Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Will the global economy implode in 2016?
We're hosed - I have stocked up on canned goods
My private security guards will shoot the paupers
We'll be good or at least coast along
I have no earthly clue
View Results
 
  • Locked thread
My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

rscott posted:

I think he's talking about the estimated $10-20 trillion parked in off shore accounts not really doing anything at all, even ignoring the effects that has on the value of the dollar through monetary velocity, the $2-3 trillion dollars in government revenue that could be reasonably expected to be recovered of that money through taxes is not insignificant when it comes to the world's overall economic growth.

Overall, it appears that we have reached the end of what supply side monetary policy can accomplish in propping up a top heavy, ridiculously unbalanced economy. The best thing the US government could do right now is to print money and hand it out to people who are going to spend it immediately. Inflation is the last thing anyone should be worrying about, if anything deflation could be an issue in the future.

Of course its doing something: its being invested and producing economic growth.

It'll come back and pay taxes when it realizes that those foreign banks aren't nearly as safe as American banks.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Shifty Pony posted:

The money is in US banks. Just the account holders have foreign addresses so US taxes don't apply.

Just wait until those foreign nations have their institutions collapse and are forced to go after American capital held there because its easier than raising taxes on their citizens.

America is eternal. Luxembourg? One hundred years ago, they didn't exist.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Luxembourg was reestablished two hundred years ago.

Hundred years ago, what was the currency they used in Luxembourg?

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Okay, what is your definition of continuous governance? Sure, absolutism was abolished in 1848, but it's not like this meant full suffrage or anything like that. It was essentially just an evolution of the fact that no absolute ruler actually ruled absolutely, a formal change which invited further gradual reforms. Like, two decades later you still only had 14% of the population being able to vote. Denmark as a nation state I would place in 1864, as the country was involuntarily divested of any ambiguously-Danish (as many Schleswigers sort of viewed themselves as neither German nor Danish, and at the same time both) peoples that remained and redefined the Danish state as being the state for ethnic Danes. A nation state is not the same as a state though. No revolution has toppled a Danish government, and we've had a continuous succession of kings stretching back to 1340 (The Danish territory having been split in two by two counts between 1332 and 1340), which I would definitely views as continuous. Is it all about the constitution for you? Because clearly then the UK isn't even a state yet.

Pretty certain there weren't no government in Germany for a few years during and after the war, chief. There was occupation.

While no internal revolt has toppled your little kingdom, the Nazis certainly toppled it quite easily. Unless you don't count a state's obligation to protect all of its citizens as including Jews.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Who is talking about Germany????

0.65% of Danish Jews died, part of the roughly 8% the Danish state and people failed to evacuate before the Germans got them. The ones who were captured were sent to the Theresienstadt concentration (not extermination) camp, where the Danish government pressured the German government into allowing the Red Cross access, which likely ensured the further survival of many of the captured Danish Jews, as the deaths in Theresienstadt were mostly among the elderly.

"Our nation only had our minority population sent to concentration camps, it's not like they were sent to extermination camps" is such a meaningful difference for establishing the continuity of the Danish state :rolleyes:

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Look dude, if this is you attitude about the US, what does that means for its retarded brother the EU??

Nazis are always relevant to economy threads, since they're the justification for economic policy in Germany, and thus the EU as a whole. Plus we're going to have a bunch of Nazis in power in Europe too, and rewritten constitutions, so it's all real relevant. Seriously though, sorry. Guess MIGF's trolling got to me this time, I think I just got annoyed for him spouting stupid poo poo about history for the second time today.

So, my wider point is that Germany dominates European economic policy, and does so out of the legacies of the anti-state policies enacted during the nazi administration. Why are the Baltics, Poland, Greece, and Balkans economically underdeveloped and growing at a slower rate than Germany had post-war? Simple: Because the Nazis destroyed the state apparatuses within these territories, and state institutional destruction has economic impact that can only be measured over a generational timescale.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Shifty Pony posted:

I'm having a hard time envisioning how a just-slightly-deflationary environment would affect the median US family. Jus tot start with personal debt would become an even worse idea, correct?

Deflation is a redistribution of income from debtors to creditors. Inflation is a redistribution from creditors to debtors. Deflation is quite, quite horrid for income inequality issues. The only fiscal policy with a proven trackrecord of reducing income inequality is a currency having a moderate, yet manageable, rate of inflation.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Ardennes posted:

Well unemployment and underemployment would start going back up, while labor participation rates would take another hit. Consumer spending would go down again and likely stay depressed, while personal debt would continue to get worse.

I see the future crisis being a long, slow and very stubborn recession, and when growth happens afterward it very well be extremely borderline (and likely continually revised downward).

I could see whomever winning the 2016 election being a one-term president (sort of like Bush 1).

Unless it's Trump, who has an actionable plan to engage in a multi-trillion infrastructure spending program. While Sanders also presents a spending plan, his is not one which could pass Congress.

The TrumpWall is, and it offers the possibility of territorial addition through a foreign policy designed to force Mexico to pay for it. I'm certain that if Mexico is unwilling to pay for the TrumpWall is USD, that the United States would be willing to consider territory and permanent economic concessions.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

icantfindaname posted:

Most 'French' people didn't identify as French before the Third Republic

It only took the loss of 3/4th the French population of the previous Republics for French identity to emerge.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Dawncloack posted:

I have the impression they are just trying to make a steaming turd appealing to millenials with buzzwords they think millenials will appreciate. The list of which has kindly been provided by Monomythian.

If you view group housing as such "a steaming turd" for young professionals, why is it not so for gerontological individuals? Perhaps the issue is that your perception of the housing environment you feel entitled to is not accurate for the reality in which you live.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Yyyyup. San Francisco's real estate situation is basically a perfect poo poo storm right now in a bajillion different ways. The people who actually own all the land and buildings love it because they can just raise the rent every year and watch their land values go up for no effort beyond "all development is evil, we must destroy it at all costs."

If you turned all the interstates in San Francisco into market-rate mixed-used housing and commercial zones, you wouldn't have the pricing crunch San Fran finds itself in now.

  • Locked thread