How is austerity doing in Europe

[bripat9643]

If however China chose not to do so, the resulting devaluation of the dollar would be catastrophic for both the US economy and most of the rest of the world's economies that are tied to the dollar.

If China let the yuan float upwards in a free capitalist Republican market American goods would be a lot more competitive, world markets more efficient, and our standards of living would go up.

The idea that Chinese manipulation of the market is saving us from a catastrophe is insane.

The idea that China is doing something with its currency that every advanced industrial economy in the world isn't doing is what is insane. If the currency trades on the world market, then there is only so much the government can do. The United States does all the same things. There's nothing special about the Yaun.

 

[bripat9643]

WHen is one of the turds who said libertarianism and feudalism are the same going to tell us what the definition of feudalism is?

All this blather about currency markets is just so much Keynesian abracadabra and of no interest to anyone who understands economics.

 

[itfitzme]

"Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."

That's the essence of a debate, Tommy...saying what you think makes another person's argument invalid. *Duh?

No.

Nobody else is debating.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Europe needs to pump more money into technology and infrastructure. LESS Into welfare and BULL SHIT!

 

[Kimura]

You can get as "wonky" as you want, Kimura and it still won't change reality. Your claim that one sector's deficit is another sector's surplus is another way of saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul". The problem with your notion that deficits create wealth is that deficits create more than just wealth...they create debt and they create interest payments on that debt. You see no problem with this of course because you think your "magic credit card"...the fiat...is going to allow you to just create more money to pay for it all. My question for you is what happens when our currency becomes weaker and weaker? You take it for granted that the dollar will always be viewed as being worthy of value. There ARE other currencies out there. People choose to buy dollars or base their economies on the dollar because we're viewed as the world's most stable currency. What happens when our mounting debt brings about another credit downgrade? Do you not recognize that we're reaching the point where we're getting by more on our past reputation for stability than our future prospects for it? That people invest in the dollar not because of it's actual stability but because of it's reputation for stability? What happens if that reputation begins to be exposed as lacking? What happens to the US if the rest of the world chooses to buy yuan's instead of dollars?

Okay, let get cracking with some sectoral balance basics. I answered the reserve currency non-issue in another post.

Like I said previously, the total net private financial wealth is equal to public debt down to the last penny. We're talking about how spending/income accrues to stocks. When the private sector accrues net financial assets over the time period of a year, for example, it's only possible because the private sector's spending is less then its income over the same time period so to speak. Basically, the private sector has been saving, which has allowed it accrue a stock of wealth as net financial assets. If we use the public sector and private sector as our examples, these financial assets are in the form of liabilities for the government sector - both as bonds and currency. These government bonds (IOUs) can only be accrued when the government sector spends more than it takes back in the form of tax revenue. We refer to this as a "deficit" over a period of a year. This government deficit accrues to a stock of government sector debt which is equal to the private sector's accrued wealth over the time period of a year.

Here's what's critical for your understand: the total net financial assets held by the private sector are equal to the net federal liabilities issued the by the federal government. In the event the government sector run a balanced budget, whereby spending is exactly the same or equal to its tax revenue, the private sector would no financial wealth. It would literally be zero. If we take this even further, and let the government sector run budget surpluses year after year, the private sector's net financial wealth would tip into the negative. The private sector would essentially be in debt to the government sector.

Here's a chart of some FRED data:

I'm working on a douchy example, lol.

 

[itfitzme]

Okay, now we're having fun.

 

[itfitzme]

These are, of course, net numbers. It isn't to say that the private sector isn't itself
split up into smaller sectors, stock, bonds, consumer credit, savings accounts, mortgages, whatever. That is what bothers me. But, I guess we have to go through this first.

Excellent graph. You can see the 100% correlation.

 

[oldfart]

All this blather about currency markets is just so much Keynesian abracadabra and of no interest to anyone who understands economics.

Economics began as a study of international trade and finance. Ever hear of "Wealth of Nations"? By my math Adam Smith predated Keynes by a century and a half. But then I don't claim to "understand economics" like you do.

 

[Kimura]

These are, of course, net numbers. It isn't to say that the private sector isn't itself
split up into smaller sectors, stock, bonds, consumer credit, savings accounts, mortgages, whatever. That is what bothers me. But, I guess we have to go through this first.

Excellent graph. You can see the 100% correlation.

Right. We're talking basic stock and flow, that's about it, in terms of sectoral macro-accounting.

We can divide this up into the domestic private sector, domestic government sector and the foreign sector (the rest of the world, including firms, households and national governments).

Domestic private sector + Domestic government sector + Foreign Sector = 0

For example, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the foreign sector is running a balanced budget. The identity I used has a foreign sector balance of zero. Let's also say that the domestic private sector's income is $500 billion and it's spending is $400 billion - a total net budget surplus of $100 billion for the year. By the identity alone, the domestic government sector will have a budget deficit of $100 billion over the course of the year. The domestic private sector will accrue $100 billion of net financial wealth, which consists of $100 billion in liabilities of the government sector over the course of the year.

If we use a second example, let's say that the foreign sector is spending less than its net income, with a total budget surplus of $300 billion. Simultaneously, during the same year, the domestic government sector also runs a budget surplus of $200 billion. When we get back to our identity, we know that the domestic private sector must have a budget deficit equal to $500 billion ($300 billion + $200 billion). During the same time period, its net financial wealth will have decreased by $500 billion as it must issue debt and sell off financial assets. The domestic government sector will increase its net financial wealth by $200 billion, decreasing its debt load and increasing its claims on the other sectors.

The bottom line is, if one sector runs a budget surplus, another sector must run a budget deficit. We're talking stock variables at the end of the day: one sector accrues net financial wealth, another must increase its debt load down to the last penny. It's impossible for every sector to simultaneously accrue financial wealth through budget surpluses.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."

That's the essence of a debate, Tommy...saying what you think makes another person's argument invalid. *Duh?

No.

Nobody else is debating.

Hate to point out the obvious here, Itfitz...but this entire discussion is in essence a debate. You are arguing a view point...so am I. You argue why my view point is flawed...I do the same with yours.

 

[Rshermr]

"Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."

That's the essence of a debate, Tommy...saying what you think makes another person's argument invalid. *Duh?

No.

Nobody else is debating.

Hate to point out the obvious here, Itfitz...but this entire discussion is in essence a debate. You are arguing a view point...so am I. You argue why my view point is flawed...I do the same with yours.

No.
Others are providing information. YOU are debating.
And, there is a difference between economic statements of fact. And what you put out. Which is, of course, a point of view. Or, in other words, YOUR OPINION. I am sure you will be unable to understand the difference.

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what's really amusing here, Rshermr? There are people who are actually discussing economics at an advanced level but YOU are not one of them! Why is that, little buddy? I get the feeling that this entire subject is Greek to you...but if I'm wrong then jump in with some astute comments. I won't hold my breath of course because I don't think you know the first thing about economics.

 

[Oldstyle]

These are, of course, net numbers. It isn't to say that the private sector isn't itself
split up into smaller sectors, stock, bonds, consumer credit, savings accounts, mortgages, whatever. That is what bothers me. But, I guess we have to go through this first.

Excellent graph. You can see the 100% correlation.

Right. We're talking basic stock and flow, that's about it, in terms of sectoral macro-accounting.

We can divide this up into the domestic private sector, domestic government sector and the foreign sector (the rest of the world, including firms, households and national governments).

Domestic private sector + Domestic government sector + Foreign Sector = 0

For example, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the foreign sector is running a balanced budget. The identity I used has a foreign sector balance of zero. Let's also say that the domestic private sector's income is $500 billion and it's spending is $400 billion - a total net budget surplus of $100 billion for the year. By the identity alone, the domestic government sector will have a budget deficit of $100 billion over the course of the year. The domestic private sector will accrue $100 billion of net financial wealth, which consists of $100 billion in liabilities of the government sector over the course of the year.

If we use a second example, let's say that the foreign sector is spending less than its net income, with a total budget surplus of $300 billion. Simultaneously, during the same year, the domestic government sector also runs a budget surplus of $200 billion. When we get back to our identity, we know that the domestic private sector must have a budget deficit equal to $500 billion ($300 billion + $200 billion). During the same time period, its net financial wealth will have decreased by $500 billion as it must issue debt and sell off financial assets. The domestic government sector will increase its net financial wealth by $200 billion, decreasing its debt load and increasing its claims on the other sectors.

The bottom line is, if one sector runs a budget surplus, another sector must run a budget deficit. We're talking stock variables at the end of the day: one sector accrues net financial wealth, another must increase its debt load down to the last penny. It's impossible for every sector to simultaneously accrue financial wealth through budget surpluses.

I do remember the concept from Macro Econ, Kimura. So which sector is it that's accruing financial wealth at the moment? It's obvious that the domestic public sector isn't. So is the domestic private sector accumulating that wealth or is it the foreign sector? I'm seeing it as the foreign sector that's accruing financial wealth and if that IS the case how is that good for America?

 

[Rshermr]

And there is more of your opinion, me boy. It is definitely Greek to you. Easy to tell from your responses.
You are looking at basic economics, and your responses prove you to be lost. But, it does not stop your one actual skill: Attack, oldstyle. Insults and attacks are what you are all about. Nothing new. Just boring.
And aligning yourself perfectly with the dogma coming from the far, far right. What a surprise.
So, you just posted that you had these concepts in your macro economics class. You had exactly one of those, or so you have said. Now, here, you suggest that the discussion is at an advanced level. You seem confused.

 

[itfitzme]

"Try understanding what is being said, instead of what you can say to make it wrong."

That's the essence of a debate, Tommy...saying what you think makes another person's argument invalid. *Duh?

No.

Nobody else is debating.

Hate to point out the obvious here, Itfitz...but this entire discussion is in essence a debate. *You are arguing a view point...so am I. *You argue why my view point is flawed...I do the same with yours.

I agree, you are arguing a point of view. *I can't, for the life of me, say why it's flawed. *You'll have to figure that out yourself.

I suppose you may argue with the bank teller about your account balance. *I'm pretty sure they will gladly explain it's not a point of view.

I do know that there is no "point of view" when it comes to counting things. *No matter where one stands, when two people exchange a good for some quantity of money, both agree what P is, both agree what Q is, and anyone watching will agree on the same. It doesn't matter if your viewing it from the left, from the right, or from a seat in the balcony.*

It's just a matter if everything is accounted for.

 

[Oldstyle]

No.

Nobody else is debating.

Hate to point out the obvious here, Itfitz...but this entire discussion is in essence a debate. *You are arguing a view point...so am I. *You argue why my view point is flawed...I do the same with yours.

I agree, you are arguing a point of view. *I can't, for the life of me, say why it's flawed. *You'll have to figure that out yourself.

I suppose you may argue with the bank teller about your account balance. *I'm pretty sure they will gladly explain it's not a point of view.

I do know that there is no "point of view" when it comes to counting things. *No matter where one stands, when two people exchange a good for some quantity of money, both agree what P is, both agree what Q is, and anyone watching will agree on the same. It doesn't matter if your viewing it from the left, from the right, or from a seat in the balcony.*

It's just a matter if everything is accounted for.

Ah, but does that change according to what accounting method you use, Ifitz? I know in my business that I can make numbers move up or down according to how I use them...the numbers themselves haven't changed but the way I've counted them has.

 

[Oldstyle]

To give you a simple example, if the accounting method we're utilizing is the cost of the last item purchased and assigning that value to all items previously purchased I might have purchased 5 cases of Absolute vodka for $120 two weeks ago but if my pour costs are too high and I want to bring them down to make the accountants happy then I purchase a single bottle of Absolute at the cost of $15 and that changes the inventory value of my remaining Absolute from $12 a bottle to $15 a bottle. There is ALWAYS a point of view when it comes to counting things.

 

[Rshermr]

Uh, jesus, Oldstyle. Now you are comparing a restaurant with the us gov????? And in particular, you are comparing how you are "counting" with how the us gov numbers are counted. You need to get a grip.

 

[Oldstyle]

And there is more of your opinion, me boy. It is definitely Greek to you. Easy to tell from your responses.
You are looking at basic economics, and your responses prove you to be lost. But, it does not stop your one actual skill: Attack, oldstyle. Insults and attacks are what you are all about. Nothing new. Just boring.
And aligning yourself perfectly with the dogma coming from the far, far right. What a surprise.
So, you just posted that you had these concepts in your macro economics class. You had exactly one of those, or so you have said. Now, here, you suggest that the discussion is at an advanced level. You seem confused.

Nah, I'm pretty comfortable with the discussion, Tommy...you on the other hand should probably come up with a good excuse why you can't take part. Gotta go rearrange your sock drawer...or something like that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Uh, jesus, Oldstyle. Now you are comparing a restaurant with the us gov????? And in particular, you are comparing how you are "counting" with how the us gov numbers are counted. You need to get a grip.

I'm discussing accounting, Tommy...now run along before somebody asks you something that an economics major should know...