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.
The government brags about the "budget" now having an annual deficit of under $500 Billion, except due to off the budget expenses that block transparency - the national debt actually rose over $1 Trillion in 2014.
With 18 Trillion in national debt, the annual deficit could rise by as much as $500 Billion a year in interest payments off of the debt - simply from returning to interest rates that we saw under Clinton and GWB.
Both parties helped create this. Isn't it time both parties take it serious?
Maybe Obama will sign an EO releasing us from being in debt
You only know that because I beat what's-his-name over the head with it.
Only in your own mind. I recall it more of when you redefined deflation to your own definition, when it was pointed out that you had done so by providing you with the actual definition-you claimed that wasn't right.
Interesting to see you use the correct definition now. You CAN be taught!
Only in your own mind. I recall it more of when you redefined deflation to your own definition, when it was pointed out that you had done so by providing you with the actual definition-you claimed that wasn't right.
Interesting to see you use the correct definition now. You CAN be taught!
The vast majority of economists will tell you that low levels of inflation are great, and deflation is truly truly bad.
But you're trying to conflate declining microeconomic prices with deflation. they are not the same thing at all, deflation is macroeconomic.
And thats the posters point.
The poster is also the very poster that believes that the only reason there is money in circulation is because the federal government has deb, and if they start to run surpluses, and by some miracle they pay off the federal debt, that no money would exist...
The only reason a deflation would be bad is a declining tax revenue which of course the federal govenrment needs to grow in order to sell more tbills..
If everything in the country costs 10% cheaper, and salaries all dropped 10% in coorlation, then there wouldnt be any damage to the economy, despite deflation taking place.
If I sell you a book for $50 and you mow my grass and bill me $50.. the total effect on the econonomy is $100, but if I sell you the book for $40, and you mow my grass for $40.. the total effect on the economy is only $80, but the same exact services are being performed and there isnt any negative impact as a result, even though you just had a 20% reduction in the net transaction.
The poster is also the very poster that believes that the only reason there is money in circulation is because the federal government has deb, and if they start to run surpluses, and by some miracle they pay off the federal debt, that no money would exist...
The only reason a deflation would be bad is a declining tax revenue which of course the federal govenrment needs to grow in order to sell more tbills..
If everything in the country costs 10% cheaper, and salaries all dropped 10% in coorlation, then there wouldnt be any damage to the economy, despite deflation taking place.
If I sell you a book for $50 and you mow my grass and bill me $50.. the total effect on the econonomy is $100, but if I sell you the book for $40, and you mow my grass for $40.. the total effect on the economy is only $80, but the same exact services are being performed and there isnt any negative impact as a result, even though you just had a 20% reduction in the net transaction.
Yeah, the poster is being ridiculous..
Oh im not even trying to defend the rest of it. LOL. But trying to correlate microeconomic transfers to macreconomic deflation is not a honest way of debating him. That make sense?
And what you are comparing in a macroeconomic sense is inflation adjusted GDP increases. under inflation adjusted numbers (which most use to measure the economy) both scenarios are the exact same if those prices are the averages.
Its actually far worse than that.. Probably 10 times worse since it only calculated the debt and not the unfunded liabilities like Social Security etc..
Our whole government is floated upon taking money it doesnt have to buy votes to continue the ball rolling. At some point, people will expect their money back and when the revenues cant keep up with the obligations, we're bankrupt..
Agreed. Can't rep you. Remember that the crash of 2008 and for that matter the depression were both credit crunches. In the former case the impetus was mortgage borrowing and in the latter case buying stocks on margin, i.e. with borrowed funds.
It's pretty simple--commerce runs on debt, because there is a natural lag between investment and profit. Investment comes first, profit later. When credit markets go into upheaval, commerce is thrown for a loop. $300,000 per taxpayer should be a scary number, yet no one seems scared. What happens when this turns into a credit crisis...I don't want to know.
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.
