Republicans fall quiet in face of Obama deficit success

[ABikerSailor]

You mean 2,000? Still whining about 2,000 eh? They counted the votes 3 times, and Gore lost 3 times. AFTER it was all over, the Miami Herald went in and counted ALL the votes in ALL the precincts, and guess what? Gore STILL LOST. Now, unless you know something the rest of the country doesn't, quit your ******* whining.

I will.

But only after the GOP quits whining about losing to Obama.

The difference is there was evidence of voter fraud in 2008 and 2012 on the part of Democrats. Same in 2,000 but not enough to tip it in Gore's favor.

Really? Because the only stories I'd heard about voter fraud came from those in the camp of the GOP.

There was that lady in NV who was a Republican that got nailed for voting twice......

There was also that little fracas in CO where they were registering voters, but throwing out the Democrat forms.

As a matter of fact, I think that they were thrown out of the GOP for their little infraction.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The reason the democrats don't want voter id is for the inner-city democrat to vote more then once.

 

[S.J.]

I will.

But only after the GOP quits whining about losing to Obama.

The difference is there was evidence of voter fraud in 2008 and 2012 on the part of Democrats. Same in 2,000 but not enough to tip it in Gore's favor.

Really? Because the only stories I'd heard about voter fraud came from those in the camp of the GOP.

There was that lady in NV who was a Republican that got nailed for voting twice......

There was also that little fracas in CO where they were registering voters, but throwing out the Democrat forms.

As a matter of fact, I think that they were thrown out of the GOP for their little infraction.

All the stories you've heard? You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for that? Let's see some documentation.

 

[JQPublic1]

That is no typo! That is abject stupidity! Thats what you Right Wingers do: follow your leaders no matter how dumb he/she is! BTW the difference between 16 trillion and 16 quadrillion is quite large... if that is not significant to you then nothing is. I hope you don't go though life making huge mistakes like that!

Not really. For example, I can create a spin friendly way of making the national debt look smaller.

It's no big deal! The nation is only in debt by .016 quadrillion...

That nifty little trick might make the national debt look smaller to your mathematically challenged friends but it doesn't work for me!

 

[zeke]

The reason the democrats don't want voter id is for the inner-city democrat to vote more then once.

Dats right dude. You are on to us. Aren't you? I voted 27 times. That's right; 27 times. In black face for 17 of those times. The other times, I dressed up as a poor illegal Mexican.
It was so easy.

Either you rethugs learn to lie, cheat and steal on elections, or you all may never win again.

 

[JQPublic1]

You think just because you have possessions that you are not broke? Just because you are in possession of something, doesn't necessarily make it an asset. Even if it is an asset, it can also be a liability as well. Although, it can still be solely an asset if you have some equity attached towards your possession.

You can bet your stock portfolio that if the US government has possession of something, it owns it either by forfeiture, tax payment,eminent Domain or through some other mechanism. There may be a few exceptions but not many!

What I am simply trying to say, just because you have possessions doesn't mean you have wealth. You are wealthy if you have net-worth, or in your case, not broke.

Your use of the word "possession" seems to be based on individual or personal possession. Sure you or I can buy a car on credit and take possession but the Bank keeps the title until you pay it off. However, the government's debt is incurred mostly through the sale of Treasury Bonds as opposed to buying some type of property on credit!

As Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities.

Or just in case you have some assets which are rather difficult to measure in terms of value.

Tangible Net Worth = Total Assets - Total Liabilities - Intangible Assets.

Yes, I agree...that just about sums it up... We have more assets than liabilities...yup! Therefore we are not BROKE!

The government has made it illegal to drill in most parts of the cost and reverse in the country. Although it is perfectly fine for other foreign companies to drill at those reserves if they so choose to.

That could change at any time! That potential makes our oil resources an asset

Nonetheless, you are not wealthy simply because your country happens to inhabit an area with a natural resource. If you haven't found a way to use said resource, or just decided not to utilize it, it is simply waste.

That might be true in Africa, but it damn sure isn't true in the USA! We invented most of the known ways to tap natural resources and extract them. We have exploited the resources of other countries and kept ours intact for a"rainy day." We can access it at anytime we wish!

Aside from the fact that a lot of that Gold doesn't belong to the government, much of that gold was confiscated by FDR under Executive Order 6102.

Confiscation was not the methodology FDR used in 1933 to ban gold hoarding and ownership in the public sector. A pubic edict was issued for citizens to turn in their gold for compensation at $20 per troy ounce. Most of the Gold transfered to the Treasury by EX OR 6102 is paid for!

Outstanding student loans are reported to be worth around $940 Billion...at face value but are likely to be worth less in real value since some are in default and may never be paid back... still a "conservative" guess would still make most of those loans a substantial asset.... I am sad to say!...Education ought to be free!

But it is certainly a good message we have sent to the nation, that you need a college degree just to be able to have the advantage when it comes to waiting tables and cleaning bathrooms.

Come now, Amazon, It hasn't reached THAT extreme yet....

MESSAGE TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS:
, AMERICA IS NOT BROKE! The Right WING SPINSTERS WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE SO THEY CAN TAKE YOUR PENSIONS AND LOWER YOUR WAGES!

Who the hell are you talking to?

Take a wild guess!

 

[PMZ]

Well, when your billionaire backer and puppet master owns the company that counts the votes, it's a pretty safe bet you'll win the election.

Really? Sounds like what Jr. did in Florida in 2004.

You mean 2,000? Still whining about 2,000 eh? They counted the votes 3 times, and Gore lost 3 times. AFTER it was all over, the Miami Herald went in and counted ALL the votes in ALL the precincts, and guess what? Gore STILL LOST. Now, unless you know something the rest of the country doesn't, quit your ******* whining.

Bush was made President by a Supreme Court decision after losing the popular vote handily.

 

[Redfish]

The reason the democrats don't want voter id is for the inner-city democrat to vote more then once.

Dats right dude. You are on to us. Aren't you? I voted 27 times. That's right; 27 times. In black face for 17 of those times. The other times, I dressed up as a poor illegal Mexican.
It was so easy.

Either you rethugs learn to lie, cheat and steal on elections, or you all may never win again.

you think you are being funny, but what you said has a lot of truth to it. not about the number of times you voted (probably only 2 or 3) but about cheating and stealing elections. you dems have become quite good at that, how else would Al Franken be in the senate?

 

[ilia25]

Until then, rather than focus on policies which increases spending, you should be focusing on policies which increases production.

Except real life is the opposite to your description. America has a lot of excess production capacity, which is sitting idle because consumers spend too little to put that production capacity in use. Unemployed are just a part of that excess production capacity.

Yeah. They spend to little. That's always the problem.

No, it is not always the problem. On the contrary, normally it is not because for most of the time the economy is at full employment. And when it is, overspending is usually a threat, because it leads to higher inflation. Central banks are watching for any sign of inflation and rise the interest rates to slow down the spending when necessary.

But right now we are spending too little. The economy is below full employment, the inflation is low, but central banks cannot cut interest rates anymore because they already at zero.

Especially when there is clearly not a spending problem, retail sales are higher and corporations are making record profits. So more spending, right?

Corporations are making huge profits, but they are not spending them to expand production and hire more workers -- precisely because consumers are not spending enough to justify more production. So corporations are simply sitting on mountains of cash, and the economy remains depressed.

That explains why our Capital Account is a disaster.

It is not.

Oh, and about China. It is not buying the US debt out of charity. This is how they keep their currency undervalued against the dollar -- a policy, which America is vocally opposed to.

Central banks around the world are devaluing their currency against the dollar. Not just the Chinese. And yes, it is very much an act of charity.

You know, you should take a long hard look at your model, or any model that leads to such absurd conclusions.

The American economy would be wiped out if the value of the Reminbi were to rise, and their standard of living will go along with it.

More absurd statements. How manufacturing more goods in here could possibly wipe out the economy?

It is true that Americans are consuming more than they produce, in that respect they enjoy higher living standard than they would if current account was balanced -- all other things being equal. But other things won't be equal.

The economy is deeply depressed, producing and consuming one trillion less GDP that it would at full employment. Rising yuan would correct that, because US companies would have to expand production here in order to replace import from China. That would eventually lead to recovery -- and it would rise incomes by a trillion dollars. That would more than offset any negative effects of losing cheap Chinese imports.

China lives way below it's means so Americans can live way above theirs.

True, but Americans pay for that with high unemployment and a trillion of lost income every year.

Anyway, keep dreaming about Default or Inflation. Just don't hold your breath.

I don't hold my breath. I just invest accordingly

Yeah, some people have been investing accordingly. They were shorting US Treasury bonds, with expectation that default or inflation would send interest rates up and bond prices down. Google "widowmaker trade" to see how that turned out.

 

[ilia25]

What it whatever you want. Just don't call it a surplus when you borrow, er, 'transfer' money from a Government Trust Fund and use it to fund Government Spending.

That is where you are wrong. The money Treasury borrowed from government Trust fund were NOT used to fund "government spending". The Treasury had a surplus, meaning it received more tax revenue than it could spend.

Not true. Any surplus in these programs must be invested in a trust fund.

You really need to learn how these thing works.

Social Security Trust Fund is required by law to invest its funds in "non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government". That is Social Security has to buy Treasury bonds, and Treasury has to sell them even when Treasury already has more money than it can spend.

This is why Intragovernmental Debt increases when Government does this

Intragovernmental Debt increases whenever Social Security has a surplus.

Your problem is that you assuming -- wrongly -- that any proceeds from selling Treasury bonds are always being spent that year on some government project. But that is simply not true. Treasury must borrow surpluses from Social Security Trust Fund, but it can put the proceeds to one of its accounts, or invest them into stocks, corporate bonds and what not. It does to have to spend the money.

 

[AmazonTania]

That is where you are wrong. The money Treasury borrowed from government Trust fund were NOT used to fund "government spending". The Treasury had a surplus, meaning it received more tax revenue than it could spend.

Not true. Any surplus in these programs must be invested in a trust fund.

You really need to learn how these thing works.

By 'really need to learn how these things work', you mean just repeat the same thing I already said, except in needlessly greater detail? Gotcha.

Social Security Trust Fund is required by law to invest its funds in "non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government". That is Social Security has to buy Treasury bonds, and Treasury has to sell them even when Treasury already has more money than it can spend.

You'd be right if you're only talking about Social Security, but the Social Security administration was not the only Government Program which has received a surplus during the time period in question. Other government programs are not bound by such law. Then again, many of these administered programs do not run surpluses as large as the OASI, nor as often. In the case of the late 1990's, these programs did generate enough left over cash.

Intragovernmental Debt increases whenever Social Security has a surplus.

LMAO, Intragovernmental Debt always increases when the Government borrows money from the social security administration or any other government administered program. That's what increases the debt, not the mere fact that these agencies run a surplus.

Your problem is that you assuming -- wrongly -- that any proceeds from selling Treasury bonds are always being spent that year on some government project. But that is simply not true. Treasury must borrow surpluses from Social Security Trust Fund, but it can put the proceeds to one of its accounts, or invest them into stocks, corporate bonds and what not. It does to have to spend the money.

The money is always loaned to the federal government's general fund and nothing else. Not the Special Revenue Fund, nor the Capital Projects Fund. I think the fact that the United States Federal government doesn't have a Sovereign Wealth Fund is proof enough that it's not buying Stocks, Corporate Bonds or other equities. It is using this money to fund Government Spending, and only that. All Modern US Presidents have done this: Bush Sr. & Jr. , Carter, Clinton, Reagan, etc. They all do it. There is nothing to assume, and I am not wrong. You are incredibly naive.

 

[AmazonTania]

Really? Sounds like what Jr. did in Florida in 2004.

You mean 2,000? Still whining about 2,000 eh? They counted the votes 3 times, and Gore lost 3 times. AFTER it was all over, the Miami Herald went in and counted ALL the votes in ALL the precincts, and guess what? Gore STILL LOST. Now, unless you know something the rest of the country doesn't, quit your ******* whining.

Bush was made President by a Supreme Court decision after losing the popular vote handily.

The electoral college decides the president. Not a mob majority.

Or maybe it does. Who knows?

 

[AmazonTania]

Except real life is the opposite to your description. America has a lot of excess production capacity, which is sitting idle because consumers spend too little to put that production capacity in use. Unemployed are just a part of that excess production capacity.

Yeah. They spend to little. That's always the problem.

No, it is not always the problem. On the contrary, normally it is not because for most of the time the economy is at full employment.

It always seems to be the problem when an economy is depressed or when unemployment is high. The problem with this solution is that it lumps all economies in a 'one size, fits all' comparison.

And when it is, overspending is usually a threat, because it leads to higher inflation. Central banks are watching for any sign of inflation and rise the interest rates to slow down the spending when necessary.

But right now we are spending too little. The economy is below full employment, the inflation is low, but central banks cannot cut interest rates anymore because they already at zero.

Inflation is only low if you believe what the Bureau of Labour reports. There is plenty of it, but only because the methodology of which the BLS reports inflation, it gives premise that there is none. Like GDP, the CPI must also be taken with a grain of salt on occasion.

Corporations are making huge profits, but they are not spending them to expand production and hire more workers -- precisely because consumers are not spending enough to justify more production. So corporations are simply sitting on mountains of cash, and the economy remains depressed.

Alot of the money doesn't belong to the Corporations. Much of that money is borrowed. Plenty of these corporations borrow domestically just to fund their operation cost, while they keep their REAL profits offshore. They're not using this money to fund production simply because it's too expensive to do business. The cost of doing business has to come down. Just like prices need to come down, as consumers may not 'spend enough' to you because consumers have no reason to.

It is not.

Not now, anyway. It's currently in the Black for this quarter, but it isn't going to stay that way.

You know, you should take a long hard look at your model, or any model that leads to such absurd conclusions.

Point out the absurd conclusions? South Korea cut it's rates from 2.75% to a record low 2.5%. Australia cut it's rates from 3% to a record low 2.75%. Poland also cut it's rates from 3.25% to 3%. These countries have strong economies, but their central banks are cutting rates whether these economies need it or not.

Why would they do this? It's only because they are afraid that their currencies are too strong against the US dollar. Of course, a strong currency is never a bad thing. It's only bad to the other nations who really dependent upon your exports.

More absurd statements. How manufacturing more goods in here could possibly wipe out the economy?

It wouldn't. If Americans started to manufacture more products in America, that would be good for the US dollar. It's the lack of production that's bad. This is why Americans need the Reminbi needs to stay artificially low, whether they want it to or not.

It is true that Americans are consuming more than they produce, in that respect they enjoy higher living standard than they would if current account was balanced -- all other things being equal. But other things won't be equal.

The economy is deeply depressed, producing and consuming one trillion less GDP that it would at full employment. Rising yuan would correct that, because US companies would have to expand production here in order to replace import from China. That would eventually lead to recovery -- and it would rise incomes by a trillion dollars. That would more than offset any negative effects of losing cheap Chinese imports.

This would crash the economy before any of this would start to take place. This would reluctantly take place if America decided to keep it's laws making it more difficult to start production in America.

Yeah, some people have been investing accordingly. They were shorting US Treasury bonds, with expectation that default or inflation would send interest rates up and bond prices down. Google "widowmaker trade" to see how that turned out.

I am well aware of widowmaker trade. It's really no different from shorting commodities. Even still, I don't suggest people invest in bonds. The US government is not good for those bonds.

 

[AmazonTania]

You can bet your stock portfolio that if the US government has possession of something, it owns it either by forfeiture, tax payment,eminent Domain or through some other mechanism. There may be a few exceptions but not many!

That's through the use of force. That's not an actual asset that is owned.

Your use of the word "possession" seems to be based on individual or personal possession. Sure you or I can buy a car on credit and take possession but the Bank keeps the title until you pay it off. However, the government's debt is incurred mostly through the sale of Treasury Bonds as opposed to buying some type of property on credit!

You weren't talking about the US government when you were mentioning all of the great 'stuff' America has. I could have only assume that you were talking about what the nation collectively has as possessions.

Sure, the US Government doesn't use credit for it's daily operating expenditures, but it still has to provide an IOU to the recipient of the bond. But defaulting on a bond is really no different from a failure to repay a credit card. The country would be considered bankrupt and bondholders will have an opportunity to claim assets.

This hasn't happened yet, but it will. It will because the Government is running a giant ponzi-scheme. How do I know it's running a ponzi-scheme? I know simply because our elected officials, even our former Treasury Secretary, told the nation (and probably the world).

Yes, I agree...that just about sums it up... We have more assets than liabilities...yup! Therefore we are not BROKE!

The Government's assets does not exceed it's liabilities. Sure, the country is not bankrupt, but the first step of bankruptcy is actually admitting that you are bankrupt. And the nation has already been dangerously close to becoming bankrupt, according to elected officials.

You can only become dangerously close to being bankrupt, if the nation is broke.

That could change at any time! That potential makes our oil resources an asset

Sure it can. But elected officials are not in the business of making sure the nation is self-reliant when it comes to fuel. As long as they have other green initiatives in mind, it will probably be a long time before America can drill for it's own oil.

Of course, rethoric such as, "It'll take ten years before the nation can start using the oil" surfaces each time the subject of drilling surfaces. But if we started drilling ten years ago, we would probably have the oil right now.

That might be true in Africa, but it damn sure isn't true in the USA! We invented most of the known ways to tap natural resources and extract them. We have exploited the resources of other countries and kept ours intact for a"rainy day." We can access it at anytime we wish!

Exploited other countries? That's a harsh way of putting it. Do you mean 'trade?' That is pretty much what is going on.

But don't you fret. Soon America will be the largest net exporter when it comes to oil, as our economy has such an anemic recovery that there is really no use for all of the oil the DOE has in it's reserves.

Confiscation was not the methodology FDR used in 1933 to ban gold hoarding and ownership in the public sector. A pubic edict was issued for citizens to turn in their gold for compensation at $20 per troy ounce. Most of the Gold transfered to the Treasury by EX OR 6102 is paid for!

That is confiscation. When you pass a law making it illegal to purchase an item or commodity, you have to turn it in to the Government and the Government has to give you the market value of said item. This is what happened in the 90's when I lived in London when the Government banned all firearms.

Sure the Government doesn't have to give you just compensation for your property. It can be a totally authoritarian ass and just take your property, such as what is done in dictatorships. But the point is, gold was confiscated as you were obligated by law to turn it in. Penalty for noncompliance was a fine and jail time.

Come now, Amazon, It hasn't reached THAT extreme yet....

I would hardly call what I described 'extreme.' Extreme would be Americans taking jobs the illegal immigrates would be taking. But what I have said is not too far off. Many college graduates are underemployed and are taking jobs totally outside of their career set. Many of the majors they are studying adds no value to many employers.

 

[ilia25]

Yeah. They spend to little. That's always the problem.

No, it is not always the problem. On the contrary, normally it is not because for most of the time the economy is at full employment.

It always seems to be the problem when an economy is depressed or when unemployment is high.

Yes, but economy is not always depressed. Most of the time it is not. So, again, nobody is saying, as you claimed, that spending is always too little.

The problem with this solution is that it lumps all economies in a 'one size, fits all' comparison.

What in the world are you talking about? What solution? And what "it" lumps together?

I was talking specifically about a depressed economies -- they, and only they, are suffering from too little spending.

Inflation is only low if you believe what the Bureau of Labour reports.

Nonsense -- there are other independent measures, like MIT's billion price index, and it produces the same results:
US Daily Index » The Billion Prices Project @ MIT

Inflation IS low, unemployment IS high and by all other measures the economy is depressed -- which means not enough spending.

They're not using this money to fund production simply because it's too expensive to do business.

It is ALWAYS too expensive to do business if customers don't want spending money on your products. The cost of doing business haven't risen suddenly in 2008. But consumers cut back on their spending, and it remains depressed ever since. Here it is again for your enjoyment:

Why would they do this? It's only because they are afraid that their currencies are too strong against the US dollar. Of course, a strong currency is never a bad thing. It's only bad to the other nations who really dependent upon your exports.

Like i said, it is very difficult to argue with a person who constantly contradicts herself.

So which is it? Are they doing it out of charity, or because their well being depends on keeping their trade surplus?

You are confused, because you know that trade surplus lowers their living standards, and you don't understand why many countries are so eager to keep it. But the answer is simple, and I already gave it to you.

Trade surplus lets those economies to maintain full employment. And a bit lower living standards is a small price for that.

It wouldn't. If Americans started to manufacture more products in America, that would be good for the US dollar.

If? Why wouldn't Americans started to manufacture more products in America should Chinese imports become prohibitively expensive? If there is a demand for some goods and you can produce it cheaper than current offering, what would stop you doing just that?

It's the lack of production that's bad. This is why Americans need the Reminbi needs to stay artificially low, whether they want it to or not.

You know, you seem to forget that you are talking about market based economy, not something that is set in stone. The lack of production is a result from lack demand. If demand returns, so will the production.

The economy is deeply depressed, producing and consuming one trillion less GDP that it would at full employment. Rising yuan would correct that, because US companies would have to expand production here in order to replace import from China. That would eventually lead to recovery -- and it would rise incomes by a trillion dollars. That would more than offset any negative effects of losing cheap Chinese imports.

This would crash the economy before any of this would start to take place.This would reluctantly take place if America decided to keep it's laws making it more difficult to start production in America.

What laws are you talking about? The US is ranking 4th in the World Bank ease of doing business index. China is on 91th place. Only undervalued yuan is keeping manufacturing from moving back to the US from China.

Yeah, some people have been investing accordingly. They were shorting US Treasury bonds, with expectation that default or inflation would send interest rates up and bond prices down. Google "widowmaker trade" to see how that turned out.

I am well aware of widowmaker trade. It's really no different from shorting commodities. Even still, I don't suggest people invest in bonds. The US government is not good for those bonds.

Well, then you must be aware that in the past years those who were betting on US default lost their money. Those who knew that the US don't have a debt problem, made a lot from their bond investments.

 

[Totino]

I know one thing that is inaccurate and I can see that for myself. This is an unveiled, empirical example of things that are inaccurate:

That's nice. As you'll notice, the picture in his original post (which I couldn't quote because I didn't have enough posts on the forum), is accurate. So do you have anything to say besides continually quoting someone else's typo to say to me? Or is that about all you have? Don't bother responding unless you have something intelligent to say about MY posts.

That is no typo! That is abject stupidity! Thats what you Right Wingers do: follow your leaders no matter how dumb he/she is! BTW the difference between 16 trillion and 16 quadrillion is quite large... if that is not significant to you then nothing is. I hope you don't go though life making huge mistakes like that!

Just like I predicted, another unintelligent reply to me about SOMEONE ELSE'S post. Hilarious!

 

[Totino]

Sure more spending in theory results in more production.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

As to all the tangential stuff: I said GDP is limited and you say it is flawed, sounds like a pointless semantic argument to me. I started off by saying "If you believe that GDP is ..." and latter pointed out that there are better indices. If you know how a metric is calculated then I don't see how it can be flawed... it might not be useful but flawed?

If you step on a bathroom scale and it says 300 lb is that metric useful? You might be 6 foot 6 and all muscle or a 5 foot tub of lard or maybe you are holding 50 lb dumbbells but if you weigh everyday at the same time and conditions it might provide you with useful information.

If you turned on the radio and the new caster announced that the GDP had dropped 9% for two straight quarters would the tell you anything? Maybe not, you do appear to be a fan of von Mises.

Agreeing with you? You ignored the next sentence which is humrous. Regardless, you're still wrong.

As far as your scale comment. If you weighed 200lbs and the scale reads 300lbs, there's most certainly something wrong with your scale. That's the government inflating the numbers.

But you make the claim about methodology. Okay. Let's look at that. Even besides all of their made up numbers, GDP also includes government spending. Because GDP counts government spending, it's not an accurate representation of the economy. It tells us absolutely nothing about the private sector because of this. And because government spending is counted, even if the private sector is crumbling, GDP can easily still show a gain even though the economy is hurting.

Government spending is not genuine economic output. Government spending is not production... The private sector could be bleeding money and jobs, but if the government spends enough to make up for it, GDP will still rise even though the spending doesn't create economic output, or products. Using simple numbers I'll explain this to you because you're dense and ignorant. Say the private sector is down 100k. But the government hires employees with salaries totaling 100k, GDP won't change. It doesn't matter what the employees are doing. They could be digging ditches for all we know. But what benefit are we now gaining from these employees? The wages these employees use to buy goods/services ACTUALLY make the economy poorer because their wages have to come from somewhere. Their wages come from redistribution by way of taxes, from others who are now poorer because their taxes were raised or from an increase in the deficit... Yet these government employees didn't actually produce anything. They didn't produce any other goods to go around. Thus the economy actually is poorer off, even though the GDP hasn't changed. Ultimately, government spending clouds the the view of the economy, making GDP a worthless number, regardless of methodology. You. Are. Wrong.

And just an FYI: One example of how government numbers are counted differently is the hiring of employees. If the gov hires an engineer for instance and pays them 100k, it's immediately counted as part of GDP. It a private business hires an engineer and pays them 100k, the 100k doesn't count for anything as far as GDP as concerned. The private employee doesn't count until they actually produce a good which can then be sold. The government on the other hand can sit on his ass doing nothing, yet is still counted as an increase in GDP.

Yup, and this fan of Mises seems to know a hell of alot more than you do. Typical libturds. Running their mouths without an even basic understanding of economics.

 

[AmazonTania]

No, it is not always the problem. On the contrary, normally it is not because for most of the time the economy is at full employment.

It always seems to be the problem when an economy is depressed or when unemployment is high.

Yes, but economy is not always depressed. Most of the time it is not. So, again, nobody is saying, as you claimed, that spending is always too little.

I never said it is always depressed. I am talking about the reason why the economy is always depressed. It's always something to do with spending, or lack of demand, or not enough of it.

Exactly what is the point of having a metric like GDP with 3 separate components, if all anyone is ever going to talk about 1 component, and just that? Then again, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

What in the world are you talking about? What solution? And what "it" lumps together?

I was talking specifically about a depressed economies -- they, and only they, are suffering from too little spending.

I am talking about the same thing, except I am referring to all economies. Not just the United States. I suppose one will point out that the problem with all economies around the world is lack of demand. Shocker...

Nonsense -- there are other independent measures, like MIT's billion price index, and it produces the same results:
US Daily Index » The Billion Prices Project @ MIT

Funny, because Paul Krugman always talks about the Billion Price Index when he tries to disprove inflation as well. I was wondering when you were going to invoke his spirit. I was beginning to miss him.

What Krguman doesn't seem to understand -- nor you -- is that the Billion Price Index has little baring on the overall prices in the economy, as this index only measures internet prices. Now if majority of consumers are purchasing their commodities and necessities online, and unless all prices are conducted at the wholesale level, then he would have a point.

If you compare inflation to something else, such as the Big Mac Index, you will see that the Big Mac Index dramatically outpaced the BLS reporting on inflation by 6% a year since 2002. Either something has changed at McDonald's, or something has changed in the way the Government has reported inflation.

It would be helpful if you understood the CPI history and it's metrics. Then you would understand why inflation is not low.

Inflation IS low, unemployment IS high and by all other measures the economy is depressed -- which means not enough spending.

Again, there are plenty of prices in the economy which outpaces the CPI, even by the CPI's own reporting. There was even one month around February - March where the BLS had the audacity to report that gas prices decreased by -0.3% for that month. Keep in mind, this was the month where the national average for gasoline was reaching new records. So if you don't understand the CPI, you will be easily fooled by the Government.

As for not enough spending, reality disagrees. Higher retail prices, record corporate profits, higher consumption. But one can always argue that there is just not enough. Sure, businesses are not using their profits to increase productive capacity, but it has nothing to do with spending. One of the riskiest things anyone can do in America is hire someone.

It is ALWAYS too expensive to do business if customers don't want spending money on your products. The cost of doing business haven't risen suddenly in 2008. But consumers cut back on their spending, and it remains depressed ever since.

I'm not sure what you think the cost of business is, but it really doesn't have much to do with how much consumers are spending. Business cost, involves taxes, labour cost, insurance, operation cost, government rules and regulations, interest rates, etc.

Interest rates are at historic lows but this is what is contributing to the record profits of corporations. It's other cost involved with running a business. Most likely the cost of hiring and expanding the business. Poor sales are not a problem regarding big businesses, nor are the a problem regarding small businesses.

An NFIB survey conducted in April showed that the Single Most Important Problem Small Businesses are currently facing is Taxes. Government Regulations and Red Tape was ranked second, with Poor Sales being ranked third. Poor sales has always polled higher than any other problem regarding small businesses. You can argue that poor sales are still a problem because it's still ranked third, but the point is businesses should ONLY be concerned about poor sales. The fact that they aren't shows that there are other problems regarding the economy. It's not spending.

Here it is again for your enjoyment:

What good does it do to show a trajectory gap? This can be done with almost every graph in the FRED database. The economy had a very bad mis-allocation of land, labour and capital and a correction was needed. This is the correction. It's not a REAL correction, but it's still a correction. Unless you want to inflate another asset bubble, you are never going to get back to that trajectory.

The trajectory regarding consumer spending is the true trajectory, and it shows that there isn't a spending problem.

Like i said, it is very difficult to argue with a person who constantly contradicts herself.

But you never point out and contradictions, but rather throw out ad homeinems. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what the term means. Or maybe you just find these things as you go along. Who knows...

So which is it? Are they doing it out of charity, or because their well being depends on keeping their trade surplus?

I never said anything about keeping a trade surplus. I only said having a strong currency is bad if another country is totally dependent on your nation's exports (which is only a bad thing if another nation has a weak currency). The fact that a nation keeps a trade surplus is merely inconsequential.

You are confused, because you know that trade surplus lowers their living standards, and you don't understand why many countries are so eager to keep it. But the answer is simple, and I already gave it to you.

A trade surplus increases living standards, as it grants capital for the nation, increasing purchasing power and income. It's because of this nations are eager to keep it. Very few countries with a trade surplus has a low standard of living. This is mainly due to the fact that exporting drives their economy, in the same way spending drives ours.

One cannot be sustained for very long.

Trade surplus lets those economies to maintain full employment. And a bit lower living standards is a small price for that.

If you are talking about China and Japan, the you may have a point. But there are lots of nations which are not China or Japan, and these nations have relatively high living standards and much lower employment than the United States.

Nations do not export JUST to maintain full employment. The more exports are sold, the higher the income and the more capital your residents have. This in itself is a higher standard of living. Businesses gain a competitive advantage (which you implied had nothing to do with trade) due to the fact that they export everything they produce. Because of this, they hire more workers, which will reduce unemployment and generate more income for the nation.

I don't see how any of this relates to a lower standard of living. Then again, what doesn't pass for validity when it comes to this conundrum called modern economics.

If? Why wouldn't Americans started to manufacture more products in America should Chinese imports become prohibitively expensive? If there is a demand for some goods and you can produce it cheaper than current offering, what would stop you doing just that?

Never suggested that it wouldn't. I am saying that it would be a very gradually and painful transition. The current tax laws, regulations and monetary policy keeps labour and capital in places it should not be in. Capital is allocated offshore. Taxes would have to decrease to bring that back. Interest rates are too low. They would have to rise in order to encourage capital investment. All of these policies are keeping individuals employed in sectors they should be employed in. Many more jobs would have to lost in order for a return in US Manufacturing to become a reality.

Of course, I am willing let this happen and still be able to sleep soundly at night.

You know, you seem to forget that you are talking about market based economy, not something that is set in stone. The lack of production is a result from lack demand. If demand returns, so will the production.

I know what we are dealing with. You seem to believe that the economy is some machine which breaks every now-and-then, and replacing the parts you believe are missing will fix everything. The economy is not a machine. It's just individuals living their everyday lives. There is never a shortfall of demand, as demand is essentially endless. Even when prices being at the level that it is, there is not a demand problem.

The consumption you seek can only return if it has been produced first. Not the other way around.

What laws are you talking about? The US is ranking 4th in the World Bank ease of doing business index. China is on 91th place. Only undervalued yuan is keeping manufacturing from moving back to the US from China.

And? America is ranked 10th on the Index of Economic Freedom. That's not saying very much. There really isn't much economic freedom left in the country. All it means is that you are more economically free in America than most of the world. It's no different from the Ease of Doing Business study.

According to the same study it's easier to start a business in Rwanda. It's easier to register property in Mongolia. It's easier to get a construction permit in Vietnam. And of course, it's better to pay taxes in anywhere else in the world. These factors are the most important when it comes to overburdened business regulation. Ask yourself, why is it easier to do these things in these countries of all places?

There are only 5 things America is good at when it comes to business: Protecting Shareholders, Getting Credit, Dealing With Bankruptcy, Trading and Suing People.

I used the same study, and came to a very different conclusion. There are many inherent problems regarding America's regulations regarding business. It's not just me, it's typical business owners. When the CEO of Coca-Cola says China is more business friendly than America, that should tell you something.

Well, then you must be aware that in the past years those who were betting on US default lost their money. Those who knew that the US don't have a debt problem, made a lot from their bond investments.

The US has already defaulted once in history. All those investors did was incorrectly predict the timing. As I tell my own clients, it's better to be months or years too early than days too late. Just because US Bonds are a safer investment than CDs doesn't change much. And just because the Government hasn't defaulted doesn't mean it won't happen. The Government has already become very close to defaulting, but the admitting of elected bureaucrats.

 

[PMZ]

You mean 2,000? Still whining about 2,000 eh? They counted the votes 3 times, and Gore lost 3 times. AFTER it was all over, the Miami Herald went in and counted ALL the votes in ALL the precincts, and guess what? Gore STILL LOST. Now, unless you know something the rest of the country doesn't, quit your ******* whining.

Bush was made President by a Supreme Court decision after losing the popular vote handily.

The electoral college decides the president. Not a mob majority.

Or maybe it does. Who knows?

The Electoral College selected Bush after the Supreme Court awarded him Fl, though overall Gore/Leiberman had won the national popular vote by >500k votes.

 

[Luddly Neddite]