|
On July 24 2011 05:55 Romantic wrote:
We just have a self manufactured "crisis" because Republicans decided we needed one. Bond markets are still buying up US debt cheaply.
That's not really accurate. Ratings agencies have expressed concerns about US deficit levels as well as the decision of whether to raise the US debt limit. Yes, raising the debt ceiling is the more immediate issue, but budget reforms are going to have to be made eventually.
|
People don't seem to understand what the difference between the American debt crisis is and the European debt crisis is the fact that America has control over its own currency. Traditionally what happens when a country has a debt burden that is too large to manage is they inflate their currency and pay back the debt in inflated dollars. The most famous example (and sensationalist example) of this is post WW1 Germany.
Inflating the currency is an attractive option for the young (TL Posters) but not the old. young people are still earning a dynamic income, which for the most part will track with inflation. While the retirees are generally living off of savings, which cannot expand with inflation. So, what I propose is we inflate the American dollar immensely, which will make the American economy much more competitive and put us young people back to work, and the real silver lining to this plan is the idiot older generation who caused this mess and have to retire soon will be the ones screwed by it!
|
When "Job creators" are sitting on billions of dollars in cash, and not creating jobs, its time to stop calling them job creators. Many companies are turning tremendous profits and still not hiring.
|
On July 24 2011 05:55 Romantic wrote:
We just have a self manufactured "crisis" because Republicans decided we needed one. Bond markets are still buying up US debt cheaply.
A thousand times this. All of this ideological/economic discussion is a moot point - this entire crisis is Mitch McConnell's arch-plan to further alienate Obama from his base (most of his base has already been alienated since he failed to deliver on most of his campaign promises) as well as give his party something to run on in 2012. What's at issue here is how electoral politics and legislation has come to serve itself rather than the people at large. Legislative activity is focused on the next election, "how can we screw the other party," rather than "what is the sensible course for our country in the long run."
Also, blaming the "debt crisis" (which isn't) on grandma, who lives on 19,000 dollars a year of social security (maybe) while our government subsidizes millionaires and billionaires.. not much more to say, there.
|
On July 24 2011 05:41 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 05:39 farvacola wrote:On July 24 2011 05:33 domovoi wrote:On July 24 2011 05:32 cfoy3 wrote:
We can make it so that if you want to invest in those other economies and use your money to help them, that's fine just expect taxes because that money came from us Americans. however if you want to invest in America and create new jobs here than you get a lighter tax burden. That way we don't neuter those business that invest here. That just makes sense. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, no offense. America is the richest large country in the world, and you want to punish companies for investing in poorer countries? The ones that need it the most? Seriously? I think you misunderstand the role of American corporate interests abroad. In the cases of US businesses moving infrastructure to poorer countries, they do out of explicit self-interest. In fact, many poorer countries where American businesses have "invested" in, take Malaysia or Vietnam for example, the net effect of American corporate ventures is negative. Tax shelter and cheap labor are the reason companies move there in the first place, and when those advantages are negated they will move elsewhere. This is a common left-wing argument but I think it's basically just not true. Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Here's a well done analysis of FDI, and in the end, both sides of the argument are right. Whether or not FDI actually helps a given country depends entirely on that countries ability to properly mobilize the spillover technological and systematic gains. So, my examples of Vietnam and Malaysia are not quite accurate, as they are among those countries able to take advantage. My point in the end through remains, that corporate interests are motivated by self-interest rather than some sort of goodwill, and the net effect ends up depending on the country itself. Take the horn of africa or Sudan for example. FDI there ended up hurting the local economy while benefitting the foreign corporations.
http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/inst310/BorenszteinDeGLee98.pdf
|
On July 24 2011 06:04 Mohdoo wrote:
When "Job creators" are sitting on billions of dollars in cash, and not creating jobs, its time to stop calling them job creators. Many companies are turning tremendous profits and still not hiring.
They are job creators though, they just create jobs in Chinese sweatshops rather than here in the U.S.
|
On July 24 2011 05:11 Zergneedsfood wrote:
That's actually something I find quite ironic. Democrats talk about all these people who spend thousands of dollars on all these expensive things during a recession and how they're "bad".
But in reality.....isn't that good for the economy? At least theoretically in Keynesian terms. If all these people who are rich decide to fly around in expensive jets and pay huge sums of money, aren't they technically stimulating the economy in similar ways to government stimulus?
I guess it's just kind of interesting how that works.
There's a classic argument on this very subject. Basically, a rich person is going to spend more than the average person, but a smaller portion of their total income. Somebody who makes $15k a year is likely to spend 80-100% of that money and save whatever is left over. That is $12-15k money directly going back into the economy every year. A person making $1 million+ a year is likely not going to be able to spend all of that money. In reality, they may be able to spend 30-70% of it, saving the rest, which means at least $300k going directly back into the economy. If you instead gave this money to 65 people evenly, that's at least $780k going back into the economy directly.
The scenario doesn't stop here though. That money that the "poor" and "rich" person save is actually money being injected into the economy, but in a different way. That money is being invested in other parts of the economy, in a much more specialized way. These investments pay for things like loans to small and large businesses and families, which is then spent directly on goods. The great thing about loans is that almost 100% of the loan is spent on something (otherwise you wouldn't borrow the money).
That's where the scenario and basis for the whole argument ends. From here on out, it's my own opinion.
When these loans and larger purchases are made, the jobs created and amount spent don't line up. It takes the same team of 50 engineers to design a car that costs $20k and a car that costs $100k. However, it doesn't take 5x longer or 5x the manufacturing team to create that car that costs $100k. The difference is quality of parts and features, but even the cumulative work hours to ensure the quality and features doesn't add up to the difference in cost vs work hours. What happens in this case is more money ends up going to people who have a stake in what car is sold (i.e. investors and upper management).
|
@ jdseemoreglass
yep, the debt does suck. And your right the people are generally ignorant, and to be honest there is a lot of this situation I do not understand. However, I do know that both parties are rotten. That we need to kick them all out and start over. With people who can actually work together. We need to ask that our politicians compromise as well as stick up for us. I am deeply dissapointed in this president, who says we are out of time, but still has not presented a plan on paper. He should have walked out of those meetings and presented the bill, whatever state it was in to Congress, so that they could start amending it and working on it and the American people could weigh in on it. Americans aren't stupid. If your honest with us, and explain the rough guidelines we will be willing to listen.
|
On July 24 2011 06:04 Mohdoo wrote:
When "Job creators" are sitting on billions of dollars in cash, and not creating jobs, its time to stop calling them job creators. Many companies are turning tremendous profits and still not hiring.
Now that's simply not true. A lot of upper management is being hired so they can navigate ways to lay off more workers without cutting into productivity.
|
On July 24 2011 06:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 05:11 Zergneedsfood wrote:
That's actually something I find quite ironic. Democrats talk about all these people who spend thousands of dollars on all these expensive things during a recession and how they're "bad".
But in reality.....isn't that good for the economy? At least theoretically in Keynesian terms. If all these people who are rich decide to fly around in expensive jets and pay huge sums of money, aren't they technically stimulating the economy in similar ways to government stimulus?
I guess it's just kind of interesting how that works. There's a classic argument on this very subject. Basically, a rich person is going to spend more than the average person, but a smaller portion of their total income. Somebody who makes $15k a year is likely to spend 80-100% of that money and save whatever is left over. That is $12-15k money directly going back into the economy every year. A person making $1 million+ a year is likely not going to be able to spend all of that money. In reality, they may be able to spend 30-70% of it, saving the rest, which means at least $300k going directly back into the economy. If you instead gave this money to 65 people evenly, that's at least $780k going back into the economy directly. The scenario doesn't stop here though. That money that the "poor" and "rich" person save is actually money being injected into the economy, but in a different way. That money is being invested in other parts of the economy, in a much more specialized way. These investments pay for things like loans to small and large businesses and families, which is then spent directly on goods. The great thing about loans is that almost 100% of the loan is spent on something (otherwise you wouldn't borrow the money). That's where the scenario and basis for the whole argument ends. From here on out, it's my own opinion. When these loans and larger purchases are made, the jobs created and amount spent don't line up. It takes the same team of 50 engineers to design a car that costs $20k and a car that costs $100k. However, it doesn't take 5x longer or 5x the manufacturing team to create that car that costs $100k. The difference is quality of parts and features, but even the cumulative work hours to ensure the quality and features doesn't add up to the difference in cost vs work hours. What happens in this case is more money ends up going to people who have a stake in what car is sold (i.e. investors and upper management).
This is exactly where the problem needs to be addressed. If there were perhaps some way to legislate a vested interest on the part of companies to provide given the inherent discrepancy between labor and management then a great many problems become easier to solve. Take the healthcare crisis for instance. It's remarkable how many companies post crazy profits and then in the same breath announce that they are cutting health insurance for their bottom tier employees. There must be a way to prevent this.
|
On July 24 2011 06:04 Mohdoo wrote:
When "Job creators" are sitting on billions of dollars in cash, and not creating jobs, its time to stop calling them job creators. Many companies are turning tremendous profits and still not hiring.
This. It's madness.
Someone needs to confront the people claiming the current system works, and that it's equations are actually sound. Confront them point blank and ask them to finally show their work as any other good scientist is forced to do.
Instead they hoard the entire planets wealth and we continue to work for scraps from the table.
Its super fun to watch when it does happen because they give NO actual content, nothing but meaningless banter without any weight. And we eat it up.
Enjoy your 30 planes and 200 vehicles you hard working Bank Ceo's and thanks for joining the peoples government as advisers and decision makers. Your integrity in those positions and your ability to do whats best for the people / company / planet in the long run; as opposed to cashing out mega profitable lifestyles for yourself, are what have led us to this age of prosperity.
I mad.
|
I love the arm chair ceo's in this thread. Cause running a multi billion dollar corporation is so easy, you don't need anything to do it, you can just sit at home in your boxers and theorize about how easy it is!
|
On July 24 2011 06:18 BestZergOnEast wrote:
I love the arm chair ceo's in this thread. Cause running a multi billion dollar corporation is so easy, you don't need anything to do it, you can just sit at home in your boxers and theorize about how easy it is!
I make millions, life is really tough for me~
|
They need to increase taxes on corporations not individuals. It's so much easier to evade taxes through corporations than individual income statements.
|
Hahaha as always, this thread has turned into 'progressives vs libertarians'.
|
I view the amount of debt my country has as a terrible, terrible mistake.
|
Why is it with economics people just think they can make up whatever shit they want? No one does that in physics or biology. You don't have people claiming toads are mammals for 200 years. But with economics every crack pot with a theory think's he's entitled to a fair hearing.
|
Sitting on piles of cash is a necessity for firms who know how to do business.
Why ?
1. Rainy days anyone ?
2. Opportunities, potential acquisitions, and other special situations.
3. Credit worthiness, the more you have saved, the easier it is to borrow for expansion (and ta-tam ! hiring.)
I could go on for days explaining why big corporations need cash, but instead I'll just let you figure it out with those 3 points.
On topic, the US had a 120% debt ratio after the second world war, and had 50 years of prosperity after that, a 98% debt ratio isn't the end of the world, at all.
|
On July 24 2011 06:23 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Why is it with economics people just think they can make up whatever shit they want? No one does that in physics or biology. You don't have people claiming toads are mammals for 200 years. But with economics every crack pot with a theory think's he's entitled to a fair hearing.
I don't know about Canada, but here in US every phucktard with a high school degree thinks they know enough about evolution to insist that intelligent design is a viable alternative, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.
|
As a citizen of the United States, I don't think that the current debt level is a big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
