|
Never.More posted:The fact that you wrote yourself an IOU does not mean the money has to come from somewhere eventually. Taking that figure out of the debt is not helpful to the discussion. Think of it this way, if the IOUs get to big the fed only has two real options. Either print a lot more money and devalue the currency (to pay for the IOUs), or borrow money from elsewhere to pay for their own IOUs. The government "owes itself" 44% of the "debt". Do you think the Department of Agriculture is going to sue the Treasury Department to pay back its "debt"? Also devaluing the currency gets done all the time, it's necessary to modern capitalism. We "printed" (actually, added numbers to electronic accounts for the most part) $480 billion in new funds last year if you aren't aware. And of course this all ignores the fact that you have all these folks from Europe rushing to buy bonds from the US treasury that will pay out 0.001% interest over the next 10 years and crap like that...
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
More to the point, the budget deficit has been rapidly going away as the economy improves. It's a mythical issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Never.More posted:.. you just posted that having massive national debt is a good thing because it means your creditors cant afford for you to go down. We are already starting to see the consequences of our debt, we lost our AAA credit rating in 2011. That had nothing to do with the debt and everything with Republicans holding the country hostage by using the debt ceiling. Never.More posted:At some point the idea that we can spend / borrow anything we want and be fine ends. It only works right now at all is because of how massive our economy. The problem with our national debt is not only the sum itself, but the interest it is gathering. If we continue, sooner or latter our creditors will stop agreeing to buy more of our bonds. Our Treasury bonds are so in demand that investors are literally paying more than the bonds' face value, T-bills aren't going to going to go out style for a while unless some terrible act of God disaster occurs like a meteor obilitering the eastern seaboard. Never.More posted:At that point we are well and truly hosed. It may not happen in our life time, but it will happen. To put some hard numbers to it, our national debt as of 1046 GMT on 2 June 2013 is 16,745,653,684,049.09 USD. Using our estimated populate, each citizen owes 52,996.38 USD. A little over fifty thousand per citizen. Fiscal responsibility is not something you can brush off with comments like "you just hate poor people". It is a reality that is going to royally screw us over if we dont do something about it quick. Because of interest, the longer we put it off the worst it gets. Its like a festering wound that you dont want to do anything about because it will hurt, it only gets worse the longer you ignore it. As I posted before, looking at it rationally we are all going to get hit hard when our government finally bites the bullet and tackles this. Saying "you dont understand debt, we are fine" is only going to make the problem worse when we finally break down and deal with it (or are forced to because no one will buy our bonds anymore). I'm going to be nicer here than most other posters will be but government finance does not work the way you think it does and you should really check out some of the other threads in this forum that delve more deeply into this subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:"We have to drastically cut spending now, or else at some unknown point in the future, we'll be forced to drastically cut spending." In the short term its great for the economy. The problem is in the long term it hoses the nation. We have effectively been in a series of a unending government spending since WWII (with some exceptions). It pulled us out of the Great Recession and made us into the economic power house we are today. However we have compiled a massive national debt in the process of doing it. Sooner or latter that bill will come due. A portion of our debt is IOUs to ourselves, the rest is not. Those bills will come due. We are being charged interests on all those not held by us as well. Saying we will never have to deal with it is like saying I can run up my credit card because I hope I either die or make a lots more money before the bill comes due. You can probably get away with it for a while, but sooner or later you get hosed. Thats how we ended up in the housing crisis honestly. People bought homes on horrible loan deals in the hopes of selling said house or making more money when the real load payments kicked in. It seriously screwed over a massive number of people when the housing market collapsed and we lost out. That article shows in real dollars what we are dealing with in terms the whole we dug ourself. Why do you think economics works any different on a macro level than it does on a micro. In other words, can you personally run up a massive credit card bill and never worry about paying it down? I know a lot of economists tell people we are fine. A lot dont as well. Just take a step back and look at the issue is all that I am asking. Think about it for a moment and push out what you want to spend the money on. Is running up a massive debt ever a good thing? This kind of the point of me posting in here about opposing sides in the media, two sides to every story (if not more). Never.More fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:More to the point, the budget deficit has been rapidly going away as the economy improves. It's a mythical issue. Deficit yes, and in large part because of the fiscal cliff we went over when the parties couldnt agree on a budget. IE sequestration. Which was one of the better things to happen in my view. It seriously sucks for the government types, but hopefully it shows that we can make cuts. The debt however is not the deficit. Never.More fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
The bills will not come due because the finances of a nation do not work like the finances of you and I. In any way. I know its very hard to accept.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Never.More posted:.. you just posted that having massive national debt is a good thing because it means your creditors cant afford for you to go down. We are already starting to see the consequences of our debt, we lost our AAA credit rating in 2011. At some point the idea that we can spend / borrow anything we want and be fine ends. Actually you're completely and diametrically wrong. The US got its credit downgraded because the ratings agencies got worried that Republicans were playing chicken with default by refusing to lift the debt limit. The Republicans consider the debt to be much more of a problem than the actual market (who assigns it effectively zero, sometimes negative interest), and they believe it so intensely that they are literally willing to cause the object of their fear to happen. quote:S&P also cited dysfunctional policymaking in Washington as a factor in the downgrade. "The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
Never.More posted:2. Cordyceps: I can certainly appreciate your view point. I would strongly offer one word of caution however. I watch Fox quite a bit (as well as CNN and MSNBC), I have yet to see them air a story that is actually racist with the intent of being racist. So you weren't watching Fox News at all when the Trayvon Martin shooting last year was the national talk? Well then, let's have a discussion about black teenagers wearing hooded sweatshirts in the rain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs0WC8pRa3E
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Never.More posted:
Because it does, and we have tons of empirical data and credible economic models to show this? VVV name an economic scholar who thought no raising the debt ceiling and defaulting on the government's obligations was a good idea. Please back up your claims in some way. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Actually you're completely and diametrically wrong. The US got its credit downgraded because the ratings agencies got worried that Republicans were playing chicken with default by refusing to lift the debt limit. The Republicans consider the debt to be much more of a problem than the actual market (who assigns it effectively zero, sometimes negative interest), and they believe it so intensely that they are literally willing to cause the object of their fear to happen. Right but that was the whole point. The issue was that Congress wanted to raise the debt celling (amount of money we can spend) and the Republicans said no. I happen to agree with the Republicans (which I know will shock the hell out of the people reading this thread). To people claiming that government finances dont work the same on the personal level, I have to disagree with that. I have read the various theories on it. I have read other economists who say it is an issue and ones you guys are bringing up who say it is not. Given that I have two sides (both theoretically educated in their fields) saying two completely different things, its time to take a step back and apply some logic. We spend more than we take in, we already have a debt. The debt is very large. Saying its not an issue and dont worry because we can pay it off in the future doesnt work for me. I strongly believe that a lot of conservatives feel the same way. That is why it is an issue for the Republicans. Its an illustration of why I posted you need to hear two sides of the story originally. You are quite right the Republics basically held the Congresss at gun point over the debt celling. Why? The easy answer for the left is because "they are idiots or they hate poor people". Neither of which is true. The Republicans honestly fear that we are digging ourselves into an economic grave that our children or their children will have to face. Every year the Congress raises the debt celling effectively allowing them to write bigger checks. The Republics finally said enough is enough, we will refuse to allow this continue and are going to force the debate on financial cuts that balance the budget. That is at least the conservative view point. I very much doubt the left will agree, but they need to at least listen to it and consider it. Ironically the same basic "battle lines' are how we ended up in sequestration. Even once both sides agreed cuts had to be made, neither could agree on what those cuts where so we ended up with the rather drastic across the board cut we have right now. I actually believe it is a good thing long term. It seriously sucks yes, but hopefully it can show us we can figure out ways to do more with less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
They may not genuinely hate poor people but I'm afraid that they are indeed idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
You realize even if the 'digging our grave' things is right it was still them willing to bring the government and all its critical federal programs to a grinding halt to fight it, right? Like, I'm talking Social Security and Medicare not going out, I'm talking federal welfare programs ending, federal housing ending, people being thrown into the street to starve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Never.More posted:In the short term its great for the economy. The problem is in the long term it hoses the nation[Citation Needed]. We have effectively been in a series of a unending government spending since WWII (with some exceptions). It pulled us out of the Great Recession and made us into the economic power house we are today. However we have compiled a massive national debt in the process of doing it. Sooner or latter that bill will come due[Citation Needed]. A portion of our debt is IOUs to ourselves, the rest is not. Those bills will come due. We are being charged interests on all those not held by us as well. Saying we will never have to deal with it is like saying I can run up my credit card because I hope I either die or make a lots more money before the bill comes due[Citation Needed]. You can probably get away with it for a while, but sooner or later you get hosed. Thats how we ended up in the housing crisis honestly. People bought homes on horrible loan deals in the hopes of selling said house or making more money when the real load payments kicked in. It seriously screwed over a massive number of people when the housing market collapsed and we lost out. I'm sorry, you don't have very much credibility when the first point of your argument is that this has been going on for 60 years and yet the constantly predicted economic apocalypse hasn't happened yet. Why should I take you seriously when you're saying the same thing people have said for decades and have been continually wrong about? Your only "evidence" is, "oh my look how big those numbers are" and a piss-poor knowledge of economics. quote:That article shows in real dollars what we are dealing with in terms the whole we dug ourself. Why do you think economics works any different on a macro level than it does on a micro. In other words, can you personally run up a massive credit card bill and never worry about paying it down? I know a lot of economists tell people we are fine. A lot dont as well. Just take a step back and look at the issue is all that I am asking. Think about it for a moment and push out what you want to spend the money on. Is running up a massive debt ever a good thing? This kind of the point of me posting in here about opposing sides in the media, two sides to every story (if not more). Why do I think the finances behind the largest part of the global economy are different from you balancing your checkbook? You're seriously making this point? It's so asinine, I don't even know how to respond. The rest of your post is wishy-washy, truth is in the middle bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Consequences of paying off your credit card debt: You have no more credit card debt. Consequences of paying off national debt: The most trustworthy and stable investment system vanishes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
I would like to note that these are the same ratings houses who gave AAA ratings to all of those worthless credit default swaps and other such financial instruments that precipitated the current recession. Their credibility is not as unassailable as you seem to believe it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
There's also other "little things" behind why the US specifically can take on pretty much as much debt as it wants. For example, the US military is massive and capable of straight up obliterating vast swathes of the planet should we ever decide to declare a total war and explicitly target civilians and all that. The second is that being the largest international market for just about everything means that we could wreck tons of nations' economies by simply declaring temporary embargoes on them. You combine those two things, and basically no one can really force the US to pay back debt if for some reason we don't decide to or were unable to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Ironically the same basic "battle lines' are how we ended up in sequestration. Even once both sides agreed cuts had to be made, neither could agree on what those cuts where so we ended up with the rather drastic across the board cut we have right now. I actually believe it is a good thing long term. It seriously sucks yes, but hopefully it can show us we can figure out ways to do more with less. How convenient that these cuts affect the poorest of the poor in the place of say a higher income and dividend tax on the rich. Or how about both instead of just the cuts. If the DEBT is such a looming black hole of despair, why not take all of the available steps to lower it? Or does the importance of debt reduction stop short of the urgency that would be required to actually affect you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
It is a kind of weird concept to wrap one's head around, because somebody is telling you that this specific type of debt doesn't matter at all when you've spent your entire life responsibly trying to avoid debt (a good thing!). But when your counter-argument boils down to "I see your facts and historical examples but it doesn't feel right to me so I'm going with my gut" you end up without a leg to stand on. It's hard to get people to understand. I've spent hours and hours explaining the difference between household and national finances to friends and they'll nod and say "that makes sense" only to go back to ranting about Obama and the debt on facebook the next day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Deficit yes, and in large part because of the fiscal cliff we went over when the parties couldnt agree on a budget. IE sequestration. Which was one of the better things to happen in my view. It seriously sucks for the government types, but hopefully it shows that we can make cuts. The debt however is not the deficit. Sorry, but I disagree with you here. If you look at the timeframes on how the deficit has been decreasing, it's just the gradual improvement of the economy over time. If anything, the sequester has increased the deficit (relatively speaking, compared to where we would've been without it) due to the economic damage it caused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Right but that was the whole point. The issue was that Congress wanted to raise the debt celling (amount of money we can spend) and the Republicans said no. I happen to agree with the Republicans (which I know will shock the hell out of the people reading this thread). To people claiming that government finances dont work the same on the personal level, I have to disagree with that. I have read the various theories on it. I have read other economists who say it is an issue and ones you guys are bringing up who say it is not. Given that I have two sides (both theoretically educated in their fields) saying two completely different things, its time to take a step back and apply some logic. We spend more than we take in, we already have a debt. The debt is very large. Saying its not an issue and dont worry because we can pay it off in the future doesnt work for me. I strongly believe that a lot of conservatives feel the same way. That is why it is an issue for the Republicans. Its an illustration of why I posted you need to hear two sides of the story originally. These Republicans you speak of, who bemoan the debt and threaten to default on the money we already owe... have you ever looked at what happens to the deficit and the debt when they are fully in charge?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
You know, I want to go into No Music Discussion and start posting about how the Beethoven actually was a giant hack or into Cinema Discusso and post about how 'Citizen Kane' is an overrated snooze fest. I want the rush posters apparently get when roll into a subforum on a topic they don't understand at all and then pull broad sweeping misconceptions out of their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Right but that was the whole point. The issue was that Congress wanted to raise the debt celling (amount of money we can spend) and the Republicans said no. No, you claimed that the downgrade was due to debt. To be precise, it was a double whammy: everyone likes using Uncle Sam's credit card, but Republicans pitched a fit when the bill came due. In the abstract I can agree with the "cut spending" argument, but the money had already been spent at that point and Republicans were just throwing a tantrum. That's far different from what you said, and demonstrates the real problem that S&P identified: one of the major parties that runs our country has dragged everything to an absolute standstill, to the point where even uncontroversial stuff like "paying our bills" is not happening. That is a grade-A serious problem. And to be honest Republicans blew the deficit reduction thing with their intransigence too. If you're not going to take a deal that's tilted 10:1 in your favor, you're just not interested in dealing. Both halves of the reasoning behind the downgrade fall pretty much squarely on Republican shoulders. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Never.More posted:The fact that you wrote yourself an IOU does not mean the money has to come from somewhere eventually. Taking that figure out of the debt is not helpful to the discussion. Think of it this way, if the IOUs get to big the fed only has two real options. Either print a lot more money and devalue the currency (to pay for the IOUs), or borrow money from elsewhere to pay for their own IOUs. The monetary base has tripled in the past 5 years, and there hasn't been a blip of inflation because we are currently operating in a liquidity trap. You pay back the debt by growing the economy. More growth means more revenue, without even needing to raise taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Right ... this is going no where fast in the effort to have an intellectual discussion on the realities of needing to hear opposing viewpoints. Moving to name calling or playing the "YOUR RACIST" card is extremely un-helpful in such situations What if I tell you to either lurk more or exercise your second amendment rights on the roof of your mouth, how helpful would that be
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Enjoy your new av, you astoundingly ignorant lemonhead! EDIT: Bought it with a credit card that I never ever intend to pay off...just like the United States  DE: Awww, what a waste of  
pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
baw posted:The monetary base has tripled in the past 5 years, and there hasn't been a blip of inflation because we are currently operating in a liquidity trap. I am going to disagree a little bit here, the thing is that plenty of money has been pumped into banks but the actual amount in people's pockets has stayed the same or gone down. Tripling the money base in 5 years while the economy hasn't grown much at all is pretty radical and it is entirely possible that once banks stop sitting on vaults of cash Scrooge McDuck style (okay, start shuffling numbers around and lending) that there will be inflationary pressure from that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
cafel posted:You know, I want to go into No Music Discussion and start posting about how the Beethoven actually was a giant hack or into Cinema Discusso and post about how 'Citizen Kane' is an overrated snooze fest. I want the rush posters apparently get when roll into a subforum on a topic they don't understand at all and then pull broad sweeping misconceptions out of their rear end. Actually your idea for Cinema Discusso is par for the course, but reversed. Instead of saying some great film was a snoozefest, you go in and claim some generic mediocre film from the last year was a masterpiece and completely robbed of critical recognition. Something like Battleship or Battlefield LA or, like, Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance, or something. You'll fit right in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
cafel posted:You know, I want to go into No Music Discussion and start posting about how the Beethoven actually was a giant hack or into Cinema Discusso and post about how 'Citizen Kane' is an overrated snooze fest. I want the rush posters apparently get when roll into a subforum on a topic they don't understand at all and then pull broad sweeping misconceptions out of their rear end. Maybe Beethoven was a great composer or maybe he never existed at all and was just invented by record companies to increase the sales of Frank Zappa's compositions. Who knows? I feel one way, but I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping a healthy debate open forever and ever regardless of no proof and historical impossibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I am going to disagree a little bit here, the thing is that plenty of money has been pumped into banks but the actual amount in people's pockets has stayed the same or gone down. Tripling the money base in 5 years while the economy hasn't grown much at all is pretty radical and it is entirely possible that once banks stop sitting on vaults of cash Scrooge McDuck style (okay, start shuffling numbers around and lending) that there will be inflationary pressure from that. Yes, that is the "liquidity trap" part, and when the conditions are right then the Fed will step in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
cafel posted:You know, I want to go into No Music Discussion and start posting about how the Beethoven actually was a giant hack or into Cinema Discusso and post about how 'Citizen Kane' is an overrated snooze fest. I want the rush posters apparently get when roll into a subforum on a topic they don't understand at all and then pull broad sweeping misconceptions out of their rear end. See, the difference here is that those things are entirely subjective. There's no facts that say Beethoven was amazing or Citizen Kane was perfect, it's just a very well known and agreed upon opinion. The actual impact of the debt and deficit spending can be seen throughout history and through facts and figures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
baw posted:Yes, that is the "liquidity trap" part. There would be no "liquidity trap" if we were helping repair people's balance sheets instead of banks. Instead of pushing on the supply side of the string, you pull on the demand side. You can write tax credits for hiring people, but companies won't hire if the demand isn't there. You can give banks a bunch of money to loan out, but if there's no one looking to expand or start up then they won't loan. You offer a business $10 million to build a bridge, they're sure as gently caress going to take it. You write everyone a check for $5,000, they're sure as gently caress going to spend that or use it to pay down debt and enable future spending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
It would be great to just hear a politician mention "aggregate demand," and I've given up any hope of legislators taking any action to increase it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Never.More posted:That article shows in real dollars what we are dealing with in terms the whole we dug ourself. Why do you think economics works any different on a macro level than it does on a micro. In other words, can you personally run up a massive credit card bill and never worry about paying it down? I know a lot of economists tell people we are fine. A lot dont as well. Just take a step back and look at the issue is all that I am asking. Think about it for a moment and push out what you want to spend the money on. Is running up a massive debt ever a good thing? This kind of the point of me posting in here about opposing sides in the media, two sides to every story (if not more).
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Right but that was the whole point. The issue was that Congress wanted to raise the debt celling (amount of money we can spend) and the Republicans said no. I happen to agree with the Republicans (which I know will shock the hell out of the people reading this thread). To people claiming that government finances dont work the same on the personal level, I have to disagree with that. I have read the various theories on it. I have read other economists who say it is an issue and ones you guys are bringing up who say it is not. Given that I have two sides (both theoretically educated in their fields) saying two completely different things, its time to take a step back and apply some logic. We spend more than we take in, we already have a debt. The debt is very large. Saying its not an issue and dont worry because we can pay it off in the future doesnt work for me. I strongly believe that a lot of conservatives feel the same way. That is why it is an issue for the Republicans. Its an illustration of why I posted you need to hear two sides of the story originally. Watch this please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ugDU2qNcyg&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Never.More posted:You are quite right the Republics basically held the Congresss at gun point over the debt celling. Why? The easy answer for the left is because "they are idiots or they hate poor people". Neither of which is true. The Republicans honestly fear that we are digging ourselves into an economic grave that our children or their children will have to face. Every year the Congress raises the debt celling effectively allowing them to write bigger checks. The Republics finally said enough is enough, we will refuse to allow this continue and are going to force the debate on financial cuts that balance the budget. That is at least the conservative view point. I very much doubt the left will agree, but they need to at least listen to it and consider it. Honest question. H. W. Bush increased the national debt by 49.2%, W. Bush increased the national debt by 75.2%, and Reagan increased the national debt by 168.2%. Clinton increased the national debt by 22.5%, Carter increased the national debt by 36.6%, and Obama has increased the national debt as of the end of 2012 by 48.4%. Source Given that, why do you feel that it's republicans that are the most responsible party when it comes with handling the national debt?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Honest question. Oh not at all. I completely agree that the the last couple of Republican Presidents have done very badly with the national debt. Although to be fair to Reagan, he basically spent the Soviet Union out of reality with his military build up. To be fair to Clinton, he slashed the military spending but did enjoy the massive influx of the .com boom. The reason I associate with the Republican party in this area is that they at least agree to make the national debt a major talking point and claim they are going to do something about it. Here is hoping that they actually do something about it. Elected leaders promising one thing and then delivering another is a whole separate can of worms though, I am afraid. As far as the USG ability to issue currency. You are 100% correct. The USG can literally not run out of money. That is what scares people. If the debt issue gets to large, one of the solutions is to de-value the currency and print a lot more money. All the sudden the debt is much smaller (in terms of what is owed versus what a dollar is worth) and can be paid off relatively quickly. However, there is a massive cost in this. The money people invested into savings and retirement plans basically goes to poo poo overnight. To put it in the most simplistic of terms, that hundred dollars you had in the bank is now worth far less in terms of what you can buy with it. There is a second cost to this, the USD is very highly respected around the world (why people rush to buy it). Deflating the currency would gravely damage that. Never.More fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Never.More posted:However, there is a massive cost in this. People's savings and retirement plans basically got to poo poo overnight. To put it in the most simplistic of terms, that hundred dollars you had in the bank is now worth far less in terms of what you can buy with it. There is a second cost to this, the USD is very highly respected around the world (why people rush to buy it). Deflating the currency would gravely damage that. Not to put too fine a point on this, but who has savings or retirement plans these days? Who do you know who has hundreds of dollars in the bank? Because I'm looking at all of these unemployed people and suddenly-homeless people and thinking they have bigger problems. I mean you're right it would be hard on the already retired, but from what I've read it's between 49% and two-thirds of Americans who don't save for retirment, largely because they can't afford to, because the economy is crushing them. The only realistic solution I see is the same one that Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw: institute enough of a public social safety net that people don't have to rely on their own personal savings to ensure an adequate life in retirement. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Oh not at all. I completely agree that the the last couple of Republican Presidents have done very badly with the national debt. Although to be fair to Reagan, he basically spent the Soviet Union out of reality with his military build up. To be fair to Clinton, he slashed the military spending but did enjoy the massive influx of the .com boom. The reason I associate with the Republican party in this area is that they at least agree to make the national debt a major talking point and claim they are going to do something about it. Here is hoping that they actually do something about it. Elected leaders promising one thing and then delivering another is a whole separate can of worms though, I am afraid. So has there been any historical relationship between periods of high debt and other economic indicators? Surely if debt was so terrible you could find some relationship between debt and various economic indicators.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
baw posted:So has there been any historical relationship between periods of high debt and other economic indicators? Surely if debt was so terrible you could find some relationship between debt and various economic indicators. Dont understand the point your trying to make ... maybe I am just tired as hell. Can you restate the question with some context?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Never.More, assuming you get the clarification you're looking for, this website is a good place to compare various economic indicators against each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 02:56
|
|