America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 42,686 comments
  • 2,439,002 views
Stoopid Fins are almost always right
Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-facebook.gif


I think some peoples in the world have more responsibility and care/respect for others.
 
Yeah, they're pretty stoopid in Finland. :p

Here in Canada (pretty similar to the states), the biggest flaw is the mindset of whoever it is that is in charge of the curriculem and teacher laws and stuff. Somehow they've got a mindset that overloading students with mind-numbing-stupid-pointless homework is the best possible way of educating students. It's just not. They think that students should be used to doing multiple hours of homework everyday, and that it is the best way people learn. People learn things best when they have a desire to learn them, and all assigning lots of homework does is kill the desire to learn and replace it with frustration and anger towards the school and learning.

I thought school was stupid and pointless after grade 8, however I had such a great year in grade 9 that it completely changed my opinion of school. I got straight A's in grade 9, with my average being about 91%. I had very little homework, and yet I learned way more then I ever would have with my teachers of grade 8. On the few occasions when I was assigned homework and projects I didn't mind doing them, and even really enjoyed some of them. On one occasion I spent 6 hours creating and perfecting a short peice of music on my guitar to accompany Bottom's speach thing in a Midsummers night's dream when we short plays on it in english. I chose to do extra work because I enjoyed it and wasn't busy doing pointless work from other classes.

Now it's grade 10, and I have a combination of grade 8 & 9. In math and socials I have had zero homework, learned and understood all the concepts being taught in class only, and my marks in those classes are 105% and 93% respectively. Then take Science and English, where I get homework regularly, and the only reason I'm doing decent is because I am really good on tests. I'm getting 83% and 69% respectively. I have learned way more from math and socials, and science and english are misery. Especially science, it's like the stereotypical american high school classroom only it's in a science with sinks. And the teacher has a smartboard. He lectures all class, we try not to fall asleep. Go home do the homework he assigns, then once finished just let it leave your brain. Classes like that are why people hate school, and whoever decided that the ideal pearning environment was that is an idiot.

/end rant that probably didn't make much sense. All grammatical errors should be blamed on whoever is in charge of the education system. :lol:
 
You know how you can change the image of your communist party? By not calling it the communist party!
 
From the Article
The updated rules also ban dull, long speeches and fawning write-ups in the state newspapers

I think that's an excellent idea for everywhere. Maybe we could extend the "fawning coverage" to coverage of celebs too.
 
Maybe someone can explain why this fiscal cliff thing is supposed to be scary?

I mean, it raises taxes to pre-Bush tax cut levels and slashes spending back nearly across the board. This is the purest compromise between the two debating sides and will likely go much further to fixing our budget issues than whatever last minute, rushed compromise they concoct (not that it comes close, or is the right direction).

Yes, I would dislike it. Yes, it will do too much too suddenly for our current economy to handle without some major issues right now, but since nothing that has been looked at or proposed addresses the real issues this will be the only action that screws everyone equally. The rich get higher tax increases than everyone else while the poor get the entitlements they receive cut.

President Obama keeps saying something about fair share, right?

To be honest, I figure we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. The people telling me to freak out are the ones also telling me it is the other guys' fault. Considering what their word is worth, I can't be bothered to feel distressed about it. I think we will notice, but not that much. We are already in the crapper.
 
Maybe someone can explain why this fiscal cliff thing is supposed to be scary?

I mean, it raises taxes to pre-Bush tax cut levels and slashes spending back nearly across the board. This is the purest compromise between the two debating sides and will likely go much further to fixing our budget issues than whatever last minute, rushed compromise they concoct (not that it comes close, or is the right direction).

Yes, I would dislike it. Yes, it will do too much too suddenly for our current economy to handle without some major issues right now, but since nothing that has been looked at or proposed addresses the real issues this will be the only action that screws everyone equally. The rich get higher tax increases than everyone else while the poor get the entitlements they receive cut.

President Obama keeps saying something about fair share, right?

To be honest, I figure we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. The people telling me to freak out are the ones also telling me it is the other guys' fault. Considering what their word is worth, I can't be bothered to feel distressed about it. I think we will notice, but not that much. We are already in the crapper.

Simple explaination is that the American economy is partly funded by the huge deficit spending you have now. Take $500,000,000,000 out of the economy in terms of spending cuts and you reduce your economy by $500 Billion. Americans have been living to some degree on large amounts of borrowed money for more than a decade. Taking away that deficit spending means the ecomomy will shrink. You an argue all day long about how to do that, but the fact is you have to pay the piper at some point. Continuing on the same path will lead to ruin.
 
Simple explaination is that the American economy is partly funded by the huge deficit spending you have now. Take $500,000,000,000 out of the economy in terms of spending cuts and you reduce your economy by $500 Billion.
Government doesn't make money, it takes it from the economy. $500 billion in spending cuts is just $500 billion not being shuffled around.

Now $500 billion being taken and then not redistributed is $500 billion removed from the economy, which will happen to pay the deficit at some point anyway.

That said, they just approved over $500 billion for the military. I'd hazard a guess that if we stopped wars, stopped dropping bombs on numerous countries, quit threatening war with Iran, and now Syria, and reduce our hundreds of oversease bases, we could probably save a chunk of that and hold on to some of the lower tax rates or entitlements. But part of this fiscal cliff deal was military goes untouched.


The ultimate solution won't come from taxes or spending cuts any time soon. The greatest way to increase tax revenue is to have natural income growth, which means a stronger economy that provides more jobs to the point that it has to have competing wages. Unfortunately, not a single proposal on the table works toward doing that.
 
Simple explaination is that the American economy is partly funded by the huge deficit spending you have now. Take $500,000,000,000 out of the economy in terms of spending cuts and you reduce your economy by $500 Billion. Americans have been living to some degree on large amounts of borrowed money for more than a decade. Taking away that deficit spending means the ecomomy will shrink. You an argue all day long about how to do that, but the fact is you have to pay the piper at some point. Continuing on the same path will lead to ruin.

Its crazy how few Americans understand that and live with the mindset that they are entitled to all these "free" benefits.
 
Government doesn't make money, it takes it from the economy. $500 billion in spending cuts is just $500 billion not being shuffled around.

Now $500 billion being taken and then not redistributed is $500 billion removed from the economy, which will happen to pay the deficit at some point anyway.

That said, they just approved over $500 billion for the military. I'd hazard a guess that if we stopped wars, stopped dropping bombs on numerous countries, quit threatening war with Iran, and now Syria, and reduce our hundreds of oversease bases, we could probably save a chunk of that and hold on to some of the lower tax rates or entitlements. But part of this fiscal cliff deal was military goes untouched.


The ultimate solution won't come from taxes or spending cuts any time soon. The greatest way to increase tax revenue is to have natural income growth, which means a stronger economy that provides more jobs to the point that it has to have competing wages. Unfortunately, not a single proposal on the table works toward doing that.

A government running a BALANCED BUDGET shuffles money around. A government running a DEFICIT is injecting the value of that DEFICIT into the economy. Take some of the deficit spending away and you have a smaller economy.

Or look at it another way. You have a giant visitor from Japan and he spends $1.5 Trillion per year in your country and now he's going to spend $1 Trillion...

Its crazy how few Americans understand that and live with the mindset that they are entitled to all these "free" benefits.

It's sad and it's frightening and we're only slightly better off here..we're not far behind our neighbours to the south.
 
Although the thing to consider with US deficit spending is how much we give away to other countries. If we were to stop tossing our money around and not asking for it back like that, all of a sudden you dont have to make such drastic cuts on the home front. I know if I'm in the hole $500 I'm not going to be buying my coworkers lunch every day. Granted its not exactly that simplistic, but on the other hand it is.
 
Maybe someone can explain why this fiscal cliff thing is supposed to be scary?

It's not. I really want us to go over the cliff. Every time the politicians get scared and start crying doom and gloom, I always think their solutions sound even worse... and this is no different.

They shouldn't have bailed out wall street, they should have let some investment firms fail. They shouldn't have spent gobs of money on stimulus, they should have just let the economy come back naturally, they shouldn't have bailed out mortgages - should have allowed foreclosures. And now they shouldn't compromise on spending.

They keep doing all the wrong things, and I keep wishing they would just sit back and do nothing.

The fiscal cliff is desperately needed to cut spending.

A government running a BALANCED BUDGET shuffles money around. A government running a DEFICIT is injecting the value of that DEFICIT into the economy. Take some of the deficit spending away and you have a smaller economy.

...maybe slightly. But that spending isn't injecting much value into the economy. There is an efficiency factor and it's very low for government spending. We'd be better off very quickly by simply not borrowing and spending that money.
 
It's not. I really want us to go over the cliff. Every time the politicians get scared and start crying doom and gloom, I always think their solutions sound even worse... and this is no different.

Of course, fear mongering at it's best. Look how much you need us, we broke it, better let us fix it sorta thing.

They shouldn't have bailed out wall street, they should have let some investment firms fail. They shouldn't have spent gobs of money on stimulus, they should have just let the economy come back naturally, they shouldn't have bailed out mortgages - should have allowed foreclosures. And now they shouldn't compromise on spending.

They keep doing all the wrong things, and I keep wishing they would just sit back and do nothing.

The fiscal cliff is desperately needed to cut spending.

It just goes to show how little difference there is between the parties, these clowns make laws that benefit themselves whether it be for votes or lined pockets. It's actually comical the stern words from both sides, they play the part well and we eat it up.

Shut them down lol, was it in the 90's the last time? I'm pretty sure we managed without them and all their hot air.
 
A government running a BALANCED BUDGET shuffles money around. A government running a DEFICIT is injecting the value of that DEFICIT into the economy. Take some of the deficit spending away and you have a smaller economy.
Even deficit money is still taken frothy economy, the future economy, but still the economy. And it ultimately adds no long-term value because it must be paid back.

Or look at it another way. You have a giant visitor from Japan and he spends $1.5 Trillion per year in your country and now he's going to spend $1 Trillion...
It's more like having business investors or a business loan. They want that money back eventually and your business' value does not nclude that value.

And now that our deficit is approaching our GDP we are approaching running in the red. In business that is a sign of disaster. In government everyone just thinks fiscal responsibility means not going as much into deficit each year.

The fiscal cliff will just be a bump in the road in comparison to what we are setting ourselves up for.
 
It's not. I really want us to go over the cliff. Every time the politicians get scared and start crying doom and gloom, I always think their solutions sound even worse... and this is no different.
Do you understand what will happen? You know most economist predict a depression if all of the fiscal cliff's tax increases and spending cuts happen.

The fiscal cliff is desperately needed to cut spending.
I agree, but after unemployment in below 7% and falling and growth is at least a sustained 3%.
Even deficit money is still taken frothy economy, the future economy, but still the economy. And it ultimately adds no long-term value because it must be paid back.
Well, kind of. Inflation decreases debt. So after a few more years of inflation, the debt from the deficits will be much smaller than they are today in terms of percentage.

And deficit spending does add value to the economy when people are producing output. That coupled with inflation's debt shrinking ability means the government should run deficits while in an economic crisis.
It's more like having business investors or a business loan. They want that money back eventually and your business' value does not nclude that value.

And now that our deficit is approaching our GDP we are approaching running in the red. In business that is a sign of disaster. In government everyone just thinks fiscal responsibility means not going as much into deficit each year.

The fiscal cliff will just be a bump in the road in comparison to what we are setting ourselves up for.
Government is a business? No
The deficit is 1/16 of GDP. And there are 0 consequences from running $trillion deficits for a short period of time. Does it need to be fixed? Of course, but not until the economy is running closer to it's potential.

Just look at Europe. How well has austerity done their recovery?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/britains-paul-ryan/

And this is just pure entertainment-
http://www.businessinsider.com/47-o...crease-if-we-go-over-the-fiscal-cliff-2012-12

I'll prob be gone by morning... So, it's been real! Try and keep touch with reality (I know it's hard!).
 
Last edited:
Well, kind of. Inflation decreases debt. So after a few more years of inflation, the debt from the deficits will be much smaller than they are today in terms of percentage.

Government is a business? No
The deficit is 1/16 of GDP. And there are 0 consequences from running $trillion deficits for a short period of time. Does it need to be fixed? Of course, but not until the economy is running closer to it's potential.

When one tosses about terms like "inflation" and "no consequences" they are absolutely meaningless without numbers or data behind them. We have inflation now, we usually do. 0.1% growth in prices is technically inflation and inflation rates of 1-2% do little to reduce the future value of the current national debt.

If you call immediate annual interest payments in the 10's of billions of dollars "no consequences'' then I guess there are no consequences to current deficits. What do you think the annual interest payments are on the most recent 4years of $6Trillion in new debt? Most people wouldn't call relying on a foreign, communist goverment for part of your deficit financing, "no consequences"

Most people would also call a credit rating reduction a consequence. Run three or four more years of $Trillion dollar deficits and all of a sudden your credit now costs you $100's of Billions more every year and before you know it, you're living in Greece and asking China for a bailout. Good luck with that.
 
And how does government debt affect you or the economy? How did the US credit downgrade affect anything? Wait, let me guess, the confidence fairy?
Nevermind the fact outstanding federal debt almost mirrors GDP since forever, so I find your worries completely unjustified.

And Greece? Don't they use a currency their government can't control? So the US is not Greece, and the US has experienced minimal inflation from all the 'printing of dollars' going on lately... so the Austrian hyperinflation worries are completely unjustified, also.
 
And how does government debt affect you or the economy? How did the US credit downgrade affect anything? Wait, let me guess, the confidence fairy?
Nevermind the fact outstanding federal debt almost mirrors GDP since forever, so I find your worries completely unjustified.

And Greece? Don't they use a currency their government can't control? So the US is not Greece, and the US has experienced minimal inflation from all the 'printing of dollars' going on lately... so the Austrian hyperinflation worries are completely unjustified, also.

Incorrect. As recently as 30 years ago, total US debt, private and public was less than 40% of GDP. Now it's approaching 100%. When Obama is done, it could be 125%. Interest payments are now in the $100's of Billions. A downgrade in your credit rating will add $10's or $100's of billions in new interest payments.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay that interest? Taxes. I pay taxes, lots and lots of taxes. For someone who doesn't pay income taxes, gov't debt has no effect whatsoever because they receive things from the government and pay no income tax. The more they get the better off their lives will be. Nowadays in your country and probably ours, that's more than half the population. Their vote is the same as mine, one. They have no reason whatsover to vote for anyone advocating austerity because they save nothing and get less through good sound conservative government policy

I on the other hand, pay taxes. Every year I pay more and more and more. In my lifetime, when our local provincial sales tax was introduced, it was 3% and only applied to goods, not services. Now it's 8% and recently it was amended and applies to both goods and services, effectively more than quadrupling it's rate over time in my lifetime.

Federally, the government introduced some years ago, a General Sales Tax, or GST, which stands at 5% now and applies to everything except necessities like food and clothing.

So I work, run a business, and the feds and the province take upwards of 25% of the business income off the top. With the 75% that's left, I lose another 40% to personal income taxes. I'm now down to 45% of my original 100%. I lose another 13% of the 45% (% in relative terms) to just about every purchase outside necessities. I pay more than 50% tax on fuel, built into the price ($6 per gallon here). If I sell my house there's a land transfer tax. If I dispose of a tire I pay a tax. If I go to the city dump it costs me money. I pay for for several licenses for motor vehicles. I pay for a license to fish. I pay $30 for a 26oz bottle of booze and $30-35 for a case of beer and have to buy it in a government run store staffed by employees dramatically overpaid by me the taxpayer, because they work in a public union.

Why? Taxes. For every dollar I make in business, I keep less than 35 cents. The rest pays for all the government waste, inefficiences, beauracracy, entitlements, green energy boondoggles, overpaid and overbenefited government employes and financing on huge debts etc. etc. etc. In Ontario where I live, just the interest on the debt alone, forget about repaying the principle, is $2000 for every working person in the province. But that's an average. Lots of low income earners pay little or no income tax and so the average share of someone earning a good living is probably more like $3-4000. I had dinner with some mates a couple of weeks ago, and we calculated that our annual share of interest payments on provincial debt taking our whole immediate family into the mix, was more than $30,000.

If I'm lucky enough to save some money I've already paid taxes on, and make a profit on it by investing, I'm taxed again, even though I've already paid 40% tax on the money as earnings.

The taxes continue to go up and up and up and up and up and up forever. Why? Who is paying for the interest on the debt? I am. If that isn't a consequence of continuously high deficits then I don't know what is.
 
Last edited:
Incorrect.
http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/01/14/federal-debt-climbs-past-annual-gdp/

Clearly the ratio fluctuates. But the trends remain the same; as GDP goes up, debt goes up. Hence, "almost".

Besides, you paying an amount of money in taxes has 0 to do with the economy as a whole; this is a discussion about macroeconomics, not micro. Now if you think you paying too much taxes is a drag on the economy, that may be an argument, but in the US the GDP has been growing fine and the income inequality has grown dramatically with lower top marginal tax rates. So that argument fails.
 
Where do you think the money comes from to pay that interest? Taxes. I pay taxes, lots and lots of taxes. For someone who doesn't pay income taxes, gov't debt has no effect whatsoever because they receive things from the government and pay no income tax. The more they get the better off their lives will be. Nowadays in your country and probably ours, that's more than half the population. Their vote is the same as mine, one. They have no reason whatsover to vote for anyone advocating austerity because they save nothing and get less through good sound conservative government policy

This 👍

I'll add that entitlement is not selective, the crooked expect it as well. To lazy to post my thought and this is a good time to pick some crazy old man words so..

Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will bring the current out-of-control system to its knees.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn’t succeed try again; QE1, QE2, and QE3 and with no results we try QE indefinitely – that is until it too fails. There’s a cost to all of this and let me assure you delaying the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will extract its pound of flesh and it won’t be pretty.

The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism. And the pessimism adds to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making our situation worse.

If the underlying cause of the crisis is not understood we cannot solve our problems. The issues of warfare, welfare, deficits, inflationism, corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only expanding these policies we cannot expect good results.

Everyone claims support for freedom. But too often it’s for one’s own freedom and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to achieve fairness and equality thus making it acceptable to curtail, through force, certain liberties.

Some decide what and whose freedoms are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests.

BTW, was that dapper? I know I have zero say but I wish the guy was allowed to continue.
 
http://www.mygovcost.org/2012/01/14/federal-debt-climbs-past-annual-gdp/

Clearly the ratio fluctuates. But the trends remain the same; as GDP goes up, debt goes up. Hence, "almost".

Besides, you paying an amount of money in taxes has 0 to do with the economy as a whole; this is a discussion about macroeconomics, not micro. Now if you think you paying too much taxes is a drag on the economy, that may be an argument, but in the US the GDP has been growing fine and the income inequality has grown dramatically with lower top marginal tax rates. So that argument fails.

Incorrect again. Gov't as a percentage of GDP has grown by 25% in recent years. This is only possible through higher tax revenues and deficit spending. The bigger the government, the smaller the private economy, the less efficient the allocation of resources. The more people pay in taxes the less discretionary income they have, the lower their standard of living in terms of purchases they make to benefit their individual circumstance and family. As the proportion of government in our entire economy grows and grows, economic growth will be much slower than it otherwise would be and that affects everyone.

Growth is not fine. Growth in the US is not keeping up to population growth which means you are actually shrinking. Income equality is not an issue for me. How much money a billionaire makes or has has no bearing on my life. What I care about his how much I have, how much I can make, and how much I get to keep, and higher deficits and massive government borrow means I get to keep less and less and less, in both the short term and long term, and those that pay little or no taxes, get more and more and more, proportionately.
 
A government running a BALANCED BUDGET shuffles money around. A government running a DEFICIT is injecting the value of that DEFICIT into the economy. Take some of the deficit spending away and you have a smaller economy.

Or look at it another way. You have a giant visitor from Japan and he spends $1.5 Trillion per year in your country and now he's going to spend $1 Trillion...
That doesn't really make sense I don't think.

FK already stated the fact that government does not generate wealth. Assuming a government has no ability to print money, that government is forced to operate on money that is takes out of the free market through taxation, fees, fines, etc. There is no new wealth created by that process, simply a transfer of money from the market to the government.

But our government does have the ability to print money. Not only does our government take wealth out of the market, but it also prints even more, constantly diluting the value of each unit of money already in existence. That's a net negative effect - the government is actively making everybody poorer.

If the government stopped spending money on things that weren't profitable, namely most of the things it does, especially the military, it could use that saved money to help reduce the deficit - they've already taken it out of the economy so where they spend it doesn't matter. The more they save in one area the more they have to spend in another, and I think that would be a useful strategy for reducing the deficit.

BTW, was that dapper? I know I have zero say but I wish the guy was allowed to continue.
If you were to let Dapper continue you'd have that record memorized in no time.
 
Keef
That doesn't really make sense I don't think.

FK already stated the fact that government does not generate wealth. Assuming a government has no ability to print money, that government is forced to operate on money that is takes out of the free market through taxation, fees, fines, etc. There is no new wealth created by that process, simply a transfer of money from the market to the government.

He's not talking about printing money, he's talking about borrowing large sums of money from Japan/China and it being spent into the economy. This isn't creating wealth, it's borrowing wealth from someone else, which does increase GDP, and does increase the real value of an economy. Say you have $1000 and you want to buy something for $1250, you borrow $500 from the bank, drop $250 down a storm drain by being careless, and then buy your item for $1250, and never pay the bank back. That's essentially what's happening.

Keep in mind he's not saying it's a great idea, and we all know about government inefficiencies and bureaucracies, but the fact is that pulling that deficit spending away instantly would be tough, just as instantly ending medicare, SS, etc. would be hard on everyone. It's not about whether or not deficit spending is a good idea in the long run, but it's been going on for years and to pull the rug out from underneath would lead to a bad scenario. Of course, this has been going on so long that it's getting to the point where it will all have to come crashing down. Some day China and Japan will stop lending money to pay for a gargantuan military, and a plethora of entitlements.
 
Last edited:
Do you understand what will happen? You know most economist predict a depression if all of the fiscal cliff's tax increases and spending cuts happen.

I'm more worried about the unending recession that happens if we DON'T go over the cliff. A short market correction is much more palatable than a long steady downward grind.

I agree, but after unemployment in below 7% and falling and growth is at least a sustained 3%.

No, not after anything. We can't keep putting this off. Nobody thinks now is a good time to start being responsible, but we just make it harder by waiting. Tomorrow will not be a better time to start being responsible, the irresponsible actions we're taking today are making sure of that. We need to act right now, dramatically, to avoid collapse of our currency.

Well, kind of. Inflation decreases debt. So after a few more years of inflation, the debt from the deficits will be much smaller than they are today in terms of percentage.

Uh... no. We do nothing but increase our deficit, well beyond inflation. If you're counting on inflation to fix the debt or deficit, you're counting on an economic fallacy. Inflation is very bad for the economy.

And deficit spending does add value to the economy when people are producing output. That coupled with inflation's debt shrinking ability means the government should run deficits while in an economic crisis.

Keynesian economics, thoroughly debunked. Trying to re-inflate the bubble with horrifically inefficient government spending creating malinvestment does not right the ship. It's saying a heroin addict needs another shot of heroin to ease the withdrawal symptoms. It's only going to come back again and worse.

Of course, but not until the economy is running closer to it's potential.

No, now. Everyone wants to put off responsibility, but now is the best possible time economically. That's assuming that what you're saying is possible, but what you're saying is NOT possible. Nobody gives a rat's behind about doing the right thing economically when the economy is "running closer to it's potential". All they care about is spending what they can afford at that time. So not only are you advocating something that costs more overall, you're advocating something that will never happen.

Just look at Europe. How well has austerity done their recovery?

Europe is the poser child for excess spending.

And how does government debt affect you or the economy? How did the US credit downgrade affect anything? Wait, let me guess, the confidence fairy?

Interest on the debt goes up. Honestly you should look into economics a bit.
 
Johnnypenso
A government running a BALANCED BUDGET shuffles money around. A government running a DEFICIT is injecting the value of that DEFICIT into the economy. Take some of the deficit spending away and you have a smaller economy.


That doesn't really make sense I don't think.

FK already stated the fact that government does not generate wealth. Assuming a government has no ability to print money, that government is forced to operate on money that is takes out of the free market through taxation, fees, fines, etc. There is no new wealth created by that process, simply a transfer of money from the market to the government.

But our government does have the ability to print money. Not only does our government take wealth out of the market, but it also prints even more, constantly diluting the value of each unit of money already in existence. That's a net negative effect - the government is actively making everybody poorer.

If the government stopped spending money on things that weren't profitable, namely most of the things it does, especially the military, it could use that saved money to help reduce the deficit - they've already taken it out of the economy so where they spend it doesn't matter. The more they save in one area the more they have to spend in another, and I think that would be a useful strategy for reducing the deficit.

.

What you quoted was in response to someone else saying that all the government does is shuffle money around. And that is true they do shuffle money around. They make nothing, they create nothing, they just take our money and spend it for the so called "public good". But when you are running massive deficits as America is, you are taking more than our own money and shuffling it around, you are kicking in a $Trillion or more of money borrowed from someone else, primarily China.

So while the government doesn't create wealth, they can take someone else's wealth and inject it into the economy which was the point of my post. So I don't disagree with you, and I don't advocate deficit spending I think balanced budgets should be mandatory, I was just correcting an earlier assertion by someone else.

He's not talking about printing money, he's talking about borrowing large sums of money from Japan/China and it being spent into the economy.....

Well said..👍
 
Apple To Produce Macs In U.S. Next Year Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Cook said in his interview with NBC that companies like Apple chose to produce their products in places like China, not because of the lower costs associated with it, but because the manufacturing skills required just aren't present in the U.S. anymore.

Interesting. While it's really just a small thing, surely it is a good thing. I'm beginning to think operating in China is getting more expensive.

---------------------------------------------------

Some more on Syria.
http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-desperate-assad-could-chemical-arms-092339797.html

Assad's government said the warnings about chemical arms were aimed at whipping up an excuse for military intervention. NATO decided this week to send U.S., German and Dutch batteries of air-defense missiles to the Turkish border, meaning hundreds of American and European troops will deploy to Syria's frontier for the first time since the war began.

WMD's we've heard this before, I think they have them, not sure if they'd use them. The NATO part is why I quoted this, I could just hear Obama saying "well NATO decided we should go, so we went" of course he would never say that, just funny to me. I'm sure the idea is to create a no fly zone to keep the sarin on the ground. Hope for change.

U.S. officials said the Obama administration was considering blacklisting Jabhat al-Nusra, an influential rebel group accused by other rebels of indiscriminate tactics that has advocated an Islamic state in Syria and is suspected of ties to al Qaeda.

I have no doubt that the U.S. has been supporting rebels, most likely supplying weapons. We never learn from our past mistakes, how is he gonna pick and choose the new regime? It's working out well in Libya is it? I'm getting tired of hearing about the boogie man al Qaeda as well lol.

I don't pretend to have the answers to all the mess in the middle east, some of it we created, some of it just is but I will take this opportunity to point out that Obama is full of it when he says he is not continuing Bush policy. He may be accelerating and streamlining, but it's the same old hat.
 
Apple To Produce Macs In U.S. Next Year Just thought I'd throw that out there.



Interesting. While it's really just a small thing, surely it is a good thing. I'm beginning to think operating in China is getting more expensive.
There's probably truth in his quote, but it still comes back to manufacturing cost. All the facilities left to go to the cheaper manufacturing market and so went the skills. The cost of labour must be rising dramatically in the far East if they're prepared to invest in facilities as well as training.

I would be surprised if it's as easy to take manufacturing equipment out of China's old factories as it is to get it in there.
 
Back