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.
We have been out of a recession for a while per definition.
out of recession at the cost of.. $6 trillion of debt (plus interest).. the USA GDP hasn't increased by $6 trillion. in fact, since 2008 its gone up by $0.8 trillion.. idk about you but if i spent $6 on something and got 80c worth of product in return, i'd feel mugged.
out of recession at the cost of.. $6 trillion of debt (plus interest).. the USA GDP hasn't increased by $6 trillion. in fact, since 2008 its gone up by $0.8 trillion.. idk about you but if i spent $6 on something and got 80c worth of product in return, i'd feel mugged.
You should use another word besides recession of you'd like to be accurate.
Quote:
.
The International Monetary Fund on Monday said the United States was getting carried away with a government austerity drive, offering some of the institution's bluntest criticism yet of Washington's rush to cut its budget deficit.
Despite high unemployment, Washington is on track to slash its budget shortfall this year by the most in nearly a half century.
You should use another word besides recession of you'd like to be accurate.
Austerity = less spending.. less spending = slightly longer recession and stunted growth in exchange for less debt and a more prosperous future.
i don't know why people are so scared of seeing economic decline. So scared they'll spend themselves $6 trillion (plus interest) more into debt just to see measly growth. debt with interest is 1000 times more destructive when accumulated than temporary austerity.
house prices are STILL too high.. despite being "very low" relative to where they were in 2008. house prices shouldn't be increasing after a recession.. increase in prices mean people are buying houses again when they SHOULD be saving... but then again, with the interest set THIS LOW.. who wouldn't take full advantage ??
savings rates have been up for a while. household debt is down. home prices dropped to 2002/03 levels, bringing them more in line with being affordable as compared to household incomes. housing is doing well now because of those factors, combined with rent having increased so much.
you need to look at what types of people are buying - not all people buying "should be saving" - they may already have substantial savings. and remember - low interest rates apply to borrowing and saving the same...just as higher interest rates do. if your savings rate is 0.5% and borrowing rate is 3.5%, how's that any different than if savings is 4% and borrowing is 7.5%? the opportunity cost is virtually identical.
out of recession at the cost of.. $6 trillion of debt (plus interest).. the USA GDP hasn't increased by $6 trillion. in fact, since 2008 its gone up by $0.8 trillion.. idk about you but if i spent $6 on something and got 80c worth of product in return, i'd feel mugged.
i like how you worded this as if we spent $6T on getting out of the recession. Most of that was spent on: wars, unpaid for tax cuts, and medicare prescription drug coverages...all originating in the early 2000s. on top of that, the increased interest payments added over the decade. I think that accounts for roughly 80-85% of the $6T.
you need to look at what types of people are buying - not all people buying "should be saving" - they may already have substantial savings. and remember - low interest rates apply to borrowing and saving the same...just as higher interest rates do. if your savings rate is 0.5% and borrowing rate is 3.5%, how's that any different than if savings is 4% and borrowing is 7.5%? the opportunity cost is virtually identical.
no, EVERYONE should be saving.. or investing.. right now, inflation is at around 2%.. if you're not saving, your money is worth less and less. if the saving rate is at 0.5%.. you're still getting poorer due to inflation by 1.5%.. if the saving rate was at 4%, you wouldn't get poorer, in fact, you'd get richer by 2%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
i like how you worded this as if we spent $6T on getting out of the recession. Most of that was spent on: wars, unpaid for tax cuts, and medicare prescription drug coverages...all originating in the early 2000s. on top of that, the increased interest payments added over the decade. I think that accounts for roughly 80-85% of the $6T.
more war means more equipment bought, which are made in the USA, so its part of the GDP.. it also means they need people overseas fighting. when they are overseas fighting, they are NOT looking work which means lower unemployment numbers. ALOT of that extra $6 trillion was spent on bailing stuff out, banks, businesses. they contribute in the GDP if they arn't bankrupt. interest payment (which was less in 2008 onwards because of lower interest rates on the new debt) is covered by the tax revenues as it was before.. the extra 6 trillion shouldn't have been spent.
savings rates have been up for a while. household debt is down. home prices dropped to 2002/03 levels, bringing them more in line with being affordable as compared to household incomes. housing is doing well now because of those factors, combined with rent having increased so much.
you need to look at what types of people are buying - not all people buying "should be saving" - they may already have substantial savings. and remember - low interest rates apply to borrowing and saving the same...just as higher interest rates do. if your savings rate is 0.5% and borrowing rate is 3.5%, how's that any different than if savings is 4% and borrowing is 7.5%? the opportunity cost is virtually identical.
Inflation adjusted housing is around 2000 levels. What a bubble we are in!!!
no, EVERYONE should be saving.. or investing.. right now, inflation is at around 2%.. if you're not saving, your money is worth less and less. if the saving rate is at 0.5%.. you're still getting poorer due to inflation by 1.5%.. if the saving rate was at 4%, you wouldn't get poorer, in fact, you'd get richer by 2%.
more war means more equipment bought, which are made in the USA, so its part of the GDP.. it also means they need people overseas fighting. when they are overseas fighting, they are NOT looking work which means lower unemployment numbers. ALOT of that extra $6 trillion was spent on bailing stuff out, banks, businesses. they contribute in the GDP if they arn't bankrupt. interest payment (which was less in 2008 onwards because of lower interest rates on the new debt) is covered by the tax revenues as it was before.. the extra 6 trillion shouldn't have been spent.
I'm saving about 25% of my income, and i bought a house. do you approve?
no, EVERYONE should be saving.. or investing.. right now, inflation is at around 2%.. if you're not saving, your money is worth less and less. if the saving rate is at 0.5%.. you're still getting poorer due to inflation by 1.5%.. if the saving rate was at 4%, you wouldn't get poorer, in fact, you'd get richer by 2%.
more war means more equipment bought, which are made in the USA, so its part of the GDP.. it also means they need people overseas fighting. when they are overseas fighting, they are NOT looking work which means lower unemployment numbers. ALOT of that extra $6 trillion was spent on bailing stuff out, banks, businesses. they contribute in the GDP if they arn't bankrupt. interest payment (which was less in 2008 onwards because of lower interest rates on the new debt) is covered by the tax revenues as it was before.. the extra 6 trillion shouldn't have been spent.
Yes, but money spent on war is less impactful than money spent on other economic activity. this is supported by multiple studies. and about 1% of our nation's population is employed as soldiers, so you're really grasping at straws here.
How much of that $6T was spent on bailing out banks (that hasn't been recouped of course)?
Interest payments have increased over the past decade because of the growing national debt - yes, it's been slowed because of lower interest rates, but it's still a larger portion of the budget than it was in 2000.
I'm saving about 25% of my income, and i bought a house. do you approve?
couldn't give a s*** to be honest. its makes no difference unless the whole nation does collectively, and it especially makes no difference if the interest rate is at 0.25%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp
Yes, but money spent on war is less impactful than money spent on other economic activity. this is supported by multiple studies. and about 1% of our nation's population is employed as soldiers, so you're really grasping at straws here.
How much of that $6T was spent on bailing out banks (that hasn't been recouped of course)?
Interest payments have increased over the past decade because of the growing national debt - yes, it's been slowed because of lower interest rates, but it's still a larger portion of the budget than it was in 2000.
it doesn't matter how "impactful" it was.. it is money being spent on american goods and services. if its not "impactful", then its an inefficient use of money and it shouldn't be spent !!.. hence why an extra 6 trillion was spent, with barely ANY increase in GDP. if it doesn't make an impact, why spend it ?
interest payment in 2012 was 225 billion.. total spent in 2012 was 3.5 trillion.. its a FRACTION of what the government spent.. and they get got 2.5 trillion from tax payers.. the interest is a fraction of that too.. yes it is larger than it was in 2000, but tax revenue was nowhere NEAR 2.5 trillion in 2000 either.. budget defecit was knowhere NEAR 1 trillion either.. in fact, if i recall correctly, there was a budget surplus.
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.
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.
