Global economic crisis looms - thanks to Bush

[Mr. Harley]

This resembles the economic decline of Great Britian between the two wars. Our initial debt was due to the cold war and Reagonomics, and our government is now "not responding" the same way the Brits did. You should read the good argument we had on a thread reference these economics and the US military (reference one of those choices earlier in this thread).

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103841&pagenumber=1

We get into a serious argument over the Laffer Curve, because of it's misapplication by supply-side politicians, i.e. not finding the ideal sweet spot where you cut taxes by X% and the economic growth keeps overall revenue for the government the same.

If we have an economic meltdown, and the US sells its industries to foreign companies to finance it's trade deficits (look at GB going off the gold standard between the World Wars), and the world beginning the transition from using the pound sterling as the basis of international trade (see comments in this thread on euros vs. dollars), it looks more and more like GB. Do you honestly think the baby boomer generation will vote for a strong military while cutting their own retirement checks?

Get real! When the baby boomers retire, if we have that debt and the world economy hits a recession (which it will somewhere during that 20 year window, maybe even 30-40 years given increased longetivity), the US will be forced to surrender it's world class military. Maybe China or India will be the next superpowers. The Chinese seem to have the right amount of attitude, they are my bet if they can manage to reform their legal system in time. It's already happening. The Wall Street Journal ran an article, using Dirt Devil as an example, of the Chinese manufacturer of a US trade name gobbling up the trade name. They also ran an article on Indian companies starting to purchase internationally, including a US telecom company. It's already starting.

[TCO]

so much silliness in one thread. Learn some corporate finance, macro silly-heads

[DanS]

Even the IMF admits that this deficit isn't enough to raise the alarm bells and that a budget deficit of 2% of GDP (the amount Bush is planning) is a reasonable goal. In this report, the IMF assumes that the social security and medicare programs will not be fixed in the next couple of decades, and that the programs will become "insolvent", requiring bailouts from the general fund. While the IMF is required to make this assumption, it's a bad one.

That said, I think Bush should bring the budget into balance rather than at 2% of GDP. There's not too much difference between the two figures from a spending standpoint. It wouldn't be too tough to do. I know why they chose 2% (because the debt then wouldn't grow as a percentage of GDP), but I guess I would like a little more margin of error.

[Mr. Harley]

TCO, corporate finance is very different from what is good for a country. The export of first blue collar, and now many white collar jobs out of the US is only one example. In fact corporations prefer a moderate unemployment rate to keep downward pressure on salaries - except at the top, of course.

Please do not prattle on about how the jobs are being replaced with better paying ones. Various factors have led to the opposite, including the conversion of the US to a service economy, which is not just the corporations fault. They even have a term for the new wage structure resulting from good corporate practices, lack of guts in the US governemnt (look at what we let the Europeans do with Airbus), globalization, et al - the hourglass economy. Except the top part of the hourglass isn't that big.

[Ted Striker]

i got jock itch from the bench at the gym

i blame george bush

[TCO]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
TCO, corporate finance is very different from what is good for a country. The export of first blue collar, and now many white collar jobs out of the US is only one example. In fact corporations prefer a moderate unemployment rate to keep downward pressure on salaries - except at the top, of course.

Please do not prattle on about how the jobs are being replaced with better paying ones. Various factors have led to the opposite, including the conversion of the US to a service economy, which is not just the corporations fault. They even have a term for the new wage structure resulting from good corporate practices, lack of guts in the US governemnt (look at what we let the Europeans do with Airbus), globalization, et al - the hourglass economy. Except the top part of the hourglass isn't that big.

yes you have to have a brain to learn core fin and micro. Macro you can just spout fluff.

[Ramo]

Macro is supposed to be fluff.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by TCO
yes you have to have a brain to learn core fin and micro.

How could you possibly put "brain" and "micro" in the same sentense?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Spiffor

How could you possibly put "brain" and "micro" in the same sentense?

go talk to Adam Smith or Ron Braetigan.

[Whoha]

it will take a trade war, and a draconian shutdown of our welfare system to end the deficits, and yet, in that situation a Global economic crisis happens anyway.

note: a 35% accross the board spending cut to balance the budget and get a little extra to start paying off the debt still takes its pound of flesh by and large from welfare, so unless we cut everything else to zero(which we'd have to do to not touch welfare), its going to suffer the brunt of any cuts.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by el freako


United States:
Taxation: 31.0% of GDP
Unemployment: 6.1%
Employment: 70.7% of population aged 15-64

Sweden:
Taxation: 59.3% of GDP
Unemployment: 4.8%
Employment: 73.0% of population aged 15-64

Denmark:
Taxation: 57.4% of GDP
Unemployment: 5.5%
Employment: 76.3% of population aged 15-64

Austria:
Taxation: 50.4% of GDP
Unemployment: 4.5%
Employment: 74.0% of population aged 15-64

Netherlands:
Taxation: 46.2% of GDP
Unemployment: 3.7%
Employment: 64.6% of population aged 15-64

So, you don't see any difference, economically, between these small, homogenous countries and the United States? Simply looking at employment stats is good enough for you?

[Mr. Harley]

Whoha - by your figures then welfare represents 65% of the budget (35% cut takes everything to zero if you don't cut welfare). Everything will take a major hit, my point about the threat to the US military.

What exactly is welfare? Is it the elderly taking more out of social security than they put in? Is it corporate farmers taking substantial subsidies? Is it the Stryker armored car at 2 million apiece when a rebuilt M113A5 with composite armor (superior) cost between 1/4 and 1/3 as much, as best as anyone can guess 'cause the military isn't cooperating at all?

I define welfare as unnecessary money going to anybody except children. I agree there is alot, but remember, corporations receive more money the the so-called "welfare moms". Children don't have a choice, the rest of us do. If Haliburton, lumber companies (structural subsidies in the Bureau of Land Management), barge companies (US Corps of Engineers), corporate mega-farms, etc. all get those nose out of the trough, then we can balance the budget. Both parties are terrible about this, it's just the Republicans ran against it for so many years, and some of us made the mistake of believing them. They are currently making the old Great Society Democrats look cheap!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
But the US also has an gigantic national debt.

But (AFAIK) not as a percentage of total GNP. My dad (an actuary and a lawyer) explained it to me - that the national debt as a percentage of the GNP was actually going down.

[Ted Striker]

i went to the west hollywood parade and got a run in my stockings

i blame george bush

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and this thread is remarkable - Kidicious coming down on the side of Bush