Who are you voting for in 2012?

Abdel

Economist
Well sure, if the US embrace capitalism again and lower spending in order to afford tax cuts and less regulations, it will work.

If not, then, adios amigos.
 
You can cut them. Social Security can be raised and we can reduce the cost of living increases. Medicaid/care can get reduced funding.

Check out what states are doing in order to avoid defaults. Trust me, entitlements are cool until we need that cash for something really important. They can and surly will be reduced. Social Security would be the last to be gutted because old people vote, but the states that love entitlements are losing electoral votes and becoming less important.

I never said I was FOR a balanced budget, just a reduced deficit. I see no issue with running a deficit. This is getting into an election cycle and it looks like the economy is going to be front and center. Obama has really lost a lot of his voting base and needs to do something. Hope and change are good to get you a 1st term, but people want to see something real. Obama care is swell, but the credit card is maxed out. Republicans have finally found the smelling salts and gotten back to the part of somewhat fiscal responsibility. Add to that a lot of 1st term Congressmen who got swept into office by Tea Party supporters, who are all in all, pretty much for cutting spending.

I'm not calling a victory, just saying things are easier to fix on this side of the Atlantic. Oh, and by Europe I would imagine you are referring to Germany, France and the Nordic states (plus the UK). The other half is a mess that is going to suck the life out of the healthy countries.
 

Abdel

Economist
That is the problem, that you're not for a balanced budget.

This means that taxes (and probably regulations as well) will remain high = jobs are not coming back.

It's either you have a big governement or a strong economy, cain't have both.

And yes, as I said, Europe has it's problems, but they are less worse then the ones in the U.S.

Just look at the ECB that keeps raising rates while the FED keeps them at 0%. That says it all.
 
Except the financial freedom, huge house, bentley, supermodel wife, etc... right? All that stuff isn't impetus. Who cares about any of it. Everyone wants to be a billionaire in order to buy themselves immunity from legal woes... right? ...moral?

Don't hold your breath waiting for Finland to crumble.

Google relative before arguing my point for me... if the stuff you spend your money on is relative to your income, those things wouldn't exist, because there wouldn't be a market for them. The super-rich would spend their 200k on a used Ford Taurus and not the Bentley, since the Taurus' cost is now relative to his/her income.

Thus the freedom, huge house, bentley, and those great fake hooters simply would never have come to pass (goodbye most of your impetus). Obviously this is a far stretch from Finland, but I believe the parallel argument is there.
 
The Fed has a dual mandate, which I disagree with. Low inflation and low unemployment. We still have 9.2% official unemployment, the last thing we want is to raise rates and contract the economy.

It is debatable whether a deficit or a balanced budget is better. I think that a deficit, within reason is not an issue. Not saying I would be against a balanced budget, I just feel that having the flexibility to borrow in times of need is nice. Problem is we have collectively acted like fools and never paid the debt down when times were good. Spending gets votes, unfortunately.
 

Abdel

Economist
USD value went down by +95% since the FED is in charge of it, and the unemployment is high. So, right off the bat, they're out.

If printing money create jobs and is good for the economy, why aren't they booming over there in Zimbabwe? lol

The bad tasting medecine is coming, You cain't have 30-40 years of spending money you don't have.

Now the question is, do you want to face those problems with a 14T debt or a +16T debt?

You need to let the recession repair the imbalances. The longer you delay the invetable, the worse it is going to be in the end.
 
Printing money when you are the worlds reserve currency is a little different than Zimbabwe.

95% decline? I went to the UK like 6-7 years ago and the exchange rate was 1.54 ish dollar to pound. Now it is 1.61. that isn't 95%.

1.41 dollar to Euro. High, yes, but around 2004 peak, not 95% higher.

Dollar has taken a hit, no doubt, but it is not in some cataclysmic tail spin.

Unemployment is bad, but it is really bad only for uneducated workers. This goes right along with the shifting economy into a more information based work force. Has been happening since since the 70's. People just keep thinking that unskilled labor is going to be in demand, yet it keeps dwindling.

Once again, debt is only an issue when it becomes too big to maintain. FCCR on a national scale.
 

Abdel

Economist
Here's the 95% lose in value I was refering to:



And you're making a mistake by comparing the USD to the EURO.

Both the USD and EURO are falling. It is like two rocks that are falling. If you're sitting on the rock named USD and you look at the other rock named Euro (ECD prints money too), sure, you'll say that things might not be as bad after all.

But what you need to do is to look around and realise that while your falling, almost everything else around you is going up.

So, looking at the USD/EURO relation to have an idea on the dollar's value is not correct in my opinion.
 
I compared it to the Pound also. The Yen is a mess. Maybe the Canadian or Australian dollar is a better comparison, both of which are strong. But comparing to the AUS is rather biased since Australia is a massive commodity based economy.

Interesting chart, do you have a link to some of his materials?

Great discussion though. I am retiring for the night, but will check in again in the morning. Night!
 
1st: when you say that the US economy is larger, just remember that the US GDP is 70% consumption based on borrowed money to buy foreign products. So, he can shrink dramaticly in a heartbeat. I'm not saying that Europe is a perfect but it is sounder economicly.

The Europeans consume less energy per capita, they use less energy for each euro of output, and they are implementing plans for alternative energy. Their governments are more accountable to the people. They are not squandering resources on imperial wars and a military-industrial complex. Their social welfare programs are much better than the threadbare provisions in the US (which themselves are in jeopardy).

2nd: You cannot cut these entitlement programs simply because you have people who's lifes depend on it. You can cut it for the young people, but for people who putted in for +20 years, not going to happen.

So what? There is a serious drive to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Personally I agree with Bernie Sanders:

As Social Security emerged as a target in White House budget negotiations, Sen. Bernie Sanders insisted that the retirement program must not be cut as part of any deficit reduction deal. "Let us be clear," Sanders said. "Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt." The program that benefits more than 50 million seniors and disabled has a $2.6 trillion surplus, he stressed, and will be able to provide full benefits for every eligible American for the next 25 years. "I am especially disturbed that President Obama is considering cuts in Social Security after he campaigned against cuts in 2008," Sanders added.

But this surplus doesn't mean anything in political circles: the deficit -- brought about by profligate military spending and propping up financial interests -- is being used as a pretext to cut back what threadbare social welfare provisions exist in the US. Social Security money -- paid into by generations of workers -- has been raided over the years to pay for other expenditures and replaced with government IOUs.

3rd: Obama is serious about cutting the budget? lol....let me remind you that his plan is not to actually reduce real spending. What he is saying goes something like this: ''Instead of having $28 Trillion of debt in 10 years, we'll have $24 Trillion instead, this means that I'm cutting $4 Trillion over 10 years''.

The idea of "reducing the deficit" is a red herring. It's all smoke and mirrors, lies piled upon lies, crooked deals made in smoke-filled rooms. And the public has no say in it. Some democracy.
 
According to that chart, what we really need is to a) stop going to war and b) more stock market crashes...
Lol, in short, we need economic decline!
Folks, its simple economics - Economic Growth brings inflation. Of course the dollar is going to decline in purchasing power. So what? As long as people's wages grow as fast, we're fine. And in fact, historically wages have been growing faster. (In 1900, wages were about 1% of today's wages in nominal terms. Prices were significantly higher, at 5% of today's values. Thus the average person today can buy 5 times as many goods as those a century ago, when we were on the gold standard.)

Also, Anthony DeAngelis
I think in the next 10-20 years you will see manufacturing, to an extent, relocate or move back to the US.
Why do you think this? China and second/third world countries have a comparative advantage in human labor.
 

Abdel

Economist
Folks, its simple economics - Economic Growth brings inflation. Of course the dollar is going to decline in purchasing power. So what?

Let me correct this fallacy that we often hear.

Economic growth brings prices DOWN.

The industrial revolution saw the biggest economic growth ever, and guess what happened? Prices went DOWN.

The lesson here is:

Real economic growth brings prices down (production goes up = supply goes up = prices go down)

Phony economic growth (aka bubble economy like the US economy in the last 20-30 years) causes inflation.
 
1) China is both a low cost manufacturer and a damn good one at that. Being low cost means nothing if you produce garbage. China is really stealing jobs from Mexico because of this. Think about it. Low cost, close proximity to the US and yet we still go to China. Cheap is just one factor. Maybe some manufacturing will shift to other Asian countries, but not all of them are as developed as China, as stable, as accommodating. Freight shipping costs have increase also which makes manufacturing in the USA more enticing. Not saying you will see a complete 180, but I think you will see an increase in repatriation.

2) The industrial revolution saw growth and mass production. This is why prices declined. It is unfair to compare the current, well developed economy to the industrial revolution.

Economic growth, on a global scale, increases prices in finite commodities. Since everything involves being created from a commodity, unless you consider digital items, prices will increase. The global economy is growing and people are becoming middle class. That is driving the consumption of high protein food. Animal meat requires a lot of grain. This is pushing up grain prices.

People want electronics. Electronics require precious metals, etc. This is helping push up those prices. Same thing with plastics that are petroleum based. Finite goods with an ever increasing global demand.

As for the economy of the US vs Europe. I have a different opinion on it. Europe has high taxes and in return offers a lot of services. Decent services for everyone. Problem is they have negative population replacement, high fixed costs and an older population. Energy prices are only going to increase which will be magnified in Europe because of the high energy taxes. I am all for green energy, but in the near term it will only cause pain. Industry might not be leaving Europe, but it sure as hell isn't flocking to that continent. There are massive fiscal nations with many EU members and once the US scales back the military it will be up to Europe to fund their own defense. I think it is fair to say that Europe has been able to under fund their own military because of an over funded US military.

Yes, the military budget is massive and it will be scaled back. Yes, wars in the ME have been costly. But to say that the deficit is only because of these is to ignore an ever growing Federal government and an ever shrinking tax base. 50% of the people in the US (and growing) pay zero Federal taxes. Half the US enjoys the benefit of this nation without paying for it. I am sorry, but when I hear cries that we should tax the rich when we allow half the people in this country to pay nothing, I call BS. We milk the successful and bribe the poor to get their vote.

Cut social programs for now and bring them back when we are more financially stable. I have no problem with a safety net, but what the US has now is a warm fuzzy blanket.
 
Building a complex jet fighter and a LCD TV are a little different. Chinese made goods are very high quality when you consider the cost.

Shipping something from China is a lot more expensive than transporting it from Mexico. By a lot.

Pittance? You pay no taxes yet you receive benefits. If you get something for free you really shouldn't be complaining about someone else. And when you have half the country paying zero, the other half will probably be middle class to well off. How can you cut taxes on people who already pay nothing. Didn't realize that being an American entitled you to something that you didn't work for.
 
I think anyone who pays taxes should get a cut. Why are rich people somehow not entitled to keep what they earn. I suppose fairness and ethics go out the window once you make a certain amount of money. Maybe poor people should be allowed to steal from those making over 150k. I mean if I don't have a leather couch and you have 3 I should be able to take it.

Sorry, but what an other man has means nothing to me. The poor pay nothing and get a lot, relatively speaking. Taxes should be cut and they should be cut for those who pay taxes, that includes the rich.
 
If the poor can be bought for $5o bucks it says more about them than the country. Becoming middle class is really easy. Get a college degree in something relevant and don't go into debt. Outside of illness or family issues most people fail at this because they over spend or don't go to school. Plenty of programs that help people move up in life. I see zero reason why people should be given anything.

Just like the whole housing crisis. People bought more than they could obviously afford. People cashed out equity to buy depreciating assets. Live within your means and work hard and you will be fine. If you choose to not do these things that is cool, but don't expect me to care when the consequences catch up to you.
 
Top