in spending was supposed to be TEMPORARY. Instead, it has essentially become permanent! Heck, we also exited Iraq, and even THAT did little to reduce spending!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 22:58:40 GMT -5
I am happy the deficit is coming down. But it could have been much better. Who cares who's budget year it was?? i care. if Bush is partially to blame, then Obama is partially the answer. if Obama is ALL to blame, he is NONE of the answer.It was "his" spending. He helped jack up the 2009 spending that everyone now insanely uses as a benchmark for all future spending. Interest payments on the debt are about $200B lower than the would normally be due to artificially low interest rates. All $200B of that was replaced by new spending. That is a significant increase as well. you are exaggerating. the budget grew 10+% in 2009. and it was not ALL his spending, ib. i think you have lost perspective on this one. we'll try some other time.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 18, 2013 22:59:57 GMT -5
So reading what you said further, you agree spending was jacked up u dee Obama, but you give him credit for keeping it flat? read again. i merely said that it stayed flat. i think there are larger forces at play, and they are still THERE. this is why i think the argument is important- but you keep thinking i am trying to make it political. i'm not. Obama should hang, just like Bush, imo. in that respect, i care more about everyone else here, including Paul.He kept it flat as interest payments declined by billions. And all the increase in spending was supposed to be TEMPORARY. Instead, it has essentially become permanent! Heck, we also exited Iraq, and even THAT did little to reduce spending! it is not permanent. about half of the 2009 increase was peeled back between 2009 and now. i would like to hope that the rest would follow. we'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 7:30:58 GMT -5
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2013 8:38:13 GMT -5
"that will really suck, but it beats the death spiral you are predicting."
Predicting might not be the best word since we have been through several small versions of this scenario already in recent decades. The last one was labeled "the great recession", "brink of the cliff", "catastorphic" along with many other things. It seems that these cycles like climate change and our debt just keep getting larger and more damaging each time. I think we will still have cycles of good times and bad but the general direction is wrong and doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. Worse yet I'm not even sure the majority even recognize the problem.
"our grandkids will pay for our extravagances (like the Iraq War) long after we are dead and gone."
Not doubt about it. We are the most selfish and greedy generation in this nations history and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. If we recognize that much than why oh why won't we demand change?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 10:44:50 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 10:51:41 GMT -5
"that will really suck, but it beats the death spiral you are predicting." Predicting might not be the best word since we have been through several small versions of this scenario already in recent decades. The last one was labeled "the great recession", "brink of the cliff", "catastorphic" along with many other things. the last several bubbles have been ASSET bubbles (or money borrowed against assets, in the latest rendition). what you are talking about is something entirely different.It seems that these cycles like climate change and our debt just keep getting larger and more damaging each time. there is a good reason for that. are you interested in watching a good lecture on the subject? try typing Capitalism Hits The Fan in Google. i think the guys name is Dr. Woolf. about half a dozen people of all political stripes here have watched it here, with rave reviews. I think we will still have cycles of good times and bad but the general direction is wrong and doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. Worse yet I'm not even sure the majority even recognize the problem. there is more than one problem. that makes it difficult to sort out. but the basic problem is that wages have failed to keep up with productivity since the 70's in the US. there are a lot of reasons why it is, but only one basic one."our grandkids will pay for our extravagances (like the Iraq War) long after we are dead and gone." Not doubt about it. We are the most selfish and greedy generation in this nations history and our children and grandchildren will pay the price. If we recognize that much than why oh why won't we demand change? i don't think most of us see ourselves that way. most of us just see ourselves as doing our jobs, saving what we can, and trying to ride out our expenses. but the basic fact is that we have taken more than we have given. and the proof of it is here: www.usdebtclock.org/edit: the link above shows the effects of the sequester. it is about 8% on spending. spending is about $3T. 8% of $3T is $24B. that is a long way from the $240B that the CBO just cut their deficit estimate. in other words, it is NOT the sequester that is causing it, for the most part.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 10:56:59 GMT -5
What's the difference? Are you going to join me in crusade by any chances.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 11:03:32 GMT -5
What's the difference? Are you going to join me in crusade by any chances. i am just asking. if it is inflation adjusted, i will go into a blind panic. but i don't think it is. and if it isn't, the inflation adjustment between today and 1970 is about 6:1 edit: i don't know why FRED doesn't use log plots, too. it is impossible to read a chart with that high of a exponent over it's range.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 11:24:59 GMT -5
What's the difference? Are you going to join me in crusade by any chances. i am just asking. if it is inflation adjusted, i will go into a blind panic. but i don't think it is. and if it isn't, the inflation adjustment between today and 1970 is about 6:1 You maybe right. But it doesn't make a much difference in my opinion. My point's fundamental of principle of economic system is broken. It's not just us, matter of fact is many countries in europe and Japan is start doing the same thing as we are. We are in unchartered territory and it created uncertainty in our economic cycle. Don't forget , central banker is enabling government to come up with sensible burgit. That's my opinion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 11:48:29 GMT -5
i am just asking. if it is inflation adjusted, i will go into a blind panic. but i don't think it is. and if it isn't, the inflation adjustment between today and 1970 is about 6:1 You maybe right. But it doesn't make a much difference in my opinion. My point's fundamental of principle of economic system is broken. It's not just us, matter of fact is many countries in europe and Japan is start doing the same thing as we are. We are in unchartered territory and it created uncertainty in our economic cycle. Don't forget , central banker is enabling government to come up with sensible burgit. That's my opinion. if everybody is doing it, we don't have as much to worry about. we will all have to transition to a world without fiat currency. what worries me far more is that we are among a few that is doing it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 13:04:08 GMT -5
You maybe right. But it doesn't make a much difference in my opinion. My point's fundamental of principle of economic system is broken. It's not just us, matter of fact is many countries in europe and Japan is start doing the same thing as we are. We are in unchartered territory and it created uncertainty in our economic cycle. Don't forget , central banker is enabling government to come up with sensible burgit. That's my opinion. what worries me far more is that we are among a few that is doing it. Have a good one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 13:41:07 GMT -5
what worries me far more is that we are among a few that is doing it. Have a good one. seriously! i think about stuff like that. i look at the monetary policies elsewhere, and i look at ours, and i get worried. it has NOTHING to do with deficits. most places have those. it has to do with printing money to fix that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 14:08:56 GMT -5
Have a good one. seriously! i think about stuff like that. i look at the monetary policies elsewhere, and i look at ours, and i get worried. dj, I have been reading monetary policies for last several years when Fed first started with QE1. I understand it very well reason of why it's like saying their hands are tied by all of these headwind. I just don't think QE is not an answer to all of the ills we are facing as a nation.
In my opinion money supply need to come from real saving by people then it can be more effective and same token it can build a confidence to fund investment for the future.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 14:36:42 GMT -5
seriously! i think about stuff like that. i look at the monetary policies elsewhere, and i look at ours, and i get worried. dj, I have been reading monetary policies for last several years when Fed first started with QE1. I understand it very well reason of why it's like saying their hands are tied by all of these headwind. I just don't think QE is not an answer to all of the ills we are facing as a nation.
In my opinion money supply need to come from real saving by people then it can be more effective and same token it can build a confidence to fund investment for the future. this is pretty much exactly what peter schiff says. we need to move from consumption to investment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 14:41:16 GMT -5
dj, I have been reading monetary policies for last several years when Fed first started with QE1. I understand it very well reason of why it's like saying their hands are tied by all of these headwind. I just don't think QE is not an answer to all of the ills we are facing as a nation.
In my opinion money supply need to come from real saving by people then it can be more effective and same token it can build a confidence to fund investment for the future. this is pretty much exactly what peter schiff says. we need to move from consumption to investment. dj, Who is Peter Schiff ? You just refuse to give a credit, aren't you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 15:20:05 GMT -5
this is pretty much exactly what peter schiff says. we need to move from consumption to investment. dj, Who is Peter Schiff ? You just refuse to give a credit, aren't you. Peter Schiff is one of my heroes. there. feel better? here is Peter Schiff making Art Laffer (supply side hero) look as stupid as he is:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 19, 2013 15:25:17 GMT -5
Schiff is 100% right, Laffer is 100% wrong. as usual. voodoo economics got us here. asset based economics will get us out.
if we care.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 15:30:15 GMT -5
dj, Who is Peter Schiff ? You just refuse to give a credit, aren't you. Peter Schiff is one of my heroes. there. feel better? Have a great weekend! dj
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 15:33:48 GMT -5
"we need to move from consumption to investment."
That's what you said I agree one hundred percent with that statement. dj
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2013 15:37:48 GMT -5
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.Thomas Jefferson
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on May 19, 2013 16:58:22 GMT -5
"the last several bubbles have been ASSET bubbles (or money borrowed against assets, in the latest rendition). what you are talking about is something entirely different."
No what I talk about is the same. Money is borrowed against assets assuming they will continue to increase in value. The value decreases instead an dthe bubble is busted. In the latest rendition it was housing that was hit the hardest.
"there is a good reason for that. are you interested in watching a good lecture on the subject? try typing Capitalism Hits The Fan in Google. i think the guys name is Dr. Woolf. about half a dozen people of all political stripes here have watched it here, with rave reviews."
I have been a busy boy of late but will watch it when I get the chance.
"there is more than one problem. that makes it difficult to sort out. but the basic problem is that wages have failed to keep up with productivity since the 70's in the US. there are a lot of reasons why it is, but only one basic one."
Wages not keeping up with productivity would seem to be more of a sympton rather than a problem. It would fit into my brief earlier theory of our economic spiral but it would not be the start or number one problem.
"edit: the link above shows the effects of the sequester. it is about 8% on spending. spending is about $3T. 8% of $3T is $24B. that is a long way from the $240B that the CBO just cut their deficit estimate. in other words, it is NOT the sequester that is causing it, for the most part."
The estimates I heard were double that amount but 10-20% of anything like this could certainly be a major individual piece of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 20, 2013 0:56:02 GMT -5
"the last several bubbles have been ASSET bubbles (or money borrowed against assets, in the latest rendition). what you are talking about is something entirely different." No what I talk about is the same. Money is borrowed against assets assuming they will continue to increase in value. The value decreases instead an dthe bubble is busted. In the latest rendition it was housing that was hit the hardest. "there is a good reason for that. are you interested in watching a good lecture on the subject? try typing Capitalism Hits The Fan in Google. i think the guys name is Dr. Woolf. about half a dozen people of all political stripes here have watched it here, with rave reviews." I have been a busy boy of late but will watch it when I get the chance. "there is more than one problem. that makes it difficult to sort out. but the basic problem is that wages have failed to keep up with productivity since the 70's in the US. there are a lot of reasons why it is, but only one basic one." Wages not keeping up with productivity would seem to be more of a sympton rather than a problem. It would fit into my brief earlier theory of our economic spiral but it would not be the start or number one problem. "edit: the link above shows the effects of the sequester. it is about 8% on spending. spending is about $3T. 8% of $3T is $24B. that is a long way from the $240B that the CBO just cut their deficit estimate. in other words, it is NOT the sequester that is causing it, for the most part." The estimates I heard were double that amount but 10-20% of anything like this could certainly be a major individual piece of it. before i looked into it, i figured the number would be "over half". that is why i wasn't debating the point earlier. but it is a much smaller fraction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 5:38:11 GMT -5
Good day to all. www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-20/stocks-slide-following-permadove-chuck-evans-attempt-mathSupposedly this was news to someone although it wasn't news to our readers who knew since September that not only will the Fed's balance sheet hit "a very large" $4 trillion by 2014, it would hit a "very larger" $5 trillion by 2015, when the Fed may realistically start abandoning QE.That's right: there is a possibility the Fed would end up owning over two-thirds of all Treasurys with a maturity over 6 years by the end of 2014, especially now that the US suddenly needs to issue less primary debt than expected previously. Extrapolating further: 80% by 2015; 90%+ by 2016 and #Ref! by 2017 and onward. And that, ladies and gents, is the real math that the Fed does not want to talk about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2013 9:17:13 GMT -5
what is the basis of that projection?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2013 10:28:59 GMT -5
what is the basis of that projection? Trend My friend . That's what I am guessing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2013 10:31:01 GMT -5
what is the basis of that projection? Trend My friend . That's what I am guessing. the trend has been pretty flat for the last few years. you mean "long term trend"?
|
|