BakshisMouse
Rookie
- Jun 28, 2011
- 702
- 70
- 0
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #21
Addendum: Also because of your posts in Charles' thread as well.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
While my OP and comments are unfocused, I notice that no one as answered the pertinent question of the title:
Which is more of a burden for the current generation: a potential debt crisis or mass unemployment?
its an idiotic liberal question since both are very very negative
they are unemployed because of a government bubble in housing and now you want a bubble in roads???? How stupid and liberal is that.
No one takes out a mortage for roads. It is not a burden spread throughout the whole economy. They are usually maintained by state and local governments. There are no corporation in the USA with a marketing department calling for people to purchase roads developed by them.
How does increased govrnment spending on roads create a bubble?
dear, whether the government builds houses or roads does not matter. It is artificial spending that creates an artificial non sustainable bubble that must burst and cause a recession or depression.
The entire beauty of capitalism is the it invests sustainably based on the real decisions of millions spending their own money on what they feel will improve their standard of living. Got it now?
Washington Post Marc Theisson
In counter to the argument posed by the strawman in the op, I would propose:
- large federal government spending on productive initiatives, such as new technology and medicines and infrastructure development,
-federal grants to close the budget shortfall in state in local governments in order for states and localities to rehire personnel.
- a higher inflation target set by the Federal Reserve
The federal stimulus enacted in 2009 did some productive work, but the funds from that bill are now spent, and real government spending per capita is falling year from year:
So I think my proposal is sensible, especially given the dire job market.
The government spending proposed would create government and government sponsored jobs for formerly unemployed people. As these people purchase private goods and services, the private economy will expand, further creating new jobs.
The higher inflation target would cause nominal revenues to firms to rise. The burden of the debt they took on before inflation would be comparatively smaller. As their employees' salaries are comparatively worth less, they can hire more workers at a lower cost. The workers themselves will probably see a wage increase because of the inflation, reducing the burden of their debts.
If the debt to GDP ratio rises from its current 100% to 150%, it would be no tragedy if the unemployment rate went sharply down as the debt ratio went down. Japan, for example, has a debt to GDP ratio over 200%, but they are nowhere near default, with their 10-year bond yield below 1%. Our own 10-year bond yields are historically low, but there is no politician in Washington proposing to take advantage of them.
As the economy becomes robust, revenues to the government will increase. When the jobs market is not dismal, the federal government can start to lower its spending to deleverage itself. You might say that lowering government spending is improbable, but don't you remember the late 1990's, when we had balanced budgets in a time of prosperity? Plus, it is a larger concern to energize the jobs market than worry about the debt.
Everything that the strawman and I propose is hypothetical.
What is very real is the dismal job market for young people. When millions are unemployed for long periods, people start to believe that they are losing valuable skills and are unlikely to hire them.
Paul Ryan, the architect of one of the most austere budget proposals ever, says that the bond market will give up on the USA in two years time. The historical example of Japan suggests he is wrong.
Why are the politicians in Washington worried about a hypothetical debt crisis rather than the real and present problem with the job market?
Did you by any chance sleep through that whole "US credit rating getting downgraded for the first time in our history thing", Bakhis? Why are the politicians in Washington worried about the debt? BECAUSE IT'S AT 15 TRILLION DOLLARS AND GROWING BY A TRILLION A YEAR PLUS!!!
I know that for you progressives there is no such thing as too much debt but for the rest of us rational people there is an understanding that we CAN'T keep piling huge debt on top of huge debt. We will get downgraded again if we don't address this problem which means that the interest we pay on our debt will only get more expensive.
Did you by any chance sleep through that whole "US credit rating getting downgraded for the first time in our history thing", Bakhis? Why are the politicians in Washington worried about the debt? BECAUSE IT'S AT 15 TRILLION DOLLARS AND GROWING BY A TRILLION A YEAR PLUS!!!
No, the Republicans think they can use the debt for political advantage. They didn't care about it when Bush was starting wars, creating a Medicare drug benefit or cutting taxes.
I know that for you progressives there is no such thing as too much debt but for the rest of us rational people there is an understanding that we CAN'T keep piling huge debt on top of huge debt. We will get downgraded again if we don't address this problem which means that the interest we pay on our debt will only get more expensive.
Wrong again. Investors are willing to accept negative yields (interest rate less the rate of inflation is less than 0) to hold US Treasuries.
The debt is not a problem except to those who won't look beyond the political spin.
Wrong again. Investors are willing to accept negative yields (interest rate less the rate of inflation is less than 0) to hold US Treasuries.
The debt is not a problem except to those who won't look beyond the political spin.
The debt is not a problem? Are you REALLY that clueless? Do you have a concept of how much a trillion dollars is? We're adding a trillion a year plus to our deficit. It IS a problem and that isn't political "spin"...that's simply reality.
they are unemployed because of a government bubble in housing and now you want a bubble in roads???? How stupid and liberal is that.
No one takes out a mortage for roads. It is not a burden spread throughout the whole economy. They are usually maintained by state and local governments. There are no corporation in the USA with a marketing department calling for people to purchase roads developed by them.
How does increased govrnment spending on roads create a bubble?
dear, whether the government builds houses or roads does not matter. It is artificial spending that creates an artificial non sustainable bubble that must burst and cause a recession or depression.
The entire beauty of capitalism is the it invests sustainably based on the real decisions of millions spending their own money on what they feel will improve their standard of living. Got it now?
Did you by any chance sleep through that whole "US credit rating getting downgraded for the first time in our history thing", Bakhis? Why are the politicians in Washington worried about the debt? BECAUSE IT'S AT 15 TRILLION DOLLARS AND GROWING BY A TRILLION A YEAR PLUS!!!
No, the Republicans think they can use the debt for political advantage. They didn't care about it when Bush was starting wars, creating a Medicare drug benefit or cutting taxes.
I know that for you progressives there is no such thing as too much debt but for the rest of us rational people there is an understanding that we CAN'T keep piling huge debt on top of huge debt. We will get downgraded again if we don't address this problem which means that the interest we pay on our debt will only get more expensive.
Wrong again. Investors are willing to accept negative yields (interest rate less the rate of inflation is less than 0) to hold US Treasuries.
The debt is not a problem except to those who won't look beyond the political spin.
The debt is not a problem? Are you REALLY that clueless? Do you have a concept of how much a trillion dollars is? We're adding a trillion a year plus to our deficit. It IS a problem and that isn't political "spin"...that's simply reality.
Wrong again. Investors are willing to accept negative yields (interest rate less the rate of inflation is less than 0) to hold US Treasuries.
The debt is not a problem except to those who won't look beyond the political spin.
The debt is not a problem? Are you REALLY that clueless? Do you have a concept of how much a trillion dollars is? We're adding a trillion a year plus to our deficit. It IS a problem and that isn't political "spin"...that's simply reality.
So, make an argument. Give me some reasons for your opinion. Don't just say it is, it is, it is.
Did you by any chance sleep through that whole "US credit rating getting downgraded for the first time in our history thing",
I know that for you progressives there is no such thing as too much debt but for the rest
The S&P downgrade was a fucking joke. Our bond yields actually fell dramatically in the months after that decision.Did you by any chance sleep through that whole "US credit rating getting downgraded for the first time in our history thing", Bakhis? Why are the politicians in Washington worried about the debt? BECAUSE IT'S AT 15 TRILLION DOLLARS AND GROWING BY A TRILLION A YEAR PLUS!!!
I know that for you progressives there is no such thing as too much debt but for the rest of us rational people there is an understanding that we CAN'T keep piling huge debt on top of huge debt. We will get downgraded again if we don't address this problem which means that the interest we pay on our debt will only get more expensive.
We will get downgraded again if we don't address this problem which means that the interest we pay on our debt will only get more expensive.
The S&P downgrade was a fucking joke. Our bond yields actually fell dramatically in the months after that decision.Did you by any chance sleep through that whole "US credit rating getting downgraded for the first time in our history thing"
August 5th (Day of Downgrade): 2.56%
August 8th (Next Monday): 2.34%
June 8th (Yesterday: 1.64%
Also, they downgraded Japan about a decade ago, and despite furthur downgrades since then, Japan's 10-year bond yields have stayed below 2.25% since 2000. Japan currently has government debt to gdp over 200%, but their ten year bonds currently yield is 0.86%.
The USA has debt to GDP of about 100% and 10 year bonds at 1.64%. Besides, about 1/3rd of our debt is held by the Federal Reserve.
This is not an endorsement to let the debt reach Japan levels, but only an indication of how far away the cliff is.
The debt is not a problem? Are you REALLY that clueless? Do you have a concept of how much a trillion dollars is? We're adding a trillion a year plus to our deficit. It IS a problem and that isn't political "spin"...that's simply reality.
So, make an argument. Give me some reasons for your opinion. Don't just say it is, it is, it is.
I have to make an "argument" that adding a trillion dollars plus a year to our debt is a bad thing? Are you serious?
The government spending proposed would create government and government sponsored jobs for formerly unemployed people.
The debt is not a problem? Are you REALLY that clueless? Do you have a concept of how much a trillion dollars is? We're adding a trillion a year plus to our deficit. It IS a problem and that isn't political "spin"...that's simply reality.
So, make an argument. Give me some reasons for your opinion. Don't just say it is, it is, it is.
I have to make an "argument" that adding a trillion dollars plus a year to our debt is a bad thing? Are you serious?
So, make an argument. Give me some reasons for your opinion. Don't just say it is, it is, it is.
I have to make an "argument" that adding a trillion dollars plus a year to our debt is a bad thing? Are you serious?
Seriously. Why is it a bad thing?