U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2019, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Texas
27,558 posts, read 11,611,489 times
Reputation: 6403

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
I don't think our economic fall was preventable. We inherited the global economy after WWII destroyed all the major economies of the world, except ours. The war was not fought on our territory, ignoring Pearl Harbor. As a consequence the wars aftermath, we became the largest net exporter and largest world creditor. That resulted in trillions of dollars, from other places, pouring into the US which got distributed to workers and elevated our standard of living. In other words, our economy and standard of living of artificially boosted from the WWII....by eliminating much of the competition.

Say I had a store in town that sold some of everything...like a Meijer or Super Walmart. Say there were many other stores in town for people to get goods and services, but a massive storm with multiple tornadoes destroyed nearly all the other stores.....except mine. All of a sudden.....I am getting all the business. I can raise my prices because people NEED what I am selling. I can even afford to pay my people much more....now that I have all this new demand and high prices. I can hire more people to keep up with the demand and life will be good for those working in my store.

What happens to my store and my workers when all the stores that were destroyed gets restored, as well as, new stores are built and some with prices much cheaper because they pay their employees much less? My prices will be too high and my workers will be making too much and the demand will be less once my monopoly is gone. I have to be able to compete with the other stores in terms of prices and wages.....so I will have to cut pay, layoff, lower prices...etc.

With global trade and global free markets (of course they are never truly "free") the global force of free trade will tend to level out pay......meaning that once very poor countries will see a rise in their standard of living while the rich countries will see a decline in their standard of living.....heading towards a global equilibrium. The problem is that the US does not want to acquiesce its standard of living. First it went off the gold standard in the 70's.....and since then it has been simply printing money and increasing debt to prop up our economy. We are living way above our means as a nation. We are consuming much more than we are producing. We now have the worlds largest trade deficit. We now are the largest net debt nation (the reverse of what we were after WWII).

The problem is largely politics. No political party or politician wants to have a bad economy under their term because it will ensure the election of the opposition party or candidate. Thus, politicians keep taking actions to prop up the economy.....either cutting taxes or increasing government spending (to make up for a dearth in consumer spending) and the FED will lower interest rates to increase the money supply even more.

What goes up must come down. None of this could be avoided. The only way to avoid a downfall is to never be uplifted.

See....I talk about other things besides race. The problem is that people are not interested in responding to the other things I talk about as they are interested in responding to the things about race. Then they say "You are the racist because all you talk about is race". Well....that is all that people respond to.....so that is what gets the most posts....lol
Disagree with a few things.
FDR took us off the Gold standard. Nixon just threw the last shovel of dirt on it imo.
As long as we are the worlds currency we can get away with this garbage. But once that ends and the money comes back, hyper inflation.

As far as a bad economy, we survived the mini depression in the early 1920s by cutting taxes and spending 40% in 2 years time. The economy bottomed out instead of stagnating, UE went from 12 to under 4 in 2 years.

The rich countries wont see a decline in the standard of living. The poorer counties will close the gap but that doesn't mean the rich went downhill.

Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 08-23-2019 at 11:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2019, 10:56 AM
Status: "Death to all but metal" (set 12 days ago)
 
Location: Nevadafornia
5,682 posts, read 3,427,672 times
Reputation: 3792
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72 View Post
Shocking I tell you. I wonder how many times the superman of right wing dotards, Hannity, has used the terms "debt" or "deficit" since Le Grande Orange' was elected?

I guess since so many of them get their marching orders from him, you also conveniently stopped talking about this crisis. Just a coincidence?
Why was there no outrage when Obama added over 10 trillion to the deficit?

Where was the leftist media then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 11:04 AM
 
10,567 posts, read 7,099,353 times
Reputation: 4392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Disagree with a few things.
FDR took us off the Gold standard. Nixon just threw the last shovel of dirt on it imo.
As long as we are the worlds currency we can get away with this garbage. But once that ends and the money comes back, hyper inflation.

As far as a bad economy, we survived the mini depression in the early 1920s by cutting taxes and spending 40% in 2 years time. The economy bottomed out instead of stagnating, UE went from 12 to under 4 in 2 years.

The rich countries wont see a decline in the standard of living. The poorer counties will close the gap but that doesn't mean the rich went downhill.

This is NOT the 1920's. Fundamental problem = Consuming more than we produce.....ergo....spending more than we are earning. In the 1920's the run on the banks were the big issue. It was more psychological than structural.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Texas
27,558 posts, read 11,611,489 times
Reputation: 6403
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Please study the chart. Saying Obama ran up debt is disingenuous for a simple reason. If you are given a Mansion in your parents will worth 10 million and there is a 4 million dollar mortgage on it...and it was given to you in ill repair and will be condemned if you don't invest another million in repairs, is it YOU who caused 5 million in debt? And, was that debt optional?

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs...L-829x1024.jpg

Have you seriously looked at these charts and understood what they say? They are quite accurate. I will spell it out:

#1 BUSH ERA TAX CUTS FROM DEFICIT AND DEBT - obviously Obama could do nothing about that (he tried) - he did do a small amount once the law was up....but Republicans would not allow the Grand Bargain to do more.
It's a spending problem. You have no idea what you are talking about and do not have much knowledge on economics. You prove it with your posts and supporting all the big government economic policies which are known failures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
#2 ECONOMIC DOWNTURN - GWB Recession - obviously not Obama's doing
It's about Congress but if you want to blame the President, Obama kept us in the bad times. His big government policies, like Bushes were failures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
#3 WARS - Obama certainly didn't start them and had them running way down by the time he left office - but the MIC does not turn on a dime. Most of that money was already spent...and just imagine if Obama would have issued an order to stop spending a dime! As it was, the Right said he shouldn't have left many years later!
You have no idea what you are talking about. Having 10 times the amount of drone strikes is running it down.
He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.
Military spending went up. Yea that's what you do when you run things down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
#4 - and not relevant since so tiny and paid back - TARP and Recovery Measures.....all of which benefited most of us in various ways.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. TARP wasn't paid back. when you get bailed out a 2nd time to pay off the 1st bailout, that isn't paying it off.
from 2012
"A report by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) estimates TARP’s losses at $60 billion. “Taxpayers are still owed $118.5 billion (including $14 billion written off or otherwise lost),” and the SIG makes the point that nothing has really changed, no lessons have been learned, and this poses the possibility “of rushing out another massive bailout of the financial industry, i.e., TARP 2.0.”

"351 small banks still owe a total of $15 billion in TARP funds and these banks’ prospects for raising the money to payoff the government is dim. This is significant because the cost of TARP money increases from 5% to 9% after five years."


Some paid off the first bailout with another bailout - "many of the small banks that did manage to pay back the TARP capital, did so with funds from the Small Business Lending Fund, a pool of $4 billion made available by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010.

Treasury received 935 applications for SBLF money and funded 332 institutions. Of those 332 institutions, 137 banks used the SBLF funds to pay back the TARP money they owed. There were a few relatively large institutions that used the SBLF exit strategy. For instance, Western Alliance Bancorporation, a nearly $7 billion bank holding company traded on the NYSE, paid off $140 million in TARP plus a little more for warrants with complete funding from SBLF."

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
As you can see, without 1-3, we'd have less debt today then we had when GWB entered office.
As the facts tell us, if the spending and manipulation of the economy by the big government supporters didn't exist we'd have much less debt today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
When someone hands you a company in deep debt with commitments and a reduced income stream....its unfair for folks to point to you and say you caused it. You didn't. All you did was get started in SAVING it, which is evident by the reduced deficits in the last year of Obama admin.

Period.
You don't know what you are talking about because of your party driven blinders and no one should listen to you on economics.

Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Texas
27,558 posts, read 11,611,489 times
Reputation: 6403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
This is NOT the 1920's.
Oh cool. Thanks for pointing that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant View Post
Fundamental problem = Consuming more than we produce.....ergo....spending more than we are earning. In the 1920's the run on the banks were the big issue. It was more psychological than structural.
Nothing to do with consuming unless you are relating that to government spending and living within your means. Which we didn't do back then either. Granted the debt/deficit wasn't as bad then. And in order to spend you need to tax. IF government cared about living within their means.

The problem was government getting involved in the economy in the first place and then trying to fix it. What you missed, which I thought was obvious, lower Federal government spending in order to take power out of their hands and let we the people through the free market right the wrongs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
1,129 posts, read 1,187,150 times
Reputation: 1242
“The US national debt stood at $21.974 trillion at the end of 2018, more than $2 trillion higher than when President Donald Trump took office, according to numbers released Thursday by the Treasury Department.” On the other hand, the national debt nearly doubled under Obama’s eight-years as President going from $10.626 trillion when he was sworn on January 20, 2009 to $19.947 trillion when he left on January 20, 2017."

https://www.prosperousamerica.org/ar...ederal_deficit

I thought this was an interesting read.
The % of taxes collected is largely payroll and income taxes. The corporate tax amounts to 9% of the total. Problem is, we have to compete with the world to have corporations and their jobs stay in the USA. Too little and they get "free pass", too much and they move overseas and we collect 0% of nothing.
It's also notable that it takes 4-5 peoples tax incomes to support one person on un-employment, so keeping people working is obviously important.

The obvious solution is to increase the corporate tax base(number of companies) through a competitive rate, reduce government spending, reduce income and payroll taxes so workers have more money to spend, and maybe we can find a way out of all this debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 11:49 AM
 
10,567 posts, read 7,099,353 times
Reputation: 4392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Oh cool. Thanks for pointing that out.
Nothing to do with consuming unless you are relating that to government spending and living within your means. Which we didn't do back then either. Granted the debt/deficit wasn't as bad then. And in order to spend you need to tax. IF government cared about living within their means.

The problem was government getting involved in the economy in the first place and then trying to fix it. What you missed, which I thought was obvious, lower Federal government spending in order to take power out of their hands and let we the people through the free market right the wrongs.

Nothing to do with consuming? How do we get a trade deficit then? Other nations are producing and we are consuming what they produce a LOT more than other countries are consuming what we produce to make up the difference. When a nation run a trade deficit, in monetary metrics, we are sending our monies to create jobs and income to other nation. If we, theoretically, just produced what we consumed as a nation.....we would not need to import the difference and we would not be sending our money to other countries. Its hard to stimulate the economy via tax cuts.....because a big chunk of the extra money goes to purchase foreign produced goods....creating more jobs and income oversees than at home. The velocity of money is reduced by large trade deficits.



You are looking at the economy through politics of taxing and spending by the government only. Maybe that is all you know about economics....taxing and spending.Yet, you are trying to tell another poster that they don't understand economics. Taxing and spending are only government tools to try to stimulate or cool down an economy. They don't represent "The Economy". You have one track thinking. Everything you say is going to be taxing and spending as the root of the economic issues.......just like everything boils down to single parent homes for social issues to you.

Last edited by Indentured Servant; 08-23-2019 at 12:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island
34,633 posts, read 14,531,678 times
Reputation: 7462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevroqs View Post
Why was there no outrage when Obama added over 10 trillion to the deficit?

Where was the leftist media then?
He was heavily criticized for extending the Bush tax cuts twice, he was also criticized by the GOP for not cutting spending maybe you weren't around in 2013. But I don't see how you criticize a president who inherited a recession or a depression. Its probably not a good time to cut spending when you have an unemployment rate around 10% with bank foreclosures and companies going broke. Trump just did a Reagan, he increased defense spending and cut taxes and as if that's not bad enough he wants to cup payroll and capital gains taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 03:14 PM
 
1,690 posts, read 411,297 times
Reputation: 2525
It could be Donald Trump in there or the Easter Bunny, but the fact is the establishment is not going to do anything about the debt or deficit until it is in CRISIS mode. Then there will be a reset. The power structure will get richer and obtain more power, and the average person is going to get wiped out.

It does not matter who is in office. This is the grand playbook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2019, 03:15 PM
 
11,354 posts, read 11,214,541 times
Reputation: 5648
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBMorgan View Post
But, but, but Obama.

This scares me because the DEM replacement who takes over in 2020 will add to it, not make it smaller.
Deficit went down for years under Obama. Republicans spend like liberals. Dems too but at least they don't cut taxes without cutting spending
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:22 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top