"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Buerste" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:52 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:08:54 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message
news
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:51:47 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
further automation, you will have one economic effect: You'll
drive
real
wages, and the real economy, into a race for the bottom.
It would seem that obamanomics already has us sliding down that
particular
razor blade.
And where was it headed before the stimulus, Rich? Have you studied
the
patterns in recessions sufficiently to evaluate this one, in
comparison?
Well, obviously, the Cheney/Bush "bailout" got us started. I suspect
they
just wanted to dump the worst possible mess they could create right
onto
Barry's lap.
I got sickened by Obama's little speech: "Hey, I inherited this huge
deficit!" (wah, wah). So what's the first thing he does? TRIPLES IT!
I fear it's reached the point where the best that we Freedom-lovers
are
going to be able to do is to hunker down, protect our jewels, and
hope
we enjoy the ride when the whole card house collapses around us.
Thanks,
Rich
The irony of this downturn is that all those years of deficit spending
(with
no good reason) has left no choice but more deficit spending -- unless
you
want to do another Herbert Hoover and have the government sit there
with its
collective thumb up its butt, watching the economy go down in flames.
In
other words, now there *is* a good reason for it. And it's 'way more
painful
than it should have been, because we're digging in a place where there
already was a big hole.
Seriously, there is no alternative, except in the academic theories of
some
of the free-market extremists. And they don't have a single example
from
history to draw upon, to support their ideas.
It's better than that Ed (for irony, anyway). Without the continuing
support
of China and, to a slightly lesser extent, Japan. The US would probably
be
having to go to the IMF for a bailout, with all of the pain that goes
with
that.
People, mostly in other fora, may get very exercised about the Chinese,
but
they are the ones that are loaning the money for all that deficit
spending.
For the record, as of the first of this year, China held 7.4% of the
public debt of the US. Japan held 6.3%. Those are large amounts, but
let's not get carried away.
--
Ed Huntress
Wouldn't the US be better off concentrating on wealth creation rather
than redistribution? Is it purely a political decision to abandon wealth
creation?
Hmmm. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? g
What do you mean by that question, Tom? And who is the "US" that has to do
this concentrating?
--
Ed Huntress
Purely philosophical, but...real wealth is created by agriculture (grow it),
mining (dig it up or pump it), manufacturing (put it together and add value)
and maybe intellectual property (units of unique valuable labor). It seems
the US is writing IOUs for future wealth creation or existing land. With a
trade deficit, the US is creating less wealth than it's buying with IOUs.
Is this a sustainable situation or should we be growing, mining and making
as much as we can and selling it for the other guy's IOUs? Eventually, it
seems, people outside the US will own every acre of land, decades of future
labor and everything the US can grow and mine. As much as we try to devalue
the unit s of IOUs so when they have to get paid back, they will be worth
less, there is still a big loss.
I know a thousands books could be and have been written but I think in
simple terms of payables/receivables. We should export (build receivables)
as hard as we can and reduce imports with equal vigor. But is the rest of
the world willing to pay more for the same unit of labor (value added), all
else being equal on manufactured goods?