Brent P wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
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.
Comparing debt to the size of the economy is just a feel good for now
measure like you getting a raise in salary and then using that to borrow
more money so you can have a new bass boat when you were at your debt
limit prior to the raise. It's the ability to pay the debt that counts.
Oh, really? And when't the last time the US missed a debt payment?
Saying that comparing debt to the size of the economy is a feel good
measure, shows how out of touch with reality you are. Following that
logic, clowns like you could take the debt in 1800 and claim how much
larger it is today! We are all Doomed! When somone gives a
mortgage, they look at the credit worthiness of the borrower, dont'
they? Or do they say, gee, 30 years ago, you only made 20K, mortgage
denied!
In fact, this decision is made ever day in the market for govt bonds.
And institutions and foreign govts that know a hell of a lot more than
you, say that at 6%, the US is perfectly capable of meeting it's debt
obligations.
Where is the US federal government's ability to pay the debt?
It;s in the fact that the US has never failed to pay a debt and that
tax revenues are sufficient to support it. Are all the bond buyers
happy with 6% stupid and only you can see the light?
Or do you
think that the holders of the debt never want to be paid? Or that
interest isn't consuming ever greater percentages of revenue?
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 only mysterous to someone who doesn't have a clue.
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?
I expect you to know some of the basics.
Yeah right, I should know exactly what debt somebody railing about
foreign trade competition means when they use the word debt.
And in the context of
your complaining about foreign competition,
I haven't. Stop introducing strawmen.
Whoop Whoop Strawman alert. Did they teach that word to you in school?
Losing a debate, have nothing to counter? Say STRAWMAN.
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.
Then what exactly were you trying to say?
Here it is, one more time. Now pay attention, you can't possibly be
that stupid. You have to compare economic numbers like US debt, with
relevant contemporary numbers. And when you do that, the US debt is
half it's peak, and at levels similar to the 90s. Would it be nice if
it were lower? Sure. Is the US facing a big calamity? No. Your
vacuum logic is like asking someone what was your debt 40 years ago?
Oh, $5k? And now it's $150k? Oh my God, you're doomed! Never mind
that then he was earning $8k and now he's earning $150K. Or that he
has a house now worth 300K. Get it?
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.
So when you earn more, do you go out and borrow more?
Yes, if you bothered to look at economic statistics, you would see that
countries with higher per capita income have higher per capita debt.
This isn't rocket science. Who has a bigger mortgage, the guy making
$150K with a $500K house or the guy making $25K, whose a renter?
?This way you stay up
to your eyeballs in debt? Do you do that personally?
Not up to my eyeballs, no. Nor would I advise anyone to do that. But
over the last several decades, who has come out ahead? Anyone who
bought a home with a large, but realistic mortgage, is way ahead.
?Of course you'll say
you won't. Because it would be stupid to do that. Yet, you fully endorse
the US government running it's finances that way.
No, again, if you look at how big the economy is today, and tax
revenues that support the ability to pay, the US govt is doing fine.
Do you think you;'re smarter than all the bond traders in the world?
They think US bonds are a fair value at 6%. If they had any doubts
about the ability to be paid, credit worthiness, etc, those bonds would
be 3X that.
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.
Actually the percentage of GDP figure for debt wasn't used to calm
the people until rather recently.
Maybe recent to you, but economists have used it all along.
But all that means in the end is
staying up one's eyeballs in debt.
Shouldn't this GDP growth and revenue
growth been used to pay off the existing debt instead of being used to
qualify for more debt? You're acting like the US federal government
should operate like the guy who can barely make is car payment and so
when he gets a raise he gets a newer more expensive car so he can still
just barely make his car payment each month.
That's long term foolishness. But it looks good in the short term.
No. Have you ever taken a course in micro or macro economics? Is
any major US corporation debt free? Of course not, the debt tends to
increase with the size of the company Look at any developing country.
the higher the std of living, the higher the debt. What you are
advocating is using what? The debt level of the US govt in 1776?
And it should be below that? Ridiculous to the max!
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.
The interest only loan. Don't you see how that impodes? Interest only
loans are something that morons and suckers get. Because the lender knows
that it will implode. The lender makes a ton of cash and gets the
property!
That's where the US government will end up. That is unless we start
paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes. You
do know that's what the income tax pays don't you? The interest on the
debt.
And there we have it folks. According to dimwit here, unless we start
"paying a whole lot more (like most of our incomes) in income taxes",
the world is gonna end. Here;s a news flash: CUT SPENDING
As for paying the interest on the debt, yes income taxes pay that. And
they pay for social services, the folks who don't want to work,
defense, and a whole lot of other stuff. So? This is new?
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?
And what happens if interest rates rise? Once again, you have no thought
of tommorow just today. Are you planing on being dead in the next two
years? I'm not, that's why I'm concerned about the government spending
like a drunken sailor and borrowing like a shop-a-holic with a huge house
and H1 hummer to pay for.
You missed the whole point. And that is if things were anywhere as
dire as you think, if the debt load was that high, or the ability to
pay at all in question, Tbonds would not be at 6% today. The best
minds are making the calculations, realtime, everday, and they say
you're wrong.
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?
Strawman. Didn't say 'all'.
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.
The M3 Money supply data is no longer released. Try and keep up with
things. For a cite, will the federal reserve press relase do? Horse's mouth.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm
Is it important? Many think so...
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...tionGauge.aspx
Well whooopy t doo! M3 s no longer available, because the FED and
probably everybody else no longer thinks it reliable or of
significance. Only a conspiracy nut would read more into it than
that.
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.
Projection.
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?
All you have stated as that the binging continues. At some point the
party is over. Or do you keep yourself at maximum debt load to your
income? If you don't do it personally, why not?
Pay attention! As I've said continuously, if you compare the US debt
with any of the ability to pay numbers, this ain't a bing. The debt
was 2X what it is today during WWII. It;s the same relative to the
economy or ability to pay that it was in the 90s. Would it be good if
it were lower? Sure? Is the world gonna end cause it's not, NO!
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.
Gee... that's just what it seems the fed is doing when it stopped
publishing the M3.
Oh I see! Fed decides to stop publishing M3 cause nobody cares about
it and they think it's not usefull. And according to you that's equal
to income tax rates of 70%, taxes on oil, and a FED spewing out money.
LOL The bond boys must be stupid, cause they know what M1, M2, M3
etc are and they think 6% on a US long term bond is fair.
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.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/...fx3147533.html
"China foreign exchange reserves top 1 trln usd"
That's called piling up to everyone but the dimwitted.
And anyone but the dimwitted know that the Chinese can't eat paper
notes.
They are being reinvested here because this
country and our economy are very attractive investment opportunities.
And those investments create jobs.
Yeah.. and we'll all pay to drive on roads owned by foreign corporations!
Eventually there won't be anything left to sell.
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?
There is no free trade with china. China has domestic content laws. Try
and sell your made-in-USA widgets there and see how much tarrif is
slapped on them.
Look, any company that has a legitimate beef with unfare import
restrictions with any country is free to purse it. There are
international laws and treaties, see GATT.
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.
I am sorry you are ignorant about how things work in China. You might
want to come up to speed on that.
I've been to China and know perfectly well how things work. You been?
Or do you just sit and refuse to light candles, prefering to curse the
darkness? Why all the venom against China? I agree it would be
much better if they were a democracy. But how do we get there? Shut
them out like Cuba or North Korea? The countries where we've engaged
with tend to move toward democracy. The more trade, people going back
and forth, the more they will learn and value democracy.
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.
You don't get it and never will. Or you do and want to remain ignorant.
In any case, the Japanese worker and US worker were not in wage
competition with each other.
Oh, really? Ask Detroit what their biggest problem is today: Having
much higher labor costs that the foreign competion, which is
principally Japan.
It was the Japanese company vs. the US
company. Both nations having significant labor and environmental
protections. A best-product-wins competition as it should be, a great
deal closer to the free/fair trade ideal.
LOL That sure aint what I heard 30 years ago. People were bitching
how cheap Japanese labor were gonna put the US auto industry out of
business if not stopped. Thirty years later, they are still in
business and we all have better and cheaper cars.
The US worker and the Chinese
worker are in wage competition with each other. If the US worker isn't
cheap enough the US company he works for will shut down the factory and
open a new one in China. Or bring in illegal aliens from Mexico to
replace him.
Try relacing a skilled FAB worker at an Intel semiconductor plant with
an illegal Mexican or an unskilled worker from Haiti. If it were just
low cost wages, Haiti would be the manufacturing capital of the world,
instead of pit.
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.
So you're up to your eyeballs in debt personally and when you get a raise
you borrow more money to get a nicer car or whatever?
Gee... what happens when hard times come and you end up out of work? You're
****ed. That's what will happen to the USA if hard times come... we'll
all be ****ed. That's why it's a poor way to run one's finances.
Yes, according to you. We just had the biggest stock market crash
since 1929, a major terrorist attack that shut down much of the US for
a couple weeks, a recession, hurricanes, but we're still here.
And again, DEBT is only important to ability to pay. BOND market
votes every day, and they say 6% on US long term bonds is cool. You
know more than them?
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.
During WW2... nice extreme example. However GDP isn't as important as the
revenue the government takes in.... take a look to see where the income
tax goes....
Glad you asked about revenue. Federal revenue is at 18.4%, slightly
above the avearge of the last 40 years. Bond traders are happy?
What''s your problem? This is like someone buying a $400K house,
where there mortgage payment is well within an acceptable range
relative to income and you screaming "Oh my God the DEBT! It only
took 10K in debt to buy a house 40 years ago!" Get it now?
Plus that federal debt doesn't even include the future liabilities that
there is no projected funding for.
Yeah... you ignore that... any reasonable person doing the finances would
consider such things....
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.
Um no you weren't. You were assigning an argument to me as usual.
STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN ALERT WHOOPP!
Try following the rational argument
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.
Yes, you've made it clear you need everything spoon fed to you since
your arugments thus far have been a regurgitation of what Rush Limbaugh
says.
And you;ve provided what? A link to a nice chap who won the Nobel
Prize and says what that has to do with anything? I've provided you
with dozens of hard economic statistics: You response, either ignore
them or insinuate there is some conspiracy to alter them to make the
look better. LOL
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.
It is when your arguments sound like the Rush Limbaugh show. You keep
harping on the same things and have the view that long term mismanagement
is fine.
Gee, maybe Rush is right about free trade?
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.
Not my fault you fall for image.
My image? Typical non-response. Why didn't you say STRAWMAN! I
was only trying to point out that there is broad support, in both
parties for free trade.
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.
There is no free trade with china. Try selling US made widgets there.
You mean like computer chips, or planes, both of which they buy from
the US?
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.
Yeah, his job is overseas... he wasn't low income before... but now he
can buy the crap with his unemployment check!
Oh my! It;s the evil Chinese that made someone unemployed. Not that
he didn;t finish high school, (which is where the highest unemployment
is), not that he didn't get trade schooling or go to college, not that
he didn't make the right life choices. No, it's the evil Chinese!
And if you bother to check, unemployment is near 40 year lows LOL
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.
Strawman. There is foreign competition and then there is 'free trade'.
There is no free trade with China. It's wage competition between the US
worker and the Chinese worker. Not competition in the free market.
STRAWMAN WHEN losing argument and have no rational thought STRAWMAN.
Can you possibly be that stupid that you don't recognize that there
is a positive benefit for low income families being able to buy a
foreign product that would cost 2-3X if made here? How would they
like a nice US made shirt at $100?
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.
You keep assigning arguments to me then knocking them down. I call it
what it is. Japan was an industrialized nation before WW2. US companies
did not relocate factories in mass to Korea. South Korea isn't operated
like China either. You don't understand the fundamental differences
between the nations and how you're attempt to draw a parallel is in error.
Who the hell cares if Japan was industrialized before WWII? This means
what to me? The fact is with lower labor costs and better quality,
they offered great products that Americans chose to buy. Exactly what
is happening with China today. As far as US companies relocating in
mass to Korea, no they didn;'t do that. Nor are they relocating in
mass to China either. The vast majority of products from China are
coming from Chinese factories and being then sold by US companies.
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.
No jobs, POS $15 fan that falls apart in a few months vs. jobs and a $40 fan
that lasts decades. hmm...
Yeah, only you are smart enough to figure out that the cost/benefit of
the products we buy every day is all wrong. I've bought a lot of
stuff made abroad and am perfectly happy with the cost/performance.
How about those US cars from the 70's, 80's bet you loved them too, Eh?
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?
The US federal government needs to drastically cut back spending.
Oh my God, something we agree on.
The chinese currancy needs to float.
That would be good too.
their tarriffs need to be removed or
the US should enact similiar domestic content laws in response. That
would be a good start.
As I said before, if any company has a beef, there are avenues to
pursue it. I don't see it happening, do you?
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.
Guess you don't know who boeing's major competition is.
Oh, wow, now I'm enlightened? Thanks for pointing this out? And
that has what the hell to do with anything? Because the big socialist
Airbus is source some stuff from China, that it's the end of the world?
Good grief!
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.
Especially when 'free trade' advocates like yourself consider free trade
the ability to drive down wages and one way trade barriers.
Any company that has a beef should pursue it. But maybe they know
more about their individual markets and trade barriers than you do and
know they aint got a case.
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?
Doing what you do today in the USA but earning the typical salary for
that function in China. Guess reading is a problem for you. Can you
compete with the Chinese guy doing your job in china?
Not only can I, but I do. I'm a trader. I trader mostly futures.
Anyone with a terminal anyhwere in the world can trade the markets,
just as I do. This notion that there has to be salary parity is
totally bogus. Does the Chinese guy pay $10K a year in real estate
taxes, 36% income tax, 7% sales tax? Does a decent house in India
cost $300K? There never has been salary parity and there never will.
Whatever it is you do for living, whatever it is you want to do, there's
a guy in China who can do it for less than you can because he can live on
far less than you can and with far less than you do.
Wow, so what else is new? And how are you gonna solve that?
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
Read the whole thing. It seems now you're either a total moron or just
playing usenet games. Read the whole sentance rather than complaining
that a segment of a sentance doesn't make sense. OF course it doesn't.
Then again, you did that on purpose.
"came in large part from an american US corporations",
And you;re calling me the moron? LOL I read it several times
trying to makes any sense of it.
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.
Oh I forgot... you need everything spoon fed to you. Why don't you go
listen to Limbaugh some more?
I don't need to listen to Limbaugh. All the great economic numbers I
gave you are readily available, if only you;d care to look and put
things in perspective, instead of knowing how bad and dire everything
is.
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!
You make up arguments for me, those are strawmen, not facts.
STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!! OH NO STRAWMAN!!!