Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
History is replete with turning points and the housing crash was one of them.
In fact, if you want other examples of crashes in American history, take a look at the "Panics" of the 1800s. Some estimate that the "Panic of 1873" was the second worse economic crisis in this nation, and much of it was fuelled by speculation on land and overexpansion of railroads and a collapse in corn and wheat prices.
In fact, prior to 1929, the Panic of 1873 was called the Great Depression, and afterwards, was called the Long Depression.
I would rank our current depression to be no worse than that Panic.
|
That remains to be seen. There were actually two Great Depressions in the 19th Century, one in the decade just before the Civil War (and that was exacerbated by a 9 year drought that destroyed food crops in the South) and then the one that you mentioned.
Sure, technically, the US is not in a recession, because your GDP is still bench-marking, but the only thing keeping you out of recession is government spending. That's why I use the term "recessionary" to describe your economy through the end of this decade.
Government spending serves to hide the problems, barring identification of the real issues and masking them, so that they cannot be addressed, which is problematic in itself (since those problems continually compound themselves). The government (and many others) falsely believe they can spend it's way out of this cycle, due in part to a data misinterpretation of how government spending functioned in previous recessions and depressions.
The problem is this cycle is long-term, so there's no possible way to out-spend it, and attempting to do so will only create a massive inflationary cycle starting in about 11-12 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Further, this country's population is still growing, which fuels demand for services, and unless you haven't noticed, wages haven't kept pace or so it seems because we keep buying crap we don't need.
|
But "services" are of little value, and in fact are a luxury, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except that services do nothing but consume. If I make an Hoosier cabinet and trade it to you for 6 pairs of leather shoes, and some other leather goods like belts, suspenders, hand-bags and wallets, then you and I have accomplished something meaningful.
But if I give you money and you do a 20 minuted stand-up routine, or prod me with some medical device, then what have we accomplished?
Nothing, really.
It doesn't matter if you are an household, a business, a charity, or a government, you must limit your spending on services, or put in place some mechanism the creates limitations, because when it gets out of control, it really drains the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
Also, our divorce rate isn't helping (single parentage is a SIGNIFICANT cause of home poverty).
|
That is a matter of government getting its hands into social-engineering.
If people want to divorce, fine, but government needs to enact appropriate controls. In the case of the so-called "no-fault divorce" the standard should be nothing at all.
If people want to walk away from a marriage, then they should do exactly that, with no financial incentive, no reward and no financial gain. They just leave and get no alimony, no child support and no division of property (other than what they owned out-right before entering the marriage).
In a divorce "for cause" where there is spouse abuse, child abuse, infidelity, alcohol, gambling or substance abuse, crimes of moral turpitude or abandonment, then the "accused" should forfeit everything.
Enact laws like that, and I guarantee you'll see a major attitude adjustment in society regarding marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
But we won't suffer indefinitely. To assume such means you assume that technological progress is ceasing and the population is stopping and such. Which is not correct at all.
|
Don't be so sure.
Not all technological progress is beneficial from a stand-point of employment.
If you want to examine something, look at the US in the first 50 years of the 20th Century.
Most technology resulted in massive job losses that ultimately became a factor in the Great Depression. There was no where for the excess labor created by technology to go. In the end, that excess labor ended up in the US military fighting WW II, or producing war materiel.
When WW II ended, you went right back into a recession that would have gone right back into the Great Depression, had it not been for three key factors:
1] Europe (and Japan) --
the manufacturing base of the world was in shambles with the manufacturing, resources processing and agricultural base destroyed, the infrastructure destroyed or severely damaged, and millions of workers killed or injured, plus all governments heavily indebted.
That created an outlet for the excess US labor -- producing goods for war-torn Europe. If Europe had been left relatively unscathed, then there would have been no Marshall Plan and no outlet for the excess US labor -- you go right back into the Depression.
2] The Bretton Woods Agreement. That resulted in the US Dollar becoming the
de facto international reserve currency, and the
de facto international currency of trade.
That created an additional outlet for the excess US labor -- it was easier to buy from the US since all world trade took place in US Dollars.
3] No competition from developing-States.
The total lack of competition globally acted as bar preventing the creation of any more excess labor.
Your current problems stem from several key factors:
1] You were sufficiently ahead technologically and economically to absorb the waves of competition coming out of Asia. -- first it was the Taiwanese invasion of the 1960s, followed by the Japanese invasion of the 1970s, followed by the Pacific Rim invasion (mostly the Philippines and Thailand) in the 1980s, followed by the Korean invasion of the 1990s, and then now you have the Chinese invasion this century (even though China was granted most-favored nation status in 1980 by the Carter Administration).
However, you are presently unable to cope with the large number of simultaneously developing-States. You cannot compete on a global scale because the wages of American workers are up to 250x greater than the wages of foreign global workers. It is impossible to pay foreign global workers on a par with American workers, since that would create extreme income inequality between foreign global workers and foreign domestic workers --- and we all know that income inequality is evil because Liberals said so. It would also create Wage Inflation resulting in political, economic and social strife, destabilizing a country internally.
The only thing you can do is wait....for a very long time....while the natural flow, the natural order of things develops in accordance with the Laws of Economics until the wages of foreign global workers are on a par with US global workers.
Generally, wages in developing-States double about every 10 years, so sometime around the year 2040, the US should start to become globally competitive, and by the period 2050-2060, the US will be globally competitive -- for all the good it will do.
2] No new technology. The transistor created jobs. That was around 1948 or so, but that technology was held closely by the military until it was released for civilian use in the mid-1960s. Then you had the microchip, oh, what, the 1970s or so, which also created jobs. What have you done since then? Nothing. The only thing you have done is repackage microchips in various forms.
Sorry, that is not creating new technology. Scalloped potatoes, potatoes
au gratin, skillet fried potatoes, French fried potatoes, oven browned potatoes, hash-browned potatoes, mash, baked potatoes, twice-baked potatoes, potato chips -- well, they're all still potatoes.
The processes, machinery and equipment that's been introduced has resulted in a net loss of jobs. We've seen this before. Ford introduces the assembly line production method in 1908, and everyone thinks he's crazy. By the early 1920's everyone is using assembly lines, and that increases production at the expense of employees, who are now in great surplus in the US, and that (plus post-WW I Real Inflation) led to the recession and housing bust of 1925, and marks the actual beginning of the Great Depression, with severe recessions in 1928, and again in 1930, and again in 1933 and 1937.
So, here we are with surplus labor created by an inability to compete globally due to the high wage differential and the repackaging of microchips in various forms as machinery and equipment reducing the need for labor.
3] Government spending.
Here's a great economic paper...
Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence
http://pirate.shu.edu/~rotthoku/Prag...d%20Growth.pdf
...which shows that big government impedes GDP growth.
For 10% increase your GDP is reduced 0.5%-1.0%
Now look here...
2001-2010 1.68%
1991-2010 2.55%
1981-2010 2.79%
1971-2010 2.89%
1961-2010 3.16%
1961-1970 4.22%
1971-1980 3.21%
1981-1990 3.27%
1991-2000 3.41%
2001-2010. 1.68%
Average GDP 2.89%
Notice how your GDP starts declining as your government does two things -- increases in size, and starts spending more money.
Understand that's just one of many reasons why GDP is declining.
They also present this as evidence....
Quote:
Given that a standard deviation in this sample is nine percentage points, we could simply say countries where tax revenue is ten percentage points higher on average experience an average growth rate that is one percentage point lower.
|
You have a lot of problems. Social Security is insolvent; the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund is insolvent; your SMI Trust Funds are fiscally sound in the short-term, but the Medicare thinks your economy is going to grow an average of 5% between now and 2021...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2012 Annual Report Of The Boards Of Trustees Of The Federal Hospital Insurance And Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds...Page 7
For Part D, the estimated average annual increase in expenditures is 8.8 percent through 2021. The projected average annual rate of growth for the U.S. economy is 5.0 percent during this period
|
[Emphasis Mine]
.....Social Security thinks it will average 4.1% over the same period (but 6.4% over the infinite horizon through 2086); State and city pension plans are unfunded; cities are bankrupt or on the verge; you have a massive forced redirection of Capital thanks to Obamacare and that's just for starters.
I won't even get into the nickel and dime stuff.
Anyway, population size has nothing to do with GDP, and building a different kind of X-Box or Sega game system isn't going to help either.
Economically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
This time it's global and China isn't the only game in town. You have SE Asia, Central Eurasia, MENA, India, S. America, Southern Africa, etc.
It's virtually an unlimited supply of cheap labor for a very long time.
|
I have to spread the love around, so I couldn't rep you, but you hit on numerous pertinent issue that will plague the US for a while.
Sub-Saharan Africa really isn't part of the mix yet, uh, but that is not good news. If BRIC is smart, they'll work on stabilizing their investment and trading partners. The political and social situation in sub-Saharan Africa is still not where it needs to be for rapid expansion and the lack of infrastructure is hampering the shift from resource extraction to resource processing. That would be key in allowing them to move into the next phase, which would be durable goods and heavy equipment and other consumer industrial goods.
There isn't one stinking navigable river anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. I wouldn't be surprised to see China or Indian start building a trans-African canal or waterway system. I'm sure they'll be onto a trans-African railroad, highway and pipeline system. But first the political situation has to solidify a bit.
You look at an area like where the Dinka tribe lives in Sudan, that's the size of Texas and there are no roads, no electricity no nothing out there. A lot of work to be done in terms of infrastructure building.
I think I said 17-25 years, but it'll be closer to 25 years, which just makes it that much sadder, because in 2040 just when the US is able to compete again, here comes sub-Saharan Africa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
For the next few decades you will see large increases of pressure on resources which will cause increases in the COL and the loss of disposable income for countries that were formerly on top i.e. the West
|
Yes, things will be really tight for a while. It won't take much in the way of weather, insect infestation, or bad harvests to jack up Cost Inflation on food stuffs, and then production problems and other events can hamper metal ores (like iron) and oil and natural gas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Jobs might ebb and flow in some manner but it will never come back in the manner that I think you're referring to. The pressures on resources are unrelenting and will be for a very long time with the only exception being a major catastrophe like an X-class solar flare taking out large sections of the industrialized world, a world war or some combination of both.
|
That's true. Concrete data on developing-States is hard to come by sometimes, but what I see is a wholesale shift in Capital from the US and to a lesser extent Europe into the developing-States.
If you want to see that on a smaller scale, then look at the regional transfers of Capital in the US during the recession in the 1970s early 1980s. Textiles left New England and moved to the Southeast, manufacturing left the Midwest and moved to the South and Southwest, and then you have technology shifting to the entire West Coast, with Apple and then Silicon Valley and so on.
Textiles never moved back to New England and manufacturing never moved back to the Midwest. In fact, they've all moved further out, with textiles now in Mexico and other countries, manufacturing moving out and computer/microchip technology all shifted to SE Asia.
I'm sure computer/microchip manufacturing will continue to move from SE Asia to SW Asia and then into North Africa and then sub-Saharan Africa.
I don't really see much hope for the US anywhere in the short-time (or long-term).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Sure they are but when in history can you point to the planet being in a consumption war and with so many people in it to boot?
|
Never. Never in world history. I think people might tend to confuse conflicts for access to resources as consumption conflicts. That isn't even the same thing, even less so since those access conflicts were primarily for the benefit of the governments -- monarchies -- and not the people. There wasn't really anything close to a consumer class in the 1500s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
This isn't like the economic problems of the past where there was still some capacity left on the planet to keep consuming. We're quickly reaching 100% of Earth's capacity and something has to give and you can pretty much bet your last buck that it will be the country that's using 25% of the Earth's oil resources and 30% of the Earth's non-oil resources.
Guess who that is.
|
That's already happening. Ford is building a plant in India. That will require resources, and those resources will be diverted from the US, and then also create an increased demand, so everyone gets slapped twice. And that's pretty much the story for all other resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
And you don't think technology uses energy? The simple fact is unless you come up with more energy your economy is stagnant at best.
Just some things to think about as much of the rest of the world moves forward and gains middle class status. With that status comes energy consumption and to be able to consume that energy they need resources to build the products that consume that energy.
|
And then top that off, the electrical grid in the US is antiquated, and it'll cost about $3.25 TRILLION to upgrade the last I saw.
Every main station, every sub-station, and every switching station at the very least has to have all pre-1990 components removed and upgraded; all high-power high-tension transfer lines re-wired, all transformers replaced/upgraded and all the lines re-run up the businesses and residences (but you don't have to re-wire they houses or businesses).
Adding more power to a system that can barely handle the load now is not exactly a smart thing to do.
You know I've been wondering about this whole "solar energy" thing.
I just can't see it happening.
Seriously. Who really believes that government,
vis-a-vis public utility companies who gain revenues from the sale of electricity and for-profit energy companies who gain profits from the sale of electricity are going to allow people to put solar cells on their roofs
and get free electricity?
Something ain't right.
I would expect corporate interests to create some law that requires the solar cells to be leased, so that they derive some profits, and then government taxing users of solar cells in some way to get revenues to pay off their pension plans they owe.
Other than that, it would be an economically sound thing to do. Provided the cells were cheap enough, you'd increase disposable income for households, and then on a larger scale, you'd free up all the Capital that is used to build, repair and maintain residential power lines, as well as the electricity itself to be used elsewhere in the economy.
That would certainly lessen the amount of money needed to upgrade the electrical grid nationally.
Anyway, energy is one of the problems that hampers sub-Saharan Africa at present. I know the Zambesi has a dam that provides power to 4 or 5 countries in that region, and I thought they were going to build a second dam. They have very limited hydro there. I have no idea what the potential for geothermal is. Outside of that, they're forced for the time being on using either oil or natural gas fired electrical generators, which serves to increase demand for those resources.
So, the things I did not know. I will strive in my efforts to google less and do my part not to use so much energy.
Electrically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwimac
In NZ they are talking about a generation, 25 years, before things stabilise. I suspect they are being optimistic.
|
I am unfamiliar with your country's specific situation, but they could very well be right. Britain does alright for an island, but then they have close proximity to Europe. You're still quite a ways from the Asian mainland. I have no idea how that might impact your trade or what might be done to ameliorate current problems. If I can put in my 2 cents, export more lamb to the US. You can butcher it there and export it frozen if you want, because I don't care -- it still tastes good.
Optimistically...
Mircea