"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , tonyp says...

I say again: let's privatize the national debt.

Sorry but I gotta say it. This is the dumbest idea I've
ever heard. Not because it's not a good idea in principle,
but I am horrified to think what would happen after this
was done.

Basically the last thing a bankrupt person needs is somebody
giving them another credit card. Once the debt was paid
down, the politicians would go on a spending spree.

Jim

You wouldn't have to worry about that. Despite the appeal of Tony's idea
(and it does sound appealing), dropping that much debt on individuals would
bring consumer spending to a screeching halt and drive us into the deepest
depression in American history.

Something like 60% of the American economy is consumer spending. You don't
play around with that. It's very sensitive to peoples' projections of
personal income versus debt. We can handle a lot of debt but, if you go over
a threshhold that appears to be around $15,000 or so per person, excluding
home mortgages and cars, everybody stops spending. Ask any retailer. They
watch that number like hawks.

Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote

You wouldn't have to worry about that. Despite the appeal of Tony's idea
(and it does sound appealing), dropping that much debt on individuals would
bring consumer spending to a screeching halt and drive us into the deepest
depression in American history.


Just a quibble, Ed: we, us, individual Americans, are _already_ the ones who
owe the money. We just go on living (and voting) _as_if_ we don't. Would an
explicit acknowledgement of that reality "bring consumer spending to a
screeching halt"? I doubt it. Debt is not a novel concept to those of us who
carry mortgages, car loans, or credit card balances. Would it change our
_voting_ patterns? I say yes, and I say it would be for the better. I have no
clue whether "we" would vote to tax ourselves more, or spend less tax money on
ourselves, mind you.


Something like 60% of the American economy is consumer spending. You don't
play around with that. It's very sensitive to peoples' projections of
personal income versus debt. We can handle a lot of debt but, if you go over
a threshhold that appears to be around $15,000 or so per person, excluding
home mortgages and cars, everybody stops spending. Ask any retailer. They
watch that number like hawks.


Another quibble: _all_ spending is, ultimately, "consumer spending". Of course
I understand the importance of the intermediate step, namely "capital spending"
or whatever you want to call it. Feasting on the seed corn is counterproductive
at one extreme, devoting _all_ your labor to building "labor-saving devices" is
counterproductive at the other extreme. A proper balance between the two
depends, at least in part, on how deep in hock you are -- or, as I claim, on
_knowing_ how deep in hock you are.

-- Tony P.

On 8 Aug 2004 07:33:10 -0700, jim rozen
calmly ranted:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

Meanwhile, the federal government holds 627,000,000 acres
of land off the commercial market. Much of it is raw land in the
West, but a significant amount of it is in urban areas where
commercial land is valued *much* higher. It has been estimated
that selling off merely 20% of federal property holdings would
completely pay off the federal debt.

Dang. Think of the realtor fees.

Hey, tell 'em my SIL would be happy to handle the negotiations
for 2% of the total (instead of 6%). She and my BIL are top
agents in NorCal and I'm sure would be happy to take care of
that little chunk of change.


Gary wouldn't it
just be easier to sell all the gold in Fort Knox?

That's not legal. We're supposed to be able to back up every
cent of currency the country buries itself in.

-
Gently-used Firestone tires for sale at discount!
-----------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming

"tonyp" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote

You wouldn't have to worry about that. Despite the appeal of Tony's idea
(and it does sound appealing), dropping that much debt on individuals
would
bring consumer spending to a screeching halt and drive us into the
deepest
depression in American history.


Just a quibble, Ed: we, us, individual Americans, are _already_ the ones
who
owe the money. We just go on living (and voting) _as_if_ we don't.

I wasn't arguing the economics of collective versus individual debt, Tony. I
was just pointing out what happens when individuals perceive their personal
debt to have passed a certain threshhold.

Consumer spending is more dependent upon perceptions than upon realities.
That applies in both directions -- regarding unrealistic perceptions of
income security versus debt, and regarding unrealistic perceptions of risk
versus security.

Would an
explicit acknowledgement of that reality "bring consumer spending to a
screeching halt"? I doubt it.

Yeah, I'd bet serious money on it. When the government owes money, that's
removed from us in two ways. First, it isn't our individual problem. Second,
if it's everybody's problem, it will be solved. "Everybody" or "somebody"
will do something about it. That's the perception.

When it's our own, personal debt, and we see our name on the bill, the whole
psychology of it changes. We get nervous and uncomfortable. We worry if we
will lose our house if we lose our job. We worry about our retirement fund
and how our kids will get through college. We worry about our image if we
drive a car that doesn't reflect who we think we are.

Debt is not a novel concept to those of us who
carry mortgages, car loans, or credit card balances.

When unsecured debt (credit card balances, for example) get too high, our
buying slows down measurably -- sharply.

Would it change our
_voting_ patterns? I say yes, and I say it would be for the better. I
have no
clue whether "we" would vote to tax ourselves more, or spend less tax
money on
ourselves, mind you.

Nice theory, and, as I said, it has a lot of appeal. But I suspect we would
vote for whomever would promise to print the money with which we would pay
our debt. Inflation would be our friend.



Something like 60% of the American economy is consumer spending. You
don't
play around with that. It's very sensitive to peoples' projections of
personal income versus debt. We can handle a lot of debt but, if you go
over
a threshhold that appears to be around $15,000 or so per person,
excluding
home mortgages and cars, everybody stops spending. Ask any retailer.
They
watch that number like hawks.


Another quibble: _all_ spending is, ultimately, "consumer spending".

I recognize what you're saying, but that's not the way the GDP or any other
regular measure of economic activity is measured. Take a look at definitions
of GDP and follow the logic of it. You'll see why there are other important
components besides conumser spending.

Of course
I understand the importance of the intermediate step, namely "capital
spending"
or whatever you want to call it. Feasting on the seed corn is
counterproductive
at one extreme, devoting _all_ your labor to building "labor-saving
devices" is
counterproductive at the other extreme. A proper balance between the two
depends, at least in part, on how deep in hock you are -- or, as I claim,
on
_knowing_ how deep in hock you are.

What you're recommending would be a fine way to impose discipline upon an
economy. Unfortunately, it would have unintended, unpleasant consequences.
My best guess is a combination of a collapse in consumption and wild
inflation at the same time, until the whole economy just ground to a halt.

Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...


Gary wouldn't it
just be easier to sell all the gold in Fort Knox?

That's not legal. We're supposed to be able to back up every
cent of currency the country buries itself in.

Not since 1971. But it's a useful fiction to keep believing it. g

Ed Huntress

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Suffering from nitrogen narcosis, michael sputtered --

Carl Nisarel wrote:

Suffering from nitrogen narcosis, Gunner sputtered --

Sooner or later..the price will reach the point that no
one can afford a house.

Your ignorance of basic economics is amazing but not
surprising.

Do you have anything of substance to contribute?


carl, deeply imbedded in grade school methods of character attack, had
the following gem of wisdom to impart:

You think that Mark's statement is correct?

Sheesh.

...

I did not state whether I was agreed or not with what Mark had to say.
So, upon seeing your sniping, trivial reply, your answer to my question
to you, would for all appearences, be 'no'.
Either that, or you are selfishly witholding your great analytical
wisdom from the rest of us.
Give us something constructive, carl. I have not been swayed to either
viewpoint as yet.

michael

Gary Coffman wrote:

On 8 Aug 2004 07:34:10 -0700, jim rozen wrote:

In article , Wayne Mak says...

Even if selling off 20% of the land would fix our dept should we keep
adding?

Dibs on the Grand Canyon!


There would be no need to sell National Park properties. There's only
83 million acres of that.

Gary
And more is acquired every year. Some more of California was taken and added
to several parks - peoples homes, property in the family for several generations and all.

Something like 2/3's of the area west of the Mississippi is Federal. That is massive.
Consider giving up 2/3's or 66% of New England states to the Feds! I think there
would be some pig squealing then! You know the place - a Senator every 50 miles !

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 13:54:54 -0700, Koz
wrote:


Damned straight on your comments, Gunner. The supply and demand thing,
I believe, is supported only on the notion that prices will perpetually
increase and people can profit. Pay waaay too much now because people
think they can't go down. People have a short memory and forget
declining housing prices in select areas in the past.

Something has to burst one of these days as there will come a time when
people just can't get loans for a $ 300,000+ crappy house in a bad
neighborhood. I suspect that the huge debt of the Govt will eventually
blow interest up to the high teens again.

And as to property taxes....that is one of my favorite rants and where I
am about as conservative wakko nutjob as one gets for a pinko liberal
commie Property taxes are about the MOST unamerican thing that can
be done. If you have 50 acres and can self support, you should be able
to lock yourself up and never be bugged by the outside world. I
understand that there are "services" that are intrinisically needed
(like roads etc) but that shouldn't be related to property you have
already paid for and own. Once it's yours, it should be YOURS.

End of off topic rant

Koz

Im reminded of some of the cities in Texas when the oil industry took
a **** about 15 or so years ago. They couldnt even GIVE houses away in
some places. I was offered a nice 4 bedroom house on 5 acres of land,
along with a shop and corrals etc etc just to simply walk in and take
over payments. Payments that were sky high and way upside down.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"

Some years ago, - 80's the down turn in Houston was heavy also - the fancy
houses in exclusive hoods were returning back to the banks - e.g. no sale,
just return the note...and escape.

I read of one case when the last man in a custom development went to the
bank and tried to turn in the keys. They knew him as the last and made him
a deal once listening to his plight loosing his job. He was to manager of
the development for maintaining the trees, grass..... a service was to to the work,
but he would call for special service and do daily tours. This for his mortgage
payment and pay. He kept his house and people bought back into a nice neighborhood.

Sometimes the people in the bank have more to loose than a simple mortgage!

Martin

Gunner wrote:

Im reminded of some of the cities in Texas when the oil industry took
a **** about 15 or so years ago. They couldnt even GIVE houses away in
some places. I was offered a nice 4 bedroom house on 5 acres of land,
along with a shop and corrals etc etc just to simply walk in and take
over payments. Payments that were sky high and way upside down.

Gunner

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except
in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism
proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is
merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main
Weapons"


--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

"Ed Huntress" wrote

What you're recommending would be a fine way to impose discipline upon an
economy. Unfortunately, it would have unintended, unpleasant consequences.
My best guess is a combination of a collapse in consumption and wild
inflation at the same time, until the whole economy just ground to a halt.


Well, I respect your point of view, Ed, especially since I have _not_ seen you
argue that we should privatize Social Security, for instance. My call to
"privatize" the national debt is really mostly meant to tweak the noses of the
people who are always pushing to "privatize" only the other side of the ledger.

The arbiters of our current argument will, in the end, be the bondholders to
whom "we" owe the $7 trillion. They know their ultimate debtors are the
American people, not "the federal government". They recognize that the
government can always _try_ to inflate away the people's debt to them, but
they've seen that dodge before, and know how to deal with it. If they decide
that the dodge is inevitable because the government (as the agent of "the
people") shows no inclination to actually balance its budget, their reaction
will have exactly the consequences you warn of.

-- Tony P.

On 8 Aug 2004 10:30:15 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gary Coffman says...

There isn't nearly enough gold in Fort Knox to cover the debt.

Right, but it's easy and it's a start.

At current market price, the gold in Fort Knox is worth
$58,920,000,000, which is only 0.8% of the national debt.
So it would be a start, but a *small* start.

The trouble is, when you flood the market with that
gold, doesn't the price go down?

Possibly, but if selling the gold caused confidence in the
dollar to fall, it might cause the price of gold to rise. In
fact, the current rise in the price of gold is because of
lack of confidence in the US dollar.

Likewise, if you start dumping federal lands onto
the market, isn't *that* going to depress the
market?

Remember that the 3 main factors which determine real
estate values are location, location, and location. The feds
own land in some *very* high rent districts, like Manhattan.
They even own some in Westchester county.

Besides, in toto we're only talking about 120,000,000 acres
going on the market. (It wouldn't all necessarily go on the
market at once either.) That's a small fraction of normal real
estate turnover.

Gary

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 03:22:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
calmly ranted:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .


Gary wouldn't it
just be easier to sell all the gold in Fort Knox?

That's not legal. We're supposed to be able to back up every
cent of currency the country buries itself in.

Not since 1971. But it's a useful fiction to keep believing it. g

That figures. deep sigh


- Woodworkers of the world, Repent! Repeat after me:
"Forgive Me Father, For I Have Stained and Polyed."
-
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Design

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...

Likewise, if you start dumping federal lands onto
the market, isn't *that* going to depress the
market?

Remember that the 3 main factors which determine real
estate values are location, location, and location. The feds
own land in some *very* high rent districts, like Manhattan.
They even own some in Westchester county.

Katie, bar the doors! We'll have 12 kinds of Chinese takeout in Tarrytown,
and a strip mine down Main Street in White Plains. g

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Nice theory, and, as I said, it has a lot of appeal. But I suspect we would
vote for whomever would promise to print the money with which we would pay
our debt. Inflation would be our friend.

Hmm. Wheelbarrow full of cash, anyone? The
best way to buy bread it's been shown....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Katie, bar the doors! We'll have 12 kinds of Chinese takeout in Tarrytown,
and a strip mine down Main Street in White Plains. g

Umm, hate to say this, but as far as tarrytown goes, that's
probably already an understatement.

Strip mines? Interesting fact is that the heirs to Phillips
already own all the mineral rights in Putnam County, NY.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 14:34:33 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
.. .

Likewise, if you start dumping federal lands onto
the market, isn't *that* going to depress the
market?

Remember that the 3 main factors which determine real
estate values are location, location, and location. The feds
own land in some *very* high rent districts, like Manhattan.
They even own some in Westchester county.

Katie, bar the doors! We'll have 12 kinds of Chinese takeout in Tarrytown,
and a strip mine down Main Street in White Plains. g

Ed Huntress

Someone did a joke about why Asians always have cameras , to take
pictures of future real estate. Plus all those Grand Canyon tours
flying over my job sites I think 'ooo picya of gran canion.'

That's it sell it for even up , it would be pretty hard to ruin that
inaccessible trench.

The BLM makes land deals all the time here in this valley. Greased all
the way I bet and a penny drops out for the debt.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Katie, bar the doors! We'll have 12 kinds of Chinese takeout in
Tarrytown,
and a strip mine down Main Street in White Plains. g

Umm, hate to say this, but as far as tarrytown goes, that's
probably already an understatement.

Cripes. I guess they don't bowl at ninepins there anymore, either, huh? The
place is going to the dogs...


Strip mines? Interesting fact is that the heirs to Phillips
already own all the mineral rights in Putnam County, NY.

Eh, Putnam, schmutnam. If Gary gets his way, the Chinese will turn Rye Beach
into an oil-tanker port. g

Ed Huntress

"tonyp" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote

What you're recommending would be a fine way to impose discipline upon
an
economy. Unfortunately, it would have unintended, unpleasant
consequences.
My best guess is a combination of a collapse in consumption and wild
inflation at the same time, until the whole economy just ground to a
halt.


Well, I respect your point of view, Ed, especially since I have _not_ seen
you
argue that we should privatize Social Security, for instance. My call to
"privatize" the national debt is really mostly meant to tweak the noses of
the
people who are always pushing to "privatize" only the other side of the
ledger.

I appreciate the objective of your idea, and I agree with the sentiment
behind it.


The arbiters of our current argument will, in the end, be the bondholders
to
whom "we" owe the $7 trillion. They know their ultimate debtors are the
American people, not "the federal government". They recognize that the
government can always _try_ to inflate away the people's debt to them, but
they've seen that dodge before, and know how to deal with it. If they
decide
that the dodge is inevitable because the government (as the agent of "the
people") shows no inclination to actually balance its budget, their
reaction
will have exactly the consequences you warn of.

What I hope is that we get some of that old-time economic religion and pay
the freaking thing down when the economy is riding high, without killing the
golden goose. We had some of that under the last administration. I'd like to
see more of it.

Then, when we really need deficit spending (which we will, as the next
business cycle takes a dive), we'll be able to, without adding more to the
long-term debt-service burden.

But then, I'm an economic-conservative/idealist. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

The trouble is, when you flood the market with that
gold, doesn't the price go down?

Likewise, if you start dumping federal lands onto
the market, isn't *that* going to depress the
market?

And the problem with that is?

It becomes tougher to pay off the debt because
the 'stuff' being sold is worth less. The idea
here is to pay off the debt, not buy you a house
on the rim of the grand canyon!

Jim

The idea, if executed by Bush-Cheney, would be to hold a fire sale to
benefit corporate sponsors. It's a safe bet the land would not be available
in 20 to 40 acre chunks.