Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be EconomicallyRuined

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by hamilton, Jul 25, 2011.

  1. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. hamilton

    Rich Grise Guest

    Rich Grise, Jul 25, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. hamilton

    Les Cargill Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should BeEconomically Ruined

    wrote:
    <snip>
    >
    > Our credit rating /will/ be downgraded--I wrote that here long ago--


    Yeah, I don't buy that that is necessary or proper. We're a standalone
    nation with a fiat currency and a moderately stable government. People
    crash credit on nations when they are politically unstable, not because
    they're short on revenue.

    If what you say is true, then the bounden duty of Congrefs is to raise
    taxes - a lot, and right frickin' now. Maybe you haven't been
    following the thread out there, but spending cuts are not much even
    possible. The people who think they can call for them just haven't
    looked at the data.

    The thing that ultimately led to the downfall
    of the Whig Party was ... government spending. Arguments over it.
    The South took the Jackson track and was enraged at the Hamilton thing
    of big banks - felt like the big banks would eventually overrun the
    political power of the South. A lot of the runup to the stuff before
    the Civil War was extreme shortages of currency because of Jackson. A
    peak was the censure of Polk; that was the beginning of the end for the
    Whigs. It was over the debt form the Mexican War.

    I might be a bit hair trigger about this, but we could easily
    be facing just as harsh a split. It's quite similar, IMO.

    > not for lack of borrowing authorization, but because we're borrowing
    > and spending off a cliff.


    There's no evidence for that. Look, I mean no offense, but
    government debt is a *crazy* system. I don't have a title,
    and the website that used to talk about it is long gone, but
    there's a lot of data about the British Empire, and they
    ran fantastic deficits.

    There's no cliff here.

    > Our rating is already unrealistically
    > artificially high,


    I... I just don't think you understand our system, then.
    That debt? It can be pretty much rolled forever.

    > and interest rates are half the historical norm--
    > those will go up, naturally. That's expected.
    >


    Well, *IMO*, that's been more than half the problem. Had Clinton
    insisted on a half point more interest rate and a half point
    more inflation, then the 2000 crash would have been much more moderate.
    Ditto Bush.

    The *primary problem* is too *little* (what used to be called) M3. Now,
    if Milton Freidman has been overturned ( and he hasn't - Greenspan
    fell on his own sword ), then oops. But the Fed flinched in 2008, and
    tightened, and they really haven't loosened since. So we're in a Japan
    style death spiral, and it's going to be even harder.

    But you can't save your way out of being broke. It doesn't work.

    > --
    > Cheers,
    > James Arthur


    --
    Les Cargill
     
    Les Cargill, Jul 26, 2011
    #3
  4. hamilton

    amdx Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should BeEconomically Ruined

    On 7/25/2011 3:15 PM, Wanderer wrote:
    > On Jul 25, 3:56 pm, Rich Grise<> wrote:
    >> Fred Bloggs wrote:
    >>> On Jul 25, 10:21 am, hamilton<> wrote:
    >>>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-wheth...

    >>
    >>> This is funnier

    >>
    >> http://www.theonion.com/articles/last-male-heir-to-bloodline-watches-...
    >>
    >> Ah, would that THIS were true:http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-quietly-slips-out-of-afghanistan-...
    >>
    >> Cheers!
    >> Rich

    >
    > This is still my favorite
    > http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/barry-bonds-took-steroids-reports-everyone-who-has,1914/


    I'll top your favorite with an Onion Video.

    http://www.theonion.com/video/vh1-reality-show-bus-crashes-in-california-causing,14390/

    Mikek
     
    amdx, Jul 26, 2011
    #4
  5. hamilton

    Les Cargill Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should BeEconomically Ruined

    wrote:
    > On Jul 26, 12:38 am, Les Cargill<> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Our credit rating /will/ be downgraded--I wrote that here long ago--

    >>
    >> Yeah, I don't buy that that is necessary or proper. We're a standalone
    >> nation with a fiat currency and a moderately stable government.

    >
    > Other than pathological situations, why on earth would someone invest
    > in a devaluing currency for a net negative return? That makes no
    > sense.
    >


    Devaluing relative to what? Oil? Gold? The Euro? Corn?

    That really should answer the question. Right now, government bonds are
    still much lower risk than those things. The liquidity preference
    running rampant right now pushed back into government debt. Again.

    >> People
    >> crash credit on nations when they are politically unstable, not because
    >> they're short on revenue.

    >
    > People who make loans want to be repaid, with interest. When they're
    > afraid that won't happen, e.g. Greece, they first ask higher returns,
    > then stop lending altogether.
    >


    You can't compare Greece and the US. You can compare Greece and
    California. Neither is truly sovereign w.r.t debt.

    >> If what you say is true, then the bounden duty of Congrefs is to raise
    >> taxes - a lot, and right frickin' now.

    >
    > They'd have to raise revenue by a factor of 1.76. It can't be done.


    I don't think it has to be that much, but you're right that it
    *won't* be done.

    > (In effect, they've done that already by borrowing the money, payments
    > for which will come from future tax, but it's not at all certain we'll
    > pay, hence the looming crisis.)
    >


    No, the trade off is that we *won't* have to tax for it, if it's
    kept as long term government debt. GDP growth eclipses it over
    a span of several decades.

    >> Maybe you haven't been
    >> following the thread out there, but spending cuts are not much even
    >> possible.

    >
    > Of course they're possible, don't be absurd. Obama's raised spending
    > 24% in two years.


    No, he *really* hasn't. That's disingenuous, and whoever told
    you that lied to you. I'm not defending Obama here, it's just that
    what... $14T of that is internal, shadow-column stuff between the Fed
    and Treasury. It never has to see the light of day.

    > He's baselined the stimulus and bailout spending
    > hikes--we could start by eliminating those.
    >


    SFAIK, there's little or no uncertainty with either the stimulus or
    bailouts. Those are already factored in by the markets.

    >> The people who think they can call for them just haven't
    >> looked at the data.

    >
    > I have, but I just wonder if you have. Cutting big is dirt simple.
    > We have legions of absolutely useless or harmful agencies, to start.
    >


    That won't amount to much. Ezra Klein did a fairly detailed analysis
    on what could be cut some months back, and it's just not much
    at all. 'Course, Google is no help - too many posts...

    The lion's share is SS and Medicare, followed by military obligations.

    Qualification: when I say "can't", I mean that we're up against
    something like the Hayek-calculation limit on doing anything to
    change things. We possibly *could*, but nobody's really smart enough
    to untangle it.

    >> The thing that ultimately led to the downfall
    >> of the Whig Party was ... government spending. Arguments over it.
    >> The South took the Jackson track and was enraged at the Hamilton thing
    >> of big banks - felt like the big banks would eventually overrun the
    >> political power of the South. A lot of the runup to the stuff before
    >> the Civil War was extreme shortages of currency because of Jackson. A
    >> peak was the censure of Polk; that was the beginning of the end for the
    >> Whigs. It was over the debt form the Mexican War.
    >>
    >> I might be a bit hair trigger about this, but we could easily
    >> be facing just as harsh a split. It's quite similar, IMO.

    >
    > I agree. If people can't see that spending and borrowing has
    > consequences, that it wrecks employment and diminishes people's
    > savings, if we stick with the class warfare drivel--that can only end
    > badly.
    >


    I don't know what to tell you - spending and borrowing *don't* have
    as severe of consequences as people want to beleieve. But I know it's
    all but impossible to have a dialogue about this these days.

    >>> not for lack of borrowing authorization, but because we're borrowing
    >>> and spending off a cliff.

    >>
    >> There's no evidence for that. Look, I mean no offense, but
    >> government debt is a *crazy* system. I don't have a title,
    >> and the website that used to talk about it is long gone, but
    >> there's a lot of data about the British Empire, and they
    >> ran fantastic deficits.
    >>
    >> There's no cliff here.

    >
    > Good. Since money is free, let's borrow quadrillions and all be
    > rich. Since there's no limit, we can all vacation in Greece.
    >


    Heh. Just don't look down...

    >
    >>> Our rating is already unrealistically
    >>> artificially high,

    >>
    >> I... I just don't think you understand our system, then.
    >> That debt? It can be pretty much rolled forever.
    >>
    >>> and interest rates are half the historical norm--
    >>> those will go up, naturally. That's expected.

    >>
    >> Well, *IMO*, that's been more than half the problem. Had Clinton
    >> insisted on a half point more interest rate and a half point
    >> more inflation, then the 2000 crash would have been much more moderate.
    >> Ditto Bush.
    >>
    >> The *primary problem* is too *little* (what used to be called) M3. Now,
    >> if Milton Freidman has been overturned ( and he hasn't - Greenspan
    >> fell on his own sword ), then oops. But the Fed flinched in 2008, and
    >> tightened, and they really haven't loosened since. So we're in a Japan
    >> style death spiral, and it's going to be even harder.
    >>
    >> But you can't save your way out of being broke. It doesn't work.

    >
    > Of course it works. The /only/ way to accumulate wealth is to create
    > it faster than you spend it. So, either earn more or spend less.
    >


    For *you*, yes. For *us*, collectively, no. For the government, no
    (iow). We've got our back to a deflationary cliff.

    > Right now we're repressing businesses and revenue, AND spending money
    > we don't have like no society has ever spent in human history. We're
    > penalizing productive people to encourage non-productive people not to
    > work--that's simply never going to work.
    >


    "We" being you and I not spending, I take it. Well, yeah. That last
    sentence... I dunno what to say. I'm not even sure I count the "nots";)

    As to production... I don't see a problem - we're completely
    blocked on the demand side. Google Arnold Kling and "corkball"...


    > Neither can we borrow our way out of debt, or spend ourselves to
    > prosperity. We've tried that big for two years, and it's not anywhere
    > close to working, it's damaging the nation. We're burying ourselves
    > in debt, for nothing.
    >
    > Here's a simple test: Multiply the trillions we've spent on stimulus
    > by Keynes' multiplier, and divide that by the price of one reasonable
    > job. Compare that jobs-creation number that to the actual net gain in
    > employment over the period.
    >


    Oh, I know. What's weird is that no Keynsian jobs
    creation has happened. Firms seem to have annealed around
    just doing things with as little as possible.

    > But Keynes is dead, he was right about that much.
    >


    :)


    > --
    > Cheers,
    > James Arthur


    --
    Les Cargill
     
    Les Cargill, Jul 26, 2011
    #5
  6. hamilton

    hamilton Guest

    hamilton, Jul 26, 2011
    #6
  7. hamilton

    Rich Grise Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

    JeffM wrote:
    > cbarn24050@ aol.com wrote:
    >>hamilton wrote:
    >>>[http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-whether-or-not-nati,20977/]

    >>
    >>[It's] [already] ruined.
    >>

    > "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
    > It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote
    > themselves
    > largesse from the public treasury.
    > From that moment on, the majority always votes for
    > the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
    > with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal
    > policy,
    > always followed by a dictatorship.
    > The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200
    > years."
    >
    > Alexis De Tocqueville
    > Democracy in America (1835)


    That's supposed to be why we're supposed to be a Republic.

    Hope This Helps!
    Rich
     
    Rich Grise, Jul 27, 2011
    #7
  8. hamilton

    Rich Grise Guest

    OT: The USA is NOT a "democracy!" <thread hijack>

    wrote:
    > On Jul 25, 6:20 pm, JeffM <> wrote:
    >> cbarn24050@ aol.com wrote:
    >> >hamilton wrote:

    >>
    >>[http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-wheth...]
    >>
    >> >[It's] [already] ruined.

    >>
    >> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
    >> It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote
    >> themselves
    >> largesse from the public treasury.
    >> From that moment on, the majority always votes for
    >> the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
    >> with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal
    >> policy,
    >> always followed by a dictatorship.
    >> The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200
    >> years."
    >>
    >> Alexis De Tocqueville
    >> Democracy in America (1835)

    >
    > The principles are sound but the quote's modern, not from DIA.
    > http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
    >
    > The Constitution had some pretty good protections against that process
    > though--the various checks and balances, and the use of layers of
    > representatives rather than direct democracy.
    >
    > We've scuttled most of them, but they are why we've lasted as long as
    > we have.
    >

    Just for S&G, I did a text search in
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
    on "democracy" and got two hits on "dem" --
    "Article II, Section 4 - Disqualification

    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
    shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
    Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    [the "dem" in "Miscemeanors"]

    and

    "Article IV - The States
    ....
    Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
    Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who
    shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of
    the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up,
    to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

    (No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof,
    escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation
    therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered
    up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This
    clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)"

    [the "dem in "on demand"]

    That's two occurrences of "dem," let alone "democracy."

    But when I looked for "republic," I got this:
    "Article IV - The States
    ....
    Section 4 - Republican government

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
    Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
    Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
    cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

    Hope This Helps!
    Rich
     
    Rich Grise, Jul 27, 2011
    #8
  9. hamilton

    Rich Grise Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

    wrote:
    > On Jul 25, 10:21 am, hamilton <> wrote:
    >> http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-wheth...

    >
    > The odd thing is that anyone believes we have to borrow more money to
    > save our credit rating, that more borrowing somehow staves off
    > default, or that default on $29B in interest payments is even remotely
    > possible when ongoing revenue is roughly $200B a month.
    >
    > Other than the President saying it all the time, one wonders why
    > anyone believes it.


    That's simple. It's because Our Glorious Beloved Infallible Leader said
    it. You know, somewhat like, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible
    tells me so..."

    Yeah, I know, it makes me sick, too.

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
    Rich Grise, Jul 27, 2011
    #9
  10. hamilton

    Rich Grise Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

    wrote:
    >
    > Here's a simple test: Multiply the trillions we've spent on stimulus
    > by Keynes' multiplier, and divide that by the price of one reasonable
    > job. Compare that jobs-creation number that to the actual net gain in
    > employment over the period.
    >

    Hell look at the price of a loaf of freakin' bread!

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
    Rich Grise, Jul 27, 2011
    #10
  11. hamilton

    Rich Grise Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

    Bill Sloman wrote:
    > On Jul 26, 1:13 pm, wrote:
    >> On Jul 26, 12:38 am, Les Cargill <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > wrote:

    > <snip>
    >> > If what you say is true, then the bounden duty of Congress is to raise
    >> > taxes - a lot, and right frickin' now.

    >>
    >> They'd have to raise revenue by a factor of 1.76. It can't be done.

    >
    > Not in any way you are prepared to contemplate.


    OK, so try us.

    Which way is this that you're so sure we're "[not] prepared to contemplate?"

    Please, present _YOUR_ plan for digging the USA out of the bottomless pit of
    practically infinite debt.

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
    Rich Grise, Jul 27, 2011
    #11
  12. hamilton

    Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

    On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:37:20 -0700, Rich Grise <>
    wrote:

    >Bill Sloman wrote:
    >> On Jul 26, 1:13 pm, wrote:
    >>> On Jul 26, 12:38 am, Les Cargill <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > wrote:

    >> <snip>
    >>> > If what you say is true, then the bounden duty of Congress is to raise
    >>> > taxes - a lot, and right frickin' now.
    >>>
    >>> They'd have to raise revenue by a factor of 1.76. It can't be done.

    >>
    >> Not in any way you are prepared to contemplate.

    >
    >OK, so try us.
    >
    >Which way is this that you're so sure we're "[not] prepared to contemplate?"
    >
    >Please, present _YOUR_ plan for digging the USA out of the bottomless pit of
    >practically infinite debt.


    Spend even more!
     
    , Jul 27, 2011
    #12
  13. hamilton

    amdx Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should BeEconomically Ruined

    On 7/26/2011 7:30 PM, Rich Grise wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> On Jul 25, 10:21 am, hamilton<> wrote:
    >>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-continues-debate-over-wheth...

    >>
    >> The odd thing is that anyone believes we have to borrow more money to
    >> save our credit rating, that more borrowing somehow staves off
    >> default, or that default on $29B in interest payments is even remotely
    >> possible when ongoing revenue is roughly $200B a month.
    >>
    >> Other than the President saying it all the time, one wonders why
    >> anyone believes it.

    >
    > That's simple. It's because Our Glorious Beloved Infallible Leader said
    > it.


    She believes!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
    How's that working for ya, Peggy?
    Mike
     
    amdx, Jul 27, 2011
    #13
  14. hamilton

    Guest

    Re: Congress Continues Debate Over Whether Or Not Nation Should Be Economically Ruined

    On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:48:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

    >On Jul 27, 12:18 am, Bill Sloman <> wrote:
    >> On Jul 27, 6:44 am, wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Jul 26, 11:27 am, Les Cargill <> wrote:

    >>
    >> > > wrote:

    >
    >> > > > Here's a simple test: Multiply the trillions we've spent on stimulus
    >> > > > by Keynes' multiplier, and divide that by the price of one reasonable
    >> > > > job.  Compare that jobs-creation number that to the actual net gain in
    >> > > > employment over the period.

    >>
    >> > > Oh, I know. What's weird is that no Keynsian jobs
    >> > > creation has happened.

    >>
    >> No net Keynesian job creation. The pump priming has been big enough to
    >> counteract the consequences of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, but not
    >> enough to get many more people into work.
    >>
    >> http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
    >>
    >> > It's not weird at all, Keynes was simply wrong.

    >>
    >> On James Arthur's flat earth.
    >>
    >> > You can't create wealth by taking it from the people who produced it,
    >> > and spreading it thin among people who didn't.  It's not working
    >> > because it doesn't work.

    >>
    >> But you can prime the economy by borrowing money from people who
    >> produced it - but aren't investing it because the economy is in
    >> recession, and spreading it thin amongst people who will spend it.
    >>
    >> This is the Keynesian insight that James Arthur can't - or won't -
    >> share.

    >
    >That's the same perpetual motion machine in sheep's clothing.
    >Shuffling money doesn't create more. Deferring the taking doesn't
    >change the taking. It fools some people, but only some.
    >
    >> > Krugman and Obama and Sec'y. Tim all count on Keynes' multiplier in
    >> > figuring that redistribution will have a gain of 1.8 or 1.9.  If that
    >> > were true we'd be in clover, with instant full employment.

    >>
    >> It's only that high if you redistribute the money to people who can be
    >> relied on to spend it.
    >> Too much of the pump-priming money has ended up in the bank accounts
    >> of the well off who don't jhave to spend it and don't want to invest
    >> during a recession.
    >>
    >> > It isn't close to being true.  In round figures, estimating from
    >> > actual job creation numbers, the gain is < 0.1, and quite probably <
    >> > 0.  There is no free lunch.

    >>
    >> As I said above, the net job creation hasn't been great - not much
    >> more than served to counter-act the immediate effects of the sub-prime
    >> mortage crisis. As Paul Krugman points out, ther=e wasn't enogh pump-
    >> priming expenditure, and too much of it went to the well off, who
    >> didn't have to spend it, and didn't want to.

    >
    >You've just dug Keynes up by the root. The money doesn't go where he
    >thinks it will or have the effect he predicted. Without those he's
    >useless. Keynes was wrong, as we've seen today yet again.
    >
    >He makes a nice cult figure though.
    >
    >I wonder why you lament our "military-industrial complex." By your
    >theory it should be an absolutely fantastic pump-primer, a wellspring
    >of Keynesian stimulus and jobs.
    >
    >> > "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
    >> > smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG."  --
    >> > Feynmann

    >>
    >> And your flat earth economic predicts anything that actually happens?

    >
    >Yes, of course. I predicted today's exact circumstance two years ago,
    >not because I'm such a flaming genius, but because it's perfectly
    >obvious.
    >
    >
    >> You've got your telescope on the wrong side of your ideological
    >> blinkers.
    >>
    >> > > Firms seem to have annealed around
    >> > > just doing things with as little as possible.

    >>
    >> > That will continue.

    >>
    >> Unless the pump-priming gets enthusiastic enough to expand consumer
    >> consumption rather than just stop it from collapsing.

    >
    >By "pump-priming" you mean "coercion / repression," by "enthusiastic"
    >you mean "aggressive."
    >
    >But, shooting your dog doesn't make him fetch better, it just kills
    >him. Firing more rounds doesn't improve the outcome.


    Slowman's dog don't hunt.
     
    , Jul 27, 2011
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. boki
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    379
  2. Adam Aglionby

    LED Luminosity debate continues...

    Adam Aglionby, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    262
    Alien Zord
    Dec 4, 2003
  3. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    366
    Ken Taylor
    Nov 23, 2005
  4. Adam Aglionby

    LED Luminosity debate continues...

    Adam Aglionby, Nov 28, 2003, in forum: Lighting
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    230
    Daniel Stern Lighting
    Dec 3, 2003
  5. nick323f

    ? 54ACT3301 Crystal oscillator a very old Nation Semi part

    nick323f, Oct 15, 2009, in forum: Datasheets, Schematics, Manuals and Parts
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,422
    fzabkar
    Oct 18, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page