|
On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.?
Yes.
- If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending.
However this obviously is not going to happen.
Sidenote:
From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense.
I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have.
Good luck with that congress, eh.
|
On January 04 2013 23:35 Rassy wrote:
America should just print more dollars to finance their debt, and thats exactly what they going to do.
That will also devaluate the dollar against the yuan and make america more competitive, something manny americans have been complaining about and what romney was pointing to when he said that china didnt play fair.
Then as soon as the economy picks up, the economy can support the debt and usa can stop printing monney, the dollar goes up again to balance everything, we will be in this flatline of basicly zero real economic growth for 10 more years to come.
The Usa economy is only threathend by 1 thing, and that are the demographic changes. (more older people in relation to young people)
This realy is the only thing that can threaten the usa economy.
All the debt is just virtual, an accounting trick, i realy hope people will understand this one day.
Why not reduce taxes to zero and increase spending to infinity then?
|
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.
Strawmans, strawmans everywhere (in jdseemoreglass' posts).
|
On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen. Sidenote: From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense. I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have. Good luck with that congress, eh.
The loan idea is interesting but is it possible to implement? How can American give away more money when they themself don't have enough of it? Illegally printing more money without the gold to back it up?
|
How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself?
This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world.
Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place.
|
On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place.
And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
|
On January 05 2013 00:18 Unshapely wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen. Sidenote: From my perspective it would be nice if our neighbors were more responsible with their country. It's like living next to a person with 50 irresponsible kids, a dirty front/back yard, a dog that shits all over the sidewalk and every time you tell them maybe they should patch the whole in their roof they tell you to fuck off with that nonsense. I can understand why Americans don't want to hear that sort of thing coming from China, but it would be nice it was coming from Canada (a bit more respectable?). However I often think that Americans would just blow that off, thinking ah.. fuck the north, what do they know anyway? Most people I've met from the states don't stray too far from that line of thinking, but maybe they are just the more vocal ones. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just the feeling I have. Good luck with that congress, eh. The loan idea is interesting but is it possible to implement? How can American give away more money when they themself don't have enough of it? Illegally printing more money without the gold to back it up?
The US would not make money from nationalization by taking over operations. It would make money by allowing the banks to continue their own operations but having the right to control what happens to profits. So instead of the bank paying executives handsomely or making distributions to stockholders, it could take the profits and choose itself what to pay execs or not pay distributions to stockholders.
It's rarely a wise move and tends to be tyrannical.
|
On January 05 2013 00:01 Mo0Rauder wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 21:07 divito wrote: how would America make money by nationilising every bank? Would it be through loan schemes, interest, etc.? Yes. - If USA nationalized their banks then the country would make money on interest from loans/lending. However this obviously is not going to happen.
I'm not sure you understand the current problem with the American banking system. Traditional banks (for the moment let's call them Commercial banks), have rather strict debt ratios (4-10% depending what tier capital). Those are not the banks in trouble, nor are they the ones people advocate nationalizing (usually).
What we saw in the 2007-2008 housing crisis were Investment Banks having very high debt ratios
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Leverage_Ratios.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverage_(finance)#Leverage_and_the_financial_crisis_of_2007.E2.80.932009Financial institutions were highly levered. Lehman Brothers, for example, in its last annual financial statements, showed accounting leverage of 30.7 times ($691 billion in assets divided by $22 billion in stockholders’ equity).[26] Bankruptcy examiner Anton R. Valukas determined that the true accounting leverage was higher, it had been understated due to dubious accounting treatments including the so-called repo 105 (Allowed by Ernst & Young).[27] Accounting leverage is the ratio usually cited by the press.
By 30.7 times they mean 30700%. Now high leverage ratios aren't bad as a rule. The problem we had in 2007 is that they were borrowing to support consumption. The specific case of consumption we now know was improperly rated Synthetic Collateralized Debt Obligation. Given that what the banks were consuming was debt (ie. they were taking on debt to buy someone elses debt at a higher rate of return), and given that it was improperly rated, when it defaulted the banks lost unanticipated billions and had to have the government bail them out (and the federal reserve to artificially modify the money supply so our economy wouldn't collapse).
These would have been the Investment Banks (not the Commercial Banks), though many were owned by the same companies. There is no good way to make money off of defaulting debts (or not in the scale needed), that's why the government had to bailed out Frannie & Freddy. It's also why nationalizing these banks wouldn't make the government anywhere close to what it needs to avoid the debt ceiling.
I'm not saying the government hasn't gone own to make a series of poor decisions, because it has. I'm just saying nationalizing the banks isn't a magic bullet
|
On January 05 2013 01:46 Sermokala wrote:
And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
oh, its like a madlib:
Countries | Offending Race/Group(s) | Victimized Race | Time
Cambodia | Khmer Rouge | Viets, Chinese, Chams, Thais | 1975-79
Rwanda | Hutu | Tutsi | 1994
Bosnia | Bavarian | Serbs | 1992-95
Sri Lanka | Liberation Tigers | Tamil |
Tibet | China | Tibetans | 1959
Australia | Australians | Aboriginal | 1900-1969
and many more
i presume the comment was to address US policy post WW2.
|
On January 05 2013 01:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place. And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
You mean like Rwanda? Worked out pretty well.
But you shouldn't worry StreetWise, because all that money is primarily spent in order to further US interest. Has always been, will always be. 'Humanitarian intervention' is just code for pursuing various geopolitical goals, which is why the US (among others) are so extremely selective with it.
|
On January 05 2013 01:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place. And what should we do the next time (insert country here) is unwilling or unable to stop a genocide in their back yard? Should we just standby and let millions of people die in the name of "not wanting to be the world police"?
Its a question the u.s. should turn to after it stops committing war crimes and acts of terrorism and supporting war criminals and terrorists for a reasonable amount of time. Say a couple decades.
|
What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis.
Denmark too.
Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly?
.
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology?
|
On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place.
Yes, but that would involve giving less monies to the military-industrial complex, which will never happen with Republicans in charge, and is only slightly more likely to happen when the Democrats are. The US needs to be stronger than everyone else combined, not just any one country, and while China is arming up that will only continue.
It worries me when I constantly see US politicians kicking the can down the road. I'm young enough to be the one suffering the consequences and old enough to wonder why people aren't more angry about it. Course, it's not just US politicians - how many countries, in this day and age, will actually be able to afford the pensions they agreed to pay out to workers? How many countries are operating within their means, or at least were doing so before austerity set in? People complain about austerity, but the sad fact is we've been electing successive governments who refuse to deal with the underlying issues - we're spending a craptonne more money than we're making - and instead have been patching budget problems with expediences like dipping into the pension funds. Austerity was always coming, and because we put it off so long it will hurt even harder.
Quite frankly, the older generations failed us. Or rather, the Baby-boomer generation did, and now with them all retiring we're going to be left with their debts to pay and their retirements to fund. I was in the UK when the riots were going on and I remember thinking that all those kids had a right to be angry, but their anger was entirely misplaced. They were by and large just trying to 'stick it to the man', when they should have been protesting and marching for more jobs, more opportunities denied to them, the lies we have been told growing up. Now I don't know if my kids will have the same opportunities I had - we already have a generation of university graduates working at Starbucks. Will it be better for our kids? I just don't know. But I am damn angry.
|
On January 05 2013 03:06 Velr wrote:
What i find fun when looking at the "high taxes BAAD" people is that facts seem to just plain disagree with you?
Sweden went well thru the whole crisis.
Denmark too.
Is there any 1st World "socialist" country, in which the people actually pay their taxes, that struggles badly?
.
Most first World countries with high taxes and expensive/strong social services went thru this whole crisis whiteout big problems... Yet you demonize socialism high tax/high social services (which you call entitlements, wtf?) just because... I have no Idea.. Pure unfounded ideology?
You're alive today. I'm alive today. I guess that means we'll never die.
|
These countries also do not tend to have the HUGE debt issues... But i doubt that interests you..
|
On January 05 2013 03:08 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 01:38 StreetWise wrote:How can Washington be responsible for the rest of the world if it can't even take care of itself? This is the biggest point in my opinion. We spend so much money on foreign aid and invading other countries. We could cut our carrier fleet in half and still have more than any other country, and its not like any country is capable of invading us any time soon. Our defense budget could be cut in half and we would still be the strongest military in the world. Medicare and Social Security are messes that would take pages to cover, but we should start with taking care of ourself first. There is no need for us to be world police, especially as the world has let us know they don't appreciate us taking on this role in the first place. Yes, but that would involve giving less monies to the military-industrial complex, which will never happen with Republicans in charge, and is only slightly more likely to happen when the Democrats are. The US needs to be stronger than everyone else combined, not just any one country, and while China is arming up that will only continue. It worries me when I constantly see US politicians kicking the can down the road. I'm young enough to be the one suffering the consequences and old enough to wonder why people aren't more angry about it. Course, it's not just US politicians - how many countries, in this day and age, will actually be able to afford the pensions they agreed to pay out to workers? How many countries are operating within their means, or at least were doing so before austerity set in? People complain about austerity, but the sad fact is we've been electing successive governments who refuse to deal with the underlying issues - we're spending a craptonne more money than we're making - and instead have been patching budget problems with expediences like dipping into the pension funds. Austerity was always coming, and because we put it off so long it will hurt even harder. Quite frankly, the older generations failed us. Or rather, the Baby-boomer generation did, and now with them all retiring we're going to be left with their debts to pay and their retirements to fund. I was in the UK when the riots were going on and I remember thinking that all those kids had a right to be angry, but their anger was entirely misplaced. They were by and large just trying to 'stick it to the man', when they should have been protesting and marching for more jobs, more opportunities denied to them, the lies we have been told growing up. Now I don't know if my kids will have the same opportunities I had - we already have a generation of university graduates working at Starbucks. Will it be better for our kids? I just don't know. But I am damn angry.
You put the blame where the blame lies. The problem is, though, most of your peers don't. They never consider blaming the people themselves or the policies they supported. If things get worse, we blame bankers or the economic system in general. There is a permanent populist sort of mindset in the masses, an eternal US vs. THEM mentality, which makes them incapable of looking at themselves, or at least their parents generation, for the blame.
|
Printing money isn't done quickly and fast for the simple reason that is another form of tax that hit mostly the people with low and constant wages, so all retired people for one. You're not "creating" wealth, you're just creating money, but at the cost of the wealth of the lower wage population mostly, for the benefit of "job creators" that can sell more. You'd be better off with a sistem that actually tax the big revenue source, instead of making them pay 17% (in America), or 22% in Europe, while the worker class pay from 30 to 50%.
|
Japan has a huge debt
200%+ of gdp.
Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic.
Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years.
Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history.
Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system.
The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either.
|
It takes a "Top ranked Chinese academic" to say something every news station has been talking about for months and is obvious to everyone who has had a high school government class?
The only new perspective is an attempt to guilt us into line, which is just silly. America is guilt-proof.
|
On January 05 2013 03:30 Rassy wrote:
Japan has a huge debt
200%+ of gdp.
Yet japan is the most advanced country in the world by far and they are maintaining their wealth even with zero economic growth while going through a huge transition with their changing demographic.
Even with 200% debt of its gdp, it is japan who acts as the worlds bank.
Usa has been in debt for over 100 years, the debt has been steadily rising for over 100 years.
Yet the past 100 years where the most succesfull in american history.
Somewhere down the line all this debt is not a bad thing, its even inherent to the current system.
The system is verry difficult to understand though, and it is not realy teached or explained at businesschools either.
Really depends on what sort of metric we are using I suppose, but in any case, the growth of our economy has actually been decelerating for a while.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9PbGn.png)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
