Brent P wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
Brent P wrote:

Why don't you pay attention to people from the World Bank, Federal
Reserve, etc and so on if you don't believe me?

It's not clear what
exact "$9 trillion in debt you are referring to." If it's the US govt
debt, an absolute number doesn't mean much by itself.

Well if you want to play games with the currancy.

See, again you show your lack of grasp of any real economic data.

You're not getting it....

The
issue of what debt you are referring to has nothing to do with playing
games with currency.

You just stated that the number is meaningless, and in the sense that the
currancy is not related to anything real, you're correct. Any number of
games can be played with it.


The number is not meaningless. It's very meaningful if used and
compared with other relevant economic statistics, like the size of the
economy. What's the problem with defining what "debt" you are
referring to? Better to rail against mysterious, vagues and evil
debt, I guess.



It's the question of what debt you are referring
to. Did you mean US govt debt? US govt debt owned by foreigners?
Consumer debt?

The 9 trillion figure is federal government debt. If you had half the
clue you claim to have you would have known that.

Excuse me. You didn't specify which type "debt" you were referring
to. I'm supposed to be a mind reader now too? And in the context of
your complaining about foreign competition, it's not unreasonable to
think you might be bitching about some number related foreign debt.
Plus, last time I checked the US debt was actually slightly below $9
Bil.




Ask grandpa what
he paid for his first house. Does that mean everyone who pays 10X that
for a house today is doing something wrong? If you look at govt debt
as a percentage of GDP, today it's about the same as it was in the mid
90's and also about the same as it was in the mid 50's. During WWII,
it was twice as high. We survived that, didn't we?

So you want to make the debt smaller by inflating the currancy.

No, I never said that. Any economist will tell you that in free
markets, some small level of price inflation is desirable. And that
means unless you compare debt in the 50's to the size of the economy
then, or some other data that factors in inflation, it's meaningless.

What I responded to, is you writing 'don't worry about the debt, it will
appear much smaller in the future'.

Wrong, never said that. I said the national debt, which you brought
up, is about the same in size relative to the economy that it was in
the 90s or mid 50's.



The only way that happens is when the
dollar buys less, inflation. Percentage of GNP is figures don't lie but
liars figure sort of thing. Just like your other figures, they are
manufactured and calculated in such a way as to get you not to worry.

Yeah, right. BTW, it's been GDP that everyone had used for decades
now. But I you wouldn't know that, cause you prefer to go by opinion,
rather than actual real data. Curse the darkness instead of lighting a
candle.

The
problem is there isn't enough revenue for the US federal government to
pay the debt and the US government isn't slowing down spending to pay it
back either. You cannot grow debt forever without consquences even if the
GNP keeps growing.

Wrong. It can go on forever as long as the govt can meet the interest
obligations on it's bonds. Back to the house example. I can go from
a $50K house, to a $100K house, to a $500K house as long as I have the
income to meet it. Same with the govt, which is why the size of the
economy is directly relevant.

And what about the bond market? You have the brightest minds in the
financial community, constantly valuing US debt, realtime, in the
market. Everyone, from major US institutions, to foreign central banks
own US Bonds. If the US is so loaded with debt and unable to meet
it's committments, it's rather peculiar that the long bond is at 6%
interest, instead of 16%, which it was in 1980, when total govt debt
was much less. Did everyone just become stupid?




That appears to be what is being done.

No, because last time I checked, inflation was in control and around
3%, which is a far cry from when it was triple that in the 70's. Or
the double digit levels of many of the countries around the world that
practice your ideas and try to have the govt pursue a trade policy of
blocking imports.

The Federal reserve has been growing the money supply and has now made
the figures there on secret.



Oh, really? Now all the basic monetary figures are a secret? LOL
If they did this, wall street would go nuts and the bond market, who
knows a whole hell of a lot more than you, would tank. Reference
please, and make sure it's not some kook website. I want a ref from
CNN, NY Times, WSJ, someone credible.



A growing supply of dollars means a weaker
dollar. Again, you seem way too focused on the here and now. Short term
thinking. What is being done is short term... the long term is being
neglected for the short. You seem to understand this as you avoid any
discussion of the long term issues. You keep focusing on the government's
'feel good and go to sleep' figures for the moment.


I've been hearing kooks like you predict the end of the world because
of a whole host of narrowly selected statistics for decades. And I;'m
not focused on the here and now. I showed you that govt debt, which
you brought into the discussion of foreign goods, is the same relative
to the economy today as it was in the mid 50's. and in the 90's.
That;s short term?




Sure, the only problem is that it wipes
out the savings, the hard earned money of the people. If you don't think
that has consquences you're deluding yourself. Or maybe you just don't
care because you have no savings?

Again, check the facts before you jump to wild end of the world
predictions. Inflation is at 3%, well within the range that is
recognized as ideal. The period when savings were being eaten away by
inflation was the 70's and that's long gone.

So you're also a member of the 'it can't happen again crowd'. I am sure
people said similiar in the 1960s.... and then came the 70s and stagflation.

Of course it can happen again. Soon as we start trying to manage the
economy, adopt trade policies to try to protect ourselves from the real
world, have income tax rates at 70%, put a heafty extra tax on oil, and
have a FED that spewing out money, without regard to inflation, to try
to hide the effects of the above and keep the economy going.





Just look in the
newspaper and you will find all the banks offering savings alternatives
of 5+%. With inflation at 3%, that 's a positive return, last time I
checked. But, then I check, instead of making stuff up.

Once again you refuse to look at the long term. The US is not making
things others want. Dollars are piling up overseas.

Dollars aren't piling up. They are being reinvested here because this
country and our economy are very attractive investment opportunities.
And those investments create jobs.



Of course it benefits them in the long term, by low income people being
able to conitnue to buy good cheaply. That continues on.

But work as slaves... like in china.

Free markets benefit all.

It isn't a free market.

Those Chinese are happy to work and get the wages they get.

So says the slave master.

Excuse me, you're the one trying to tell others what to do, not me. I
think the Chinese have every right to a job of their choice.




Over time, they improve themselves, save, get better
jobs and move up the economic ladder.

They don't need to ruin the US manufacturing base to do so. China is a
large nation that could bring itself up on it's internal markets _ALONE_.

And if they could, they should do this instead of free trade, why?
Because you say so?



It's exactly what's happening
in China if you look at the real facts. Look at Shanhei. It's a
booming city.

I see a government that takes people's land and makes them homeless. Land
they've had in their families for centuries and then gives it to
corporate interests to profit from. It's tyranny. And now we have that
here in the USA given the New London decision.

Yeah, more doom and gloom that shows how far out of touch with reality
you are. Now you want to start ranting about emminent domain. I see
you don;'t want to talk about Shanghei.




Or look how the boogey men of past have improved their
countries, ie Japan, China. Compare that to countries that have
tried to manage trade the most, and they have failed miserably.

As I pointed out to you before, there is no comparison between Japan and
China. It's not the same on any level.


Yes, you're right. China is now at the point where Japan was in the
60's or Korea in the 80s.



What happens to those chinese goods
once your plan to inflate the currancy to solve the US debt problem is
put into action?

Never said that was my plan. All I said is you have to put any
economic number in perspective. To rail about some debt number
without comparing it to anything else, like the SIZE OF THE ECONOMY,
renders it just about meaningless. As an example of that, I gave you
the case of grandpa's house, but that went right over your head.

No, you just didn't understand the implications of what you stated. Do
you run your personal finances ever increasing your debt load as your
income increases? Pretty stupid way to run one's finances don't you
agree?

No, I don't agree. If you look at any countries that are advancing,
you will see a steady increase in total debt along with income, GDP,
wages, etc. It's a great sign of economic progress.



Always growing one's debt load, keeping it maxed out? It's a
stupid way to run personal finances and even worse when a government's
finances are run that way.

Well, it;s not maxed out, as I told you debt as a percentage of GDP was
twice what it is today during WWII. Now, am I in favor of reducing
it? Sure, whenever they're ready to reduce the growth of federal
spending.



Plus that federal debt doesn't even include the future liabilities that
there is no projected funding for.

But if you don't want to listen to me about the danger of economic
collaspe, maybe you'll listen to this guy:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/1...obel_2001.html

I mean he's only been chief economist for the world bank and has a nobel
prize in the field.... and he's not agreeing with you...

I don;t see anywhere that he said free trade is bad, or that we need to
do something radical to compete with China. Plus, this is a classic
and shows where he's coming from:

Nice strawman. I haven't argued free trade is bad....

Not a strawman, I was just trying to figure out what the economist you
referenced has to do with anything under discussion here.



So, your economist has egg all over his face.

You don't get it and never will. Why don't you do some further poking
around?

You provide a reference to a nice little article from 5 years ago about
an economist who won the Nobel prize and I'm supposed to do the poking
around to figure out what the hell the relevance is? LOL.


And BTW, your neo-con spin job doesn't cut it either.


Since when is it neo-con spin to point out that the tax cuts worked and
the economy is doing nicely? Cutting taxes in times of recession was
accepted as core liberal Keynsian economic fact for most of the last
century. It apparently was accepted and worked when JFK did it. But
now, for some peculiar reason, it's now a bad idea. I guess Bush
should have raised taxes, so we could have had plunged the economy into
the calamity you desperatley want.




And do you think you'd find them at those prices if you eliminated
foreign competition?

Strawman.

Economic fact. Take an economics course or read a magazine.

I never made any such argument. That's why it's a strawman. Grow a clue!

I don't think you understand the long term game.

I don't think you understand economics, the great benefit of free
trade, and the huge problems that get caused when you try to have govt
correct perceived imperfections in free markets. Free markets aren't
perfect. Sometimes they are even brutal. But they are far better to
solutions of protectionism, that result in govt management of the
economy and trade wars.

There is no such thing as free trade. It doesn't exist. Maybe we'd have
free trade if the US had no labor laws, no environmental protections, and
completed it's move towards a police state. Then, maybe we'd be on an
even footing with china and then it would be 'free trade'. Do you really
want to live where you can see the air? Where it is so thick and brown
that it's as if you could cut it with a knife?

Free trade is where we don't listen to guys like you and try to lock
out foreign competition on the faulty notion that everyone is going to
be better off.

Again, strawmen. I never stated anything of the sort. Free trade doesn't
exist. Plain and simple. US and China trade is not free, fair, or
anything else of the sort. That's a fact. It doesn't mean I want to lock
out oreign competition or anything else, it's a fact, there is no such
thing as free trade. Tarrifs, local laws, etc and so forth exist all over
the world. There is no such thing as free trade.

Now you want to argue fine points of definition? Seems Bush41,
Clinton, Congress and most economists understand it well enough though.
They all supported NAFTA.



Or do you feel it's perfectally ok that people live in such sesspools
working more or less as company slaves under an oppressive police state
that controls access to information and forbids things like freedom
speech to make you cheap goods?

I'm the one for FREEDOM, including trade.

You're arguing pro-china. China is an oppressive modern police state
where there is no such thing as conflict of interest. Where corporate
CEO, government offical, military general, and high ranking party member
can be all the same guy.

I'm not pro China. I'm pro free trade and recognize that there are
huge benefits from it. And I think I entered this thread by saying
that low cost imports are not all bad. You have to look at both sides
of the ledger. They provide low cost products that everyone,
including and maybe especially, the lower income receive benefit from.
If a low income family can buy a foreign product cheaply, that is a
positive. Without foreign competition, inflation would be higher and
we would have crappy products. Again,. the classic is the US auto
industry. If they did not have oreign competition, we would still be
buying crappy cars.





Your the one that find
something wrong with folks in China providing some products which we
get an good prices and that help them improve their lives by working up
the economic ladder.

Another strawman.

That seems to be your favorite word, instead of any rational argument,
backed by facts. And it's not a "strawman". This happened in Japan,
Korea, Singapore.... Try reading.



I find a problem with US corporations making everything in china for
sale in the USA. I have a problem when China is being used to drive down
the wages and crush the middle class of the USA.

Yeah, I'm sure they all feel crushed when they buy a fan made in China
for $15, instead of one made here for $40.


I have a problem with
putting a great deal of economic power over the USA in the hands of an
oppressive police state. I have a problem with that US corporations have
no problem spewing pollution in china when they know better.


The real question is, other than complaining about, what exactly do you
want to do about it?



According to you, because you focus only on the negatives. There are
many US companies that lead the world today today in many areas. Would
you rather have MSFT, INTC, Boeing, etc, or a country with unskilled
laborers making shirts?

You don't seem to grasp the whole picture. Guess who's going to be
building Airbus aircraft? Guess... you think any job is safe? You're
deluding yourself. It's not just no-skill low-skill or 'dirty-jobs' that
are going to china. In fact, with the manufactruring now much of the
engineering is going too...

Oh no! Airbus! My God, more boogey men! Airbus seems to have
their tits in the wringer at the moment with the A380, don't they?
Sure they are competition, but that's good for everyone. If Boeing
had no competition, we's still be flying around in planes that cost
more, used more gas, were not as safe or comfortable, etc. And Airbus
is only using China for some components, not the whole plane. Don't
worry, being Western Europe based, Airbus is gonna be run a lot closer
to your ideas of how to protect workers and better things than here in
the US.

Nice avoidance of the fact that your 'the good jobs stay here' argument
just got shreadded.

No, it didn;t get shredded at all. Last time I checked Airbus is a
European consortium, not a US conpany.



How is that argument going to hold up when Boeing, to
compete with Airbus moves their production to China? It isn't. Nobody, no
job is safe.

Wow, no job is safe? You really think so? Welcome to the real
world.


Do you think you can live here in the USA on the wages of a
worker in China? Why don't you try that, since you're all into
competition and thinking it's all fair. You should undercut the chinese
guy that does the same thing you do, right? Think you can live on that?

Why should I or anyone else labor away to make a fan or a shirt, when
there are far better jobs and opportunities available for anyone that
cares to apply themselves?



The knowledge drain from the US to China has been monumental as well. US
company starts manufacturing over there, next thing they know they have a
new competitor using everything they learned from the US company.

Oh! Yes, better to hide everything and erect obstacles to trade and
knowledge.

Strawman.

There you go again!



I don't suppose we learned anything about cost effective
manufacturing and quality from Japan either, did we?

Japanese quality and manufacturing concepts that they used effectively
came in large part from an american US corporations laughed at and
wouldn't listen to. Your ignorance is astounding.

My ignorance? "came in large part from an american US corporations",
what the hell does that mean? LOL



Guess who benefits
from this in the long term? China will be the super power and the US will
in many respects be third worlded. Or do you think it is a good thing to
have people in the USA compete for jobs with china?

What works is a free economy.

There is no such thing. Then again you probably don't know about China's
local content laws either. If a given percentage of your product isn't
made in China you will suffer high tariffs selling it in China. Maybe in
the name of a 'free economy' the US can be like China in that respect?


I thought as much... no response. You didn't know about the local content
laws in China did you? No free trade.

Japan was never a boogey man. That is a false argument, Japan doesn't use
slave labor, Japan has been an industrialized nation since before world
war two, it has labor and environmental protections. It's companies
competed with US companies on a more or less even footing. What is going
on with China is that US companies are relocating their manufacturing to
a police state where it can pay people next to nothing. That's
considerably different and only those people with no grasp of the
realities of the situation make such a comparison.

Typical elitist attitude. You know what's best for everyone.

Strawman.

Because someone makes a fraction of the wages somewhere else, we should
lock them out, so they go unemployed and hungry instead.

Strawman.

These people
want to work and are happy with the wages.

Now that's elitiest...

Over time, they lift
themselves up the economic scale, just as anyone who wants to can here
in the US. Look as Shanghei. Accoridng to you, it should be a slum.

Strawman.

If we're failing anywhere, it's because we have a segment of the
population that doesn't get educated, doesn't even finish high school.
The solution to that is to work on that problem, not try to compete in
making shirts or baskets on the theory that the solution is to have
more no skills jobs to compete with foreign low cost labor.

Again you have no grasp of the situation. It's not just such things being
done in China. I suggest you start paying closer attention to things
around you. Maybe even check the tag on the back of your computer
monitor.

I need to pay attention? You're the one relying on personal opinion
instead of real economic numbers.

Real economic numbers? US federal government debt. US federal government
future liabilities. Weak dollar. T-Bills and dollars held by China. Trade
deficits. Those are real economic numbers. They point to a long term
problem. One you'd ignore because the manipulated political type numbers
of the short term look good to you.

Spouting out the above, without a chart, historical trends, comparing
it to the size of the economy, or anything else proves what? It's
like saying company X made 1 Billion in profit last year. Without
comparing it to their sales, other similar companies, etc, it doesn;'t
say much at all.


You sound like the typical whacko
leftist, running around saying the economy is terrible, worst it's been
since the great depression and basing it on what you know to be,
instead of any real data.

Again, strawman. I am saying the future economy might make the great
depression look easy unless something is done today to improve the long
term economic numbers.

You're quite clearly a be happy and spend today, who cares about tomorrow
type.


And you're a guy who when presented with fact, says "Strawman!" World
still sucks!