|
I honestly desire to be completely wrong in this regard, but I believe the U.S. is in for some dire straights economically. Politicians have their share of blame in the matter, but as stated previously by other posters, if Americans as a whole weren't so apathetic/ignorant this mess wouldn't have been created so easily.
I hear people who identify with both political parties push for increased or continued spending with no thought of actually reducing our debt. Republicans want to continue or increase or spending in military despite the fact that we have the largest military by an almost unimaginable margin. Democrats want to continue or increase spending domestically despite entitlements (I don't include Social Security as an entitlement but that's another story) eating up more and more of the federal budget.
So much attention was given to raising taxes on the "wealthy" during this fiscal cliff negotiations. Regardless of whether they should have been raised or not, implementing all the necessary tax reforms do not solve our deficit spending. In order to at least attempt to right the U.S. fiscal ship large cuts will need to be made and they will be painful. I believe most politicians know this and they choose to kick the can down the road.
Every attempt at fiscal reform and spending cuts is met with fierce opposition, in part because we as citizens have become too dependent upon government in many areas. Try to cut military spending and the DoD protests about "gutting the military" while military contractors would be losing their job. Any potential cut in domestic spending is seen as picking on the "little guy". Opposition to bailouts of companies deemed "too big to fail" is seen as wanting the economy to tank and millions of people to lose their jobs. Even the silliest of federal spending will be vehemently defended by the politicians who represent the area receiving the funds.
As stated earlier, I believe the American people (as a whole) are too ignorant/apathetic and the politicians are too self-serving for significant changes to be made.
TL;DR - The United States is continuing to head toward the true "fiscal" cliff regardless of this recent legislation.
|
On January 04 2013 08:59 Shady Sands wrote:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/02/is_this_any_way_to_treat_your_bankerBlunt article from, Shen Dingli, a top-ranked Chinese academic, calling on the US to get its fiscal house in order for the long-term, and stop kicking the can down the road with politically expedient 'compromises'. The schadenfreude-laden tone aside, Shen's reflects the general mood of most decision-makers in the People's Republic. The PRC does not want to see America go under; it would much rather America do its thing and do it well. Unfortunately, the irrationality and capriciousness (the Chinese word is '任性') of US domestic policy drive them absolutely nuts--and I think you can see it in the article below. + Show Spoiler +Is this any way to treat your banker?
SHANGHAI — At the last possible instant, the White House and Congress reached a compromise that prevented the United States from falling off the "fiscal cliff" -- or, as we in China have been calling it, caizheng xuanya. By raising taxes on households that make more than $450,000 a year, the negotiations will save middle-class families from tax increases and also will likely prevent the United States from going into another recession. China can relax -- for now. Given how deeply the Chinese and U.S. economies are intertwined -- in 2012, the United States imported more than $350 billion of goods from China while exporting just under $90 billion -- a U.S. recession would hurt China's labor force. China's exports to the United States grew at 9.4 percent from 2010 to 2011 and at a similar speed in 2012; if that number slows significantly or becomes negative, it would undercut China's economic prospects and even impair China's social stability.
Why hasn't the United States been able to keep its financial house in order? The United States is the richest country in the world, but since 2009, the U.S. government has spent at least $1 trillion more than it took in. In its first term, the Obama administration aspired to solve all of its country's problems at once: addressing the financial crisis by bailing out businesses and stimulating the markets, wrapping up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and reforming social security and health care. But the weak economy sent the U.S. federal debt soaring from roughly $10 trillion to $16.4 trillion in just four years. Real reform of the U.S. entitlement system has yet to happen. And the fiscal cliff deal merely locked in George W. Bush's unsustainable tax cuts for most Americans. All this has Chinese elites worried.
Frankly, China is fed up with the performance of U.S. democracy. People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party, warned the United States in a recent article not to scare the world so frequently. In Beijing's eyes, the financial crisis instigated by the fall of the U.S. firm Lehman Brothers in 2008, followed by years of slow growth, 2011's debt-ceiling fight, and 2012's fiscal cliff showdown have weakened America considerably. Xinhua, China's national news wire, weighed in on the matter Wednesday: "So the politicians have chosen to kick the can down the road again and again. But as we all know, the can will never disappear. Sometime and somewhere, you might trip over it and fall hard on the ground, or in the U.S. case, into an abyss you can never come out of." By focusing on their own constituents and not making hard decisions for the benefit of the country, America's lawmakers are making things worse; another People's Daily article, published Dec. 31, called the fiscal cliff crisis "auto-sadism" arising from the U.S. political system.
One hopes that the United States can work out a sensible solution. The total 2012 federal budget of $3.8 trillion accounted for roughly a quarter of U.S. GDP. To be sure, the United States can keep sustaining its unbalanced federal account by printing money and selling Treasury bonds. By printing more dollars, the U.S. government stimulates its markets, as well as exports and employment, by increasing its liquidity. But much of this liquidity will actually go abroad, pushing inflation overseas.
Is that any way to treat your banker?
China helps the U.S. economy by lending money to the United States by buying Treasury bonds - it now holds $1.16 trillion of U.S. debt. U.S.-China cooperation has helped save the United States from financial insolvency -- and China has benefited from this system by keeping its currency competitive -- but this enablement has come with risks, including weakening the credibility of the U.S. dollar. To fundamentally improve its economy, the United States needs to stop the financial gimmicks and boost its exports the old-fashioned way, through innovation, while encouraging its citizens to increase their incomes and decrease their spending. China wants to partner with a healthy, balanced United States, not a profligate, irresponsible one.
And even if America's day of reckoning has been postponed, China still faces the risk that the United States could fall off one fiscal cliff or another in the future. Without a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. budget that significantly raises income while cutting expenses, the United States looks like a disaster waiting to happen.
No wonder many Chinese see an America in decline, even if many Americans don't believe it yet. We see few signs that the United States is ready to reinvent its national narrative and mission. But here in Shanghai, we understand basic math pretty well. The United States needs to balance its consumption and savings; weigh its pursuit of al Qaeda in Afghanistan with other foreign-policy goals; and cut its spending on defense and social welfare. How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? IMO they're just deflecting from their own domestic issues. China has its own debt issues (in the provinces and hidden at the banks) and a slowing economy. Better to deflect deflect blame to someone else (oh no! 'merica can't buy our crap!) then deal openly with reality.
|
On January 04 2013 09:04 Atrbyg wrote:Agreed. The US gov needs to get its act together.
Indeed. We need to move forward, not backward. Upward, not downward.
|
US is unique nation, in that it is 3d in population in the world, but unlike China,(no idea about India politics), and Russia, the goverment does not rule with an iron fist, doesn`t censure the media, doesn`t controll elections, and so on.
Sure it is easier to rule democratically over 3-15 millions of people living in close vicinity and bounded by common traditions and general feel for eachother.
Sure it would be easier to rule if the goverment system would just allow people with a little more power to jam their viev on others. Would that make the country better overall? Doubtfull.
Look at the world arroud you. Look at Europe that is crumbling under wellfare states. Look at Asia, where Japan is decaying for dacade or so, where China is rising by selling their people`s well-being and health to outcompit other countries.
India, where the capital city has no electricity grid(at least it used to around 2009 or so), and the majority of people are living 19-century rural lifestyle or are in slums.
Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
Sure democracy is not a piece of cake. Sure US is not in perfect shape. But it pull togather. It always did, no reason to assume this time would be different.
Sure it would be easier to make a Politbuerau of Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, Reid, McConel, and Romeny and let the 6 run the country the way they see fit. Or just make Obama a kinda-sorta king, Putin style. Would it be better of average joe? I doubt it.
If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day.
Now, Denmark, Swiserland, Finland, Singapure, would probably be prefered to US. But, you may see the pattern, of small, well-governed nation-states.
On January 04 2013 09:48 LittleRedBoy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:41 sc14s wrote:On January 04 2013 09:21 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:17 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 09:09 LittleRedBoy wrote: The United States is already beyond repair. I mean the Federal Government is already effectively bankrupt and in the next decade or so, things are going to get a lot worse here. You can blame the politicians. I can certainly see why a young Native American boy might consider the US beyond repair. The US government is bankrupt, that is a fact. The only reason that the US economy hasn't completely crashed is because they are spending and printing trillions of dollars. Eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost. On January 04 2013 09:20 coverpunch wrote:On January 04 2013 09:18 LittleRedBoy wrote:On January 04 2013 09:14 Boypartz wrote: You can blame the politicians but ultimately it's the American people who are to blame for letting this happen. Well you're correct. The vast majority of Americans don't care or even realize that these politicians are ruining everything. Oh, and we can't forget about Ben Bernanke. I'm surprised that there are still trees left in the world after all the money that he has printed. Bernanke doesn't print anything, grampa. These days it's all 1s and 0s. You do realize that I was being sarcastic? being in debt =/= bankrupt its plausible to get out of debt but not in the current political swinging of politicians on the state and federal levels. Well the United States Government is both in debt and bankrupt. There are economists who estimate that the total unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security are in excess of $200 trillion. Frankly, there is no possible way for the government to pay that. exept get the less wastefull healthcare system. Like any other developed nations of the world already enjoy.
|
Ostensibly the US would be doing China a favor by encouraging inflation in non US markets, the appreciation of the RMB is something that Beijing has had a hard time keeping in check. That being said the Chinese government is stuck saddling the debt for the time being.
The reality is that the Chinese economy is linked in a spiral with the US. The failure of one means at the very least the recession of the other.
|
According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves.
|
If America started using India or another country for the majority of the cheap goods imported instead of China, China would falter. Who else could China supply cheap goods to, though? If they found another partner, what would the competition look like?
However, I don't think the American government, or at least the ones "responsible" for the economic climate don't know what they are doing. (They know full well what's going on.)
Edit: for the post above, I believe we just continuously add and outgrow old debt. I know most modern economies have outgrown gold a long, long, long time ago.
|
On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Really is the too big to fail argument, or at least the too big to let it fail.
|
"So the politicians have chosen to kick the can down the road again and again. But as we all know, the can will never disappear. Sometime and somewhere, you might trip over it and fall hard on the ground, or in the U.S. case, into an abyss you can never come out of."
That has to be the dumbest metaphor I have ever heard. It BARELY makes sense. /facepalm
Ofc China is worried, they are holding almost 3 trillion usd in reserves. Buying US currency to not allow their currency to appreciate was not such a good idea in the end, now the anger comes out lol. I almost feel bad
Best thing of all, if usd depreciates it will make US exports more competitive and boost the production. That's why someone's raging on the other side of the pond
|
People say we need to act but then will be angry when cuts to the entitlement system are proposed. We don't have enough money to give so many people.... free money. It is quite obvious. Take every single dime from people in this country making over $500,000 and we can run the US for 8 days.....8 DAYS. We need to cut our spending and that means trim the fat from entitlements (in addition to certain tax increases, I assume).
|
On January 04 2013 11:50 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Really is the too big to fail argument, or at least the too big to let it fail. In response to this, I'm rather fond of the "too big to bail out" argument.
|
On January 04 2013 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: According to most people who frequent the Politics Megathread, the US can just endlessly accrue debt and inflate our currency. Anyone who talks about economic responsibility is some sort of paranoid right wing Austrian.
These Chinese clearly need to start reading Krugman's columns and educate themselves. Except an economy built on Keynesian Socialism (privatize the gains, socialize the risks to boost animal spirits) doesn't do much better over the long run. It's like using a martingale to try and beat a sub-50% casino game--all that ends up happening is that your average risk remains the same but your kurtosis goes crazy because now you have a nonzero chance of deep-sixing your entire economy.
|
On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
UK unemployment is very similar to the US: around 8%. I certainly wouldn't lump them together with Italy or Spain.
|
On January 04 2013 10:32 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 09:55 Danglars wrote: They're fine ones to criticize domestic policy in their own right; since when have Chinese people really had a say in the setting of their own domestic policy aside from the very few extremely well-connected ones. In the US, we're inerred to the criticism of top 1%, in China, far less than that control their own political system. Why shouldn't they criticize US domestic policy? They're saying US voters vote in politicians that choose policies that are good short term but are bad long term. It's a criticism of US democracy in a way, politicians only care about getting reelected every 2 or 6 years. They don't care about what happens 10 years later. Their best way of criticizing US policy is selling their bonds. Maybe you should have quoted more of what I wrote, where I developed the point. This has been going on a while, accelerating an ongoing trend at the latter years of Bush and under Clinton. Bonds sold then were bought by the Chinese. They were not so unappealing then. The US was already heading down that road and with no serious talk otherwise. Buyers remorse? The US meets its debt holders while being increasingly stressed to meet those in the future. It's talk talk talk until nobody's around to buy the bonds, and the Chinese have successfully passed off the ones they currently hold.
And, may I ask, what domestic agendas Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao and members of the various politburos ran on? How close was the election? What kind of discussions were held on the currency and federal outlays? Oh wait... How are the motivations of politicians democratically selected any less worthy than those of leaders appointed by the who's who of the Chinese Communist party? Why is this money not invested in their own country, if they represent responsible governance by comparison? Safety and security.
I'm down for the criticism of the growth of entitlements with no supporting revenue. I advocate a hard line on entitlement reform and tax freezes/cuts to help throttle the ability of politicians to spend money to buy votes (yes, both parties). Having foreign criticism of US domestic policy by those eagerly buying bonds and politically impotent to control their own domestic policy is strange.
|
United States41963 Posts
On January 04 2013 12:00 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:Look at GB, France, Italy, Spain, where public debt, unemployment and taxes are way higher, and their struggle.
UK unemployment is very similar to the US: around 8%. I certainly wouldn't lump them together with Italy or Spain. Furthermore the UK elected a right wing government at the height of the crisis (more due to years of chronic Labour economic mismanagement than due to ideological reasons) who promptly attempted harsh spending cuts in the name of austerity, predicting that they would balance the budget by now and begin to repay the debt. Unfortunately it turned into a triple dip recession as the economy shrank and people lost their jobs and became more reliant on the state than before. Spending has actually increased, borrowing has increased as tax revenues shrink and everyone still has less than before. It's all gone pretty badly, it's not even that we're cutting back and slowly taking on the mountain of debt, spending is growing, revenue is declining, all the targets have been missed, readjusted and missed again and there is no end in sight.
|
While the start of the article is pretty dead-on, he got to the ridiculous metaphor from Xinhua and it just went downhill from there. Yes, the US government spends trillions of dollars, which, relative to GDP, is not a huge amount compared to other countries. Also, quite a bit of dollars will go abroad, because it is a reserve currency and commodities like oil are traded in dollars. Wouldn't a greater quantity of dollars increase the value of other currencies against it, making things sold in dollars cheaper for other countries, the opposite of inflation?
China just wants a country with a large economy and a strong currency to buy its stuff, and while he tries to make it sound like he is trying to help the US, it is a completely self-serving argument.
Oh, and I almost fell out of my chair reading this:boost its exports the old-fashioned way, through innovation
|
One of the many reasons I choose not to work in government. Call when we've returned to any era before Truman.
|
On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day. If my primary interests was the national economy, personally I would pick Canada over the US any day. The only western whose big 5 banks published profit and growth gains during the recession.
On the other hand, our personal and household debt is probably just as bad if not worse than the US and Europe, hehehe...
|
On January 04 2013 12:33 Taekwon wrote: One of the many reasons I choose not to work in government. Call when we've returned to any era before Truman. Dude, you are missing out. Now is the time to cash in on the gravy train before it runs out of gas.
On January 04 2013 12:35 Not_Computer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:15 naastyOne wrote:If proposed to live in China, India, Japan, Russia, Spain, GB, France, Italy or US, i would pick US any day. If my primary interests was the national economy, personally I would pick Canada over the US any day. The only western whose big 5 banks published profit and growth gains during the recession. On the other hand, our personal and household debt is probably just as bad if not worse than the US and Europe, hehehe... Yeah, but Canada is cold and too many of the people speak French.
On January 04 2013 12:37 snotboogie wrote: Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget? I hear plenty of talk about both actually.... Anyway, entitlements are what are growing exponentially and threaten the economic future of the nation, not military spending.
|
Can someone explain to me why everyone is talking about "cutting the fat" of "entitlements" like health care and social security, but noone is talking about cutting down the monstrosity that is the "defence" budget?
|
|
|
|