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.
evidently, we are not looking at the same picture. our revenues are down, and our trade deficit is up.
Int'l Trade in Goods and Services
• Deficit increased to $36.4 billion in November 2009(p) from $33.2 billion in October 2009(r).
[Release: 1/12/10]
U.S. Int'l Transactions
• Current-account deficit increased $10.1 billion to $108.0 billion in Q3 2009(p).
[Release: 12/16/09]
When was the last time that the trade and current account balances were in surplus? Do you see these balances as being causes of something or effects of something? What would it mean if exports rose, but imports rose more, thereby increasing the trade deficit? Would that be a good or bad thing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
we aren't better off than we were and, as a matter of fact, obama is now proposing a 3.8 trillion dollar budget. this is not a step in the right direction. even obama said that our deficit "could jeopardize our recovery".
While I'm sure you have every political motivation to deny it, we are far better off than we were a year ago, and there is virtually no one left who objectively thinks otherwise. Are things good yet? No. Are things dreadful now? No, but that's where we were headed in a handbasket at this point in 2009. As for the budget, what would be an appropriate level in your mind? The FY2010 proposal was just under $3.6 trillion. How is $3.8 trillion out of line?
furthermore, we haven't fixed the problems that brought about the last collapse. from denninger today...
Why do you still bother to read that bozo? The problems that Barofsky refers to are in regulatory schemes. A financial regulatory reform package is currently working its way through Congress, no thanks to Republicans. Like the stimulus bill, it will not be broad or ambitious enough, but it will be the best we can do for now and a start toward trying to re-establish law and order within the financial markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
From SIGTARP's latest report:
It is hard to see how any of the fundamental problems in the system have been addressed to date. To the extent that huge, interconnected, “too big to fail” institutions contributed to the crisis, those institutions are now even larger, in part because of the substantial subsidies provided by TARP and other bailout programs.
TARP was not designed to fix the system. It was an emergency measure to try to keep it from collapsing. In conjunction with various Fed and joint Fed-Treasury actions, it worked. Good for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
...even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car.
Yep.
That's the nub of it. TARP helped save the day, but it's not enough. We are destined to repeat these crash cycles so long as the players who promote them are left unregulated to act on their own devices and desires. This is all just one great big giant hole in laissez-faire free-market economics, and one great big giant reason why managed capitalism is the only system that can have any expectation of succeeding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
not to mention the social cost and moral hazard of misallocating trillions of dollars......
Pure silly talk. Once US Airways 1549 hit all those birds, Capt. Sullenberger's job was to make the best he could out of a terrible situation. Everybody got out of that mess alive. You'd have complained that he landed the plane in the middle of a freaking river.
Celebrate? I mentioned the recent months of deflation as counterpoint to the ridiculous hyperinflation whining that so many of you manage to pick up from the wailing of your assorted whackjob internet financial guru wannabes.
As consumption and production begin to rise, tax receipts will be on the increase and transfer payments will be on the decrease, thereby slashing our need to be borrowing in the first place. How a pickup of steam in our economic recovery would be perceived could be debated, but investors are thought typically to be more inclined toward a position that is on the upswing than one that is either flat or on a downswing.
I don't think we have any evidence from which to conclude that the limits of your vision comprise any actual economic limits at all.
That is a very interesting view of economic from a fraudulent economics professor. So let me get this straight, Saggy
1. Increasing demand for limited goods and services does not cause inflation? Did that change as of this morning?
2. So when we borrow less, or total debt does not rise anymore. Saggy, you are rich! So since the US has had an annual deficit every year (with the exception of one in the Nixon administration and one in the Clinton administration), this will magically reverse itself, we will no longer have annual deficits (um....... I think Obama said deficits as far as the eye can see), and we will pay down our debt. You should change career from fake professor to children's fairytale writer.
A blind man can see that with our enormous debt and continued deficits into the furture that this will NECESSARILY result in a devalued currency, increased inflation, and a reduced standard of living in the US. Saggy (try to be rational for a moment), can you explain a scenario that would otherwise occur unless we markedly reduce spending and cut social programs dramatically???
3. Tax revenues rise when the economy recovers- Gee Saggy, that is true. However, you have ardently argued the other position, that cutting taxes and stimulating the economy DOES NOT INCREASE federal revenues (at least in your mind, despite very clear evidence to support this contention). So what should we do, Saggy? Fire Bammer and get a Reagn tax cutter in there? Cut the legs off the two elephants in the room (medicare and social security)? OR just keep spending like there is no tommorrow, insure devaluation of the currency and hyper-inflation, thus assuring the death of the republic?
Liberalism is not that much fun when one meeks the stark realities of the real world.
That is a very interesting view of economic from a fraudulent economics professor. So let me get this straight, Saggy
1. Increasing demand for limited goods and services does not cause inflation? Did that change as of this morning?
Have you asked yourself how "limited" the supply of workers and industrial capacity are when unemployment is at 10% and capacity utilization struggles to stay above a dismal 70%? Inflation is a rationing mechanism that kicks in when demand exceeds the ability to create additional supply. We have such a pile of currently unutilized labor and capital that ideas of demand-push inflation are more than just a little bit silly at this point. Then again, you all believe quite a lot of silly things, so I'm not surprised to see this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
2. So when we borrow less, our total debt does not rise anymore. Saggy, you are rich! So since the US has had an annual deficit every year (with the exception of one in the Nixon administration and one in the Clinton administration), this will magically reverse itself, we will no longer have annual deficits (um.......
I certainly look forward to the debt's increasing every year over the foreseeable future as the result of sensible and manageable annual deficits. You all have proved quite conclusively that you simply can't handle the situation of even a balanced budget, much less one that is in surplus. And your history is unsurprisngly just as bad as your economics. Since 1960, there has been a budget surplus five times: 1969 (LBJ), and 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (Clinton).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
I think Obama said deficits as far as the eye can see), and we will pay down our debt. You should change career from fake professor to children's fairytale writer.
Who is proposing to pay down the debt? We haven't done that since 1836, and there isn't anyone with a grain of sense or understanding who thinks that we can get back to a 2000-like situation for decades. That's how much damage you clowns did. You'll remember that in 2000, we had the means and opportunity to pay off all of debt held by the public by FY2010, but then the Supreme Court found some mysterious federal issue in the Florida recounts, and as the result, the nation was spun instead into a misguided spiral of debt and eventual near-collapse of the economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
A blind man can see that with our enormous debt and continued deficits into the furture that this will NECESSARILY result in a devalued currency, increased inflation, and a reduced standard of living in the US.
And you would have said the same suspect things in 1946. Crushing debt, declining currency value, and deficits year after year. And between then and 1980, we saw the greatest increase in standard of living in this or pretty much any nation's history. Here's a tip: your blog-economics are basically worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
3. Tax revenues rise when the economy recovers- Gee Saggy, that is true.
I know. So is the rest of what I've been saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
However, you have ardently argued the other position, that cutting taxes and stimulating the economy DOES NOT INCREASE federal revenues (at least in your mind, despite very clear evidence to support this contention).
As anyone who thought about it would come to recognize in about two seconds, these two propsitions are not the opposite side of the coin from each other. As economic activity increases, federal revenue increases. Pretty simple situation. In the situation of a tax cut, however, there is an added dimension -- the primary effect of a reduction in revenues due to the drop in tax rates. While tax cuts do have a secondary national income effect that is partially offsetting, there isn't a serious person anywhere who believes that the secondary effect can overcome the primary effect. Nobody of any qualification anywhere actually believes this. Empirically, the best models suggest that the offset cannot exceed about 30% with respect to income taxes. That's just the way it is. That you don't want to recognize or appreciate the fact doesn't alter the matter one iota.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
So what should we do, Saggy? Fire Bammer and get a Reagn tax cutter in there? Cut the legs off the two elephants in the room (medicare and social security)? OR just keep spending like there is no tommorrow, insure devaluation of the currency and hyper-inflation, thus assuring the death of the republic?
The first step was to put the brakes on the headlong economic collapse that eight years of Bush had spun us into. (Don't like blaming Bush? Too bad. It was his freaking fault, and it always will be.) We can mark that step completed. The second step was to shore up particularly the hardest hit sections of the economy and start creating the basis for a return to economic normalcy. We can almost check that one off, but it's a little early to be congratulating ourselves on this score just yet. The next step will be to support and encourage the new and surviving industries and activities that have the potential to thrive in the economy of the 2020's and 2030's. That's where we'll go next.
Your alternative ideas are meanwhile idiotic. If 2001 and 2003 haven't convinced you that tax cuts aren't the holy grail your bozo "thinkers" propose them to be, the rest of us will just have to leave you behind. Gutting Social Security or Medicare would be to replace two tremendously successful programs with more of that "Ownership Society" garbage where all you actually get to own is...more risk!!! SS can be easily managed as is, and given any sensible reform of the current health care financing debacle, the path will be opened for Medicare to follow right behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Liberalism is not that much fun when one meeks the stark realities of the real world.
The realities of this world are what bred liberalism. Your cockamamie alternatives come to us directly from Bizarro Planet. Probably in violation of import-export restrictions...
Why do you still bother to read that bozo? The problems that Barofsky refers to are in regulatory schemes. A financial regulatory reform package is currently working its way through Congress, no thanks to Republicans. Like the stimulus bill, it will not be broad or ambitious enough, but it will be the best we can do for now and a start toward trying to re-establish law and order within the financial markets.
TARP was not designed to fix the system. It was an emergency measure to try to keep it from collapsing. In conjunction with various Fed and joint Fed-Treasury actions, it worked. Good for us.
That's the nub of it. TARP helped save the day, but it's not enough. We are destined to repeat these crash cycles so long as the players who promote them are left unregulated to act on their own devices and desires. This is all just one great big giant hole in laissez-faire free-market economics, and one great big giant reason why managed capitalism is the only system that can have any expectation of succeeding.
Pure silly talk. Once US Airways 1549 hit all those birds, Capt. Sullenberger's job was to make the best he could out of a terrible situation. Everybody got out of that mess alive. You'd have complained that he landed the plane in the middle of a freaking river.
we have a fundamental disagreement on whether TARP saved the day, which we will never agree on. it is my opinion that TARP bailed out some crooked banksters who made some bad choices, on the backs of american workers.
you seem to have a different viewpoint of TARP.
we have a federal reserve, composed of international banks, which threatened our country with economic collapse, which intimidated our congress to bail out those banks. i don't see that as a success at all. let me add that they are STILL threatening our country with potential economic collapse if we don't do their bidding, as evidenced by the bernanke hearings.
When was the last time that the trade and current account balances were in surplus? Do you see these balances as being causes of something or effects of something? What would it mean if exports rose, but imports rose more, thereby increasing the trade deficit? Would that be a good or bad thing?
While I'm sure you have every political motivation to deny it, we are far better off than we were a year ago, and there is virtually no one left who objectively thinks otherwise. Are things good yet? No. Are things dreadful now? No, but that's where we were headed in a handbasket at this point in 2009. As for the budget, what would be an appropriate level in your mind? The FY2010 proposal was just under $3.6 trillion. How is $3.8 trillion out of line?
we have increasing imports. i don't think we are better off than we were a year ago, since we have higher unemployment and owe a bigger debt, with higher interest payments. FDIC is broke, and state unemployment funds are running out. i don't see all of that in a favorable light. we have increasing foreclosures (keep in mind banks are sitting on a lot of foreclosures now) and increasing commercial failures on the horizon, as well.
Have you asked yourself how "limited" the supply of workers and industrial capacity are when unemployment is at 10% and capacity utilization struggles to stay above a dismal 70%? Inflation is a rationing mechanism that kicks in when demand exceeds the ability to create additional supply. We have such a pile of currently unutilized labor and capital that ideas of demand-push inflation are more than just a little bit silly at this point. Then again, you all believe quite a lot of silly things, so I'm not surprised to see this.
I certainly look forward to the debt's increasing every year over the foreseeable future as the result of sensible and manageable annual deficits. You all have proved quite conclusively that you simply can't handle the situation of even a balanced budget, much less one that is in surplus. And your history is unsurprisngly just as bad as your economics. Since 1960, there has been a budget surplus five times: 1969 (LBJ), and 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (Clinton).
Who is proposing to pay down the debt? We haven't done that since 1836, and there isn't anyone with a grain of sense or understanding who thinks that we can get back to a 2000-like situation for decades. That's how much damage you clowns did. You'll remember that in 2000, we had the means and opportunity to pay off all of debt held by the public by FY2010, but then the Supreme Court found some mysterious federal issue in the Florida recounts, and as the result, the nation was spun instead into a misguided spiral of debt and eventual near-collapse of the economy.
And you would have said the same suspect things in 1946. Crushing debt, declining currency value, and deficits year after year. And between then and 1980, we saw the greatest increase in standard of living in this or pretty much any nation's history. Here's a tip: your blog-economics are basically worthless.
I know. So is the rest of what I've been saying.
As anyone who thought about it would come to recognize in about two seconds, these two propsitions are not the opposite side of the coin from each other. As economic activity increases, federal revenue increases. Pretty simple situation. In the situation of a tax cut, however, there is an added dimension -- the primary effect of a reduction in revenues due to the drop in tax rates. While tax cuts do have a secondary national income effect that is partially offsetting, there isn't a serious person anywhere who believes that the secondary effect can overcome the primary effect. Nobody of any qualification anywhere actually believes this. Empirically, the best models suggest that the offset cannot exceed about 30% with respect to income taxes. That's just the way it is. That you don't want to recognize or appreciate the fact doesn't alter the matter one iota.
The first step was to put the brakes on the headlong economic collapse that eight years of Bush had spun us into. (Don't like blaming Bush? Too bad. It was his freaking fault, and it always will be.) We can mark that step completed. The second step was to shore up particularly the hardest hit sections of the economy and start creating the basis for a return to economic normalcy. We can almost check that one off, but it's a little early to be congratulating ourselves on this score just yet. The next step will be to support and encourage the new and surviving industries and activities that have the potential to thrive in the economy of the 2020's and 2030's. That's where we'll go next.
Your alternative ideas are meanwhile idiotic. If 2001 and 2003 haven't convinced you that tax cuts aren't the holy grail your bozo "thinkers" propose them to be, the rest of us will just have to leave you behind. Gutting Social Security or Medicare would be to replace two tremendously successful programs with more of that "Ownership Society" garbage where all you actually get to own is...more risk!!! SS can be easily managed as is, and given any sensible reform of the current health care financing debacle, the path will be opened for Medicare to follow right behind it.
The realities of this world are what bred liberalism. Your cockamamie alternatives come to us directly from Bizarro Planet. Probably in violation of import-export restrictions...
Well, that was alot of words with literally zero content. That is the mark of a good liberal.
So, in effect then Saggy, you are promoting escalating national debt to the point of hyperinflation and financial collapse? You must realize that people who live outside the beltway do not want thier nation and the economy to collapse. Can you explain to us, oh fraudulent learned one, how our situation is any different from Argentina, Mexico, Zimbawe, and the Weimar Republic? Perhaps you enjoy paying for a loaf of bread with a wheelbarrow full of money?
So, not then Saggy, rather than tangential blather, exlpain to us how the following is advantageous?
1. Escalating debt such that payment to service the national debt will be greater than 50% of the federal budget by 2023
2. Devaluating currency (print alot of something and it will be worth little). Witness sand and air.
To a normal person, these would appear catasptrophic. However, given that liberals are fond of social and cultural suicide, could you please explain to those who are not gifted with the fog of liberalism, how these are beneficial? Saggy, you must work in the government, as I have never heard such insane beliefs from anyone, except a professional liberal politician, or one who works for one. Which one are you? Obviously one who works for one.
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.
